Storage.googleapis.com



14 November 2017Adam Phillips, University of South FloridaRestaurant rhetoric: ‘Nudging’ the audience through gustatory and olfactory sensory recallStructured AbstractBackground: This proposed descriptive baseline research will attempt to investigate this intersection of restaurant rhetoric and writing studies. The influence that words have over their audience has long been investigated by both linguists and social scientists, but few researchers analyze how these words function within genres such as menu design. Swahn, et al. (2010) have noted the influence that rhetoric has upon consumers at grocery stores, and they argue that “sensory marketing” is a valid site that needs more research. The manner which restaurants choose their menus’ rhetoric in order to influence, or “nudge” as Filimoneu, et al. (2017) term, their guests’ selection of menu choices through their diction is a topic ripe for research because this “rhetorical nudging” could lead to insight about the persuasive value of certain parts-of-speech (POS), specifically adverbs, adjectives, nouns, proper nouns, and verbs—as well as clusters of the collocates of these POS. This proposed research will investigate the aesthetic tastes of restaurant patrons and offers a glimpse at “restaurant rhetoric” and the potential persuasive power that gustatory and olfactory sensory words have upon an audience in terms of influencing their menu choices.Research Questions: Three questions guided this inquiry:How can I develop and design a method to identify olfactory and gustatory sensory rhetoric at the level of word choice within restaurant menus?What specific POS address olfactory and/or gustatory sensory rhetoric within restaurant menus?If this olfactory and gustatory sensory rhetoric does indeed influence menu-item choice, how can it be measured accurately?Methodology: This proposed study analyzes restaurant menus, looking for grammatical structures and POS that are deemed to have rhetorical value in terms of influencing the audience’s choice(s) of menu items. This corpus of menus is located in the USF library archives and is aggregated from Florida restaurants during the time period of 1912-1994. Drawing on David Hume’s (1757) argument in Of the Standard of Taste that good taste is acquired through “practice, [and] perfected by comparison” (837), practiced researchers will identify patterns of gustatory and olfactory sensory language within these menus through a corpus analysis using a multi-method design—AntConc for POS and n-gram analysis as well as hand coding for reliability, and SPSS for data analysis.The entire corpus of menus will be scored individually by two judges on a Likert scale by researchers with backgrounds in aesthetics of various ages, races, and genders according to their olfactory and gustatory POS and their influence upon the audience. The scores will be input into SPSS to average and compile the results. The judges will be asked to complete a follow-up interview that addresses any discrepant and/or extreme scores—scores at the high or low of the Likert scale. Based upon the judges’ ratings, the menus will be analyzed to identify key lexical and grammatical patterns that exude persuasive olfactory and/or gustatory sensory rhetoric. The menus that depict this characteristic will be input into AntConc to identify key olfactory and gustatory POS and collocations patterns of the selected menus.Results: The corpus analysis will employ a variable model to analyze the gustatory and olfactory sensory rhetoric employed by different restaurants, designed to affect their audience in a persuasive fashion. These POS and collocates will be chosen by a diverse group of researchers with a background in aesthetics according to the identified rhetorical value of these menus. The entire corpus of menus will concurrently be rated on a Likert scale by two to three researchers with backgrounds in aesthetics. Follow-up interviews will be conducted to assess any extreme (ones or sixes) and/or discrepant scores to understand the value placed on a menu item by each judge. Based on these findings, the results will yield insight into restaurant menu design and the potential rhetorical value—in terms of specific lexical construction associated with menu scores—by means of the identified sensory language of this research for the authoring of future menus.Significance: The findings—based upon menu scoring, structured interviews, and a corpus analysis—hold the potential to create interesting possibilities for their potential use(s) in restaurant-menu design. This proposed research and findings seek to investigate the genre of menu production by articulating the value of “rhetorical nudging” through the use of menu design and analysis. The results of the research and the focus on the rhetorical advantages of using specific diction within restaurant menus could lead to (1) new insight into the genre of restaurant menu design, (2) identification of key POS and collocates that influence or nudge patrons and their menu choice(s), and (3) the creation of more persuasive ways to author restaurant menus.Keywords: corpus linguistics, genre, menu design, multimodal, restaurant menus, rhetorical awareness, rhetorical nudging, writing program curricula, writing studies______________________________________________________________________________Introduction1.1 Restaurant Rhetoric, Menu Design, and Corpus AnalysisThe genre of menu design has been an under-analyzed area of research within writing studies. This proposed research seeks to fill that void and question if sensory rhetoric within menu design persuades audiences and their menu choices. The rhetorical choices that authors make when creating menu descriptions lead to sensory-rich imagery that could be valuable to students throughout the university in terms of word choice, rhetorical awareness, sensory images, and “rhetorical nudging”, a feature Filimonau et al. (2017) define as “[a]ffecting customer decision-making via manipulations with the choice environment” (p. 163). This potential “nudging” effect elicited by writing seems to hold value for restaurant-menu design as well as for studying the genre of restaurant-menu design. By educating writers on how to select and employ a certain vocabulary to “nudge” their audiences in a rhetorical manner, restaurant menus and writing may become richer, and—at the very least—writers may be afforded more tools with which to persuade their audiences.The rhetorical choices employed by the authors of restaurant menus have rhetorical value for writing studies. The ability to utilize word choice that elicits a response from an audience seems to be a beneficial byproduct of menu design and employment of sensory-rich language, features that are valued within Rhetoric and Writing programs. If researchers can isolate certain lexical features within restaurants menus that “nudge” their customers to select specific items listed, this skill could possibly be transferred between genres and employed for a rhetorical use in writing studies. The value and possibilities of “rhetorical nudging” seem too great to simply ignore.1.2 Problem IdentificationThis research offers an attempt to identify and classify instances of “rhetorical nudging” by using a corpus analysis of a collection of archived menus at the University of South Florida’s library. Through a purposive sampling of all of the 166 menus available and an AntConc analysis of shared words throughout the menus, a group of diverse researchers with backgrounds in aesthetics will be selected to score the corpus of menus, focusing primarily on strong olfactory and gustatory sensory language. After follow-up interviews to clarify certain score decisions, the data will be analyzed in AntConc to make inferences about “rhetorical nudging” its value in terms of restaurant menu design.Following the literature review, the sections that follow identify the sampling plan, research design, instrument design, possible problems, and potential solutions, the timeline, and the overall significance of this research. 2.0 Literature Review2.1 “Nudging” as a Tool for Rhetorical AwarenessAlthough commonly overlooked by writing studies, restaurants employ rhetoric within their menus, and this “restaurant rhetoric” depicts ideals that scholars attempt to employ within compositions. The rhetorical devices writing scholars teach to their students—features such as rhetorical appeals, tone, organization, and precise diction—can all located within a corpus of restaurant menus. These features enable their authors to persuade, or as Filimonau et al. term it “nudge”, their respective audiences for a variety of purposes. The authors state that “‘nudging’ imposes no limitations on customer choice, it strives to manipulate it so that it becomes more environmentally- and societally-beneficial” (Filimonau et. al, 2017, p. 163). Although their focus in ‘Nudging’ as an Architect of More Responsible Consumer Choice in Food Service Provision: The Role of Restaurant Menu Design is on environmental conservation, this application of rhetoric seems to be a fruitful avenue of exploration for writing studies in that it could lead to new way to incorporate persuasive techniques into writing program curricula with a focus on audience awareness.2.2 Menu Design and Consumer SatisfactionRestaurant menu design has been influenced by research in the food industry in order to identify menu features that consumers prefer: such as ideal layout, color choices, design, font, and various other features. In Restaurant Menu Descriptions: Revisiting McCall and Lynn Through Word Analysis, the author cites research that claims, “Descriptive labels using different types of adjectives can increase sales, perceived quality, value, and intention to return to a restaurant” (as cited in Mathe-Soulek, 2016, p. 56). The use of adjectives for food descriptions on menus seems to have the ability to influence consumer choices. Mathe-Soulek’s research focused on ice-cream descriptions within popular chain restaurants, and the results showed that adverbs have little statistical significance in perceived quality or taste; however, the use of more adjectives and nouns led to higher overall ratings of food quality and taste. The use of more descriptive, sensory language seems to influence the audience to not only select certain menu items based upon their vivid descriptions, but also to perceive their taste and quality as higher than other, less descriptive choices.2.3 Sensory Descriptive Labels and Consumer InfluenceConsumer persuasion has always been a focus for research within the food industry, and this research has led to many claims in support of sensory-driven rhetorical features that persuade a specified an audience. Swahn et al. (2012), in Sensory Description Labels for Food Affect Consumer Product Choice, find that specific sensory descriptions of apples within grocery stores can lead to both positive and negative outcomes in terms of consumer preference. The authors found that consumers consistently chose apples with stronger and more appealing sensory labels than those without (p. 1636-38). The authors also discovered that words such as “perfume” were unappealing to consumers and possibly dissuaded them from their selections (p. 1641). The findings suggest that sensory descriptive words on labels in a supermarket tend to persuade the consumer to select products (apples in this case) with more olfactory and gustatory sensory imagery through precise word selection than products that are absent of this feature.2.4 The Aesthetics of Secondary SensesDiaconu (2006) posits that the lower senses (haptic, olfactory, and gustatory senses) have often been ignored by traditional aesthetic theorists. She argues that [l]iving in the world and being subject to experiences are both conditions for the subject's self-fulfillment. To be more precise, being ‘subject to’ implies ‘passibility’ (French:?passibilité), a concept that refers at the same time to the subject's vulnerability or sensitivity and to its intentional engagement with the object. (para. 36)Gustatory and olfactory senses are subjective and persuade an audience through the seeking of enjoyment, and they influence choice dependent upon the tastes of an individual. Different individuals have different tastes, and it is these different tastes that will help to make the sample more objective in terms of the rhetoric deemed persuasive. The ability to employ terms that appeal to secondary senses seems to confirm what Diaconu (2006) argues and helps to ground this study in a theory of aesthetics.2.5 Nonconscious Processing and Persuasion TheoryShrum et al. (2012) discuss to the ability for subliminal influence and persuasiveness within advertising. They argue that “[a]lthough there have been quite a number of scholarly writings dismissing the notion of subliminal effects in general and subliminal persuasion . . . we now know that subliminal effects are actually fairly easy to produce, at least in the lab” (p. 19). The ability to persuade through subliminal factors is exactly what olfactory and gustatory recall does; the “nudging” that this research is investigating may subliminally persuade the reader to select specific menu choices based upon their gustatory and olfactory sensory language. The authors surmise “these studies suggest that although subliminal priming may not create needs (i.e., make someone thirsty), priming the goal (quench thirst) can influence choices that can help achieve the goal” (Shrum et al., 2012, p. 20). So, although sensory language may not cause the audience to thirst or pang for specific items, subliminally “priming” audiences with sensory imagery through rhetoric can create stronger persuasive urges in the audience. This theory helps to support the validity of this research in terms of the construct of persuasion.2.6 The Aesthetics of TasteHume (1757) discusses aesthetic taste in terms of beauty and virtue, relying on the morality and practice of the judge for the quality of their judgement. The more experience and moral dignity the judge has, the more reliably they can judge beauty. In terms of lexical aesthetics that influence restaurant patrons’ menu selections, Humes’s theory supports the sampling plan design by allowing for researchers with a background in aesthetics to select olfactory and gustatory sensory POS and collocates present with the corpus of menus to be included in the fictitious menus that will be disseminated to survey participants. Humes argues that “[s]trong sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice, perfected by comparison, and cleared of all prejudice, can alone entitle critics to this valuable character; and the joint verdict of such, wherever they are to be found, is the true standard of taste and beauty” (837). Only practiced and virtuous people, according to Hume, are able to objectively make aesthetic judgements about taste. By selecting practiced rhetoricians and restaurant menu-designers to hand-pick sets of POS and collocates that exhibit a persuasively aesthetic quality, this research will ensure that a fair list of sensory language is included in the fictitious menus being rated by participants.These studies help to inform the theoretical framework of my research and offer insight into menu design and its potential application to writing studies. Grounding this proposed research in aesthetics theories from Hume (1757) and Diaconu (2006), sensory language can be identified by experts in sensory language aesthetics. Although there is much research on the application of sensory imagery in the food service industry—Swahn et al. (2012) and Mathe-Soulek (2016)—research is lacking within writing studies that focuses on how and/or if “rhetorical nudging” can be beneficial to restaurant menu design. This study attempts to fill in that scholarly gap and bridge two separate genres: food-service rhetoric and rhetoric and writing studies, by analyzing a corpus of menus from across the state of Florida—ranging from 1912-1994, for sensory imagery associated with menu choices and their potential rhetorical power in terms of influencing consumer choices. Using theory from Filimonau et al. (2017) and Shrum et al. (2012) to understand the persuasive value of sensory language, this proposed research will attempt to identify and analyze restaurant menus that use olfactory and gustatory sensory language with the intent to persuade consumers and guide their menu choice(s).3.0 Methodology3.1 Research ClassificationThis proposed research is an attempt to analyze the rhetorical value of sensory language (olfactory and gustatory, specifically) within restaurant menus and understand the value—if any—of specific POS and collocate clusters and their (in)ability to “nudge” customers and influence menu item choice(s). This descriptive, exploratory study that seeks to understand restaurant rhetoric and, specifically, how olfactory and gustatory sensory language influence the audience—or “nudge”—as an attempt to persuade and influence their menu choice(s).3.2 Research QuestionsThree questions guided this inquiry:(1) How can I develop and design a method to identify olfactory and gustatory sensory rhetoric at the level of word choice within restaurant menus?(2) What specific POS address olfactory and/or gustatory sensory rhetoric within restaurant menus?(3) If this olfactory and gustatory sensory rhetoric does indeed influence menu-item choice, how can it be measured accurately?3.3 Sampling Plan DesignThe sample of the corpus of all 166 menus will use a purposive sampling method, such as Bernard (2000) when dealing with some specific criteria of interest that can be found through selecting the specific cases that depict the criteria best (pp. 176). This sample will be selected by focusing on a variable model that identifies nouns, proper nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and collocates of these parts of speech that have been deemed to exude olfactory and gustatory sensory language. These menus will be analyzed by researchers with backgrounds in aesthetics to identify menus that display this particular language, coupled with a grammatical analysis for nouns, proper nouns adjectives, verbs, adverbs of these POS, which will be completed by POS tagging using AntConc. An n-gram analysis will also be conducted using AntConc to identify clusters of collocates that may be useful for this research.3.4 Variable ModelSubscribing to three different theories—The Aesthetics of Secondary Senses, set forth from Mǎdǎlina Diaconu, Nonconscious Processing and Persuasion Theory, set forth from Shrum et al., and The Aesthetics of Taste set forth by David Hume—this study will collect construct validity evidence based around the construct of persuasiveness—the dependent variable—with regard to olfactory and gustatory rhetoric—the independent variables—as it is employed in a corpus of menus found in the archives at the University of South Florida library spanning from 1912-1994.Table 1.1 – Olfactory and Gustatory Variable ModelTermWhat it SuggestsPart of Speech (POS)hickory-smokedolfactory and gustatoryADJstaleolfactoryADJsucculentgustatoryADJfloweryolfactoryADVlightlygustatoryADVbisongustatoryNOUNKobegustatoryPRO PNsmokedgustatory and olfactoryVERBinfusedolfactoryVERB3.5 Instrument Design3.5.1 Machine CodingThe file of these menus from Free Online OCR will be input into AntConc in order to parse and identify gustatory and/or olfactory sensory rhetoric, such as nouns, proper nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and verbs, and an n-gram analysis will be performed to identify collocate clusters. Tables 1.3 and 1.4 display the researcher(s) proof of concept for this analysis. Table 1.3 displays the machine coding performed by AntConc which displays the variety of words used and how many times each they are used within a text. Table 1.4 display a n-gram analysis looking for bigrams that may be of interest in terms of noun, proper noun, adjective, adverb and verb collocates. 3.5.2 Quantitative AnalysisThe scoring and interview data will be analyzed using SPSS. A variable model, such as Figure 1.1, will be created to display these results and input them into SPSS. The data will be analyzed for frequencies (range, mean, mode, median, and standard deviation) using a univariate analysis. A bivariate analysis will also be conducted to analyze the variables (olfactory and gustatory) in terms of persuasiveness, and a linear regression and ANOVA analysis will be conducted to test for correlations.3.6 Research ProcessThe corpus of menus will be analyzed by researchers with backgrounds in aesthetics. The judgements of the researchers will be measured on a Likert scale from one (1) to six (6), with six (6) being the highest value of persuasiveness. The entire menu corpus will be scored by at least two researchers with backgrounds in aesthetics, and if the scored are discrepant by more than one number, a third judge will score the menu. If at least two of the three scores are within one (1) point of each other, the scores will be averaged together. If the scores are still discrepant, the menu will be discarded. After the corpus scoring, the researcher(s) will conduct interviews in order to more fully understand the scores that were extreme—scores of one (1) or six (6)—and scores that were discrepant. After discussing the discrepancies, these menus that are scored highest will be input into optical character recognition (OCR) software—Free Online OCR—and converted to a text file. The methods for data collection during this research are as follows:Have researchers with backgrounds in aesthetics score each of the full corpus of menus (166) twice on a one (1) to six (6) Likert scale based on persuasion from olfactory and/or gustatory sensory rhetoric.Have a third expert score the menu if the first two scores are discrepant (not within one point of each other).Discard any menus that are discrepant after three scores.Conduct a post-interview with researchers to discern why some menus were scored on either extreme (one or six) or were scored discrepantly.Analyze data and select the highest scored thirty (30) menus based upon the results of the scoring and post-interviews.Using Free Online OCR, upload the text file produced into AntConc for parsing and n-gram analysis.Using a variable model, like Figure 1.1, input the data into SPSS for analysis.The data collected could yield insight into the choices and the persuasiveness of menu sensory language in terms of olfactory and gustatory markers and their respective ability to “nudge” the participants, as well as display any correlations between the persuasive or dissuasive value of certain gustatory and/or olfactory sensory language.3.7 Possible ProblemsThe possibility of data leaking or being stolen is very possible. Also, the possibilities of participants and their personal information being stolen is very possible. The fear of an expert’s identity being revealed through specific quotes of passages from interview data could be cause for concern, as well as the possibility of bias due to the specific tastes of the researchers with backgrounds in aesthetics may come into play. There is also the possibility of finding no discernable pattern(s) in the data collected. Also, the ability of researchers to objectively identify sensory rhetoric could be an issue. These shortcomings could be caused by the instrument design, coding errors, or assessment miscalculations.3.8 Potential SolutionsThe researchers with backgrounds in aesthetics will be coded randomly by number and all personal information collected (name, contact information, and age) will be contained in a locked document stored at the University of South Florida, Tampa, campus. The researcher(s) will only use direct quotes that do not reveal any personal information that could potentially identify any of the participants. To minimize bias, the researcher(s) will instruct the researchers to only take into account the persuasiveness of the gustatory and/or olfactory sensory language used throughout the menus being scored. By analyzing the choices made by each researcher in terms of which sensory rhetoric to employ and choosing the POS and/or collocates according to the most selected one by researchers, the sensory rhetoric employed within the fictitious menus should be objective and reliable. The researcher(s) can also potentially offer small compensation, such as a gift card, for participation in the study. This would help to potentially create a larger pool of participants to choose from, thus, increasing the validity of the results.3.9 TimelineThe timeline of the study will be as follows:Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 1.2 – Timeline of the ResearchEventTime FrameScan and Convert Entire Menu CorpusDecember 1st - December 3rdSelect Researchers with Aesthetics BackgroundDecember 3rd - December 10thScore Corpus of Menus on Likert ScaleDecember 11th (9 am - 1 pm)Conduct Post-InterviewsDecember 11th (2 pm - 5pm)Analyze ResultsDecember 12th - December 31stMachine Coding Using AntConcJanuary 3rd – January 4thQuantitative Analysis with SPSSJanuary 5thCompile ResultsJanuary 6th-Febuary 28thIn order to convert hard copies of the menu corpus into digital versions, the researcher(s) will spend two days scanning and compiling the digital copies of the menus for analysis. Throughout the following week, the original researcher(s) will interview and select researchers with a background in aesthetic theory. By the end of the week, after having a panel of aesthetic experts, the researcher(s) would spend approximately four hours scoring every menu at least twice on a Likert scale, three times in a discrepancy occurs. After breaking for an hour lunch, the researchers would reconvene and conduct post-scoring interviews in order to gain insight into the selections of the researchers and explain any discrepancies that occurred. The following day, the original researchers would reconvene and send approximately two weeks or so (around the holidays) to compile the results of the interviews and make any inferences from their content. After this qualitative analysis of interview data, the researchers would begin machine coding the documents. Dues to OCR and the issues in transcribing menu text to digital format, the researchers will need two days to edit the transcribed documents before inputting them into AntConc for machine coding. One the menus are coded with AntConc, the data from scoring and interviews will be input into SPSS statistics various analyses, trying to detect correlation between certain menus and their rhetoric and their suasiveness. After all of this data is ready, analysis will begin and will take approximately six weeks to analyze, compile the results, and report on those results.4.0 Significance4.1 Theory DevelopmentThis proposed research could help to develop new rhetorical theories about menu production and development. Through the results of this research, authors may be able to identify and select POS that can aid in menu design and “nudge” consumers in the direction the author chooses. Using this research for theory development seems to be one possibility for this research; however, this research could also lead to new ways to interpret and analyze restaurant menus. 4.2 New Research MethodologiesAnalyzing and interpreting the effectiveness of restaurant menus in terms of persuasive ability is an aspect of restaurant rhetoric that could potentially benefit from this research. By developing new ways to judge the rhetorical value of these menus, scholars and authors may be able to develop even more precise methodologies for assessing restaurant menu design. These new methodologies could continue investigating restaurant rhetoric and its persuasive and/or dissuasive features. 4.3 Actionable FindingsThis proposed research and its potential findings could pave the way for more sensory-rich language that persuades the audience to choose specific items on menus that authors designed with the specific purpose in mind of “nudging” consumers to select them. These potential findings could potentially enable authors of menus to effectively increase sales through “nudging” audiences in the direction of more expensive items. The findings could also lead to more effective menu design in the aspect of simply appealing to the olfactory and gustatory senses of consumers. Lastly, this research could potentially allow restaurants to increase their customer base through more effective menu descriptions by persuading readers of the quality of the food selections and their effects on a consumer’s palette.4.4 Directions for Further ResearchThis research can potentially shed light on restaurant menu design and the specific type of diction authors should employ to persuade and “rhetorically nudge” the audience to choose menu options that authors want to them to choose. Not only for restaurant menu design, these results could give insight into rhetorical awareness in writing classrooms. Analyzing the aesthetics of the POS of nouns, proper nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs—as well as the collocate clusters of these POS—a fresher theory of rhetoric may be developed that emphasizes rhetorical awareness of aesthetics. By analyzing specific diction and rhetorical choices employed by authors, this newfound rhetorical awareness could lead to new and interesting menu designs and new theories about “rhetorical nudging” and its benefits throughout many genres.5.0 ReferencesAnthony, L. (2014). AntConc for Windows (Version 3.4.4w) [Computer Software] Retrieved from , M. (2006). Reflections on an aesthetics of touch, smell and taste. Contemporary Aesthetics, 4. , V., Lemmer, C., Marshall, D., & Bejjani, G. (2017). 'Nudging' as an architect of more responsible consumer choice in food service provision: The role of restaurant menu design.?Journal of Cleaner Production, 144, 161-170. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.010.Hume, D. (1757). Of the standard of taste. In P. Bizzell, & B. Herzberg (Eds.) (2001), The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to present (830-840). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 23.0) [Computer Software] Retrieved from , K. (2016). Restaurant menu descriptions: Revisiting McCall and Lynn through word analysis.?Journal of Foodservice Business Research,?19(1), 56-63. doi:10.1080/15378020.2016.1129218.Shrum, L. J., Liu, M., Nespoli, M., & Lowrey, T. M. (2012). Persuasion in the marketplace: How theories of persuasion apply to marketing and advertising. In Dillard J. & Shen, L. (Eds.). The Persuasion Handbook, 1-40. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. , J., Mossberg, L., Ostrom, A., & Gustafsson, I. (2012). Sensory description labels for food affect consumer product choice. (2012).?European Journal of Marketing, 46(11/12), 1628-46. doi:10.1108/03090561211260013.6.0 Appendices6.1 IRB CertificationCertificate of CompletionAdam PhillipsCompleted USF IRB Student Researcher Workshopon Thursday, September 21, 2017Certificate ID#: 609096.2 Proof of ConceptTable 1.3 – Word list in AntConcTable 1.4 – Bigram n-gram Analysis in AntConc6.3 Scoring Table for Each Restaurant MenuExtremely EffectiveEffectiveSomewhat EffectiveSomewhat IneffectiveIneffectiveExtremely IneffectiveOlfactory Sensory Language??????Gustatory Sensory Language??????Overall Menu Persuasiveness??????6.4 Structured Interview ProtocolStructured Interview Protocol for Restaurant Menu Assessment217170014287500Interviewee Code Number/Name: Interviewer: ___________________________________________________________________Location: _____________________________________________________________________Date: _________________________________________________________________________Age: _________________________________________________________________________Race: ________________________________________________________________________Sex: _________________________________________________________________________Length of Interview (min.): _______________________________________________________1. Why did you choose the specific menu(s) that you did to be a six (6) in terms of persuasiveness?2. Why did you choose the specific menu(s) that you did to be a one (1) in terms of persuasiveness?3. Why did you choose the specific menu(s) that you did to be a six (6) in terms of olfactory sensory language?4. Why did you choose the specific menu(s) that you did to be a one (1) in terms of olfactory sensory language?5. Why did you choose the specific menu(s) that you did to be a six (6) in terms of gustatory sensory language?6. Why did you choose the specific menu(s) that you did to be a one (1) in terms of gustatory sensory language?7. What did you choose to rate the specific menu(s) you did as less than (6) or more than (1) in terms of persuasiveness?8. What did you choose to rate the specific menu(s) you did as less than (6) or more than (1) in terms of olfactory sensory language?9. What did you choose to rate the specific menu(s) you did as less than (6) or more than (1) in terms of gustatory sensory language?10. In terms of persuasiveness, what sensory words stuck out to you most throughout these menus? Why?11. What sensory-rich words that you encountered do you believe best created “recall” in the audience?12. Did you find yourself being influenced by a specific menu-item’s description? If so, which one or more? Why?13. What ways could they menus have been improved in terms of persuasiveness? ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download