Content uploaded by Osman Çalışkan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Osman Çalışkan on Dec 17, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Akdeniz Universitesi]
On: 10 August 2015, At: 03:48
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
Click for updates
Journal of Foodservice Business
Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wfbr20
Menu Design: A Review of Literature
Bahattin Ozdemira & Osman Caliskana
a Gastronomy and Culinary Arts Department, Faculty of Tourism,
Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey
Published online: 02 Jul 2015.
To cite this article: Bahattin Ozdemir & Osman Caliskan (2015) Menu Design: A Review of Literature,
Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 18:3, 189-206, DOI: 10.1080/15378020.2015.1051428
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2015.1051428
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 18:189–206, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1537-8020 print/1537-8039 online
DOI: 10.1080/15378020.2015.1051428
Menu Design: A Review of Literature
BAHATTIN OZDEMIR and OSMAN CALISKAN
Gastronomy and Culinary Arts Department, Faculty of Tourism,
Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey
The objective of this study is to review the relevant literature on
menu design in an attempt to identify its dimensions and effects
on customers’ restaurant experiences. Based on previous research,
this review shows that menu design has four main dimensions:
menu item position, menu item description, menu item label, and
menu card characteristics. Furthermore, it is identified that menu
design has potential for influencing the item-ordering behavior of
restaurant customers. Menu design has two dimensions that have
considerable effects on customers’ menu item perceptions in four
domains including value, quality, healthfulness, and taste. Given
the scarcity of research that incorporates evidences and concepts of
previous studies into one single study, this review allows for broad-
ening the understanding of menu design and it also forms a basis
for future research.
KEYWORDS customers’ perceptions, item choice, menu design,
restaurant menu
INTRODUCTION
Recent years have witnessed a growing academic interest in restaurant menus
probably due to the view that menu is a key to success of restaurants (Antun
& Gustafson, 2005). In particular, existing studies on menu are related to the
areas of menu planning (Kivela, 2003); menu pricing (Iglesias & Guillen,
2002; Raab, Mayer, Kim, & Shoemaker, 2009); menu analysis (Taylor &
Brown, 2007), and menu design. Each study area of menu has its own
Address correspondence to Bahattin Ozdemir, Gastronomy and Culinary Arts
Department, Faculty of Tourism, Akdeniz University, Dumlupinar Bulvari, Antalya 07058,
Turkey. E-mail: bahattin@akdeniz.edu.tr
189
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
190 B. Ozdemir and O. Caliskan
research questions and is developing as a unique research context in which
the different aspects of menu (e.g., menu item selection process by menu
planners, customers’ perceptions of menu prices, menu item performance
evaluation and development) can be deeply understood.
Menu design has been gaining in popularity among menu researchers
and signaling as a freshly developing sub-field of research in the mainstream
menu literature. In this context, layout of a menu display is one domain that
has received a considerable attention from researchers (Bowen & Morris,
1995; Choi, Lee, & Mok, 2010; Kincaid & Corsun, 2003; Reynolds, Merritt,
& Pinckney, 2005; Sobol & Barry, 1980;Yang,2012). There are, in addition,
other domains in which menu design has also been examined. First, descrip-
tions in the menu have been studied in relation to customers’ item selections
(McCall & Lynn, 2008; Shoemaker, Dawson, & Johnson, 2005). Second, other
researchers have focused on investigating menu labels and their impact on
item choice (Guéguen & Jacob, 2012; Lockyer, 2006; Wansink, Painter, &
Van Ittersum, 2001). Third, a small amount of research has examined the
position of menu items in a menu category list (Dayan & Bar-Hillel, 2011).
Fourth, some researchers (Choi et al., 2010; Guéguen, Jacob, & Ardiccioni,
2012; Reynolds et al., 2005) investigated the association between design fea-
tures of a menu card and item sales. Fifth, some of those studies (McCall
& Lynn, 2008; Shoemaker et al., 2005; Wansink et al., 2001; Wansink, Van
Ittersum, & Painter, 2005) have also established and tested the relationships
between menu design variables (e.g., menu labels and descriptions) and
customers’ perceptions (e.g., taste, value, and quality), and they particu-
larly suggested that menu design may affect customers’ perceptions of the
menu items. Finally, the issue of information on the menu has been exam-
ined from the consumers’ perspective (Mills & Thomas, 2008). Alongside
those research studies, consultants and professionals also pay attention to
menu design issues and principally highlight that design of a menu dis-
play provides opportunities for restaurateurs to predict and improve the
item-ordering behavior of customers.
Given the above background, it is plausible to claim that both from aca-
demic and practical perspectives, menu design is regarded as a variable that
has a considerable potential in influencing customers’ item-ordering behav-
ior and perceptions. However, despite the growing attention to menu design,
there is a lack of an attempt at incorporating the evidences and concepts
of previous studies in one single study. Therefore, this article presents a
review of relevant literature to frame the current discussion on menu design
in attempt to identify its dimensions and effects on restaurant customers’
item choices and perceptions. As the menu is a key to influencing con-
sumer behavior in foodservice settings, this study could assist researchers
and restaurateurs in broadening the understanding of the role menu design
plays in customers’ restaurant experiences.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
Menu Design: A Review of Literature 191
LITERATURE REVIEW
Dimensions of Menu Design and Their Effects on Item Choice
Jones and Mifli (2001) suggest that menu has two separate meanings. First,
it refers to the range of food and beverage offerings made by a foodservice
outlet. Second, it means a display by which a foodservice establishment
communicates its offerings to customers. Menu design has to do with the
second meaning. Similarly, Bowen and Morris (1995) define the concept
of menu design in relation to the way a menu card or display is created.
Ozdemir (2012) also describes menu design concept as the creation of an
attractive menu card that not only provides information, but also directs
customers’ attention to the items that the foodservice establishment wants
to sell more. These definitions highlight the important role menu design
plays in restaurants’ communication with their customers. However, defini-
tions alone are not sufficient to understand the conceptual structure of menu
design. Therefore, additional to definitions, an examination of its dimensions
is essential to deepen our understanding of the concept.
A growing number of empirical studies investigate menu design and
its associations with item sales or item choice and they provide important
groundwork for understanding the phenomenon with its dimensions. Based
on the conceptual and empirical findings of those studies, it is evident that a
distinct set of factors may affect item sales or choice in the context of menu
design. These potential factors can be classified into the following four main
dimensions: menu item position, menu item description, menu item label,
and menu card characteristics. Table 1 presents the four dimensions along
with respective studies and factors influencing item sales or choice. The
following section elaborates on these dimensions by drawing evidence from
the menu design literature.
MENU ITEM POSITION
Menu item position refers to the location of the menu item both on the
menu card or board, and in a menu category list. The existing literature on
menu item position has sought answers to three major questions. First, does
a replacement of an item on a menu card result in an increase in its sales?
Second, does the position of a menu item in a menu category list influence
its choice by customers? Finally, are there some spots on a menu card that
are more visible than the remaining parts?
Existing research on the association between menu item position and
item sales has produced mixed findings. Some researchers have shown no
significant impact of menu item position on item sales while others have
found a positive effect of item position as it increases sales. The study by
Sobol and Barry (1980) is an early attempt at investigating the effect of menu
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
192 B. Ozdemir and O. Caliskan
TAB LE 1 Research Studies Investigating the Relationships Between Menu Design and Item
Sales or Choice
Menu design dimension
Factors influencing item sales or
choice Study
Menu item position Location of menu item on menu
board
Sobol and Barry (1980)
Location of menu item on menu
card
Bowen and Morris (1995)
Kincaid and Corsun (2003)
Reynolds et al. (2005)
Choi et al. (2010)
Position of menu item in a menu
category list
Dayan and Bar-Hillel (2011)
Menu item description Details of item description Shoemaker et al. (2005)
Complexity of menu item
descriptions
McCall and Lynn (2008)
Presentation of nutritional
information for menu items
Hwang and Lorenzen (2008)
Calorie labels of menu items Roberto, Larsen, Agnew,
Baik, and Brownell (2010)
Presentation of nutritional
information for menu items
Pulos and Leng (2010)
Presentation of calorie information
in different formats
Liu, Roberto, Liu, and
Brownell (2012)
Menu item label Descriptive labels of menu items Wansink et al. (2001)
Descriptive menu item names Wansink et al. (2005)
Names of menu items Lockyer (2006)
Affective menu item labels Guéguen and Jacob (2012)
Menu card characteristics Boxing of menu item Reynolds et al. (2005)
Design features as graphics and
marks on menu
Choi et al. (2010)
Pictures of the sea, countryside,
and kitchen scene
Guéguen et al. (2012)
item position on item sales. Specifically, they associate entree location on a
menu board with item sales and find that the placement of entrees on a menu
board significantly and positively influences item sales. However, research by
Bowen and Morris (1995), Kincaid and Corsun (2003), and Reynolds et al.
(2005) presents controversial findings. In those studies, researchers employ a
similar experimental research design in which targeted menu items’ sales are
tracked in pre- and post-menu treatment periods. In the post-menu treatment
period, the targeted menu items are repositioned in the focal points of menu
card where they are expected to receive the most attention from customers.
The results of experiments reveal that there is no significant difference in
item sales between two subsequent periods. Alternatively, Dayan and Bar-
Hillel (2011) investigate the association between the position of items in a
menu category list and their sales. The results show that people are more
likely to order items at the top or bottom of the list rather than items at
the middle of list. This finding signifies that ordering of menu category is
important since the position of an item in the list may affect its sales.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
Menu Design: A Review of Literature 193
The conceptual framework adopted by those studies largely relies on
gaze motion studies and the rule of primacy and recency. Briefly, it is argued
that there exists an identifiable pattern of customers’ gaze movements across
the menu card and people can more accurately recall the first and last items
on a list. In gaze motion studies, the gaze motion patterns of customers are
identified by investigating how they move their eyes across the menu card
and how much time they spent in viewing a particular place on the menu.
It is suggested that people read menus in a predictable pattern and menu
sweet spots emerge depending on where their initial and final glances focus
on. These are considered as the menu’s most visible locations. Placement
of menu items in these spots may increase their sales. However, researchers
(Choi et al., 2010;Yang,2012) have recently begun to question conventional
sweet spots proposed by gaze motion studies. Their empirical findings sug-
gest that customers’ gaze movements across the menu may not be identical to
the models proposed by traditional wisdom. Nevertheless, Choi et al. (2010)
also report empirical findings that respondents tend to order items placed on
the menu where their eyes first gaze. Despite some controversial findings,
much of the relevant literature proposes that the position of items both on a
menu card and in a menu category list may affect item sales. Furthermore,
the literature also maintains the idea that whether it is consistent with the
traditional wisdom or not, there might be sweet spots on the menu card
where the customers glance first or finally focus, and items positioned at
those spots may generate higher sales than their regular placements.
MENU ITEM DESCRIPTION
Menu item description refers to providing relevant and sufficient informa-
tion about menu items on menu card. In the relevant literature, there exist
two major questions in relation to item descriptions. First, what sort of infor-
mation do customers expect from menu? Second, do descriptions of menu
items affect their sales? Related research presents evidences that restaurant
customers expect specific information from menus. For instance, Mills and
Thomas (2008) demonstrate that restaurant customers wish to see nutri-
tion information (calorie and fat), product information (harmfulness and
ingredients), and food preparation information (cooking method, quality,
and ingredients) on menus. Additionally, Mackison, Wrieden, and Anderson
(2009) report that consumers welcome information on ingredients and nutri-
tion composition (salt, energy, and fat content) of menu items. The common
conclusion of those studies is that relevant information is likely to assist cus-
tomers in making more informed choices. Additionally, the study by Thomas
and Mills (2006) reveals that consumers desire to see a consistency between
the information provided in an item’s description and its actual presenta-
tion. A supporting finding, reported by Hartwell and Edwards (2009), is that
menu descriptions are expected to accurately reflect the dish presented in a
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
194 B. Ozdemir and O. Caliskan
hospital foodservice setting. The literature seems to encourage the argument
that restaurant customers consider the variety and accuracy of information
presented on restaurant menus.
Several studies investigate the associations between menu item descrip-
tions and customers’ item choice. In this investigation, researchers hypothe-
size that detailed description of an item positively influences the probability
of choosing that item. This argument receives support from empirical find-
ings of studies by Shoemaker et al. (2005) and McCall and Lynn (2008).
Employing an experimental research design, Shoemaker et al. (2005) reveal
that since detailed menu descriptions negate the impact of price increases on
the menu items, they positively influence item selection. Alternatively, McCall
and Lynn (2008) demonstrate that menu items described in more complex
terms are more desirable than those items with less complex descriptions.
Thus, complexity of an item’s description enhances its popularity.
Recently, providing nutrition information in descriptions has begun to
receive a particular academic attention because it is believed that inform-
ing customers about nutritional content of menu items may help them make
healthier choices. Hwang and Lorenzen (2008) show that customers desire
to see information about calories, macronutrients (protein, carbohydrates),
and fat content of menu items, whereas providing too much nutritional
information in item descriptions may overload customers and be ineffec-
tive. Moreover, they reveal that a sufficient amount of nutrition information
may assist customers in recognizing the healthier menu items and selecting
them over unhealthy options. Subsequent research studies also present find-
ings that support this argument. Accordingly, restaurant customers can notice
the nutrition information on menu and they may use it in their item ordering
(Roberto et al., 2010; Yoon & George, 2012). Additionally, consumers may
order items lower in calories and fat when they are provided with nutritional
information on menus (Liu et al., 2012; Pulos & Leng, 2010). Presenting the
consistent empirical evidences noted above, the relevant literature concludes
that menu item descriptions may affect item-ordering behavior of customers.
MENU ITEM LABEL
Menu item label refers to naming menu items with evocative labels instead
of regular names. In the relevant literature, it is widely questioned whether
names on the labels influence the item choice behavior of customers. In fact,
the previous research on menu item label assumes that evocative labels
appealing to the senses can help customers blend a positive image what
is to come (Lockyer, 2006) and presents empirical evidences that changing
menu item labels from regular names to suggestive ones may influence item
sales.
Wansink et al. (2001) have made a relatively early attempt at explain-
ing how labels of menu items increase sales. They compare the sales of
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
Menu Design: A Review of Literature 195
evocatively labeled menu items with their regular-label counterparts. Results
show that when menu items are labeled with suggestive names, their sales
can increase by more than one-fourth. In another research article by Wansink
et al. (2005), researchers examine the influence of evocative labels on post-
consumption evaluations of menu items. Their underlying assumption is that
the pre-consumption expectations assimilated by evocative labels have a
sizeable impact on subsequent post-consumption evaluations. In an experi-
mental research design, respondents are asked to comment on menu items
that they have consumed at the faculty cafeteria. Qualitative analysis of
respondents’ comments reveals that those who consume menu items with
evocative labels generate a larger number of positive comments than those
consume regular-label counterparts.
The previous research also considers the effects of using different words
and different types of labels on item selection. For instance, Lockyer (2006)
examines the use of different words on menu item labels. Empirical findings
obtained through focus groups and survey on potential restaurant cus-
tomers reveal that some words on menu item labels have a mouth-watering
effect and become strong persuaders that influence customers’ item choices.
Specifically, suggestive words such as “tender,” “golden,” and “natural” posi-
tively affect customers’ choice of menu items. Wansink et al. (2001) claim that
some adjectives used on a menu item label can help trigger different feel-
ings and expectations of consumers. Accordingly, they suggest four types of
labels, including geographic, affective, sensory, and brand labels. An empir-
ical test of different labels’ effect on item sales has been recently undertaken
by Guéguen and Jacob (2012). Their research focuses on affective labels
including family, tradition and patriotism and reveals that these types of
labels are associated with greater sales than regular names. Moreover, their
findings also indicate that family labels can generate higher sales than tra-
ditional and patriotism labels. It seems that literature on menu item label
presents sufficient evidences that signify the remarkable effect of labels on
customers’ item-ordering behavior.
