See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277681931

The effects of restaurant quality

attributes on customer behavioral
intentions

Article in International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management November 2014

DOI: 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2013-0162

CITATIONS READS

6 404

3 authors, including:

Joe Hutchinson H. G. Parsa

University of Central Florida University of Denver
15 PUBLICATIONS 357 CITATIONS 79 PUBLICATIONS 812 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: H. G. Parsa
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 20 October 2016
 International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
The effects of restaurant quality attributes on customer behavioral intentions
Milos Bujisic Joe Hutchinson H.G. Parsa
Article information:
To cite this document:
Milos Bujisic Joe Hutchinson H.G. Parsa , (2014),"The effects of restaurant quality attributes on customer
behavioral intentions", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 Iss 8 pp.
1270 - 1291
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2013-0162
Downloaded on: 17 November 2014, At: 11:48 (PT)
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 79 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 40 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Kit#Fai Pun, Ka#Yan Ho, (2001),"Identification of service quality attributes for restaurant operations: a
Hong Kong case", Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 11 Iss 4 pp. 233-240 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520110397940
Mamoun N. Akroush, Amjad A. Abu#ElSamen, Ghazi A. Samawi, Abdelhadi L. Odetallah, (2013),"Internal
marketing and service quality in restaurants", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 31 Iss 4 pp.
304-336
Srikanth Beldona, Nadria Buchanan, Brian L. Miller, (2014),"Exploring the promise of e-tablet restaurant
menus", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 Iss 3 pp. 367-382 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2013-0039

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 210705 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


IJCHM
26,8
1270
Received 8 April 2013
Revised 4 October 2013
5 December 2013
13 January 2014
Accepted 25 February 2014
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Vol. 26 No. 8, 2014
pp. 1270-1291
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2013-0162
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm
The effects of restaurant quality
attributes on customer
behavioral intentions
Milos Bujisic and Joe Hutchinson
Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida,
Orlando, Florida, USA
H.G. Parsa
Daniels College of Business, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper was to investigate the relationships between restaurant quality
attributes and customer behavioral intentions.
Design/methodology/approach An experimental design was chosen to provide a high level of
internal validity. Three separate 3 2 factorial design experiments were conducted through 18
separate vignette scenarios for three levels of quality (below average, average and above average) of
three common restaurant attributes (food, service and ambience) in two types of restaurants (quick
service and upscale).
Findings The results indicated that the type of restaurant moderated the relationship between
restaurant service and ambience quality and customer behavioral intentions.
Practical implications The results of this study suggest that management of quick-service and
upscale restaurants should focus on food quality, but establish different resource allocation priorities
with respect to service and ambience quality.
Originality/value This study examined the linearity of the relationships between three common
restaurant attributes (food, service and ambience) for three levels of quality (below average, average
and above average) in two types of restaurants (quick service and upscale).
Keywords Service quality, Ambience, Food quality, Quick-service restaurants,
Restaurant quality attributes, Upscale restaurants
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
A number of different attributes of restaurant quality have been identified and studied
in recent years (Bojanic and Rosen, 1994; Gupta et al., 2007; Ha and Jang, 2010; Iglesias
and Guilln, 2004; Kivela et al., 2000). For example, Kim et al. (2009) recognized food
quality, service quality, atmosphere, convenience, price and value as six separate
attributes of restaurant quality. Some of these more widely accepted restaurant quality
attributes have been included in well-established theoretical frameworks, such as
SERVQUAL (Bojanic and Rosen, 1994; Cronin and Taylor, 1994; Lee and Hing, 1995;
Parasuraman et al., 1988) and DINESERV (Kim et al., 2009; Stevens et al., 1995).
Although prior studies have shown that restaurant attributes influence customer
behavioral intentions (Ryu and Han, 2010), there has not been a consensus in terms of the
linearity of these relationships. Some research has suggested that the relationships
between restaurant quality attributes and resulting customer behavioral intentions
 (i.e. return intention or word-of-mouth) are positive and linear (DiPietro et al., 2011). That Restaurant
is, as the quality of a restaurant attribute (i.e. food quality) increases, there is a
corresponding positive increase in customer behavioral intentions. However, other
quality
research has suggested that these relationships are sometimes non-linear (Bowen and attributes
Chen, 2001; Bowen and Shoemaker, 1998), with increases in the quality of some
restaurant attributes not always leading to corresponding increases in customer
behavioral intentions. Further, although a customer may perceive the quality of a 1271
restaurant attribute on different levels, most prior studies have investigated these
attributes on only two levels (high and low).
The restaurant industry can be divided into different segments according to unique
characteristics that define each segment. Although there is no universal standardization
of these segments, there have been a number of suggestions related to this classification
(Goldman, 1993; Jones and Lockwood, 1998; Muller and Woods, 1994). For example,
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

Muller and Woods (1994) classified restaurants into five major categories: quick service,
midscale, moderate upscale, upscale and business dining. Despite the unique
characteristics of restaurants in each of these segments, few studies have divided
restaurants into different segments (Knutson et al., 1995; Murase and Bojanic, 2004;
Siguaw et al., 1999). Further, those studies that recognized these intra-industry
differences have usually examined a single restaurant type (rather than multiple
segments), such as quick-service restaurants (Dahlstrom and Nygaard, 1999; DiPietro
and Milman, 2004; DiPietro and Pizam, 2008; Lando and Labiner-Wolfe, 2007;
Ottenbacher and Harrington 2009; Parsa, 1996; Parsa and Khan, 1991), quick casual
restaurants (Kim and George, 2005; Ryu and Han, 2010; Ryu et al., 2008) or upscale
restaurants (Han and Ryu, 2007; Morrison, 1996; Ryu and Jang, 2007).
The objective of the study was to examine the relationships between restaurant
quality attributes (food, service and ambience) and customer behavioral intentions
(return intentions and word-of-mouth). As customer perceptions of restaurant quality
attributes are considered to have multiple levels, this study also compared the influence
of three levels of restaurant quality (below average, average and above average).
Finally, to account for intra-industry differences among restaurant segments, the study
also included two different types of restaurants (upscale and quick-service).

Literature review
Restaurant type
The restaurant industry can be divided into different segments according to unique
characteristics that define each segment. Each segment has specific characteristics,
even though many of the common features can be recognized across segments.
Although there is no universal standardization of these segments, there have been a
number of suggestions related to this classification (Goldman, 1993; Jones and
Lockwood, 1998; Muller and Woods, 1994). For example, Muller and Woods (1994)
classified restaurants into five major categories that included quick service, midscale,
moderate upscale, upscale and business dining, while Walker (2007) classified
restaurants into quick service, fast casual, family, casual, fine dining and other
(steakhouses, seafood, ethnic, dinner houses and celebrity).
In terms of restaurant industry segmentation, quick-service and upscale restaurants
operate on opposite ends of this continuum. Muller and Woods (1994) recognized that
the most unique features of quick-service restaurants are their reliance on narrow
 IJCHM menus, catering to price-sensitive customers and the development of habit forming
purchases. These restaurants operating characteristics include customer self-service,
26,8 low labor costs, finished goods inventory, process-driven technology and advertising
effectiveness (Muller and Woods, 1994). Conversely, the most unique features of upscale
restaurants are their emphasis on the highest service levels and more singular menus
(Muller and Woods, 1994). The main operating characteristics of upscale restaurants are
1272 their personalization of the experience and their ability to make each dining occasion
a memorable one (Muller and Woods, 1994).

