Do pictures help? The effects of pictures and food names on menu evaluations

Abstract

Presenting pictures along with food names on menus is a common practice in the restaurant industry. However, it is not clear whether adding pictures to menus always leads to positive effects. In addition, since more restaurant practitioners are creating ambiguous names for their dishes, it is valuable to study how pictures with different types of food names impact customers’ attitudes and behavioral outcomes. In the current study, we examine the joint effect of pictures, food names, and individuals’ information processing styles on consumers’ attitudes, willingness to pay, and purchase intentions. The results reveal that for common descriptive food names, adding pictures have a positive effect on consumers’ attitudes toward the menu item, their willingness to pay and their purchase intentions. More interestingly, for ambiguous food names, pictures have a positive effect only among verbalizers. Visualizers exhibit less favorable attitudes and behavioral outcomes after viewing ambiguously-named dishes with pictures than those without pictures.

Full text

1
Do Pictures Help? The Effects of Pictures and Food Names on Menu
Evaluations
1
Yu an si Ho u
Durham University Business School, Durham University, United Kingdom
Wan Yang*
The Collins College of Hospitality Management, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona,
CA, USA
*Corresponding author
Yixia Sun
Business Administration, School of Management, Zhejiang University, China
ABSTRACT
Presenting pictures along with food names on menus is a common practice in
the restaurant industry. However, it is not clear whether adding pictures to menus
always leads to positive effects. In addition, since more restaurant practitioners are
creating ambiguous names for their dishes, it is valuable to study how pictures with
different types of food names impact customers’ attitudes and behavioral outcomes. In
the current study, we examine the joint effect of pictures, food names, and individuals’
information processing styles on consumers’ attitudes, willingness to pay, and
purchase intentions. The results reveal that for common descriptive food names,
adding pictures have a positive effect on consumers’ attitudes toward the menu item,
their willingness to pay and their purchase intentions. More interestingly, for
ambiguous food names, pictures have a positive effect only among verbalizers.
Visualizers exhibit less favorable attitudes and behavioral outcomes after viewing
ambiguously-named dishes with pictures than those without pictures.
Key Words: menu design; picture effect; food names; consumer information
processing style
1
This article should be cited as follows:
Hou, Y., Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2017). Do pictures help? The effects of pictures and food names on menu
evaluations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 60, 94-103.

2
INTRODUCTION
In the restaurant industry, especially in the fast food and casual dining
restaurants in the U.S., menus often feature pictures of items along with their names
to convey additional information and increase sales. Unlike dish names, pictures
typically occupy a large part of limited and precious menu space. Although many
hospitality scholars have studied restaurant menu design (e.g., Bowen and Morris,
1995; Kincaid and Corsun, 2003; Kreul, 1982; Miner, 1996; Naipaul and Parsa, 2001;
Pavesic, 2005; Reynolds et al., 2005; Yang et al., 2009), the extant literature provides
little guidance on the effectiveness of presenting pictures along with verbal
information on menus. Marketing scholars have focused on the effect of pictures in
marketing communications, especially in advertising. However, the results are mixed
regarding the effects of adding pictures to verbal information (Wyer et al., 2008). In
the current study, we argue that the verbal information on menus (i.e., food names)
may moderate the effect of pictures on restaurant menus.
Careful observation of food names reveals an interesting trend that more and
more items are being given descriptive names (e.g., tender grilled chicken) instead of
regular names (e.g., grilled chicken) (Wansink et al., 2001; Wansink et al., 2005). This
trend is becoming quite popular in the restaurant industry; the “Quesadilla Explosion
Salad” offered by Chili’s Grill & Bar (an international casual dining restaurant) and
the “Caribbean Passion Smoothie” offered by Jamba Juice (a California-based juice
shop featuring smoothies) are two excellent examples. Wansink et al. (2001, 2005)
initially attempted to investigate the effect of food names on sales and sensory
perceptions. However, their studies were limited to comparisons between descriptive
names and regular names. Nowadays, many restaurant practitioners have gone a step
further and begun to use another type of food names, ambiguous food name, which is
more abstract and atypical than both descriptive names and regular names. Some
industry examples can be identified: “Wonton Chicken Happiness” (a Chinese
chicken salad offered by Souplantation, a U.S. buffet-style restaurant) and “Joan’s
Broccoli Madness” (a broccoli salad offered by Sweet Tomatoes, a U.S. restaurant
featuring fresh ingredients). Similarly, a popular Chinese dish of clear noodles with
ground pork is called “Ants Climbing a Tree” on many Sichuan restaurants’ menu.
Few scholars have investigated this new trend and it is not clear whether such
ambiguous food names are more appealing to customers than regular names. To
bridge this gap, we employ Miller and Kahn’s (2005) typology and focus on two
categories of food names: common descriptive names and ambiguous names. A
common descriptive name is a typical and specific (e.g., Chocolate Cake) whereas an
ambiguous name is atypical and unspecific (e.g., Midnight Madness Cake). Moreover,
as suggested by extant studies on verbal information, different product names may
trigger different levels of imagination (Lutz and Lutz, 1977). In most cases,
ambiguous names stimulate the imagination more than common descriptive names.
When accompanied by pictures, different product names trigger different processes of
verbal and visual information integration that interfere with the effect of images (Lutz
and Lutz, 1977; Miller and Kahn, 2005; Wyer et al., 2008). Therefore, we argue that
the effect of adding pictures to menus may vary depending on the types of food names