MENU CARD CHARACTERISTICS
Menu card characteristics refer to features of menu card including copy,
color, paper, typeface, size, photo, and use of boxes (Bowen & Morris,
1995; Kincaid & Corsun, 2003; Kwong, 2005; Reynolds et al., 2005). Much of
the literature on menu card characteristics includes suggestions of industry
professionals or menu designers published in industrial magazines or hand-
books. For instance, Hensdill (1998) suggests that a menu item with a picture,
in a box or in a different color can generate higher sales than its regular pre-
sentation. A similar effect on sales can be created through using all uppercase
type or a larger type size for words; italicizing the typeface or putting it in
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
196 B. Ozdemir and O. Caliskan
bold print, and using an exotic font (Kotschevar, 1987). In addition, Sheridan
(2001) highlights that menu card should be readable in any lighting, its size
should be proportional to the size of table, any changes should easily be
assembled into the menu card, it should be soil- and water-resistant, and it
should also complement the atmosphere and style of restaurant.
There also exist some studies that have empirically tested the effects
of menu card characteristics on item sales. However, they have reported
conflicting findings. Reynolds et al. (2005) find that presenting menu items
in boxes fails to increase sales of those items while Choi et al. (2010) reveal
that menu card characteristics may influence the sales of particular items
featured by using graphics or marks. Moreover, Guéguen et al. (2012), in an
experimental research study, demonstrate that pictures related with the sea
significantly increase the consumption of fish dishes, whereas the pictures
of a countryside landscape do not significantly affect the consumption of
meat dishes. In spite of the controversial findings of previous research, the
relevant literature appears to show the potential of menu card characteristics
in influencing item selections of customers.
ADDITIONAL EFFECTS OF MENU DESIGN
By reviewing available research evidence in the hospitality literature, this
study identified four dimensions of menu design which have consider-
able effects on item-ordering behavior of customers. Additionally, some
of the previous research noted above has also examined the relationships
between menu design and customers’ perceptions. Thus, relying on the
findings of previous research, Table 2 was built to demonstrate the relation-
ships between menu design dimensions and customers’ item perceptions.
As shown in Table 2, two menu design dimensions (menu item label and
descriptions) affect four domains of customers’ item perceptions: value, qual-
ity, healthfulness, and taste. Undoubtedly, these perceptions are also critical
variables of restaurant experiences in relation to restaurant choice, food
TAB LE 2 Relationships Between Menu Design Dimensions and Item Perceptions
Menu design
dimension Research studies
Customers’
item
perception
Menu item description Shoemaker et al. (2005)Value
McCall and Lynn (2008) Quality
Hwang and Lorenzen (2008); Roberto et al. (2010);
Pulos and Leng (2010); Liu et al. (2012); Yoon
and George (2012)
Healthfulness
Menu item label Wansink et al. (2001) Value; quality
Wansink et al. (2005)Taste
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
Menu Design: A Review of Literature 197
choice, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Thus, referring to the liter-
atures on menu design, food choice, restaurant choice, and satisfaction and
behavioral intentions in restaurants, each domain of item perception will be
detailed in the paragraphs that follow.
Value Perception
In the restaurant service context, numerous research studies have demon-
strated the role of perceived value in the customers’ purchase decisions and
assessments of meal experience (Jensen & Hansen, 2007). For instance, Auty
(1992) empirically reveals that value is one of the most influential factors
in consumers’ restaurant selection decisions. Consumers also consider value
as an important selection factor for their meal choices (Myung, McCool, &
Feinstein, 2008). Additionally, several researchers empirically demonstrate
that perceived value has a significant role in influencing customer satisfac-
tion and behavioral intentions in fine-dining restaurants (Arora & Singer,
2006); quick-casual restaurants (Ryu, Han, & Kim, 2008), and luxury hotel
restaurants (Wu & Liang, 2009).
Considering the importance of perceived value in restaurant experi-
ences, some researchers investigate the influence of menu design on value
perceptions of customers. Wansink et al. (2001) reveal that customers who
consume menu items labeled with evocative names rate them as being bet-
ter value than do customers who order items with regular labels. Shoemaker
et al. (2005) examined the impact of menu item descriptions on value per-
ception and their empirical findings show that detailed descriptions act
as an anchor and accordingly, customers focus on that anchor instead of
prices while making their judgments about menu items. Thus, descriptions
improve their value perceptions of items. Consequently, it is plausible to
claim that evocative names and detailed descriptions of menu items reinforce
the favorable perceptions of value.
Quality Perception
It is known that food quality plays a pivotal role in the restaurant experience
since it is a necessary condition to satisfy the needs and expectations of cus-
tomers (Teng & Chang, 2013). For example, the findings of research studies
by Lewis (1981), Auty (1992), and Cullen (2005) indicate that food quality
is the first or second most important restaurant selection factor. Moreover,
Kivela, Inbakaran, and Reece (2000), Sulek and Hensley (2004) and Weiss,
Feinstein, and Dalbor (2004) empirically show that food quality is signifi-
cantly related to customer satisfaction and it is also a significant predictor of
behavioral intentions.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
198 B. Ozdemir and O. Caliskan
Regarding the role of food quality in restaurant experiences, menu
design researchers also pay attention to association between menu design
and quality perceptions of customers. For instance, in order to test the effect
of menu item labels on quality perceptions of customers, Wansink et al.