Restaurant quality attributes

Mittal et al. (1998) recognized that customers are more likely to evaluate their
post-purchase experiences at the attribute rather than product level. This
attribute-based approach allows researchers to conceptualize a customers mixed
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

feelings about a product or service (Mittal et al., 1998). Previous research has shown that
food and service quality are important attributes of a customers restaurant dining
experience (Bitner, 1990, 1992; Cronin and Taylor, 1994; Dabholkar et al., 2000; Kim et al.,
2009; Ryu and Han, 2010). Food, service and ambience are the three most commonly
agreed-upon attributes of restaurant quality (DiPietro et al., 2011; Dutta et al., 2013;
Perutkova and Parsa 2010; Ryu and Han, 2010; Ryu and Jang, 2007;Wakefield and
Blodgett, 1996). These three attributes are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Food quality is considered to be a very important dimension of restaurant quality (Ha
and Jang, 2010; Namkung and Jang, 2007; Ryu and Han, 2010). Mattila (2001) reported
that food quality was the most important attribute of restaurant quality and a key
predictor of customer loyalty. It also has been shown that food quality positively affects
a customers dining experience and is crucial to restaurant success (Namkung and Jang,
2007; Sulek and Hensley, 2004). Qu (1997) emphasized the importance of food quality for
Chinese customers return intentions. Quick-service restaurant customers from
Pettijohn et al.s study (1997) graded food quality considerably higher than the four
attributes of cleanliness, value, price and convenience. Even though the importance of
food quality is generally accepted, there is no consensus on the specific dimensions that
represent the food quality construct. Further, most researchers have viewed food quality
as a one-dimensional global construct (Sulek and Hensley, 2004). In Qus (1997) study,
food quality dimensions included consistency, menu variety and food quality. Kivela
et al. (1999) recognized temperature, presentation, menu variety and tastiness as four
key dimensions of food quality, while Namkung and Jang (2007) recognized the six
dimensions of presentation, variety, healthy options, taste, freshness and temperature.
Service quality, which may be the most studied restaurant quality attribute (Cronin
and Taylor, 1992; Dabholkar et al., 2000; Ha and Jang, 2010; Mattila, 2001), has been
defined as the customers judgment of the overall excellence or superiority of the service
(Zeithaml, 1988). In the restaurant industry, service quality is viewed through intangible
benefits, such as responsiveness, courtesy, caring and professional behaviors provided
by the service staff (Stevens et al., 1995). The SERVQUAL survey instrument was
developed to measure the service quality attribute in different service environments
according to five different dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, empathy, assurance
and tangibles (Bojanic and Rosen, 1994; Cronin and Taylor, 1994; Lee and Hing, 1995;
Parasuraman et al., 1988). As SERVQUAL did not measure some of the other unique
attributes of restaurant quality, the DINESERV instrument was developed (Kim et al.,
 2009; Stevens et al., 1995). The original DINESERV instrument included the five Restaurant
dimensions of SERVQUAL (Stevens et al., 1995) along with new dimensions more
specific to the restaurant context. Kim et al. (2009) recognized food quality, atmosphere,
quality
service quality, convenience, price and value as six unique DINESERV dimensions. attributes
Ambience quality, according to Katsigris and Thomas (2008), includes both soft (i.e.
image, style, comfort, marketing and ambience) and hard (i.e. operational efficiency,
cost, safety, cleanability and maintenance, ergonomics, noise and space allocation) 1273
dimensions. Restaurants place great importance on ambience to attract more customers
and to build customer loyalty (Bitner, 1990; Ha and Jang, 2010; Reimer and Kuehn, 2005;
Raajpoot, 2002; Ryu and Han, 2010; Turley and Milliman, 2000; Wakefield and Blodgett,
1996; Wall and Berry, 2007). Kim et al. (2006) recognized that atmosphere, interior
design, lighting and dining area layout were crucial dimensions of restaurant ambience
that influenced customer perceptions and behaviors.
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

Customer behavioral intentions

Return intention is defined as the desire of a customer to engage in repeated visitations
to an establishment (Kim et al., 2009). As such, return intention should be clearly
separated from return behavior. Sderlund and hman (2005) compared return
intention and return behavior. They concluded that return intention represented by
customer wants had a more significant impact on return behavior than return
intention represented by customer expectations. Overall, return intention and return
behavior show correlations. However, what the customer actually does, compared to
what they intend to do, is difficult to measure.
Word-of-mouth is defined as the extent to which a customer informs friends, relatives
and colleagues about an event that has created a certain level of customer satisfaction or
dissatisfaction (Blodgett et al., 1994; Sderlund, 1998). Positive word-of-mouth occurs
when a customer is highly satisfied with a service and has a desire to share this positive
experience with other potential customers (Westbrook, 1987). As such, word-of-mouth
has been recognized as one of the most important customer behaviors that occur after
the purchase of goods and services (Richins, 1983).

Hypotheses development
It is generally agreed that higher levels of customer satisfaction lead to higher levels of
behavioral intention, which is represented by return intention and word-of-mouth (Cole
and Chancellor, 2009; Cole and Scott, 2004; Li and Petrick, 2010; Maxham and
Netemeyer, 2002). Previous studies have shown a positive relationship between quality,
customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions (Baker and Crompton, 2000; Cronin
et al., 2000; Taylor and Baker, 1994; Woodside et al., 1989). However, there has been no
consistency in terms of the direction and strength of these relationships (Li and Petrick,
2010; Walter et al., 2010).
In the context of restaurants, food, service and ambience quality have been reported
to have a positive impact on customer behavioral intention (Baker and Crompton, 2000;
Bowen and Shoemaker, 1998; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Cronin et al., 2000; Dabholkar
et al., 2000; Ha and Jang, 2010; Kim et al., 2009; Woodside et al., 1989). Research has
shown that food quality positively influences a customers dining experience (Namkung
and Jang, 2007; Sulek and Hensley, 2004). Mattila (2001) suggested that food quality was
the most important dimension of restaurant quality and a key predictor of customer
 IJCHM loyalty in casual dining restaurants. Similarly, a number of previous studies have
shown a positive relationship between service quality and behavioral intentions (Baker
26,8 and Crompton, 2000; Ha and Jang, 2010; Bowen and Shoemaker, 1998). Finally, Kim et al.
(2006) and Dutta et al. (2013) recognized that ambience influenced customer behaviors
and their perceptions of a restaurant.
Some research has suggested that the relationships between restaurant quality attributes
1274 and customer behavioral intentions are both positive and linear (DiPietro et al., 2011). Thus,
as study participants reported higher levels of food and/or service quality, it was assumed
that there would be a corresponding increase in their behavioral intentions. However, other
studies have reported these relationships to be non-linear or asymmetric (Anderson and
Sullivan, 1993; Bowen and Chen, 2001; Bowen and Shoemaker, 1998; Mittal et al., 1998; Oliva
et al., 1995), as the relationships between study variables were not constant and uniform. It
has been suggested that differences in the linearity of relationships between restaurant
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

