CAIE A-Level Psychology A2 2.2.2 Menu Design Psychology Questions

Use Table A: AO1 Knowledge and understanding to mark candidate responses to this question.

Candidates must discuss both features of menu design which have positive and negative impacts, including the use of eye tracking and the effect of food name on menu item choice films, but they do not need to use the Pavesic or Lockyer example from the syllabus.

Answers may include:

Syllabus content

- Menu design focusing on the features of menu design which have positive and negative impacts and ways to study this, including the use of eye-tracking, e.g. Pavesic (2005).

- The effect of food name on menu item choice, including a study, e.g. Lockyer (2006).

6

Award up to 4 marks where the response has described only part of the question even if the response otherwise
meets the criteria for Level 3.

8(a)

Menu design focusing on the features of menu design which have positive and negative impacts and ways to study this, including the use of eye-tracking, e.g.
Pavesic (2005).
Menus help the customer decide what to order but they are also very important for the branding and image of the restaurant. They can direct customers to order food that the restaurant prepares the best/has the best profit margin.
They communicate the overall dining experience. The menu should complement the décor and style of the restaurant.
Menus can use highlighting to direct the attention of the
diners. Common negative features of menus include being hard to read, overemphasising pricing, poor use of space,
monotonous design and too big. Eye-tracking - customers
don't read a menu from start to finish but instead scan the
mean. Attention can be drawn using boxes, images and
different fonts. Other parts of the menu can be de- emphasized by using smaller fonts, no highlighting, etc.
Pavesic is a review article that outlines how customers use
menus and how restaurants can design better menus (use
of 'eye magnets') such as a box around the appetiser or
different coloured font to a menu description. Attention should be paid to style, colour, artwork and illustrations. Put the entrees first in your menu as most of your diners will
order this whereas appetisers/desserts are ordered by a smaller number of customers. Average time spent looking at a menu 109 seconds.

8(a)

Effect of food name on menu item choice, including a study, e.g. Lockyer (2006)

Research has shown that foods with descriptive and evocative names had more positive comments (such as "Succulent Italian Seafood Fillet") and rated as more appealing, tasty and caloric than those with more regular names. (e.g. 'Seafood Fillet').

Lockyer (2006) study investigated the impact of menu item names on selection of menu items.

Four focus groups (48 participants, self-selected from Hamilton, New Zealand) examined the responses to five menus, each with the same menu items but using different wording. In addition, a survey was randomly distributed in the local area to which 200 people responded. Open and closed questions were used. Rated how appealing each menu item was and were then asked why they had given this rating. Used content analysis to analyse the qualitative data.

Results did show large individual differences with different participants showing a preference for different menus.

8(a)

The participants showed a preference for items they would not normally eat at home. The highest appeal was for the seasonal menu and the lowest the French style menu. Strongest preference was shown to the elaborate style menu for the participants that were surveyed which used words such as delicious, flavourful and perfection. Participants were also given four dining experiences (romantic, business, mother-in-law and family reunion). From focus group discussion clear differences in what menu items would be selected based on the occasion of the dining experience. When describing the most popular menu the participants used words such as 'fresh', 'clear explanation' and 'tasty'.

Other appropriate responses should also be credited.

Use Table B: AO3 Analysis and evaluation to mark candidate responses to this question.Depending on the examples studied by candidates their answers may vary.

A range of issues could be used for evaluation. These include:

- Named issue - generalisations from findings Pavesic reviewed a large variety of menu designs so his suggestions are generalisable. Lockyer had five menu designs in his study which makes it less generalisable than Pavesic. However, Lockyer does consider five different types, so it is not without any generalisability. Pavesic's had a large sample ( 48 in focus groups and 200 randomly sampled for the self-report) but all from one city in New Zealand. More females than males in the study. It could be that sample of men used in the study could not be generalisable to the target population given the small numbers. Wide range of ages, fairly good range of ethnicities and socioeconomic groups were included.

10

8(b)

Lockyer's study has some issues with ecological validity (generalisations from the findings to everyday life) as the study used focus groups answering questions and discussing menus which isn't something that happens in everyday life. However, the menus were realistic and based on menus that Lockyer had researcher. On the other hand, the participants were imagining different dining scenarios rather than experiencing these scenarios in everyday life. For example, the participants may have felt differently if they were in a restaurant at a business meeting.

- Applications to everyday life - Both studies and topic areas have good application to everyday life. Pavesic gives clear and detailed recommendations for both good menu design and mistakes to avoid. There is a lot of focus in the review article on increasing sales, which further improves the application of the research. The Lockyer study did find one of the menus was the most popular, but this was different for the focus group as opposed to the group of participants surveyed. There were also individual differences which suggests there is quite a bit of variety in terms of the wording preferences for menu items.

8(b)

- Validity - Lockyer has good validity as he did the survey after the focus group to measure the validity of the results from the focus group. However, self-reports were used which means the data could be open to socially desirable responses, demand characteristics, etc. In addition, the qualitative data had to be interpreted but this was done through content analysis.

- Objective versus subjective - The data collected from the rating scales is somewhat more objective as the researchers can't misinterpret the ratings given to the menus by the participants. However, participants could have interpreted the rating scale differently. However, the data from the focus groups and the response to the open questions is subjective. But Lockyer used a computer programme to analyse the focus group discussion. A computer is objective and not open to any bias.

Additional issues candidates may include:

- Reliability

- Ethics

- Quantitative and qualitative data

Other appropriate responses should also be credited.