(2001) compare the ratings of respondents who order evocatively labeled
items with those who choose items with regular names. Findings indicate
that menu items with evocative names are rated as being of higher qual-
ity than regular-label items. The study by McCall and Lynn (2008) presents
empirical evidences that the complexity of descriptions positively affects the
customers’ quality perceptions of menu items. Specifically, when items are
described in more complex terms, customers perceive those items higher
in quality. It seems that customers who are exposed to evocative names or
complex descriptions may tend to be more positive in their judgments of
food quality.
Taste Perception
Taste is one food sensory attribute that can actually be evaluated only
after the consumption of food. Nevertheless, consumers try to predict the
taste experience before consumption by using some signals, such as brand
name, price, and quality labels of food (Lodorfos & Dennis, 2008). In the
foodservice context, there is a lack of research on how customers evalu-
ate the taste of food although there exist several research studies that have
demonstrated the significant role of taste in food choice (O’Mahony & Hall,
2007) and satisfaction with restaurant services (Kivela et al., 2000).
Some of menu design researchers provide an explanation to how cus-
tomers evaluate the taste of food in the unique context of menu design. For
example, Wansink et al. (2005) investigate whether menu item names sugges-
tively influence the perceived taste of restaurant food. They find that when
an item on a restaurant menu is labeled by an evocative name, it is perceived
as tastier than when regular name is used for that item. Moreover, Wansink
et al. (2005) claim that evocative labels affect not only the pre-consumption
expectations but also the post-consumption evaluations of taste. In the pre-
consumption phase, evocative names assist customers in predicting the taste
experience that is to come, and in the post-consumption phase, those names
positively influence how the customers evaluate the taste of food if the actual
experience is not far less below the expectations.
Evocative names may also be associated with cultural dimension of
taste. Researchers (Allen, Gupta, & Monnier, 2008; O’Mahony & Hall, 2007)
highlight the linkage between taste and culture, and posit that consumers
consider the cultural symbols and associations of food when they judge its
taste besides sensory attributes of food. As mentioned earlier, Guéguen and
Jacob (2012) demonstrate that menu item labels of family, tradition, and
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
Menu Design: A Review of Literature 199
patriotism may increase the sales of items with those labels. In fact, those
labels have associations with cultural domain. It is probable to assume that
family, tradition, and patriotism labels associate with the taste of one’s own
culture and lead customers to choose menu items with those labels because
they believe that those items are culturally familiar to them.
Healthfulness Perception
Relying on the previous studies in the foodservice literature, it is safe to
claim that health concerns have considerable effects on consumers’ expecta-
tions and restaurant and food choices. Examining the important domains of
restaurant customers’ expectations, Antun, Frash, Costen, and Runyan (2010)
find that health including low-calorie options and healthy food is one of
the important domains besides food, service, atmosphere, and social fac-
tors. Regarding the restaurant choice decisions of consumers, Choi and Zhao
(2010) indicate that health issue is the second most important factor which
influences consumers’ behavior when selecting restaurants in South Florida.
In that study, it is also revealed that health issue includes four attributes—
low calorie, meals that support personal dietary plan, variety of healthy
meals, and nutritional value. Furthermore, Myung et al. (2008) identify four
types of meal-choice behavior as extended, repetitive, exploratory, and eco-
nomic purchase. In the extended purchase, consumers principally consider
the health attributes of food including healthy food, nutritional characteris-
tics, and freshness. It seems that restaurant customers are becoming more
inclined to choose healthy food and they form their healthfulness perception
of food on the attributes such as low calorie, low sodium, low fat, nutritional
value, and suitability of food for their dietary plan.
In line with the trend toward healthy eating in restaurants, the recent
research by Hwang and Lorenzen (2008), Roberto et al. (2010), Pulos and
Leng (2010),Liuetal.(2012), and Yoon and George (2012) reports empirical
evidences that the availability of sufficient nutritional information in menu
item descriptions has an important effect on customers’ healthfulness percep-
tion of food. Specifically, this literature advocates that nutrition information
leads customers to perceive that particular items are healthy options and
accordingly they may change their selection behaviors to make healthier
choices.
FUTURE LINES OF RESEARCH
The literature review summarized in Tables 1 and 2shows that menu design
is a multi-dimensional construct, its dimensions have a considerable poten-
tial in influencing item-ordering behavior of restaurant customers, and two of
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
200 B. Ozdemir and O. Caliskan
its dimensions (e.g., menu item description and label) may affect customers’
menu item perceptions. Thus, a review of existing research shows that menu
design has considerable effects on two critical variables of customers’ restau-
rant experiences: item-ordering behavior and item perceptions. This review
also provides insights to suggestions for future lines of research in menu
design field.
Since there are very few research studies and some of them have ques-
tionable empirical validity (i.e., due to small sample sizes, samples including
only students or lack of information about validity, and reliability of mea-
surement instruments) it is too early to draw some general conclusions from
the existing menu design literature. Therefore, primarily more research stud-
ies with larger sample sizes and employing valid and reliable measurement
instruments are needed to investigate the relations between menu design
and item choice, and menu design and customer perceptions in order to
further validate the existing findings of previous research.