quality attributes and customer behavioral intentions may be partially attributed to

differences in the types of restaurants (i.e. quick service vs upscale). However, based on the
consistency of the results of prior research, food quality is expected to have both a positive
and linear relationship with customer behavioral intentions in both quick-service and
upscale restaurants (Dutta et al., 2013; Ha and Jang, 2010; Mattila, 2001; Namkung and Jang,
2007; Ryu and Han, 2010). That is, each improvement in food quality will lead to a
corresponding increase in customer behavioral intentions (return intentions and
word-of-mouth). Thus, we hypothesize the following:
H1. Food quality has a positive and linear relationship with customer behavioral
intentions (return intentions and word-of-mouth) in both upscale and quick-
service restaurants.
Although prior research has consistently shown the relationships between food quality
and customer behavioral intentions to be both positive and linear across all types of
restaurants, this is not the case for some of the other more common restaurant quality
attributes. For example, previous studies have shown that quick-service restaurant
customers place the highest emphasis on the unique service dimensions of convenience,
order accuracy, promptness and speed of service (Clark and Wood, 1998; DiPietro et al.,
2011; Sulek and Hensley, 2004), but were not as important to customers of upscale
restaurants. Instead, upscale restaurant customers expect high levels of overall service
quality, and outstanding service results in higher return intentions and more positive word-
of-mouth (Han and Ryu, 2007; Wall and Berry, 2007). Thus, we hypothesize the
following:
H2. The type of restaurant (quick service or upscale) moderates the relationship
between service quality and customer behavioral intentions (return intentions and
word-of-mouth).
H2a. In quick-service restaurants, service quality has a non-linear relationship with
customer behavioral intentions (return intentions and word-of-mouth).
H2b. In upscale restaurants, service quality has a positive and linear relationship
with customer behavioral intentions (return intentions and word-of-mouth).
Restaurant ambience also has different expectations from customers of quick-service
and upscale restaurants. For example, in quick-service restaurants, ambience has been
 shown to be less important to customers than convenience and speed of service (DiPietro Restaurant
et al., 2011; Perutkova and Parsa, 2010; Sulek and Hensley, 2004). However, in upscale
restaurants, customers often expect a much higher quality of ambience (Perutkova and
quality
Parsa, 2010; Dutta et al., 2013), and changes to ambience quality may have little impact attributes
on customer behavioral intentions, unless a high level of ambience quality is achieved.
Thus, we hypothesize the following:
H3. The type of restaurant (quick service or upscale) moderates the relationship 1275
between ambience quality and customer behavioral intentions (return
intentions and word-of-mouth).
H3a. In quick-service restaurants, ambience has a positive and linear relationship
with customer behavioral intentions (return intentions and word-of-mouth).
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

H3b. In upscale restaurants, ambience quality has a non-linear relationship with

customer behavioral intentions (return intentions and word-of-mouth).
Based on the proposed hypotheses, a theoretical framework is presented in Figure 1.
This framework indicates that each of the three restaurant quality attributes of food,
service and ambience has significant effects on customer behavioral intentions (return
intentions and word-of-mouth). In addition, it is proposed that the effects of service and
ambience quality on customer behavioral intentions are moderated by the type of
restaurant.

Methodology
As the three most commonly agreed-upon restaurant quality attributes in both
quick-service and upscale restaurants are food, service and ambience (DiPietro et al.,
2011; Dutta et al., 2013; Perutkova and Parsa, 2010; Ryu and Han, 2010; Ryu and Jang,
2007), these attributes were selected as the independent variables in the study. To be
consistent with prior studies related to restaurant attributes and customer behavioral
intentions (Dutta et al., 2013), return intentions and word-of-mouth were selected as the
dependent variables for this study. An experimental design was chosen to provide a
high level of internal validity and to isolate the effects of study independent variables
(food, service and ambience) on the dependent variables (return intentions and
word-of-mouth). Additionally, experimental design is the most appropriate tool to study
causality among different variables (Shadish et al., 2002).
The type of restaurant (upscale or quick service) and the level of quality attribute
(below average, average and above average) were manipulated for all three study
independent variables (restaurant food, service and ambience quality attributes). The
typical scenario included manipulation of the type of restaurant (i.e. upscale) and the
level (i.e. average) of an attribute (i.e. ambience). Quick-service and upscale restaurants
were selected because they are positioned on the most extreme ends of the restaurant
continuum (Muller and Woods, 1994). Therefore, it was expected that the differences in
customer perceptions of restaurant attributes would be highest among these two
extremes and that the corresponding experimental manipulations would be easier for
study participants to differentiate. Other restaurant segments (i.e. midscale) are
positioned between these two extremes and may combine some of the characteristics of
both quick-service and upscale restaurants (Muller and Woods, 1994). As a result, it
 IJCHM
26,8

1276

Figure 1.
Theoretical model
depicting the relationships
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

between restaurant
attributes and consumers
willingness to return and
word-of-mouth

would have been more difficult for study participants to differentiate these other
restaurant segments from the two more extreme segments used in the study.
As most prior studies used only two levels of attributes (i.e. below average and above
average), a third attribute level (average) was included. Additional attribute levels
would have increased the complexity of the research and compromised the precision of
the experiment (McGrath, 1981). For example, the use five attribute levels would have
required 5 3 2 30 scenarios, rather than the 3 3 2 18 scenarios used in this
study. These added attributes also would have required alternative methods of
investigation and limited our ability to compare the results with prior studies. The
authors also were concerned that restaurant customers would find it more difficult to
distinguish between more than three attribute levels. This could have resulted in a high
degree of inter-attribute interactions and compromised the reliability and precision of
the experiments.
Three separate 3 2 factorial design experiments (food, service and ambience) were
conducted in 18 separate vignette scenarios, which were initially developed with input
from industry experts as a part of a masters thesis and from an independent study by an
undergraduate honors student. These scenarios were adapted for the current study with
a sample of 35 subjects, following pretests with a sample of 68 subjects. In the first
experiment, six different scenarios were created to manipulate three levels of food
quality (below average, average and above average) in upscale and quick-service
restaurants. Similarly, the second experiment was designed with six different scenarios
of service quality manipulations (below average, average and above average) in upscale
and quick-service restaurants. Consistent with the first two experiments, the third
experiment also was designed with six different scenarios of ambience quality
manipulations (below average, average and above average) in upscale and quick-service
restaurants (see Table AI for all experimental manipulation scenarios and variables).
The survey instrument (see Appendix 2) included four questions that were used as
manipulation checks for the level (below average, average and above average) of the
three restaurant attributes (food, service and ambience) and the type of restaurants
 (quick service or upscale). Additionally, demographic characteristics of the respondents Restaurant
were collected. For the behavioral intention-dependent variables, three items were
adapted from Kivela et al. (1999) to measure return intentions and three items
quality
were adapted from Kim et al. (2001) to measure word-of-mouth. These variables were attributes
measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Based on a 0.01 level of significance, return
intentions and word-of-mouth had skewness and kurtosis statistics below 1.96,
indicating that the data met the normality assumption. 1277
An online survey was conducted in this study because random assignment of
participants to experimental cells is achieved easier than paper-based surveys.
Additionally, online surveys ensure more equal cell size than paper-based surveys.
Previous studies (Dolnicar et al., 2009) have shown that:
(1) both online and mail samples deviate from census data population statistics
regarding socio-demographics to the same extent (but differ in nature);
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

(2) no differences exist in the contamination of data by response styles; and

(3) online respondents have a lower dropout rate and produce less incomplete data.

The Qualtrics online survey tool used in this study resulted in an automatic random
assignment of all participants into different experimental cells. To achieve balanced
design, this tool also monitored the total number of completed responses in each cell and
randomly assigned new participants into those cells with fewer responses. As each
experimental cell had similar scenarios and questions, non-response rates should be
similar for the different cells. Thus, non-response bias was not a concern.
According to various researchers (Pettijohn et al., 1997) and the National Restaurant
Association (2012), respondents between the ages of 18 and 24 are considered to be the
ideal age segment for studying quick-service restaurants. College students are often in
the range of 18-24 years, mirroring the heavy user segment of quick-service
restaurants. Thus, an undergraduate and graduate student sample from a large
southeastern university was chosen for the study (Ro and Kubickova 2013). As the goal
of the study was to establish causal relationship between variables and to attain internal
validity (precision), this could be accomplished more effectively with a homogeneous
student sample (Ro and Kubickova 2013; Yavas, 1994).
The data were collected from April 2012 to May 2012. Those student respondents
with no prior experience of dining in upscale restaurants were removed from the sample.
This was accomplished by a self-qualifying question at the beginning of the survey. The
remaining participants were then randomly assigned to each of the 18 experimental
scenarios using an online random assignment tool (Qualtrics.com). We decided that it
was more appropriate to have one participant receiving only one scenario so they would
not be influenced with previous scenarios when answering questions. As each
participant received only one scenario, between-subject analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was deemed appropriate. Three separate multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
procedures were designed to test each of the three restaurant quality attributes (food,
service and ambience) in three separate experiments. ANOVA procedures also were
included to separately report the results of the return intentions and word-of-mouth
dependent variables. Following the procedure used by Kim et al. (2001) and Kivela et al.
(1999), word-of-mouth and return intentions summated scores were calculated by
averaging three questionnaire items for each dependent variable.
 IJCHM Results
Of the 858 online surveys distributed, 540 were completed without any significant level
26,8 of missing values. This high response rate of 62.9 per cent ensured that all three
experiments had acceptable sizes of 30 participants in each cell (Hair et al., 2006). The
student sample consisted of 380 females and 160 males. Most of these students worked
and were employed in either full-time or part-time jobs. Over 79 per cent of the study
1278 participants were Caucasian with an average age of 22.89 years (SD 8.90). The
majority of the respondents visited quick-service restaurants at least once a week and
visited upscale restaurants either once a month or two to three times a year.
Internal consistency for the three-item dependent variable customer behavioral
intentions measures (word-of-mouth and return intentions) were verified through
construct reliability using Cronbachs alpha values. With manipulations of food quality,
word-of-mouth had a Cronbachs alpha of 0.941 and return intentions had a Cronbachs
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

alpha of 0.905. When service quality was manipulated, word-of-mouth had a Cronbachs
alpha of 0.959 and return intentions had a Cronbachs alpha of 0.941. With
manipulations of ambience quality, word-of-mouth had a Cronbachs alpha of 0.962 and
return intentions had a Cronbachs alpha of 0.936. The high Cronbachs alpha values
indicate high internal consistency of word-of-mouth and return intentions in all three
experiments. The results from confirmatory factor analysis for all three experiments
indicated acceptable levels of construct reliabilities and convergent validity, based on
variance extracted, for the return intentions and word-of-mouth dependent variables.
However, these two dependent variables did not have appropriate discriminant validity.
H1 stated that food quality has a positive and linear relationship with customer
behavioral intentions (return intentions and word-of-mouth) in both upscale and
quick-service restaurants. As shown in Table I, Pillais Trace, Wilks Lambda and
Hotellings Trace all had p 0.001 and, therefore, indicated that the main effects of food
quality on customer behavioral intentions were significant. Partial eta square, a
measurement of effect size, was relatively large (Pillais Trace, 0.090; Wilks Lambda,
0.094; Hotellings Trace, 0.098). All three tests had power level higher than 0.999, which
is considered acceptable (Hair et al., 2006). Additional results of ANOVA tests further
confirmed that food quality had a significant main effect on both return intentions (p
0.001) and word-of-mouth (p 0.001). Finally, the MANOVA results indicate that
interaction effect between type of restaurant and food quality was not significant, with
Pillais Trace p 0.893, Wilks Lambda p 0.893 and Hotellings Trace p 0.893. A
more detailed review of return intention and word-of-mouth means, which is presented
in Table II, revealed similar positive and linear patterns related to food quality in both
quick-service and upscale restaurants. Thus, H1 was confirmed.
H2 stated that the type of restaurant moderates the relationship between service
quality and customer behavioral intentions (return intentions and word-of-mouth). As
shown in Table III, MANOVA tests confirmed H2. Pillais Trace, Wilks Lambda and
Hotellings Trace tests of the interaction effect between type of restaurant and level of
service quality all had p-values of 0.009. Partial eta square was in the medium range,
based on the test values of Pillais Trace (0.038), Wilks Lambda (0.038) and Hotellings
Trace (0.039). All three tests had power levels higher than 0.85, which is considered
acceptable (Hair et al., 2006). Additional results of ANOVA tests further confirmed that
the type of restaurant moderated the effect of service quality on customer return
intentions and word-of-mouth. Additionally, the MANOVA results indicated that
 Hypothesis Error Partial eta Observed
Restaurant
Effect Value F df df Significance squared power quality
Intercept attributes
Pillais Trace 0.915 934.351 2.000 173.000 0.000 0.915 1.000
Wilks Lambda 0.085 934.351 2.000 173.000 0.000 0.915 1.000
Hotellings Trace 10.802 934.351 2.000 173.000 0.000 0.915 1.000
1279
Food quality
Pillais Trace 0.180 8.601 4.000 348.000 0.000 0.090 0.999
Wilks Lambda 0.821 8.956 4.000 346.000 0.000 0.094 0.999
Hotellings Trace 0.216 9.308 4.000 344.000 0.000 0.098 1.000
Type of restaurant
Pillais Trace 0.098 9.366 2.000 173.000 0.000 0.098 0.977
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

