Effects of Restaurant Menu Design on Food Ordering Outcomes
Effects of Menu Design on Psychophysiological Measures of Cognitive Load and Food Ordering Outcomes
1 other identifier
interventional
61
0 countries
N/A
Brief Summary
High cognitive load activities can influence energy intake from food. It is unknown how restaurant menu designs may affect patrons in terms of cognitive demand and subsequent ordering of food.Objective: Our objective was to develop and experimentally test menu designs that differ in cognitive load to test the subjective and objective stress measures on food ordering.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P50-P75 for not_applicable
Started Apr 2014
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
April 1, 2014
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
March 20, 2015
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
March 20, 2015
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
October 18, 2017
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
November 9, 2017
CompletedNovember 9, 2017
November 1, 2017
12 months
October 18, 2017
November 6, 2017
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (2)
Total Number of Items Ordered
Total number of items ordered off assigned menu
During the 5-minute menu ordering task
Total Energy of Items ordered
Total Energy (kcals) of items ordered off assigned menu
During the 5-minute menu ordering task
Secondary Outcomes (2)
Subjective ratings of difficulty of using assigned menu to order a meal
Immediately (1 minute) following the 5-minute menu ordering period
Galvanic Skin Response
During the 5-minute menu ordering task
Study Arms (4)
Experiment 1 Easy
ACTIVE COMPARATORFor the first experiment, subjects in this arm received the "easy" menu during the protocol.
Experiment 1 Hard
ACTIVE COMPARATORFor the first experiment, subjects in this arm received the "hard" menu during the protocol.
Experiment 2 Easy
ACTIVE COMPARATORFor the second experiment, subjects in this arm, who qualified as restrained eaters and were asked to fast for 8 hours overnight, received the "easy" menu during the protocol.
Experiment 2 Hard
ACTIVE COMPARATORFor the second experiment, subjects in this arm, who qualified as restrained eaters and were asked to fast for 8 hours overnight, received the "hard" menu during the protocol.
Interventions
Participants were given 5 minutes to order a hypothetical meal from the assigned test menu by circling all items they wanted to order.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Normal vision or corrective lenses
- Normal hearing or a hearing aid
- A moderate level of English proficiency or greater
- Free from current food restrictions
You may not qualify if:
- Unwilling/uninterested in participation
- Currently taking any β-blocker medications
- Any serious skin conditions on the hands (because of galvanic skin sensors worn for the protocol)
- Experiment 2
- Normal vision or corrective lenses
- Normal hearing or a hearing aid
- A moderate level of English proficiency or greater
- Free from current food restrictions
- Qualifying as a restrained eater by the Cognitive Restraint scale on the Eating Inventory (score of 6 for men and 10 for women)
- Unwilling/uninterested in participation
- Currently taking any β-blocker medications
- Any serious skin conditions on the hands (because of galvanic skin sensors worn for the protocol)
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
- University of Alabama at Birminghamlead
- Texas Tech Universitycollaborator
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Study Officials
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Kathryn A Kaiser, PhD
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Asst. Professor, Dept of Health Behavior
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- SINGLE
- Who Masked
- PARTICIPANT
- Masking Details
- Participants were blinded to treatment allocation.
- Purpose
- OTHER
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- Assistant Professor
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
October 18, 2017
First Posted
November 9, 2017
Study Start
April 1, 2014
Primary Completion
March 20, 2015
Study Completion
March 20, 2015
Last Updated
November 9, 2017
Record last verified: 2017-11
Data Sharing
- IPD Sharing
- Will share
- Shared Documents
- ICF, ANALYTIC CODE
- Time Frame
- Materials will be posted after publication of study results.
- Access Criteria
- Data and supporting materials will be freely available to anyone with access to openICPSR.
Pending approval by the University of Alabama at Birmingham's Institutional Review Board (IRB), which we have received for other studies and anticipate receiving here, we will prepare transportable de-identified raw databases and codebooks, which will contain the raw data used in any paper we publish from the proposed research. We will publically deposit such raw data for access by others without restriction in a public repository such as ICPSR. For any investigator requesting data we have not yet published, we will be glad to provide de-identified data and codebooks to the investigators provided that the proposed use does not conflict with our intentions for use.