3
(common descriptive vs. ambiguous).
According to Wyer et al. (2008), the mixed result of adding pictures to verbal
information could also be due to differences in individuals’ information processing
styles, which chronically influence the integration of visual and verbal information.
Hence, we also consider the individual trait of information processing style in the
current study. When presented with the same combination of pictures and food names
on menus, different consumers may employ different strategies to process the
information. According to Childers et al. (1985), individuals can be classified into two
groups: visualizers and verbalizers. Visualizers tend to form mental images when
processing either verbal or visual information and construct integrated visual
representations of objects based on these images. In contrast, verbalizers tend to code
information verbally without constructing mental images. The major difference
between visualizers and verbalizers is whether they construct mental images when
processing verbal information or not (Wyer et al., 2008). Consequently, the effect of
adding menu pictures may also vary between visualizers and verbalizers.
In two experimental studies, we examine the joint effects of pictures, food
names, and individuals’ information processing styles on consumers’ attitudes,
purchase intentions, and willingness to pay for menu items.
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
Effect of Pictures
Since the use of images in marketing messages is quite common, significant
attention has been paid to visual information processing in consumer behavior
research. The first wave of studies revealed that the impact of adding pictures to
verbal messages is mainly positive (e.g., Childers and Houston, 1984; Kisielius and
Sternthal, 1984; Mitchell and Olson, 1981; Shepard, 1967; Starch, 1966). For example,
adding pictures can increase the memorability of brand names and product
information (e.g.: Kisielius and Sternthal, 1984; Starch, 1966; Shepard, 1967). Extant
studies also suggest that pictures can improve consumers’ attitudes and increase their
purchase intentions. For example, Mitchell and Olson (1981) suggest that
advertisements with pictures induce more favorable brand attitudes than those without
pictures. More recently, Pennings et al. (2013) found that adding pictures to
educational nutrition pamphlets can increase the length of time a consumer gazes at
nutrition labels and consequently lead to a higher likelihood of making healthy food
choices.
However, studies also have revealed situations in which presenting pictures
with verbal information is rather ineffective (Adaval and Wyer, 1998; Miller and
Kahn, 2005; Taylor and Thompson, 1982; Wyer and Hong, 2010; Wyer et al., 2008).
For example, Unnava and Burnkrant (1991) showed that when verbal information is
highly imagery-provoking, adding a product picture does not increase recall. Similarly,
Adaval and Wyer (1998) found that when vacation information is described using an
unordered list, the addition of pictures actually interferes with individuals’
evaluations.
These studies indicate that researchers have not reached consensus on the

4
effect of adding product pictures to verbal information (see Table 1 for a summary of
extant literature on the effects of pictures). In the current study, we argue that product
names and individuals’ information processing styles moderate the effect of pictures
in the restaurant industry.
Common Descriptive Names and Positive Picture Effect
When comprehending verbal information such as dish names, people tend to
construct mental images (Wyer et al., 2008), or try to visualize the dish based on its
name (Rane, 2009). The probability of a consumer constructing mental images when
reading words (e.g., a food name) is called imagery value. Different product names
have different imagery values and can stimulate the imagination to a different degree
(Lutz and Lutz, 1977). In most cases, ambiguous names stimulate the imagination
more than common descriptive names. For instance, when reading the common
descriptive name (e.g.: Peach Tart with Almond Crust), consumers can easily picture
the dish in their minds since the name is straightforward. When reading the
ambiguous name for the same classical peach tart (e.g.: Sunset Beach), however,
consumers may find it more difficult to form mental pictures because the ambiguous
name may cause them to imagine various images of the dessert.
Several studies reveal that the ability to integrate pictures and verbal
information determines the effectiveness of images (Edell and Staelin, 1983; Lutz and
Lutz, 1977; Unnava and Burnkrant, 1991; Van Rompay et al., 2010; Wyer et al., 2008).
For example, Van Rompay et al. (2010) manipulated the pictures provided on hotel
booking websites as either easy-to-integrate or difficult-to-integrate, and their results
demonstrate that the fluent integration of pictures and verbal information determines
the positive effect of adding a picture to the verbal information. Moreover, Edell and
Staelin (1983) demonstrated that providing images associated with verbal information
can lead to better brand recall than the ones dissociated from verbal information. As
suggested by Wyer et al. (2008), when a mental image based on verbal information is
congruent with a provided picture, adding the picture will have a positive impact on
consumers’ product evaluations. However, if the mental image based on verbal
information is incongruent with the provided picture, the presence of that picture may
decrease consumers’ evaluations. Unnava and Burnkrant (1991) also suggested that
pictures have a positive effect only when verbal information triggers a lower level of
imagination. In other words, when people put less effort to elicit a visual image when
processing the verbal information, adding pictures will result in a positive effect.
Since common descriptive names are typical and straightforward, we argue
that they are less likely to trigger a high level of imagination. Consumers can easily
visualize a food item using the food name as a framework to encode the visual
information. The mental images they construct when they read common descriptive
food names should be congruent with the pictures on the menu (Edell and Staelin,
1983). When consumers are able to integrate verbal and visual information into one
modality, they are likely to express the positive attitudes towards the products (e.g.,
Heckler and Childers, 1992). We argue that presenting pictures leads to favorable
consumers’ attitudes and behavioral outcomes in the common descriptive names

5
condition. Thus, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1: The presence of pictures on food items with common descriptive
names will have a positive effect on consumers’ attitudes and behavioral
outcomes.
Ambiguous Names and Image Conflict
Unlike common descriptive names, ambiguous names in the restaurant
industry tend to be vague and difficult to comprehend. Consequently, consumers tend
to imagine what the food would look like (Miller and Kahn, 2005). When individuals
are specifically trying to comprehend verbal information about a product (e.g., a food
name) in order to make a decision or a judgment, they attempt to first mentally picture
the product based on its name, and then tentatively integrate the constructed mental
image with the provided visual information (Wyer et al., 2008). However, when a
coherent image is difficult to construct based on the provided visual and verbal
information, consumers tend to evaluate the product unfavorably. For example,
Petrova and Cialdini (2005) revealed that advertisement effectiveness ratings decrease
when consumers find it difficult to integrate the mental image evoked by verbal
information with the picture in an advertisement. In other words, although the ability
to stimulate consumers’ imaginations with ambiguous names is often desirable,
adding pictures to such ambiguous names could result in negative outcomes (Lutz and
Lutz, 1977; Unnava and Burnkrant, 1991). Miller and Kahn (2005) indeed
demonstrated that adding pictures to product descriptions decreases consumers’
evaluations of products with ambiguous names.
In the foodservice context, an ambiguous name such as “Sunset Beach” may
generate various mental images in a consumer’s mind that can vary greatly from the
picture shown next to the food name. In that case, the verbal information and the
visual information on the menu tend to be incongruent and the conflict between the
mental image and the provided picture may obstruct the consumer’s ability to
integrate information. Indeed
Therefore, when a mental image based on verbal information about a product
(e.g., an ambiguous food name) cannot be fluently integrated with the presented
picture, the picture becomes a latent source of distraction, and consumers evaluate the
product less favorably (Edell and Staelin, 1983; Wyer et al., 2008). However, in the
current study we further argue that an individual’s information processing style can
moderate such an effect.
Information Processing Style
Extant research suggests that individuals tend to adopt either a visual or a
verbal information processing style (i.e., visualizers or verbalizers), which can in turn
influence their behaviors and judgments (Wyer et al., 2008). The adoption of visual or
verbal processing strategies can be driven by individuals’ chronic dispositions as well
as situational factors, but the influence of these information processing styles on
consumers’ judgments and behaviors are virtually identical (Jiang et al., 2007).
For visualizers, the chronic disposition to transform verbal information into

