Research Article

Relationship between consumer behavior, perception of nutritional information, and menu factors on fast food using eye-tracking: A study on university students in Jeonju

Kyungjong Min1,https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3461-8100, Kunjong Lee2,https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6046-2229, Heajung Chung1,*https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0244-1825
Author Information & Copyright
1Department of Korean Cuisine, Jeonju University, Jeonju 55069, Korea
2Department of Food and Nutrition, Soongeui Women’s University, Seoul 04628, Korea
*Corresponding author Heajung Chung, Tel: +82-63-220-2098, E-mail: angiechung@hanmail.net

These authors contributed equally to this study.

Citation: Oredokun-Lache BA, Ibrahim EB, Oluwafemi AG, Erifeta GO, Josiah SJ, Oluba OM. A circular economical application of eggshell waste as a bio-filler in the fabrication of gum Arabic composite film. Food Sci. Preserv., 31(3), 394-407 (2024)

Copyright © The Korean Society of Food Preservation. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Oct 25, 2023; Revised: Jun 12, 2024; Accepted: Jun 13, 2024

Published Online: Jun 30, 2024

Abstract

This study analyzed the factors that influence menu choices through eye-tracking and questionnaires in menu design. Demographic data of subjects coincided with choosing a menu and eye-tracking data. Hot Crispy Chicken Burger is the most popular menu. The study found that regardless of the selected menu, the menu name (35.5 seconds), price (21.6 seconds), and image (16.0 seconds) were viewed the longest, followed by country of origin (8.81 seconds), calories (4.6 seconds), and special indications (p<0.05). The menu name and image were checked more frequently, while calorie information was checked less often. As a result of analyzing various factors that influence menu selection through, Consumer experience and image greatly influenced menu choices. Therefore, if you want to receive a menu selection, it is considered effective to make good use of the menu name and image. In results of principal component analysis (PCA) by gender showed. Men had the longest price in the fixation duration. But, for females, there was a significant difference in gaze fixation when they took the exam, with menu names and special indications being important selection criteria. Since the results show that selection criteria and information acquisition methods differ depending on gender, this research is thought to be able to suggest directions for menu design.

Keywords: menu choice; PCA analysis; consumer behavior; eye-tracking

1. Introduction

Fast food is a popular choice among university students who prioritize convenience, taste, and cost when selecting food (Driskell et al., 2005; Driskell et al., 2006). In foreign countries, various studies have been applied and studied, such as research on the perception of food information labeling and analysis of gaze behavior on food (Anna et al, 2018; Baoyue and Han, 2015; Gerrit et al, 2018; Kosuke, 2019; Miller and Cassady, 2015). However, fast food is known to have a negative impact on health, as it often contains high amounts of fat and carbohydrates while lacking essential vitamins and minerals found in fruits, vegetables, and dairy products (French et al., 2000; French et al., 2001). Regular consumption of fast food can lead to obesity, increased blood sugar levels, and an increased risk of various diseases, including cardiovascular diseases (Monge et al., 2013; Shah et al., 2014). To address these health concerns, improving nutritional information is seen as a necessary measure to promote national health and prevent obesity. Menu design elements can guide consumers toward nutritional information, but simply displaying this information on menus have been shown to have little effect on promoting healthy food choices (Cowburn and Stockley, 2005). Thus, understanding the factors that attract consumers’ attention to specific menu items is crucial for improving menu design.

Menus are a critical marketing tool for restaurants, as they provide information on menu items such as names, descriptions, and pictures to customers. Since people use more than 80% of their visual perspective to perceive objects or spaces, menu design can be used to attract consumers’ attention to highly profitable items (Kim, 2016; Kwong, 2005). Therefore, analyzing consumers’ gaze while they look at menus is important for studying purchasing behavior. Gaze tracking research can provide objective information on the factors and locations that attract consumers’ attention by tracking and analyzing their gaze (Graham et al., 2012; Kim, 2017; Rebollar et al., 2015).

In gaze-tracking research, eye movements have been found to have a correlation with food selection and quantity (Gere et al., 2016; Manippa et al., 2019). However, the relationship between gaze behavior and food choice may vary depending on the type of food being considered (Wang et al., 2018). Additionally, personal experiences, gender, nationality, cultural differences, lifestyle preferences, emotions, and psychological factors can all contribute to individual differences in gaze behavior, making it challenging to interpret gaze data accurately (Ares et al., 2014; Fenko et al., 2018; Hummel et al., 2018; Motoki et al., 2019; Zhang and Seo, 2015).

While nutritional information on menus has been successful in promoting healthier food choices globally, it remains unclear whether consumers actively seek and use this information. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the demographic relevance of nutritional information displayed on menus. Specifically, we examined how consumers interacted with nutritional information and the characteristics of visual attention during the menu scanning process. The findings of this study have the potential to inform menu development and nutrition policies by confirming the visibility and influence of nutritional information on menus. According to Kim et al. (2018; 2019), there is a report that the cost of eating out influences menu choices (Kim, 2019). Previously reported by Lee et al. (2011), it was reported that 100,000 won was spent on eating out. Therefore, we proceeded with this research and attempted to analyze recent trends in eye-tracking data. Gender (Park and Kim, 2019) and eating out expenses. Kim et al. (2018; 2019), whether you have experience with menus, calories, ingredients (Kim and Lee, 2014), menu image (Kim and Kim, 2012), major or not (Shin and Chung, 2010) Therefore, we investigated what consumers’ fast food selection criteria are and set menus in the restaurant industry through menu analysis of the main customer groups. We wanted to provide this as important basic research material. Therefore, it was analyzed. formulate a research hypothesis, investigate the trends of the subjects, conduct an experiment to find differences in menu selection, and fixation duration and counts. So, we will study relationship analysis of choosing a menu between many factors on an eye-tracking program.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Menu design selection and production

The menu design was selected based on the consumers’ frequency and total sales among the companies obligated to label the nutrition facts by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS). The selected menu design was produced according to 467.0×330.5 mm and provided to the subject through a monitor.

The AOI (area of interest) was selected by dividing the menu and menu design elements. Each menu was divided into the Big Bulgogi Burger area (BBB), Hot Crispy Chicken Burger area (HCB), European Smoked Cheeseburger area (ESCB), Wild Shrimp Burger area (WSB), Classic Cheeseburger area (CCB), Bulgogi Burger area (BUB), Shrimp Burger area (SB), and Barbecue Burger area (BAB) and was referred to as the 8AOI (Fig. 1A). Each menu design element was divided into menu name, image, country of origin, calorie, price, and special indication, and was referred to as the 6AOI (Fig. 1B).

kjfp-31-3-408-g1
Fig. 1. 8AOI (A) and 6AOI (B) divisions for the eye-tracking study according to menu selection.
Download Original Figure
2.2. Eye-tracking experiment

A study was conducted in which 50 male and 50 female students from Jeonju University participated as subjects in an experiment. The study protocol received approval from the research ethics committee at Jeonju University (jjIRB-201109-HR-2020-1102). All participants provided written informed consent, in accordance with the ethical principles for research involving human subjects.

Before the start of the experiment, it was explained as an experiment in which a fast-food menu was viewed and selected without mentioning nutritional information. Specifically, it was described as ‘Please imagine that you have entered a fast-food restaurant and are now looking at the menu. Take your time to review the menu options and select your preferred menu’. Through preliminary experiments, different measurement times, conditions, and data extraction methods were confirmed for each person. The eye tracker (SMI Vision RED-m, SMI Vision Co., Berlin, Germany) was utilized, and the recording frequency of the visual data was 30 Hz. To increase the concentration of the participants, the experiment was conducted in a dark room, and a partition was installed between the subjects and the researcher to prevent intervention in the experiment.

The subjects sat in front of the monitor, while the menu design was not yet visible on the monitor. The experiment was started after confirming the height adjustment of the monitor and maintaining 650 mm. As shown in Fig. 2, the focus adjustment and the produced menu design were provided in a predetermined order. If the eye-tracking experiment time is short, psychological pressure and poor selection may occur (Reutskaja et al., 2011; Van and Trijp, 2011). For this reason, it was conducted for up to 120 s for sufficient gaze movement and data collection. To prevent prior information intervention in this experiment, the survey was conducted immediately after the eye-tracking experiment.

kjfp-31-3-408-g2
Fig. 2. Experimental protocol of the eye-tracking study.
Download Original Figure
2.3. Questionnaire organization

The questionnaire was supplemented appropriately for the study based on preliminary studies on menu selection and nutrition labeling preference. The questionnaire consisted of a total of 9 questions, including 3 questions related to the eye-tracking experiment (menu selection, reason for selection, confirmation of calories), 2 questions related to nutrition (diet experience, education in nutrition), and 4 questions related to demographic characteristics (age, gender, monthly expenditure for dining out), to intuitively grasp the experiment. The questionnaires were structured in the multiple-choice format (excluding age) to facilitate ease of response and data collection.

2.4. Data selection

Data collected through the eye-tracker were extracted using a data extraction device (SMI vision BeGaze 3.0, SMI Vision Co., Berlin, Germany). The extracted data were recorded in units of 0.001 s and were divided into gaze-fixing duration and gaze fixes. The gazed fixation duration used data excluding the saccade value, and the gaze fixations used data by counting the number of times that the movement of the gaze was fixed on one AOI by more than 0.1 s. Valid data was calculated for each experimental subject based on the study by Ko et al (2017). All data, such as excessive eye blinking, long eye rolls, and staring off-screen will be removed, and any data that does not have a validity rate of over 90% of the calculated data will be excluded from the survey.

2.5. Statistical analysis

The analyses of questionnaires and gaze data obtained through the eye-tracker were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Duncan’s multiple range test using the SPSS program (IBM SPSS Statistics 24, SPSS Inc., New York, USA). Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed using XLSTAT (version 2021.4.1, Addin Soft, New York, USA) to confirm the correlation of the gaze fixation duration and gaze fixations for the questionnaire item.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Characteristics of subjects

Table 1 presents the experimental details and demographic characteristics of the participants. The most selected menus were HCB, followed by ESCB and BBB. Regarding the reasons for menu selection, 39% chose the menu they always ate, while 26% considered the ingredients, 23% relied on the menu image, 6% tried new menus, and 5% chose menus based on price. Only 1% of the participants selected menus based on calorie information. During the experiment, 54% of the participants confirmed that they had seen the calorie information on the menu, while more than 46% of the respondents reported that they had not noticed the calorie information. Demographically, most of the participants were women, and the average age was 21.23 years monthly expenditures for dining out, 33% spent between 300,000 and 390,000 won, while 6% spent less than 200,000 won. Among the total participant data, the 63 subjects who passed the validity test showed no significant differences compared to the overall data, except for menu selection and monthly expenditure for dining out. The data analysis was conducted in Jeonju.

