British Food Journal

Consumers' 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 -
509
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2012-0136
Downloaded on: 01 April 2016, At: 12:35 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 55 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2268 times since 2014*
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(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-02-2012-0027
(2014),"Maintaining healthy eating behaviour: experiences and perceptions of young adults", Nutrition & Food
Science, Vol. 44 Iss 2 pp. 156-167 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/NFS-06-2013-0077
(2015),"Expanding the theory of planned behavior to predict healthy eating behaviors: Exploring a healthy eater identity",
Nutrition & Food Science, Vol. 45 Iss 1 pp. 39-53 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/NFS-06-2014-0055

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:402912 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

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


BFJ
116,3
494
Received 1 June 2012
Revised 20 September 2012
24 November 2012
Accepted 27 November 2012
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)
British Food Journal
Vol. 116 No. 3, 2014
pp. 494-509
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
DOI 10.1108/BFJ-06-2012-0136
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm
Consumers’ behaviors when
eating out
Does eating out change consumers’ intention to
eat healthily?
Jinkyung Choi
Department of Foodservice Management, Woosong University, Daejeon,
South Korea, and
Jinlin Zhao
Chaplin 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 in
healthy eating and nutrition consciousness when they eat out at restaurants. Also, the study aimed to
determine what relationship exists between consumers’ lifestyle and their behavioral intention to eat
healthily when dining out. In addition, the study investigated the relationships between restaurant
attributes and consumers’ intention to eat healthily when dining out.
Design/methodology/approach – This study posits that restaurant attributes have an impact on
consumers’ intention to order healthy meals at a restaurant. Questionnaires were distributed and
collected over a two-month period in south Florida. Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point
scale their considerations when selecting a restaurant and particular ingredients in the food when
dining out. The study analyzed the data using one-way ANOVA and Games-Howell test in order to
find 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 attributes
and intention to order healthy food at a restaurant.
Findings – Most of the respondents (76.5 percent) were concerned about their weight; however, only
26.7 percent of the respondents were actually on a diet. Of the respondents 33 percent knew about
MyPyramid (USDA), which is an updated version of the Food Pyramid (USDA). Based on the results of
one-way ANOVA and Games-Howell test, the study found that considerations about nutritional
components when choosing a meal at a restaurant differed according to consumers’ knowledge of
health issues, weight concerns, gender, age, and marital status. Also, the results of multiple regression
suggested that lifestyle, offering variety of healthy food, and services were significant predictors of
consumers’ intention to order healthy food at a restaurant, whereas other attributes of restaurants
were not significant predictors for the ordering of healthy food.
Originality/value – This study has contributed unique and extended conclusions from previous
studies and has given consumers a better understanding about particular nutritional components in
order for them to take advantage of the recent trend in more healthy foods being available at
restaurants. The results of this study revealed that restaurants’ marketing strategies for healthy food
need to target consumers whose lifestyle promotes a healthy life in terms of regular exercise, dietary
plans, or eating food considering the FoodPyramid, rather than target consumers whose lifestyle is
less healthy. However, the results of this study also suggest that the offering of healthy food and good
services do have effect on consumers’ consideration to order healthy food.
Keywords Health, Food, Ingredients, Lifestyle, Restaurant, Dining out
Paper type Research paper
 Introduction Behaviors when
More consumers have recently become aware of healthy food and its relation to their eating out
physical health in America. A survey found that 35 percent of the population
nationwide carefully plans their meals to be nutritious, which is up from 32 percent in
2001 (Ruggless, 2003). Individuals with nutrition consciousness will choose carefully
which 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 amount 495
and the type of fat they consume. Many consumers are now trying to eat “healthy food”
not only at home, but also at restaurants (Cobe, 2006; Yuksel and Yuksel, 2002). In
addition, Bhuyan’s study (2011) hypothesized that if an individual is concerned with
nutrition, then such a person is less likely to eat out frequently, supporting the findings
from Binkley’s study (2006). Consumers are trying to keep a healthy lifestyle even
when they are away from their daily routine. However, eating healthily at restaurants
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

might not be the same as when individuals eat at home. It has been shown that
consumers’ eating habits at home were much healthier than their food choices in
restaurants ( Jones, 2010). It is well-known that both the increase in the number of
meals eaten in restaurants and the decrease in the number of meals eaten at home has
been linked to higher levels of obesity (Chouinard et al., 2010).
Then, the question arises: What causes consumers to eat less healthily at
restaurants or vice versa? Diners often disregard the nutritional value of food at
restaurants since they feel that they do not dine out very often. Consumers have
different 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.
Bhuyan’s study (2011) showed that one’s lifestyle did, in fact, influence one’s behavior
when eating out. The idea that people’s lifestyle and work life do influence their health
was 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 can
affect someone’s food behavior. According to the notion of foodscape, food
environments can influence consumers’ food choices and food behavior to support
healthier eating (Mikkelsen, 2011).
Therefore, the present study aimed to discover whether the environment of the
restaurant impacts consumers’ intention to eat healthily when dining out. In other
words, the study investigated the relationships between restaurant attributes and
consumers’ intention to eat healthily when dining out and determined what
relationship exists between consumers’ lifestyle related to health conscious behavior
and their behavioral intention to eat healthily when dining out. In addition, the study
investigated if there are any differences among people in healthy eating and nutrition
consciousness when they eat out at restaurants.

Factors influencing healthy eating behaviors at restaurants

Health behavior can be explained as a complex system of health conscious behaviors
such as exercise, psychic health, hygiene, avoidance of harmful recreational drugs, and
conscious dietary choices (Szakály et al., 2012). This behavior can also be described as
healthy habitual behaviors brought by needs and motivation in relation to health
(Baum et al., 1997). Raine (2005) claimed that healthy eating models utilizing Theory of
Planned Behavior, Social Cognitive Theory, and the Transtheoretical model predicting
individual dietary intake needed more explanation. According to Mikkelsen (2011),
 BFJ food and meals in our environment are embedded in complex physical, social, and
116,3 cultural contexts, which suggests that interactions with people, spaces, and food all
influence consumers’ eating behavior. The social ecological framework shows that the
dietary environment considers all the influences of contextual factors including
personal influences, social influences, and the ability of the individual to adapt to these
influences (Glanz and Bishop, 2010). Some researchers have pointed out that a variety
496 of family and social factors influence adolescents’ eating behaviors; that eating
behavior was conceptualized as a function of the social and physical environments
(Story et al., 2002). Adema (2009) said that “foodscape implicates the multiple
informative historic and contemporary personal, social, political, cultural, and
economic forces that inform how people think about and use (or eschew) food in
various spaces they inhabit.” In agreement with the notion of foodscape, Sobal and
Wansink (2007) suggested that a micro view of foodscape could cover domestic levels
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

which include kitchen, table, plate, and food. Glanz et al. (2005) categorized food
environments into four elements: community, consumer, organization, and
information. The elements of consumer can be explained as elements affecting
consumers, 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 by
surroundings such as taste, service, cleanliness, ambience, variety of healthy food
options in menus, price, and portion.
Taste is one of the most used attributes to measure consumer preference in selecting
a food/restaurant. Previous research has shown that the most important factor
determining whether a consumer will return to a restaurant was the taste/quality of the
food (Soriano, 2003; Sulek and Hensley, 2004). The sensory aspect of food was the most
important criterion in food choice decisions (Steptoe and Pollard, 1995), and also for
selecting organic food (Torjusen et al., 2001). The importance of taste did not differ
between obese and non-obese respondents in European countries (Pérez-Cueto et al.,
2010). Jones (2010) found that taste was the most important consideration when
deciding healthy food choices. In addition, taste was more important to those
consumers whose food choices did not involve the food itself compared with those
whose choices were made from their rational thoughts about food in a food choice
segmentation study (Szakály et al., 2012).
Concerning dining out, people are constantly looking for comfort as well as quality
and an enjoyable environment (Cullen, 2004; Kivela et al., 2000; Soriano, 2003; Sulek
and Hensley, 2004). However, Soriano (2003) claimed that offering good food and
quality service were not enough to attract consumers and that restaurants should
provide meals with good value in a favorable ambience. Previous studies (Alonso and
O’Neill, 2010; Barta, 2008; Cullen, 2004) showed that attractive décor and atmosphere
also influenced consumers’ restaurant choices. Alonso and O’Neill (2010) found that the
restaurant environment affected consumers’ choice of restaurant including comfort
and cleanliness, which also influenced consumers’ perception of food safety at
restaurants.
Restaurant patrons remember cleanliness issues longer and were more likely to
avoid a dirty restaurant in the future (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996). A study
conducted by Knight et al. (2007) found that people who perceived that a restaurant
 was “not at all” committed to food safety were less likely to choose the restaurant when Behaviors when
eating out. Along with this result, Henson et al. (2006) found that cleanliness was the eating out
most important determinant for consumers when considering restaurant food safety.
Also, Kivela et al. (2000) and Cullen (2004) found that cleanliness of the restaurant was
a significant factor for consumers when deciding where to dine out.
Bowen and Morris (1995) said that the menu is an effective tool for increasing
revenue for the restaurant. In the study conducted by Sparks et al. (2003), almost 55 497
percent of the respondents said that eating healthy food was very important. Also,
about half of the respondents (51 percent) indicated that they ordered the “healthier”
menu 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 to
attract 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 eat
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