6
visual formats reflects a spontaneous process of mental image construction (Bransford
and Johnson, 1973; Garnham, 1981; Glenberg et al., 1987; Wyer and Xu, 2010). This
verbal to visual transformation forms a single modality that helps visualizers make
judgments. Verbally coded information is recoded into a visual format, and the newly
generated mental image is integrated with the presented picture (Wyer et al., 2008).
When visualizers read a food name, they tend to construct mental images and
try to visualize the food based on its name, and such mentally-constructed images can
vary from the presented picture (Rane, 2009). In the “Sunset Beach” example,
visualizers tend to generate pictures of different types of desserts in their minds based
on the name, such as a vanilla soufflé, a peach cake, or a fruit tart based on the
ambiguous food name, and then they may find it difficult to integrate the mental
picture with the picture presented on the menu. More importantly, when the picture
and the image generated from verbal information are difficult to integrate, visualizers
evaluate the item less favorably (Jiang et al., 2007). Therefore, when encountering an
ambiguous food name along with a picture, visualizers tend to find it difficult to
integrate the provided picture with the mental image generated from the food name.
Such difficulty in turn will trigger unfavorable attitudes and behavioral outcomes
(Petrova and Cialdini, 2005). Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2: For visualizers, the presence of pictures on food items with
ambiguous names will have a negative effect on consumers’ attitudes and
behavioral outcomes.
Unlike visualizers, verbalizers do not tend to construct mental images when
processing verbal information (Wyer et al., 2008). Hence, when encountering an
ambiguously food name with a picture, verbalizers are not expected to experience
difficulties constructing a consistent mental image. In this regard, the presence of a
picture can act as additional information that helps verbalizers comprehend product
information. We thus propose the following:
Hypothesis 3: For verbalizers, the presence of pictures on food items with
ambiguous names will have a positive effect on consumers’ attitudes and
behavioral outcomes.
STUDY 1
Pilot Study
The primary purpose of the pilot study was to check the efficacy of the two
types of food names. We chose chocolate ice cream as a target food item and
presented it on menus with two different names: Chocolate Ice Cream, representing a
common descriptive name, and Waltz on the Ice, representing an ambiguous name.
We selected these two food names based on current market offerings and advice from
a marketing professor.
We recruited 47 students from a large state university in the Southeastern
United States. All participants were told that the researchers were helping a restaurant
promote a new dessert, and they were randomly assigned to either the common
descriptive name condition (Chocolate Ice Cream, N = 23) or the ambiguous name

7
condition (Waltz on the Ice, N = 24). Respondents were first instructed to read the
dessert name along with a short description (which was the same for both conditions),
and then they were asked to respond to three items using 7-point Likert scales (1 =
strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) measuring their perceptions of the dish name
adapted from Miller and Kahn’s (2005) study (i.e., “The dish name is a typical dessert
name;” “This dish name is specific to this type of dessert;” and “When reading this
dish name, I find it straightforward to understand;” Cronbach’s α = .84). Then, we
verified the study results following Wyer et al. (2008) by instructing all participants to
mentally picture the dessert based on its name before showing them a picture of
chocolate ice cream (see the Appendix). After reviewing the picture, they were asked
to answer two items using 7-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly
agree) that capture the difficulty of integrating verbal and visual information (i.e., “I
find that my mental image of the dessert and the real dessert picture are similar;” and
“It’s easy for me to integrate my mental image of the dessert and the real dessert
picture.”).
We compared the two food names using two independent sample t-tests. As
expected, respondents reported that the name “Chocolate Ice Cream” was more
typical and straightforward (M = 5.17) than the name “Waltz on the Ice” (M = 2.69, p
< .001). In addition, after viewing the ice cream picture, respondents indicated that it
was easier to integrate the information in the common descriptive name condition (M
= 4.19) than in the ambiguous name condition (M = 3.33, p = .04). These results
suggest that our dish name manipulation was effective.
Study Design
We used a 2 (picture: presence vs. absence) × 2 (food name type: common
descriptive vs. ambiguous) between-subjects design to test the hypotheses. To
measure information processing style, we used the established scale from Childers et
al.’s (1985) study. We used “Chocolate Ice Cream” and “Waltz on the Ice” to
represent a common descriptive food name and an ambiguous food name, respectively,
and manipulated picture presence by presenting the two different types of names with
and without a picture (see Appendix A for sample menus and the number of
participants in each condition).
Participants and Procedure
We recruited 263 adult participants from the United States using Amazon
Mechanical Turk, an online commercial panel. We offered 50 cents to those who
volunteered to complete the survey. After excluding two outliers from the analysis,
2
our final sample included 261 respondents (63.2% males, mean age of 28, 88.9% with
some college or more, 77% Caucasian, and 61.3% with annual household income
2
We treated two observations as outliers because of their extreme values. Two participants were willing to pay $0
and $15, respectively, for the dessert; yet the average amount other participants were willing to pay for the dessert
was $4.54 (SD = $1.59, Min = 1, Max = 10). Because such observations may have an unexpected impact on the
coefficient estimate, excluding them avoids potentially misleading results. Note that the results show a similar
pattern when the two outliers are included in the analysis.