Wilks Lambda 0.902 9.366 2.000 173.000 0.000 0.098 0.977

Hotellings Trace 0.108 9.366 2.000 173.000 0.000 0.098 0.977
Table I.
Quality type of restaurant Multivariate test of the
Pillais Trace 0.006 0.277 4.000 348.000 0.893 0.003 0.111 effect of food quality and
Wilks Lambda 0.994 0.276 4.000 346.000 0.893 0.003 0.111 restaurant type on
Hotellings Trace 0.006 0.275 4.000 344.000 0.894 0.003 0.111 dependent variables

service quality had a significant positive main effect on customer behavioral intentions
(Pillais Trace, Wilks Lambda and Hotellings Trace all had p 0.001). In addition,
partial eta square was relatively large (Pillais Trace, 0.183; Wilks Lambda, 0.202;
Hotellings Trace, 0.222). Finally, each of these three multivariate tests had power levels
higher than 0.999.
H2a stated that service quality in quick-service restaurants has a non-linear
relationship with customer behavioral intentions (return intentions and word-of-mouth).
The customer return intentions means in quick-service restaurants were 3.03 for
below-average service quality, 5.28 for average service quality and 5.58 for
above-average service quality. Similarly, the word-of-mouth means were 2.72
for below-average service quality, 5.12 for average service quality and 5.23 for
above-average service quality. In quick-service restaurants, there were statistically
significant differences in customer behavioral intentions (return intentions and
word-of-mouth) between below-average and average service quality, based on the
Scheffe post hoc analyses. However, there were no statistically significant differences in
customer behavioral intentions (return intention and word-of-mouth) between average

Type of restaurant Food quality level Return intention means Word-of-mouth means

Quick-service restaurant Below average 3.85 3.52 Table II.

Average 4.47 4.08 Return intention and
Above average 5.16 5.00 word-of-mouth means for
Upscale restaurant Below average 3.70 3.73 different levels of food
Average 4.72 4.82 quality in quick-service
Above average 5.16 5.44 and upscale restaurants
 IJCHM Hypothesis Error Partial eta Observed
26,8 Effect Value F df df Significance squared power

Intercept
Pillais Trace 0.939 1,320.277 2.000 173.000 0.000 0.939 1.000
Wilks Lambda 0.061 1,320.277 2.000 173.000 0.000 0.939 1.000
Hotellings Trace 15.263 1,320.277 2.000 173.000 0.000 0.939 1.000
1280
Service quality
Pillais Trace 0.365 19.442 4.000 348.000 0.000 0.183 1.000
Wilks Lambda 0.636 21.945 4.000 346.000 0.000 0.202 1.000
Hotellings Trace 0.569 24.482 4.000 344.000 0.000 0.222 1.000
Type of restaurant
Pillais Trace 0.074 6.910 2.000 173.000 0.001 0.074 0.920
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

Wilks Lambda 0.926 6.910 2.000 173.000 0.001 0.074 0.920

Hotellings Trace 0.080 6.910 2.000 173.000 0.001 0.074 0.920
Table III.
Multivariate test of the Quality type of restaurant
effect of service quality Pillais Trace 0.076 3.438 4.000 348.000 0.009 0.038 0.854
and restaurant type on Wilks Lambda 0.925 3.443 4.000 346.000 0.009 0.038 0.855
dependent variables Hotellings Trace 0.080 3.449 4.000 344.000 0.009 0.039 0.855

and above-average service quality. As this implies a non-linear relationship in

quick-service restaurants between service quality and customer behavioral intentions
(return intentions and word-of-mouth), H2a was confirmed.
H2b stated that service quality in upscale restaurants has a positive and linear
relationship with customer behavioral intentions (return intentions and word-of-mouth).
The return intention means in upscale restaurants were 4.27 for below-average service
quality, 4.96 for average service quality and 5.99 for above-average service quality.
Similarly, the word-of-mouth means were 4.03 for below-average service quality, 5.00
for average service quality and 6.13 for above-average food quality condition. In upscale
restaurants, there were statistically significant differences in customer return intentions
between average and above-average service quality, but not between below-average
and average service quality, based on the Scheffe post hoc analysis. This implies a
non-linear relationship in upscale restaurants between service quality and customer
return intentions. However, word-of-mouth was statistically different for all three levels
(below average, average and above average) of service quality, which implies a positive
and linear relationship between service quality and customer word-of-mouth based on
the Scheffe post hoc analysis. Thus, H2b was partially confirmed.
H3 stated that type of restaurant moderates the relationship between ambience and
customer behavioral intentions (return intentions and word-of-mouth). As shown in
Table IV, MANOVA tests confirmed H3. Pillais Trace and Wilks Lambda tests of the
interaction effect between type of restaurant and level of ambience quality had a p-value
of 0.012, while Hotellings Trace had a p-value of 0.011. Partial eta square was in the
medium range, based on the test values of Pillais Trace (0.036), Wilks Lambda (0.036)
and Hotellings Trace (0.037). All three tests had a power level higher than 0.8, which is
considered acceptable (Hair et al. 2006). Additional results of ANOVA tests further
confirmed that the type of restaurant moderated the effect of ambience on consumer
 Hypothesis Error Partial eta Observed
Restaurant
Effect Value F df df Significance squared power quality
Intercept attributes
Pillais Trace 0.942 1,405.941 2.000 173.000 0.000 0.942 1.000
Wilks Lambda 0.058 1,405.941 2.000 173.000 0.000 0.942 1.000
Hotellings Trace 16.254 1,405.941 2.000 173.000 0.000 0.942 1.000
1281
Ambience quality
Pillais Trace 0.258 12.879 4.000 348.000 0.000 0.129 1.000
Wilks Lambda 0.743 13.857 4.000 346.000 0.000 0.138 1.000
Hotellings Trace 0.345 14.835 4.000 344.000 0.000 0.147 1.000
Type of restaurant
Pillais Trace 0.022 1.925 2.000 173.000 0.149 0.022 0.396
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

Wilks Lambda 0.978 1.925 2.000 173.000 0.149 0.022 0.396

Hotellings Trace 0.022 1.925 2.000 173.000 0.149 0.022 0.396 Table IV.
Multivariate test of the
Quality type of restaurant effect of ambience and
Pillais Trace 0.072 3.247 4.000 348.000 0.012 0.036 0.831 restaurant type on return
Wilks Lambda 0.928 3.269 4.000 346.000 0.012 0.036 0.834 intentions and word-of-
Hotellings Trace 0.077 3.291 4.000 344.000 0.011 0.037 0.836 mouth

return intentions and word-of-mouth. Further, the MANOVA results indicated that
ambience had a significant positive main effect on customer behavioral intentions
(return intentions and word-of-mouth), as Pillais Trace, Wilks Lambda and Hotellings
Trace all had p 0.001. In addition, partial eta square was relatively large (Pillais
Trace, 0.129; Wilks Lambda, 0.138; Hotellings Trace, 0.147). Finally, each of the three
multivariate tests had power levels higher than 0.999.
H3a stated that ambience quality in quick-service restaurants has a positive and
linear relationship with customer behavioral intentions. The return intention means in
quick-service restaurants were 4.50 for below-average ambience quality, 4.93 for
average ambience quality and 5.36 for above-average ambience quality. Similarly, the
word-of-mouth means were 4.02 for below-average ambience, 4.72 for average ambience
and 5.24 for above-average ambience quality. In quick-service restaurants, there were no
statistically significant differences in customer behavioral intentions for below-average
and average ambience, based on the Scheffe post hoc analyses. Additionally, there were
no statistically significant differences in customer behavioral intentions between
average and above-average ambience. As this implies linear relationships in
quick-service restaurants between ambience quality and customer behavioral
intentions (return intentions and word-of-mouth), H3a was confirmed.
H3b stated that ambience quality in upscale restaurants has a non-linear relationship
with customer behavioral intentions (return intentions and word-of-mouth). The return
intention means in upscale restaurants were 4.03 for below-average ambience, 4.01 for
average ambience and 5.84 for above-average ambience. Similarly, the word-of-mouth
means were 3.80 for below-average ambience, 3.78 for average food quality and 5.87 for
above-average ambience. In upscale restaurants, there were no statistically significant
differences in customer behavioral intentions between below-average and average
ambience, based on the Scheffe post hoc analyses. However, there were statistically
 IJCHM significant differences in customer behavioral intentions between average and
above-average ambience. As this implies non-linear relationships in upscale restaurants
26,8 between ambience quality and customer behavioral intentions, H3b was confirmed.

Discussion
The results of the current study indicated that each of the common restaurant quality
1282 attributes of food, service and ambience had a positive influence on customer behavioral
intentions (return intentions and word-of-mouth). First, food quality had a positively
linear relationship with customer behavioral intentions in both quick-service and
upscale restaurants. More specifically, in quick-service and upscale restaurants,
increases in customer return intentions and word-of-mouth were positive and linear
when food quality improved from below average to average to above average. This
finding is consistent with the results of earlier studies that emphasized the importance of
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

food quality across all restaurant types (Mattila, 2001; Perutkova and Parsa, 2010).
Unlike food quality, restaurant service and ambience quality had non-linear
relationships with customer behavioral intentions in quick-service and upscale
restaurants. Further, restaurant service and ambience quality attributes each had
distinctly different influences on customer behavioral intentions in quick-service and
upscale restaurants. As illustrated in Figure 2, in quick-service restaurants, there were
significant and positive increases in customer behavioral intentions when service
quality improved from below average to average, but not when service quality
improved from average to above average. Conversely, in upscale restaurants, customer
return intentions did not significantly increase when service quality improved from
below average to average, but did significantly increase when service quality improved
from average to above average. However, unexpectedly, word-of-mouth increased in
upscale restaurants in a positive and linear manner when service quality improved from
below average to average and from average to above average. This reveals the
importance of including different measures (i.e. return intentions and word-of-mouth) to
represent customer behavioral intentions, rather than one global measure.
As illustrated in Figure 2, ambience quality had a positive linear relationship with
customer behavioral intentions in quick-service restaurants. More specifically, in
quick-service restaurants, increases in customer behavioral intentions (return intentions and
word-of-mouth) were positive and linear when ambience quality improved from below
average to average and from average to above average. However, in upscale restaurants,
customer behavioral intentions (return intentions and word-of-mouth) did not significantly
increase when ambience quality improved from below average to average, but did
significantly increase when ambience quality moved from average to above average.
The differences in the influences of service and ambience quality between
quick-service and upscale restaurants could be partially attributed to the unique
differences in customer expectations related to these different types of restaurants. For
example, customers of quick-service restaurants may not expect extraordinary service.
Rather, they may place more emphasis on convenience, speed of service, order accuracy,
menu simplicity, ease of menu display and other speed-related attributes. Further, most
service aspects in quick-service restaurants are standardized, centralized, mechanized
and simplified, disallowing for customization or higher levels of service. Conversely,
customers of upscale restaurants may expect extraordinary service, as they must pay
 Restaurant
quality
attributes

1283
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

Figure 2.
Moderating effect of
restaurant type on the
relationship between level
of service quality, and
ambience and
word-of-mouth and return
intention
 Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

26,8

1284
IJCHM

Figure 2.
 more to dine in these restaurants. Thus, to achieve high return patronage, these Restaurant
customer expectations must be met or exceeded.
In terms of ambience, customers of quick-service restaurants may increase their
quality
patronage and spread more positive word-of-mouth for restaurants that upgrade their attributes
ambience quality. This may be partially reflected in the popularity of todays growing
segment of fast casual restaurants that provide counter service in an environment that has
comparable ambience quality to traditional casual-themed full-service restaurants. This 1285
higher-quality ambience may contribute to customers being willing to pay more for their
meals than at traditional quick-service restaurants. Conversely, customers of upscale
restaurants are more likely to already expect a high-quality ambience, as this part of the
overall dining experience is what they are paying for. As a result, they may reward
restaurants with increased patronage and more positive word-of-mouth if they provide a
high ambience quality that contributes to a memorable dining experience. However, if the
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

ambience is below average or average, they likely will not return to the restaurant and may
spread negative word-of-mouth about the less-than-desired ambience and their poor dining
experience.

Conclusions
This study provided both theoretical and managerial contributions to the literature. From a
theoretical perspective, this study included two types of restaurants (quick service and
upscale), while most prior studies did not account for these unique industry restaurant
segments. In addition, most prior studies used only two levels (high and low) of restaurant
quality attributes. To correct for this limitation, the current study added third attribute level
(average), while measuring against two behavioral intentions dependent measures
(customer return intention and word-of-mouth). The results implied both linear and
non-linear relationships, as customers may have had different behavioral intentions related
to these two of these restaurant attributes (service and ambience quality) in upscale and
quick-service restaurants. These results indicate that future studies should recognize and
account for differences in restaurant quality attributes and restaurant type in examining
their relationships with customer behavioral intentions.
From a managerial perspective, the results of this study indicated that managers of
both quick-service and upscale restaurants should focus their attention on food quality,
as it is of major importance to all customers (Mattila, 2001; Perutkova and Parsa, 2010;
DiPietro et al., 2011). However, these managers may need to establish different priorities
relevant to their attention to service and ambience quality. For example, managers of
upscale restaurants should focus on achieving service excellence and high ambience
quality, as average or lower levels will unlikely earn repeat customer patronage and
more positive word-of-mouth. However, although quick-service restaurant managers
should strive to establish and maintain good service, striving for extraordinary service
may not be the most appropriate use of their time or resources. Rather, a focus on fast,
polite, standardized and simplified service in a clean and aesthetically pleasing
environment may be sufficient. Correspondingly, improvements to ambience quality in
quick-service restaurants beyond an average level may not result in increased customer
patronage, but may result in more positive word-of-mouth. Therefore, managers of
quick-service restaurants should consider these outcomes when striving to achieve high
levels of ambience quality in their establishments.
 IJCHM This study has some limitations. First, although it has high internal validity, the
experimental design with textual scenarios has limited generalizability. This could be
26,8 improved with the use of a field survey to compare quick-service and upscale
restaurants. Additionally, the use of a student convenience sample limited the studys
external validity, although experimental design does encourage the use of homogeneous
samples for higher internal validity (Bello et al., 2009). Data could be collected from
1286 customers of actual restaurants to more appropriately examine real customer behaviors.
Future research also could focus on the development of a survey instrument to measure
additional attributes of restaurant quality among more different types of restaurants.
Finally, a number of moderating demographic variables, such as gender and age, could
be added to examine their influence on customer perceptions of restaurant quality.
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