more candy because they expected to enjoy it more. With the same notion, people
might select or try healthy food if there are various healthy foods offered on the menus
at restaurants. In addition, providing healthy foods positively influenced consumers’
frequency of dining out (Bhuyan, 2011). Therefore it is important to offer a variety of
healthy meals to attract consumers who are looking for different types of healthy meals
and 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 role
when people decide what to eat and how much to eat at restaurants (Steptoe and
Pollard, 1995). Eating out at restaurants, consumers buy not just a product but also a
service, which influence their behaviors. Therefore, consumers’ irrational behaviors
can be explained by their feelings about the products and services at restaurants
(Bhuyan, 2011). Bhuyan’s study (2011) showed that good service impacted consumers’
frequency of eating out, and “service excellence” was one of the significant predictions
for consumers to return to the restaurant (Kivela et al., 2000). A study found that
European consumers showed more emotional attachment to food when seeking
self-fulfillment in food (Pérez-Cueto et al., 2010). In addition, non-obese respondents,
more than obese respondents, considered social relationships as being an important
purchasing motive. Furthermore, service at a restaurant influenced consumers’
intention to order healthy food, supporting previous studies that showed that
interpersonal issues such as service did have a positive effect on healthy eating
(Baranowski et al., 1999; Davison and Birch, 2001; Payette and Shatenstein, 2005). Not
only 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 food
and service before consumers experience them. Price might not be an absolute
predictor for the quality of the food and service; however, it can be a good indicator to
consumers who have not previously dined at the restaurant. Pedraja and Yague (2001)
found that consumers search for information on a restaurant especially if there are
price differences among restaurants. Previous research examining healthy food choice
behaviors 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 the
reason that the issue of eating healthy food is considered sometimes only after essential
human needs have been met. Energy dense food (high fat and sugar but low in fruit
 BFJ and vegetables) is cheaper than healthy food in Europe (Darmon et al., 2004). Recent
trends in organic food shows that organic food costs more than non-organic products.
116,3 In a study asking about willingness to pay a premim for organic products, about 27
percent of the respondents answered that they would not consume organic products
because of the high price (Diaz et al., 2012). Obese respondents rated price as an
important element when choosing healthy food compared to non-obese respondents of
498 European countries (Pérez-Cueto et al., 2010). Furthermore, women were less influenced
by 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 restaurant
attributes for consumers regarding their food behaviors at restaurants.
In addition, portion size has been a driving force in attracting consumers to
restaurants, and it has been used as a marketing tool. A large portion size attracts
consumers and it has led to restaurant success in the past. According to a study
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

conducted by Cullen (2004), the portion size of the food is a more important attribute to
the young age group since this group is likely to consume food based on price
considerations. Small portion size was one of the health issue attributes influencing
restaurant selection by travelers (Gregoire et al., 1995). It has been argued that smaller
portion sizes might not be enough for sustenance although small portion sizes
encourage consumers to select healthier choices at restaurants ( Jones, 2010). A group of
mothers in particular expressed their belief that small portion sizes were not large
enough 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 the
higher calories than smaller portions (Young and Nestle, 2002). Larger portions might
encourage consumers to finish the food presented to them while smaller portions might
cause them to eat healthily at restaurants. For example, larger portion sizes encourage
consumers to eat more calories and to underestimate those calories (Wansink and
Chandon, 2006). For this reason, this study hypothesized that portion size is viewed as
an 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 have
an impact on consumers’ choice of food or restaurant regardless of their routine
lifestyle 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 a
restaurant.
H2. Consumers’ intention to eat healthily when dining out at a restaurant is
affected by their lifestyle related to health behaviors.
H3. Consumers’ consideration of certain ingredients when dining out at a
restaurant differs by their level of concern with healthy eating.

Methods
Questionnaire
The role of attitudinal research in determining food choice behavior is unclear because
people may be unaware of how much influence a particular factor has on their
behavior. The present study used level of concern about certain nutrients such as
sugar, sodium, MSG, and transfats to measure intention to eat healthily at restaurants.
These nutrients were utilized to avoid possible contradictions when salad was asked
 about as a healthy dish at a restaurant. A plate of salad can be either healthy or Behaviors when
unhealthy based on the amount of salad dressing or the particular ingredients in the eating out
salad. Therefore, this study specifically asked about level of concern about particular
nutrients in the ordering of food at a restaurant. In order to measure the effect of
consumers’ lifestyles related to health behavior on eating healthily at restaurants,
questions were asked about people’s involvement in a healthy lifestyle. The questions
asked if they had regular workouts, dietary plans, including taking dietary 499
supplements, and meals based on the FoodPyramid. In addition, the authors geared
three questions towards issues of healthy eating: being on a diet, consideration of
personal weight, and consuming food with awareness of MyPyramid. Then they
incorporated questions regarding the demographics of the restaurant patrons.
According to the notion of foodscape, environments around food can influence
eating behaviors (Mikkelsen, 2011; Sobal and Wansink, 2007); hence, restaurant
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