8
between $20,000 and $80,000). The demographic characteristics of the sample are
shown in Table 2.
All participants were randomly assigned to one of the four menu conditions.
The participants were first asked to imagine that they were holding a menu and
ordering a dessert. Then, they were asked to indicate how much they would be willing
to pay for the dessert shown on the menu. Both marketing managers and researchers
agree on the crucial role of consumers’ willingness to pay in pricing decisions and
product development (Ajzen and Driver, 1992; Breidert et al., 2006; Voelckner, 2006;
Wertenbroc and Skier, 2002). In hospitality research, willingness to pay is also
regarded as an important measurement of consumers’ decisions and evaluations
(Janssen and Hamm, 2012).
Measurements
We measured participants’ information processing style using Childers et al.’s
(1985) established style-of-processing (SOP) scale to assess their propensity to
process information visually vs. verbally. The scale consists of 22 items: 11 items
comprise the visualizer subscale (1 = always false, 4 = always true; Cronbach’s α
= .77) (e.g., “I find it helps to think in terms of mental pictures when doing many
things”), and 11 items comprise the verbalizer subscale (1 = always false, 4 = always
true; Cronbach’s α = .81) (e.g., “I enjoy doing work that requires the use of words”).
Based on participants’ responses to the established style-of-processing scale, we
categorized respondents as visualizers or verbalizers. Following Childers et al.’s
(1985) recommendation, we determined each subject’s processing style by subtracting
the visualizer subscale score from the verbalizer subscale score. Participants with
higher difference scores possessed a stronger disposition to process information
visually, whereas those with lower difference scores possessed a stronger disposition
to code information verbally (Childers et al., 1985).
Willingness to pay reflects the amount that individuals would pay for a
product (Voelckner, 2006). We measured this variable using a single question adapted
from Wertenbroc and Skier’s study (2002) (i.e., “If you are going to order the dessert
shown on the above menu in a casual dining restaurant, how much would you like to
pay?”). We captured demographic information such as gender, age, education level,
household income and ethnic background at the end of the questionnaire.
Hypothesis Testing
We used a moderated regression analysis to test Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 with
participants’ willingness to pay for the dessert as the dependent variable (Aiken and
West, 1991; West et al., 1996). We dummy coded picture as picture absence = 0 and
picture presence = 1. We also dummy coded food name as ambiguous name = 0 and
common descriptive name = 1. We regressed data for picture, food name,
mean-centered information processing difference score, and all two- and three-way
interactions between/among these variables on consumers’ willingness to pay. The
results reveal a significant main effect of food name (Mambiguous = 4.94,

9
Mcommon descriptive
!
= 4.15, B = -1.423, t = -5.954, p < .001), a significant two-way
interaction of picture and food name (B = 1.564, t = 4.509, p < .001), and a significant
three-way interaction of picture, food name, and information processing difference
score (B = 2.769, t = 4.995, p < .001).
To test H1, we implemented a planned contrast within the condition of
common descriptive name. The results indicate that for the dessert with a common
descriptive name, consumers are willing to pay significantly more when a picture is
included (M = 4.66) than when a picture is not included (M = 3.72, B = .938, t = 3.612,
p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported.
To test H2 and H3, we employed a spotlight analysis to examine the effect of a
picture and an ambiguous food name on consumers’ willingness to pay at one
standard deviation above and below the mean information processing difference score
(Aiken and West, 1991; Fitzsimmons, 2008; Yang and Mattila, 2013). Compared with
dichotomization (i.e., median splitting using ANOVA), spotlight analysis is
considered as a more appropriate statistical approach to test the effect of a continuous
independent variable. Spotlight analysis can avoid major problems associated with
dichotomizing continuous variables such as reduced statistical power and spurious
significant results (Fitzsimmons, 2008; Spiller et al., 2013).
Within the condition of ambiguous name, a spotlight analysis (N = 261) at one
standard deviation above the mean information processing difference score suggests
that the effect of a picture is negative and significant (B = -2.001, t = -5.855, p < .001),
indicating that consumers with high information processing difference scores
(visualizers) tend to be willing to pay significantly less for an ambiguously-named
dessert with a picture (M = 3.99) than one without a picture (M = 5.99). Thus, H2 is
supported. Consistent with H3, another spotlight analysis at one standard deviation
below the mean information processing difference score suggests that the effect of a
picture is positive and significant (B = .869, t = 2.605, p = .0097), indicating that
consumers with low information processing difference scores (verbalizers)
demonstrate higher willingness to pay for an ambiguously-named dessert with a
picture (M = 5.17) than one without a picture (M = 4.30). This interaction is
visualized in Figure 1.
STUDY 2
Although willingness to pay is regarded as an important measurement of
consumers’ decisions and menu evaluations, relying solely on that construct has some
drawbacks. First, outlier data (such as $0 and $15 in Study 1) could possibly bias the
study result. Second, willingness to pay can be influenced by restaurant type (e.g.,
casual dining vs. fine dining). In order to overcome the potential drawbacks in Study
1, we measured consumers’ general attitudes after revealing the price and assessing
their purchase intentions in Study 2. Moreover, to demonstrate the general
applicability of the findings, we used a different food type (i.e., a lunch item).
Pilot Study

