Is Your Food Organic? Examining the Role of Food Aesthetics in Restaurant Marketing

Abstract

Many restaurants believe that an aesthetically pleasing food presentation can help attract customers and elevate their evaluations. Yet the effectiveness of expressive aesthetics and the psychological processes associated with its use are not well understood in hospitality research. This study adopts a consumer behavior lens to explore how expressive aesthetics affects consumers’ decision making about organic versus conventional food in the restaurant setting. Findings reveal that the expressive aesthetics strategy is effective when marketing conventional, nonorganic food; however, such a strategy decreases consumers’ purchase intentions when the food is described as organic. Furthermore, an investigation of the underlying psychological mechanism indicates that anticipated pleasure and food temptation serially mediate the impacts of expressive aesthetics and food type on purchase intention.

Keywords

food marketing aesthetics pleasure food temptation organic food

Highlights

This study investigates a congruity effect of expressive aesthetics and food type in restaurants.

Expressive aesthetics is effective for marketing conventional food but not organic food.

Anticipated pleasure and food temptation serially mediate these effects.

Introduction

Food presentation involves processing, altering, or otherwise embellishing a plated dish to make it aesthetically pleasing (Strike, 2020). The idea of styling food dates back to ancient Rome and is universal across cultures, from a homemade Japanese bento in which food is molded into whimsical cartoon characters to a uniquely staged international cheeseboard at a banquet (Sweeney, 2017). The use of expressive aesthetics, which breaks the conventions of natural beauty while emphasizing the designer’s expressive power and human creativity (Hagen, 2021; Johnson, 1994; Lavie & Tractinsky, 2004), is ubiquitous in the hospitality industry. For example, landscape-style plating has become popular: the chef creates an edible garden on the plate through landscape techniques, such as styling the dish using vivid edible flowers made from red beets, to bring out ingredients’ aesthetics (“Landscape of Colour and Flavour,” 2020). While restaurants generally believe that a creative and aesthetic food presentation can attract customers and enhance diners’ restaurant evaluations (McCann, 2021), a complicated presentation may detract from the flavor and enjoyment of a meal—especially one featuring organic, natural food (Arcadian, 2014). Indeed, many restaurants that promote organic and sustainable eating (e.g., L’Arpège, De Librije, and Restaurant Sat Bains) tend to minimize unnecessary ingredient processing during food styling to ensure a simple but elegant presentation (Thorn, 2018; Zuhadmono, 2021).

Despite increasing interest around food presentation and aesthetics strategies in the restaurant context (Hagen, 2021; Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2008; F. Wu et al., 2017; Zellner et al., 2014), little research has shed light on the marketing effectiveness of expressive aesthetics for organic versus conventional food. Restaurants have recently begun to label food “organic” on menus to cater to consumers’ growing desire for such food (Poulston & Yiu, 2011; Shin & Mattila, 2019). For instance, quick-service chains (e.g., Chipotle, Elevation Burger, and Veggie Grill) highlight ingredients as “organic” on their menus to inspire consumers to select healthy options. Consumers often apply different schemas and standards when evaluating organic and conventional food (Loebnitz et al., 2015; Prada et al., 2017; Septianto et al., 2019). Taking schema congruity theory as an overarching framework (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Romero & Biswas, 2016; Sundar & Noseworthy, 2014), the present study extends the restaurant food marketing literature by investigating the influences of expressive aesthetics on consumers’ food perceptions and purchase intentions as a function of food type. More specifically, we aim to address the following questions: Will expressive aesthetics as a food presentation strategy lead to higher purchase intention? Does this strategy work for both organic and conventional, nonorganic food? What is the psychological mechanism driving the associated effects?

The expressive aesthetics of restaurant food presentation is likely to be regarded as a “naturalness reducer” and is linked to greater food waste and lower environmental sustainability (Betz et al., 2015; Filimonau et al., 2019; Hingston & Noseworthy, 2020; Rozin et al., 2004). Compared with conventional food, organic food is usually viewed as more natural, more environmentally friendly, fresher, safer, and healthier (Jeong & Jang, 2019; Soler et al., 2002). Applying expressive aesthetics to organic food thus counters the assumption that such food offers superior naturalness and environmental sustainability (Jeong & Jang, 2019; Soler et al., 2002). By contrast, when purchasing nonorganic food, consumers might be more drawn to an item’s hedonic and sensory qualities (Bourn & Prescott, 2002; Buder et al., 2014; Crowder et al., 2014) while assigning less weight to its naturalness or environmental sustainability (Bryla, 2016; Etale & Siegrist, 2018). For example, Buder et al. (2014) identified appearance and taste as the most important factors influencing the purchase of conventional food in Germany. Therefore, we predict that expressive aesthetics, as a form of visual appeal, will likely enhance consumers’ perceptions of and intentions to purchase conventional food.

Building on this logic, we posit that expressive aesthetics will have opposing effects when marketing organic versus conventional food. Specifically, congruity should exist between expressive aesthetics and food type; that is, organic food should be better suited to a low level of expressive aesthetic presentation, whereas conventional food should align better with a high level of such presentation. Consumers often associate pleasure with eating (Rappoport et al., 1993; Scheibehenne et al., 2007); for instance, pleasure seeking represents a key driver of organic food consumption (Zanoli & Naspetti, 2002). Drawing on affect-as-information theory (Clore, 1992; Clore et al., 2001), we argue that the congruity between expressive aesthetics and food type will enhance consumers’ anticipated pleasure and food temptation and in turn boost their purchase intentions.

The findings of this research make several important contributions to the hospitality field. First, our work enriches the related literature on expressive aesthetics and food presentation by examining how consumers respond to food presented with low versus high expressive aesthetics in the restaurant setting. In addition, this study contributes to the growing stream of work on aesthetic design by unveiling the congruity effects between expressive aesthetics and food type. Results also expand knowledge of aesthetics and food presentation by uncovering the critical mediating roles of anticipated pleasure and food temptation as drivers behind consumers’ food-related decisions. Moreover, our findings offer important managerial implications for organic food marketers and those who are interested in using expressive aesthetics as a marketing strategy, as detailed in the Discussion section.

Conceptual Background

Expressive Aesthetics as a Marketing Strategy

Aesthetics refers to “a conception of what is artistically valid or beautiful” (Y. J. Wang et al., 2011, p. 46) and can be divided into two dimensions: classical aesthetics and expressive aesthetics (Lavie & Tractinsky, 2004). Classical aesthetics reflects traditional principles of beauty, which are defined by attributes such as order, balance, clarity, and symmetry; expressive aesthetics goes beyond classical notions of aesthetics to underline the designer’s expressive power and human creativity (Hagen, 2021; Johnson, 1994; Lavie & Tractinsky, 2004). Expressive aesthetics plays a key role in numerous visual design and marketing contexts, including product packaging, retail environments, and logo and website design (Gupta & Hagtvedt, 2021; Hagtvedt & Brasel, 2017; Krishna et al., 2017; Lavie & Tractinsky, 2004; S. Q. Liu et al., 2018). We focus on expressive aesthetics rather than classical aesthetics in this research, as restaurant food presentation emphasizes chefs’ novel and creative expression (Deroy et al., 2014).