Table 1. Demographic profile of subjects
Variables All participants (N=100) Eye-tracking participants (N=63)
Menu selection BBB 11.00% 6.30%
HCB 36.00% 39.70%
ESCB 11.00% 14.30%
WSB 7.00% 11.10%
CCB 9.00% 4.80%
BUB 8.00% 4.80%
SB 9.00% 9.50%
BAB 9.00% 9.50%
Reason for selection Ingredients 26.00% 27.00%
New menu 6.00% 7.90%
Always eat menu 39.00% 36.50%
Image 23.00% 23.80%
Price 5.00% 3.20%
Calorie 1.00% 1.60%
Confirmation of calorie Did 54.00% 58.70%
Did not 46.00% 41.30%
Gender Male 30.00% 34.90%
Female 70.00% 65.10%
Age (years) 21.23±2.20 21.32±2.29
Diet experience Experienced 71.00% 71.40%
Inexperienced 29.00% 28.60%
Education of nutrition Experienced 39.00% 46.00%
Inexperienced 61.00% 54.00%
Monthly expenditure for dining out (won) 200,000 under 6.00% 33.30%
200,000-290,000 30.00% 36.50%
300,000-390,000 33.00% 11.10%
400,000-490,000 19.00% 12.70%
490,000 over 12.00% 6.30%
Download Excel Table

Table 2 analyzes the frequency of menu selection and various factors in the eye-tracking experiment data experiment. Regarding the menu frequency selected in Table 2, HCB (Hot Crispy Burger) was significantly more frequently selected at 39.7% (22 people). ESCB (European Smoked Cheeseburger) 14.3% (9 people), WSB (Wild Shrimp Burger) 11.1% (7 people), SB (Shrimp Burger) 9.5% (6 people), SB (Charcoal BBQ Burger) 9.5% (6 people), BBB (Big Bull) at 6.3% (4 people), CB (Classic Cheeseburger) and BB (Bulgogi Burger) at 4.8% (3 people) each. In the experimental group, there were many male subjects (22 subjects) and female subjects (41 subjects). The men’s menu choices were Hot Crispy Burger 31.8% (7 people), European Smoked Cheeseburger 22.7% (5 people), Charcoal BBQ Burger 13.6% (3 people), Classic Cheeseburger 9.1% (2 people), Yakiniku Burger 9.1% (2 people), Big Bull 4.5% (1 person), Wild Shrimp Burger 4.5% (1 person), Shrimp Burger 4.5% (1 person), and Hot Crispy Burger 43.9% (18 people) were women. Wild Shrimp Burger 14.6% (6 people), Shrimp Burger 12.2% (5 people), European Smoked Cheeseburger 9.8% (4 people), Big Bull 7.3% (3 people), Charcoal Barbecue Burger 7.3% (3 people), Classic Cheeseburger 2.4% (1 person), Yakiniku Burger 2.4% (1 person), in that order, and the differences between the male and female groups were noticeable. Although the Hot Crispy Burger was chosen most frequently for all menu items, the ranking of the menu choices listed below showed a difference in the proportions between the two male and female groups. For men, the percentage of choices for European Smoked Cheeseburger, Classic Cheeseburger, Yakiniku Burger, and Charcoal Barbecue Burger was higher than for women, and for women, the percentage of choice for Big Bull, Wild Shrimp Burger, and Shrimp Burger was higher than for men. Overall, women preferred menus with shrimp patties more than men, and men had a higher preference for menus with meat or cheese patties (p<0.001). In the questionnaire regarding whether or not they have ever experienced dieting, 71.4% (45 people) of the group who had tried dieting were more likely than those who had not experienced dieting 28.6% (18 people). This was found to be slightly higher than the 65.1% of Kim (2015), who investigated the actual situation of students enrolled at Gyeonggi Station and Gangwon Regional University by type. According to a report by Kim (2017), who analyzed the degree of weight loss desired by BMI index for male and female university students, the higher the BMI (<27.5 kg/m2), the higher the weight loss rate is 11 kg or more and the weight desired to be reduced increases. They had reported that. Therefore, in this study, the presence or absence of the dieting experience was similar to the report that female students experienced dieting more influenced by obesity rates (National Health Insurance Service, 2020). As a result, in the group that had experienced the diet, 37.8% (17 people) of Hot Crispy Burger, 17.8% (8 people) of European Smoked Cheeseburger, 11.1% (5 people) of Wild Shrimp Burger, 11.1% (5 people) of Shrimp Burger, S Charcoal BBQ Burger 11.1% (5 people), Classic Cheeseburger 6.7% (3 people), Big Bull 4.4% (2 people) were the most chosen, in that order, and Yakiniku Burger was not chosen. In the group that had not experienced dieting, 44.4% (8 people) of Hot Crispy Burger, 16.7% (3 people) of Yakiniku Burger, 11.1% (2 people) of Big Bull, 11.1% (2 people) of Wild Shrimp Burger, and 11.1% (2 people) of European Smoked Cheese. It was found that 5.6% (1 person) chose the burger, 5.6% (1 person) the Shrimp Burger, and 5.6% (1 person) the Charcoal-Grilled Barbecue Burger, but not the Classic Cheeseburger. The menu with the lowest calories was not selected by the Yakiniku Burger group, even among those who had tried dieting, suggesting that calories were not a major factor when choosing a menu at a fast food restaurant. When asked why they chose the menu, 25.4% (16 people) said “Because it has the ingredients I like,” 36.5% (23 people) said “Because it’s the menu I always eat,” and 36.5% (23 people) said “Because it has the ingredients I like.”, “It looks delicious,” he replied. 25.4% (16 people) of the people selected the most menus, which is thought to be partly due to the fact that consumers have a lot of experience, and they select menus by grasping menu information based on external factors such as favorite ingredients and images. It seems that it will. In the case of the Hot Crispy Burger, which was chosen from the most from the menu, respondents also answered, “Because I always eat it (12 people),” which accounted for the most experience points. Previous studies have shown that there are differences in a variety of factors, including the level of spending on eating out, price sensitivity, menu-oriented style, and factors considered important among menu attributes (Kim, 2018; Kim, 2019; Lee, 2018). In this experiment, comparisons were made according to the monthly average expenditure on eating out. This was higher than the study by Lee (2011), reported that the average monthly expenditure on eating out was most often in the 200,000 to 290,000 won range, and the most common was less than 100,000 won. In 2018, the results of a study conducted on university students in the Uijeongbu area were found to be similar to those of Kim (2018) regarding expenditure on eating out. This is likely due to factors such as the rise in prices from 10 years ago. Among the selection criteria for fast food, Hot Crispy Burger (30%) was the highest, and the frequency of choosing Charcoal Barbecue Burger, which was the cheapest option, was not high even among the groups who spent less than 200,000 won on eating out, and there was a significant difference. A Yakiniku Burger appeared and one person also selected the menu. As a result, the menu was not selected according to the level of expenditure on eating out, but the experience of eating was the most important factor in determining the menu. Additional research is needed, such as menu design components other than price.

Table 2. Relationship analysis of many eye-tracking factors and selecting menu frequency
Menu BBB HCCB ESCB WSB CCB BUB SB BAB N χ2
N1)(%)2) 4(6.3) 25(39.7) 9(14.3) 7(11.1) 3(4.8) 3(4.8) 6(9.5) 6(9.5) 63(100)
Gender Male 1(4.5) 7(31.8) 5(22.7) 1(4.5) 2(9.1) 2(9.1) 1(4.5) 3(13.6) 22(100) 47.032***
Female 3(7.3) 18(43.9) 4(9.8) 6(14.6) 1(2.4) 1(2.4) 5(12.2) 3(7.3) 41(100)
Diet experience Experienced 2(4.4) 17(37.8) 8(17.8) 5(11.1) 3(6.7) - 5(11.1) 5(11.1) 45(100) 71.531***
Inexperienced 2(11.1) 8(44.4) 1(5.6) 2(11.1) - 3(16.7) 1(5.6) 1(5.6) 18(100)
Saw nutrition labels Did - 7(41.2) 3(17.6) 1(5.9) - 1(5.9) 2(11.8) 3(17.6) 17(100) 30.926***
Did not 4(8.7) 18(39.1) 6(13.0) 6(13.0) 3(6.5) 2(4.3) 4(8.7) 3(6.5) 46(100)
Education experience of nutrition label Experienced 3(10.3) 13(44.8) 4(13.8) 3(10.3) - 1(3.4) 3(10.3) 2(6.9) 29(100) 29.569***
Inexperienced 1(2.9) 12(35.3) 5(14.7) 4(11.8) 3(8.8) 2(5.9) 3(8.8) 4(11.8) 34(100)
Major Culinary arts 1(3.2) 14(45.0) 2(6.8) 4(12.9) - 2(6.4) 5(16.1) 3(9.6) 31(100) 61.604***
Others 3(9.4) 11(34.5) 7(21.6) 3(9.4) 3(9.4) 1(3.1) 1(3.1) 3(9.4) 32(100)
Reason Ingredients 1(5.9) 6(35.3) 2(11.8) 2(11.8) 1(5.9) 1(5.9) 4(23.5) - 17(100) 431.852***
New 1(20.0) - - 1(1.6%) - - - 3(60.0) 5(100)
Always - 17(73.9) 2(8.7) - 2(8.7) 1(4.3) - 1(4.3) 23(100)
Image 2(13.3) 2(13.3) 5(33.3) 4(26.7) - - 1(6.7) 1(6.1) 15(100)
Price - - - - - 1(50.0) - 1(50.0) 2(100)
Calorie - - - - - - 1(100) - 1(100)
Monthly expenditure for dining out 200,000 under 3(14.3) 7(33.3) 1(4.8) 3(14.3) - 1(4.8) 3(14.3) 3(14.3) 21(100) 203.476***
200,000-290,000 1(4.3) 7(30.4) 5(21.7) 2(8.7) 3(13.0) 2(8.7) 2(8.7) 1(4.3) 23(100)
300,000-390,000 2(28.6) 3(42.9) 1(14.3) - - - - 1(14.3) 7(100)
400,000-490,000 - 3(37.5) 1(12.5) - 2(25.0) 1(12.5) 1(12.5) - 8(100)
500,000 over - 2(50.0) 1(25.0) 1(25.0) - - - - 4(100)

*** p<0.001.

1) N, Number of participants selected.

2) %, The ratio of the number of participants selected to the total number of participants.

2) BBB, select big Bulgogi Burger; HCB, select Hot Crispy Chicken Burger; ESCB, select European Smoked Cheeseburger; WSB, select Wild Shrimp Burger; CCB, select Classic Cheeseburger; BUB, select Bulgogi Burger; SB, select Shrimp Burger; BAB, select Barbecue Burger.

Download Excel Table
3.2. Visual characteristics
3.2.1. Heatmap

The heatmap is a screen used for analyzing eye gaze data that displays the area where the gaze fixates on after presenting stimuli to the subjects with a highlight effect. Our study found that HCB, which had the most menu choices, received more gaze fixations compared to other menus, with the main focus being on the menu name and price (Fig. 3). Additionally, the space between the menus was slightly brighter than the surrounding area, and the gaze traveled mainly at the top of the menu rather than the bottom. As the gaze was focused on various informational elements of the product where much relevant information was gathered (Hwang and Kim, 2013), this study confirmed that the gaze movement at the top of the menu makes it easier to compare information between menus. When we examined the gaze movements according to menu selection (Fig. 4), we found that the subjects stared at the menu of their choice with wider gazes and focused on the image. The heatmap also compared the selected menu with the menu close to it and the subjects’ gazes, which could potentially affect food choices because even if the gaze is fixed in one place, the surrounding information can still be recognized (Yokoyama et al., 2014).