attributes were selected in order to predict what influenced consumers’ healthy eating
behavior when dining at a restaurant. A questionnaire was developed based on a
thorough review of the previous studies (Barta, 2008; Bhuyan, 2011; Cullen, 2004;
Hearty et al., 2007; Mikkelsen, 2011; Sobal and Wansink, 2007). Seven items were
selected to investigate if these attributes of restaurants had any effect on eliciting
consumers’ healthy eating behavior when ordering food at a restaurant. Questions
about restaurant selection criteria included taste, service, cleanliness, ambience,
variety of healthy meals, price, and portion. All questions were measured on a
five-point Likert scale rating from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). The
questionnaires were reviewed by ten randomly selected students and three faculty
members at the university to develop content validity.

Samples and data analysis

The questionnaires were distributed to full-service restaurants in South Florida and
collected in person by five field workers over a two-month period. The reason for the
choice of full-service restaurants for this study was that such restaurants provide a
wide 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 sophisticated
atmosphere; however, no such quality is expected by consumers in limited food service
restaurants. Therefore, this study chose full-service restaurants for the investigation of
the impacts of restaurant environments on consumers’ food behavior. If this research
had been done in Europe, a preponderance of younger, single, and better educated
diners than the national average would have been expected since they would reflect the
acknowledged lifestyle and disposable income trends. Respondents were informed that
their participation was voluntary and the results would be kept anonymous. Of the 396
questionnaires distributed, 307 were collected, and 286 were used in the regression
analyses 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 standard
deviation, were used. To detect any differences in degree of concern about the ingredients
in the food between the groups who cared about health issues and those who cared little
about health issues, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. In order to measure the
relationships among health behaviors and perception of the attributes of the restaurant,
 BFJ multiple regressions were used. Health behavior was measured in four areas (dietary
116,3 schedule, food pyramid, exercise, and dietary supplements: Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.77)
based on a five-point Likert scale (1: not concerned , 5: extremely concerned). Intention to
order healthy food was measured by consciousness of ingredients (sugar, sodium, MSG,
transfats, carbohydrates, calories: Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.88).

500 Results
Description of the sample
The largest percentage of respondents (approximately 35.9 percent) was in the age
group, 30 to 39 years old (12.2 percent in the general population in Florida), followed by
the age group, 20 to 29 years old (27.1 percent; 12.8 percent in the general population in
Florida). About 63 percent of the respondents were aged between 20 to 39 years old.
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

Considering that the population in Florida has a median age of 40.3 years old, the
respondents in this study represented a younger population than the general population
in 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 were
university graduates who had completed 4 years after high school graduation at a
university and had received a bachelor’s degree. This figure is about twice as high as in
the general population (16.8 percent) of Florida. Approximately 18.8 percent were high
school graduates (30.3 percent in the general population in Florida), 25.6 percent were
college graduates (8.5 percent in the general population in Florida) who had completed
two years of college after high school graduation and obtained an associate’s degree, and
22.5 percent had completed graduate school (9.1 percent in the general population in
Florida), meaning that they had pursued a further degree in academia or a professional
degree after obtaining a bachelor’s degree. Slightly more than a third (38.3 percent) of the
participants earned more than $90,000 in annual family income, while about 50.5 percent
of the respondents earned an income of less than $70,000. These demographic
characteristics represented a higher level of education and a younger population than the
general population in Florida. Most of the respondents (76.5 percent) were concerned
about 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 they
were on a diet or not. About 33 percent of the respondents knew about MyPyramid. The
majority of respondents were concerned about their health regardless of whether they
actually followed any dietary practices to attain and maintain good health.