References
Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), The antecedents and consequences of
consumersatisfaction for firms, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-143.
Baker, D.A. and Crompton, J.L. (2000), Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 785-804.
Bello, D., Leung, K., Radebaugh, L., Tung, R.L. and Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2009), From the
editors: student samples in international business research, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 361-364.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 57-71.
Blodgett, J.G., Granbois, D.H. and Walters, R.G. (1994), The effects of perceived justice on
complainants negative word-of-mouth behavior and repatronage intentions, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 399-428.
Bojanic, D.C. and Rosen, L.D. (1994), Measuring service quality in restaurants: an application of the
SERVQUAL instrument, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Bowen, J.T. and Chen, S.L. (2001), The relationship between consumerloyalty and
consumersatisfaction, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 213-217.
Bowen, J.T. and Shoemaker, S. (1998), Loyalty: a strategic commitment, Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 12-25.
Clark, M.A. and Wood, R.C. (1998), Consumer loyalty in the restaurant industry-a preliminary
exploration of the issues, International Journal of contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 139-144.
Cole, S.T. and Chancellor, H.C. (2009), Examining the festival attributes that impact visitor
experience, satisfaction and re-visit intentions, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 15
No. 4, pp. 323-333.
Cole, S.T. and Scott, D. (2004), Examining the mediating role of experience quality in a model of
tourist experiences, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 77-88.
Cronin, J.J. Jr. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension,
The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Cronin, J.J. Jr. and Taylor, S.A. (1994), SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling
performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality,
The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 125-131.
 Cronin, J.J. Jr, Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), Assessing the effects of quality, value, and Restaurant
consumersatisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions s in service environments,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218. quality
Dabholkar, P.A., Shepherd, C.D. and Thorpe, D.I. (2000), A comprehensive framework for service attributes
quality: an investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues through a
longitudinal study, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 139-173.
Dahlstrom, R. and Nygaard, A. (1999), Ownership decisions in plural contractual systems: twelve
networks from the quick service restaurant industry, European Journal of Marketing, 1287
Vol. 33 Nos 1/2, pp. 59-87.
DiPietro, R.B. and Milman, A. (2004), Hourly employee retention factors in the quick service
restaurant industry, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration,
Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 31-51.
DiPietro, R.B. and Pizam, A. (2008), Employee alienation in the quick service restaurant
industry, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 22-39.
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

DiPietro, R., Parsa, H.G. and Gregory, A. (2011), Restaurant QSC inspections and financial
performance: an empirical investigation, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 982-999.
Dolnicar, S., Laesser, C. and Matus, K. (2009), Online versus paper format effects in tourism
surveys, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 295-316.
Dutta, K., Parsa, H.G., Parsa, A.R. and Bujisic, M. (2013), Change in consumer patronage and
willingness to pay at different levels of service attributes in restaurants: a study from
india, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 149-174.
Goldman, K. (1993), Concept selection for independent restaurants, The Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 59-72.
Gupta, S., McLaughlin, E. and Gomez, M. (2007), Guest satisfaction and restaurant performance,
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 284-298.
Ha, J. and Jang, S.C.S. (2010), Effects of service quality and food quality: the moderating role of
atmospherics in an ethnic restaurant segment, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 520-529.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data
Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Han, H. and Ryu, K. (2007), Moderating role of personal characteristics in forming restaurant
customers behavioral intentions s: an upscale restaurant setting, Journal of Hospitality
and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 25-54.
Iglesias, M.P. and Guilln, M.J.Y. (2004), Perceived quality and price: their impact on the
satisfaction of restaurant customers, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 373-379.
Jones, P. and Lockwood, A. (1998), Operations management research in the hospitality industry,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 183-202.
Katsigris, C. and Thomas, C. (2008), Design and Equipment for Restaurants and Foodservice: A
Management View. Wiley: New York, NY.
Kim, B.P. and George, R.T. (2005), The relationship between leader-member exchange (LMX) and
psychological empowerment: a quick casual restaurant employee correlation study,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 468-483.
Kim, W.G., Han, J.S. and Lee, E. (2001), Effects of relationship marketing on repeat purchase and
word of mouth, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 272-288.
Kim, W.G., Lee, Y.K. and Yoo, Y.J. (2006), Predictors of relationship quality and relationship
outcomes in luxury restaurants, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 30
No. 2, pp. 143-169.
 IJCHM Kim, W.G., Ng, C.Y.N. and Kim, Y.-S. (2009), Influence of institutional DINESERV on
consumersatisfaction, return intentions, and word-of-mouth, International Journal of
26,8 Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 10-17.
Kivela, J., Reece, J. and Inbakaran, R. (1999), Consumer research in the restaurant environment.
Part 2: research design and analytical methods, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 269-286.
Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R. and Reece, J. (2000), Consumer research in the restaurant environment.
1288 Part 3: analysis, findings and conclusions, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 13-30.
Knutson, B., Stevens, P. and Patton, M. (1995), DINESERV: measuring service quality in quick
service, casual/theme, and fine dining restaurants, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 35-44.
Lando, A.M. and Labiner-Wolfe, J. (2007), Helping consumers make more healthful food choices:
consumer views on modifying food labels and providing point-of-purchase nutrition
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

information at quick-service restaurants, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior,

Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 157-163.
Lee, Y.L. and Hing, N. (1995), Measuring quality in restaurant operations: an application of the
SERVQUAL instrument, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 14,
Nos 3/4, pp. 293-310.
Li, X.P. and Petrick, J.F.P. (2010), Revisiting the commitment-loyalty distinction in a cruising
context, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 67-90.
McGrath, J.E. (1981), Dillematics: the study of research choices and dilemma, American
Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 179-210.
Mattila, A.S. (2001), Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty, The Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 73-79.
Maxham, J.G. III and Netemeyer, R.G. (2002), A longitudinal study of complaining customers
evaluations of multiple service failures and recovery efforts, The Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 57-71.
Mittal, V., Ross, W.T. Jr. and Baldasare, P.M. (1998), The asymmetric impact of negative and
positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions, The
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 33-47.
Morrison, P. (1996), Menu engineering in upscale restaurants, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 17-24.
Muller, C.C. and Woods, R.H. (1994), An expanded restaurant typology, The Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 27-37.
Murase, H. and Bojanic, D. (2004), An examination of the differences in restaurant brand personality
across cultures, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 11 Nos 2/3, pp. 97-113.
Namkung, Y. and Jang, S. (2007), Does food quality really matter in restaurants? Its impact on
consumersatisfaction and behavioral intentions, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 387-409.
Oliva, T.A., Oliver, R.L., and Bearden, W.O. (1995), The relationships among consumer
satisfaction, involvement, and product performance: a catastrophe theory application,
Behavioral Science, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 104-132.
Ottenbacher, M.C. and Harrington, R.J. (2009), The product innovation process of quick-service
restaurant chains, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 21
No. 5, pp. 523-541.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry, L.L. (1988), SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
 Parsa, H.G. (1996), Franchisor-franchisee relationships in quick-service-restaurant systems, Restaurant
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 42-49.
Parsa, H.G., and Khan, M.A. (1991), Menu trends in the quick service restaurant industry during
quality
the various stages of the industry life cycle (1919-1988), Journal of Hospitality and Tourism attributes
Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 93.
Perutkova, J. and Parsa, H.G. (2010), Consumers Willingness to pay and to patronize according
to major restaurant attributes, Undergradurate Research Journal, University of Central
Florida, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 1-10.
1289
Pettijohn, L.S., Pettijohn, C.E. and Luke, R.H. (1997), An evaluation of fast food restaurant
satisfaction: determinants, competitive comparisons and impact on future patronage,
Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 3-20.
Qu, H. (1997), Determinant factors and choice intention for Chinese restaurant dining: a
multivariate approach, Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2,
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

