International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 28 (2022) 100537

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science

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

What really matters when dining out? Insights into the role of context from
a qualitative study with French consumers
A. Galiñanes Plaza a, b, c, L. Saulais c, d, J. Delarue b, e, *
a
Repères, Paris, France
b
UMR SayFood, AgroParisTech, INRAE, Université Paris-Saclay, 91300, Massy, France
c
Center for Food and Hospitality Research, Institut Paul Bocuse, Chateau du Vivier, BP 25, 69131, Ecully Cedex, France
d
Department of Agricultural Economics and Consumer Science, Laval University, Canada
e
Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Many studies have shown that context influences how consumers evaluate their food. However, the diversity of
Consumer experience real eating situations and the moderating role of context-related beliefs and expectations has been little explored.
Dining out contexts In this study, we aimed at understanding how consumers’ representations about food would vary in different
Food preparation
consumption contexts and how these representations may in turn influence their eating experience. A qualitative
Affective experience
study was conducted to explore French consumers’ representations about food in different consumption contexts
Expectations
Beliefs with focus on the role of consumers’ gastronomic culture in their dining out experience in those contexts.
Twelve focus groups (N = 86) were conducted in two different regions: Paris and Lyon, and with two different
populations: students and non-students. Attitudes towards contexts of consumption were intimately associated to
attitudes towards food. Important differences between homemade and industrial products were discussed and
associated to different dining out contexts. Different affective experiences were also associated to different
contexts. Conviviality and taste were among the most important criteria for consumers when dining out. A text
mining analysis allowed to identify differences in the discourse among groups (related to specific themes) and to
highlight consumer experience factors specific to each group.

1. Introduction
Sensory and consumer scientists who study how consumers perceive
and enjoy their food need to consider the role of context (Meiselman,
2019). This is particularly critical when trying to predict how much
consumers will like food products. For instance, studies have shown that
hedonic test conditions may differ quite significantly from real context
which could result in differences in measured levels of liking but also on
product discrimination and sometimes preferences (Boutrolle et al.,
2007; Galiñanes Plaza et al., 2019; Holthuysen et al., 2017). This
observation has led to much work on the influence of contextual vari­
ables such as the physical context of a restaurant, the decoration, the
ambiance, etc. (King et al., 2007; Meiselman et al., 2000; Timothy et al.,
2016). However, the diversity of real eating situations has been largely
overlooked. And yet, the wide offer of dining out contexts such as
brasseries, bistros, gastronomic restaurants or fast-food restaurants, is
potentially associated to very different consumer experiences.
Moreover, prior beliefs or past experiences have been shown to impact
not only the way consumers perceive a particular consumption context
but also their expectations about the food served in that context
(Edwards, 2013). Such expectations are very important to consider
because they will frame consumers’ judgment and decision making
(Kahneman, 2002; Köster, 2003, 2009). Naturally, since everyone has a
different consumption experience, beliefs and expectations towards a
particular context are also consumer-dependent (Jo and Lusk, 2018;
Michel et al., 2014).
In this study, we aimed at understanding how consumers’ repre­
sentations about food would vary in different consumption contexts and
how it may in turn influence their eating experience. To do so, a qual­
itative study was conducted before the Covid-19 pandemic in two
different French regions (Paris and Lyon). These two different regions
were chosen in order to explore how gastronomic differences within a
country may influence consumers’ eating experience and consumers’
evaluation of food in different dining out contexts (Fischler and Masson,

* Corresponding author. Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
E-mail address: jdelarue@ucdavis.edu (J. Delarue).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2022.100537
Received 15 November 2021; Received in revised form 4 April 2022; Accepted 29 April 2022
Available online 5 May 2022
1878-450X/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Galiñanes Plaza et al. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 28 (2022) 100537

2008). Besides, we studied two subpopulations (students and Table 1

non-students). Many published studies on context are indeed conducted Characteristics of participants: means (SD) or %.
with students. However, this population of young adults is very specific Participants Lyon Paris
(limited budget, intense social interactions, etc.). When it comes to food
Population Non Students Non Students
choices and eating habits, students may have criteria that differ from students students
those of non-students (Hilger et al., 2017; Sogari et al., 2018; Urdapilleta
Number of groups G1, G2, G3 G4, G5, G7, G8, G9 G10, G11,
et al., 2016). Part of these differences may be attributed to changes in sessions G6 G12
food consumption habits during the transition period between high Sample size (n) 16 17 25 28
school and college life, and to the exposure and access to different Female 81.2% 76.5% 52 50%
culinary universes that may vary between students and non-students Male 18.7% 23.5% 48% 50%
Age (year) 51.1 21.7 46.9 21.5 (2.19)
(Monneuse et al., 1997; Guagliardo et al., 2011; Stok et al., 2018; Hil­
(9.78) (2.29) (8.96)
ger-Kolb and Diehl, 2019). It is thus important to investigate how those Dining out frequency
groups may differ in their attitudes and expectations towards different >5 times a month 6.2% 0% 28% 42.8%
contexts as this may shed light on the interpretation of context study Between 3 and 4 times 25% 47.0% 24% 42.8%
results. a month
1–2 times a month 62.5% 41.2% 20% 14.3%
We hypothesized that (i) contextual variables would have a different <1 time a month 6.2% 11.8% 28% 0%
weight on consumer experience depending on the dining-out contexts. Never 0% 0% 0% 0%
Besides, when consumers select a particular restaurant, they look for Eating out time
“food attributes” (ingredients, tastiness, variety and quality) as well Brunch 0% 0% 0% 0%
Lunch 50% 11.8% 20% 28.6%
(Ozdemir and Caliskan, 2014; Timothy et al., 2016). Hence, we hy­
Dinner 50% 88.2% 80% 71.4%
pothesized (ii) that consumers’ beliefs and expectations towards a Types of restaurants frequency
gastronomic restaurant would be strongly related to product variables Bar a tapas/wine 18.7% 52.9% 36% 39.3%
such as taste, quality and presentation; whereas in other locations such Brasserie/Bistrot 62.5% 58.8% 64% 67.8%
as a workplace cafeteria, contextual variables would prevail. Bouchon Lyonnais 37.5% 47.0% 0% 3.6%
French cuisine 62.5% 58.8% 64% 35.7%
In addition, because of the differences in gastronomic culture be­ International cuisine 75% 64.7% 76% 82.1%
tween the two French regions we expected to find different impact of the Fast food 18.7% 70.6% 40% 82.1%
context and product variables on consumers dining out experience (iii). Themed restaurant 25% 41.2% 36% 35.7%
Lyon is considered the French capital of gastronomy and it seems to Gastronomic 75% 47.0% 40% 25%
restaurant
exert a cultural influence on the local cuisine due to the gastronomical
University/company restaurant eating frequency
tradition of the “bouchons” and “mères lyonnaises” (professional female Between 4 and 5 times 6.2% 5.9% 24% 3.6%
cooks that set the bases of the lyonnaise cuisine). This offers an extended a week
culinary universe going from the most traditional French and local Between 2 and 3 times 12.5% 17.6% 4% 7.1%
gastronomy to the more cosmopolite cuisines found in Paris. Never­ a week
1–2 times a week 25% 5.9% 4% 14.3%
theless, dining out in Paris seems to be more expensive than dining out <1 time a week 12.5% 17.6% 20% 25%
in Lyon. Eventually, we hypothesized (iv) that students would focus Never 43.7% 52.9% 48% 50%
more on price and on satiating convenience foods than non-students. Lunch duration
0 min or less 0% 0% 4% 7.1%
Between 30 and 45 min 43.7% 29.4% 28% 25%
2. Methods Between 45 and 60 min 25% 17.6% 36% 39.3%
1 h or more 31.3% 52.9% 32% 28.6%
2.1. Participants
G: refers to groups and the numbers to the group session.

Twelve focus groups were conducted with a total of eighty-six French

participants. They were recruited from two consumers’ databases: in
Lyon, the Institut Paul Bocuse Center for Research and Hospitality
database, and in Paris, a market research agency. Participants were first
reached via email and then via telephone to complete the recruitment
and set the different time slots for discussions. Table 1 shows the socio-
demographic characteristics of the participants. Six focus groups of non-
students (n = 41, mean age = 49) and six focus groups of students (n =
45, mean age = 22) were conducted in Lyon (n = 33) and in Paris (n =
53) (three groups of each type of population per region). At recruitment
stage, participants were just informed about the duration of the dis­
cussion (between 1 h and a half and 2 h), the general topic (food con­
sumption) and the remuneration they would get. However, we did not
provide any information about the specific aim of the study. Data were
collected between May 2017 and November 2018.
2.2. Focus groups
Participants were involved in a semi-structured group discussion
about their dining out habits and food representations at different
consumption contexts. Each group consisted in a one-session discussion
and included from 5 to 10 participants, for a total of 12 sessions. Each
session lasted between about 1 h and a half to 2 h.
Sessions followed a pre-defined guideline structured as follows:
a. Introduction and consent form signature: participants signed a con­
sent form before the discussion started (see Appendix 4).
b. Pictures classification game: to encourage interaction and active
participation, participants were randomly assigned to subgroups of 2
or 3 persons and asked to sort pictures of different consumption
contexts following their own personal criteria. Twenty-four pictures
were presented including regular consumption places: fast-food
chains, tapas restaurants, semi-gastronomic restaurants, gastro­
nomic restaurants, school or workplace cafeterias, international
restaurants, brasseries, etc. We also included few taste-test pictures in
order to trigger reactions about what participants think of those
particular contexts. The pictures were selected to invite participants
to familiarize with the activity and to serve as a starting point for the
discussion. After 10–15 min, each group presented their own clas­
sification and they started the discussion for approximately 1 h and a
half.
c. Discussion: questions were asked by the moderator following the
natural flow of the conversation. Three general themes were suc­
cessively addressed:
i. Consumption contexts: personal experiences
ii. Relationship between food preparation and consumption
contexts
iii. Relationship between food preparation and culinary skills

2
A. Galiñanes Plaza et al.
d. Short written questionnaire about dining out and culinary habits:
filled out at the end of the session (collected data presented in
Table 1).
All focus groups were led by the same moderator who ensured that
the different topics listed in the discussion guide had been addressed.
2.3. Data analysis
All focus groups sessions were audio-recorded, subsequently
compiled, and transcribed. Two complementary analyses were con­
ducted to understand how consumers’ representations about food in
different consumption contexts may influence consumer experience:
1. A thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006): the corpus of each
session was (i) vertically analyzed to identify the themes discussed
within each session by each participant, and (ii) horizontally
analyzed to identify how the themes were discussed within each
session by all participants. A horizontal comparison between the
twelve focus groups sessions was then conducted to define the main
themes.
2. A lexicometric analysis: this analysis aimed to identify the main dif­
ferences in terms of discourse between the two main variables: the
location (Lyon and Paris) and the type of groups (students and non-
students) among the twelve groups (G) (Dransfield, 2004). This
method is designed to analyze the lexical organization and associa­
tion of the words used by the participants and its semantic mapping
(Cerisier et al., 2017). To perform this analysis, each focus group
session was coded and analyzed using iRaMuTeQ - a R interface for
multidimensional text analysis and questionnaires - (iRraMuTeQ 0.7
alpha 2, © 2008–2014 Pierre Ratinaud). This software:
a. Segmented the corpus using the punctuation marks presented in
the corpus - in our case each segment was a line break - and coded
the words using an internal dictionary (adjectives, verbs, nouns,
etc.)
b. Reduced the words to their roots forms (Lemmatisation): verbs to
the infinitive, nouns to singular, etc.
c. Analyzed the text through: correspondence analysis (CA) to
identify the words opposition and associations; top-down hierar­
chical cluster analysis (Reinert method (Reinert, 1983) to define
the main themes.
Data from the questionnaire about dining habits (Table 1) were
analyzed using (XLSTAT Addinsoft 2019, statistical and data analysis
solution. Paris, France).
All the analyses were performed in French and the final analyses
were translated into an English version. Only the correspondence anal­
ysis is presented in French.
3. Results
3.1. Pictures classification
Over the twelve sessions, a total of thirty-three subgroups of two or
three participants were randomly created and asked to sort the pictures
of the different dining out locations. Table 2 shows the criteria they
came up with to sort the pictures, from the most to the least cited. In
total, the physical context was used 14 times as a criterion to sort the
pictures, whereas the type of served food (industrial vs. traditional) was
cited just one time.
3.2. Thematic analysis
Six themes emerged from the thematic analysis: participants’ atti­
tudes towards different food consumption contexts, participants’ atti­
tudes towards food ingredients and processes, affective experiences,
3
International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 28 (2022) 100537
Table 2
Pictures’ sorting criteria.
Criteria Number of occurrences
Physical context 14
Decoration 5
Ambiance 4
Desire to go or not 3
Price 2
Conviviality 1
Like or dislike 1
Time management 1
Time management and price 1
Industrial food versus traditional food 1
sensory experiences, knowledge experience and consumption habits. A
detailed presentation of each theme is provided in the following
sections.
3.2.1. Participants’ attitudes towards different food consumption contexts
The picture sorting game led participants to express what the
different contexts evoked to them in terms of environment and served
food. In general, all contexts elicited both positive and negative attitudes
that differed in some contexts depending on the location (Lyon and
Paris) and populations (non-students and students). Table 3 presents the
main differences among participants’ attitudes regarding three main
criteria: physical context, price and menu variety.
Participants referred a lot to their past experiences to describe either
positive or negative attitudes towards contexts. The physical context had
an important impact on participants’ attitudes when it comes to dining
out, especially for Parisians. Participants discussed about the influence
decoration and hygiene have on the way they perceive a particular
context. The price was also relevant, especially for the student groups
that showed positive attitudes towards fast food restaurants that they
considered more affordable even if they did not expect a high quality.
The non-student groups focused on the quality/price ratio, expressing
negative attitudes towards fast food restaurants and in some cases to­
wards brasseries and bistros. The variety and the number of dishes pre­
sented on the menu contributed strongly to how participants evaluated
the contexts. In particular, participants complained about the lack of
variety in school or workplace cafeterias. This was especially true for
students in Paris.
3.2.2. Participants’ attitudes towards food ingredients and processes
While comparing consumption contexts, participants also widely
discussed about the food typically served in those different contexts.
Participants associated the use of certain ingredients and processes to
different levels of food quality: “In a canteen, they just can’t use the same
produce and food ingredients that you would get in a restaurant” (woman,
G2); “at the canteens or fast-food restaurants we are sure to find frozen
products or dishes already made where the cookers will just reheat the food”
(man, G10). Participants agreed that it is possible to determine the
quality of the served food in a particular context thanks to the price
range on the menu: “I think that when we go to the cafeteria and we pay 3
Euros, we will not have a blue cheese sauce as fancy as the one we can find in
a restaurant” (woman, G4).
Table 4 shows participants’ attitudes towards food in different con­
sumption contexts by looking at five different criteria: food price,
quality, and context; homemade and industrial products; their uses in
different consumption contexts and their origin and traceability.
Participants made an important difference between two groups of
products and processes: homemade products related to fresh, tasty, and
local ingredients and, industrial products and processes related to ad­
ditives, chemicals and public scandals. Participants associated the use of
those types of products to different contexts of consumption. In general,
all participants assumed that food ingredients and their quality differ
depending on the dining out context: “in fast food restaurants and
A. Galiñanes Plaza et al. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 28 (2022) 100537

Table 3
Participants’ positive (+) and negative (− ) attitudes towards different food consumption contexts.
Criteria Food consumption contexts

University & workplace cafeterias Brasseries & Gastronomic restaurants Taste-test