Relationships among consumers’ healthy lifestyle, attributes of the restaurant, and

consideration of ordering healthy food
Lifestyle and seven attributes of the restaurant were all regressed concerning the
ordering of healthy food. The model was significant, and significant effects of the
restaurant attributes were found: service (Beta ¼ 0.16, t ¼ 2.21) and offering a variety
of healthy foods (Beta ¼ 0.13, t ¼ 2.59). The model accounted for 40 percent of the
variance in intentions. Table I shows that lifestyle, service, and offering a variety of
healthy food options were significant predictors in eating healthily at a restaurant
(F(12, 286) ¼ 28.84, p , 0.001, R 2 ¼ 0.42; see Table II). Also, the greater the variety of
healthy food options at a restaurant and the better the service, the more likely the
individual would be to pay attention to eating healthily when ordering food at a
 Behaviors when
Characteristics Frequency number Valid percentage
eating out
Gender (n ¼ 305)
Female 150 50.8
Male 155 49.2
Age (n ¼ 295)
Under 20 years old 15 5.1 501
20-29 80 27.1
30-39 106 35.9
40-49 50 16.9
50 years old and above 44 14.9
Education level (n ¼ 293)
High school 55 18.8
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

College 75 25.6
University 97 33.1
Graduate school 66 22.5
Marital status (n ¼ 301)
Single 171 56.8
Married 128 42.5
Others 2 0.7
Annual income (n ¼ 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 11.1
Over $90,000 110 38.3
Concerned about own weight (n ¼ 307)
Yes 235 76.5 Table I.
No 72 23.5 Demographic
composition of the
Being on a diet (n ¼ 307)
respondents who
Yes 82 26.7
participated in a survey
No 225 73.3
to gauge considerations
Awareness of “MyPyramid” (n ¼ 306) of certain ingredients
Yes 101 33 when dining at a
No 205 67 restaurant

restaurant. Therefore, hypothesis 1, which assumed that the attributes of a restaurant

do affect consumers’ intention to eat healthily at a restaurant, was partially supported.
In order to find a relationship between consumers’ lifestyle and intention to order
healthy food at restaurants, hierarchical regression analysis was used. The model was
significant and accounted for 37 percent of the variance in intentions. Significant
effects were found between intention to eat healthily and lifestyle (Beta ¼ 0.67,
t ¼ 13.0; see Table II). The results suggested that the higher an individual’s
engagement with a healthy lifestyle, the higher the intention to eat healthily at
restaurants. Hence, hypothesis 2, which assumed that consumers’ intention to eat
healthily when dining out at a restaurant would be affected by their health conscious
lifestyle, was supported.
 BFJ
Predictor B SE ß t R R2 F
116,3
Step 1:
Constant 1.28 0.17 7.43
Life style 0.65 0.05 0.61 13.00 * * 0.61 0.37 174.37 * *
Step 2:
502 Constant 0.21 0.53 0.40
Life style 0.57 0.06 0.54 10.30 * *
Taste 2 0.01 0.10 2 0.00 -0.08
Service 0.16 0.07 0.14 2.21 *
Table II. Cleanliness 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.76
Hierarchical regression Ambience 2 0.09 0.06 2 0.07 21.34
analysis: variables Offering variety of healthy food 0.13 0.05 0.14 2.59 *
predicting healthy food
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

Price 0.06 0.05 0.06 1.20

ordering behaviors Portion 0.00 0.05 0.00 20.01 0.64 0.40 24.80 * *
(unstandardized and
standardized coefficients) Note: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.001

Consciousness of ingredients
The present study asked the respondents three binary questions: if they were on a diet, if
they considered personal weight, and if they knew about MyPyramid. In addition, the
respondents were rated on their degree of consideration of each ingredient on a five-point
Likert scale: sugar, sodium, MSG, transfats, carbohydrates, and calories. The results of
the study showed that the respondents who were on a diet considered sugar (F(1,
305) ¼ 14.01, p , 0.001), sodium(F(1, 304) ¼ 12.21, p , 0.01), MSG (F(1, 303) ¼ 5.62,
p , 0:05), transfats (F(1, 302) ¼ 8.12, p , 0.01, carbohydrates(F(1, 305) ¼ 22.03,
p , 0:001) and calories (F(1, 305) ¼ 24.81, p , 0.001) when they dined out at
restaurants. Their results were significantly different from those of the group who were
not on a diet. In addition, the respondents who considered personal weight showed great
differences in taking into account the following ingredients: sugar (F(1, 305) ¼ 18.01,
p , 0:001), sodium (F(1, 304) ¼ 10.87, p , 0.01), MSG (F(1, 303) ¼ 14.55, p , 0.001),
transfats (F(1, 302) ¼ 24.19, p , 0.001, carbohydrates (F(1, 305) ¼ 25.65, p , 0.001), and
calories (F(1, 305) ¼ 36.47, p , 0.001). The respondents who knew MyPyramid
significantly considered sugar (F(1, 304) ¼ 8.09, p , 0.01), sodium (F(1, 303) ¼ 5.71,
p , 0:05), transfats (F(1, 301) ¼ 5.22, p , 0.05, and carbohydrates (F(1, 304) ¼ 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 differing
by 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) ¼ 5.139, p , 0.05) when dining at a restaurant. Those under 20 years old and
between 20-39 years old were significantly less conscious of MSG than those over 40
years old; however, people aged between 20-39 years old showed a similar
consciousness of MSG to those more than 50 years old (see Table IV). Educational level
showed significance between university and graduate school in determining calories
when ordering food at restaurants. However, marital status and annual income did not
show any significance in consciousness of ingredients in the ordering of food at a
restaurant.
 Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

Healthy eating issues

Not consider
Not being on a Consider personal personal Awareness of Not aware of
Being on a diet diet weight weight “MyPyramid” “MyPyramid”
Ingredients Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Sugar 3.59 1.15 * * * 2.90 1.33 3.87 1.05 * * * 3.27 1.25 3.71 1.14 * * 3.29 1.25
Sodium 3.40 1.21 * * 2.83 1.44 3.68 1.18 * * 3.11 1.30 3.51 1.24 * 3.14 1.30
MSG 3.59 1.19 * 2.94 1.43 3.72 1.28 * * * 3.33 1.26 3.49 1.28 3.41 1.28
Trans fat 3.94 1.07 * * 3.17 1.42 4.09 1.06 * * * 3.65 1.24 3.99 1.15 * 3.66 1.22
Carbohydrates 3.59 1.15 * * * 2.78 1.31 3.93 1.06 * * * 3.20 1.24 3.60 1.23 * 3.30 1.22
Calories 3.72 1.06 * * * 2.81 1.33 4.05 0.98 * * * 3.31 1.20 3.66 1.13 3.43 1.22
Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001

the respondents using

at a restaurant regarding
Behaviors when

healthy eating issues of

ingredients when dining
Mean standard deviation
(SD) of considerations of
503

ANOVA
Table III.
eating out
 Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

BFJ

504
116,3

ANOVA
Table IV.
Demographic
compositions of the
respondents and their

ingredients when dining

considerations of certain

out at a restaurant using

Sugar Sodium MSG Trans fat Carbohydrates Calories
Dependent variables Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Gender *
Female 3.47 1.20 3.20 1.27 3.43 1.28 3.79 1.21 3.51 1.23 3.67 1.16a
Male 3.40 1.26 3.34 1.31 3.43 1.28 3.75 1.20 3.30 1.22 3.36 1.20b
Age *
Under 20 years old 2.73 1.28 2.47 1.46 2.47 1.13c 3.27 1.62 2.73 1.39 3.60 1.18
20-29 3.34 1.23 3.12 1.25 3.23 1.30ce 3.67 1.31 3.42 1.28 3.52 1.30
30-39 3.47 1.17 3.18 1.25 3.33 1.28ce 3.71 1.14 3.34 1.19 3.42 1.19
40-49 3.54 1.34 3.64 1.31 3.94 1.25d 4.08 1.03 3.44 1.20 3.56 1.15
50 years old and above 3.40 1.23 3.40 1.33 3.73 1.15de 3.86 1.21 3.64 1.26 3.55 1.13
Education level
High school 3.15 1.28 3.04 1.41 3.13 1.35 3.54 1.45 3.18 1.32 3.42 1.29
College 3.47 1.33 3.37 1.32 3.57 1.24 3.76 1.20 3.56 1.21 3.69 1.20
University 3.37 1.18 3.25 1.28 3.66 1.27 3.82 1.11 3.30 1.28 3.27 1.23f
Graduate school 3.59 1.11 3.30 1.17 3.20 1.24 3.83 1.17 3.56 1.05 3.74 0.92g
Marital status *
Single 3.34 1.21 3.19 1.28 3.38 1.28 3.69 1.23 3.27 1.19 3.47 1.23
Married 3.53 1.24 3.34 1.30 3.51 1.28 3.87 1.17 3.59 1.26 3.57 1.13
Annual income
Under $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
$30,000-50,000 3.38 1.13 3.28 1.16 3.52 1.27 3.69 1.16 3.46 1.07 3.56 1.15
$50,001-70,000 3.44 1.30 3.35 1.20 3.46 1.27 3.85 1.11 3.31 1.26 3.40 1.13
$70,001-90,000 3.25 1.39 2.97 1.50 3.58 1.35 3.69 1.40 3.28 1.30 3.22 1.31
Over $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: *Means for same dependent variable with same superscript are not significantly different based on the Games-Howell test ( p , 0.05)
 Conclusions and discussion Behaviors when
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate if consumers’ intention to order eating out
healthy 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 in
consciousness about particular ingredients at a restaurant among different health
consciousness groups (being on a diet or not, awareness of MyPyramid, and
consideration of personal weight or not). In order to measure the effect of healthy 505
eating issues on intention to eat healthily, this study compared three binary healthy
eating issues for consciousness of particular ingredients. The results showed that
individuals who were on a diet, took personal weight into consideration, and were
aware of MyPyramid were significantly conscious of certain ingredients such as sugar,
sodium, MSG, transfats, carbohydrates, and calories. The results showed that one’s
nutritional knowledge and psychological state influenced one’s awareness of
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

ingredients that might not be good for one’s health. Interestingly, age affected MSG
consciousness, 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 in
their consideration of healthy foods at a restaurant. In addition, service and healthy
food 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 did
predict consumers’ intention to eat healthily. Although other attributes of restaurants
did not have any significant effect on consumers’ intention to eat healthily at a
restaurant, the results of this study suggest the following: Consumers’ lifestyle has a
positive effect on the decision to eat healthily at a restaurant, the service of the
restaurant has a positive effect on intention to eat healthily at a restaurant, and the
availability of healthy food has a positive effect on intention to eat healthily at a
restaurant.
The present study makes a contribution to food service businesses by
demonstrating that restaurant managers should know who the consumers or
potential consumers are at their establishments. Consumers’ interests in eating
healthily require that restaurants be prepared for what consumers want to eat when
they visit restaurants. Restaurants should know what their role for consumers to
encourage them to make healthier choices under the registration pressure and the
public blame for obesity. The results of this study revealed that restaurants’ marketing
strategies for healthy food need to target consumers whose lifestyle promotes a healthy
life in terms of regular exercise, dietary plans, or eating food considering the
FoodPyramid, 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 an
effect on consumers’ consideration to order healthy food. This result supported the
previous studies which suggested that nutritional information was an important
element 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 meals
so that a variety of healthy meals will become available on restaurant menus.
Service had a positive impact on consumers’ intention to eat healthily at a
restaurant. This can be explained by the fact that the more highly consumers evaluated
the service at a restaurant, the more likely they were to order healthy food. For
 BFJ example, consumers might ask the wait staff about food related health issues.
116,3 However, if consumers perceived that the restaurant’s service was not good enough,
then they might not even ask about the particular ingredients in the food. Building on
the findings from previous studies, service from the wait staff could be considered a
social encounter at a restaurant. As the previous studies showed, interpersonal issues
can have both a positive effect and a negative effect (Baranowski et al., 1999; Davison
506 and Birch, 2001; Polivy and Herman, 2005) on eating behaviors, so effort from
restaurant managers to train their employees to consumers’ expectations would have a
positive effect on consumers’ behavior. Well received service could affect consumers’
healthy eating behaviors. In order to investigate the relationships between the service
at a restaurant and healthy eating behavior, broader attributes to measure perceived
level of service are needed for future studies. The present study borrowed several
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

restaurant selection attributes from previous studies; however, the results of this study
showed that only a few restaurant attributes were predictors of the ordering of healthy
food. This study asked only a few questions related to consumers’ lifestyle to measure
the effect of lifestyle on the ordering of healthy food at a restaurant. Therefore, it is
necessary to involve other possible factors relating to people’s lifestyles, including
reasons for eating out, in a future study to gain a better understanding of consumers’
intention to order healthy meals when dining at a restaurant. In addition, it is
necessary to test the relationships among attitudes to particular foods and the
self-perception of dietary patterns with actual dietary behaviors when dining out at a
restaurant. Not only attitude towards food but also purpose for eating out should be
investigated. Hence, future studies should focus on purpose for eating out in decision to
eat 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 Festive
Foodscape, University Press of Missisippi, Jackson, MS.
Alonso, A.D. and O’Neill, M.A. (2010), “Consumers’ ideal eating out experience as it refers to
restaurant 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: advancing
dietary intervention”, Annual Review of Nutrition, Vol. 19, pp. 17-40.
Barta, A. (2008), “Foreign tourists’ motivation and information source influencing their
preference for eating out at ethnic restaurants in Bangkok”, International Journal of
Hospitality 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 table
service 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 of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 4-9.
 Burton, S., Howlett, E. and Tangari, A.H. (2009), “Food for thought: how will the nutrition Behaviors when
labeling of quick service restaurant menu items influence consumers’ product evaluations,
purchase intentions, and choices?”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 258-273. eating out
Chouinard, H.D., Davis, D., LaFrance, J. and Perloff, J. (2010), “Fat taxes: big money for small
change”, 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. 507
Cox, B. (2005), “Restaurants may find it beneficial to alert customers about trans fat”, Knight
Ridder 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 in
perceptions of food quality, consumption behavior and purchase intentions”, Journal of
Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 43-61.
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

Cullen, F. (2004), “Factors influencing restaurant selection in Dublin”, Journal of Foodservice

Business Research, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 53-84.
Darmon, N., Briend, A. and Drewnowski, A. (2004), “Energy-dense diets are associated with
lower 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 and
recommendations 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. 114
No. 2, pp. 318-334.
Eckel, R.H., Kris-etherton, P., Lichtenstein, A.H., Wylie-Rosett, J., Groom, A., Stitzel, K.F. and
Yin-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 maternal
obesity influence purchasing of low-and high-energy-dense foods”, American Journal of
Clinical 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 and
implementation of public health intervention”, Annual Review of Public Health, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 399-418.
Glanz, K., Sallis, J., Saelens, B. and Frank, L. (2005), “Healthy nutrition environments: concepts
and 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 influencing
restaurant selection by travelers who stop at visitor information centers”, Journal of
Traveland Tourism Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 41-50.
Hearty, A.P., McCarthy, S.N., Kearney, J.M. and Gibney, M.J. (2007), “Relationship between
attitudes towards healthy eating and dietary behaviour, lifestyle and demographic factors
in 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 notices
and 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? Subtyping
non-eating discordered overweight and obesity along an affect dimension”, Appetite,
Vol. 51, pp. 635-640.
 BFJ Johansson, B., Mäkelä, J., Roos, G., Hillén, S., Hansen, G.L., Jensen, T.M. and Huotilainen, A.
(2009), “Nordic children’s foodscapes: images and reflections”, Food, Culture and Society:
116,3 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 focus
group 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 diet
508 quality for nutrition assistance program participants?”, US Department of Agriculture
Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, Research report ERR-43.
Kahn, B.E. and Wansink, B. (2004), “The influence of assortment structure on perceived variety
and 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 environment
part 3: analysis, findings and conclusions”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 13-30.
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

Knight, A.J., Worosz, M.R. and Todd, E.C.D. (2007), “Serving food safety: consumer perception of
food safety at restaurants”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 476-484.
Mikkelsen, B.E. (2011), “Images of foodscapes: introduction to foodscapes studies and their
application in the study of healthy eating out-of-home environments”, Perspectives in
Public Health, Vol. 131 No. 5, pp. 209-216.
Payette, H. and Shatenstein, B. (2005), “Determinants of healthy eating in community-dwelling
elderly 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 a
restaurant?”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 13 No. 6,
pp. 316-318.
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.
Pieniak, Z., Koiodziejczyk, M., Kowrygo, B. and Verbeke, W. (2011), “Consumption patterns and
labelling 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”,
Nation’s 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”, International
Journal 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 the
selection of food: the food choice questionnaire”, Appetite, Vol. 25, pp. 267-284.
Story, M., Neumark-Sztainer, D. and French, S. (2002), “Individual and environmental influences
on adolescent eating behaviors”, Journal of American Diet Association, Vol. 2, pp. 40-51.
 Sulek, M.J. and Hensley, L.R. (2004), “The relative importance of food, atmosphere, and fairness Behaviors when
of wait”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 235-247.
Szakály, Z., Szente, V., Kövér, G., Polereczki, Z. and Szigeti, O. (2012), “The influence of lifestyle
eating out
on 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 and
quality perception among consumers and producers of organic food in Hedmark County,
Norway”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 207-216. 509
Wakefield, K.L. and Blodgett, J.G. (1996), “The effect of the servicescape on consumers’
behavioral intentions in leisure service settings”, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 10
No. 6, pp. 45-61.
Wansink, B. and Chandon, P. (2006), “Meal size, not body size, explains errors in estimating the
calorie content of meals”, Annual International Medecine, Vol. 145, pp. 326-332.
Winson, A. (2004), “Bringing political economy into the debate on the obesity epidemic”,
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)

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 on
the roles of menu context, nutritional knowledge and motivation”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1187-1194.
Young, L.R. and Nestle, M. (2002), “The contribution of increasing portion sizes to the obesity
epidemic”, 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 author
Jinkyung Choi can be contacted at: choi3728@wsu.ac.kr

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Anne Dahl Lassen, Charlotte Lehmann, Elisabeth Wreford Andersen, Michelle Nadia Werther, Anne
Vibeke Thorsen, Ellen Trolle, Gitte Gross, Inge Tetens. 2016. Gender differences in purchase intentions
and reasons for meal selection among fast food customers – Opportunities for healthier and more
sustainable fast food. Food Quality and Preference 47, 123-129. [CrossRef]
2. Artur Kraus Department of Economics, University of Rzeszow, Rzeszow, Poland. . 2015. Factors
influencing the decisions to buy and consume functional food. British Food Journal 117:6, 1622-1636.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by University at Buffalo Libraries At 12:35 01 April 2016 (PT)