10
We recruited 100 participants (54% males; 46% between the ages of 26 and 35;
49% with a Bachelor’s degree or higher; 74% Caucasian; 62% with annual household
income between $20,000 and $79,999) from the United States using Amazon
Mechanical Turk to check the efficacy of two types of food names: Chicken and Egg
Salad (common descriptive name) and Which Came First (ambiguous name). The two
names were selected after consulting with two restaurant chefs and a marketing
professor. Participants were randomly assigned to either the common descriptive
name condition (Chicken and Egg Salad, N = 50) or the ambiguous name condition
(Which Came First, N = 50). Both the study design and procedure were identical to
the pilot study of Study 1. Results reveal that “Chicken and Egg Salad” was regarded
as more typical, specific and straightforward (M = 5.29) than “Which Came First” (M
= 3.27, p < .001). After viewing a picture of the dish, participants found it easier to
integrate the information in the common descriptive name condition (M = 5.27) than
in the ambiguous name condition (M = 4.06, p < .001). As expected, results show that
the food name manipulation was effective.
Participants and Study Design
As in Study 1, we employed a 2 (picture: presence vs. absence) × 2 (food
name type: common descriptive vs. ambiguous) between-subjects design. We
assessed information processing style using Childers et al.’s (1985) scale and used
“Chicken and Egg Salad” and “Which Came First” to represent common descriptive
and ambiguous food names, respectively. The 360 respondents (60.6% males; mean
age of 33 years; 55% with a Bachelor’s degree or higher; 77.5 % Caucasian; 63.6%
with an annual household income between $20,000 and $79,999) were randomly
assigned to one of the four menu conditions (see Appendix B for sample menus and
the number of participants in each condition). The study procedure was identical to
Study 1.
Measurements
The main objective of Study 2 was to use another outcome variable to test the
hypotheses. Hence, we measured participants’ general attitudes prior to revealing the
price and assessing their purchase intentions. Specifically, participants were asked to
anchor their attitudes on two 7-point Likert-type scales (1 = unfavorable, 7 =
favorable; and 1 = negative, 7 = positive; α = .95). Next, we revealed the price of the
dish (i.e., $7.99) and asked participants to indicate their level of agreement with the
following statement on a 7-point Likert-type scale: “I’m interested in ordering this
dish” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Then, we measured information
processing style using Childers et al.’s (1985) style-of-processing (SOP) scale. Finally,
we asked participants to provide demographic information such as gender, age,
education level, household income and ethnic background.
Hypothesis Testing
Attitude. To test our hypotheses regarding the impact of information
processing style on the relationship between food name and picture on attitude, we

11
regressed attitude on food name (0 = ambiguous name; 1 = common descriptive
name), picture (0 = picture absence; 1 = picture presence), mean-centered information
processing difference score, and all two- and three-way interactions between/among
these variables. This regression model reveals a significant effect of food name
(Mambiguous = 4.44, Mcommon descriptive
!
= 3.88, B = -1.240, t = -5.562, p < .001), a
significant two-way interaction of picture and food name (B = 1.275, t = 4.001, p
< .001), and a significant three-way interaction of picture, food name, and (B = 1.512,
t = 3.213, p = .0014). To test H1, we implemented a planned contrast in the common
descriptive name condition. Participants’ attitudes were more positive when a picture
of the dish was included on the menu (Mpicture present = 4.33, Mpicture absent
!
= 3.43; B
= .898, t = 3.963, p < .001). Hence, H1 is supported. In the ambiguous name condition,
results of a spotlight analysis at one standard deviation above the mean information
processing difference score (i.e., visualizer) reveals a significant difference between
picture presence and picture absence (B = -1.471, t = -4.825, p < .001), indicating that
visualizers hold less positive attitudes towards an ambiguously-named dish with a
picture (M = 3.86) than one without a picture (M = 5.33). As expected, H2 is
supported. To confirm H3, we performed another spotlight analysis at one standard
deviation below the mean information processing difference score (i.e., verbalizers).
Results suggest that the effect of a picture is positive and significant (B = .687, t =
1.916, p = .056), indicating that verbalizers exhibit more positive attitudes towards an
ambiguously-named dish with a picture (M = 4.74) than one without a picture (M =
4.05) (see Figure 2).
Purchase Intentions. We then tested our hypotheses by assessing purchase
intentions as the outcome variable after revealing the price to participants. In line with
the attitude analyses described above, we performed the same regression analyses
with purchase intentions as the dependent variable. The results show a significant
effect of food name (Mambiguous = 3.16, Mcommon descriptive
!
= 3.82, B = -1.327, t =
-5.341, p < .001), a significant two-way interaction of picture and food name (B =
1.143, t = 3.218, p = .0014), and a significant three-way interaction of picture, food
name, and the individual’s information processing difference score (B = 1.989, t =
3.792, p = .0002). As predicted, in the common descriptive name condition, purchase
intentions are higher when a picture is present (Mpicture present = 3.52, Mpicture absent
!
=
2.80; B = 1.400, t = 3.850, p < .001). In the ambiguous name condition, visualizers (1
SD above the mean information processing difference score) demonstrate lower
purchase intentions towards a food with a picture (M = 2.83) than one without a
picture (M = 4.78; B = -1.953, t = -5.752, p < .001)). However, verbalizers (1 SD
below the mean information processing difference score) exhibit higher purchase
intentions toward an ambiguously-named food with a picture (M = 4.60) than one
without a picture (M = 3.54; B = 1.054, t = 2.637, p = .009) (see Figure 3).

12
DISCUSSION
In the restaurant industry, food names and menu pictures are the most basic
and essential information presented to consumers. Although practitioners have
proficiently utilized different types of names and gradually increased their attempts to
use ambiguous names, scholars have offered little evidence about the effectiveness of
using different food names and presenting food pictures on menus. To address this
gap in the research, we have investigated the joint effect of food name and picture
presence on consumers’ attitudes and behavioral outcomes (purchase intentions and
willingness to pay). To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to contrast common
descriptive food names and ambiguous food names while investigating consumers’
reactions to different food name-food picture combinations.
Although adding pictures requires using a large portion of precious menu
space and substantially increases printing costs, many restaurants include pictures
with verbal descriptions of items on restaurant menus. However, extant research on
picture effectiveness has generated mixed results. Results of some studies show that
adding pictures to verbal information could result in positive outcomes such as higher
and more accurate brand/product recall, more favorable attitudes toward products, and
stronger purchase intentions (Kisielius and Sternthal 1984; Mitchell and Olson, 1981;
Pennings et al., 2013; Shepard, 1967; Starch, 1966). However, results of other studies
demonstrate that the presence of pictures in addition to verbal information may not
always be beneficial, and sometimes can even be detrimental (Adaval, et al. 2007;
Adaval and Wyer, 1998; Edell and Staelin, 1983; Wyer et al., 2008; Unnava and
Burnkrant, 1991).
Common descriptive names are straightforward labels that generally induce
lower levels of imagination (Lutz and Lutz, 1977; Miller and Kahn, 2005; Wyer et al.,
2008). Consumers can easily visualize a food item with a common descriptive name,
and the visualized image can be smoothly integrated with the provided food picture.
Therefore, adding a picture next to a common descriptive food name can lead to
positive outcomes. Our study results confirm that consumers exhibit more favorable
attitudes and behavioral outcomes when provided with common descriptive food
names with pictures than the ones without pictures.
Unlike common descriptive names, ambiguous names are vague and tend to
induce higher levels of imagination. Since the mental images people form based on an
ambiguous name can vary greatly from the presented food picture, consumers may
have a difficult time integrating the verbal and visual information. In other words,
presenting pictures next to ambiguous food names may hinder consumers’ ability to
integrate the menu information and result in negative outcomes.
However, our results show that individuals’ information processing styles
(verbalizers vs. visualizers; Childers et al., 1985) moderate such an effect. For
verbalizers, who tend to directly process verbal information without forming any
mental images, adding pictures to ambiguous food names can increase consumers’
attitudes and behavioral intentions. However, for visualizers, who tend to construct
mental images when processing verbal information, the aforementioned difficulty

13
associated with integrating pictures of food items with their mental images based on
ambiguous food names becomes salient. Consequently, visualizers exhibit less
favorable attitudes, less likelihood to purchase, and lower willingness to pay for
ambiguously-named food items presented with pictures (vs. without pictures).
Managerial Implications
In addition to the aforementioned theoretical contributions, the current study
has important implications for hospitality practitioners. Our results indicate that in
general, consumers are willing to pay more for food items with ambiguous names
than for items with common descriptive names. Therefore, restaurant managers may
consider using ambiguous names for their dishes in order to increase revenue.
However, not all dishes warrant ambiguous names, and most dishes are still given
typical names in most restaurants. When an ambiguous name is not an option, results
of our study suggest that presenting pictures next to items with common descriptive
names will increase consumers’ attitudes, purchase intentions, and willingness to pay
for those items. Therefore, restaurant managers may also consider naming their low
profit margin items with common descriptive names but presenting attractive food
pictures to increase sales and profits.
More interestingly, although presenting vivid pictures on menus is a common
practice in the restaurant industry, the current study suggests that adding pictures may
not always increase the evaluations of menu items and sometimes may even be
detrimental. Presenting food pictures can in fact decrease evaluations of food items
with ambiguous names among visualizers. Therefore, restaurant managers should
effectively design their menus and adjust visual information based on food names and
consumers’ information processing styles.
Although information processing style is an individual trait, it varies at the
group level based on factors such as occupation (Kozhevnikov, 2007) and culture
(Anderson, 1988; Tavassoli and Lee, 2003; Wyer and Hong, 2010). One processing
style could be salient at a given restaurant. For instance, professionals in a specific
field could develop a collectively dominant information processing style. Visual
artists tend to process information visually, while linguists have a general disposition
to process information verbally (Kozhevnikov, 2007). Furthermore, according to
Wyer and Hong (2010), Chinese consumers are more likely than Westerners to
possess a visualizer processing style. Therefore, restaurant practitioners may use
easy-to-capture information to infer their target consumers’ information processing
styles and design their menus accordingly. For example, local restaurants in SoHo or
West Chelsea in New York City may attract many artists and art fans. Restaurant
managers in similar locations may consider using ambiguous names for dishes and
providing no pictures on their menus. Such a practice will not only help reduce menu
printing costs, but also increase consumers’ evaluations.
Limitations and Future Research
Several limitations in this study need to be recognized. First, respondents in
this research were asked to imagine ordering a dish in a casual dining restaurant. We

14
captured consumers’ willingness to pay as intentions, rather than actual behaviors. In
the future, researchers could conduct a field study to capture real purchasing behavior,
and test whether the results are consistent across different types of restaurants. Second,
we used the ambiguous names “Waltz on the Ice” and “Which Came First,” which
have little connection with food. In the future, researchers could explore how
consumers react to names with different degrees of ambiguity. It is possible that the
effect of ambiguous names may vary depending on the psychological distance
between the name and food as a concept.
Third, we did not specify the restaurant type (e.g. quick service, full service,
fine dining, etc.) in the current study and our study scenarios were limited to dessert
and salad. However, menus pictures may have a different effect on different type of
restaurant. For example, pictures are common in quick service and full service
restaurants in the U.S. whereas in some east-Asian countries, pictures are essential on
luxury restaurant menus. It will be valuable for future scholars to extend the current
study to different restaurant settings and different cultures.
Finally, this study verifies the existence of different processing styles proposed
in the extant hospitality research, and draws marketers’ attention to these types of
individual differences when designing marketing strategies. However, since
information processing style is an individual trait, it may be difficult for marketers to
identify. Yet it is possible to prime the individual differences on information
processing style. According to Wyer et al. (2008), visualizers are able to form verbal
representations if they are explicitly asked to perform a specific task that requires
such a coding style. Likewise, verbalizers can form mental images if they are required
to do so. Therefore, researchers could explore approaches that may encourage
consumers to process information in the same modality, regardless of their natural
dispositions.

15
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ajzen, I., Driver, B. L., 1992. Contingent value measurement: On the nature and
meaning of willingness to pay. Journal of Consumer Psychology 1(4),
297-316.
Adaval, R., Wyer, R. S., 1998. The role of narratives in consumer information
processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology 7(3), 207−245.
Adaval, R., Isbell, L. M., Wyer, R. S., 2007. The impact of pictures on narrative- and
list-based impression formation: A process interference model. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 43(3), 352−364.
Anderson, J. A., 1988. Cognitive styles and multicultural populations. Journal of
Teacher Education 39(1), 2–9.
Bowen, J. T., Morris, A. J., 1995. Menu design: Can menus sell? International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management 7(4), 4-9.
Bransford, J. D., Johnson, M. K., 1973. Considerations of some problems of
comprehension. In: Chase, W. (Ed.). Visual information processing. New York:
Academic Press.
Breidert, C., Hahsler, M., Reuttere, T., 2006. A review of methods for measuring
willingness-to-pay. Innovative Marketing 2(4), 8-32.
Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., 1984. Conditions for a picture-superiority effect on
consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research 11, 643-54.
Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., Heckler, S. E., 1985. Measurement of individual
differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of
Consumer Research 12, 125−134.
Edell, J. A., Staelin, R., 1983. The information processing of pictures in print
advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research 10, 45−61.
Fitzsimmons, G. J., 2008. Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research
35(1), 5−8.
Garnham, A., 1981. Mental models as representations of text. Memory Cognition 9(6),
560−565.
Glenberg, A. M., Meyer, M., Lindem, K., 1987. Mental models contribute to
foregrounding during text comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language
26(1), 69−83.
Heckler, S.E. and Childers, T.L., 1992. The role of expectancy and relevancy in
memory for verbal and visual information: What is incongruency? Journal of
Consumer Research, 18(4), pp.475-492.
Janssen, M., Hamm, U., 2012. Product labelling in the market for organic food:
Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification
logos. Food Quality and Preference 25(1), 9-22.
Jiang, Y., Steinhart, Y., Wyer, R. S., 2007. The role of visual and semantic processing
strategies in consumer information processing. Unpublished manuscript, Hong
Kong University of Science and Technology.
Kincaid, C. S., Corsun, D. L., 2003. Are consultants blowing smoke? An empirical

16
test of the impact of menu layout on item sales. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 15(4), 226 – 231.
Kisielius, J., Sternthal, B., 1984. Detecting and explaining vividness effects in
attitudinal judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 54–64.
Kozhevnikov, M., 2007. Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology:
Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin
133(3), 464-481.
Kreul, L. M., 1982. Magic numbers: psychological aspects of menu pricing. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 23(2), 70-75.
Lutz, K. A., Lutz, R. J., 1977. Effects of interactive imagery on learning: Applications
to advertising. Journal of Applied Psychology 62(4), 493-498.
Miller, E. G., Kahn, B. E., 2005. Shades of meaning: The effect of color and flavor
names on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research 32(1), 86-92.
Miner, T., 1996. Customer-focused menu marketing. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly 37(3), 36–41.
Miniard, P. W., Bhatla, S., Lord, K. R., Dickson, P. R., Unnava, H. R., 1991.
Picture-based persuasion processes and the moderating role of
involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 18(1), 92-107.
Mitchell, A. A., Olson, J. C., 1981. Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of
advertising effects on brand attitudes? Journal of Marketing Research 18,
318-332.
Naipaul, S., Parsa, H. G., 2001. Menu price endings that communicate value and
quality. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42(1), 26-37.
Pavesic, D., 2005. The psychology of menu design: reinvent your silent salesperson to
increase check averages and guest loyalty. Hospitality Faculty Publications,
Paper 5. Retrieved from http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/hospitality_facpub/5.
Pennings, M. C., Striano, T., Oliverio, S., 2013. A picture tells a thousand words
Impact of an educational nutrition booklet on nutrition label gazing. Marketing
Letters 25(4), 355-360.
Petrova, P. K., Cialdini, R. B., 2005. Fluency of consumption imagery and the
backfire effects of imagery appeals. Journal of Consumer Research 32(3),
442−452.
Rane, M. S., 2009. Visual appetite. Design Thoughts January, 11-19. Retrieved from
http://www.idc.iitb.ac.in/resources/dt-jan-2009/Visual%20Appetite.pdf
Reynolds, D., Merritt, E. A., Pinckney, S., 2005. Understanding menu psychology: An
empirical investigation of menu design and consumer response. International
Journal of Hospitality Tourism Administration 6(1), 1-10.
Shepard, R. N., 1967. Recognition memory for words, sentences and pictures. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6(1), 156-163.
Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch Jr, J. G., McClelland, G. H., 2013. Spotlights,
floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated
regression. Journal of Marketing Research 50(2), 277-288.
Tavassoli, N. T., Lee, Y. H., 2003. The differential interaction of auditory and visual
advertising elements with Chinese and English. Journal of Marketing Research

17
40(4), 468–480.
Taylor, S. E., Thompson, S. C., 1982. Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect.
Psychological Review 89(2), 155-181.
Unnava, H. R., Burnkrant, R. E., 1991. An imagery-processing view of the role of
pictures in print advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research 28, 226−231.
Van Rompay, T. J. L., De Vries, P. W., Van Venrooij, X. G., 2010. More than words:
On the importance of picture-text congruence in the online environment.
Journal of Interactive Marketing 24(1), 22-30.
Viswanathan, M., Childers, T. L., 2003. An enquiry into the process of categorization
of pictures and words. Perceptual and motor skills 96(1), 267-287.
Voelckner, F., 2006. An empirical comparison of methods for measuring
consumers' willingness to pay. Marketing Letters 17(2), 137–149.
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.
Wansink, B., Van Ittersum, K., Painter, J. E., 2005. How descriptive food names bias
sensory perceptions in restaurants. Food Quality and Preference 16(5),
393-400.
Wertenbroch, K. Skiera, B., 2002. Measuring consumers' willingness to pay at the
point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research 39(2), 228-241.
Wyer, R. S., Hong, J., 2010. Chinese Consumer Behavior: The Effects of Content,
Process and Language, In: Bond, M. H. (Ed.). Oxford handbook of Chinese
Psychology, 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 633-635.
Wyer, R. S., Hung, I. W., Jiang, Y., 2008. Visual and verbal processing strategies in
comprehension and judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology 18(4),
244−257.
Wyer, R. S., Xu, A. J., 2010. The role of behavioral mind-sets in goal-directed activity:
Conceptual underpinnings and empirical evidence. Journal of Consumer
Psychology 20(2), 107-125.
Yang, S. S., Kimes, S. E., Sessarego, M. M., 2009. Menu price presentation influences
on consumer purchase behavior in restaurants. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 28(1), 157-160.
Yang, W., Mattila, A.S., 2013. The impact of status seeking on consumers'
word-of-mouth and product preference - a comparison between luxury
hospitality services and luxury goods. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research. doi: 10.1177/1096348013515920

18
Table 1
Literature on the Effect of Pictures
Study
Dependent
Variables
Study Context
Main Findings
Picture Effect
Childers and Houston
(1984)
Memory test
Advertisements
Pictures could benefit recall of the advertisement
Positive Picture
Effect
Kisielius and
Sternthal (1984)
Memory test
Advertisements
Individuals could recall more brand information and
have more favorable attitudes when the advertisements
is presented with both pictures and verbal information
than the verbal information alone
Positive Picture
Effect
Mitchell and Olson
(1981)
Consumers’
attitudes
Advertisements
Advertisements with pictures induced more favorable
attitudes toward a brand than those without pictures
Positive Picture
Effect
Pennings, Striano,
and Oliverio (2013)
Food choice
Educational
nutrition
pamphlets
Adding pictures to educational nutrition pamphlets
could increase how long a consumer gazes at products’
nutrition labels and, consequently, inform healthier
food choices
Positive Picture
Effect
Shepard (1967)
Memory test
Psychological
memory test
Picture group were likely to recognize stimuli the best
Positive Picture
Effect
Starch (1966)
Memory test
Brand name
Pictures increased the memorability of brand names and
product information
Positive Picture
Effect
Viswanathan and
Childers (2003)
Categorization
Psychological
categorization
test
Pictures had an advantage in categorization, and
individuals would categorize visual information faster
Positive Picture
Effect

19
Table 1 (continued)
Study
Dependent
Variables
Study Context
Main Findings
Picture Effect
Lutz and Lutz (1977)
Memory test
Brand name
When the verbal information was of high imagery,
adding pictures would not increase the brand recall
No effect
Miniard, Bhatla,
Lord, Dickson, and
Unnava (1991)
Consumers’
attitudes
Product evaluation
When individuals are motivated to conduct information
processing, the addition of pictures would have little
additional effect
No effect
Unnava and
Burnkrant (1991)
Memory test
Advertisements
When verbal information was at high level of
imagery-provoking, adding a picture of a product did
not increase recall
No effect
Adaval and Wyer
(1998)
Consumers’
attitudes
Vacation brochure
When the vacation information was described in an
ostensibly unordered list, the addition of pictures
would interfere with individuals’ evaluations
Negative Picture
Effect
Edell and Staelin
(1983)
Memory test
Advertisements
When the picture presented in the advertisement was
“unframed" (i.e., the verbal information and picture of
the brand are not related), the inclusion of the picture
could potentially distract consumers, leading to poorer
product recall
Negative Picture
Effect
Jiang, Steinhart, and
Wyer, (2007)
Consumers’
attitudes
Hotel
advertisement
Individuals decreased the evaluations towards the hotel
when the picture and verbal information presented in
the hotel advertisement were not consistent
Negative Picture
Effect
Miller and Kahn
(2005)
Consumers’
attitudes
Product evaluation
When the color name was ambiguously named, presence
of picture would decrease consumers’ attitudes
towards the product (i.e., sweater)
Negative Picture
Effect

20
Table 2
Sample Characteristics
Study 1
Study 2
Variables
N
Percentage
N
Percentage
Sex
Male
165
63.2
218
60.6
Female
96
36.8
142
39.4
Highest Education Level
High school or less
29
11.1
35
9.7
Some college
131
50.2
127
35.3
Bachelor's Degree
84
32.2
152
42.2
Masters/some graduate school
16
6.1
41
11.4
Doctoral and/or Professional Degree
1
0.4
5
1.4
Annual Household Income
Less than $20,000
64
24.5
64
17.8
$20,000 to $39,999
76
29.1
91
25.3
$40,000 to $59,999
55
21.1
89
24.7
$60,000 to $79,999
29
11.1
49
13.6
$80,000 to $99,999
20
7.7
27
7.5
$100,000 or more
17
6.5
40
11.1
Ethnicity
Caucasian - Non-Hispanic
201
77.0
279
77.5
African American
11
4.2
18
5.0
Hispanic
13
5.0
21
5.8
Asian
30
11.5
32
8.9
American Indian, Alaskan, Hawaiian,
or Pacific Islander
3
1.1
3
.8
Other
3
1.1
7
1.9

21
Figure 1. Interaction effect of picture and information processing on consumers’
willingness to pay for foods with ambiguous names for Study 1

22
Figure 2. Interaction effect of picture and information processing on consumers’
attitudes towards foods with ambiguous names for Study 2

23
Figure 3. Interaction effect of picture and information processing on consumers’
purchase intention towards foods with ambiguous names for Study 2

24
Appendix A
Sample Menus for Study 1
(A) The Menu of
Common-Descriptive-Named Dessert
with Picture
(N = 62)
(B) The Menu of
Common-Descriptive-Named Dessert
without Picture
(N = 71)
(C) The Menu of Ambiguously-Named
Dessert with Picture
(N = 62)
(D) The Menu of Ambiguously-Named
Dessert without Picture
(N = 66)

25
Appendix B
Sample Menus for Study 2
(E) The Menu of
Common-Descriptive-Named Salad with
Picture
(N = 92)
(F) The Menu of
Common-Descriptive-Named Salad
without Picture
(N = 90)
(G) The Menu of Ambiguously-Named
Salad with Picture
(N = 88)
(H) The Menu of Ambiguously-Named
Salad without Picture
(N = 90)