From a theoretical perspective, Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974) stimulus-
organism-response (SOR) model may provide a possible theoretical frame-
work to further investigate the relationships between menu design and item
choice. Previously, Guéguen et al. (2012) have used SOR model to explain
the theoretical underpinnings of the association between menu card char-
acteristics (pictures of the sea, countryside, and kitchen scene) and item
choice. Similarly, this model appears to be helpful for understanding the the-
oretical background of relationships among menu design, item perception,
and item choice. In fact, this theoretical model demonstrates the influence
of physical environment on human behavior (Liu & Jang, 2009). The model
posits that external environment presents stimuli (S) which lead individuals
to make evaluations (O), and these evaluations further elicit their behav-
ioral responses as approach or avoidance (R). In the menu design context,
cues provided by a menu display (e.g., menu card or menu board) might
be environmental stimuli which activate customers’ positive perceptions of
a particular menu item because of their associated pre-consumption favor-
able evaluations such as tasty, healthy, valuable, or quality food. As a
result, customers may exhibit an approach behavior and choose that item.
Consequently, the subtle cues provided by menu display, which are present
in the immediate environment, may have a notable impact on customers’
favorable item perceptions and item selection behaviors. For future studies,
it is advisable to employ the SOR model while examining the relationships
among menu design dimensions, item perceptions, and item choice.
It can be claimed deductively that menu item perceptions of customers,
viewed as the interpretation process by which customers make sense of
the menu items, may affect item choice. Accordingly, the likelihood of a
customer’s choosing a specific menu item may increase when he or she has
favorable perceptions in the domains of taste, health, value, and quality.
However, systematic empirical research is needed to understand the impact
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
Menu Design: A Review of Literature 201
of customers’ item perceptions on their item-ordering behavior. Specifically,
further research may investigate the mediating role of customer perceptions
in the relationship between menu design dimensions and item choice with
developing and testing conceptual models.
In fact, menu item choice behavior may be affected by a wide range
of interacting factors aside from menu item perceptions of customers. For
example, the previous studies (O’Mahony & Hall, 2007; Prescott, Young,
O’Neill, Yau, & Stevens, 2002) on food choice suggest that a variety of factors
(e.g., price, familiarity, food safety, perceived body image, culture, market-
ing campaigns, and convenience) have considerable impact on consumers’
food choice decisions. Following this argument, it is also possible to suggest
that future research may comparatively investigate the effects of food choice
factors and menu design on item choice of restaurant customers.
Additionally, information needs of restaurant customers may have an
important role in the relationship between menu design and item choice,
which has not been examined in the relevant literature. It is known that
information search and past experience increase the customers’ familiarity
with a restaurant and its food offerings (Bei, Chen, Rha, & Widdows, 2003;
Pedraja & Yagüe, 2001). Moreover, as discovered by Ryu and Zhong (2012),
propensity for risk-taking behavior is a good predictor of menu choice, in
that sometimes consumers are inclined to choose a familiar food because
they want to reduce potential risks. Thus, familiarity might be a powerful
determinant of menu item choice and this argument raises some ques-
tions. If customers have sufficient and reliable information about menu item
options offered by a restaurant and are familiar with its food offerings before
they enter the restaurant, then will they need any information provided in a
menu card? In this case, what sort of a role can menu design play? Otherwise,
if consumers have no idea of what they want to eat before entering the
restaurant, does the information provided by menu card has stronger effects
on consumers’ item ordering? An empirical attempt at addressing these ques-
tions would be an interesting study. Therefore, in further research, it will
be appropriate to test the relationships between the customers’ need to use
menu card as an information source, and their familiarity with restaurant’s
offerings.
CONCLUSION
The current article provides a review of literature relevant to menu design
and this review shows that menu design is a multi-dimensional construct.
By analyzing the empirical and conceptual findings of previous studies, the
current study proposes that menu design can be theoretically categorized
into four main dimensions: menu item position, menu item description,
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
202 B. Ozdemir and O. Caliskan
menu item label, and menu card characteristics. Furthermore, review of
menu design research highlights that menu design may influence the cus-
tomers’ item choice and item perceptions. Specifically, menu design affects
customers’ item perceptions in four domains including taste, healthfulness,
value, and quality.
In-depth knowledge pertaining to factors influencing consumers’ item
choice is extremely valuable to restaurant managers in improving the item-
ordering behavior of their customers. In this regard, two perspectives are
equally important. From restaurant managers’ perspective the key to menu
design is to increasing the attractiveness of specific menu items. Indeed,
menu design largely focuses on particular menu items and the purpose
is to increase the probability that the particular items are more frequently
purchased by restaurant customers. From consumers’ perspective, restaurant
customers need to form their perceptions about menu items on which they
base their item choice decisions. From this viewpoint, menu design is sup-
posed to convey enough information to customers so that they can properly
choose menu items that they believe to provide best benefits. Thus, menu
design may assist customers in making more informed choices. As shown
by the review in the current study, menu design, item perception, and item
choice are interconnected constructs and all are important in the restaurant
consumers’ purchase decisions. Therefore, industry professionals should pay
far more attention to menu design dimensions in every segment of the indus-
try. Management action should be planned and employed to increase the
attractiveness of positive menu items relying on the menu design strategies.
In doing so, menu design literature, which is summarized in this article, will
help restaurateurs.