Fast food & food trucks Bistros

Physical (+) convenience: highlighted by all groups (− ) hygiene: highlighted by the groups from (+) decoration: highlighted by non-students’ No
context (+) hygiene: highlighted by all groups Paris groups comments
• “… sometimes it can be an advantage if you • “There are also hygiene concerns. Cafeterias, (+) open kitchens: highlighted by students’ about it
need to leave quickly. At the canteen or the especially public cafeterias, are forced to follow groups
self, we do not necessarily eat an incredible standards while the bistros they do not really • “We could see the chef preparing our dishes,
meal but it is the collective spirit we like” care” (woman, G11) it is more and more associated to high
(woman, G5) standard restaurants” (man, G11)
(− ) decoration itself: highlighted by non-
students’ groups
• “We do not want to go to the self, to the
cafeteria, or places at the highway, where
they have large tables badly organized,
because it is not very friendly, it’s all white
and artificial lights with tasteless settings.”
(woman, G3)
Price (þ) cheap: all groups agreed for the cafeterias (þ) correct for the groups from Lyon. (þ) correct for all groups No
but disagreed for the fast foods More heterogeneous attitudes for the groups • “I know it is good because the price justifies comments
(¡) expensive: highlighted by non-students’ from Paris what I’m going to eat. In a gastronomic about it
groups regarding the quality of the food. • “In Paris, I doubt that in the brasseries restaurant my steak is going to be 10 times
• “It’s not expensive at first sight, but then it’s everything is homemade. If there are local more expensive because it’s going to be
double price. My kids take the big, big people, Frenchs who eat there, it gives an better, I know it.” (man, G9)
McDonald and after they are hungry so that idea of the quality of the food. However, if
means I have to cook at home … And that there are only tourists, it feels like a tourist
makes you fat.” (woman, G1) trap.” (man, G7)
• “The food trucks are better than the fast food
restaurants anyway. Especially compared to
the price and the quality.” (man, G8)
Menu’s (¡) lack of variety for cafeterias: highlighted (þ /-) number of dishes: highlighted by the groups from Paris and non-students No
variety by all groups •“A good indicator to know if a restaurant is good or not is the number of dishes presented on the menu … if comments
(þ) seasonal products: for all groups, there are only 6 dishes, it would more likely have fresh products and the menu will regularly change. It can about it
especially those of students, food trucks offer have seasonal ingredients” (woman, G8)
higher variety on their menu usually related to
seasonal products. However, in the case of fast
food, the lack of variety does not impact
participants’ attitudes.

canteens we know that we will not have any surprise, we eat and we don’t
have much to savor. We know it’s good, not incredible, but it fills our
stomachs. Whereas when we go to a little more expensive restaurant, even a
specialist in burgers, we take time to savor the products because we know that
there is quality on it” (man, G3). Non-student participants from Lyon
were the most demanding in terms of the use of fresh and local produce.
Moreover, aspects like the origin of ingredients and the traceability were
also discussed by some of the groups. In particular, they discussed a lot
the fact that some restaurants purchase produce from local producers
whereas others get their ingredients and raw materials from large scale
food retailers, usually associated with an expected lower quality: “It is
the quality of the produce that makes the difference in the first place. You can
have a restaurant where everything is bought at the farmers’ market, the meat
of the local farmer for example, and the other next door where all the
products are bought in big supermarkets like Auchan, Leclerc, the cheap
brand, so you will have two restaurants, the same menu, except that the food
will not be of the same quality.” (woman, G2).
3.2.3. Affective experiences
The affective experience refers to the emotions evoked when dining
out in different contexts. Participants agreed that the environment,
company and food that come with different contexts provoke different
feelings: “If I go to the restaurant with my boyfriend, we will order a bottle of
wine and we will have fun because we are together and we will enjoy this
moment. While when we go with friends, we will most likely go to a pizzeria,
something a little cheaper in price, because the conviviality is more important
than the quality, it is a moment of sharing with friends!” (woman, G2); “If
we eat with colleagues at lunchtime, it might be more acceptable to have
products that are more processed and quickly prepared because we are just
filling our stomachs. However, if we are with friends in the evening or even at
noon and we are sharing a meal, it is a moment of sharing. So here, the
quality of food may have something to say” (man, G5).
Conviviality and warmth environments were highlighted as key
variables to enjoy a particular food experience. Participants, especially
those from Lyon and the groups of students insisted on it: “I love the small
restaurants where we are nicely welcome, with a personalized touch and
where the waiters remember us when we come back. With a good wine menu,
that’s important and in this type of restaurants, I take my time so I like to have
a drink as an aperitif, chatting with the waiter, a menu with little choice and a
friendly and warm atmosphere.” (woman, G12).
Nevertheless, in the case of the gastronomic restaurants, the
conviviality was not evoked in terms of affective experience but the food
did (Table 5).
3.2.4. Sensory experience
a. Presentation: Visual aspects were also highlighted, especially when
eating at gastronomic restaurants. In general participants (mainly
those from Paris) underlined the importance of the presentation as a
potential attractor to consume a particular dish. “It is like at home. At
home when you make a great dish to yourself and it is beautiful you enjoy
it a lot. If you put the leftovers in a tapper, and you eat it the day after, it
would be less good. That’s because of the visual.” (man, G11)
b. Flavor: In general, all participants considered the flavor as the most
important factor of the food experience when dining out, regardless
of the location. However, they all said they would be less demanding
about it at workplace cafeterias or in hospitals. It was clear they had
lower level of expectations in those locations. Moreover, non-
students insisted more than students on the importance of food fla­
vor. Both non-student groups from Lyon and Paris considered the

4
A. Galiñanes Plaza et al. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 28 (2022) 100537

Table 4
Participants’ positive (+) and negative (− ) attitudes towards food ingredients and processes in different food consumption contexts.
Criteria Food consumption contexts

University & workplace cafeterias Brasseries & Gastronomic restaurants Taste-tests

Fast food & food trucks Bistros

Food quality, price (¡) low quality: highlighted by all the
& context groups. The quality of the food is low by
using the price as a predictor of the
expected quality.
• “I think that when we go to the cafeteria and
we pay 3 Euros, we will not have a blue
cheese sauce as fancy as the one we can find
in a restaurant.” (woman, G4)
(þ) ratio food quality/price: highlighted
by non-students’ groups. They agreed that
some efforts have been done and that
depending on the workplace cafeteria and
the company the quality could be ok.
(¡)/(þ) heterogeneous responses:
participants from all groups discussed that
quality is not always related to price when it
comes to this type of contexts. Specially the
groups from Paris.
(¡) price of products as a representation of
a restaurant:
• “For the cafeteria it’s almost too expensive buy
at METRO [a wholesaler]. It’s for everyday
restaurants, not gastronomic ones because they
do not buy there, but the rest do.” (woman G1)
(þ) high quality: highlighted by all No
groups. The quality is high by using the comments
price as a predictor of the expected about it
quality
• “I will trust more a gastronomic
restaurant so I could take a steak tartare
for the first time I go because I estimate
the price of the restaurant is related to the
quality” (woman, G4)

• “I believe that the workplace cafeterias are

related to the prestige of the society too, so a
higher effort is sometimes done” (man, G6)
Homemade (þ) better taste and healthy: highlighted by all groups, especially those from Lyon and the group of non-students underlined the importance of this type of
products & products and preparations independently of the context of consumption.
processes • “When a cake is prepared from good and seasonal ingredients it tastes better! Because a strawberry salad in December … cherries in January … it bothers me
somehow” (woman, G4)
• “For me homemade is important, it means that a product has been made from natural ingredients, no chemicals or industrial components. This is especially true
for pastry” (woman G1)
Industrial products (¡) consumers’ trust: highlighted by all groups. The recent scandals food industry has gone through made all groups shared negative attitudes towards those
& processes products and processes.
• “We have less confidence in the food industry because we do not see what is really inside the products … When products are already packaged, we do not
know what has happened before” (man, G11)
• “Too many scandals, too many chemicals, we do not know what they put in the end: the flavor enhancers, the salt … Today we are in the excess of chemicals,
of artificial things. The food industry has moved completely away from homemade products” (woman, G2)
(¡) frozen, vacuum and canned processes. Highlighted by all groups due to the use of additives, flavor enhancers, and colorants etc. Associated to a lower
taste compared to homemade products.
• “There is the chemical used to make chemical reactions to have a particular result like gelatin, and there are all the chemical stuff that are used to preserve
the vegetables, to make them prettier, additives or flavor enhancers because the classic taste is not appreciated, etc.” (man, G12)

