This article was downloaded by: [National University Of Singapore] On: 5 September 2010 Access details: Access Details:

[subscription number 779896407] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Foodservice Business Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792304001

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction of Singaporean Diners

Hwansuk Chris Choia; Tanya MacLaurina; Ju-Eun Choa; Sung-Pil Hahmb a Tourism Research & Information Laboratory, School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada b School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Kyung Sung University, Busan, Korea Online publication date: 20 August 2010

To cite this Article Choi, Hwansuk Chris , MacLaurin, Tanya , Cho, Ju-Eun and Hahm, Sung-Pil(2010) 'Food Hygiene

Standard Satisfaction of Singaporean Diners', Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 13: 3, 156 177 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15378020.2010.500225 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2010.500225

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 13:156177, 2010 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1537-8020 print/1537-8039 online DOI: 10.1080/15378020.2010.500225

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction of Singaporean Diners

HWANSUK CHRIS CHOI, TANYA MACLAURIN, and JU-EUN CHO
Tourism Research & Information Laboratory, School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

SUNG-PIL HAHM
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Kyung Sung University, Busan, Korea

This study examines issues related to food hygiene and nonhygiene attributes of the foodservice industry, food safety knowledge of diners, and their satisfaction with a food hygiene disclosure system. Using data collected at four food courts and four hawker centers in Singapore, the results of this study indicate that food hygiene attributes are a key driver when dining out. Signicant relationships were found to exist between food hygiene attributes and food safety knowledge of diners and food hygiene standard satisfaction. Non-hygiene attributes exhibited a signicant relationship to food hygiene standards. The study discusses both theoretical and practical implications of the results for foodservice operations and governments. KEYWORDS food hygiene, food safety knowledge, food safety grading standard, structural equation modeling, Singapore

INTRODUCTION
Foodservice establishments have had a long history regarding food safety and hygiene inspection. Poor hygiene and safety procedures, including inadequate food temperature, inadequate cooking, poor personal hygiene, and contaminated food and drinking water, have resulted in foodborne illness

Address correspondence to Hwansuk Chris Choi, School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Guelph, 117F Macdonald Steward Hall, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada. E-mail: hwchoi@uoguelph.ca 156

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction

157

outbreaks at foodservice establishments in both industrialized and less industrialized countries (Bucholz, Run, Kool, Fielding, & Mascola, 2002; Irwin, Ballard, Grendon & Kobayashi, 1989). There are more than 200 known foodborne illnesses reported and caused by viruses, bacteria, parasites, toxins, metals, and prions. Their symptoms range from mild gastroenteritis to lifethreatening neurologic, hepatic, and renal syndromes (Mead et al., 1999). An estimated 1.8 million people died due to foodborne diseases in 2005 (World Health Organization [WHO], 2007). Accordingly, consumers are highly concerned about foodborne diseases at foodservice establishments. Responding to this concern, many governments have made a great deal of effort to inspect foodservice establishments properly. Restaurants that fail to meet the minimum requirements and standards of food safety and hygiene can face enforcement penalties. Food safety inspectors have a range of options, including voluntary and involuntary enforcement action, to ensure that an adequate level of enforcement is available for offending restaurant owners. A growing number of cities, provinces/states, and countries have introduced a letter-grading system for food safety inspection results and websites to provide inspection results to the public. The grading system provides consumers with accurate information intended to increase consumer condence. For example, in Toronto, Canada, the Dinesafe inspection system allows consumers to check the restaurants food safety inspection results on its website and has obliged restaurant owners to display a colored letter grade (green = pass; yellow = conditional pass) on a place clearly visible to consumers (City of Toronto, 2008). In 2001, Denmark introduced the Its in Danish program and posted the inspection results using a 5-point smiley scheme (ranging from happy to sad) on the website (www.ndsmiley.dk). Restaurant owners must display the smiley report (Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries [MFAF], 2008). Several studies have indicated that a food safety and hygiene standard helps restaurants adhere to standards and reduces the risk of foodborne illness. Moreover, it helps consumers to choose a safer restaurant, resulting in increasing revenue for those restaurants that have received high grades (Cramer, Gu, Durbin, & the Vessel Sanitation Program Environmental Health Inspection Team, 2003; Jin & Leslie, 2003; MFAF, 2008; Simon et al., 2005). However, relatively little research has been conducted to understand consumer perception and behavior toward food safety and hygiene standards. A few studies have reported that there are some deciencies. First, the existing empirical literature is mainly focused on a few countries such as the United States, Canada, and Denmarkeven though food safety and hygiene standards have become a key factor in choosing where consumers choose to eat in many countries and inuences the level of satisfaction with their dining experiences (Elder, Ayala, & Harris, 1999; Seo & Shanklin, 2005). Second,

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

158

H. C. Choi et al.

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

the existing literature is almost exclusively descriptive, because the safety and hygiene standard research is still in its infancy. Worsford (2006) and Leach (2003) investigated the understanding of the publics perception of hygiene standards in foodservice establishments and their knowledge of the inspection system by using a descriptive approach. Henson and colleagues (2006) and Dundes and Rajapaksa (2001) explored consumer assessment of food safety (standards) in restaurants. The objective of this study was to explore and understand relationships between consumer experiences and satisfaction with food hygiene grading standards, and food hygiene and food safety knowledge, regarding foodservice establishments in Singapore. Based on a thorough review of the literature, it is evident that no known study has yet attempted to test a structural model. Thus, this study proposes a theoretical model focusing on the possible relationships between non-hygiene attributes, hygiene attributes, food safety knowledge, and satisfaction with food hygiene standards (FHSs).

