Literature DB >> 35386593

How Are Consumers Affected by Taste and Hygiene Ratings When Ordering Food Online? A Behavioral and Event-Related Potential Study.

Cuicui Wang1,2, Yun Li1, Xuan Luo1,2, Huijian Fu3, Ziqi Ye1, Guangwei Deng1,2.   

Abstract

With the rapid development of the take-out industry, taste and hygiene ratings as social-based information have been frequently used by online food-ordering platforms to facilitate consumer purchases. The present study aims to uncover the effects of taste and hygiene ratings on online food-ordering decision by incorporating behavioral and neural approaches. The behavioral results showed that a high taste rating induced a higher ordering intention than a low taste rating, and that a high hygiene rating induced a higher ordering intention than a low hygiene rating. The effect of hygiene rating on ordering intention was moderated by taste rating. Hygiene rating had a greater impact on ordering intention when the taste rating was high (vs. low). In addition, inconsistency between taste and hygiene ratings increased the cognitive load and took more time for decision-making. The event-related potential (ERP) data revealed that consumers paid more attention to a high (vs. low) taste rating in the early cognitive process, which was reflected by a larger P2. Subsequently, a more negative N2 was elicited by conflicting ratings than consistent ratings when the taste rating was low. In the relatively late decision-making process, a larger P3 was evoked by consistent than conflicting ratings, suggesting that consumers had more confidence in their decisions for consistent ratings. These findings could help restaurants understand the roles of taste and hygiene rating cues in affecting consumer behavior and prompt those restaurants to adopt effective measures to increase online sales.
Copyright © 2022 Wang, Li, Luo, Fu, Ye and Deng.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cue diagnosticity theory; event-related potentials; food; hygiene rating; taste rating

Year:  2022        PMID: 35386593      PMCID: PMC8978544          DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.844027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Neurosci        ISSN: 1662-453X            Impact factor:   4.677


  29 in total

1.  The P3 component of the ERP reflects conscious perception, not confidence.

Authors:  Moti Salti; Yair Bar-Haim; Dominique Lamy
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2012-02-16

2.  The neural basis of error detection: conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity.

Authors:  Nick Yeung; Matthew M Botvinick; Jonathan D Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  The influence of emotional context on attention in anxious subjects: neurophysiological correlates.

Authors:  Francisco Mercado; Luis Carretié; Manuel Tapia; Gregorio Gómez-Jarabo
Journal:  J Anxiety Disord       Date:  2004-12-15

4.  Predicting outcomes of decisions in the brain.

Authors:  David Polezzi; Lorella Lotto; Irene Daum; Giuseppe Sartori; Rino Rumiati
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2007-09-06       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  The neural basis of risky decision-making in a blackjack task.

Authors:  Juan Yang; Hong Li; Ye Zhang; Jiang Qiu; Qinglin Zhang
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2007-09-17       Impact factor: 1.837

6.  Compatibility-sequence effects in the Simon task reflect episodic retrieval but not conflict adaptation: evidence from LRP and N2.

Authors:  Michiel M Spapé; Guido P H Band; Bernhard Hommel
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 3.251

7.  Evoked potential correlates of auditory signal detection.

Authors:  S A Hillyard; K C Squires; J W Bauer; P H Lindsay
Journal:  Science       Date:  1971-06-25       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Genetics of food preferences: a first view from silk road populations.

Authors:  Nicola Pirastu; Antonietta Robino; Carmela Lanzara; Emmanouil Athanasakis; Laura Esposito; Beverly J Tepper; Paolo Gasparini
Journal:  J Food Sci       Date:  2012-08-13       Impact factor: 3.167

Review 9.  Social modeling of eating: a review of when and why social influence affects food intake and choice.

Authors:  Tegan Cruwys; Kirsten E Bevelander; Roel C J Hermans
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 3.868

Review 10.  Does low-energy sweetener consumption affect energy intake and body weight? A systematic review, including meta-analyses, of the evidence from human and animal studies.

Authors:  P J Rogers; P S Hogenkamp; C de Graaf; S Higgs; A Lluch; A R Ness; C Penfold; R Perry; P Putz; M R Yeomans; D J Mela
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 5.095

View more
  2 in total

1.  How does the use of simultaneous contrast illusion on product-background color combination nudge consumer behavior? A behavioral and event-related potential study.

Authors:  Minjing Peng; Yao Tong; Zhicheng Xu; Linli Jiang; Haiyang Huang
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 5.152

2.  The role of product cues and regulatory focus in the consumers' response to green products: The mediation effects of green attitudes.

Authors:  Xiaomei Wang; Yangli Gu; Haohang Xin; Peiling Qiu; Jia Wang
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-10-03
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.