https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8585-056X
![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Objective: To understand the rewards university students associate with two key decisions shaping food choices. Participants: Thirty-eight university students. Methods: In this exploratory research, we conducted focus groups to identify the rewards students associated with choosing to eat at the campus dining hall and their specific food choices within that venue. We also obtained feedback on reward nomenclatures identified via a content analysis of health and business literature. Results: Students primarily chose the dining hall due to its convenience, foods offered, and the social aspects of the venue. Rewards associated with food choice included freshness, customization, variety, local foods, healthy foods, convenience, and portion size. Nomenclatures were relevant and meaningful. Conclusions: These students associate food choice decisions with rewards. Universities should consider whether dining halls and menu items link healthy foods to the rewards prioritized by students. Reward nomenclatures may be useful for researchers investigating the drivers of food choice.
Conflict of interest disclosure
None. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements, of Australia and received approval from the Institutional Review Board of The University of Queensland.
Funding
No funding was used to support this research and/or the preparation of the manuscript.
Notes on contributions
PP, along with SL, JD, and KC developed the protocol and materials for the focus groups. One primary investigator (PP) conducted each stage of the focus groups and analyses with three co-investigators (SL, JD, and KC) providing secondary review, analysis, and expert consultation throughout. PP wrote the draft manuscript with feedback and review by SL, JD, and KC. All authors approved the manuscript.