LITERATURE REVIEW
On a daily basis, people all over the world get sick from the food or beverage they consume (Dietitians of Canada, 2007; WHO, 2006). This illness is foodborne disease caused by dangerous microorganisms and/or toxic levels of chemicals in food or beverages. In industrialized countries, the percentage of the population suffering from foodborne disease each year has been reported to be up to 30%. In the United States, approximately 76 million cases of foodborne disease, resulting in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths, occur each year (Mead et al., 1999). In Canada, about 11 million cases of foodborne illness are estimated to occur each year, totaling an annual projected cost of $3.7 billion dollars (Majowicz et al., 2004, 2005). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated that a single pathogen, Escherichia coli O157 (O157 STEC), causes approximately 73,000 illnesses annually in the United States, resulting in more than 2,000 hospitalizations and 60 deaths with an economic cost of $405 million (in 2003 dollars), including $370 million for premature deaths, $30 million for medical care, and $5 million in lost productivity (Frenzen, Drake, & Angulo, 2005). Calculations for foodborne illness costs may vary from country to country based on projected costs included. Irrespective of the formula used or costs included, the projected costs demonstrate the onerous nancial burden that foodborne disease can have. Most foodborne disease is preventable with proper food handling. Measures necessary to ensure that food will not cause harm to the consumer when it is prepared and/or eaten according to its intended use are dened as food hygiene, all conditions and measure necessary to ensure the safety

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction

159

and suitability of food at all stages of the food chain (Food Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2008, n.p.).

Restaurants and Food Safety

Commercial foodservice operations have been implicated as the most common site for the origin of foodborne illness (Knight, Worosz, & Todd, 2007). Outbreaks in restaurants account for 31.3% of the total foodborne illness incidents in Japan (Lee, Lee, Kim, & Park; 2001). A food hygiene mistake in a restaurant serving hundreds or thousands of customers has the potential to make many people ill. The ve main risk factors that contribute to foodborne illness outbreaks in restaurants are improper holding temperature of food, poor personal hygiene of food handlers, inadequate cooking, contaminated equipment, and unsafe food (Hertzman & Barrash, 2007; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2000).

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

Consumers Selection Factors for Restaurants

Restaurant consumers have an implicit established expectation that the food they eat in restaurants will not make them sick. This expectation is so entrenched that it is assumed and taken for granted. In reviewing the literature, it can be argued that consumers may place food safety under the broad category of food quality. Aksoydan (2007) reported that the International Union of Food Science & Technology (IUFST) denes food quality as food that should be safe, fresh, of appropriate size, of nutritional completeness, and free from impurities. Food quality means that food is safe to consume. This relates directly to consumers implicit and implied expectation that food served in restaurants is safe and not going to make them sick. Research studies determining selection factors and their level of inuence on consumer restaurant choice can be divided into two broad categories: hygienic and non-hygienic. Non-hygienic factors include price, value for money, menu variety, food type, atmosphere, convenience, location, friendliness of the staff, hours of operation, and service. Hygienic factors encompass all aspects of cleanliness in the restaurant (infrastructure, equipment, cutlery and dishes, personnel) and food quality. Research conducted by Mona and Roy, (1999); Pettijohn, Pettijohn, and Luke (1997); Kivela (1997); Gregoire, Shanklin, Greathouse, and Tripp (1995); Auty (1992), and Lewis (1981) found food quality, including food safety and hygiene, to be either the rst or second most important restaurant choice factor. Although restaurant environment is often classied as a non-hygiene factor, consideration should be given to include it as a hygienic factor. The environment can be an indicator of the restaurants commitment to food safety standards. The level of cleanliness in the environment affects the possible opportunities for food to become contaminated or improperly

160

H. C. Choi et al.

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

handled, resulting in unsafe food. Poor personal hygiene of food handlers, contaminated equipment, and work surfaces provide many possible avenues for cross-contamination. Researchers investigating restaurant hygiene selection factors found cleanliness (of the kitchen, equipment, food preparation and dining surfaces, cutlery, and restrooms) to be an important factor inuencing restaurant choice (Aksoydan, 2007; Henson et al., 2006; Leach, Mercer, Stew, & Denyer, 2001). J.D. Power and Associates (2004) found that highly satised customers visit restaurants more frequently, recommend them more often, and spend more money compared to customers who experience low levels of satisfaction, as observed by the Restaurant Satisfaction Study conducted with U.S. dining consumers. Zeithaml and Bitner (1996) dened service quality as the delivery of excellent or superior service relative to customer exceptions. Based on their denition, a case could be made that safe food is a component of the delivery of superior service, meeting consumer expectations and building customer loyalty (Clark & Wood, 1998).

Consumer Food Safety Knowledge and Behaviors

Consumers are becoming more food safety conscious, but often that does not translate into increased knowledge or changed behavior (Altekruse, Yang, Timbo, & Angulo, 1999; Fein, Lin, & Levy, 1995; MacLaurin, 2001). Various segments of a population demonstrate different levels of knowledge and commitment to food safety behaviors. Research conducted with American consumers (Altekruse et al., 1999; Byrd-Bredbenner, Abbot, Wheatley, Schaffner, Bruhn, & Blalock, 2008; Fein, Levy, & Lando, 2002; Kurtzweil, 1999; Williamson, Gravani, & Lawless, 1992) has shown that young adults (aged 1829 years) and individuals with education beyond high school are more likely to engage in risky eating behaviors. Byrd-Bredbenner et al. (2008) found that young male respondents consumed more risky foods compared with females. Altekruse et al. (1999) reported that men were more likely to report risky practices than women and that the prevalence of most uncertain behaviors increased with increasing socioeconomic status.

Consumers Using Food Safety Information

As consumers become even more food safety aware and dine out more frequently, understanding information needs or cues used to make restaurant selection is vital to understanding consumer choice and raising food safety standards and performance of the foodservice industry. Food hygiene schemes are used in numerous countries around the world (Worsfold, 2005a, 2005b). There is much debate and no clear consensus on the impact of food hygiene schemes on consumer behavior. Providing context-specic food

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction

161

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

safety information in the form of inspection notices or grades can have a signicant impact on restaurant choice (Henson et al, 2006; Jones, Pavlin, Laeur, Ingram & Schaffner, 2004; Simon et al. 2005). The Los Angeles County restaurant hygiene grade card system was put into effect in 1998. Researchers have taken an active interest in analyzing its impact. Jin and Leslie (2003) found that health inspection scores increased, consumers became aware of changes in the restaurants, and the number of foodborne illness hospitalizations decreased. Simon et al. (2005) calculated a 13.1% decrease in the number of foodborne illness hospitalizations one year following the implementation of the program. Fielding, Aguirre, and Palaiologos (2001) found that inspection scores continued to rise in the second year of the program. The Toronto Food Premise Inspection and Disclosure System was the rst of its kind in Canada, starting in 2001 (Thompson, de Burger & Kadri, 2005). Data analysis showed completion dates (number of high-risk premises inspected) had improved, compliance rates increased, and there was a reduction in the infractions that are known to be associated with foodborne illness. A consumer study conducted by the City of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, found that consumers (N = 321) based their assessment of food safety in restaurants using a range of visible indicators, one of which was the posted inspection notice. On a 5-point importance scale, cleanliness of the kitchen, cutlery, dishes, and other equipment was signicantly more important than all other factors. Appearance and/or attitude of staff, inspection notice in window, and general appearance were the second most important group of selection factors (Henson et al., 2006).

HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Customer satisfaction is the sum of various factors. Silvestro and Johnston (1990) identied three major factors that inuence satisfaction: satiser, dissatiser, and dual-factor. In this sense, a hygiene factor is considered a dissatiser if it is incapable of satisfying customers. For this reason, a hygiene factor has garnered minimal attention by hospitality researchers and has often been considered a part of the tangible dimension when testing a SERVQUAL model, which has been the subject of some criticism due to their usability in various settings (e.g., Cronin & Taylor, 1992). Interestingly, Brown, Cummesson, Edvardsson, and Gustavsson (1991) argued that a hygiene factor should be recognized as a dual-factor, either providing greater customer satisfaction or becoming a source of dissatisfaction. Johnston (1997) supported this view by identifying cleanliness as an independent dimension of service quality. In addition, various researchers have reported that hygiene is a key factor in consumers selection of a restaurant and also a

162

H. C. Choi et al.

critical determinant of satisfaction (Auty, 1992; Gregoire et al., 1995; Kivela, 1997; Lewis, 1981; Mona & Roy, 1999; Pettijohn et al., 1997). As mentioned earlier, when consumers select a restaurant and evaluate the dining experience, several research studies used two broad factor categories: hygienic and non-hygienic (Elder et al., 1999; Seo & Shanklin, 2005). Non-hygienic factors included price, value for money, menu variety, food type, atmosphere, convenience, location, friendliness of the staff, word of mouth, reputation, and hours of operation and service (Heslop, 2007; Oh, 2000; Yksel & Yksel, 2003). These researchers reported that both hygienic and non-hygienic factors are positively related to satisfaction and/or choice. Based on these ndings, two hypotheses were formulated:
Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

Hypothesis 1: The food hygiene attributes will have a negative effect on FHS satisfaction. Hypothesis 2: The non-food hygiene attributes will have a positive effect on FHS satisfaction.

In marketing literature, consumer knowledge about products, services, or brand has been extensively discussed and measured using various constructs and sub-constructs (Akshay & Monroe, 1988; Bettman, 1979; Burt, Shipman, White, & Addington-Hall, 2006; Esch & Langer, 2006; Keller, 1993). Past experience, familiarity, and expertise have often been used as a representation of consumer knowledge (Akshay & Monroe, 1988; Alba & Hutchinson, 1987). It is noted that consumer knowledge may lead to subsequent actions of the consumer (e.g., satisfaction; Brucks, 1985; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999). In addition, some researchers, such as Rodgers, Negash, and Suk (2005) show that consumer knowledge may mediate and/or moderate the relationship between quality attributes and satisfaction. In the context of this study, food safety knowledge refers to overall food safety knowledge expertise, which includes information about the functional attributes of the FHSs, and a high-knowledge consumer is dened as an individual whose knowledge of overall food safety is high. Therefore, high-knowledge consumers tend to be more satised with the hygiene standard system implemented and have richer food safety and hygiene information that can lead to more rmly entrenched beliefs and higher satisfaction with regard to FHSs. In addition, consumers that consider the hygiene factor as a key driver when selecting a food stall are likely to possess higher knowledge about food safety, whereas consumers that evaluate the non-hygiene factor as an important issue were less likely to be knowledgeable on food safety. Thus, food safety knowledge mediates the relationship between non-food hygiene and hygiene attributes and satisfaction.

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction

163

Hypothesis 3: Food safety knowledge will have a positive effect on FHS satisfaction. Hypothesis 4: The food hygiene attributes will have a positive effect on food safety knowledge. Hypothesis 5: The non-food hygiene attributes will have a negative effect on food safety knowledge.

STUDY METHOD
Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

This study was conducted in food courts and hawker centers in Singapore. Food courts are usually located in shopping malls and are similar to a Western food court except for the offering of food items. Hawker centers are much different, and are usually an open-air food hall containing an array of individual food stalls approximately 6 8 feet in size. Many of the hawkers sell only one item, while others offer many items but usually in one menu category, such as beverages, savory snacks, or sweets. A mall intercept survey was conducted across four food courts and four hawker centers in Singapore. Singapore was divided into four geographic sections for the study: north, east, west, and central. The geographic locations of the four food courts and four hawker centers in the different regions of Singapore provide some amount of generalizability for study results. This approach also provides a broad geographic population spectrum from which the sample was drawn. The study population was drawn using the convenient sampling method (Zikmund, 2003) at each venue due to several preventive factors, including only off-peak hour allowance from the management and uncooperative venues. The survey questionnaire was divided into four sections: food safety knowledge, food hygiene, service quality, and socio-demographics. A pretest was conducted with undergraduate students (N = 25) at a university in Singapore. The students were asked to evaluate a survey questionnaire on readability, understandability, and clarity. The food safety knowledge component consisted of 11 awareness and knowledge items. These items were originally drawn from previous studies, public health agencies, and the food grading system (FGS) in Singapore ((Singaporean Ministry of Environment, 1997). The rst section of the questionnaire asked respondents to what extent they agreed or disagreed with each of the 11 food safety and hygiene behavior items taken from various studies (Boehnke, 2000; Dundes & Rajapaksa, 2001; Fielding, Aguirre, Spear, & Frias, 1999). Section 2 required respondents