Use of products in (¡) Industrial products and processes: (¡) Industrial product and processes: (þ) Homemade products: highlighted by all No
different food highlighted by most of the groups due to the highlighted by the groups from Paris. groups. Participants agreed that due to the comments
consumption amount of food should be prepare and the • “It depends, there are frozen products of price of the restaurant, it is difficult to about it
contexts timing good quality and there are others of poor imagine the use of industrial products. And if
• “At the cafeteria food is made with quality. I think that in more neat this is the case, they will be of a higher quality
vacuum or frozen products, so you cannot restaurants, they use some frozen and just for the side dishes.
have the same taste as a product that is ingredients but of better quality” (woman • “Going to a restaurant is a party! it’s like
fresh, that comes from the farmers’ G3) going to the cinema. So eating industrial
market. Something that is already products at home is not that bad. We need to
transformed and that has been waiting eat, to feed ourselves. But at the restaurant, I
for days and days in vacuum bags, it want to remember what I ate, so definitely not
cannot have the same taste as a product industrial products.” (man, G7)
that has been just harvest …” (man, G2)
Origin & traceability (þ) quality and taste: highlighted by all groups.
•“It’s the quality of the produce that makes the difference in the first place. You can have a food truck where everything is bought at the farmers’ market, the meat is from
a nearby farmer and another food truck where all products are bought at Auchan, Leclerc [two large retailers], private labels … so you are going to have two food trucks,
the same menu, except that the food will not have the same quality” (man, G2)
(þ) consumers’ trust: highlighted by the students’ groups from Paris. They argued that in some cases they trust more the industry when everything is well
specifying in the label, than certain products from the market where no information is given.
•“I can trust the small producer if their food process is clear, but I can also trust the industrial if the products have been well traced. For me, traceability counts” (woman,
G11)

flavor as a synonym of the quality of the food and they associated it
to the term “authenticity”. “Have you seen the movie ‘Ratatouille’?
When he closes his eyes, there is an explosion of colors, so for me cooking
is that! you must be greedy, it must be an explosion where each taste is a
note of color!” (man, G9); “Today we are looking for the taste, the
authenticity of the taste of the product. If carrots taste like strawberries
there is something wrong, either cooked or raw carrots must taste like
carrots.” (man, G2).
c. Texture was also mentioned by the participants, especially from the
groups of non-students. Ingredients such as meat, fish and vegetables
were the object of most of the discussions, especially for those dishes
prepared at workplace cafeterias. “In dishes with a long cooking time,
the frozen vegetables will become a paste if they are of not good quality in
the first place. In addition to losing their vitamins and their taste, they will
not even have a beautiful texture. So, for this kind of dishes, you got to use
real vegetables, to ensure the taste and texture” (man, G8).
3.2.5. Knowledge experience
All groups were encouraged to discuss about some specific terms
they had mentioned such as fait-maison (homemade), industriel (pro­
cessed) and quality.
a. Homemade: In general, homemade was defined as “something done
from A to Z [in a given dining-out place]. I expect a certain standard in

5
A. Galiñanes Plaza et al. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 28 (2022) 100537

Table 5
Participants affective experiences depending on different food consumption contexts.
Criteria Food consumption contexts

University & workplace cafeterias Brasseries & Gastronomic restaurants Taste-test

Fast food & food trucks Bistros

Conviviality & (+) feelings associated to conviviality:
warmth highlighted by the students’ groups
environments • It is more the idea of conviviality that
attracts me in the fast food restaurants
than the food itself. When I’m alone I
focus more on food and so it bothers me
if go alone to the fast food” (woman,
G12)
(− ) feelings associated to warmth
environment: highlighted by al groups
• “It’s nicer to eat when there’s room than
when you hear the kids screaming like in
McDonald’s.” (woman, G4)
Food Not discussed
(+) feelings: highlighted by groups of
Lyon, specially the students’ groups.
• “I like the warmth, authentic,
familiar theme, common to the
bistros” (woman G1)
• “I think it’s in this type of restaurants
where we share the best moments
because we already ate well, we were
on vacation or during a weekend so
necessarily we are in a setting where
we are well, relaxed and quiet”
(woman, G4)
Not discussed
(− ) feelings: highlighted by some
students’ groups.
• “I remember very, very well what I ate
because I had never eaten such things
before and I will always remember the
quality of what I ate. However, I do not
remember the conviviality of the
moment. We are extremely isolated. It’s
not human. It is as if we are all alone
with what we like, facing our plate. We
are very distant.” (woman, G4)
(+) feelings: highlighted by non-
students’ groups.
• “In a gastronomic restaurant we find
flavors, taste, that’s what make the
status of a great chef, when food is
made with love, passion.” (man, G7)
• “When I go to a gastronomic
restaurant, I want to see a piece of
art. So just by seeing the food, it will
be wow!! it will be amazing, great,
another level!” (woman, G1)
(− ) feelings: highlighted by all
groups.
• “we are as guinea pigs and
they will adjust according to
what we say.” (woman, G2)
• “I would feel isolated while
there are people next to me”
(woman, G4)
• “I think that since there is no
particular context, we are in
the booths, isolated, perhaps
we focus more on the product
than on the context” (woman,
G6)
Not discussed

terms of quality of raw materials. It’s not like taking all the time the eggs,
the flour, the milk at lowest price. If you make stuffs with fruits, you got to
use seasonal fruits, local. And the person who does it, does everything,
buys them, prepares the dough, cooked, etc.” (woman, G5). However,
students tended to accept a broader definition of homemade prod­
ucts: “there is a difference between ‘homemade’ at home and in a
restaurant. In fact, when you cook at home you can include processed
ingredients like a readymade tomato sauce, whereas in a restaurant
everything ‘homemade’ is usually made from A to Z” (man, G11). Be­
sides, some participants underlined that there was a ambiguity about
the use of the term: “There is an administrative nuance. It is said that
when the products arrive and are assembled in the kitchen they can be also
considered as a homemade product” (woman, G2). They wished the
regulations about the ‘homemade’ labels would be clearer.
b. Industrial: There was a strong consensus about how to define ‘in­
dustrial’ products. Participants described processed foods and in­
dustrial products as “… transformed, canned products” (man, G2);
“They are the frozen products” (woman, G7); “The industrial food
system include fast foods, self-service, catering, and cafeterias usually
associated with junk food.” (woman, G9).
c. Quality: participants associated foods, ingredients and processes to
quality standards; more specifically they associated homemade
products to a higher quality and industrial products to a lower
quality: “It’s the fact of having homemade products, fresh products, with
a chef behind, even if it’s not a super chef, but who knows how to do the
right dishes and not just the industrial reheating like plenty of restaurants
in Paris do.” (man, G8). Moreover, the term quality was also asso­
ciated to the flavor of ingredients, the pleasure and the sensory
experience, especially for the groups from Lyon “In fact if we
remember what we ate, it means that it was good! The quality was there,
there was the homemade behind! There is the pleasure, it is a tasty
experience!” (man, G2).
Moreover, participants associated those terms to the logistics of
certain consumption contexts and the level of training of the chefs:
a. Contexts association: all groups associated the use of industrial
products and processed foods to large consumption venues such as
fast-food chains, cafeterias, or hospitals. They assume that this is
imposed by the large number of meals served. “We wanted to eat at the
cafeteria because the chef prepared for 80 people. You saw the trucks of
fruits and vegetables arrived and it was super good. Then, 300 new em­
ployees arrived, and everything changed. We switched to processed food,
to go faster. So, that was forget about fresh produce and actual cooking.”
(woman G9).
b. Training level: some participants questioned the expertise of chefs in
institutional contexts and fast-food chains. “Even during their training
and education, I do not think people are trained to make bulk homemade
dishes. I think most of the chefs who are in the university restaurants are
not necessarily very well trained, or they are not necessarily really good
chefs, with enough training that would allow them to make many
homemade dishes and desserts for everyone” (man, G11).
When the topic of taste tests came up in the discussion, it was
interesting to hear participants’ perception of these specific contexts.
Most of the participants (specially students) did not know what is
exactly done in those contexts but some (especially non-students) had
participated in such tests or had an idea about the objectives of those
tests and how they actually work. “There is either food or drink, and you
compare 3 or 4 samples of the same product from different brands or sup­
pliers, and that allows you to compare the same product. It is good to realize
that within food manufacturers there are differences among the same prod­
uct.” (man, G8).
3.2.6. Consumption habits
Consumption habits were mainly related to eating occasions but also
referred to culinary skills, and the use of produce at home. Some dif­
ferences were observed in terms of gender and between groups.
a. Culinary skills: participants, especially non-students’ women from
Lyon, discussed about the importance of cooking and the influence
that this action has on the level of expectations and demands when
eating in different contexts. “I cook a lot at home, fresh for what I can.
So, if I go to the restaurant, I want the same quality or better. We also
know how to judge a product.” (woman, G1).

6
A. Galiñanes Plaza et al.
b. Products: participants, especially those from Paris, reported to eat
ready-made and processed food at home even if they expressed
negative attitudes towards them. The group of non-students argued
that due to time constrains, this type of products is more convenient
as family dinners can be prepared in a short period of time; whereas
for the group of students there was also a question of price. “There are
certain frozen products or vegetables that are OK. I use them from time to
time and that’s good. And sometimes we do not even have time to prepare
so they are convenient” (woman, G9). Conversely, all participants
agreed that they did not want to find those type of products at a
restaurant because they consider the fact of go out to eat a special
occasion: “… go to a restaurant to eat 100% frozen products? no,
thanks. I prefer to go to McDonald’s because this is not what we expect
when we go out.” (woman, G2).
c. Occasions: Participants’ food habits regarding different consumption
contexts were associated to different occasions, company, and time.
“I can go to medium standard restaurants when I am with a friend or
friends, and I can go to a big and fancy restaurant for an event, a
birthday, a family party, because I want to have a service of quality. If I’m
all alone and I have a craving, I go to McDonald’s to have a burger, fries
and a small beer and I love it too.” (woman, G3). Students, especially
those from Paris, reported to go to the fast foods or bakeries at lunch
break even if their attitudes towards this type of food were negative:
“It depends. Either I prepare the lunch the night before, or I go to a fast
food, or sandwich bar” (man, G10); “We go to the bakery to grab
sandwiches before going to class.” (woman G11). They associated this
type of contexts as convenience when they do not have time to eat or
to prepare at home.
3.3. Lexicometric analyses
The software was able to analyze the 95.95% of the segmented
corpus as expressions like “wow”, “ehhh”, “mmm” were not recognized.
A correspondence analysis together with a top-down hierarchical cluster
analysis was conducted giving as a result five different clusters. Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Correspondence analysis and descending hierarchical cluster analysis for the 12 focus groups
7
International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 28 (2022) 100537
shows the associations and oppositions of the words used by the par­
ticipants and that contributed to the creation of the five clusters. In
addition to this, the similarity analysis identifies the co-occurrence be­
tween words, indicating the connectedness between words with greater
frequency in the verbatims respective to locations (Fig. 2) and student/
non-student status (Fig. 3).
We can observe in Table 6 that 56.1% of the analyzed segments refers
to what we named “consumption contexts and eating experiences”
(clusters 2, 3 and 5) whereas 43.7% refers to what we named “food
ingredients and food preparation” (clusters 1 and 4). Concerning the
consumption contexts and eating experiences category, three clusters
opposed to each other. Cluster 3 (22.6%) and 2 (15.1%), named “af­
fective experience” and “food quality & price” respectively, refer to
consumer experience; whereas cluster 5 (18.4%), refers to “consump­
tions contexts”. Concerning the food ingredients and food preparation
category, we found two clusters. Cluster 1, named “food processes and
preparation”, represents a 25.4% of the segmented corpus and cluster 4,
named “food ingredients and origin” represents a 18.3% of the
segmented corpus. The chi-squared (X2) of the significant vocabulary
and variables (Lyon, Paris, students and non-students) that contributed
to the creation of each cluster are also presented. The chi-squared rep­
resents the relationship between the words used in the creation of the
cluster.
Cluster 3, 2 and 5 shows consumer experience when dining out in
different consumption contexts. Clusters 3 and 2 are more oriented to
the dining out experience whereas cluster 5 is more associated to the
different contexts of consumption. Cluster 3 refers to the notions of af­
fective experience and two focus groups (G) from Lyon contributed to its
creation: G4_Student (X2 = 24.56) and G1 (non-student) (X2 = 2.18)
contributed to the creation of this cluster. Verbs such as “go” (X2 =
132.89), “eat” (X2 = 103.3), “envy” (X2 = 80.43), refers to the fact of
“go out” for eating. Moreover, nouns and adjectives such as “boyfriend”
(X2 = 55.88), context (51.84), appreciate (42.22), moment (40.5) also
contributed to the creation of this cluster. Cluster 2, contrast with cluster
3 regarding the type of experience perceived by the participants, mainly
A. Galiñanes Plaza et al.
Fig. 2. Analysis of similarity for the focus group sessions from A. Lyon and from B. Paris
students, showing differences between the two types of studied popu­
lation. Focus groups of students from Paris: G10 (X2 = 23.21), G12 (X2
= 5.53), and from Lyon: G5 (X2 = 12.46) contributed to the creation of
this cluster. “Price” (X2 = 361.03) was a powerful semantic attracted
together with “pay” (X2 = 315.74), “euro” (X2 = 239.44), and
“expensive” (X2 = 202.88). Those words were also related to the
perceived “quality” (X2 = 98.26), and the “gastronomical” experience
(X2 = 79.12). Three focus groups from Paris, two of non-students: G8
(X2 = 21.07) and G9 (X2 = 10.02) and one of students, G12 (X2 = 4.68),
and two focus groups of students from Lyon: G6 (X2 = 5.89) and G4 (X2
= 2.44) contributed to the creation of cluster 5. Cluster 5 was charac­
terized by the use of nouns and adjectives associated to different con­
sumption contexts and the ambiance those places evoke in both
populations and regions. Words such as “food truck” (X2 = 226.27),
“fast food” (X2 = 138.92), “consumer’s tests” (X2 = 68.99), “bistro” (X2
= 63.22) refers to contexts whereas “friendly” (X2 = 59.15), “warmth”
(X2 = 50.26) refers to the ambiance.
Cluster 1 and 4 differed from clusters 3, 2 and 5 as they were asso­
ciated to the food ingredients and food preparation items. Those clusters
where mainly created by the groups from Lyon highlighting regional
differences. The three focus groups of non-students from Lyon, G1 (X2 =
2.68), G2 (X2 = 32.71) and G3 (X2 = 3.81) contributed to the creation of
cluster 1, and the focus group G2 (X2 = 6.09) contributed to the creation
of cluster 4. In cluster 1 we found words associated to food processes
such as “homemade” (X2 = 149.3), “industrial” (X2 = 141.05),
8
International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 28 (2022) 100537
“produce” (X2 = 77.53), “taste” (X2 = 74.02), “frozen” (X2 = 72.45) that
underline the differences participants make when eating in different
contexts, and the attitudes towards those processes as well as the
knowledge participants have about them. In the case of cluster 4, the use
of nouns and verbs related to ingredients and origins characterized it.
We found nouns such as “meat” (X2 = 203.18), “sauce” (X2 = 81.82),
“vegetable” (X2 = 63.45), “market” (X2 = 86.4), “butcher” (X2 = 49.43),
and verbs such as “prepare” (X2 = 73.59), buy (X2 = 40.21), and cut (X2
= 30.11).
4. Discussion
Overall, French participants described a good meal experience as one
that involves a convivial environment, the use of natural and tasty food
products, and a good quality and price ratio. Conviviality was pointed
out as one of the most important factors for French consumers’ when
describing food experiences something that has been observed by pre­
vious authors (Corbeau, 1992; Fischler and Masson, 2008; Ueda and
Poulain, 2021).
This study reveals that when dining out, consumer experience is very
specific to the category of restaurant. Expectations are so much different
from one dining out situation to another that it is difficult to compare the
role of contextual and product variables across contexts. Consumers
highlighted the importance of the physical context (environment and
decoration), of service, and of product variables (food presentation and
A. Galiñanes Plaza et al.
Fig. 2. (continued).
preparation) when evoking gastronomic and local restaurant experi­
ence. Conversely, in contexts such as workplace or school cafeterias,
those variables (context and product-related) were not spontaneously
associated to consumer experience, except with regards to conviviality.
When discussing those contexts, participants complained about the poor
food variety and food presentation. They also showed negative attitudes
towards physical characteristics of the context. Those results are in line
with previous studies that showed consumers’ negative attitudes to­
wards this type of institutions, referring to them as “Institutional ster­
eotyping” (Cardello et al., 1996; Edwards et al., 2019).
In previous studies on context, conviviality has been shown to play
either positive (Muñoz et al., 2018) or negative influence on consumer
experience (Di Monaco, Giacalone, Pepe, Masi and Cavella, 2014). In
this study, we found out that conviviality was a core element of the
dining out experience. In less valued contexts (workplace, cafeteria),
conviviality was highlighted as a factor allowing consumers to enjoy
their diner or lunch. Interestingly, when shown pictures of taste tests in
the first stage of the sessions, participants spontaneously commented on
the lack of conviviality of such specific situations compared to dining out
contexts. On a side note, this could question the validity of consumer test
designs based on individual evaluation of foods and drinks that are
usually consumed as part of a meal.
Beliefs and expectations towards different dining out contexts were
associated to different types of produce, ingredients, and processes
although these aspects were not mentioned first. This might just be a
result of our initial choice of pictures that deliberately excluded pictures
9
International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 28 (2022) 100537
of food. Nevertheless, participants actively discussed the quality of the
food once the discussion went on, especially in the Lyon groups. Par­
ticipants associated university and workplace cafeterias, fast food res­
taurants to the use of processed foods including frozen, canned as well as
vacuum and readymade products. The Parisian consumers had similar
beliefs for brasseries and bistros. Participants insisted that due to the
volume of the served food and cost constraints, it is difficult to find fresh
and natural ingredients in those contexts, especially in the university
and workplace cafeterias and fast-food chains. They even questioned the
chefs’ training in these types of restaurants. Previous studies have
associated consumers’ negative attitudes and beliefs towards institu­
tional meals, arguing that good food quality cannot be expected when
considering the volume of the food produced and the low price of the
menu (Cardello et al., 1996; Edwards and Hartwell, 2009; Edwards,
2013). Conversely, small and gastronomic restaurants were associated
to the use of fresh, seasonal and local ingredients as well as homemade
prepared dishes. Interestingly, students and non-students did not view
‘homemade’ in the exact same way. Students were clearly less strict
about what the homemade definition entails depending on the type of
dining out context. Participants believed that the price they pay for the
food must be directly related to the quality of the ingredients and
preparations. They generally believe that local restaurants and gastro­
nomic restaurants use higher quality ingredients, contrary to workplace
and fast-food restaurants, and – for Parisians – brasseries and bistros.
Thus, from these observations, food value (associated to the price paid
for food) clearly has an important effect on consumers’ dining out
A. Galiñanes Plaza et al.
Fig. 3. Analysis of similarity for the focus group sessions of A. non-students and B. students
experience related to consumer satisfaction. Consumers expect to have a
meal that corresponds to the fair price they pay for (Timothy et al.,
2016). Those results also confirm that the current demand for natural,
sustainable and local ingredients also extends to dining out experiences
(Galiñanes Plaza et al., 2019; Hartmann et al., 2018; Marty et al., 2021).
Besides, studies have shown that French consumers are very critical of
quality of food ingredients mainly because of past scandals associated to
the food industry. As a result, they seek to go back to the traditional food
processes (GIRA Conseil, 2013). This stresses that consumer expecta­
tions towards different consumption contexts are not only driven by the
physical context but also by the food value and ingredients they asso­
ciate to a particular context. For example, French consumers have a very
strong negative image of the quality of the food served in fast-food
restaurants, even though that does not necessary match the reality of
such restaurants. Interestingly enough, in all groups participants tended
to use McDonald’s as a synonymous for poor-quality food place and a
symbol of “mal-bouffe” despite the company’s efforts to improve its
image.
This being said, nutritional and health aspects of eating where nearly
absent from the discourses. Focusing on the “dining out experiences”
may have shifted away the discussion from this topic. Yet, French con­
sumers are known to tend to associate eating to social and pleasurable
experiences more than to health considerations (De Leiris et al., 2008;
Rozin, 2005). Our results are very much in line with this and could be
related to the so-called “French Eating Model” characterized by the three
courses meal and conviviality (Riou et al., 2015; Ducrot et al., 2018). In
10
International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 28 (2022) 100537
fact, participants did discuss food healthiness, but only as related to
questions about whether chefs use homemade or ready-made/processed
food. This association between perceived healthiness and naturalness, as
contrasted with ultra-processed foods has been highlighted in other
studies (see for instance Ares et al., 2016, and Chambers et al., 2019). In
our study, this issue was strongly related both to consumers’ trust in the
type of restaurant and to their own practices at home, which echoes Yeh
et al.‘s finding that consumers’ trust in organic foods depend on avail­
able information on the packaging, but also on their own knowledge and
culinary practices (Yeh et al., 2020).
Food scientists and sensory and consumer scientists should have
these findings in mind when designing consumer tests. Indeed, dining
out contexts trigger strong expectations and attitudes towards the food
itself; all determinants that may be completely overlooked when con­
ducting a test in standardized conditions or even in a single context.
When focusing on sensory perceptions, taste was highlighted by the
participants as one of the most important elements of the dining out
experience. However, the role of taste in consumer experience seems to
differ depending on the consumption context. In a workplace or school
cafeteria, taste was not as important as it would be in a brasserie, a bistro
or a gastronomic restaurant. Similar response patterns were given to
texture and to the visual aspects of the food. In other words, consumers
do not pay attention to the same things, not even the same sensory
characteristics of the food, depending on the context. This means that
they may very well perceive the same food differently, which questions
the comparison of hedonic responses collected in different consumption
A. Galiñanes Plaza et al.
Fig. 3. (continued).
contexts.
Surprisingly, odor or ambiance smell was not highlighted as a key
factor in the dining out experiences contrary to what Edwards and col­
leagues found in institutional foodservices (Edwards et al., 2019). It is
not clear if odors are not so important for French consumers or if it is a
result from the design of our study. Focus groups only implied memory
and projective experiences and maybe participants did not mention
odors because they did not actually experience any particular ambient
odors at the time of the discussion.
The lexicometric analysis revealed clear differences regarding par­
ticipants’ region and type of population. The groups from Paris focused
their discourse on contextual variables related to the type of restaurant
and decoration whereas the groups from Lyon focused more on product
variables related to the ingredients and type of preparation. This could
be explained by the particularities of the “cuisine lyonnaise” compared
to the more general “French cuisine” that can be found in Paris (Fischler
and Masson, 2008). Moreover, it should be mentioned that Lyon has a
specific gastronomic culture and environment that have been appro­
priated by the local population, as mentioned by participants during the
discussions. Clear differences were also observed in the discourse that
student and non-student groups built. Student groups highlighted the
importance of price and conviviality when dining out, whereas the
non-students discussed more the quality of the food and the authenticity
of the ingredients. Those differences between what is important when
dining out could be explained by generational and consumption habits
differences and preferences as previous consumer behavior studies have
shown (Ferzacca et al., 2013; Urdapilleta et al., 2016). Hence, it is
11
International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 28 (2022) 100537
important to identify and characterize the studied population to un­
derstand what are the contextual variables that matter for their dining
out experience to be able to establish causality in context studies. More
generally, this study shows that considering consumer research outcome
at the country level may lead to overlook striking differences between
different regions or different groups within that country. This comment
may also apply to the present study. Indeed, despite our efforts to
investigate two different populations in two different regions, it should
be noted that our sample consisted mostly of middle-class urban con­
sumers. We may very well have obtained different results with different
demographics (lower income, smaller towns, suburbs, rural areas, etc.)
even for the same two regions. Therefore, even if this qualitative study
revealed some important insights about this regional groups and pop­
ulations, a quantitative survey would be interesting to confirm and
generalize these highlighted differences.
Besides, in any qualitative research, there is a risk that the researcher
influences the outcome of the study and, in a way, becomes part of the
resulting model. Several measures were taken to minimize this effect in
the present study. First, the research question was formulated by an
international researcher without any background in French cuisine or
gastronomy. This researcher also conducted the focus group discussions.
We believe that this cultural distance contributed to minimize potential
bias and facilitated the discussion between participants and an
“outsider”.
Eventually, it would be interesting to explore if the Covid-19 crisis
has changed consumers’ dining out expectations. Consumers may now
seek to get back to dining out experiences, but the respective roles of
A. Galiñanes Plaza et al. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 28 (2022) 100537

Table 6
Summary of the global analyses performed by iRaMuTeQ.
Cluster organisation Clusters Significance presences of words (X2) Variables (X2)
(95.95% segments
Consumption context Eating Cluster 3: Go (132.89), eat (103.3), envy (80.43), boyfriend G4_Lyon_Student (24.56), G1_Lyon
analyzed)
& eating experience experience Affective (55.88), context (51.84), appreciate (42.22), (2.18)
(56.1%) (37.7%) experience spend (41.19), moment (40.53), practical
(22.6%) (36.35), institute (35), friend (34.45), mc_donald
(34.17), restaurant(32.45), habit (32.11), Bocuse
(30.31)
Cluster 2: Food Price (361.03), pay (315.74), euro (239.44), G10_Paris_Student (23.21),
quality & price expensive (202.88), quality (98.26), G5_Lyon_Student (12.46),
(15.1%) gastronomical (79.12), cost (55.45), bet (44.11), G12_Paris_Student (5.53)
increase (39.38), expect (30.8), menu (30.63),
company (30.21), associate (29.99), think (29.84)
Cluster 5: Food_truck (226,27), fast_food (138.92), classify G8_Paris (21.07), G9_Paris (10.02),
Consumption contexts (18.4%) (90.03), picture (76.04), consumer_test (68.99), G6_Lyon_Student (5.89),
rather (67.77), bistro (63.22), restoration G12_Paris_Student(4.68),
(62.93), food (62.68), friendly (59.15), fast G4_Lyon_Student (2.44)
(58.69), table (53.24), traditional (52.31)
ambiance (52.18), warmth (50.26), group
(48.41), type (47.39), French (45.58), context
(44.3), bouchon (41.94), place (40.22),
classification (38.44), laboratory (38.2), nap
(38.2), space (35.16), mass (35.16), junk_food
(34.92), Asiatic (33.88), category (33.88),
associate (33.88), test (31.44), brasserie (31.27),
sit (30.75), together (29.9), put (27.86)
Food ingredients & Cluster 1: Homemade (149.3), industrial (141.05), product G2_Lyon (32.71), G3_Lyon (3.81),
preparation (43.7%) Food process & preparation (25.4%) (79.61), produce (77.53), taste (74.02), frozen G1_Lyon (2.68),
(72.45), ingredient (52.93), apple (50.27), pie
(49.33), home (48.98), Picard (42.93), fresh
(41.06), difference (38.99), cake (38.37),
preservative (36.75), dough (36.46), chocolate
(32.77), transform (31.72), chemical (30.87)
Cluster 4: Meat (203.18), market (86.4), sauce (81.82), G2_Lyon (6.09)
Food ingredients & origin (18.3%) prepare (73.59), vegetable (63.45), bag (58.47),
fruit (58.44), water (49.66), butcher (49.43), buy
(47.5), origin (42.79), cook (40.21), fish (38.95),
tomato (38.04), big (38.01), chef (34.6),
assembly (34.29), come (33.15), foie (31.4),
chance (30.65), cut (30.11), beef (29.88),
quantity (28.86)

G: refers to group; Numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.): refers to the group session.

contextual and product variables may very well have changed. Authorship contributions

5. Conclusion
Beliefs and expectations towards the food served in a given dining
out context are intimately related to prior experiences and beliefs to­
wards that particular context. This study shows that conviviality and
taste are the main variables that contribute to the dining out experience.
However, depending on the dining out context, their role may be more
or less prominent. Conviviality appeared to take central stage at work­
place canteens or school cafeterias. In general, consumers expect to find
natural, fresh, local ingredients in small and gastronomic restaurants,
whereas they believe or expect to find processed food at workplace or
school cafeterias and fast-food chains. Overall, we can hypothesize that
consumers’ expectations about food may influence their experience in a
particular context and in turn, they may influence their evaluation of the
food served in that context. Therefore, when testing food that may be
consumed in a restaurant, sensory and consumer scientists should pay
careful attention to the type of dining out context potentially associated
to this food. Indeed, consumers’ expectations towards the environment,
the menu, the presentation, or the expected quality of the food may be
anchored beforehand and differ from one type of consumer to another.
In this study we observed that even within the same country, dining out
experiences differ depending on generational, regional cultural factors,
and consumption habits.
Conception and design of study: Galiñanes Plaza, A., Saulais, L.,
Delarue, J.acquisition of data: Galiñanes Plaza, A.analysis and/or
interpretation of data: Galiñanes Plaza, A., Saulais, L., Delarue, J.
Drafting the manuscript: Galiñanes Plaza, A., Delarue, J.; revising the
manuscript critically for important intellectual content: Galiñanes Plaza,
A., Saulais, L., Delarue, J.Approval of the version of the manuscript to be
published: Galiñanes Plaza, A., Saulais, L., Delarue, J. n.
Declaration of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements:
The authors thank Dr. Blandine Cerisier for her comments and sug­
gestions on the qualitative and quantitative analysis. This work was part
of a PhD project funded by the Société Scientifique d’Hygiène Alimen­
taire (SSHA).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2022.100537.

12
A. Galiñanes Plaza et al. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 28 (2022) 100537

References Holthuysen, N.T.E., Vrijhof, M.N., de Wijk, R.A., Kremer, S., 2017. Welcome on board”:
overall liking and just-about-right ratings of airplane meals in three different
consumption contexts-laboratory, re-created airplane, and actual airplanethuysen.
Ares, G., Vidal, L., Allegue, G., Giménez, A., Bandeira, E., Moratorio, X., et al., 2016.
J. Sensory Stud., e12254 https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12254. December 2016.
Consumers’ conceptualization of ultra-processed foods. Appetite 105, 611–617.
Jo, J., Lusk, J.L., 2018. If it’s healthy, it’s tasty and expensive: effects of nutritional labels
Boutrolle, I., Delarue, J., Arranz, D., Rogeaux, M., Köster, E.P., 2007. Central location test
on price and taste expectations. Food Qual. Prefer. 68 (April), 332–341. https://doi.
vs. home use test: contrasting results depending on product type. Food Qual. Prefer.
org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.04.002.
18 (3), 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.06.003.
Kahneman, D., 2002. Maps of bounded rationality: a perspective on intuitive judgement.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3
In: Frangsmyr, T. (Ed.), Nobel Prizes 2002: Nobel Prizes, Presentations, Biographies,
(2), 77–101.
& Lectures (Issue December, Pp. 449–489. Almqvist & Wiksell Int.
Cardello, A.V., Bell, R., Kramer, M., 1996. Attitudes of consumers toward military and
King, S.C., Meiselman, H.L., Hottenstein, A.W., Work, T.M., Cronk, V., 2007. The effects
other institutional foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 7 (1), 7–20.
of contextual variables on food acceptability: a confirmatory study. Food Qual.
Cerisier, B., Haas, V., Kalampalikis, N., 2017. Reproduction sérielle d ’ un matériau
Prefer. 18 (1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.07.014.
odorant : de l ’ odeur sentie à la reconstruction collective de son souvenir. Bull.
Köster, E.P., 2003. The psychology of food choice: some often encountered fallacies.
Psychol. 5 (551), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.3917/bupsy.551.0323.
Food Qual. Prefer. 14 (5–6), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(03)
Chambers, E., Tran, T., Chambers IV, E., 2019. Natural: a $75 billion word with no
00017-X.
definition—why not? J. Sensory Stud. 34 (4), e12501.
Köster, E.P., 2009. Diversity in the determinants of food choice: a psychological
Corbeau, J.-P., 1992. Rituels alimentaires et mutations sociales. NOUVELLE SÉ. Cahiers
perspective. Food Qual. Prefer. 20 (2), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Internationaux de Sociologie Cah. Int. Sociol. 92, 101–120. NOS RITES PROFANES
foodqual.2007.11.002.
(Janvier-Juin 1992)).
Marty, L., de Lauzon-Guillain, B., Labesse, M., Nicklaus, S., 2021. Food choice motives
De Leiris, J., Boucher, F., Ducimetiere, P., Holdsworth, M., 2008. The French paradox :
and the nutritional quality of diet during the COVID-19 lockdown in France.
fact or fiction ? expert answers to three key questions. Dialogues Cardiovasc. Med.
Appetite 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105005. October 2020.
13 (3).
Meiselman, H.L., Johnson, J.L., Reeve, W., Crouch, J.E., 2000. Demonstrations of the
Di Monaco, R., Giacalone, D., Pepe, O., Masi, P., Cavella, S., 2014. Effect of social
influence of the eating environment on food acceptance. Appetite 35 (3), 231–237.
interaction and meal accompaniments on acceptability of sourdough prepared
https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0360.
croissants: an exploratory study. Food Res. Int. 66, 325–331. https://doi.org/
Meiselman, H.L. (Ed.), 2019. Context. The Effects of Environment on Product Design and
10.1016/j.foodres.2014.10.001.
Evaluation. Woohead Publishing.
Dransfield, E., 2004. The application of a text clustering statistical analysis to aid the
Michel, C., Velasco, C., Gatti, E., Spence, C., 2014. A taste of Kandinsky: assessing the
interpretation of focus group interviews, 15, pp. 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/
influence of the artistic visual presentation of food on the dining experience. Flavour
j.foodqual.2003.08.004.
3 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/2044-7248-3-7.
Ducrot, P., Méjean, C., Bellisle, F., Allès, B., Hercberg, S., Péneau, S., 2018. Adherence to
Monneuse, M.O., Bellisle, F., Koppert, G., 1997. Eating habits, food and health related
the French Eating Model is inversely associated with overweight and obesity: results
attitudes and beliefs reported by French students. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 51 (1), 46–53.
from a large sample of French adults. Br. J. Nutr. 120 (2), 231–239. https://doi.org/
Muñoz, F., Hildebrandt, A., Schacht, A., Stürmer, B., Bröcker, F., Martín-Loeches, M.,
10.1017/S0007114518000909.
Sommer, W., 2018. What makes the hedonic experience of a meal in a top restaurant
Edwards, J.A., Hartwell, H.J., 2009. Institutional meals. In: Meiselman, H.L. (Ed.), Meals
special and retrievable in the long term? Meal-related, social and personality factors.
in Science and Practice. Insterdisciplinary Research and Business Applications.
Appetite 125, 454–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPET.2018.02.024.
Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, pp. 102–127.
Ozdemir, B., Caliskan, O., 2014. A review of literature on restaurant menus: specifying
Edwards, J.S.A., 2013. The foodservice industry: eating out is more than just a meal.
the managerial issues. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 2 (1),
Food Qual. Prefer. 27 (2), 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2013.12.001.
foodqual.2012.02.003.
Reinert, A., 1983. Une méthode de classification descendante hiérarchique : application à
Edwards, J.S.A., Hartwell, H.J., Price, S., 2019. The effects of environment on product
l’analyse lexicale par contexte. Les Cahiers de l’analyse Des Données 8 (2), 187–198.
design and evaluation: meals in context, institutional foodservice. Context 259–286.
Riou, J., Lefèvre, T., Parizot, I., Lhuissier, A., Chauvin, P., 2015. Is there still a French
The Effects of Environment on Product Design and Evaluation.
eating model? A taxonomy of eating behaviors in adults living in the Paris
Ferzacca, S., Naidoo, N., Choo, M., Reddy, G., Martinus, R., Dam, V., 2013. ‘“ Sometimes
metropolitan area in 2010. PLoS One 10 (3), e0119161.
they ” ll tell me what they want ’’: family and inter-generational food preferences in
Rozin, P., 2005. The meaning of food in our lives: a cross-cultural perspective on eating
the food decisions of Singaporean women. Appetite 69, 156–167. https://doi.org/
and well-being. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 37 (Suppl. 2) https://doi.org/10.1016/S1499-
10.1016/j.appet.2013.05.021.
4046(06)60209-1.
Fischler, C., Masson, E., 2008. Manger: Français, Européens et Américains face à
Sogari, G., Velez-Argumedo, C., Gómez, M.I., Mora, C., 2018. College students and eating
l’alimentation. Odile Jacob, Paris.
habits: a study using an ecological model for healthy behavior. Nutrients 10 (12),
Galiñanes Plaza, A., Saulais, L., Blumenthal, D., Delarue, J., 2019. Eating location as a
1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10121823.
reference point: differences in hedonic evaluation of dishes according to
Stok, F.M., Renner, B., Clarys, P., Lien, N., Lakerveld, J., Deliens, T., 2018.
consumption situation. Food Qual. Prefer., 103738 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Understanding eating behavior during the transition from adolescence to young
foodqual.2019.103738.
adulthood: a literature review and perspective on future research directions.
GIRA Conseil, 2013. Etude Restauration 2013.
Nutrients 10 (6), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10060667.
Guagliardo, V., Lions, C., Darmon, N., Verger, P., 2011. Eating at the university canteen.
Timothy, H., Yang, S., Kim, K., 2016. Exploring the comparative salience of restaurant
Associations with socioeconomic status and healthier self-reported eating habits in
attributes : a conjoint analysis approach. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36 (6), 1360–1370.
France. Appetite 56 (1), 90–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.03.001.
Hartmann, C., Hieke, S., Taper, C., Siegrist, M., 2018. European consumer healthiness
Ueda, H., Poulain, J.-P., 2021. What is gastronomy for the French? An empirical study on
evaluation of ‘Free-from’ labelled food products. Food Qual. Prefer. 68 (August
the representation and eating model in contemporary France. International Journal
2017), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.12.009.
of Gastronomy and Food Science 25 (June), 100377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Hilger, J., Loerbroks, A., Diehl, K., 2017. Eating behaviour of university students in
ijgfs.2021.100377.
Germany: dietary intake, barriers to healthy eating and changes in eating behaviour
Urdapilleta, I., Dany, L., Boussoco, J., Schwartz, C., Giboreau, A., 2016. Culinary choices:
since the time of matriculation. Appetite 109, 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
a sociopsychological perspective based on the concept of Distance to the Object.
appet.2016.11.016.
Food Qual. Prefer. 48, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.08.007.
Hilger-Kolb, J., Diehl, K., 2019. ‘Oh God, I have to eat something, but where can I get
Yeh, C.-H., Hartmann, M., Langen, N., 2020. The role of trust in explaining food choice:
something Quickly?’—a qualitative interview study on barriers to healthy eating
combining choice experiment and attribute best–worst scaling. Foods 9 (1), 45.
among university students in Germany. Nutrients 11 (10). https://doi.org/10.3390/
nu11102440.

13