The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the negative impressions consumers hold toward institutional food can be remedied by subtle changes in menu descriptions. While an expectancy-disconfirmation explanation would suggest this, a negativity bias explanation would suggest otherwise.
The authors test the research question using an experimental 2 × 2 full factorial design, with data collected from 100 university students.
The results show that when hospital menus are made somewhat fancier in their description, consumers evaluate the food as more attractive and menu variation to be greater. This implies that the judgments are more likely to be based on an expectancy-disconfirmation process that on being subject to negativity bias.
The authors study perceived attractiveness and menu variation, but future research should include taste perceptions and consumption volume.
Institution managers could improve consumer perceptions of how attractive the food being served is, and the perceived variation in their menus, by subtly changing the course descriptions to become fancier. However, as such, a strategy based on an expectancy-disconfirmation process, institution managers should beware not to sweeten the pill too much, i.e., making promises they cannot keep may backfire if one makes the menus too fancy compared to what is delivered.
The authors extend current knowledge on menu label effects by addressing them for food suppliers, which are inherently associated with low food quality. The authors also show that when managers apply such strategies, the effect is due to a disconfirmation process rather than a negativity bias.