REFERENCES
Allen, M. W., Gupta, R., & Monnier, A. (2008). The interactive effect of cultural
symbols and human values on taste evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research,
35, 294–308. doi:10.1086/586908
Antun, J. M., Frash, R. E., Costen, W., & Runyan, R. C. (2010). Accurately assessing
expectations most important to restaurant patrons: The creation of the DinEX
scale. Journal of Foodservice Business Research,13, 360–379. doi:10.1080/
15378020.2010.524539
Antun, J. M., & Gustafson, C. M. (2005). Menu analysis: Design, merchandising,
and pricing strategies used by successful restaurants and private clubs. Journal
of Nutrition in Recipe & Menu Development,3(3/4), 81–102. doi:10.1300/
J071v03n03_07
Arora, R., & Singer, J. (2006). Customer satisfaction and value as drivers of business
success for fine dining restaurants. Services Marketing Quarterly,28(1), 89–102.
doi:10.1300/J396v28n01_05
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
Menu Design: A Review of Literature 203
Auty, S. (1992). Consumer choice and segmentation in the restaurant industry. The
Service Industries Journal,12(3), 324–339. doi:10.1080/02642069200000042
Bei, L., Chen, E. Y. I., Rha, J. -Y., & Widdows, R. (2003). Consumers’ online
information search for a new restaurant for dining-out: A comparison of U.S.
and Taiwan consumers. Journal of Foodservice Business Research,6(3), 15–36.
doi:10.1300/J369v06n03_03
Bowen, J. T., & Morris, A. J. (1995). Menu design: Can menus sell? International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,7(4), 4–9. doi:10.1108/
09596119510091699
Choi, J., & Zhao, J. (2010). Factors influencing restaurant selection in South Florida:
Is health issue one of the factors influencing consumers’ behavior when
selecting a restaurant? Journal of Foodservice Business Research,13, 237–251.
doi:10.1080/15378020.2010.500254
Choi, J. G., Lee, B., & Mok, J. (2010). An experiment on psychological gaze motion:
A re-examination of item selection behavior of restaurant customers. Journal of
Global Business and Technology,6(1), 68–79.
Cullen, F. (2005). Factors influencing restaurant selection in Dublin. Journal of
Foodservice Business Research,7(2), 53–85. doi:10.1300/J369v07n02_05
Dayan, E., & Bar-Hillel, M. (2011). Nudge to nobesity II: Menu position influences
food orders. Judgment and Decision Making,6, 333–342.
Guéguen, N., & Jacob, C. (2012). The effect of menu labels associated with affect,
tradition, and patriotism on sales. Food Quality and Preference,23(1), 86–88.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.07.001
Guéguen, N., Jacob, C., & Ardiccioni, R. (2012). Effect of watermarks as visual
cues for guiding consumer choice: An experiment with restaurant menus.
International Journal of Hospitality Management,31, 617–619. doi:10.1016/
j.ijhm.2011.04.008
Hartwell, H., & Edwards, J. (2009). Descriptive menus and branding in hospital
foodservice: A pilot study. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management,21, 906–916. doi:10.1108/09596110910985359
Hensdill, C. (1998). A guide to menu engineering. Hotels,32(1), 69–72.
Hwang, J., & Lorenzen, C. L. (2008). Effective nutrition labeling of restaurant menu
and pricing of healthy menu. Journal of Foodservice,19, 270–276. doi:10.1111/
fri.2008.19.issue-5
Iglesias, M. P., & Guillen, M. J. Y. (2002). The components of total perceived price:
An empirical analysis in restaurant services. Journal of Foodservice Business
Research,5(1), 1–22. doi:10.1300/J369v05n01_01
Jensen, Ø., & Hansen, K. V. (2007). Consumer values among restaurant customers.
International Journal of Hospitality Management,26 , 603–622. doi:10.1016/
j.ijhm.2006.05.004
Jones, P., & Mifli, M. (2001). Menu development and analysis in UK restaurant chains.
Tourism and Hospitality Research,3(1), 61–71.
Kincaid, C. S., & Corsun, D. L. (2003). Are consultants blowing smoke? An
empirical test of the impact of menu layout on item sales. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,15, 226–231. doi:10.1108/
09596110310475685
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
204 B. Ozdemir and O. Caliskan
Kivela, J. (2003). Results of a qualitative approach to menu planning using control
and experimental groups. Journal of Foodservice Business Research,6(4), 43–65.
doi:10.1300/J369v06n04_03
Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R., & Reece, J. (2000). Consumer research in the restau-
rant environment. Part 3: Analysis, findings, and conclusions. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,12(1), 13–30. doi:10.1108/
09596110010304984
Kotschevar, L. H. (1987). Management by menu. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kwong, L. Y. L. (2005). The application of menu engineering and design in Asian
restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management,24(1), 91–106.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2004.05.002
Lewis, R. (1981). Restaurant advertising: Appeals and consumers’ intentions. Journal
of Advertising Research,21(5), 69–74.
Liu, P. J., Roberto, C. A., Liu, L. J., & Brownell, K. D. (2012). A test of different menu
labeling presentations. Appetite,59, 770–777. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2012.08.011
Liu, Y., & Jang, S. S. (2009). The effects of dining atmospherics: An extended
Mehrabian-Russell model. International Journal of Hospitality Management,28,
494–503. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.01.002
Lockyer, T. (2006). Would a restaurant menu item by any other name taste as sweet?
FUI Hospitality Review,24(1), 21–31.
Lodorfos, G. N., & Dennis, J. (2008). Consumers’ intent: In the organic food
market. Journal of Food Products Marketing,14(2), 17–38. doi:10.1080/
10454440801918218
Mackison, D., Wrieden, W. L., & Anderson, A. S. (2009). Making an informed choice
in the catering environment: What do consumers want to know? Journal of
Human Nutrition and Dietetics,22, 567–573. doi:10.1111/jhn.2009.22.issue-6
McCall, M., & Lynn, A. (2008). The effects of restaurant menu item descriptions on
perceptions of quality, price, and purchase intention. Journal of Foodservice
Business Research,11, 439–445. doi:10.1080/15378020802519850
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mills, J. E., & Thomas, L. (2008). Assessing customer expectations of information
provided on restaurant menus: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research,32(1), 62–88. doi:10.1177/1096348007309569
Myung, E., McCool, A. C., & Feinstein, A. H. (2008). Understanding attributes affect-
ing meal choice decisions in a bundling context. International Journal of
Hospitality Management,27 (1), 119–125. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.07.014
O’Mahony, B., & Hall, J. (2007). An exploratory analysis of the factors that influ-
ence food choice among young women. International Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Administration,8(2), 51–72. doi:10.1300/J149v08n02_03
Ozdemir, B. (2012). A review on menu performance investigation and some
guiding propositions. Journal of Foodservice Business Research,15, 378–397.
doi:10.1080/15378020.2012.734217
Pedraja, M., & Yagüe, J. (2001). What information do customers use when choosing
a restaurant? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
13, 316–318. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005966
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
Menu Design: A Review of Literature 205
Prescott, J., Young, O., O’Neill, L., Yau, N. J. N., & Stevens, R. (2002). Motives
for food choice: A comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia,
and New Zealand. Food Quality and Preference,13, 489–495. doi:10.1016/
S0950-3293(02)00010-1
Pulos, E., & Leng, K. (2010). Evaluation of a voluntary menu-labeling program in
full-service restaurants. American Journal of Public Health,100, 1035–1039.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.174839
Raab, C., Mayer, K., Kim, Y. -S., & Shoemaker, S. (2009). Price-sensitivity mea-
surement: A tool for restaurant menu pricing. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research,33(1), 93–105. doi:10.1177/1096348008329659
Reynolds, D., Merritt, E. A., & Pinckney, S. (2005). Understanding menu psy-
chology: An empirical investigation of menu design and customer response.
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration,6(1), 1–9.
doi:10.1300/J149v06n01_01
Roberto, C. A., Larsen, P. D., Agnew, M. H., Baik, J., & Brownell, K. D. (2010).
Evaluating the impact of menu labeling on food choices and intake. American
Journal of Public Health,100, 312–318. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.160226
Ryu, K., Han, H., & Kim, T. (2008). The relationships among overall quick-
casual restaurant image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral
intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management,27 , 459–469.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.11.001
Ryu, K., & Zhong, Y. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of customers’ menu
choice in an authentic Chinese restaurant context. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management,21, 852–871. doi:10.1080/19368623.2011.615023
Sheridan, M. (2001). Essential reading: Designing menus to suit a restaurant.
Restaurants & Institutions,111(22), 87.
Shoemaker, S., Dawson, M., & Johnson, W. (2005). How to increase menu prices
without alienating your customers. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management,17 , 553–568. doi:10.1108/09596110510620636
Sobol, M. G., & Barry, T. E. (1980). Item positioning for profits: Menu boards at
bonanza international. The Institute of Management Sciences,10(1), 55–60.
Sulek, J. M., & Hensley, R. L. (2004). The relative importance of food, atmo-
sphere, and fairness of wait: The case of a full-service restaurant. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,45, 235–247. doi:10.1177/
0010880404265345
Taylor, J., & Brown, D. M. (2007). Menu analysis: A review of techniques and
approaches. FUI Hospitality Review,25(2), 74–82.
Teng, C., & Chang, J. (2013). Mechanism of customer value in restaurant consump-
tion: Employee hospitality and entertainment cues as boundary conditions.
International Journal of Hospitality Management,32, 169–178. doi:10.1016/
j.ijhm.2012.05.008
Thomas, L., & Mills, J. E. (2006). Consumer knowledge and expectations of restau-
rant menus and their governing legislation: A qualitative assessment. Journal of
Foodservice,17(1), 6–22. doi:10.1111/fri.2006.17.issue-1
Wansink, B., Painter, J., & Van Ittersum, K. (2001). Descriptive menu labels’ effect on
sales. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,42(6), 68–72.
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
206 B. Ozdemir and O. Caliskan
Wansink, B., Van Ittersum, K., & Painter, J. E. (2005). How descriptive food names
bias sensory perceptions in restaurants. Food Quality and Preference,16,
393–400. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.06.005
Weiss, R., Feinstein, A. H., & Dalbor, M. (2004). Customer satisfaction of theme
restaurant attributes and their influence on return intent. Journal of Foodservice
Business Research,7(1), 23–41. doi:10.1300/J369v07n01_03
Wu, C. H., & Liang, R. (2009). Effect of experiential value on customer satisfaction
with service encounters in luxury-hotel restaurants. International Journal of
Hospitality Management,28, 586–593. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.03.008
Yang, S. S. (2012). Eye movements on restaurant menus: A revisitation on
gaze motion and consumer scanpaths. International Journal of Hospitality
Management,31, 1021–1029. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.12.008
Yoon, H. J., & George, T. (2012). Nutritional information disclosure on the menu:
Focusing on the roles of menu context, nutritional knowledge, and motivation.
International Journal of Hospitality Management,31, 1187–1194. doi:10.1016/
j.ijhm.2012.02.006
Downloaded by [Akdeniz Universitesi] at 03:48 10 August 2015