kjfp-31-3-408-g3
Fig. 3. Heatmap of participants in the eye-tracking experiment.
Download Original Figure
kjfp-31-3-408-g4
Fig. 4. Heatmap according to menu selection. BBB, select big Bulgogi Burger; HCB, select Hot Crispy Chicken Burger; ESCB, select European Smoked Cheeseburger; WSB, select Wild Shrimp Burger; CCB, select Classic Cheeseburger; BUB, select Bulgogi Burger; SB, select Shrimp Burger; BAB, select Barbecue Burger.
Download Original Figure
3.2.2. Visual change over time

Fig. 5 illustrates the results of an examination of changes in gaze fixation duration for six areas of interest (AOI) over time, by dividing the experimental time into 10-second intervals. Initially, it was observed that participants focused on the menu name, followed by the image and price. During the 20-40 second periods, the gaze fixation durations for price and image were similar, but then they became inversely related. This may be due to differences in the amount of information that can be acquired from the image compared to the price.

kjfp-31-3-408-g5
Fig. 5. Mean time of gaze fixation duration for 6AOIs according to the time flow.
Download Original Figure

According to Reale and Flint (2016), a menu with simple information can be selected in a short time, typically within 5 to 7 seconds. However, the menu used in this study contained various types of information, and thus required more time to process. The areas indicating calorie and special indications showed little change during the experiment, as they are small and remain within the field of vision even when focusing on the menu name. Therefore, additional gaze fixation duration for these areas may not be necessary.

3.2.3. Factors of fixation duration and counts

The study found that regardless of the selected menu, the menu name and image were viewed the longest, followed by country of origin, price, calories, and special indications (p<0.05). In addition, 50.8% of the reasons for choosing a menu were related to ‘food’ and ‘image’, which was significantly higher than other reasons for selection, except Universal Choice (always eaten menu) (Table 1). There was no significant difference in the time to stare at the menu name in BBB, HCB, WSB, BUB and BAB, but only ESCB was briefly stared to show significance (p<0.05). In terms of menu price, BUB stared for 35.5 seconds and showed significance. There was no significant difference between menus in terms of calories. In the country of origin, it was shown that it was observed for the longest time by staring for 19.1 seconds at CCB, and there was no significant difference in the rest of the menu. Images were observed for the longest time in the ESCB menu (48.7 seconds) and also in SB for a relatively long time at 32.5 seconds, with no significant difference. ESCB menu is one of the most popular menus. The rest of the menus were observed relatively briefly (Table 3 row). Special indications were not signed. People looked at the menu name for the longest time (35.5 seconds), price (21.6 seconds), image (16.0 seconds), Country of origin (8.81 seconds), Calorie (4.6 seconds), Color (0 second). Menu name is the most important factor to take.

Table 3. Mean time of gaze fixation duration (s) according to menu selection and 6AOIs
Menu name Price Calorie Country of origin Image Special indication
BBB 24.2±5.8a 11.8±3.5abcB 8.9±1.8bc 15.6±7.3abB 20.5±4.7abB 0.3±0.1c
HCB 24.8±3.9a 11.2±1.1bcB 6.4±1.1cd 12.9±1.4bB 25.5±2.9aB 0.5±0.1d
ESCB 17.9±3.8b 5.6±1.3cB 5.9±1.7c 7.3±1.4bcB 48.7±8.4aA 0.6±0.2c
WSB 34.2±4.6a 9.0±0.9cB 4.1±1.3c 9.6±1.7cB 22.5±5.9bB 0.7±0.2c
CCB 34.8±16.0a 11.0±3.1abB 3.4±1.7b 19.1±8.3abA 20.6±5.8abB 0.3±0.2b
BUB 35.5±8.7a 21.6±8.9abA 4.6±1.1c 8.8±3.7bcB 16.0±4.7bcB 0.6±0.3c
SB 24.4±5.6ab 9.8±4.1bcB 4.9±1.4c 11.0±2.3bcB 32.5±10.6aAB 0.4±0.1c
BAB 25.5±8.2a 9.3±4.2bcB 7.0±1.5bc 16.0±3.6abB 18.3±6.0abB 0.4±0.1c

BBB, select Big Bulgogi Burger; HCB, select Hot Crispy Chicken Burger; ESCB, select European Smoked Cheeseburger; WSB, select Wild Shrimp Burger; CCB, select Classic Cheeseburger; BUB, select Bulgogi Burger; SB, select Shrimp Burger; BAB, select Barbecue Burger.

a-d Superscript letters in a row or column indicate significance at p<0.05 by Duncan’s multiple range test.

A,B Superscript letters in a row or column indicate significance at p<0.05 by Duncan’s multiple range test.

Download Excel Table

5 Areas information on ingredients can be checked through the menu name and image, and it was judged to be the most effective menu design element that provides information to consumers. The menu name frequently held the subjects’ stares, and the average fixation time for it was longer. This suggests that the menu name and image are actively used when comparing menus, but the image helps to understand product information faster than the menu name. Human behavior is influenced by the interaction of rational and intuitive information (Epstein, 1994). According to the results, it is judged that the menu name and image intuitively convey information to consumers.

Table 3 presents the results of gaze fixation duration of 6 AOI within the menu selected by the subjects. In Table 3, menu name, the average time of menu selection and gaze fixation according to 6AOI was BUB (35.5 seconds), CCB (34.8 seconds), WSB (34.2 seconds), BAB (25.5 seconds), HCB (24.8 seconds), and BBB (24.2 seconds) were all significantly long-term menus (p<0.05). Among the menus in Table 3, it was found that ESCB (17.9 seconds) was the shortest. The price was the most significant as I looked at the Bulgogi Burger (BUB) for the longest time (21.6 seconds, p<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the rest of the menu. When choosing a Bulgogi Burger (BUB) menu, it was found that they were selected in the order of name (35.5 seconds), price (21.6 seconds), image (16 seconds), country of origin (8.8 seconds), calories (4.6 seconds), and special indication (0.6 seconds) (p<0.05). In particular, ESCB hamburgers were found to stare at the image for the longest time (p<0.05). In other studies, the importance of nutritional information is lowered because products have many elements (name, price and images, etc.) that have various information (Ma and Zhuang, 2021).

On the other hand, calories showed lower gaze fixation duration and gaze fixes compared to other factors. Consumers generally rely on the easy and intuitive part, and the larger the stimulus, the longer they stare (Drèze and Husherr, 2003; Milosavljevic and Cerf, 2008). This is a result that is in good agreement with this study. For this reason, even in restaurants, nutrients are displayed smaller than menu names and images, and the proportion of active users is low (Jun et al., 2009). Therefore, it seems that calories were not used in menu selection because they were less stimulating than other elements and were not intuitive.

WSB (44.7 times) took the most average number of gaze tests on the menu, with BBC (36.7 times), CCB (35 times), and BAB (27.2 times), compared to HCB (29.6 times), SB (26.8 times), and ESCB (22.1 times). There was a significant difference (p<0.05), and there was no significant difference between BBB and each other. BBB and CCB took the average number of gaze tests for the price the most with 14.3 times, and there was a significant difference from ESCB (7.1 times), HCB (12.3 times), and WSB (10.1 times) (p<0.05). The mean counts of applications for the calorie were significant only in BBB (13.8 times) (p<0.05). The average number of gazes for images accounts for high in the order of SB, ESCB, BBB, HCB and WSB, and there was no significant difference between CCB and BUB (Table 4). In terms of the number of gaze tests, WSBC took the most, BBB and CCB were advantageous in terms of price, and SB took the most images. The menu of gaze time and the account of the appeared differently.

Table 4. Mean counts of gaze fixations according to menu selection and 6AOIs
Menu name Price Calorie Country of origin Image Special indication
BBB 35.5±4.4ab 14.3±4.2bc 13.8±3.7bcA 23.0±10.7abc 38.8±12.2a 1.3±0.4c
HCB 29.6±3.0b 12.3±1.5b 5.9±0.7dB 14.6±1.7c 35.8±3.6a 1.2±0.2d
ESCB 22.1±4.8b 7.0±1.1c 4.3±1.1cB 9.8±2.3c 52.4±8.8a 1.2±0.3c
WSB 44.7±5.7a 10.3±1.2b 4.7±1.1bB 11.0±2.0b 33.0±5.4a 1.0±0.3b
CCB 35.0±15.5a 14.3±7.5abc 3.0±1.5bcB 17.3±5.9abc 28.7±5.8ab 1.3±0.7c
BUB 36.7±7.9a 11.7±2.8bc 6.3±3.3cB 12.7±5.4bc 28.7±8.7ab 0.7±0.3c
SB 26.8±2.5b 11.8±1.8bc 4.8±1.0cB 15.3±2.7bc 57.5±15.8a 1.2±0.3c
BAB 27.7±6.2a 10.7±1.1bc 7.3±1.5bcB 19.0±4.7ab 32.0±11.0a 0.7±0.2c

BBB, select big Bulgogi Burger; HCB, select Hot Crispy Chicken Burger; ESCB, select European Smoked Cheeseburger; WSB, select Wild Shrimp Burger; CCB, select Classic Cheeseburger; BUB, select Bulgogi Burger; SB, select Shrimp Burger; BAB, select Barbecue Burger.

a-d Superscript letters in a row or column indicate significance at p<0.05 by Duncan’s multiple range test.

A,B Superscript letters in a row or column indicate significance at p<0.05 by Duncan’s multiple range test.

Download Excel Table
3.3. Relationship analysis between data

A vector other than zero that is a constant multiple of itself is called an eigenvector, and this constant multiple is called an eigenvalue. Usually, the method of selecting principal components from, for example, eigenvector values is first to select at the elbow point and second to select the smallest principal component that preserves a variance ratio of 70% or more. The results of this study showed that menu selection was different from the predicted hypothesis through PCA result analysis. In other words, we expected that fixation of the menu and gaze would be sensitive to the menu, actual calories, and level of nutritional education, but the results differed from the expected hypothesis. Therefore, this study can only be used as basic material for menu selection.

In Fig. 6, PCA (A) is the result of the principal component analysis of experienced in the education of nutrition (E) by men (M) and women (F) from CA (A). By gender, the most important consumer selection criterion for men (M) was the price for GFD. For men in particular, country of origin was found to be the main component that showed the largest significant difference when selecting both GFD and GF menus. On the other hand, when women chose between GF and GFD menus, the menu name was the most important, and the menu price was the most important. When analyzing FE and FI (E, experienced in education of nutrition; I, inexperienced in education of nutrition), it was found that for female college students, it was possible to change the menu through nutrition education, and that it was possible to change the menu through nutrition education, and it was based on the experience value of previous eating. Menu selections are more obvious. This is similar to the results of a previous study by Shin and Chung (2010), who found that female college students who received nutrition education performed relatively better than the group who did not receive nutrition education. On the other hand, for GFD and FD, both image and special indication had no significant difference and were not important selection factors. I found that I don’t choose menu items based on the calories on the GFD and GF menus. On the other hand, there was a significant difference between female students and GF, with menu names and special descriptions being more important selection criteria than price. This study showed similarities with the findings of Choi et al. (2022), who found that price did not play a significant role in menu selection among female students. Our results showed a little significance in GF(2022).

kjfp-31-3-408-g6
Fig. 6. PCA results indicate the relationship between survey information, gaze fixation duration (GFD), and gaze fixation (GF) for each of the 6 AOIs. (A) Gender and education of nutrition; (B) Confirmation of calorie and education of nutrition; (C) Gender and confirmation of calorie; (D) Gender, education of nutrition and confirmation of calorie. M, male; F, female; E, experienced in education of nutrition; I, inexperienced in education of nutrition; C, saw calorie labels; N, didn’t see calorie labels.
Download Original Figure

In Fig. 6, PCA (B), the principal component analysis was performed on gender and education of nutrition; (B). When we performed principal component analysis (PCA) on gender IN (I, inexperienced in education of nutrition; N, didn’t see calorie labels), both PFD menu and FD menu showed significant differences in menu name and special indication. For the GFD menus, the country of origin and price appeared as significant factors when choosing a menu, and country of origin also showed a significant difference in GF.

In Fig. 6, PCA (C): Confirmation of calorie and education of nutrition by gender; (C) Principal component analysis was performed. For men, GFD showed significant differences in image and country of origin. In GF, price was analyzed as the main principal component. This study showed similarities with research by Choi et al (2022) and Han AR (2021), which found that men placed more importance on price. For women, F (female, N, didn’t see calorie labels) analysis showed significant differences in menu name and special indication for both GFD and GP.

In Fig. 6, PCA (D), Gender, education of nutrition and confirmation of calories were compared (MIN) by gender, but in the case of males (GFD), the experience of having received nutritional education and not looking at calorie labels were significantly different. (inexperienced in the education of nutrition; C, saw calorie labels; N, didn’t see calorie labels). On the other hand, for women, FIN (F, female; I, inexperienced in education of nutrition, N, didn’t see calorie labels, price) showed a significant difference in GFD. GF showed a significant difference in FEN (F, female; E experienced in education of nutrition, N, didn’t see calorie labels, price).

Conclusively, this eye-tracking’s sturdy, GF and GFD were different in choosing the menu. Gender is a difficult factor. We will see more sturdy later.

Although the above studies yielded results with significant differences, the eigenvector value of the covariance was relatively smaller than 5. Therefore, it is considered that basic research can be done when choosing a menu rather than absolute data values.

4. Conclusions

This study aimed to explore the relationship between menu selection trends and nutrition information by analyzing visual and survey information on university students who consume fast foods. The results indicated that participants mainly focused on the menu name and image rather than the country of origin, calories, price, and special indication. The result is similar to the χ2 survey, which showed that people make more use of experiential aspects and images when selecting menus. It is determined that consumers recognize the product through the product name and learn the necessary information through the image. therefore, given that calorie notation is less visually stimulating than other elements, it may be necessary to change the menu design to enhance its visibility and recognition through modifications in size, color, and expression methods.

Acknowledgements

None.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Min K, Chung H. Methodology: Min K. Formal analysis: Min K, Lee K. Validation: Min K. Writing - original draft: Min K. Writing - review & editing: Min K, Lee K.

Ethics approval

This research was approved by Jeonju University Institutional Review Board (jjIRB-201109-HR-2020-1102).

Funding

None.

ORCID

Kyungjong Min (First author) https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3461-8100

Kunjong Lee (First author) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6046-2229

Heajung Chung (Corresponding author) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0244-1825

References

1.

Ares G, Mawad F, Gimenez A, Maiche A. Influence of rational and intuitive thinking styles on food choice: Preliminary evidence from an eye-tracking study with yogurt labels. Food Qual Prefer. 31:28-37 2014;

2.

Choi YN, Chung SS, Rho JO. A franchise hamburger menu for university students determined by identifying selection attributes using conjoint analysis. J East Asian Soc Dietary Life. 32:250-262 2022;

3.

Cowburn G, Stockley L. Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: A systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 8:21-28 2005;

4.

Dreze X, Hussherr FX. Internet advertising: Is anybody watching?. J Interact Mark. 17:8-23 2003;

5.

Driskell JA, Kim YN, Goebel KJ. Few differences found in the typical eating and physical activity habits of lower-level and upper-level university students. J AM Diet Assoc. 105:798-801 2005;

6.

Driskell JA, Meckna BR, Scales NE. Differences exist in the eating habits of university men and women at fast-food restaurants. Nutr Res. 26:524-530 2006;

7.

Epstein S. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychlogist. 49:709-724 1994;

8.

Fenko A, Nicolaas I, Galetzka M. Does attention to health labels predict a healthy food choice? An eye-tracking study. Food Qual Prefer. 69:57-65 2018;

9.

French SA, Harnack L, Jeffery RW. Fast food restaurant use among women in the pound of prevention study: Dietary, behavioral and demographic correlates. Int J Obes. 24:1353-1359 2000;

10.

French SA, Story M, Neumark-Sztainer D, Fulkerson JA, Hannan P. Fast food restaurant use among adolescents: Associations with nutrient intake, food choices and behavioral and psychosocial variables. Int J Obes. 25:1823-1833 2001;

11.

Gere A, Danner L, De Antoni N, Kovacs S, Durrschmid K, Sipos L. Visual attention accompanying food decision process: An alternative approach to choose the best models. Food Qual Prefer. 51:1-7 2016;

12.

Graham DJ, Heidrick C, Hodgin K. Nutrition label viewing during a food-selection task: Front-of-package labels vs nutrition facts labels. J Acad Nutr Diet. 115:1636-1646 2015;

13.

Graham DJ, Orquin JL, Visschers VHM. Eye tracking and nutrition label use: A review of the literature and recommendations for label enhancement. Food Policy. 37:378-382 2012;

14.

Han AR, Chung SS, Rho Jo. Studies of selection attributes for lunch box (Dosirak) using conjoint analysis among single men. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 50:884-893 2021;

15.

Hummel G, Ehret J, Zeweck I, Winter SS. Nanette stroebele-benschop, how eating behavior, food stimuli and gender may affect visual attention: An eye tracking study. J Eating Behaviors. 31:60-67 2018;

16.

Hwang SJ, Kim I. The analysis of consumer’s response to fashion brand advertisement using eye-tracker. J Brand Design Association Korea. 11:203-220 2013;

17.

Jun SM, Kwon SH, Park HK, Kim SH, Kwon KI, Jung HR. Consumers’ use and demand of restaurant foods nutrition labeling. J Consum Stud. 20:279-306 2009; .

18.

Jung AK, Ryu HS, Song KH, Lee HM. A comparison of dietary habits, weight control behaviors, eating disorder risk, and depression of middle school girls according to various stages of dieting. Korean J Community Nutr. 20:178-187 2015;

19.

Kim G. Visual understanding of advertising through eye-tracking methodology. Korean J Advert Public Relat. 19:41-84 2017;

20.

Kim HY, Kim KI. The importance and satisfaction of the menu photo in the foodservice industry, on the menu book. J Converg Food Spatial Design. 7:31-46 2012; .

21.

Kim JH. Study on analysis algorithm of search direction and concentration of spatial information. Korean Institute Inter Des J. 25:80-89 2016;

22.

Kim YG, Lee HR. Effects of country-of-origin of foodstuff on purchase intention and acceptable price of restaurant menu. JFM. 17:161-180 2014; .

23.

Ko ES, Song KH, Cho SH, Kim JH. A study on neuro sports marketing by using pupil’s size of men: Focusing on basketball game. Sci Emot Sensib. 20:31-40 2017;

24.

Kosuke M, Toshiki S, Rui N, Ryuta K, Motoaki S. Anxiety increases visual attention to hedonic foods: A preliminary eyetracking study on the impact of the interplay between integral and incidental effect on foods. Appetite. 137:218-225 2019;

25.

Kwong LYL. The application of menu engineering and design in Asian restaurants. Int J Hosp Manag. 24:91-106 2005;

26.

Ma G, Zhuang X. Nutrition label processing in the past 10 years: Contributions from eye tracking approach. Appetite. 156:104859 2021;

27.

Manippa V, van der Laan, LN, Brancucci A, Smeets PA. Health body priming and food choice: An eye tracking study. Food Qual Prefer. 72:116-125 2019;

28.

Miller LMS, Cassady DL. The effects of nutrition knowledge on food label use. A review of the literature. Appetite. 92:207-216 2015;

29.

Milosavljevic M, Cerf M. First attention then intention: Insights from computational neuroscience of vision. Int J Advert. 27:381-398 2008;

30.

Monge-Rojas R, Smith-Castro V, , Colon-Ramos U, Aragon MC, Herrera-Raven F. Psychosocial factors influencing the frequency of fast-food consumption among urban and rural Costa Rican adolescents. Nutrition. 29:1007-1012 2013;

31.

Motoki K, Saito T, Nouchi R, Kawashima R, Sugiura M. Anxiety increases visual attention to hedonic foods: A preliminary eye-tracking study on the impact of the interplay between integral and incidental affect on foods. Appetite. 137:218-225 2019;

32.

Park SM, Kim JH. Visual perception characteristics of males and females found in realtime eye tracking of commercial spaces. Korean Institute Inter Des J. 28:146-153 2019;

33.

Reale S, Flint SW. The impact of menu label design on visual attention, food choice and recognition: An eye tracking study. J Sens Stud. 31:328-340 2016;

34.

Rebollar R, , Lidón I, , Martín J, Puebla M. The identification of viewing patterns of chocolate snack packages using eye-tracking techniques. Food Qual Prefer. 39:251-258 2015;

35.

Reutskaja E, Nagel R, Camerer CF, Rangel A. Search dynamics in consumer choice under time pressure: An eye-tracking study. Am Econ Rev. 101:900-926 2011;

36.

Shah T, Purohit G, Nair SP, Patel B, Rawal Y, Shah R. Assessment of obesity, overweight and its association with the fast food consumption in medical students. J Clin Diagn Res. 8:CC05 2014;

37.

Shin KO, Chung KH. Comparative study of dietary habits, mini dietary assessment scores, and health interest between female students in the department of food and nutrition and other departments, sahmyook university. J East Asian Soc Dietary Life. 20:341-351 2010; .

38.

Van Herpen E, Trijp HCM. Front-of-pack nutrition labels. Their effect on attention and choices when consumers have varying goals and time constraints. Appetite. 57:148-160 2011;

39.

Wang E, Cakmak YO, Peng M. Eating with eyes: Comparing eye movements and food choices between overweight and lean individuals in a real-life buffet setting. Appetite. 125:152-159 2018;

40.

Yokoyama T, Sakai H, Noguchi Y, Kita S. Perception of direct gaze does not require focus of attention. Sci Rep. 4:1-8 2014;

41.

Zhang B, Seo HS. Visual attention toward food-item images can vary as a function of background saliency and culture: An eye-tracking study. Food Quality Prefer. 41:172-179 2015;

Food Science and Preservation (FSP) reflected in Scopus

As of January 2024, the journal title has been changed to Food Science and Preservation (FSP).
We are pleased to announce that this has also been reflected in Scopus.
https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21101210730
We look forward to your interest and submissions to the journal.
Thank you.

 


I don't want to open this window for a day.