pp. 35-49.
Raajpoot, N.A. (2002), TANGSERV, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 109-127.
Reimer, A. and Kuehn, R. (2005), The impact of servicescape on quality perception, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 7/8, pp. 785-808.
Richins, M.L. (1983), Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: a pilot study, The
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Ro, H. and Kubickova, M. (2013), The use of student subjects in hospitality research, Journal of
Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 14 No. 4.
Ryu, K. and Han, H. (2010), Influence of the quality of food, service, and physical environment on
consumersatisfaction and behavioral intentions in quick-casual restaurants: moderating
role of perceived price, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 310-329.
Ryu, K. and Jang, S.C.S. (2007), The effect of environmental perceptions on behavioral intentions
s through emotions: the case of upscale restaurants, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 56-72.
Ryu, K., Han, H. and Kim, T.H. (2008), The relationships among overall quick-casual restaurant
image, perceived value, consumersatisfaction, and behavioral intentions, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 459-469.
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., and Campbell, D.T. (2002), Experimental and Quasi-Experimental
Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Siguaw, J.A., Mattila, A. and Austin, J.R. (1999), The brand-personality scale, Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 48-55.
Sderlund, M. (1998), Customer satisfaction and its consequences on customer behaviour
revisited: the impact of different levels of satisfaction on word-of-mouth, feedback to the
supplier and loyalty, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No.2,
pp. 169-188.
Sderlund, M. and hman, N. (2005), Assessing behavior before it becomes behavior: an examination
of the role of intentions as a link between satisfaction and repatronizing behavior, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 169-185.
Stevens, P., Knutson, B. and Patton, M. (1995), DINESERV: a tool for measuring service quality
in restaurants, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 56-60.
Sulek, J.M. and Hensley, R.L. (2004), The relative importance of food, atmosphere, and fairness of
wait, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 235-247.
 IJCHM Taylor, S.A. and Baker, T.L. (1994), An assessment of the relationship between service quality
and consumersatisfaction in the formation of consumers purchase intentions, Journal of
26,8 Retailing, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 163-178.
Turley, L.W. and Milliman, R.E. (2000), Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of
the experimental evidence, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 193-211.
Wakefield, K.L. and Blodgett, J.G. (1996), The effect of the servicescape on customers behavioral
intentions s in leisure service settings, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 45-61.
1290 Walker, J.R., (2007), The Restaurant: From Concept to Operation. Wiley: New York, NY.
Wall, E.A. and Berry, L.L. (2007), The combined effects of the physical environment and
employee behavior on consumerperception of restaurant service quality. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 59-69.
Walter, U., Edvardsson, B. and strm, . (2010), Drivers of customers service experiences: a
study in the restaurant industry, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 20 No.3, pp. 236-258.
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

Westbrook, R.A. (1987), Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase

processes, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 258-270.
Woodside, A.G., Frey, L.L. and Daly, R.T. (1989), Linking service quality, customer satisfaction,
and behavioral intentions, Journal of Health Care Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 5.
Yavas, U. (1994), Research note: students as subjects in advertising and marketing research,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 35-43.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.

Appendix 1

Manipulated
quality Type of Manipulation level Expected level of return
Scenario attribute restaurant of quality attribute intention and word-of-mouth

1 Ambience Quick Service Higher than average Higher than S2 and S3

2 Ambience Quick service Average Between S1 and S3
3 Ambience Quick service Below Average Lower than S1 and S2
4 Food quality Quick service Higher than average Higher than S5 and S6
5 Food quality Quick service Average Between S4 and S6
6 Food quality Quick service Below average Lower than S4 and S5
7 Service quality Quick service Higher than average Higher than S9; Same as S8
8 Service quality Quick service Average Higher than S9; Same as S7
9 Service quality Quick service Below average Lower than S7 and S8
10 Ambience Upscale Higher than average Higher than S11 and S12
11 Ambience Upscale Average Same as S12; Lower than S10
12 Ambience Upscale Below average Same as S11; Lower than S10
13 Food quality Upscale Higher than average Higher than S14 and S15
14 Food quality Upscale Average Between S13 and S14
Table AI. 15 Food quality Upscale Below average Lower than S13 and S14
Experimental 16 Service quality Upscale Higher than average Higher than S17 and S18
manipulations and 17 Service quality Upscale Average Between S16 and S18
variables 18 Service quality Upscale Below average Lower than S16 and S17
 Appendix 2 Restaurant
Manipulation Checks
quality
What kind of restaurant did you visit in this scenario? attributes
 Upscale
 Fast food
 Family style
 Casual
What was food quality in this type of restaurant compared to other restaurants of same type?
1291
 Below average
 Average
 Above Average
What was service quality in this type of restaurant compared to other restaurants of same type?
 Below Average
 Average
 Above Average
Downloaded by University of Denver At 11:48 17 November 2014 (PT)

What was ambience in this type of restaurant compared to other restaurants of same type?
 Below average
 Average
 Above Average
Return Intentions
In the future, I would visit again this restaurant.
If you were planning to visit this type of restaurant, how likely would you return to this
restaurant?
In the future, I would not visit this restaurant again.
Word-of-Mouth
How likely are you to spread positive word-of-mouth about this restaurant?
I would recommend this restaurant to my friends.
If my friends are looking to go to this type of restaurant, I would tell them to visit this
one.

About the authors

Milos Bujisic is a PhD student at the Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of
Central Florida. Before perusing a PhD in hospitality management, Bujisic served for five years as
a General Manager of several food and beverage establishments and additional five years as a
Sales Manager. Milos Bujisic, is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
milosbujisic@yahoo.com
Joe Hutchinson has been Chair and Associate Professor of the Department of Foodservice
and Lodging Management in the Rosen College of Hospitality Management at the University
of Central Florida since fall 2009. Hutchinson also served for eight years as Chair and
Associate Professor of the Hospitality Management Department at The University of
Southern Mississippi. Prior to his academic background, Hutchinson served for five years as
a Management Consultant with KPMG Consulting, PKF Consulting and Laventhol &
Horwath. He also served for seven years as a General Manager of independent and
chain-operated casual-themed restaurants.
H. G. Parsa is the Barron Hilton Chair in Lodging Management at Fritz Knoebel School of
Hospitality, University of Denver. He is a recipient of Fulbright Research Fellowship. His
research interests include strategic marketing, consumer behavior, sustainability and green
practices, pricing decisions and restaurant mortality and success rates. He also taught at the
Ohio State University, SUNYC-Buffalo and University of Central Florida.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints