Advertisement

Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 441–453 | Cite as

Nudged to a Menu Position: The Role of “I’m Loving It”!

  • E. ReijnenEmail author
  • S. J. Kühne
  • H. M. von Gugelberg
  • A. Crameri
Short Communication

Abstract

The position of food items on supermarket shelves or dishes on restaurant menus seems to influence consumers’ choices. However, it is still unclear which position is the most favourable, respectively which factor can explain the variety of different position effects observed (e.g., centre-stage effect). We assume that this factor is based on whether or not “your love” (or your preference) for the cuisine of the restaurant (e.g., Italian) where you have dinner plays a role regarding your dish choice or not. Hence, in a computer-based study, participants had to choose dishes, appetizers, entrées and desserts from menus whose cuisine they most (e.g., Italian) or least preferred (e.g., Japanese). We found that regarding the meal type entrées, preference indeed played a role. Regarding menus from their most preferred cuisine, participants chose significantly more often entrées positioned in the centre of the menu. No such effect could be found regarding menus from their least preferred cuisine. Regarding the meal type appetizer, preference did not seem to play a role; hence, participants did, regarding both preferences, choose more appetizers positioned at the top of the menu. Regarding desserts, no effects could be found. A developed theoretical framework tries to illustrate how preference comes into play, by changing the way the dishes within a meal type are perceived, and hence modulates the different position effects observed. The framework should provide choice architects with guidelines about where they could place healthier dishes on a menu to fight the current overweight and obesity crisis.

Keywords

Position effects Preference Cuisine Choice Menu 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Daniel Furter, Susan Keller and Michelle Petrig for helping to design the menus as well as for helping run the experiments.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bar-Hillel, M. (2015). Position effects in choice from simultaneous displays: A conundrum solved. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer, J. M., & Reisch, L. A. (2019). Behavioural insights and (un)healthy dietary choices: A review of current evidence. Journal of Consumer Policy, 42, 3–45.Google Scholar
  3. Bucher, T., Collins, C., Rollo, M. E., McCaffrey, T. A., De Vlieger, N., Van der Bend, D., et al. (2016). Nudging consumers towards healthier choices: A systematic review of positional influences on food choice. British Journal of Nutrition, 115, 2252–2263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christenfeld, N. (1995). Choices from identical options. Psychological Science, 6, 50–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dayan, E., & Bar-Hillel, M. (2011). Nudge to nobesity II: Menu positions influence food orders. Judgment and Decision making, 6, 333–342.Google Scholar
  7. Ert, E., & Fleischer, A. (2016). Mere position effect in booking hotels online. Journal of Travel Research, 55, 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Estrade, M., Dick, S., Crawford, F., Jepson, R., Ellaway, A., & McNeill, G. (2014). A qualitative study of independent fast food vendors near secondary schools in disadvantaged Scottish neighborhoods. BMC Public Health, 14, 793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. gfs.bern. (2014). Monitor Ernährung und Bewegung 2014. Retrieved from http://www.gfsbern.ch. Accessed 24 Apr 2019.
  10. Hollands, G. J., Bignardi, G., Johnston, M., Kelly, M. P., Ogilvie, D., Petticrew, M., et al. (2017). The TIPPME intervention typology for changing environments to change behaviour. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Keller, C., Markert, F., & Bucher, T. (2015). Nudging product choices: The effect of position change on snack bar choice. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 41–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim, J., Hwang, E., Park, J., Lee, J. C., & Park, J. (2019). Position effects of menu item displays in consumer choices: Comparisons of horizontal versus vertical displays. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 60, 116–124.Google Scholar
  13. Koppell, J. G., & Steen, J. A. (2004). The effects of ballot position on election outcomes. Journal of Politics, 66, 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kozup, J. C., Creyer, E. H., & Burton, S. (2003). Making healthful food choices: The influence of health claims and nutrition information on consumers’ evaluations of packaged food products and restaurant menu items. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li, Y., & Epley, N. (2009). When the best appears to be saved for last: Serial position effects on choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22, 378–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lombardini, C., & Lankoski, L. (2013). Forced choice restriction in promoting sustainable food consumption: Intended and unintended effects of the mandatory vegetarian day in Helsinki schools. Journal of Consumer Policy, 36, 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Long, M. W., Tobias, D. K., Cradock, A. L., Batchelder, H., & Gortmaker, S. L. (2015). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of restaurant menu calorie labeling. American Journal of Public Health, 105(5), e11–e24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean? American Psychologist, 70, 487–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 291–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mueller, S., & Szolnoki, G. (2010). The relative influence of packaging, labelling, branding and sensory attributes on liking and purchase intent: Consumers differ in their responsiveness. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 774–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Murphy, J., Hofacker, C., & Mizerski, R. (2006). Primacy and recency effects on clicking behavior. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 522–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parker, R. (2017). Got a ham sandwich for lunch today? One in six workers admit eating the same thing every day for two years. Daily Mail Online. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk. Accessed 24 Apr 2019.
  23. Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pereira, J. M., & Villodres, C. O. (2002). Position effects and party nomination strategies under the limited vote: The 2000 Spanish senate election. Representation, 38, 304–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rodway, P., Schepman, A., & Thoma, V. (2016). Reachability does not explain the middle preference: A comment on Bar-Hillel (2015). i-Perception, 7(2), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rozin, P., Scott, S., Dingley, M., Urbanek, J. K., Jiang, H., & Kaltenbach, M. (2011). Nudge to nobesity I: Minor changes in accessibility decrease food intake. Judgment and Decision making, 6, 323–332.Google Scholar
  27. Rudolph, T., & Bassett, M. (2015). Food Consumption 2014: Ess- und Verzehrverhalten in der Schweiz. St. Gallen: Forschungszentrum für Handelsmanagement.Google Scholar
  28. Schneider, H., & Venetz, W. (2014). Cost of obesity in Switzerland in 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.bag.admin.ch. Accessed 24 Apr 2019.
  29. Six, A. (2015). Und ewig lockt die Pizza. NZZ am Sonntag. Retrieved from https://nzz.ch. Accessed 24 Apr 2019.
  30. Strauss, E. D., Schloss, K. B., & Palmer, S. E. (2013). Color preferences change after experience with liked/disliked colored objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 935–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stroebe, W., & Strack, F. (2014). The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Nudging: A very short guide. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37, 583–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sunstein, C. R. (2015). Nudges do not undermine human agency. Journal of Consumer Policy, 38, 207–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  35. Valenzuela, A., & Raghubir, P. (2009). Position-based beliefs: The centre-stage effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Valenzuela, A., & Raghubir, P. (2015). Are consumers aware of top–bottom but not of left–right inferences? Implications for shelf space positions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21, 224–241.Google Scholar
  37. van Kleef, E., Otten, K., & van Trijp, H. C. (2012). Healthy snacks at the checkout counter: A lab and field study on the impact of shelf arrangement and assortment structure on consumer choices. BMC Public Health, 12, 1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wansink, B., & Hanks, A. S. (2013). Slim by design: Serving healthy foods first in buffet lines improves overall meal selection. PLoS One, 8, e77055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Applied PsychologyZHAW Zurich University of Applied SciencesZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations