How do you choose your meal when you dine out? A mixed methods study in consumer food-choice strategies in the restaurant context

Choosing meals in restaurants is a significant part of life. On average, people purchase seven meals per week from one of the over 17.5 million food outlets worldwide. The way people choose restaurant meals is different from how they choose foods they consume at home. Understanding people ’ s decision-making strategies when choosing restaurant meals is critical for designing behaviour change interventions that prompt specific food choices (e.g., health, low emissions). Our study aims to identify meal choice strategies across various food outlets (Study 1) and determine their frequency of use (Study 2). In Study 1, we take a constructionist perspective and derive insights from 21 semi-structured interviews on strategies people use as they select meals in different food outlets. We identify 16 distinct strategies, with many people using multiple strategies within and across different restaurant types (i.e., general restaurants, fast-food, pubs, and upscale restaurants). In Study 2, we quantify which of those 16 strategies are most frequently used. The most used strategies were searching the menu for (1) the most enjoyable meals, (2) the most budget-friendly meals, or (3) familiar meals (i.e., habitual choices); and choosing from those. Few people searched the menu for the most environmentally friendly meals and chose from those. These results could explain the limited effectiveness of carbon labelling at restaurants. Our study calls for future interventions on prompting environmental or healthy food choices to move away from health and environmental labelling and to focus on enjoyment, price, or habit because these are important for people when choosing a meal. We also created a practical measure of the 16 food-choice strategies, available for researchers to use.


Introduction
Choosing meals at restaurants affects our daily lives.In an average week, people purchase seven meals from over 17.5 million food outlets worldwide (Newson et al., 2015).Understanding the decision-making strategies behind restaurant meal orders is crucial for designing interventions that promote sustainable and healthy food choices.One intriguing strategy, famously employed by discredited American stock trader Ivan Boesky (who inspired Gordon Gecko in the movie Wall Street), involved ordering one of everything from the menu, sampling each dish, and keeping his favourite, and returning the rest to the kitchen (Pressman & Stone, 1987;as described in Schulte-Mecklenbeck et al., 2013;Stewart, 1992).While some may view this approach as self-indulgent, it is ultimately wasteful, expensive, and impractical for everyday dining.Most individuals cannot afford to sample every menu item (Schulte-Mecklenbeck et al., 2013).Consequently, diners must consider factors beyond taste, such as health, price, perceived appeal, quality, and environmental impact (Schulte-Mecklenbeck et al., 2013;Zander & Hamm, 2010).
While food choice decision-making strategies in the home context have been extensively studied (e.g., Bisogni et al., 2007;Blake & Bisogni, 2003;Blake et al., 2008;Myung et al., 2008), little is known about the strategies people use to select meals in restaurants and how these strategies differ across restaurant contexts.Understanding individual differences in decision-making strategies allows investigation into how these differences can impede or boost the effectiveness of interventions aimed at prompting specific food choices in the restaurant contextwhether this be, for example, health or sustainability purposes.This information will help researchers determine whether an intervention is specific to a group(s) of people with particular decision-making strategies or is universal.
The concept of bounded rationality, introduced by Simon (1955), posits that humans devise strategies to make decisions when confronted with limited time and resources.This necessity arises from the fact that processing all available information can be a time-consuming endeavour.Consequently, individuals often resort to using heuristics, or rules of thumb, to make choices based on a select few critical pieces of information.Heuristics, as explained by Schwartz (2004) and Simon (1955), allow people to consider a limited amount of information, rather than evaluating every piece of available data.They provide a simpler set of criteria and rules to follow.For instance, some people may focus solely on price, while others might consider how enjoyable they anticipate the meal to be.The specific pieces of information people choose to focus on form their decision-making strategy.Various heuristic and bias strategies are intuitively used as mental shortcuts to achieve optimal solutions through rational choice (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).These include the satisficing heuristic (the first suitable option is chosen), the lexicographic heuristic (choosing the most important feature first), elimination by aspects (eliminating the alternatives below the cut-off level), frequency of positive and negative features (listing the positive and negative attributes and then counting the sum), and equal weight (giving a value for each attribute; Willman-Iivarinen, 2017).However, it's important to note that people do not make random choices or randomly select information to focus on.Instead, they rely on schemas -generalised collections of information formed from past experiences that guide behaviour (Bartlett & Bartlett, 1995;Rumelhart, 2017).Mental scripts, a type of schema, deal with sequences of events and are stored as pointers on how to act in specific situations (Schank, 1975).Scripts comprise two forms of knowledge: declarative and procedural.Declarative knowledge is abstract or semantic; it includes representations of oneself, the food, and the general context (Baldwin, 1992).People organise their understanding of a subject (e.g., food) into context-specific categories.For example, they might categorise food by restaurant types, such as "fast food", "high-end food", "pub food", etc. (Blake et al., 2008).On the other hand, procedural knowledge is the information a person holds about what to do in specific contexts (Baldwin, 1992), such as ordering at a fast-food restaurant versus ordering in a fine-dining restaurant.Both declarative and procedural knowledge play a role in what people choose to eat; however, it is procedural knowledge that primarily drives an individual's food choice behaviour.
Whether decision-making strategies at restaurants differ from general consumer decision-making styles remains unanswered.It is possible that people employ the same strategies across various consumer contexts.The theory of consumer decision-making styles, as studied by Sproles and Kendall (1987), has been extensively investigated in the general consumer context.It defines consumer decision-making strategies at the trait level as "a mental orientation characterising a consumer's approach to making consumer choices" (p. 7).Based on this definition, Sproles and Kendall (1987) classified consumers into eight decision-making styles: perfectionistic/high-quality conscious, brand conscious, novelty-fashion conscious, recreational/hedonistic conscious, price-value conscious, impulsive, confused by over-choice, and brand loyal/habitual.While the consumer context is often overlooked, we argue that the decision-making process for choosing clothes, for instance, differs significantly from that of choosing food or appliances.
Transitioning to the realm of food choices, the construction of food choices in specific contexts is a central component of the food choice processes model (Sobal et al., 2006).Individuals, through personalised food choice systems, construct food choice values such as convenience, price, taste, health, and managing relationships.They then create avenues to attain these values across different contexts.Strategies are developed to balance and negotiate individualised values when all values cannot be fulfilled simultaneously (Connors et al., 2001); however, research into these decision-making strategies in the context of food choice has been largely confined to food preparation at home (Bisogni et al., 2007;Blake & Bisogni, 2003;Blake et al., 2008;Myung et al., 2008) and restaurant choice (Peng et al., 2015).Exploring food choice strategies within the restaurant context is crucial for understanding how to influence people's choices through behavioural interventions.These interventions could encourage choices such as environmentally friendly meals, healthy meals, or locally sourced meals.
The type of restaurant can significantly impact our choices.Levels of familiarity, context-specific factors, and past experiences can evoke different strategies, leading to specific behaviours.For instance, the strategy for choosing a meal at a fast-food restaurant might involve quickly ordering your usual mealmaybe a cheeseburger and frieswithout even looking at the menu.In contrast, at an upscale restaurant, the strategy could involve carefully considering each meal on the menu, eliminating those that include unfamiliar ingredients or words, and then selecting the most indulgent meal because it is a special occasion.Decision-making strategies can account for unexpected barriers or changes within a specific context (Baldwin, 1992).For example, if the cheeseburger and fries are too expensive or unavailable, an individual might have alternatives and choose their next favourite meal, such as chicken nuggets and fries.Overall, decision-making strategies reduce the cognitive effort needed to make decisions in familiar contexts (Kock, 2004) and likely develop from past successful actions, planning, and habits.

Present study
The main aim of the present study is to investigate the existence and nature of the decision-making strategies people use when dining out.We first explore the existence of decision-making strategies across different restaurant types via thematic analysis of interview transcripts (Study 1).Further, in a survey study, we investigate how and if these decisionmaking strategies vary in overall usage and across different restaurant contexts (Study 2).Specifically, are decision-making strategies (1) person-specific, such that a person uses consistent strategies across different types of food outlets (e.g., fast-food restaurant, pub, general restaurant, and upscale restaurant), (2) outlet-specific, where people are not consistent with the same strategies across different restaurant types, or (3) a combination of both person-specific and outlet-specific components?In Study 2, we also create items to measure each of the strategies that we make available to other researchers in this article; these items can be used as moderators for future intervention studies aiming to change meal choices.
The primary theoretical contribution of this study lies in determining whether the same decision-making strategies found in consumer research more broadly are also relevant to food choices in the restaurant context, thus potentially extending and examining the generalisability of Sproles and Kendall's (1987) theory of consumer decision-making styles.The results also have immediate practical value.Food choice strategies provide an understanding of the relationship between cognitions and choice behaviour and might be useful for restaurant owners or government organisations interested in prompting specific groups of consumers towards particular meal options (e.g., healthy or low emissions).

Method
We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews via Zoom between July and October 2022 with a convenience sample of 21 Australian adults.To be eligible, participants had to be 18 years or older and permanently reside in Australia.After the initial recruitment of eight participants from our advertisement on the university's research recruitment page, we accounted for their sex, age, and country of birth to ensure we recruited a variety of participants.We then used Instagram advertising and Reddit to recruit people from missed demographics (see supplementary materials for study advertisement materials).Sample extensiveness was deemed adequate when new participants provided none or few new insights into food choice strategies; when we encountered a participant who contributed little new information, we conducted a few additional interviews to verify that sample extensiveness had been reached.A total of 21 participants were interviewed; 11 identified as women and 10 as men.Participants were aged between 19 and 51.Interviews lasted between 15 and 30 min and were transcribed verbatim.For consistency, the first author conducted all interviews.
The interviewer used a semi-structured guide that asked participants about their food preferences and their food choices when they eat out.Given the Australian audience, we asked questions in a conversational manner (e.g., "People sometimes have go-to meals when they eat out.I am curious, what types of meals you usually eat when you eat out?").There were additional probes for this question, such as "Perhaps you can give me an example of a typical meal you would order" and "Why do you think you chose this type of meal?".To understand the food choice strategies people use in different restaurant contexts, we invited participants to imagine they were at a mid-range (general), fast-food, pub, and upscale restaurant separately and explore how they would choose a meal at each of these.For example, "I would like you to imagine you are at a fast-food restaurant.How do you typically choose a meal in a fast-food restaurant?"These questions were followed with probes such as "Please talk me through the process of how you decide on your meal choice?","Let's explore the sequence of events that leads to your meal choice" and "Why do you think you use this strategy to choose your meal?".The full interview guide is included in the supplementary materials.
After each interview, the first author generated case summaries using concept maps.Concept maps can help isolate patterns, concepts, themes, and characteristics of individual interviewees; direct comparisons across participants can help highlight emerging themes (Wheeldon & Faubert, 2009).The first author also kept a reflexive journal, noting potential bias in their interviewing and any interesting emerging themes or concerns.For example, she noted that male participants typically had more difficulty describing their decision-making strategies.She also used introspection to reflect on her decision-making strategies and food choices, and how these insights contributed to interpreting data from the study.
After completing data collection, all interviews were coded by the first author, with the second author coding a random 50% of the interviews.We used a hybrid approach to thematic analysis incorporating both inductive and deductive coding (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006).We adopted a constructionist perspective, which postulates that multiple realities exist and endeavours to recognise the social construction of reality from the point of view of the interviewee.The constructionist perspective investigates the phenomenon of interest (i.e., strategies used to select a meal in a restaurant) using a holistic evaluation that attempts to describe the context of all aspects of the situation.
The initial coding approach was inductivecoding was done without any preconceived categories or themes, allowing the data to guide the creation of codes.Following this, we used a deductive approach to compare our inductively derived codes with existing theoretical perspectives, namely, the food-choice process model (Sobal et al., 2006) and the theory of consumer decision-making styles (Sproles & Kendall, 1987).These approaches allowed us to make connections between our findings and established theories and frameworks, thus integrating our unique findings with the broader literature.
The aim of this study is theory oriented as we aim to develop conceptual knowledge of the strategies used by people to choose their meals at restaurants and to utilise existing theories to help understand the data.This is a typical and successful approach used in other research to understand food choice behaviours (e.g., Bisogni, Connors, Devine, & Sobal, 2002).Coding between the first and second authors was compared for consistency, and any disagreements were discussed between the two coders with the third author available if disagreements could not be resolved.Disagreements were minor (e.g., using different language for the same meaning); therefore, the third author was not required to resolve any disagreements.

Results
Sixteen strategies emerged, which can broadly be categorised into five groups: personal goals, trait-driven, food goals, financial, and social (Fig. 1).Some participants used multiple strategies across restaurant types; many even adopted multiple strategies within one restaurant type.Several participants had difficulty articulating their decisionmaking processes clearly without prompting.Some strategies were discussed more frequently in certain restaurant contexts than others.Each strategy is detailed below.Several strategies align with Sproles and Kendall's (1987) consumer decision-making strategies; however, we also discovered additional strategies that seem more specific to food choice (e.g., health) and contemporary context (e.g., sustainability).Some categories contain two "sub-strategies" (see Fig. 1), which together add to the grand total of 16 strategies.

Personal goals: Strategies driven by individual values and objectives
This category of strategies is centred around personal goals, reflecting an individual's needs, values, and their vision for personal growth and development.These strategies are driven by personal priorities such as health, sustainability, or enjoyment.
Environment-focused strategy.People who use this strategy search the menu for what they believe are the most environmentally sustainable meals and, from that subset, choose their favourite.Most participants suggested limiting their choices to vegetarian options for sustainability purposes: "Well, I guess I'm conscious of the environment, so I tend to eat vegetarian, but I am with someone who is not vegetarian, so I don't always eat meals that are veggie".There was also a tendency for people who focused on sustainability to avoid meat: "concerns about the environment and beef in particular ….That one about cutting down beef as much as possible.I had a couple years ago tried being vegan for a couple months".This strategy was not commonly mentioned, however, for participants who did mention this strategy, it was consistent across all restaurant types.
Health-focused strategy.People who use this strategy search the menu for what they believe are the healthiest meals and then choose the one they like most: "So if I'm ever looking at food, I always look at the nutritional content to see what's the, well it's more kilojoules, isn't it, the kilojoules, a level of that particular food".People who choose their meals with a health mindset typically want a balanced meal: "For me, I'm a very old fashioned, at least one protein and two to three veg, kind of person" that is of nutritional value "like I said, the nutrients, I'm going to derive from having to eat that kind of meal.It's also a priority to me as a person".The enjoyment of the meal comes second, as people deploying this strategy prioritise health.This strategy was considered most in general restaurants, and people indicated that they deviated from this strategy on special occasions.
Enjoyment-focused strategy.Irrespective of price and other factors, such as health or sustainability, people using the enjoyment-focused strategy seek and choose meals they believe will be most enjoyable: "When I go to an expensive restaurant … I want to go and I want to have a lot of fun, so I want to go for the best meals".They want to choose the most indulgent meal irrespective of price "This restaurant is nice, but is quite expensive, but you should try some of the expensive foods, it'll be good to have, a good taste".A meal might be chosen for the experience: "I tend to go for more of both intercontinental meals and just for the experience and I tend to be very happy".Potential enjoyment might be derived from the name or description of the meal "Something sounds exciting, if the visual of the food is more appealing" or its visual appeal "And I guess that also comes with when you're sitting down, and meals are being brought out around you.If you see something that looks appealing".This strategy was often discussed in reference to upscale restaurants but came up across all restaurant types.

Food goals: A focus on specific food choices
While all strategies inherently relate to food, this category specifically involves selecting or excluding certain foods for a distinct purpose, such as trying novel foods, opting for convenience, avoiding foods for specific reasons (e.g., taste, religion) or seeking high-quality options.The strategies under this category are primarily driven by the food itself.
Novelty-focused strategy.This strategy was split into two substrategies: those who searched the menu for something they had not tried before (new choice), and those who searched the menu for something they could not cook at home (cannot cook at home).People who use a novelty-focused strategy are excited to try new meals "I just want to get a new taste, get a new flavour, get to have a new taste.Basically, just to know what's the new flavour".They often search the menu for an unusual meal that they might consider to be exotic: "something maybe with an exotic ingredient, something that's freshly sourced, something that's the special of the day".They often choose the new meal for purely the novelty of it: "Oh you have a new item and if it's interesting then yeah maybe we'll try it.So, I guess for the novelty of it".Other people in this category tend to search for meals that they cannot make easily at home: "Yeah, if I'm eating out, I'd want something different to what I would prepare from home".This strategy was prevalent in upscale restaurants and would only occasionally be spoken about in general restaurants.This was not a strategy people typically spoke about in the context of fast-food restaurants or pubs.
Convenience-focused strategy.People who use this strategy search the menu for meals that they believe will be convenient.People describe convenience by how long the meal will take to prepare: "My patience level is ridiculously low … the time factor that something that would come quickly -I would not have to wait very long".Another convenience aspect is that meals are easy to consume: "I want to eat something convenient to eat, and something that will be able to take home, sometimes takeaways"; and "chicken with the chicken bones in it, I wouldn't go for that because I just find it too messy to eat".
Avoidance-elimination strategy.People who use this strategy search the menu and eliminate/avoid specific foods that they do not like (e.g., "Seafood.I do not like any kind of seafood.Anything with olives or mushrooms, very specific") or cannot have due to religious or dietary restrictions (e.g., "I don't eat beef.Yeah, so I guess it would be the price, the dietary restrictions.Yeah, that's about it").They reduce the menu and then choose from the remaining meals.This type of strategy is typically used across all restaurant types.
Quality-focused strategy.People who use this strategy will search the menu for what they believe is the most high-quality meal.If the meal is perfect for the occasion, the cost does not matter to them, for example: "You should try some of the expensive foods, it'll be good to have, a good taste".Price is often used as an indicator of quality, for example: "I usually go for food that is expensive, so I want to try the food out and I'll be like, and "Okay, what's … Let me check how delicious food is that made it so expensive".This strategy was rarely mentioned and, when it was, it was a strategy used in upscale restaurants.

Trait driven: A focus on personal characteristics
This category of strategies is driven by individual traits and personal tendencies.These strategies are typically less about the food itself and more about the person's approach to decision-making, their personality, and their habits.
Habit-or familiarity-driven strategy.People using this strategy typically search the menu for meals they are most familiar with.They rarely choose something new or adventurous.Once they find a meal at a restaurant, they tend to choose this meal or similar meals each time.This might be due to fear they will not like something new or something they haven't tried before "Why?Familiarity.And we know they're safe", nostalgia "Fast food for me is tied to nostalgia and growing up and having favourites as a kid and things like that.So, I'd probably just get what I've gotten for the last 20 years of my life, which is usually a go-to meal", or habit "usually just to get my regular.I don't know why.I'm a creature of habit".The habit-or familiarity-driven strategy was discussed more frequently in reference to fast-food restaurants and pubs.It was rarely discussed in the context of upscale restaurants, although for some people, this strategy persevered across restaurant types.We also note that this strategy (Fig. 1) overlaps with both the food goals and trait-driven categories.From the perspective of food goals, this strategy involves choosing specific foods that are familiar or habitual, aligning with the idea of selecting certain foods for a distinct purpose.In terms of traitdriven strategies, the habitual selection of familiar foods can be seen as a reflection of an individual's personal tendencies or traits.The preference for familiarity could be viewed as a trait influencing the decision-making process.
Impulsive strategy.People who use this strategy only briefly scan the menu, then make a quick choice.They do not spend a lot of time on decision-making.They simply choose the first meal that sticks out and appeals to them: "My husband will read until he finds something he likes and then choose that and not read beyond that, which blew my mind"; "it's usually gut instinct when the waiter's standing there and I'm like, okay, I just have to choose, and I'll just blurt one out".Few people mentioned this strategy, therefore its use across different restaurant types is hard to determine.
Indecisive strategy.People who employ this strategy are often overwhelmed by choice and have great difficulty deciding on a meal.They will search the menu over and over again before they come to a decision: "Indecisiveness, if I can, in advance, make a decision then I won't hold up anyone when we get there".The indecisive prefer short simpler menus.If a person has an indecisive meal-choice strategy, this is likely to persist across all different restaurant types.

Financial: Strategies influenced by monetary considerations
This category of strategies is significantly influenced by financial aspects.The price and perceived value of a meal play a crucial role in meal selection.
Value-focused strategy.People who use this strategy search for the best-value meal.They weigh up the price, potential quality, and quantity of the meal "Yeah, I have to balance that versus the volume I'm eating, is it really worth it?Especially in the fancy restaurant where things can be quite pricey.I'm not going to pay for something that looks pretty on a plate".They want to get value for their money "So you check the pricing relative to the content.If the content [good], what's the price I can get it".This strategy was mentioned by participants in reference to all restaurant types but least consistently with fast-fast food where quality was already assumed to be poor by some participants.
Budget-focused strategy.People who use this strategy search the menu to eliminate all meals that are too expensive: "And for the issue of price, I work with a budget, I have a specific amount to spend for my food".They are considerably less focused on weighing up the quality of the meal compared to those using value-focused strategies "Okay, once I check the menu, I go for the one I can afford".This strategy was mostly discussed in terms of fast-food and general restaurants.

Social: Strategies influenced by social factors
This category of strategies is significantly influenced by social elements.Individuals using these strategies are swayed by others in their meal selection process.
Popularity-based strategy.People who use this strategy search the menu for the most popular meal.They might ask staff what the most popular or most sold meal is or what the chef recommends: "What's your best seller?What's the most popular or what would you recommend?".I think I choose the past selling things that, those things with the mark, best seller, quick sellers".Their choice might be influenced by what the restaurant is most famous for: "We will typically scan, what is this place famous for?What is it good for?What do people typically order?".There is some indication that this strategy is used across different restaurant types.
Socially influenced strategies.This strategy is split into two subthemes: socially influenced-variety and socially influenced-suggested.People who use this strategy only briefly search the menu because others play a major role in their choice of meal.This might be due to meal sharing ("Sometimes my decision is made in collaboration if I'm eating with a partner … so, we probably would order in collaboration") or relying on the views of friends or family ("The decision making would be affected by those around me.I also, just in general, I like opinions of other people for feedback").The choice may also be influenced by what other restaurant patrons have chosen: "I do the look around, always do that, what everyone else is eating.Oh, that looks good.I would never ask, but I would always look".People who are influenced by others split into two subcategories; some people choose differently from others to get variety in the group (e.g., "Restaurant with my husband, we would probably tend to coordinate our meals.There's no way that we would ever eat the same thing so that we'd both be having something different so that you could try the other person's meal as well") whilst others chose what others had suggested to them or what others are ordering (e.g., "What I do also, is I will actually scan the tables of the other patrons and see, oh yeah, everyone seems to be ordering").

Study 2
Study 1 identified 16 strategies.Sproles and Kendall (1987) only identified eight general consumer decision-making strategies.It is possible that some of the decision-making strategies we discovered are redundant and that some strategies are used in the restaurant context but not in the general consumer context.In Study 2, we conduct a survey that measures the use of all 16 strategies across the four different restaurant types; we also measure the general consumer decision-making styles among the general population of Australians.The purpose of this study is to (1) determine if meal choice decision-making strategies are distinct from general consumer decision-making styles and (2) assess if the 16 strategies vary in prominence and existence overall, across, and within different restaurant types.We also evaluate whether individuals consistently use the same strategies across different restaurant types.

Procedure and measures
Australian residents completed an online questionnaire through Prolific in October 2023.The inclusion criteria were that participants had to be Australian residents and fluent in English.After answering some basic demographics questions (age, gender, education, area of residence, dietary requirements), participants answered the following measures.The full questionnaire is included in the supplementary materials.
Food choice strategies.In a randomised order, participants indicated whether they used each of the 16 strategies found in Study 1.The three authors work together to create an item for each of the 16 strategies.They refined each measure to ensure it captured the most important aspects of that food-choice strategy.An item was only finalised when all the authors agreed it matched the strategy as found in Study 1.Each strategy was measured using one item.For example, to measure the habit-or familiarity-focused strategy, participants saw the item: "I search the menu to find meals that I am familiar with.I then choose the meal that I believe I will like the best from among the familiar options" and indicated their answer using three options: (1) yes, that's a strategy I use, (2) yes, I use part of this strategy, and (3) no, that's not a strategy I use.We refer to this as overall use throughout the manuscript.If participants responded yes (response 1 or 2), they were asked whether they used this strategy at each of our four different restaurant types: (1) fast food restaurants, (2) pubs, (3) general restaurants, and (4) upscale restaurants.For each restaurant type, participants recorded their responses as always, sometimes, or never.Table 1 contains the measures for each strategy.We coded overall strategy use (0 = does not use at all; 1 = uses at least partially) and for each restaurant type (0 = never uses strategy; 1 = uses the strategy at least sometimes).Participants who responded, "No, that's not a strategy I use," were subsequently coded as 0 for each restaurant type.We ran the survey in this format to reduce participant burden and fatigue.We also calculated a consistency score based on people's use of strategies across restaurant types, where 0 means they do not engage in that strategy at any of the four restaurant types and 4 means they use that strategy across all four restaurant types.In the analysis of consistency scores, we only included people who indicated they had engaged in that strategy overall because we are interested in whether people use a particular strategy use it across different restaurant types.Note that a few participants indicated having used that strategy in the overall question but not specifically at any of our four restaurant types.Such a participant would have a consistency score of zero.This was not common.
Personality traits.Participants answered the short 15-item Big Five inventory, which measures the personality traits Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Emotional Instability (Soto & John, 2017).This measure was included to ensure our food choice strategies have divergent validity; they cannot simply be explained by general personality traits.Each personality trait is measured using three items, and participants answer on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.Items are typically summed up for each personality trait to give a total score.The internal consistency of each trait in our sample was poor to acceptable (Openness (facets; Aesthetic Sensitivity, Intellectual Curiosity, Creative Imagination), α = .58,Conscientiousness (facets; Organisation, Productiveness, Responsibility), α = .68,Extraversion (facets; Sociability, Assertiveness, Energy Level), α = .67,Agreeableness (facets; Compassion, Respectfulness, Trust) α = .56,and Negative emotionality (facets; Anxiety, Depression, Emotional Volatility), α = .77).Due to the poor internal consistency of the subscales, we chose the use the individual items that themselves measure a facet of each of the personality traits (Soto & John, 2017).
Consumer decision-making styles.Participants answered a short version of the consumer decision-making strategies inventory (Sproles & Kendall, 1987).This measure was included for divergent validity purposes.According to Sproles and Kendall (1987), there are eight distinct consumer decision-making styles.This includes the perfectionistic consumer, which we measured with two items (getting something good quality is important to me, and when it comes to purchasing products, I try to get the very best or perfect).The brand-conscious consumer was also measured with two items (The well-known national brands are best for me, and the more expensive brands are usually my choice) as was the fashion-focused consumer (I usually have one or more outfits in the newest style, and I keep my wardrobe up to date with the latest fashions).Each of the following consumer styles was measured with one item: The recreational shopping-conscious consumer (shopping is a pleasant activity for me and going shopping is one of the most enjoyable activities in my life), price-value-conscious consumer (I buy as much as possible at "sale" prices), the impulsive consumer (I should plan my shopping more carefully than I do), the confused by over-choice consumer (There are so many brands to choose from that I often feel confused) and the habitual-brand loyal consumer (I have favourite brands that I buy over and over).Items are all measured on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).For comparability, we used both items as single measures for those decision-making strategies that included two items.

Data analysis
To ensure strategies were not redundant, we determined the association between overall use of each strategy pair using Phi coefficient because all outcomes were binary (construct validity).Rank-biserial correlations were used to determine the association between the overall use of each strategy (binary) with the five personality traits (ordinal) and the general consumer decision-making styles (ordinal).This was to ensure that our strategies were distinct from personality traits and general consumer decision-making strategies (divergent validity).It is likely that some of our food choice strategies will be weakly associated with some general consumer decision-making styles and personality traits.For example, people who are indecisive are likely characterised by some degree of negative emotionality (e.g., Lauderdale et al., 2019).
To calculate differences in proportions of use across restaurant types within strategies, we calculated a Cochran's Q for each strategy, followed by McMemar tests to evaluate pair-wise proportion differences across the four restaurant types.To calculate differences in portions of use across strategies within restaurant types, for each restaurant type, we calculated a Cochran's Q.
To evaluate differences in consistency scores, we create a blobbogram-type graph of each strategy's mean consistency score and its 95% confidence interval.The consistency score indicates the degree to which people who use a strategy use it consistently across different outlets.Consistency scores with non-overlapping confidence intervals can be considered statistically different from each other.We chose this method of analysis because groups were neither completely dependent nor independentthey were mixed.

Participants
The sample consisted of 719 Australians (M age = 35.31,SD = 12.06).The sample split between males (48.80%) and females (49.70%) was almost even.The remainder of the participants identified as non-binary,

Socially influenced strategy -Variety
I briefly look at the menu.I ask the people I am dining with for their meal suggestions.I eliminate the meals they have chosen so we have variety.I then choose the meal I believe I will like the best from among the remaining options.

Socially influenced strategy -Suggested
I briefly look at the menu.I ask the people I am dining with for their meal suggestions.I then choose the meal I think I will like best from among those suggestions.
and one participant did not disclose their gender.Additional sample characteristics are outlined in Table 2.

Pre-assessment of Strategies
The mean number of strategies endorsed was just under half, 7.40/ 16 (SD = 2.73).Only one participant reported using none of the 16 strategies.Although some strategies were correlated, nearly all correlations were weak ≤.30, suggesting that none of the strategies were redundant (see Table 3).There was one moderate (.36) association between the value-focused strategy and the budget-focused strategy.Table 4 shows that no strategies were strongly or even moderately correlated with any general consumer decision-making style items.This means that food choice strategies at restaurants differ from general consumer choice styles.Meal ordering strategies were distinct from personality traits, with strategies showing no or weak correlations with all facets (i.e., <.30; Table 5).These weak associations suggest that food choice strategies are not synonymous with one's personality traitsat least not with the Big Five personality traits.

Differences in proportions within restaurant type
Overall, there was a significant difference in the proportion of people's stated use of each of the strategies (Cochran-Q = 1842.15,p < .001;Table 6).Specifically, the enjoyment-focused, budget-focused, habit or familiarity driven, and value-focused strategies were the most frequently used strategies overall, with almost three-quarters of participants (74%; Table 6) stating they had at least partially used these strategies in the past.A high proportion of people also stated they had at least partially used the value-focused (64%), and/or the novelty-focused can' cook at home (61%), and/or the avoidance-elimination (60%) strategies.Approximately, 40-54% (moderate use category) of the participants stated they had at least partially used the novelty-focused strategynew choice (53%), the indecisive (49%), and/or the healthfocused (40%) strategies in the past.The next group of strategies had moderate-low uptake: socially influenced-variety, quality-focused, popularity-based, and socially influenced-suggested.The impulsive strategy (25%) and the convenience-focused strategy (26%) have at least been in part-used by around one-quarter of the participants.Few people stated that they were even particularly using the environment-    focused strategy (11%).
Although the proportion of people who used each strategy differed across restaurants, there were no major differences in the use of strategies across restaurant types.For example, the environment-focused strategy was always ranked last, and the enjoyment-focused, budgetfocused, and habit or familiarity driven were always highly ranked -(see Table 6).Furthermore, mean consistency scores were relatively high, with each consistency score having a mean higher than 3 (Fig. 2).Specifically, the strategies: avoidance-elimination strategy, habit or familiarity driven, enjoyment-focused, and value-focused strategies had the highest consistency scores, whereas variety-focused and quality-focused strategies had the lowest (Table 6).

Differences in proportions of endorsement across restaurant types within Strategies
Within each strategy, the proportions of people endorsing it differed across restaurant types (all Cochran Q's; p < <.001; Table 6).We detail the results of the McNemar tests below and in Table 6.
Personal goals: Strategies driven by individual values and objectives.Overall, very few people endorse the environment-focused strategy (11%), with little practical difference across the four restaurant types (8-11%; Table 6).People were more likely to state that they used the healthfocused strategy at general restaurants (39%) than other restaurant types (29%-33%).A higher proportion of people endorsed the enjoyment-focus strategy at general restaurants (73%) compared to all other restaurant types (66-68%).
Food goals: A focus on specific food choices.The quality-focused strategy had higher prevalence rates in general (32%) and upscale restaurants (31%) compared to both fast food (20%) and pubs (26%).The strategy was significantly more prevalent in pubs compared to fast food outlets.A higher proportion of people stated they searched the menu for meals they cannot cook at home (novelty-focused strategycan't cook at home) in general restaurants (60%) compared to all other restaurant types.Further, more people stated using this strategy in both pubs (52%) and general restaurants (55%) compared to fast-food restaurants (41%).With regards to the other novelty-focused strategy (i.e., new choice), people were more likely to state they searched for novel meals at general (52%) and upscale restaurants (50%) compared to both fast-food restaurants (38%) and pubs (41%).The convenience-focused strategy was slightly more endorsed at general restaurants (24%) compared to the other restaurant types (19-22%).More people stated they used the avoidance-elimination strategy at general restaurants (60%) than the other restaurant types.It has similar usage at pubs (56%) and upscale restaurants (57%) and slightly less use at fast-food restaurants (53%).Statistical differences are shown in Table 6.
Trait driven: A focus on personal characteristics.For the habit or familiarity driven strategy, a higher proportion of people stated that they searched the menu for familiar foods at general restaurants (73%),

Table 6
Proportion of people who have used each strategy.followed by fast food restaurants (70%) and pubs (69%), with significantly fewer people stating they used this strategy as upscale restaurants (63%).More people reported being indecisive at general restaurants (49%), followed by pubs (42%) and upscale restaurants (44%), with significantly the fewest people endorsing this strategy at fast-food outlets (29%).For the impulsive strategy, there are no practical differences across the different restaurant types (19-23%), but significant differences are shown in Table 6.
Financial: Strategies influenced by monetary considerations.People tended to endorse the value-focused strategy at general restaurants (63%) followed by pubs (60%) more so than at fast-food (56%) and upscale restaurants (55%).Interestingly people were least likely to use the budget-focused strategy at fast food restaurants (58%).They were most likely to use this strategy at general restaurants (72%) followed by both upscale restaurants (67%) and pubs (66%).
Social: Strategies influenced by social factors.The socially influencedbased strategyvariety, had higher prevalence rates in general (33%) and upscale restaurants (31%) compared to both fast food (16%) and pubs (25%).This strategy was significantly more prevalent in pubs compared to fast food outlets.As for the Socially influenced-based strategy suggested, people were generally influenced by others to choose a specific meal more in general restaurants (30%), upscale restaurants (28%), and pubs (26%) compared to fast food restaurants (17%).There were small differences between general restaurants, upscale restaurants, and pubs noted in Table 6.The strategy of searching the menu for the most popular choice (Popularity-based strategy) was more endorsed at general (31%) and upscale (30%) restaurants, followed by pubs (25%) and then fast-food restaurants (18%).

Discussion
Findings from the present study support the notion that people have specific ways of choosing their meals at restaurants that cannot be explained by their general consumer decision-making styles.Contextspecific measures have long been supported as better predictors of behaviour than general trait measures (e.g., Shaffer & Postlethwaite, 2012;Zhu et al., 2024).Furthermore, we identified twice as many food choice strategies as there are general consumer decision-making strategies (according to Sproles & Kendall, 1987), suggesting that people choose meals in more varied ways.Also, people report having used more than one strategy in each restaurant type, suggesting that different preferences become dominant in different settings beyond restaurant type.Future research could explore what contextual factors in different restaurant types lead to a person using one strategy over anotherthese might include the specific restaurant or the people with whom they are dining (e.g., family vs friends).
Viewing meal choices at restaurants as involving specific strategies offers practical insights into how different processes or preferences might impact meal choice.Very few people stated that they searched the menu to locate environmentally friendly meals across any of the restaurant types.Low use of this strategy may explain the limited effects of carbon labelling in prompting low-emissions meal choices (Greene et al., 2023).Searching the menu for healthy meals was also a strategy that had a low-moderate usage rate across restaurant types.An eye-tracking study found that people pay little attentionbeyond initial curiosityto both carbon and health labelling on restaurant menus (Babakhani et al., 2020).Further, strategies that rely on other people's meal choices were not particularly popular, which may explain why behavioural change interventions targeting social norms have only small effects on meal choices (Greene et al., 2023).
In contrast, the most commonly used strategies were the enjoymentfocused strategy, budget-focused strategy, and habit or familiaritydriven strategy.Therefore, effort should go into designing behaviour change interventions that focus on enjoyment, price, and habit to prompt food choices at restaurants.Although seldom manipulated (compared to health/carbon labelling), a recent meta-analysis on prompting food choice in restaurants found that enjoyment-focused interventions (e.g., making the target meal more appealing) were among the most effective strategy types (Greene et al., 2023).However, simply making target meal names more appealing seems to be only a weak manipulation of enjoyment (e.g., Greene et al., 2024); and small prizes or incentives also seem to have only a small effect on meal choice (Greene et al., 2023).Larger incentives, such as having a 35% price difference between target and non-target meals, might be an effective strategy (Patsch et al., 2016).However, this might impact the profits of a business.Instead, restaurants might choose to increase the enjoyment of target meals through gamification.Healthy or low-emission meals, which are typically target meals in interventions, can be made enjoyable by linking them to a game (Dolnicar, 2020).For instance, a hotel buffet was able to reduce its plate waste by 34% by introducing a stamp collection game (Dolnicar et al., 2020).Gamification is an avenue for future interventions in the food choice context to increase the enjoyment of target mealsconsidering that we found in our research enjoyment is a key strategy for choosing meals.
The insight that many people make restaurant meal choices based on familiarity and habit (Study 2) also has implications for the development of future interventions aimed at influencing food choices.To date, no interventions have attempted to manipulate habits to direct meal choices in the restaurant context (Greene et al., 2023).Given that habit is a strong driver of both pro-environmental and eating behaviours (MacInnes et al., 2022;Riet et al., 2011) and the results of the current studies, habit represents a promising mechanism for future interventions.Eating habits have been broken in interventions in the home context by altering the situation so the habit is not activated or by restricting the habitual response (Riet et al., 2011).For example, a restaurant might remove typical meals from a menu (e.g., Chicken Parma) so that habitual choices are not activated.Alternativelygiven that restricting guests' choices of favoured meals can decrease satisfaction (e.g., Zinn et al., 2023) restaurants might consider making pro-environmental dishes or healthy meals more familiar by avoiding language that makes a meal unfamiliar (e.g., soy-based) or reorganising their menu to present target meals first.
Based on our findings, we also have some suggestions that restaurant owners can implement to encourage more sustainable choices.Our findings revealed that food choice strategies typically included a sequence of behaviours.Generally, this involved eliminating or reducing the number of choices based on certain factors such as health, enjoyment, or familiarity, and then choosing the meal they think they would like the best from those remaining options.Strategies for choosing meals at restaurants provide insights into the associations between preferences and behaviour and how such values might guide meal choice across different restaurant contexts.For example, when someone visits an upscale restaurant, they might prioritise experience, and use a noveltyfocused strategy, whereas, at a fast-food restaurant, they might prefer a familiar meal.Therefore, promoting the novelty of sustainable meals might be more beneficial at upscale restaurants compared to fast-food restaurants.
We also found that few participants searched the menu for the most sustainable meals.In Australia, few restaurants place carbon emissions labels on their menus.Adding carbon emissions labels on menus would make it easier for consumers to discern the most environmentally friendly meals, and perhaps prompt the environment-focused food choice strategy.Moreover, considering that environmental concerns are not a primary factor for most people when choosing a meal, restaurants could take the lead in promoting sustainability.They could proactively reduce the carbon footprint of their meals, for instance, by prioritising dishes that use locally sourced meats and produce.This would decrease transportation emissions, support local farmers, and promote fresher and seasonal ingredients.Beyond this, restaurants could consider offering discounts or loyalty rewards for customers who choose sustainable meals, creating a financial incentive for sustainable dining (Greene et al., 2023).

Strengths and limitations
The present study has strengths and limitations.A strength is that we used a mixed-method approach to uncover strategies and then evaluate their use (i.e., the popularity of strategies) in a survey.Using a survey alone, we would have had to generate potential strategies ourselves, which could have resulted in strategies being missed.Relying on qualitative analysis only would leave the question of the frequency of strategy use across restaurant types unanswered.
Our study is limited to the Australian context, and although we interviewed and surveyed people from a range of cultural backgrounds, we cannot generalise our results to other countries.Particularly, countries that are culturally different from Australia may have additional strategies or rarely use some of those that exist in the Australian context.Future research could replicate these findings in other countries.Next, although we balanced our general sample on gender, Prolific cannot ensure a completely representative sample of Australians.To find accurate prevalence rates, future studies could recruit a large representative sample of Australians.Lastly, our studies rely on retrospective reporting, where participants might not be able to accurately recall if they have used a specific strategy or not.To gather a more accurate representation of which strategies are used most regularly, a study using ecological momentary assessment could be conductedparticipants could report in real time the strategy they used and factors they considered when choosing a meal at a restaurant.This would be particularly insightful for people who eat out at a variety of restaurants regularly.We would be able to see more nuanced differences in how they choose meals over different restaurant types.

Future research directions
We have included measurement items for each of the 16 food choice strategies (Table 1) which other researchers can include in survey and laboratory experiments testing interventions that aim to prompt specific food choices at restaurants.Specifically, they can test food-choice strategies as a moderator for interventions and determine if their intervention is universal, segment-specific, or simply more effective in some segments compared to others.The question could be formatted to a specific restaurant context or asked more generallydepending on what the researcher is interested in.
Another promising avenue for future research involves investigating food-choice strategies across diverse settings or situations.This can be accomplished through a discrete choice experiment, which would illustrate the most influential decision-making strategies in specific contexts.The experiment would necessitate the definition of attributes, which in this case, could be the 16 food-choice strategies identified in our previous study.Each attribute could have different levels, representing various scenarios or options within each strategy.

Conclusion
Food choice strategies provide insight into how different groups of people might be prompted to choose a specific meal, including a lowemissions meal.Future studies could investigate what types of interventions (e.g., incentives, carbon labels) are most effective in redirecting actual meal choices among groups of people who use different strategies, thus moving away from one-size-fits-all interventions towards tailored interventions.

Fig. 1 .
Fig. 1.Categorisation of food choice strategies.Habit-or-familiarity is outlined in orange because it overlaps with the food-goals category.Sub-categories are shown in smaller circles.

Table 1
Items used to measure each of the food choice strategies.
I search the menu to eliminate meals.I eliminate meals with ingredients that I do not like and/or can't have due to dietary restrictions.I choose the meal I believe I will like best out of the remaining options.Quality-focused strategy I search the menu for the meals that I believe are of the highest quality.The price does not matter.I then choose the meal I believe I will like the best from among the high-quality options.Habit-or familiarity-driven strategyI search the menu to find meals that I am familiar with.I then choose the meal that I believe I will like the best from among the familiar options.

Table 2
Sample characteristics.
a percentages are rounded to one decimal place.bParticipantswereasked: Approximately how often do you eat out?.Table3Associations (Phi coefficient) between different ordering styles.

Table 4
Associations (rank-biserial)between different ordering style and general consumer decision making styles.

Table 5
Associations (rank-biserial)between different ordering style and personality.