164

H. C. Choi et al.

to rate, in accordance with their personal preferences, how much importance they assigned to each of the 14 question items concerning restaurant service attributes (8 items; adapted from Heslop [2007], Oh [2000], Qu [1997], and Yksel & Yksel [2003]) and food hygiene attributes (6 items; modied from Angelillo, Viggiani, Greco, Rito, & the Collaborative Group [2001] and the Singaporean FGS policy [Singaporean Ministry of Environment, 1997]) when selecting their choice of a food stall. These questionnaire items were also measured using a 5-point Likert-based scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Section 3 of the questionnaire consisted of seven food safety knowledge statements developed based on the Singaporean FGS policy (Singaporean Ministry of Environment, 1997) and taken from Mannings work (1994) to determine the respondents level of food safety knowledge. The scale used to measure these responses was Likert-based, with 1 signifying strongly disagree and 5 denoting strongly agree. Finally, Section 4 was devoted to socio-demographic information that would be used for classication purposes, including gender, age, marital status, education, type of occupation, and monthly personal income. The self-administered questionnaire was distributed by university students. A 2.5 hour training session was held for all student interviewers, regardless of their previous experiences in similar studies. The training session included an explanation of the questions on the survey, site set-up, basic interview skills, and informed consent procedure. Interviewers intercepted on a convenient sample of food court and food hawker diners at the exit areas. Potential respondents were approached to participate in the study when they were about to nish their meals, and diners aged 16 or older were selected to complete the survey. Participants were asked to tell the interviewer the grade of the food stall from which they purchased their food. If they answer immediately without turning to read the grade, it might be assumed that they knew the grade from dining at the stall before or that they obtained that information on the day of the completion of the survey. To avoid the potential bias due to the use of convenient sampling, the intercept surveys were conducted during ve full days of the week and two full days of the weekend. The surveys were mainly carried out in the afternoon hours during weekdays and in the morning hours during weekends. A total of 700 self-administered questionnaires were collected from Singaporean patrons, resulting in 688 valid questionnaires.

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

RESULTS
Among the total of 688 usable questionnaires (Table 1), male participants accounted for 55.0% of the total respondents, while female participants accounted for 45.0%. The age range, for the majority, was under 25 (68.4%).

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction TABLE 1 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Variables Gender Male Female Marital status Single Married without children Married with children Educational Level High school diploma and below College diploma and above Occupation Blue-collar White-collar Student Housewife Others Age 24 or younger 2535 3645 4655 56 or older Dining frequency per week 12 days 34 days 56 days 7 days Frequency 378 309 561 55 74 250 435 60 184 345 18 75 472 150 44 18 6 205 194 170 95 Percent 55.0 45.0 81.3 8.0 10.7 36.5 63.5 8.8 27.0 50.6 2.6 11.0 68.4 21.7 6.4 2.6 0.9 30.9 29.2 25.6 14.3

165

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

In educational attainment, college diploma and above accounted for 63.5% of total respondents. As for marital status, singles accounted for the majority (81.3%). In occupation, students accounted for the majority at 50.6%, followed by white-collar workers (27.0%). Dining frequency per week among respondents was 30.9% for 12 times per week, 29.2% for 34 times per week, and 25.6% for 56 times per week. Table 2 presents overall results for chi-square tests based on diner behaviors by gender, marital status, and age. Segmentation factors included three age categories: 24 years or younger, 2535 years, and 36 years or older, as it is expected that younger people are more likely to dine at these establishments. Gender and marital status (single and married) were also proled. Respondents who were aware of the food hygiene grade posted for the food stall where they ate accounted for 57.9%, while 42.1% were not sure of, or had forgotten, the grade posted. Awareness of grade posted was found to be signicantly different associated with marital status (p < 0.05) and age (p < 0.1). These results indicate that married and older age persons were more likely to care about the food stall grade. This may be attributed

166

H. C. Choi et al.

TABLE 2 Respondents Awareness and Behaviors Toward Food Hygiene (%) Gender Variables Overall Male 59.0 41.0 8.1 48.4 43.4 Female 56.4 43.6 9.1 56.6 34.3 40.9 59.1 Marital status Age 36 or older 70.8 29.2 16.0 39.7 44.1 41.2 58.8 36.8 60.3 2.9

24 or Single Married younger 2535 55.7 44.3 7.3 54.0 38.7 48.7 51.3 67.5 32.5 14.0 44.2 41.9 46.5 53.5 55.6 44.4 7.0 54.2 38.8 47.1 52.9 21.8 57.2 21.0 59.3 40.7 10.0 51.3 38.7 55.0 45.0 20.1 72.5 7.4

Awareness of grade posted Yes 57.9 Not sure/forgot 42.1 Check grade posted Always 8.5 Occasionally 52.2 Not at all 39.3
Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

Eat at a food stall with Grade D Yes 48.3 54.1 No 51.7 45.9

Willingness to pay more to eat at a food stall with Grade A Yes 22.9 23.5 22.1 21.4 29.7 No 60.8 65.9 54.5 60.6 61.7 Dont know 16.3 10.6 23.4 18.0 8.6

Note: Main reasons to eat at a food stall with Grade D: cheap, food taste, no trust in grading system. Main reasons to eat at a food stall with Grade A: healthy, comfortable, feel better, clean, less chance of food poisoning. p < 0.1; p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001.

to health concerns for the older group (36 or older) and wellness concerns of parents for their children. Only 8.5% of respondents always checked grades posted; 52.2% occasionally and 39.3% of respondents never checked the food hygiene grade. Direct signicant association (p < 0.1) was observed between gender and age and grade checking behavior. There was also a signicant difference between marital status and grade checking behaviour (p < 0.05). Even if the food stall grade was D, 48.3% of participants would eat at this establishment. The three main reasons a person ate at a food stall with a D grade were that it was cheap, he/she liked the taste, and he/she did not trust the grading system. Further, eating out at a food stall with a grade D was found to be directly associated with gender (p < 0.001). Female respondents cared more about the food hygiene grade than males. Altekruse et al. (1999) reported that men were more likely to report risky practices than women. Only 22.9% of respondents were willing to pay more to eat at a food stall with an A grade. The main reasons to eat at a food stall graded A included it was healthy, was comfortable, felt better, was clean, and had less probability of food poisoning. Willingness to pay more to eat at a food stall with an A grade was found to be signicant, with differences associated with gender (p < 0.001), marital status (p < 0.05), and age (p < 0.001; Table 2). Older married females indicated that they would pay more to eat at a food stall with an A grade. This response may relate to their

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction TABLE 3 Descriptive Statistics of Measurement Items and Reliability Test Variables Hygiene attributes Personal hygiene of hawkers Stall is clean and organized Food held at appropriate temperature Food handlers wear gloves Hygiene grade obtained Use of disposable crockery
Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

167

Mean 4.09 3.94 3.77 3.62 3.31 3.04 4.44 4.22 4.17 4.08 3.87 3.43 3.29 3.19 3.91 3.93

Std. dev. 0.78 0.80 0.83 0.93 0.94 0.97 0.61 0.78 0.71 0.79 0.84 0.83 0.81 0.93 0.45 0.57

Cronbachs alpha if item deleted 0.73 0.72 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.74 0.75 0.74 0.75 0.77

Non-hygiene attributes Food taste Service attitude Reasonable price Convenient location Preference for particular kinds of food Reputation Recommendation by others Attractiveness of the stall Average food safety knowledge score Satisfaction with FHSs
Note: Cronbachs alpha: 0.75.

position in life; they may have family members to be responsible for, and if an A grade assures safer food and less likelihood of illness, it would be worth the additional cost. Table 3 illustrates the descriptive statistics for the research variables in the model. Cronbachs alpha established inter-item reliability between items. In this study, Cronbachs alpha reliability coefcients for measurement constructs are above the recommended value of 0.7. Concerning the test of goodness-of-t, the studys main goal was to evaluate any signicant difference between the theoretical structure of this study and the multiple aspects of the survey that was actually performed. The overall t of the model was assessed by chi-square ( 2 ), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), goodness of t index (GFI), adjusted goodness of t index (AGFI), normed t index (NFI), and comparative t index (CFI). The overall t of all conrmatory factor analyses were judged to be satisfactory ( 2 probability > 0.10; GFI, AGFI, NFI, CFI > 0.9, RMSEA < 0.05; Byrne, 1994; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). The conclusion from various indicators (GFI = 0.938 > 0.9, AGFI = 0.918 > 0.9, NFI = 0.936 > 0.9, CFI = 0.937 > 0.9, RMSEA = 0.000 < 0.05) is that the test for goodness-of-t of the theoretical structure of this study is statistically acceptable (Table 4). The structural model applied the causal relationships among these latent variables to test the hypotheses (Figure 1). Given the satisfactory t of the

168

H. C. Choi et al. TABLE 4 Goodness of LISREL Fit Indices Chi-square 4,223.546 (p = 0.587) RMSEA 0.0000 GFI 0.938 AGFI 0.918 NFI 0.936 CFI 0.937

RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; GFI = Goodness-of-t Index; AGFI = Adjusted Goodness-of-t Index; NFI = Norm Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index.

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

model, the hypotheses were evaluated by examining the estimated structural coefcients. The results are illustrated in Figure 2. Four out of ve hypotheses were supported by the results. The fth unsupported hypothesis tested the relationship between non-hygiene attributes and food safety knowledge. Hygiene attributes positively affected food safety knowledge (coefcient = 0.859, t = 8.222, p < 0.05) and negatively affected FHS satisfaction (coefcient = 0.634, t = 5.29, p < 0.05). Non-hygiene attributes had a positive inuence on FHS satisfaction (coefcient = 1.533, t =12.626, p < 0.05), whereas food safety knowledge had a positive inuence on FHS satisfaction (coefcient = 0.048, t = 3.686, p < 0.05). However, there was no signicant direct effect of non-hygiene attributes on food safety knowledge (coefcient = 0.148, t = 1.409, p > 0.05). To assess the measurement model, all observed indicators were set free by standardizing all exogenous and endogenous latent variables. This procedure was based on the magnitude of the coefcient matrix (s or s) for latent variables on one observed indicator that was arbitrarily selected as a referent for the latent variables (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993). The estimated measurement model presented in Table 5 consisted of six observed X variables (X 1X 6) for hygiene attributes, eight observed X variables for non-hygiene attributes (X 7X 14), one observed Y variable for

Hygiene Attributes

H1 H4
Food Safety Knowledge Food Hygiene Standards Satisfaction

H3

H5

H2

Non-Hygiene Attributes

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model of food safety knowledge and FHS satisfaction.

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction

169

X1 .561 X2 .929 X3 X4 X5 .595 X6 X7 .589

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

Y1 Hygiene Attributes 1.000 .859 (8.222)

.566 .588 .647

Y2

1.000 .634 (5.290) Food Safety Knowledge .048 (3.686)

FHS Satisfaction

X8 .622 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 .637 .604 .653 .598 .605 .634 Non-hygiene Attributes

.148 (1.409)

1.533 (12.626)

FIGURE 2 Results of LISREL parameter estimates (notes:1dashed arrow mark indicates that there is no signicance at the p-value < 0.05 between two constructs; 2numbers in gure are parameters standard estimates and numbers in parentheses indicate t -values; 3X 1 = hygiene grade obtained, X 2 = personal hygiene of hawkers, X 3 = food held at appropriate temperature, X 4 = food handlers wear gloves, X 5 = use of disposable crockery, X 6 = stall is clean and organized, X 7 = convenient location, X 8 = food taste, X 9 = reasonable price, X 10 = recommendation by others, X 11 = reputation, X 12 = preference for particular kinds of food, X 13 = attractiveness of the stall, X 14 = service attitude, Y 1 = average food safety knowledge score, and Y 2 = FHS satisfaction).

food safety knowledge (Y 1), and one observed Y variable for FHS satisfaction (Y 2). Overall, the coefcients of factor loading (ij ) on the latent constructs ranged from 0.56 to 0.93. All the standardized estimates of the observed variables exceeded 0.500, and all the corresponding t -values were statistically signicant (at the 5% signicance level). Together, these indicate convergent validity of measurement variables as designed in this article.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There is some agreement among researchers, government ofcials, and practicing managers regarding the value of utilizing a FHS disclosure system in

170

H. C. Choi et al.

TABLE 5 Results of LISREL Parameter Estimates Paths Food safety knowledge (1) FHS satisfaction (2) Hygiene attributes ( 1) food safety knowledge (1) Non-hygiene attributes ( 2) food safety knowledge (1) Hygiene attributes ( 1) FHS satisfaction (2) Non-hygiene attributes ( 2) FHS satisfaction (2) Hygiene grade obtained (X 1) hygiene attributes ( 1) Personal hygiene of hawkers (X 2) hygiene attributes ( 1) Food held at appropriate temperature (X 3) hygiene attributes ( 1) Food handlers wear gloves (X 4) hygiene attributes ( 1) Use of disposable crockery (X 5) hygiene attributes ( 1) Stall is clean and organized (X 6) hygiene attributes ( 1) Location (X 7) non-hygiene attributes ( 2) Food taste (X 8) non-hygiene attributes ( 2) Reasonable price (X 9) non-hygiene attributes ( 2) Recommendation by others (X 10) non-hygiene attributes ( 2) Reputation (X 11) non-hygiene attributes ( 2) Preference for particular kinds of food (X 12) non-hygiene attributes ( 2) Attractiveness of the stall (X 13) non-hygiene attributes ( 2) Service attitude (X 14) non-hygiene attributes ( 2) Food safety knowledge (Y 1) food safety knowledge (1) FHS satisfaction (Y 2) FHS satisfaction (2) Parameter 21 11 12 21 22 X 11 X 21 X 31 X 41 X 51 X 61 X 72 X 82 X 92 X 102 X 112 X 122 X 132 X 142 Y 11 Y 22 Standard estimate 0.048 0.859 0.148 0.634 1.533 0.561 0.929 0.566 0.588 0.647 0.595 0.589 0.622 0.637 0.604 0.653 0.598 0.605 0.634 1 1 Standard error 0.013 0.011 0.051 0.032 0.009 0.051 0.013 0.051 0.05 0.049 0.057 0.058 0.051 0.05 0.052 0.048 0.057 0.052 0.05 0.089 0.089 t -Value 3.686 8.222 1.409 5.290 12.626 5.749 13.645 5.858 6.354 7.699 6.509 6.379 7.117 7.474 6.722 7.815 6.574 6.744 7.385 37.121 37.121

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

foodservice establishments (Fielding et al., 2001; Henson et al., 2006; Jin and Leslie, 2003; Jones et al., 2004; Simon et al., 2005; Thompson et al., 2005; Worsfold, 2005a, 2005b). This study provides empirical support, using a structural model, for a new approach to understanding consumer perceptions toward FHSs by testing relationships with hygiene and non-hygiene

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction

171

attributes and food safety knowledge. The results of this study suggest several conclusions. Particularly, the study results show that patrons who rated hygiene quality as an important issue were less likely to be satised with the current FHS in Singapore, while patrons who evaluated non-hygiene factors as a key driver in selecting a food vendor were more likely to be satised with the current hygiene grading system. Surprisingly, the Singaporean patrons were somewhat less aware of a posted grade and less willing to pay more to eat at food stalls with an A grade. Less than 10% always checked a posted grade, and almost half of respondents would eat at a food court and hawker center with a D grade. Male, single, and younger patrons were more likely to engage in higher risk food consumption behaviors and had less optimal levels of food safety knowledge than other respondents. Singaporean patrons seemed to consider non-hygiene factors, such as food taste, service attitude, and reasonable price, as more important factors than hygiene factors when selecting a food stall. Second, inadequate food safety practices are practiced at many restaurants. The foodservice industry associations and business owners must be aware that it can be extremely costly to a restaurant implicated with substandard performance and can be questionable for sustainable success of the entire industry. The Singaporean and other national governments need to rethink a current grade posting system where only a letter grade is posted in many cases. However, a letter grade system does not provide consumers with enough reliable information to make a better decision. With a letter grade, the key element of food safety and hygiene inspection results should also be displayed using a 100-point system. This method would provide an easy way for consumers to understand the inspection results instead of the current ABCD system. Third, many researchers reported that micro- and small-sized foodservice establishments suffered from lack of expertise, employees having a lack of interest and negative attitudes toward food safety and hygiene standards, and nancial constraints in maintaining high-quality food safety and hygiene status (Azanza & Zamora-Luna, 2005; Grifth, 2000; Walker, Pritchard, & Forsythe, 2003). To overcome this obstacle, and in addition to government training programs, a responsible safety and hygiene quality assurance (RSHQA) scheme that is an industry-led self-regulation [certication] program would be another alternative. Mandatory government policy and regulation and market-based mechanisms cannot effectively regularize the foodservice industry and have provided the lack of credibility to the public (Antle, 1995; King & Lenox, 2000; Northen, 2001; Segerson, 1999). Fourth, industry associations and businesses need to make a great deal of effort to improve food safety culture in foodservice establishments that may have both direct and indirect impacts on safety work practices. An unstable workforce is still a challenge to overcome. When developing a

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

172

H. C. Choi et al.

program, improving employees knowledge and attitudes toward food safety and hygiene needs to be considered as a key success factor because there is an uncontested consensus among researchers that employees proactive and positive attitude and knowledge make a difference. Other factors inuencing the improvement of safety and hygiene culture are environmental working conditions, safety and hygiene practices and policies (e.g., training and hazard communication), and general organizational climate (e.g., organizational support, coworker support, and participation level by both coworkers and supervisors; DeJoy, Gershon, & Schaffer, 2004). DeJoy et al. (2004) insisted that open communication fosters trust within an organization, and an organization that supports and values its employees is more likely to have committed employees. After all, the employment relationship is basically an exchange relationship (p. 57, emphasis added). The nalbut foremostimportant factor in creating safety culture within a foodservice establishment is the business owners commitment to food safety and hygiene. No study, including this study, is free of limitations. This study is limited to Singaporean food courts located in shopping malls and hawker centers. The study intended to maintain the similarity of consumer perception toward food hygiene while not distinguishing between hawker centers and food courts. Further investigation is needed to compare how the type of foodservice establishments affects consumer perception toward food hygiene grade standards and their behavior in a cross-cultural context. Second, study participants were not systematically drawn, resulting in a high percentage of young and student respondents. In addition, due to the data being collected at food courts and hawker centers, a study station was not changed. These two limitations have the potential to impede the overall generalizability of the ndings. Repetition of the study with a random sampling procedure and more balanced samples would help validate the ndings. This study tested a rst-known structural model to better understand consumers perceptions and knowledge of food safety and hygiene standards within a foodservice establishment context. Future studies are needed to further understand consumer perceptions and behaviors using more complex, multi-variate analyses and modeling based techniques. Based on much more reliable ndings of academic research in the area of food safety and hygiene, the government, the industry, and business owners can implement better food safety and hygiene practices.

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

REFERENCES
Akshay, R. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1988). The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 253264.

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction

173

Aksoydan, E. (2007). Hygiene factors inuencing customers choice of dining-out units: Findings from a study of university academic staff. Journal of Food Safety, 27 , 300316. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(March), 411454. Altekruse, S., Yang, S., Timbo, B. B., & Angulo, F. J. (1999). A multi-state survey of consumer food-handling and food-consumption practices. American Journal Preventive Medicine, 16 (3), 216221. Angelillo, I. F., Viggiani, N. M. A., Greco, R. M., Rito, D., & the Collaborative Group. (2001). HACCP and food hygiene in hospital: Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of foodservices staff in Calabria, Italy. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 22(6), 17. Antle, J. M. (1995). Choice and efciency in food safety policy. Washington DC: AEI Press. Auty, S. (1992). Consumer choice and segmentation in the restaurant industry. Service Industries Journal, 12(3), 324339. Azanza, M. P. V., & Zamora-Luna, M. B. V. (2005). Barriers of HACCP team members to guideline adherence. Food Control, 16 (1), 1522. Bettman, J. R. (1979). An information processing theory of consumer choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Boehnke, R. H. (2000). International survey on public posting of restaurant inspection reports, and/or grade card posting schemes based upon health inspections. Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada: Region of Ottawa-Carleton Health Department. Brown, S. W., Cummesson, E., Edvardsson, B., & Gustavsson, B. (1991). Service quality: Multidisciplinary and multinational perspectives. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(June), 116. Buchholz, U., Run, G., Kool, J. L., Fielding, J., & Mascola, L. (2002). A risk-based restaurant inspection system in Los Angeles County. Journal of Food Protection, 65 (2), 367372. Burt, J., Shipman, C., White, P., & Addington-Hall, J. (2006). Roles, service knowledge and priorities in the provision of palliative care: A postal survey of London GPs. Palliative Medicine, 20(5), 487491. Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Abbot, J. M., Wheatley, V., Schaffner, D., Bruhn, C., & Blalock, L. (2008). Risky eating behaviors of young adultsImplication for food safety education. Journal of the American Dietetics Association, 108 (3), 549552. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. City of Toronto. (2008). Torontos Dinesafe program. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://app.city.toronto.on.ca/food2/index.jsp. Clark, M. A., & Wood, R. C. (1998). Consumer loyalty in the restaurant industry A preliminary exploration of the issues. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(4), 139144. Cramer, E. H., Gu, D. X., Durbin, R. E., & the Vessel Sanitation Program Environmental Health Inspection Team. (2003). Diarrheal disease on cruise

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

174

H. C. Choi et al.

ships, 19902000: The impact of environmental health programs. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24, 227233. Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56 (July), 5568. DeJoy, D. M., Gershon R. R. M., & Schaffer, B. S. (2004). Safety climate: Assessing management and organizational inuences on safety. Professional Safety, 49(7), 5057. Dietitians of Canada. (2007, December). Microbial food safety and reported consumer practices. Current Issues newsletter , pp. 16. Dundes, L., & Rajapaksa, S. (2001). Scores and grades: A sampling of how college students and food safety professionals interpret restaurant inspection results. Journal of Environmental Health, 64(5), 1419. Elder J. P., Ayala G. X., & Harris, S. (1999). Theories and intervention approaches to health-behavior change in primary care. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 17 (4), 275284. Esch, F., & Langer, T. (2006). Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15 (2), 98105. Fein, S., Levy, A., & Lando, A. (2002). Food safety survey: Summary of major trends in food handling practices and consumption of potentially risky foods. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fssurvey.html Fein, S. B., Lin, C. T. J., & Levy, A. S. (1995). Foodborne illness: Perceptions, experience, and preventive behaviors in the United States. Journal of Food Protection, 58 (12), 14051411. Fielding, J. E., Aguirre, A., & Palaiologos, E. (2001). Effectiveness of altered incentives in a food safety inspection program. Preventive Medicine, 32(3), 239244. Fielding, J. E., Aguirre, A., Spear, M. A., & Frias, L. E. (1999). Making the grade: Changing the incentives in retail food establishment inspection. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 17 (3), 243247. Food Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2008). Hygiene and sh safety. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from http://www.fao.org/shery/topic.12328 Frenzen, P. D., Drake, A., Angulo, F. J., & the Emerging Infections Program Foodnet Working Group. (2005). Economic cost of illness due to Escherichia Coli O157 infections in the United States. Journal of Food Protection, 68 (12), 26232630. Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships source. The Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 7087. Gregoire, M. B., Shanklin, C. W., Greathouse, K. R., & Tripp, C. (1995). Factors inuencing restaurant selection by travelers who stop at visitor information centres. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 4(2), 4150. Grifth, C. J. (2000). Food safety in catering establishmentsSafe handling of foods. New York: Marcel Dekker. Hair Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction

175

Henson, S., Majowicz, S., Masakure, O., Sockett, P., Jones, A., Hart, R., Carr, D., & Knowles, L. (2006). Consumer assessment of the safety of restaurants: The role of inspection notices and other information cues. Journal of Food Safety, 26 , 275301. Hertzman, J., & Barrash, D. (2007). An assessment of food safety knowledge and practices of catering employees. British Food Journal, 109(7), 562576. Heslop, L. A. (2007). Literature review of Canadian consumer attitudes and perceptions. Ottawa, Canada: Consumer Analysis Section, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Irwin, K., Ballard, J., Grendon, J., & Kobayashi, J. (1989). Results of routine restaurant inspections can predict outbreaks of foodborne illness: The Seattle-King County experience. American Journal of Public Health, 79, 586590. J.D. Power & Associates. (2004). Combination of excellent service and a quality meal is common among restaurant chains that achieve top marks in customer satisfaction (Associates Report). Westlake Village, CA: J.D. Power and Associates. Jin, G. Z., & Leslie, P. (2003). The effect of information on product quality: Evidence from hygiene grade cards. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (2), 409451. Johnston, R. (1997). Identifying the critical determinants of service quality in retail banking: Importance and effect. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 15 (4), 111116. Jones, T. F., Pavlin, B. I., Laeur, B. J., Ingram, L. A., & Schaffner, W. (2004). Restaurant inspection scores and food-borne diseases. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 19(4), 688692. Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientic Software International. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 122. King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry self regulation without sanctions: The chemical industrys responsible care program. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 698716. Kivela, J. J. (1997). Restaurant marketing: Selection and segmentation in Hong Kong. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9(3), 116123. Knight, A. J., Worosz, M. R., & Todd, E. C. D. (2007). Serving food safety: Consumer perceptions of food safety at restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(6), 476484. Kurtzweil, P. (1999). Keeping food safety surveys honest. FDA Consumer , 33, 1821. Leach J. (2003). A guide to customer perceptions of food hygiene. London: Chadwick House Publishing. Leach, J., Mercer, H., Stew, G., & Denyer, S. (2001). Improving food hygiene standardsA customer focused approach. British Food Journal, 103(4), 238252. Lee, W. C., Lee, M. J., Kim, J. S., & Park, S. Y. (2001). Foodborne illness outbreaks in Korea and Japan studied retrospectively. Journal of Food Protection, 64(6), 899902. Lewis, R. (1981). Restaurant advertising: Appeals and consumer intentions. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(5), 6974.

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

176

H. C. Choi et al.

MacLaurin, T. (2001). Singaporeans attitudes, perceptions and knowledge of safe food preparation practices. Journal of the Society of Environmental Health Singapore, 15 (4), 2536. Majowicz, S. E., Dore, K., Flint, J. A., Edge, V. L., Read, S., Buffett, M. C., McEwen, S., McNab, W. B., Stacey, D., Sockett, P., & Wilson, J. B. (2004). Magnitude and distribution of acute, self-reported gastrointestinal illness in a Canadian community. Epidemiology and Infection, 132(4), 607617. Majowicz, S. E., Edge, V. L., Fazil, A., McNab, W. B., Dore, K. A., Sockett, P. N., Flint, J. A., Middleton, D., McEwen, S. A., & Wilson, J. B. (2005). Estimating the under-reporting rate for infectious gastrointestinal illness in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 96 (3), 178181. Manning, C. K. (1994). Food safety knowledge and attitudes of institutional and temporary foodservice operations. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 94(8), 895897. Mead, P. S., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., McCaig, L. F., Bresee, J. S., Shapiro, C., Grifn, P. M., & Tauxe, R. V. (1999). Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 5 (5), 607625. Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Fisheries (MFAF). (2008). Smileys keep food safety high in Denmark. Danish Veterinary & Food Administration. Retrieved March 15, 2008 from http://www.fvst.dk/smiley Mona, A. C., & Roy, C. W. (1999). Consumer loyalty in the restaurant industry. A preliminary exploration of the issues. British Food Journal, 101(4), 317. Northen, J. R. (2001). Using farm assurance schemes to signal food safety to multiple food retailers in the U.K. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 5 , 3750. Oh, H. (2000). Diners perceptions of quality, value, and satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 5866. Pettijohn, L. S., Pettijohn, C. E., & Luke, R. H. (1997). An evaluation of fast food restaurant satisfaction: Determinants, competitive comparisons and impact on future patronage. Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing, 2(3), 320. Qu. H. (1997). Determinants factors and choice intention for Chinese restaurant dining: A multivariate approach. Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing, 2(2), 3549. Rodgers, W., Negash, S., & Suk, K. (2005). The moderating effect of online experience on the antecedents and consequences of online satisfaction. Psychology & Marketing, 22(4), 313331. Segerson, K. (1999). Mandatory and voluntary approaches to food safety. Agribusiness, 15 , 5370. Seo, S., & Shanklin, C. W. (2005). Important food and service quality attributes of dining service in continuing care retirement communities. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 8 (4), 6984. Silvestro, R., & Johnston, R. (1990). The determinants of service quality-enhancing and hygiene factors. Proceedings of the QUIS II Symposium, St Johns University, New York, July. Simon, P. A., Leslie, P., Run, G., Jin, G. Z., Reporter, R., Aguire, A., & Fielding, J. E. (2005). Impacts of restaurant hygiene grade cards on food-borne disease hospitalizations in Los Angeles County. Journal of Environmental Health, 67 , 3236.

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

Food Hygiene Standard Satisfaction

177

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 07:30 5 September 2010

Singaporean Ministry of Environment. (1997). Food handlers handbook. Singapore: Author. Thompson, S., de Burger, R., & Kadri, O. (2005). The Toronto food inspection and disclosure system. British Food Journal, 107 (3), 140149. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2000). FDA retail food program data base of foodborne illness risk factors. Retrieved May 28, 2008, from http://www.cfsan. fda.gov/~acrobat/retrsk.pdf Walker, E., Pritchard, C., & Forsythe, S. (2003). Hazard analysis critical control point and prerequisite programme implementation in small and medium size food businesses. Food Control, 14, 169174. Williamson, D., Gravani, R., & Lawless, H. (1992). Correlating food safety knowledge with home food-preparation practices. Food Technology, 46 , 94100. World Health Organization (WHO). (2006). Five keys to safer food manual. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from http://www.who.int/foodsafety/consumer/5keysmanual/ en/index.html World Health Organization (WHO). (2007). Fact sheet No. 237: Food safety and foodborne illness. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from www.who.int/mediacentre/ factsheets/fs237/en/ Worsfold, D. (2005a). Protecting consumers: A review of hygiene award schemes. British Food Journal, 107 (3), 162172. Worsfold, D. (2005b). Promoting excellence in food hygiene. Nutrition & Food Science, 35 (1), 614. Worsfold, D. (2006). Eating out: Consumer perceptions of food safety. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 16 (3), 219229. Yksel, A., & Yksel, F. (2003). Measurement of tourist satisfaction with restaurant services: A segment-based approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(1), 5268. Zeithaml, V. A., and Bitner, M. J. (1996). Services marketing. Toronto, Canada: McGraw-Hill International Editions. Zikmund, W. (2003). Essentials of marketing research. Mason, OH: Thompson South-Western.