The effects of visual aesthetics on consumer psychology have garnered close scholarly attention (Carins et al., 2020; Garber et al., 2000; Palmer et al., 2013; Suher et al., 2017). The aesthetics literature has addressed the food consumption environment, such as facility aesthetics (Carins et al., 2020; Horng et al., 2013; Ryu & Han, 2011), service employees’ aesthetic labor (Tsaur et al., 2015; L. Wu et al., 2020), and food aesthetics such as color and plating (Garber et al., 2000; Palmer et al., 2013). In the restaurant context, studies have shown that expressive aesthetics can positively influence consumers’ evaluations and behavioral intentions (Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2008; Horng et al., 2013; Michel et al., 2014; Ryu & Han, 2011). In particular, restaurants can express desirable attributes through the aesthetic design of their menu, amenities, or decor. S. Q. Liu et al. (2018) found that circular cues within the restaurant servicescape can enhance consumers’ perceived warmth of the service provider, whereas angular shape cues may amplify perceptions of the provider’s competence. Hagtvedt and Patrick (2008) demonstrated that infusing visual art in the restaurant setting (e.g., Van Gogh’s Café Terrace at Night printed on a silverware box; Claude Monet’s Palazzo da Mula printed on a soap dispenser) can boost consumers’ evaluations due to the general connotations of luxury associated with artwork. S. Q. Liu et al. (2019) suggested that restaurants whose branding is focused on healthy dining can use a handwritten typeface on their menus—which conveys that the restaurant’s offerings are symbolically imbued with a sense of human touch and love—to echo the brand’s positioning and enhance consumers’ brand evaluations. Furthermore, consumers may respond differently to aesthetic presentation in food consumption (Suher et al., 2017; F. Wu et al., 2017). Their reactions typically depend on the level of food processing, such that consumers largely prefer aesthetically perfect unprocessed food but favor aesthetically imperfect processed food (Suher et al., 2017).

In contributing to the knowledge base around the impacts of expressive aesthetic designs in restaurants, the current research offers insight into (a) how consumers respond to lower versus higher expressive aesthetic food presentations and (b) the psychological mechanism associated with consumers’ food-related decisions. Consumers constantly and unconsciously make automatic inferences about items’ symbolic meanings based on what they see (Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2008; S. Q. Liu et al., 2018; S. Q. Liu et al., 2019). Accordingly, the expressive aesthetics of food—an intervention displaying designers’ expressive power and creativity in food presentation (Deroy et al., 2014)—may induce product inferences that elicit favorable or unfavorable consumer evaluations. Michel et al. (2014) investigated the effects of the artistic visual presentation of food and noted that Kandinsky-style plating (i.e., an artistic, creative, and sophisticated arrangement) led to a heightened sensory experience compared with a neat, nonartistic arrangement. However, F. Wu et al. (2017) found that consumers may be reluctant to consume highly aesthetic food (e.g., a cupcake with rose-shaped frosting) and experience lower consumption enjoyment due to concerns over ruining the designers’ effort. Building on the idea that expressive aesthetics in food products signals human labor and intervention during production (F. Wu et al., 2017), we speculate that the expressive aesthetic power a designer wields over food might exert opposing effects depending on food type (organic vs. conventional). More precisely, we predict that consumers will display higher purchase intentions given a match between expressive aesthetics and food type (i.e., low aesthetics/organic food; high aesthetics/conventional food) versus a mismatch (high aesthetics/organic food; low aesthetics/conventional food), as described in the next section.

Congruity Effects of Expressive Aesthetics and Food Type

The present research attends to the congruity effects of expressive aesthetics and food type. Adopting schema congruity theory as an overall framework (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Romero & Biswas, 2016; Sundar & Noseworthy, 2014), we presume that organic food combined with low expressive aesthetics and conventional food combined with high expressive aesthetics can elevate consumers’ food perceptions and purchase intentions. A schema is an individual’s stored framework of cognitive knowledge that represents the attributes of an object, concept, or topic (Fiske & Linville, 1980). Interestingly, research indicates that consumers’ lay beliefs and intuitions about product or firm attributes are not always reliable; for instance, consumers usually assume that for-profit organizations are more competent than nonprofit organizations (Aaker et al., 2010) and that unhealthy food is more flavorful than healthy food (Raghunathan et al., 2006). In addition, the product design literature suggests that consumers may subconsciously associate meanings with a specific design factor (e.g., logo, typeface, and color), although such associations may not be directly accessed from one’s cognitive framework through an explicit question (S. Q. Liu et al., 2018; Sundar & Noseworthy, 2014; B. Wang et al., 2020). For example, a circular logo (angular logo) shape can activate softness (hardness) associations in consumers’ working memory (Jiang et al., 2016). Most important, consumers often rely on schema congruity as a basis for product judgment and evaluation. Congruity between product design and product schema is likely to positively influence consumers’ evaluations, whereas incongruity generally exerts a negative effect (Chae & Hoegg, 2013; Labroo et al., 2008; Sundar & Noseworthy, 2014).

In this research, we argue that the effectiveness of expressive aesthetic design depends on product type (i.e., whether the food is organic)—a theoretically and practically relevant moderating variable in the marketing literature (Y. Liu et al., 2017; Schnurr, 2019). Consumers may employ distinct schemas and norms to assess organic food versus conventional food. Organic food refers to “food produced using environmentally sound practices instead of using conventional pesticides or fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients and not processed using industrial solvents, irradiation, chemical food additives, or genetic engineering” (Jeong & Jang, 2019, p. 118). Organic food is somewhat known for its rugged look due to more natural production processes (Yue et al., 2009). Compared with conventional food, consumers may expect organic food to have a less flawless appearance given its greater “naturalness” (e.g., Loebnitz et al., 2015; Vega-Zamora et al., 2014; Xie et al., 2015). Naturalness and environmental sustainability are major determinants of consumers’ decisions to purchase organic food (Bonn et al., 2016; Bonti-Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006; Padel & Foster, 2005) but are less often salient in conventional food purchases (Bryla, 2016; Crowder et al., 2014; Etale & Siegrist, 2018).

Expressive aesthetic design requires human intervention and processing of food ingredients. However, this process alters the original status of food and diminishes virtues such as naturalness (Dominici et al., 2019; Etale & Siegrist, 2018; Rozin et al., 2004). The expressive aesthetics of restaurant food presentation thus tends to function as a naturalness reducer. As mentioned, food aesthetics is also tied to greater food waste and lower environmental sustainability (Betz et al., 2015; Filimonau et al., 2019; Hingston & Noseworthy, 2020). Presenting organic food with higher expressive aesthetics is therefore incongruent with the schema that organic food should be superior in its naturalness and environmental sustainability (Jeong & Jang, 2019; Soler et al., 2002). In other words, a low level of expressive aesthetics should be more congruent with the schema consumers use to evaluate organic food. By contrast, consumers are less concerned about naturalness when purchasing conventional food (Bonn et al., 2016; Bonti-Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006; Padel & Foster, 2005). They generally deem the environmental benefits of conventional food less important and are instead more driven by the food’s visual appeal (Bryla, 2016; Crowder et al., 2014; Etale & Siegrist, 2018). Moreover, conventional food with an aesthetic presentation can produce more favorable evaluations as consumers derive pleasure from processing food stimuli of higher visual complexity (Michel et al., 2014). In short, a high level of expressive aesthetics should be more congruent with the schema consumers use to assess conventional food.

We propose that expressive aesthetics will have opposing effects on marketing organic versus conventional food. More concretely, we expect to observe congruity effects of expressive aesthetics and food type: Organic food combined with low expressive aesthetics and conventional food combined with high expressive aesthetics should boost consumers’ purchase intentions as postulated below:

Hypothesis 1: A significant two-way interaction effect exists between expressive aesthetics and food type on purchase intention, such that (a) consumers will display higher intentions to purchase organic food with lower (vs. higher) expressive aesthetics appeal and (b) consumers will display higher intentions to purchase conventional food with higher (vs. lower) expressive aesthetics appeal.

Mediating Roles of Anticipated Pleasure and Food Temptation

Ample evidence in the advertising literature shows that congruity enhances fluency (i.e., the ease with which information is processed) and positively affects consumers’ product evaluations (Chae & Hoegg, 2013; Labroo et al., 2008; A. Y. Lee & Aaker, 2004; Sundar & Noseworthy, 2014). Notably, research on “feelings as information” suggests that consumers may use incidental affective experiences, such as feelings of ease, as information sources when making judgments and decisions (Clore, 1992; Clore et al., 2001). Consumers are thus likely to consider incidental positive feelings of ease when processing advertising stimuli (as a result of congruity) to anticipate the degree of pleasure associated with the advertised product and make judgments consistent with their feelings: “If I feel good, the product must be good!”

We assume that consumers will expect greater pleasure due to the schema congruity between expressive aesthetics and food type. Pleasure is associated with feeling happy and delighted (Hur & Jang, 2015). Prior research has tied aesthetics to pleasure (Alba & Williams, 2013; Reimann et al., 2010). In addition, the visual shapes of food presentation may influence consumption pleasure (Michel et al., 2014). The food marketing literature indicates that consumers may anticipate pleasure from the sensory stimulation of consuming food (Hur & Jang, 2015; H.-J. Lee & Yun, 2015; Richins, 1997). Anticipated pleasure is also closely associated with food choices and is regarded as one of the most important factors driving food consumption (Rappoport et al., 1993; Scheibehenne et al., 2007). Drawing on earlier work on schema congruity effects (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Chae & Hoegg, 2013; Romero & Biswas, 2016; Sundar & Noseworthy, 2014), we theorize that consumers will exhibit greater anticipated pleasure due to schema congruity between expressive aesthetics and food type.

An increase in anticipated pleasure also renders food more appealing, leading to a rise in food temptation, which drives purchase intention. Food temptation refers to the extent to which food can attract consumers’ attention and ignite enduring and hard-to-resist desire (Deng & Srinivasan, 2013; Geyskens et al., 2008). Put simply, food temptation captures consumers’ ability to resist consuming the food. The anticipated pleasure of food consumption can make food seem more attractive and harder to resist (Maldoy et al., 2021). Given that food temptation guides food consumption and shapes consumers’ behavioral intentions (Geyskens et al., 2008; Moore, 2014; Van Dillen et al., 2013), we predict that consumers will exhibit stronger purchase intentions driven by food temptation. We essentially expect that the proposed congruity effects of expressive aesthetics and food type on consumers’ purchase intentions will be serially mediated through anticipated pleasure and food temptation. Stated formally:

Hypothesis 2: The impacts of expressive aesthetics and food type on purchase intention will be serially mediated through anticipated pleasure and food temptation.

Our conceptual framework is illustrated in Figure 1.

Method

Study Design and Sample

One hundred fifty U.S. participants were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) consumer panel to participate in a 2 (expressive aesthetics: lower vs. higher) × 2 (food type: organic vs. conventional) between-subjects experiment. Experimental design is an efficient way to investigate causal relationships among variables (Shadish et al., 2002). A randomized, controlled, and scenario-based experimental design can provide high levels of internal validity and reliability (Kirk, 1982; Kuehl, 2000; Trochim & Donnelly, 2001). This approach is widely used in consumer behavior research to examine the interaction effects of one or more manipulated independent variables (Ladhari & Michaud, 2015). We used MTurk, an established online panel popular among hospitality researchers (Kim et al., 2019; Shin & Mattila, 2019; Yu et al., 2020), for participant recruitment. MTurk can offer reliable, high-quality data that are demographically diverse (Paolacci et al., 2010). To further ensure data quality, we applied participant eligibility criteria (e.g., location, task approval rate, and age), embedded multiple attention checks in the survey (e.g., recall questions, instructional questions, and self-report effort), and employed additional procedures to identify and eliminate instances of MTurk worker fraud (e.g., repeated IP addresses and amount of time spent on the survey) (Oppenheimer et al., 2009). Participants were 38.71 years old on average. Slightly more than half (52%) were men, 72.7% were Caucasian, 67.4% held a bachelor’s degree, and 67.3% earned an annual income of $40,000 or more.

Procedures and Stimuli

Participants were instructed to imagine they were at a restaurant where they noticed a fruit cup on the menu. A fruit cup was selected for the manipulation check because it is a simple, common dessert acceptable to most consumers; therefore, this choice can help mitigate bias induced by individual differences such as culture, gender, and age. Consumer researchers have often included fruit salad in their studies (Dhar & Simonson, 1992; Mukhopadhyay & Johar, 2009; Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999). Simple items such as cupcakes have also appeared in food aesthetics research on consumers’ decision making (F. Wu et al., 2017). Each participant was randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions that manipulated food type and expressive aesthetics. For the food type manipulation, in the organic food condition, participants were informed that the fruit cup was a nutritious mix of organic watermelon, organic blueberry, and organic melon. They were also told that the ingredients had been grown naturally without chemicals and pesticides. In the conventional food condition, participants were only informed that the fruit cup was a nutritious mix of watermelon, blueberry, and melon. For the expressive aesthetics manipulation, in the lower expressive aesthetics condition, participants viewed a photo of a regular fruit cup where the pieces were cut into typical shapes; in the higher expressive aesthetics condition, participants viewed a photo of an aesthetic fruit cup whose pieces were cut into aesthetically designed shapes (see Table 1).

Table 1

Manipulation of Expressive Aesthetics

Lower expressive aesthetics

Higher expressive aesthetics

To measure purchase intention, participants were asked to rate their likelihood of ordering the described fruit cup on 7-point scales (1 = unlikely, 7 = likely; 1 = impossible, 7 = possible; 1 = improbable, 7 = probable; Cronbach’s α = .89) adapted from Sundar and Noseworthy (2016). Regarding anticipated pleasure, participants were instructed to rate their anticipated pleasure, happiness, and delight if they ate the fruit cup; these attributes were scored on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much; Cronbach’s α = .89) adapted from Hur and Jang (2015). Food temptation was assessed via three items adapted from Deng and Srinivasan (2013): “This fruit cup keeps attracting my attention,” “I think of eating this fruit cup all the time,” and “It is difficult to resist eating this fruit cup” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; Cronbach’s α = .77). We also assessed a series of control variables including hunger level (“How hungry are you now?”; 1 = not at all hungry, 7 = extremely hungry; Nenkov & Scott, 2014), enjoyment of fruit (“In general, how much do you like eating fruits?”; 1 = dislike extremely, 7 = like extremely; Nenkov & Scott, 2014), knowledge of organic food (“How do you rate your knowledge about organic food?”; 1 = very low, 7 = very high; Prada et al., 2017), and health consciousness (“I choose food carefully to ensure good health,” “I think of myself as a health-conscious consumer,” “I think often about health issues”; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; Cronbach’s α = 0.76; Shin & Mattila, 2019).¹

As a manipulation check for food type, participants were asked to state whether the menu description labeled the fruit cup as organic (1 = definitely no, 7 = definitely yes), adapted from Shin and Mattila (2019). Similarly, as a manipulation check of expressive aesthetics, we asked participants to indicate to what extent the fruit cup was artistic (1 = not at all, 7 = very much) and whether the fruit pieces were cut into aesthetically designed shapes (1 = definitely no, 7 = definitely yes) (r = .67, p < .001); both items were adapted from F. Wu et al. (2017). For the realism check, we asked participants to evaluate how realistic the fruit cup was (1 = highly unrealistic, 7 = highly realistic).

Results

Manipulation Check

We ran a 2 (expressive aesthetics: lower vs. higher) × 2 (food type: organic vs. conventional) analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the aesthetics manipulation check scores. As intended, the results only yielded a main effect of expressive aesthetics, F(1, 146) = 29.37, p < .001; that is, participants in the lower expressive aesthetics condition reported lower perceived aesthetics (M = 4.99) than those in the higher expressive aesthetics condition (M = 6.18). We also conducted a 2 (expressive aesthetics: lower vs. higher) × 2 (food type: organic vs. conventional) ANOVA on the food type manipulation check scores. As expected, the results revealed a main effect of food type, F(1, 146) = 67.91, p < .001, suggesting a significant difference between the organic food condition (M = 6.34) and conventional food condition (M = 3.72). In addition, participants perceived our stimuli as highly realistic (M = 6.09; t = 21.742, p < .001 as compared with the scale midpoint). The experimental manipulations were thus successful.

Purchase Intention

We performed a two-way ANOVA on purchase intention.² As anticipated, we observed a significant two-way interaction between expressive aesthetics and food type, F(1, 146) = 9.78, p < .05; partial η² = .063, presented in Supplement Table 1 (available online). The main effects of expressive aesthetics and food type were nonsignificant (p > .44). We then conducted a simple main effect analysis, displayed in Figure 2 Panel (a), to understand the significant two-way interaction. In the organic food condition, participants exhibited higher purchase intentions when the food’s expressive aesthetics was low (M = 6.06) versus high, M = 5.28, F(1, 146) = 5.12, p < .05, lending support to Hypothesis 1a. Conversely, in the conventional food condition, participants displayed higher purchase intentions when the food’s expressive aesthetics was higher (M = 5.84) rather than lower, M = 5.13, F(1, 146) = 4.67, p < .05, supporting Hypothesis 1b. The cell size, means, and standard deviations are listed in Supplement Table 2 (available online).

Anticipated Pleasure

We ran a two-way ANOVA on anticipated pleasure. As expected, the results showed a significant two-way interaction between expressive aesthetics and food type, F(1, 146) = 9.27, p < .05; partial η² = .06. We then conducted a simple main effect analysis regarding the significant two-way interaction, depicted in Figure 2 Panel (b). Specifically, in the organic food condition, participants exhibited higher anticipated pleasure when the food’s expressive aesthetics was low (M = 6.07) versus high, M = 5.41, F(1, 146) = 5.14, p < .05. In the conventional food condition, consumers indicated higher anticipated pleasure when the food’s expressive aesthetics was higher (M = 5.77) rather than lower, M = 5.21, F(1, 146) = 4.15, p < .05.

Food Temptation

We next carried out a two-way ANOVA on food temptation. A significant two-way interaction emerged between expressive aesthetics and food type on food temptation, F(1, 146) = 11.66, p < .05; partial η² = .07. We then conducted a simple main effect analysis to clarify the significant two-way interaction, presented in Figure 2 Panel (c). In particular, in the organic food condition, participants displayed higher food temptation when the food’s expressive aesthetics was low (M = 5.76) versus high, M = 4.58, F(1, 146) = 12.30, p < .05. However, in the conventional food condition, food temptation was unaffected by food expressive aesthetics, M_lower = 4.83, M_higher = 5.23; F(1, 146) = 1.60, p = .21, ns.

Mediation Analysis

We ran a serial mediation analysis using the bootstrapping approach (PROCESS Model 85, 10,000 bootstrap samples; Hayes, 2017). In the serial mediation model, expressive aesthetics served as the independent variable, food type was the moderator, anticipated pleasure and food temptation were serial mediators, and purchase intention was the dependent variable (see Figure 3). The bootstrapping results indicated a significant moderated mediation through anticipated pleasure and food temptation (index = 0.1737; 95% confidence interval (CI [0.0577, 0.3358]). As expected, we identified a significant “expressive aesthetics → anticipated pleasure → food temptation → purchase intention” serial mediation process in the organic food condition (indirect effect = −0.0938; 95% CI [−0.2002, −0.0189]) as well as in the conventional food condition (indirect effect = 0.0799; 95% CI [0.0015, 0.1826]). Collectively, these results align with Hypothesis 2. The complete bootstrapping output is provided in the Supplement Table 3 (available online).

General Discussion

Many restaurants believe that the aesthetic presentation of food can help attract customers and enhance diners’ restaurant evaluations (“Beauty and the Bento Box,” 2009; Storey, 2009). Despite burgeoning interest in food presentation and aesthetics strategies in restaurants (Hagen, 2021; Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2008; F. Wu et al., 2017), limited research has explored the role of expressive aesthetics for different food types or the psychological processes associated with its use. Through a consumer behavior lens, we considered how expressive aesthetics affects consumers’ decisions regarding organic versus conventional food in the restaurant setting. Our findings suggest that an expressive aesthetics strategy is effective for marketing conventional, nonorganic food; however, such a strategy reduces consumers’ purchase intentions when the food is described as organic. Furthermore, an investigation into the underlying psychological mechanism demonstrated that anticipated pleasure and food temptation serially mediate the impacts of expressive aesthetics and food type on purchase intention.

Theoretical Implications

This research advances the aesthetics literature in terms of expressive aesthetics and food presentation. Consumers may respond differently to aesthetics in food consumption (Suher et al., 2017; F. Wu et al., 2017). Our findings enrich the understanding of such aesthetic cues by revealing that the effectiveness of an expressive aesthetics strategy depends on whether the marketed food is organic or conventional. Referring to schema congruity theory (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Chae & Hoegg, 2013; Romero & Biswas, 2016; Sundar & Noseworthy, 2014), we further identified opposing effects of expressive aesthetic food presentation in marketing organic food and conventional food. More precisely, consumers were found to display stronger purchase intentions when exposed to organic food with low expressive aesthetics and to conventional food with high expressive aesthetics. This study accordingly highlights expressive aesthetics as a “double-edged sword” in the restaurant setting; our work is among the first to disentangle positive aesthetic effects (Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2008) and negative aesthetic effects (Hoegg et al., 2010; F. Wu et al., 2017) based on the moderating role of food type.

Our insights also expand the hospitality literature on organic food by investigating the impact of aesthetic presentation on organic food decision making. Much of the work revolving around organic food has focused on intrinsic aspects (e.g., quality, health, and status signaling) (Lairon, 2010; Luomala et al., 2019). We assessed the extrinsic visual cues of organic food and discovered that consumers display greater intentions to purchase organic food with a lower expressive aesthetic presentation. These results are conceptually congruent with earlier findings regarding the visual cues of organic food, namely that consumers often believe organic food should have less attractive visual cues than conventional food (e.g., Loebnitz et al., 2015; Shin & Mattila, 2019; Vega-Zamora et al., 2014; Xie et al., 2015). Importantly, attributes such as naturalness, freshness, and environmental concerns play prominent roles in individuals’ decisions to consume organic produce (Bonn et al., 2016; Bonti-Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006; Padel & Foster, 2005). Our work extends prior research by showcasing that consumers’ intentions to purchase organic food may decline because higher expressive aesthetics compromises the perceived naturalness, freshness, and environmental friendliness of such food. Therefore, the marketing of organic food should be distinct from that of conventional food.

Additionally, our findings illuminate the psychological mechanism behind the congruity between expressive aesthetics and food type on purchase intention. Scholars have adopted schema congruity theory to explain the process of how congruity positively influences consumers’ evaluations of production by enhancing fluency (i.e., one’s sense of ease) in information processing (Chae & Hoegg, 2013; Labroo et al., 2008; A. Y. Lee & Aaker, 2004; Sundar & Noseworthy, 2014). We noticed that consumers express higher anticipated pleasure due to schema congruity between expressive aesthetics and food type. Moreover, aesthetics-induced anticipated pleasure apparently spills over to food temptation, which then informs consumers’ behavioral intentions. These findings accord with the notion that customers are biased toward using their feelings as decision-making aids (Mellers & McGraw, 2001). We have hence introduced the feelings-as-information theory into the domains of organic food consumption and restaurant management.

Managerial Implications

Traditional aesthetic bias compels marketers to devote great effort to designing highly aesthetic products (F. Wu et al., 2017). Contrary to this assumption, our work suggests that restaurants and food retailing practitioners should carefully consider their use of expressive aesthetics based on the type of food being plated. On one hand, marketers should aim to present conventional food dishes aesthetically to attract consumers. Red Lobster, which specializes in serving conventional food, exemplifies this proposition: the chain adopted a vertical plating arrangement in which ingredients are creatively stacked to present more aesthetically pleasing dishes. This approach consequently improved consumers’ perceptions of Red Lobster’s food quality (Brody, 2014).

On the other hand, although artistic presentation is a suitable technique to increase consumers’ perceived food aesthetics (Michel et al., 2014), our results imply that organic food may be plated in a neat and less attractive way to reflect consumers’ environmental concerns. Nearly 70% of customers expect restaurants to provide organic food menus, and 65% are willing to pay an additional 10% to dine at a “green” restaurant (Chait, 2019). Consistent with the popularity of organic food, organic food marketers should minimize artificial ingredient alteration and instead maintain a rustic, authentic look to highlight products’ environmental benefits. For example, rather than providing shiny out-of-season fruits, organic food retailers may be better served by offering customers seasonal fruits with natural defects (TheFork, 2018). Meanwhile, common strategies such as the use of garnishes should be discouraged in organic restaurants; such approaches contradict the philosophy of environmental sustainability that these establishments strive to project. SOW Plated, an organic restaurant in Columbus, Ohio, emphasizes freshness, organic offerings, and wellness while aiming for zero food waste. Consistent with the concept of such restaurants, our findings indicate that unnecessary presentation or overstyling can lead to backfiring expressive aesthetic effects and reduce consumers’ intentions to purchase organic food. As such, rather than hiding food behind mountains of garnishes or swirls of sauce, organic marketers can remove unneeded decoration and underscore ingredients’ environmental benefits by serving organic food neatly and less attractively.

Appropriately designed food advertisements and restaurant menus are vital to attracting consumers. Our results show that the congruence between expressive aesthetics and food type informs consumers’ behavioral intentions. As such, the effectiveness of expressive aesthetics in advertising and menus will vary with the type of food being marketed. Takeout and delivery have recently become the most accessible and popular dining methods (Nierenberg, 2020). Displaying high-quality pictures on food delivery apps represents an impactful marketing strategy and can boost online order sales by as much as 30% (Nadareyshvili, 2019). To fully leverage online ordering and delivery services, we encourage practitioners to strategically post pictures intended to promote certain dishes to their respective customers. Organic food items may be better advertised through rustic-looking pictures with less expressive aesthetic appeal, thereby reducing consumers’ perceptions of food processing while highlighting the environmental benefits of organic ingredients. On the contrary, to promote conventional food items, elegant pictures with greater expressive aesthetic appeal should be displayed to spark customers’ cravings.

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations of this research present fertile avenues for future work. First, we employed a scenario-based experimental design online; subsequent studies should examine consumers’ food-related decisions in a real restaurant or retailing context. Relatedly, our investigation of the underlying psychological mechanism was based on a single experimental design. Researchers should consider testing the basic effect in one study and then complicating it through multiple studies to examine the serial mediation process and to increase external/internal validity while ruling out potential alternative explanations. Second, we limited our experimental investigation to one type of food. Fruit cups may be a potential weakness of this work; replication studies with more distinct food categories could validate our findings. Consumers also often struggle with conflicting goals when making food consumption choices: utilitarian goals that revolve around health and functional values versus hedonic goals rooted in enjoyment and sensory stimulation (Ryu et al., 2010). Scholars can account for participants’ dining-related goals and examine the effects of expressive aesthetics on unhealthy or impulsive food choices. What’s more, visual product aesthetics vary from person to person (Bloch et al., 2003). Additional research can clarify the impacts of individual differences on aesthetic-related effects. For instance, consumers’ desire for self-affirmation can strengthen their intentions to purchase highly aesthetic products (Townsend & Sood, 2012). Related research may consider product types (e.g., healthy vs. unhealthy food) and assess the joint effects of individual differences in aesthetics (e.g., self-esteem or self-affirmation) and food type on behavioral intentions and aesthetic effects. Moreover, White and Dahl (2006) explored the roles of dissociative reference groups in individuals’ food choices and found that men were less inclined to order a steak named “ladies’ cut.” Subsequent work can explore the aesthetic effect of gendered food to determine how gender influences consumers’ perceptions of the aesthetics of feminine and masculine food. Last, we did not include a direct and explicit manipulation check regarding consumers’ perceived congruity (incongruity) of expressive aesthetics and food type combinations. Future empirical efforts could include the Implicit Association Test, a reaction-time measure widely used in consumer studies, to examine schema congruity in research labs with the assistance of computer programing (Greenwald et al., 2003; H. Lee et al., 2014; Noseworthy et al., 2014; Yan, 2016). Relevant results could empirically validate consumers’ perceived congruity (incongruity) of expressive aesthetics and food type combinations.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jad-10.1177_10963480211067275 – Supplemental material for Is Your Food Organic? Examining the Role of Food Aesthetics in Restaurant Marketing

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jad-10.1177_10963480211067275 for Is Your Food Organic? Examining the Role of Food Aesthetics in Restaurant Marketing by Xi Yu and Stephanie Q. Liu in Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Xi Yu

Stephanie Q. Liu

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Xi Yu (corresponding author, e-mail: xyu@cityu.mo) is an assitant professor in the Faculty of International Tourism and Management at the City University of Macau, Macau, China. Stephanie Q. Liu (e-mail: liu.6225@osu.edu) is an associate professor in the Hospitality Management program at the Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.

References

Aaker

Vohs

K. D.

Mogilner

(2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 224-237. https://doi.org/10.1086/651566

Aggarwal

McGill

A. L.

(2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 468-479. https://doi.org/10.1086/518544

Alba

J. W.

Williams

E. F.

(2013). Pleasure principles: A review of research on hedonic consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 2-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.07.003

Arcadian. (2014). How can you best garnish and prepare your organic meat? https://www.arcadianorganic.com.au/2014/08/26/how-can-you-best-garnish-and-prepare-your-organic-meat/

Beauty and the Bento Box. (2009, October 19). The New York Times. https://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/beauty-and-the-bento-box/

Betz

Buchli

Göbel

Müller

(2015). Food waste in the Swiss food service industry: Magnitude and potential for reduction. Waste Management, 35(January), 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.015

Bloch

P. H.

Brunel

F. F.

Arnold

T. J.

(2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 551-565. https://doi.org/10.1086/346250

Bonn

M. A.

Cronin

J. J.

Jr. Cho

(2016). Do environmental sustainable practices of organic wine suppliers affect consumers’ behavioral intentions? The moderating role of trust. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 57(1), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965515576567

Bonti-Ankomah

Yiridoe

E. K.

(2006). Organic and conventional food: A literature review of the economics of consumer perceptions and preferences. Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada.

10.

Bourn

Prescott

(2002). A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 42(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408690290825439

11.

Brody

(2014, July 29). Red Lobster bets on fancier-looking plates to turn things around. CNN Business. https://money.cnn.com/2014/07/29/news/companies/red-lobster-upscaling/index.html

12.

Bryla

(2016). Organic food consumption in Poland: Motives and barriers. Appetite, 105(October), 737-746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.012

13.

Buder

Feldmann

Hamm

(2014). Why regular buyers of organic food still buy many conventional products. British Food Journal, 116(3), 390-403. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2012-0087

14.

Carins

J. E.

Rundle-Thiele

Ong

D. L.

(2020). Keep them coming back: The role of variety and aesthetics in institutional food satisfaction. Food Quality and Preference, 80(March), 103832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103832

15.

Chae

Hoegg

(2013). The future looks “right”: Effects of the horizontal location of advertising images on product attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 223-238. https://doi.org/10.1086/669476

16.

Chait

(2019). Reasons for restaurants to go organic. https://www.thebalancesmb.com/restaurants-go-organic-2538365

17.

Clore

G. L.

(1992). Cognitive phenomenology: Feelings and the construction of judgment. In Martin

L. L.

Tesser

(Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 133–163). Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Clore

G. L.

Gasper

Garvin

(2001). Affect as information. In Forgas

J. P.

(Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 121-144). Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Crowder

Shoulders

C. W.

Rucker

K. J.

(2014). College students’ perceptions regarding sensory aspects of conventionally produced and unconventionally produced foods: Implications for marketing to the Millennial generation. Journal of Applied Communications, 15(1), 18-25. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1093

20.

Deng

Srinivasan

(2013). When do transparent packages increase (or decrease) food consumption? Journal of Marketing, 77(4), 104-117. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0610

21.

Deroy

Michel

Piqueras-Fiszman

Spence

(2014). The plating manifesto (I): From decoration to creation. Flavour, 3(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/2044-7248-3-6

22.

Dhar

Simonson

(1992). The effect of the focus of comparison on consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(4), 430-440. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379202900404

23.

Dominici

Boncinelli

Gerini

Marone

(2019). Consumer preference for wine from hand-harvested grapes. British Food Journal, 122(8), 2551-2567. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2019-0301

24.

Etale

Siegrist

(2018). Perceived naturalness of water: The effect of biological agents and beneficial human action. Food Quality and Preference, 68(September), 245-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.03.013

25.

Filimonau

Krivcova

Pettit

(2019). An exploratory study of managerial approaches to food waste mitigation in coffee shops. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76(January), 48-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.010

26.

Fiske

S. T.

Linville

P. W.

(1980). What does the schema concept buy us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(4), 543-557. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616728064006

27.

Garber

L. L.

Jr. Hyatt

E. M.

Starr

R. G.

Jr. (2000). The effects of food color on perceived flavor. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 8(4), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2000.11501880

28.

Geyskens

Dewitte

Pandelaere

Warlop

(2008). Tempt me just a little bit more: The effect of prior food temptation actionability on goal activation and consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 600-610. https://doi.org/10.1086/591106

29.

Greenwald

A. G.

Nosek

B. A.

Banaji

M. R.

(2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197-216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197

30.

Gupta

Hagtvedt

(2021). Safe together, vulnerable apart: How interstitial space in text logos impacts brand attitudes in tight versus loose cultures. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(3), 474-491. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucab006

31.

Hagen

(2021). Pretty healthy food: How and when aesthetics enhance perceived healthiness. Journal of Marketing, 85(2), 129-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920944384

32.

Hagtvedt

Brasel

S. A.

(2017). Color saturation increases perceived product size. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(2), 396-413. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx039

33.

Hagtvedt

Patrick

V. M.

(2008). Art infusion: The influence of visual art on the perception and evaluation of consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 379-389. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.3.379

34.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach: Guilford Press.

35.

Hingston

S. T.

Noseworthy

T. J.

(2020). On the epidemic of food waste: Idealized prototypes and the aversion to misshapen fruits and vegetables. Food Quality and Preference, 86(December), 103999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103999

36.

Hoegg

Alba

J. W.

Dahl

D. W.

(2010). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Influence of aesthetics on product feature judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 419-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.07.002

37.

Horng

J.-S.

Chou

S.-F.

Liu

C.-H.

Tsai

C.-Y.

(2013). Creativity, aesthetics and eco-friendliness: A physical dining environment design synthetic assessment model of innovative restaurants. Tourism Management, 36(June), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.002

38.

Hur

Jang

S. S.

(2015). Anticipated guilt and pleasure in a healthy food consumption context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 48(July), 113-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.04.015

39.

Jeong

Jang

S. S.

(2019). Price premiums for organic menus at restaurants: What is an acceptable level? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77(January), 117-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.020

40.

Jiang

Gorn

G. J.

Galli

Chattopadhyay

(2016). Does your company have the right logo? How and why circular-and angular-logo shapes influence brand attribute judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(5), 709-726. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv049

41.

Johnson

P.-A.

(1994). The theory of architecture: Concepts, themes and practices. Van Nostrand Reinhold.

42.

Kim

Hwang

Park

Lee

J. C.

Park

(2019). Position effects of menu item displays in consumer choices: Comparisons of horizontal versus vertical displays. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 60(2), 116-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965518778234

43.

Kirk

R. E.

(1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Brooks/Cole.

44.

Krishna

Cian

Aydınoğlu

N. Z.

(2017). Sensory aspects of package design. Journal of Retailing, 93(1), 43-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2016.12.002

45.

Kuehl

R. O.

(2000). Design of experiments: Statistical principles of research design and analysis (2nd ed.). Duxbury/Thomson Learning.

46.

Labroo

A. A.

Dhar

Schwarz

(2008). Of frog wines and frowning watches: Semantic priming, perceptual fluency, and brand evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 819-831. https://doi.org/10.1086/523290

47.

Ladhari

Michaud

(2015). eWOM effects on hotel booking intentions, attitudes, trust, and website perceptions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46(April), 36-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.01.010

48.

Lairon

(2010). Nutritional quality and safety of organic food: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 30(1), 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009019

49.

Landscape of colour and flavour in your plate. (2020). The New Indian Express. https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2020/jan/19/landscape-of-colour-and-flavour-in-your-plate-2090218.html

50.

Lavie

Tractinsky

(2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human-computer Studies, 60(3), 269-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.09.002

51.

Lee

A. Y.

Aaker

J. L.

(2004). Bringing the frame into focus: the influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205-218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.205

52.

Lee

Deng

Unnava

H. R.

Fujita

(2014). Monochrome forests and colorful trees: The effect of black-and-white versus color imagery on construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 1015-1032. https://doi.org/10.1086/678392

53.

Lee

H.-J.

Yun

Z.-S.

(2015). Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and cognitive and affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions toward organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 39(January), 259-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.06.002

54.

Liu

S. Q.

Bogicevic

Mattila

A. S.

(2018). Circular vs. angular servicescape: “Shaping” customer response to a fast service encounter pace. Journal of Business Research, 89(August), 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.007

55.

Liu

S. Q.

Choi

Mattila

A. S.

(2019). Love is in the menu: Leveraging healthy restaurant brands with handwritten typeface. Journal of Business Research, 98(May), 289-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.022

56.

Liu

K. J.

Chen

Balachander

(2017). The effects of products’ aesthetic design on demand and marketing-mix effectiveness: The role of segment prototypicality and brand consistency. Journal of Marketing, 81(1), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0315

57.

Loebnitz

Schuitema

Grunert

K. G.

(2015). Who buys oddly shaped food and why? Impacts of food shape abnormality and organic labeling on purchase intentions. Psychology & Marketing, 32(4), 408-421. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20788

58.

Luomala

Puska

Lähdesmäki

Siltaoja

Kurki

(2019). Get some respect—buy organic foods! When everyday consumer choices serve as prosocial status signaling. Appetite, 145(February), 104492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104492

59.

Maldoy

De Backer

C. J.

Poels

(2021). The pleasure of sharing: Can social context make healthy food more appealing? Psychology & Marketing, 38(2), 359-370. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21396

60.

McCann

(2021). Top 11 food presentation tips for your restaurant. https://www.touchbistro.com/blog/food-presentation-tips/

61.

Mellers

B. A.

McGraw

A. P.

(2001). Anticipated emotions as guides to choice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 210-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00151

62.

Michel

Velasco

Gatti

Spence

(2014). A taste of Kandinsky: Assessing the influence of the artistic visual presentation of food on the dining experience. Flavour, 3(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/2044-7248-3-7

63.

Moore

D. J.

(2014). Is anticipation delicious? Visceral factors as mediators of the effect of olfactory cues on purchase intentions. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 2045-2051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.005

64.

Mukhopadhyay

Johar

G. V.

(2009). Indulgence as self-reward for prior shopping restraint: A justification-based mechanism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 334-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.02.016

65.

Nadareyshvili

(2019, April 30). The impact of photos on food delivery apps performance. Meero. https://www.meero.com/en/news/food/512/The-Impact-Of-Photos-On-Food-Delivery-Apps-Performance

66.

Nenkov

G. Y.

Scott

M. L.

(2014). “So cute I could eat it up”: Priming effects of cute products on indulgent consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 326-341. https://doi.org/10.1086/676581

67.

Nierenberg

(2020, May27). Is takeout and delivery food safe? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/27/dining/takeout-delivery-safety-coronavirus.html

68.

Noseworthy

T. J.

Di Muro

Murray

K. B.

(2014). The role of arousal in congruity-based product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 1108-1126. https://doi.org/10.1086/678301

69.

Oppenheimer

D. M.

Meyvis

Davidenko

(2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867-872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009

70.

Padel

Foster

(2005). Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour. British Food Journal, 107(8), 606-625. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700510611002

71.

Palmer

S. E.

Schloss

K. B.

Sammartino

(2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 77-107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100504

72.

Paolacci

Chandler

Ipeirotis

P. G.

(2010). Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411-419. http://journal.sjdm.org/10/10630a/jdm10630a.pdf

73.

Poulston

Yiu

A. Y. K.

(2011). Profit or principles: Why do restaurants serve organic food? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), 184-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.04.004

74.

Prada

Garrido

M. V.

Rodrigues

(2017). Lost in processing? Perceived healthfulness, taste and caloric content of whole and processed organic food. Appetite, 114(July), 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.031

75.

Rappoport

Peters

G. R.

Downey

McCann

Huff-Corzine

(1993). Gender and age differences in food cognition. Appetite, 20(1), 33-52. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1993.1004

76.

Reimann

Zaichkowsky

Neuhaus

Bender

Weber

(2010). Aesthetic package design: A behavioral, neural, and psychological investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 431-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.06.009

77.

Richins

M. L.

(1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 127-146. https://doi.org/10.1086/209499

78.

Romero

Biswas

(2016). Healthy-left, unhealthy-right: Can displaying healthy items to the left (versus right) of unhealthy items nudge healthier choices? Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 103-112. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw008

79.

Rozin

Spranca

Krieger

Neuhaus

Surillo

Swerdlin

Wood

(2004). Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43(2), 147-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.03.005

80.

Ryu

Han

(2011). New or repeat customers: How does physical environment influence their restaurant experience? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3), 599-611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.11.004

81.

Ryu

Han

Jang

(2010). Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3), 416-432. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111011035981

82.

Scheibehenne

Miesler

Todd

P. M.

(2007). Fast and frugal food choices: Uncovering individual decision heuristics. Appetite, 49(3), 578-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.224

83.

Schnurr

(2019). Too cute to be healthy: How cute packaging designs affect judgments of product tastiness and healthiness. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 4(4), 363-375. https://doi.org/10.1086/705029

84.

Septianto

Kemper

Paramita

(2019). The role of imagery in promoting organic food. Journal of Business Research, 101(August), 104-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.016

85.

Shadish

W. R.

Cook

T. D.

Campbell

D. T.

(2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference/William R. Shedish, Thomas D. Cook, Donald T. Campbell. Houghton Mifflin.

86.

Shin

Mattila

A. S.

(2019). When organic food choices shape subsequent food choices: The interplay of gender and health consciousness. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76(January), 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.008

87.

Shiv

Fedorikhin

(1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278-292. https://doi.org/10.1086/209563

88.

Soler

Gil

J. M.

Sanchez

(2002). Consumers’ acceptability of organic food in Spain. British Food Journal, 104(8), 670-687. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700210425921

89.

Storey

(2009, September 8). Bento boxes win lunch fans. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/dining/09bento.html?auth=login-google

90.

Strike

(2020). The three P’s of food presentation. https://celebrationsmenu.com/the-three-ps-of-food-presentation

91.

Suher

Szocs

Van Ittersum

(2017). The influence of visual aesthetics on food choice: The moderating effect of food processing. In Gneezy

Griskevicius

Williams

(Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 901-902.). Association for Consumer Research.

92.

Sundar

Noseworthy

T. J.

(2014). Place the logo high or low? Using conceptual metaphors of power in packaging design. Journal of Marketing, 78(5), 138-151. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13.0253

93.

Sundar

Noseworthy

T. J.

(2016). Too exciting to fail, too sincere to succeed: The effects of brand personality on sensory disconfirmation. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 44-67. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw003

94.

Sweeney

K. W.

(2017). The aesthetics of food: The philosophical debate about what we eat and drink. Rowman & Littlefield.

95.

TheFork. (2018). Dishes and ideal decoration for an organic restaurant. https://www.theforkmanager.com/blog/organic-restaurant

96.

Thorn

(2018, February 6). Chefs opt for simplicity and elegance in plating. Restaurant Hospitality. https://www.restaurant-hospitality.com/food-trends/chefs-opt-simplicity-and-elegance-plating

97.

Townsend

Sood

(2012). Self-affirmation through the choice of highly aesthetic products. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 415-428. https://doi.org/10.1086/663775

98.

Trochim

W. M.

Donnelly

J. P.

(2001). Research methods knowledge base (Vol. 2). Atomic Dog.

99.

Tsaur

S.-H.

Luoh

H.-F.

Syue

S.-S.

(2015). Positive emotions and behavioral intentions of customers in full-service restaurants: Does aesthetic labor matter? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 51(October), 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.08.015

100.

Van Dillen

L. F.

Papies

E. K.

Hofmann

. (2013). Turning a blind eye to temptation: How cognitive load can facilitate self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(3), 427-443. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031262

101.

Vega-Zamora

Torres-Ruiz

F. J.

Murgado-Armenteros

E. M.

Parras-Rosa

(2014). Organic as a heuristic cue: What Spanish consumers mean by organic foods. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), 349-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20699

102.

Wang

Liu

S. Q.

Kandampully

Bujisic

(2020). How color affects the effectiveness of taste- vs. health-focused advertising messages. Journal of Advertising, 49(5), 557-574. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1809575

103.

Wang

Y. J.

Minor

M. S.

Wei

(2011). Aesthetics and the online shopping environment: Understanding consumer responses. Journal of Retailing, 87(1), 46-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2010.09.002

104.

White

Dahl

D. W.

(2006). To be or not be? The influence of dissociative reference groups on consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 404-414. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_11

105.

Samper

Morales

A. C.

Fitzsimons

G. J.

(2017). It’s too pretty to use! When and how enhanced product aesthetics discourage usage and lower consumption enjoyment. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(3), 651-672. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx057

106.

King

C. A.

Guchait

(2020). Hospitality aesthetic labor management: Consumers’ and prospective employees’ perspectives of hospitality brands. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87(May), 102373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102373

107.

Xie

Wang

Yang

Wang

Zhang

(2015). Consumer perceptions and attitudes of organic food products in Eastern China. British Food Journal, 117(3), 1105-1121. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2013-0255

108.

Yan

(2016). Numbers are gendered: The role of numerical precision. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 303-316. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw020

109.

Huang

Liu

S. Q.

(2020). Signaling authenticity of ethnic cuisines via handwriting. Annals of Tourism Research, 85(November), 103054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103054

110.

Yue

Alfnes

Jensen

H. H.

(2009). Discounting spotted apples: Investigating consumers’ willingness to accept cosmetic damage in an organic product. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41(1), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800002534

111.

Zanoli

Naspetti

(2002). Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food. British Food Journal, 104(8), 643-653. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700210425930

112.

Zellner

D. A.

Loss

C. R.

Zearfoss

Remolina

(2014). It tastes as good as it looks! The effect of food presentation on liking for the flavor of food. Appetite, 77(June), 31-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.009

113.

Zuhadmono

(2021). World’s best sustainable fine-dining restaurants. https://luxiders.com/worlds_best_sustainable_fine_dining_restaurants/

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB