IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pui/dpaper/185.html

The Higher the Goal, the More You Eat: Reference Dependence In an “ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT†Restaurant

Author

Listed:
  • Sirikarn Phuchada
  • Phumsith Mahasuweerachai

Abstract

While many factors have been proven to affect eating behavior in all-you-can-eat restaurants, little attention has been paid to the influence of reference dependence on the quantity of food consumed in this context. This study conducted an experiment with 224 customers (90 tables) in a Korean BBQ buffet restaurant that had 2 menu options, a premium option and a standard option, with a price difference of about $3. Customers were randomly assigned to one of 3 experimental groups based on the option they initially chose: (1) participants who chose a premium option and paid a premium option price (2) participants who chose a premium option and were given a discount to pay at the standard option price and (3) participants who chose a standard option and were awarded a free upgrade from the standard to the premium option. The results indicate that when participants initially chose a premium option and were given a discount to pay at the standard option price, they had higher consumption volume as compared to those who chose a standard option and were awarded a free upgrade from the standard to the premium options. This study reveals that consumers set their reference point on how much to consume by factoring in their perceived meal characteristics. Consumers with the greater reference point end up consuming a significantly larger amount of food than those with a lower reference point. Our research provides compelling evidence that the reference-dependent preference affects consumers' decisions on how much to consume in an “all-you-can-eat†context.

Suggested Citation

  • Sirikarn Phuchada & Phumsith Mahasuweerachai, 2022. "The Higher the Goal, the More You Eat: Reference Dependence In an “ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT†Restaurant," PIER Discussion Papers 185, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:pui:dpaper:185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.pier.or.th/files/dp/pier_dp_185.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erez Siniver & Yosef Mealem & Gideon Yaniv, 2013. "Overeating in all-you-can-eat buffet: paying before versus paying after," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(35), pages 4940-4948, December.
    2. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    3. Jonathan Shalev, 2000. "Loss aversion equilibrium," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 29(2), pages 269-287.
    4. Kiet T. Nguyen & Jack L. Knetsch & Phumsith Mahasuweerachai, 2021. "WTP or WTA: A Means of Determining the Appropriate Welfare Measure of Positive and Negative Changes When Preferences are Reference Dependent," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(4), pages 615-633, April.
    5. Siniver Erez & Yaniv Gideon, 2012. "All-You-Can-Eat Buffet: Entry Price, the Fat Tax and Meal Cessation," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, April.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    8. David R Just & Brian Wansink, 2011. "The Flat-Rate Pricing Paradox: Conflicting Effects of "“All-You-Can-Eat"” Buffet Pricing," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(1), pages 193-200, February.
    9. Alex Markle & George Wu & Rebecca White & Aaron Sackett, 2018. "Goals as reference points in marathon running: A novel test of reference dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 19-50, February.
    10. Winer, Russell S, 1986. "A Reference Price Model of Brand Choice for Frequently Purchased Products," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(2), pages 250-256, September.
    11. Xie Ling & Muhammad Faisal Shahzad & Zia ul Abrar & Jamshid Khan Khattak, 2021. "Determinants of the Intention to Purchase Branded Meat: Mediation of Brand Trust," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    12. Ya-Hui Wang, 2014. "All You Can Eat: Behavioral Evidence From Taiwan," International Journal of Management and Marketing Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 7(2), pages 29-37.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edoardo Grillo, 2014. "Reference Dependence and Politicians' Credibility," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 353, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    2. SHALEV, Jonathan, 1998. "Loss aversion in repeated games," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 1998014, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    3. Paul Heidhues & Botond Köszegi, 2004. "The Impact of Consumer Loss Aversion on Pricing," CIG Working Papers SP II 2004-17, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    4. David R. Bell & James M. Lattin, 2000. "Looking for Loss Aversion in Scanner Panel Data: The Confounding Effect of Price Response Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 185-200, May.
    5. Cédric Gutierrez & Tomasz Obloj & Douglas H. Frank, 2021. "Better to have led and lost than never to have led at all? Lost leadership and effort provision in dynamic tournaments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 774-801, April.
    6. Benjamin Balzer & Antonio Rosato, 2021. "Expectations-Based Loss Aversion in Auctions with Interdependent Values: Extensive vs. Intensive Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 1056-1074, February.
    7. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    8. Mariya Burdina & Scott Hiller, 2021. "When Falling Just Short is a Good Thing: The Effect of Past Performance on Improvement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(7), pages 777-798, October.
    9. Matthey, Astrid, 2005. "Getting used to risks: Reference dependence and risk inclusion," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2005-036, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    10. Domenico Colucci & Chiara Franco & Vincenzo Valori, 2021. "Endowment effects at different time scenarios: the role of ownership and possession," Discussion Papers 2021/279, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    11. repec:ken:wpaper:0601 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    13. Fershtman, Chaim, 1996. "On the value of incumbency managerial reference points and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 245-257, April.
    14. Lars Petersen & Jacob Hörisch & Kathleen Jacobs, 2021. "Worse is worse and better doesn't matter?: The effects of favorable and unfavorable environmental information on consumers’ willingness to pay," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(5), pages 1338-1356, October.
    15. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    16. Quainoo, Ruth & Howard, Gregory & Gaur, Vasundhara & Lang, Corey, 2024. "Model choice and framing effects: Do discrete choice modeling decisions affect loss aversion estimates?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    17. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    18. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    19. Necati Tereyağoğlu & Peter S. Fader & Senthil Veeraraghavan, 2018. "Multiattribute Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence: Evidence from the Performing Arts Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 421-436, January.
    20. Ralf Elbert & Lowis Seikowsky, 2017. "The influences of behavioral biases, barriers and facilitators on the willingness of forwarders’ decision makers to modal shift from unimodal road freight transport to intermodal road–rail freight transport," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(8), pages 1083-1123, November.
    21. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pui:dpaper:185. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/pierbth.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.