Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Jan.-Feb. 2016, Vol. 4, No. 1, 22-36 doi: 10.17265/2328-2169/2016.02.003 D DAVID PUBLISHING

Understanding Taiwan Seniors’ Motivation to Consume Food-Away-From-Home

Kuei-I Lee Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan

The elderly population is growing rapidly in Taiwan. Eating is an important part for this group. The purpose of this study is to adapt the push and pull theory in order to investigate what would motivate the elderly to consume food away from home. Based on the results of a literature review and an expert panel, a valid questionnaire was developed. The participants in this study were aged above 55 who live in Taichung district. A total of 265 samples were collected. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) were used to analyze the data. The findings revealed that the data fit the model moderately well. Push and pull variables had a significant influence on intention and behavior. Recommendations like marketing strategies that can attract senior citizens and restaurateurs should focus on the key factors when seniors consume food away from home.

Keywords: senior, push and pull theory, food away from home, motivation

Introduction Since 1950, the proportion of older people has risen steadily, passing from 8% in 1950 to 11% in 2012, and is expected to reach 22% in 2050. By 2050, 2 billion older persons are projected to be alive, implying that their number will once again triple over a span of 50 years. The global population of older people is growing at a rate of 2.6% per year, considerably faster than the population growth rate as a whole, which is increasing at 1.2% annually (United Nations, 2009; 2012). The approximately 77 million baby boomers, those born between 1946 and 1964, have created a disproportionate distribution in the age structure (Moschis, 2003). This profound demographic shift is attracting marketers. The growth in the number of Taiwan seniors is also astonishing. Based on the 2012 Taiwan Census, the population of people over 65 years old and older is approximately 2.6 million (11.2%) and it is forecasted to achieve 39.4% in 2060 (Taiwan Council for Economic Planning and Development, 2012). The rapid growth of the senior population will require a great amount of special care. Some researchers, such as Marvel (1999), Pederson and DeMicco (1993), Stevens (2002), and Sun (2008), pointed out that a growing number of seniors markets with more personal services and special products were required to satisfy seniors’ different levels of mental and physical health situation. For example, food producers, manufacturers, and restaurants’ managers found that seniors are a unique group that has various specific needs and wants that are different from other customer segments. They tended to show loyalty to stores that they really like (Schewe, 1985; Uncles & Ehrenberg, 1990; Lipke, 2000). For example, 80% of retired couples were loyal to a particular restaurant compared with other age groups (Moschis, 1999).

Kuei-I Lee, assistant professor, Department of Hospitality Management, Tunghai University. Email: [email protected].

TAIWAN SENIORS’ MOTIVATION TO CONSUME FOOD-AWAY-FROM-HOME 23

Food-away-from-home (FAFH) was the meal based on where the foods are obtained or prepared such as restaurants and other foodservice establishments, regardless of where it is eaten (Lin, Guthrie, & Frazão, 1999a). The reasons for consuming FAFH for seniors were changes of their lifestyle, family structure, and redistribution of disposable income (Creed, 1998). From the restaurant managers’ point of views, they viewed seniors as great sources of FAFH market. An editorial note in the Nation’s Restaurant News (Koteff, 2002, p. 29) stated that “Food-service operators do not market to customers older than 55. Seniors represent a key demographic in the population landscape. Restaurants are missing out on huge profits by not serving this demographic”. Thus, restaurant managers utilize a number of techniques to attract seniors including discount, early bird specials, healthy promotions, free birthday meals, smaller size portions, and shuttle services to restaurants (Staff, 1997; Yamanaka, Almanza, Nelson, & DeVaney, 2003). Previous seniors’ FAFH consumption studies focused more on descriptive explanations and simple comparisons. No prior studies adopted a theory to understand seniors’ consumption behavior. Thus, studies related to seniors’ FAFH consumption using the push and pull theory were important to understand the factors that affect actual behavior. This research also investigates what would motivate the older population to consume FAFH. The results could provide important insights in developing marketing and strategies for restaurant companies.

Literature Review FAFH and Senior The definition of FAFH means the meal based on where the foods are obtained or prepared such as restaurants and other foodservice establishments, regardless of where it is eaten; typically ready-to-eat and consumed “as is” (Lin et al., 1999a). Annual spending for FAFH as a share of food expenditures was 48.7% in 2011, steadily increased from 43% in 1990 (Clauson, 2012). FAFH could be fast-food places that include self-service restaurants and carryout places; restaurants are those with waiter and waitress service; public places that include cafeterias, residential dining facilities, meals-on-wheels, and community food programs (Lin et al., 1999b). FAFH can also be called home meal replacement (HMR). HMR are meals that have been produced away from home for home consumption (Costa, Dekker, Beumer, Rombouts, & Jongen, 2001). Casper (1997) defined HMR as “home-style comforts foods, primarily intended for off premise/at-home consumption, that are easy and convenient to obtain, provided through some kind of quick-service format, but which must be preparation-free”. According to Costa et al. (2001), HMR can be categorized as either “home delivery (meal is delivered)” or “take-out (consumers bring meal home)”. On the other hand, Lee, Chung, and Yang (2005) tried to conceptualize HMR in Korea through Delphi technique and defined it as “a meal taken directly or through brief cooking process at home by purchasing ready to eat or ready to end-cook type of food” (p. 251). More than 40% of seniors ate at family or casual style restaurants at least once a month, while 17% visit family restaurants more than once a week, and more than 10% visit casual restaurants more than once a week (Lahue, 2000). Knutson and Patton (1993) indicated that convenience and companionship were the primary reasons the older diners eat out in a restaurant, because most of the elderly indicated that they do not want to spend all their time in the kitchen. They do not think cooking at home is economical because they may have only one or two people in a household. Furthermore, they enjoy eating out with friends and see dining out as a socialized activity. Older adults viewed dining out as an opportunity to eat meals with family and friends (Hughes, Bennett, & Hetherington, 2004). Thus, restaurants that want to attract mature customers should provide an enjoyable gathering place to be with friends and family. In addition, Cheang (2002) interpreted older

24 TAIWAN SENIORS’ MOTIVATION TO CONSUME FOOD-AWAY-FROM-HOME peoples’ frequent visits to a fast-food restaurant as nonobligatory social interaction and pointed out the significance of a restaurant setting. Older people place a great emphasis on the social aspects of dining-out such as companionship, emotional support, and fun, so they may also seek benefits from interaction with the service provider. Food quality is the main reason driving this mature group to visit a particular restaurant (Knutson & Patton, 1993). Moschis, Curasi, and Bellenger (2003) found that the top three patronage reasons for older consumers were the availability of senior-citizen discounts, comfortable places to socialize, and proximity to respondents’ homes or workplaces. In Reynolds, Kennon, and Kniatt’s (1998) study, convenience, speed of service, and inexpensiveness were the most important factors in selecting fast-food restaurants. Knutson and Patton (1993) also indicated that giving price discount to seniors was a key decision variable. There are some more other motivations for eating out like economizing, efficiency, fun, taste, and social interaction (Finkelstein, 1989). Falk, Bisogni, and Sobal (1996) and Williams, DeMicco, and Kotschevar (1997) also identified socializing and companionship as the primary reasons for older individuals eating meals at congregate eating places. Yamanaka et al. (2003) found a significant difference in the social reasons for dining out among different age groups of older consumers. Their results indicated the number of social factors cited as a reason for dining out increased with age. Extended Push and Pull Theory Motivation. Motivation is the need that drives an individual to act in a certain way to achieve the desired satisfaction (Beerli & Martín, 2004). Motivation has been referred to as psychological/biological needs and wants, including integral forces that arouse, direct, and integrate a person’s behavior and activity (Dann, 1981; Pearce, 1982; Uysal & Hagan, 1993). According to Moutinho (2000), motivation is a state of need or a condition that drives an individual toward certain types of action that are seen as likely to bring satisfaction. In psychology and sociology, the definition of motivation is directed toward emotional and cognitive motives (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977) or internal and external motives (Gnoth, 1997). An internal motive is associated with drives, feelings, and instincts. An external motive involves mental representations such as knowledge or beliefs. In most cases, previous research only focused on a single construct of motivations (Gnoth, 1997; McCabe, 2000), but the motivation concept can be classified into two forces, which indicate they are pushed and pulled by “some forces” or factors (Dann, 1977; 1981). Push and pull. Push and pull forces were initially identified by Crompton (1979) using unstructured in-depth interviews of 39 adult residents. According to Crompton (1979), push motivational force is defined as “the desire to travel”, while pull motivational force is viewed as “the choice of destination”. It is important, however, to note that the two sets of factors or forces are not independent even if they seem to be conceptually distinguished from each other. In other words, people are first pushed by internal or intangible needs such as their personal escape, psychological or physical health, thrill and adventure, and social interactions (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996). They are then pulled by external or tangible resources such as natural or artificial attractions that destinations possess. Since Crompton’s initial empirical effort, many studies have attempted to find push and pull motivational factors in different settings such as nationalities (Yuan & McDonald, 1990; Cha, McCleary, & Uysal, 1995; Zhang & Lam, 1999), destinations (Jang & Cai, 2002), and events (Nicholson & Pearce, 2001; C. Lee, Y. Lee, & Wicks, 2004). Push factors have been conceptualized as motivational factors or needs that arise due to a disequilibrium or tension in the motivational system. That is, as factors which motivate the subject or create a desire to go out.

TAIWAN SENIORS’ MOTIVATION TO CONSUME FOOD-AWAY-FROM-HOME 25

In other words, these forces describe how individuals are pushed by motivational variables into making a decision. For example, the common push factors found were “escape from everyday environment”, “enhancement of kinship relationships”, “social interaction”, and “prestige” (Dann, 1977; 1981; Crompton, 1979; Iso-Ahola, 1982; 1989; Pearce & Caltabiano, 1983; Pyo, Mihalik, & Uysal, 1989; Yuan & McDonald, 1990; Uysal & Hagan, 1993). Pull factors, in contrast to push factors, have been conceptualized as relating to the features, whose value is seen to reside in the object (external or tangible factors). In other words, how they are pulled or attracted by the area. Pull factors for consumers are also the marketing stimuli provided by the procedures, including advertising, brands, symbols, television, and life style magazines (Goossens, 2000). For example, the pull factors found were social opportunities and attractions, natural and cultural amenities, infrastructure foods, friendly people, and entertainment (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991); heritage/culture, comfort-relaxation, outdoor resources and inexpensive (Turnbull & Uysal, 1995). Push motivation (internal forces) and the pull motivation (external forces) have an effect on behavioral intention (Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Tso, Yau, and Cheung’s (2010) study also found that push motivation positively influences behavioral intention and behavior, while pull motivation negatively influences behavior. Thus, the hypotheses were proposed as follows: H1: Push motivation on consumption of FAFH has a significant influence on intention. H2: Pull motivation on consumption of FAFH has a significant influence on intention. Intention and behavior. Behavioral intention can be defined as the degree to which a person has formulated conscious plans to perform or not perform some specified future behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980); and the immediate determinant of behavior, and when an appropriate measure of intention is obtained, it will provide the most accurate prediction of behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). According to the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), behavioral intention is the motivational component of a volitional behavior and is highly correlated with the behavior itself (Jang & Feng, 2007). Behavior is the manifest, observable response in a given situation with respect to a given target. In the theory of planned behavior (TPB), behavior is a function of compatible intentions (Ajzen, 1991). The underlying psychological assumption driving the linkage between intentions and behavior is that most human behavior is under volitional control (Ryan, 1970). The theory contends behavior is most proximally predicted by behavioral intention, if the person has control over performing it. The TPB assumes that behavioral intentions capture the motivational influences on behavior. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) suggested that the proximal cause of behavior is the intention to perform the behavior. Intention is thus seen as the most proximal predictor of behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Driver, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Thus, the hypothesis was proposed as follows: H3: Behavioral intention on consumption of FAFH has a significant influence on behavior.

Methods Sample The elderly population is defined in this study as those persons aged above 55, as defined by the Ministry of the Interior in Taiwan (Government Information Office, 2010). Shoemaker (1989) and Waldrop (1989) indicated that consumers aged 55 and over represent one of the fastest growing segments of the population. Not all researchers define seniors in the same way. Some consider 55 years old or older as a senior group (Fleischer & Pizam, 2002; Hong, Kim, & Lee, 1999), whereas others see those 65 years old or older as seniors

26 TAIWAN SENIORS’ MOTIVATION TO CONSUME FOOD-AWAY-FROM-HOME

(Abdel-Ghany & Sharpe, 1997). The convenience samples were the community dwelling elderly living in Taichung. A minimum of 200 completed surveys will be expected. Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006) stated that a minimum of 200 study samples should provide a sound basis for running structural equation modeling (SEM). Questionnaire Development Questionnaire development was based on the input of an extensive literature review on the topic of theories and research regarding elderly consumers. The survey consists of questions assessing: (1) factors of push-pull, intention, and behavior; and (2) demographic information. The first section is based on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”): Push was assessed with five items: convenience, companionship/socializing, senior citizen discounts, seeking variety, and do not want to cook (Sun, 2008; Knutson & Patton, 1993; Moschis et al., 2003). Pull was assessed with five items: inexpensive cost, restaurant’s cleanliness and hygiene, facilities, accessibility/location, and environment (Crompton, 1979; Jang & Wu, 2006; Sun & Morrison, 2007). Intention was assessed with four items: (1) I intend to buy FAFH; (2) In the future, I will buy FAFH if I choose to do so; (3) If FAFH were available, nothing would prevent me from buying it; and (4) I strongly consider buying FAFH (Ajzen, 2006; Zabkar, Brencic, & Dmitrovic, 2010). Behavior was assessed with four items: (1) These past few months I often buy FAFH; (2) I like eating FAFH; (3) I will recommend purchasing FAFH to my friends; and (4) I would eat FAFH for my meals at least two times a day (Ajzen, 2006). The second section gathered respondents’ demographic information, such as gender, age, education, marital status, residence, FAFH expenditure, number of times eating FAFH, and household income. Data Collection The director of seniors’ organization has been actively cultivating the field of senior citizen welfare. The foundation has established volunteer stations throughout Taiwan. Currently, there are 46 stations island-wide, spanning 14 countries and cities, with a total of 1,514 volunteers. The director provided a suggestion on how to collect senior’s data and a list of senior organizations in Taichung that the seniors would attend. The facilities managers were contacted to ascertain their willingness to participate. Once they agreed, a visit was scheduled for data collection, and there would be some people who could assist with distributing the questionnaire or assist an elderly that needs help for understanding the questionnaire. The expert panel was selected to review the content validity of the questionnaire. The panelist consisted of a director who has a knowledge concerning elderly, hospitality professional, and two dieticians. Each panel member received and reviewed the questionnaire by answering the listed questions that would help to evaluate if the wording, space and letter size of each item, suitability of the scale, clarity of instruction, and overall design of questionnaire were clear enough for senior citizens to answer. The initial instrument was then pretested with a pilot sample (n = 50) within the population of interest and refined with respect to clarity, formatting, and constructs’ validity before distributing the actual survey. A pilot test of 25 samples was conducted in a restaurant in Taichung organized by the Hondao Senior Citizen’s Welfare Foundation. The other half was in Taipei, a small village near Shilin district, a total of 50 completed surveys received in a span of January to the first week of February 2011. Participants were asked to review and complete the questionnaire. The pilot test was able to evaluate the reliability of the instrument and to increase the content validity of each question. The internal consistency of the instrument was measured using

TAIWAN SENIORS’ MOTIVATION TO CONSUME FOOD-AWAY-FROM-HOME 27

Cronbach’s alpha. The Cronbach’s alpha scores were expected to be higher than the recommended 0.70 suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). Except for the construct of push, other constructs (pull, intention, and behavior) achieved the minimum Cronbach’s alpha score (α ≥ 0.70). The low internal consistency between each push measurement item might result from confusion with reverse question wording. In order to improve the reliability rate of the push construct, the reverse question wording was rephrased and three questions were eliminated. Comments from the expert panel and SPSS analysis of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to modify the instrument to increase both clarity and content validity. Researchers contacted the seniors’ organization directors to explain the purpose of the study. The director provided useful suggestions and data collection sites, recommending effective strategies to gather input from seniors. Before distributing the questionnaires, approval was received from managers and group leaders of each site, and detailed information about further arrangements was determined. Data included in the analysis should meet the following criteria: (1) the age of respondent (over 55 years old); (2) FAFH frequency; and (3) each survey with not more than half missing answers. Survey was excluded if responses did not satisfy any of the criteria mentioned above. Data collection at all 14 sites yielded 265 usable samples. Data Analysis The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Windows Version 17.0 (SPSS 17.0), was used to analyze the quantitative data. The types of procedures used to analyze the data were descriptive statistics for simple frequencies on the socio-demographic characteristics and push, pull, intention, and behavior; CFA, and Cronbach’s α for the validity and reliability of each construct in the model. Construct validity refers to whether all of the items for the variables represent one single construct. Construct validity was established by checking the result of the CFA. Reliability refers to the degree of stability of the scale (Jackson, Chow, & Leitch, 1997). Reliability of the construct is demonstrated by checking the Cronbach’s α for the items for each construct and the correlation among the items for the construct. Typically, a scale is said to be reliable if alpha is 0.70 or higher (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Finally, the model was estimated using the software Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS 17.0) (Arbuckle, 2008) to determine the theoretical relationship among constructs. The overall fit of the proposed model was assessed using the goodness-of-fit indices as recommended by Byrne (2001) and Hair et al. (2006). The goodness-of-fit indices used in this study include Chi-square statistics, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fix index (CFI), and normed fix index (NFI). Results Descriptive Statistics A total of 291 questionnaires were collected. Twelve questionnaires were eliminated from the analysis because the questionnaires were not completed. An additional 14 questionnaires were eliminated because the respondents did not carefully read the questions and just marked the same rating on consecutive questions, for example, all the questions have been marked the same rating as “strongly disagree”. A total of 265 usable questionnaires were obtained. Among the total 265 usable samples, 72 (27.2%) were males and 193 (72.8%) were females. Forty-eight percent of participants were between 55 and 64 with a mean age of 59 years. Table 1 provides the demographic characteristics of the sample population. Approximately, 52% of the participants were 65 or older. Most participants (24.9%) had an elementary education, 37.3% had a middle or high school education, 18.1% had an associate degree, 12.9% had a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 6.8% were illiterate. In addition, 75.1% of the respondents were married and 20.4% were widowed. Almost half of the participants

28 TAIWAN SENIORS’ MOTIVATION TO CONSUME FOOD-AWAY-FROM-HOME

(45.7%) lived with their spouse, 40.0% lived with their child/children, 10.9% lived alone, and only a few (3.4%) lived with their relatives or friends. The majority (58.5%) spend FAFH per day expenditure of less than NT$100. On the other hand, 60.8% of the respondents eat FAFH 1-2 times per week, and 17.4% eat one time per day. The respondents (41.1%) had a total household income of less than NT$10,000 (the results were based on 260 respondents’ answers). Five participants did not answer the question.

Table 1 Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics Characteristic Frequency Percentage (%) Male 72 27.2 Gender (N = 265) Female 193 72.8 55-64 127 47.9 65-74 88 33.2 Age (N = 265) 75-84 43 16.2 85 up 7 2.7 Illiterate 18 6.8 Elementary 66 24.9 Middle school 47 17.7 Education (N = 265) High school graduate 52 19.6 Associate degree 48 18.1 Bachelor’s degree 28 10.6 Master’s degree or higher 6 2.3 Single 11 4.2 Married 199 75.1 Marital status (N = 265) Widowed 54 20.4 Divorced 1 0.3 Living alone 29 10.9 Living with spouse 121 45.7 Residence (N = 265) Living with relatives 7 2.6 Living with friends 2 0.8 Living with your child/children 106 40.0 NT$50-NT$99 155 58.5 NT$100-NT$199 69 26.0 FAFH per day expenditure NT$200-NT$299 25 9.4 (N = 265) NT$300-NT$399 6 2.3 NT$400-NT$499 2 0.8 NT$500 up 8 3.0 1 time per day 46 17.4 2 times per day 21 7.9 How often do you eat FAFH 3 times per day 8 3.0 (N = 265) 1-3 times per day 5 1.9 1-2 times per week 161 60.8 3-4 times per week 24 9.0 NT$10,000 or less 109 41.1 NT$11,000-NT$19,999 57 21.5 Coming from all sources, what NT$20,000-NT$29,999 41 15.5 was your total household NT$30,000-NT$39,999 24 9.1 income (N = 260) NT$40,000 or more 29 10.9 Missing data 5 1.9

TAIWAN SENIORS’ MOTIVATION TO CONSUME FOOD-AWAY-FROM-HOME 29

Model Evaluation Measurement model. Each of the observable variables was measured by several questions. The items for each variable were checked for construct validity and reliability using SPSS. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy indicated that the 15-item sample was adequate for factor analysis (KMO measure = 0.87) (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). The overall significance of the correlation matrix was 0.000 with a Bartlett test of sphericity value of 1,799.08. This indicated that the data matrix had sufficient correlations for the factor analysis. Construct validity was measured using CFA. Based on Hair et al. (2006), construct validity assessed the set of measurement items that reflected the theoretical latent constructs and designed to accurately measure the corresponding constructs. In other words, construct validity refers to whether all of the items for the observable variable represent one single construct. The construct validity included convergent validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity means that the items that were indicators of a specific construct should share a high proportion of the common variance. Factor loads, average variance extracted (AVE), and construct (composite) reliability value measure convergent validity. AVE was a measure of the overall amount of variance that was attributed to the construct in relation to the amount of variance attributable to measurement error (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In this study, the standardized factor load for each item was all significant at p < 0.001 and AVE was equal to or more than 0.50, as suggested by Hair et al. (2006). The cutoff point of 0.70 for composite reliability value was determined based on the recommendation of Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) and Hair et al. (2006). Table 2 shows the AVE and composite reliability met the recommended guidelines, indicating that the convergent validity for the proposed items and constructs in this study was adequate.

Table 2 Validity and Reliability of Measurements Standardized Composite Cronbach’s Item AVE factor loading reliability alpha Push (N = 3) 0.52 0.75 0.74 Convenience 0.48 Do not want to cook/the person who cooks is not at home 0.77 Smaller size household 0.85 Pull (N = 4) 0.60 0.85 0.79 Restaurant’s cleanliness and hygiene 0.69 Facilities 0.90 Accessibility/location 0.87 Service/environment 0.60 Intention (N = 4) 0.63 0.87 0.86 I intend to buy FAFH 0.77 In the future, I will buy FAFH if I choose to do so 0.82 If FAFH were available, nothing would prevent me from buying it 0.72 I strongly consider buying FAFH 0.85 Behavior (N = 4) 0.51 0.81 0.82 This last month, I often buy FAFH 0.74 I like eating FAFH 0.79 I will recommend purchasing FAFH to my friends 0.64 I would eat FAFH at least two meals a day 0.69

30 TAIWAN SENIORS’ MOTIVATION TO CONSUME FOOD-AWAY-FROM-HOME

Taking into account the minimum standard for AVE, three factors were eliminated: one from push and the other two from pull. The items eliminated were “seeking variety”, “cost”, and “delicious food”. The reason for eliminating seeking variety, cost, and delicious food was based on the factor load. The lowest factor load was eliminated and also cost based on the frequency “How often do you eat FAFH”, the majority was 1-2 per week so the respondents would not think more about the cost than those who ate FAFH 1 meal per day. Also for delicious food other than the reason based on lowest factor load was that it was a suggestion by an expert panel and it might be personal and did not come from other research. As a result, an integrated scale of 15 items emerged. The internal consistency or reliability of each resulting factor was assessed using Cronbach’s coefficient of alpha with acceptable reliability estimate set at 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978), and the correlation among the items for the construct. The alpha coefficients for the four factors were 0.74, 0.79, 0.86, and 0.82, respectively. Table 2 also shows the reliability indices for each variable. In Table 3, it appears that AVE of each construct was higher than its corresponding square correlation with other constructs. Discriminant validity appears satisfactory at the construct level in the case of all constructs.

Table 3 Discriminant Validity of the Measurement Model Correlation among latent constructs (squared)** Construct No. of items AVE Push Pull Intention Behavior Push 3 0.52 1.00 Pull 4 0.60 0.31 (0.10) 1.00 Intention 4 0.63 0.43 (0.18) 0.43 (0.18) 1.00 Behavior 4 0.51 0.38 (0.14) 0.36 (0.13) 0.69 (0.48) 1.00 Mean - - 3.44 3.46 3.06 2.63 SD - - 0.88 0.75 0.80 0.81 Notes. **: All correlation coefficients are significant at the 0.01 level. Squared correlation among latent constructs is shown in parenthesis.

Structure model. The structural model was tested using AMOS 17.0. At first, the proposed model was evaluated and showed poor model fit. In order to improve the model fit, the correlation between each independent variable (push motivation and pull motivation) was added. The revised model had improved fit and resulted in close to or higher than common suggested levels (Byrne, 2001). Thus, the responses fit the revised model. Figure 1 reveals the SEM results. Hypothesis tests were checked using the standardized path coefficient retrieved from the results of SEM. As illustrated in Table 4, t-values were significant at p < 0.01 and show that all hypotheses (H1-H3) were statistically supported. Klenosky (2002) suggested that push and pull factors should not be viewed as being entirely independent of each other but rather as being fundamentally related to each other.

Push Motivation 0.43 (5.84)* 0.82 (9.84)* 0.39 Intention Behavior

Pull Motivation 0.25 (3.91)*

Figure 1. Theoretical model results. Note. *: p < 0.01.

TAIWAN SENIORS’ MOTIVATION TO CONSUME FOOD-AWAY-FROM-HOME 31

Discussion A population of continuing interest and importance to marketing and restaurant managers is that of mature consumers (Koteff, 2002; Moschis et al., 2003; Ostroff, 2002). Surprisingly, given the great potential of the mature segment, the restaurant industry on the whole has been slow to react and adopt specific strategies to serve this market. The results presented in this article suggest several important considerations for restaurant managers and researchers alike. Firstly, the logical approach to the retiree market begins with basic communication. Words such as “senior” or “elderly” should be banned from the vocabulary of those who wish to communicate directly with the “mature consumer”, who does not necessarily think of himself as being old (Welch, 1995). Lastly, it is print communication design for the senior segment, which could include menus and promotional materials. Small type sizes should be avoided. Sentences and paragraphs should be short and crisp, as the older reader takes longer to digest information (World Tourism Organization, 1997). When it comes to the “old” or “senior” population, the criteria for this population may vary depending on the literature. It is usual to denote people aged 65 years old or older as being part of an older population (Peterson, 2001). However, the specific ages of older consumers were not consistent in literature reviews, such as those 55 years old (Hong et al., 1999; Moschis, 2003).

Table 4 Hypothesis Results Standardized Hypothesis Path t-value p Result parameter estimate H1 Push→Intention 0.43 5.84 0.000 Supported H2 Pull→Intention 0.25 3.91 0.000 Supported H3 Intention→Behavior 0.82 9.84 0.000 Supported

This study intent is to identify senior’s consumption of FAFH applying the extended theory of push and pull. In the current study, approximately 73% of participants were female. However, the population was 55 years old or older, married, lived with their spouse, had an elementary education level, spent NT$50 on FAFH per day, had eaten FAFH at least 1-2 times per week, and had an income of NT$10,000 or less. Some of the respondents are a bit conservative, that is the reason why the highest percentage is less than NT$10,000. The reason for the highest percentage in less than NT$10,000 could also be that those with an average household income of less than or equal to 1.5 times the minimum monthly expenses are eligible for a monthly pension of approximately NT$6,000, while those with an average household income between 1.5 and 2.5 times the minimum expense are eligible for a monthly pension of approximately NT$3,000 (Government Information Office, 2010). This amount (government allowance) on average covers approximately one-third of the monthly individual consumption of older people. Family members support another one-third, and the rest is financed through savings, earnings, and asset incomes (Lai, 2006; Mason, Lee, Tung, Lai, & Miller, 2008). The data analyses uncovered many striking results that warrant further discussion. First, the extended push and pull theory is applicable in foodservice, that is, the push variables were: convenience, do not want to cook/the person who cooks is not at home, and smaller size household. These results support previous research findings that convenience (Reynolds et al., 1998; Knutson & Patton, 1993) and do not want to cook (Sun, 2008) motivate senior’s consumption of FAFH. Although the factor loading for convenience was a bit low, the difference from Knutson and Patton (1993) indicated that convenience was the primary reason the older diners eat out in a restaurant, because most of the elderly indicated that they do not want to spend all of their time in the kitchen. However, this study did not follow the same results as previous researches and found most of the elderly still enjoyed cooking.

32 TAIWAN SENIORS’ MOTIVATION TO CONSUME FOOD-AWAY-FROM-HOME

Pull variables were restaurant’s cleanliness and hygiene, facilities, accessibility/location, and service/environment. These results also support previous research findings suggesting that physical aspects of the restaurants were important considerations for the older segment. Regardless of restaurant type, older diners reported that inattentive servers led to dissatisfying dining experiences (Lahue, 2000). In addition, older diners also reported that they had problems with servers who did not know their products (Seo, Wildes, & DeMicco, 2001). In previous research study, the top criteria selected by approximately 70% of older consumers were the quality of food and cleanliness (Yamanaka et al., 2003). Moschis et al. (2003) found that the top reason for older consumers to choose FAFH was proximity to respondents’ homes or workplaces. Lastly, push and pull integration with TPB provides a solid theoretical basis for examining senior consumption of FAFH. The effects of various motivations for consumption of FAFH, such as the push and pull motivations, intention, and behaviors, were examined in the combined context of the “push” and “pull” theories (Crompton, 1979), as well as the TPB (Ajzen, 1991). The SEM results provide general support for the hypothesized relations between push and pull motivation, intention, and behaviors. It is found that the push and pull variables significantly influence behavioral intention. Meanwhile, push motivation was found to be the strongest predictor of intention among the antecedents. That is, convenience, do not want to cook/the person who cooks is not at home, and smaller size household are more likely to “push” individuals to consume FAFH. Thus, it appears that push motivation is the strongest predictor of intention and behavior. This study partly supports Tso et al. (2010) study that push motivation positively influences behavioral intention and behavior, while pull motivation negatively influences behavior. However, these findings are contrary to the results of Yoon and Uysal (2005). In their studies, it was found that both the push motivation (internal forces) and the pull motivation (external forces) have an indirect effect on behavioral intention. Apparently, more research is needed to determine the effect of various motivations on the consumption of FAFH. Intention is thus seen as the most proximal predictor of behavior. This result has been extensively and successfully proven (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Driver, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).

Conclusions The results of this study establish the existence of several motivating factors that affect consumption of FAFH. The study suggests that the theory of push and pull is a good model for predicting seniors’ consumption of FAFH. The relationships among push and pull variables, intention, and behavior are all significant and positively related. Push had the most significant relationship with intention and behavior. Limitations Although this study provides an insight into the motives for consuming FAFH, there are still limitations in this study that are noteworthy. Firstly, it appears that further investigation of mature consumers’ is demanded, given the rapid growth of this population. It has been demonstrated that eating habits and preferences are clearly different not only from one generation to the next, but also different within the mature market itself. Secondly, this study used a convenience sample and was conducted in the city of Taichung, so the findings may not generalize or totally applicable to the entire mature solitary population in Taiwan. Thirdly, other attributes such as the residence area, size of the city, and social structure could lead to different results. Future research should include samples from a larger geographic area to test the hypothesis.

TAIWAN SENIORS’ MOTIVATION TO CONSUME FOOD-AWAY-FROM-HOME 33

Recommendations This study enriched the current knowledge about consuming FAFH by applying the push and pull theoretical model. It further discovered the effects of various manifestations of motivations on seniors’ consumption of FAFH. The key factors that influence elderly consumers in consuming FAFH should be given careful consideration by restaurateurs, for example: convenience, facilities, restaurant’s cleanliness and hygiene, and accessibility when eating FAFH. Home delivery and take-out are two added service options that may appeal to these groups. The socializing aspects of dining should also not be overlooked. Providing activity programs for seniors in restaurants in off-peak evenings might be popular with them by creating a new social outlet and a way to make new friends. Restaurant managers/restaurateurs targeting this segment should implement the necessary measures to make the consumption of FAFH more convenient for senior consumers and should also provide menu items different from homemade dishes to attract them. Restaurants with a substantial senior market should try to improve their service quality, dining environments, and discounts or early bird specials that can attract seniors to their facilities. In addition, kitchen managers should ensure that food handlers repeatedly practice safe food preparation at the food service work site. A good method for ensuring food safety is to implement the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system into the food service work site.

References Abdel-Ghany, M., & Sharpe, D. L. (1997). Consumption patterns among the young-old and old-old. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31(1), 90-112. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire. Retrieved from http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1991). Prediction of leisure participation from behavioral, normative, and control beliefs: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13(3), 185-204. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.. Arbuckle, J. L. (2008). AMOS 17.0 user’s guide. Chicago, USA: Amos Development Corporation. Baloglu, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). Market segments of push and pull motivations: A canonical correlation approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(3), 32-38. Beerli, A., & Martín, J. D. (2004). Tourists’ characteristics and the perceived image of tourist destinations: A quantitative analysis — A case study of Lanzarote, Spain. Tourism Management, 25(5), 623-636. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Casper, C. (1997). Some place like home. Restaurant Business, 96(15), 63-74. Cha, S., McCleary, K. W., & Uysal, M. (1995). Travel motivations of Japanese overseas travelers: A factor-cluster segmentation approach. Journal of Travel Research, 34(1), 33-39. Cheang, M. (2002). Older adults’ frequent visits to a fast-food restaurant: Nonobligatory social interaction and the significance of play in a “third place”. Journal of Aging Studies, 16(3), 303-321. Clauson, A. (2012). Economic research service. Food expenditure tables. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-expenditures.aspx Costa, A. I. A., Dekker, M., Beumer, R. R., Rombouts, F. M., & Jongen, W. M. F. (2001). A consumer-oriented classification system for home meal replacements. Food Quality and Preference, 12(4), 229-242.

34 TAIWAN SENIORS’ MOTIVATION TO CONSUME FOOD-AWAY-FROM-HOME

Creed, P. G. (1998). A study of the sensory characteristics of food produced by the Sous vide system: The measure of pleasure (Ph.D. thesis, Bournemouth University). Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 408-424. Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4(4), 184-194. Dann, G. M. S. (1981). Tourist motivation an appraisal. Annals of tourism research, 8(2), 187-219. Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences between prospective, first time, and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30, 10-16. Falk, L. W., Bisogni, C. A., & Sobal, J. (1996). Food choice processes of older adults: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Nutrition Education, 28(5), 257-265. Finkelstein, J. (1989). Dining out: A sociology of modern manners. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fleischer, A., & Pizam, A. (2002). Tourism constraints among Israeli seniors. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 106-123. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388. Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 283-304. Goossens, C. (2000). Tourism information and pleasure motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 301-321. Government Information Office. (2010). Society & environmental protection. Retrieved from http://www.taiwan.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=27604&ctNode=1926&mp=1001 Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc.. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hong, G. S., Kim, S. Y., & Lee, J. (1999). Travel expenditure patterns of elderly households in the US. Tourism Recreation Research, 24(1), 43-52. Hughes, G., Bennett, K. M., & Hetherington, M. M. (2004). Old and alone: Barriers to healthy eating in older men living on their own. Appetite, 43(3), 269-276. Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: A rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2), 256-262. Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1989). Motivation for leisure. In E. L. Jackson, & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Understanding leisure and recreation: Mapping the past charting the future (pp. 247-279). State College: R. A. Venture Publishing. Jackson, C. M., Chow, S., & Leitch, R. A. (1997). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use an information system. Decision Sciences, 28(2), 357-389. Jang, S., & Cai, L. (2002). Travel motivations and destination choice: A study of British outbound market. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 13(3), 111-133. Jang, S., & Feng, R. (2007). Temporal destination revisit intention: The effects of novelty seeking and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 28(2), 580-590. Jang, S., & Wu, C. (2006). Seniors’ travel motivation and the influential factors: An examination of Taiwanese seniors. Tourism Management, 27(2), 306-316. Klenosky, D. B. (2002). The “pull” of tourism destinations: A means-end investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 40(4), 396-403. Knutson, B. J., & Patton, M. E. (1993). Restaurants can find gold among silver hair: Opportunities in the 55+ market. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 1(3), 79-90. Koteff, E. (2002, July 22). Paying more attention to older consumers could turn silver into gold for savvy operators. Nation’s Restaurant News, Vol. 22, p. 29. Lahue, P. (2000). The new mature market. Restaurant Hospitality, 84(1), 51-56. Lai, M. S. (2006). Three essays on intergenerational transfers: Case study on Taiwan (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Hawaii). Lee, C., Lee, Y., & Wicks, B. E. (2004). Segmentation of festival motivation by nationality and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 25(1), 61-70.

TAIWAN SENIORS’ MOTIVATION TO CONSUME FOOD-AWAY-FROM-HOME 35

Lee, H. Y., Chung, L., & Yang, I. S. (2005). Conceptualizing and prospecting for home meal replacement (HMR) in Korea by Delphi technique. Korean Journal of Nutrition, 38(3), 251-258. Lin, B. H., Guthrie, J., & Frazão, E. (1999a). Nutrient contribution of food away from home. In E. Frazão (Ed.), America’s eating habits: Changes and consequences (pp. 213-242). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economics Division; undated. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 750, USDA/ERS. Lin, B. H., Guthrie, J., & Frazão, E. (1999b). Away-from-home foods increasingly important to quality of American diet. Economic Research Service/USDA, pp. 1-26. Lipke, D. J. (2000). Pledge of allegiance. American Demographics, 22(11), 40-42. Marvel, M. (1999). Competing in hotel services for seniors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(3), 235-243. Mason, A., Lee, R., Tung, A. C., Lai, M. S., & Miller, T. (2008). Population aging and intergenerational transfers: Introducing age into national transfer account. In W. David (Ed.), Development in the population of aging. NBER & University of Chicago Press. McCabe, A. S. (2000). Tourism motivation process. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4), 1049-1052. Moschis, G. P. (1999). Marketing to older consumers: A handbook of information for strategy development. Center for Mature Consumer Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. Moschis, G. P. (2003). Marketing to older adults: An updated overview of present knowledge and practice. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(6), 516-525. Moschis, G., Curasi, C. F., & Bellenger, D. (2003). Restaurant-selection preferences of mature consumers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 51-60. Moutinho, L. (2000). Strategic management in tourism. New York, NY: CABI Publishing. Nicholson, R. E., & Pearce, D. G. (2001). Why do people attend events: A comparative analysis of visitor motivations at four south island events. Journal of Travel Research, 39(4), 449-460. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ostroff, J. (2002). Over 60 and overlooked. The Economist (U.S. edition). Pearce, P. L. (1982). The social psychology of tourist behavior. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Pearce, P. L., & Caltabiano, M. L. (1983). Inferring travel motivation from travelers’ experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 22(2), 16-20. Pederson, E. B., & DeMicco, F. J. (1993). Restaurant dining strategies: Attracting nutrition-conscious future seniors. Florida International University Hospitality Review, 11(2), 7-17. Peterson, P. G. (2001). A graying world: The dangers of global aging. Harvard International Review, 23(3), 66-70. Pyo, S., Mihalik, B. J., & Uysal, M. (1989). Attraction attributes and motivations: A canonical correlation analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(2), 277-282. Reynolds, J. S., Kennon, L. R., & Kniatt, N. L. (1998). From the golden arches to the golden pond: Fast food and older adults. Marriage & Family Review, 28(1-2), 213-224. Ryan, T. A. (1970). Intentional behavior: An approach to human motivation. New York, NY: Ronald Press. Schewe, C. (1985). Grey America goes to market. Business, 35(2), 3-9. Seo, W., Wildes, V. J., & DeMicco, F. J. (2001). Understanding mature customers in the restaurant business: Inferences from a nationwide survey. Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing, 4(3), 81-98. Shoemaker, S. (1989). Segmentation of the senior pleasure travel market. Journal of Travel Research, 27(3), 14-21. Staff. (1997). 1998 Restaurant industry forecast: Catering to special groups yields loyalty: Kid friendly service: Serving seniors. Restaurant USA, 17, 11 F13. Stevens, P. (2002). I see some business opportunities looming. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 9(1-2), 165-171. Sun, Y. H. C. (2008). Dining-in or dining-out: Influences on choice among an elderly population. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 11(2), 220-236. Sun, Y. H. C., & Morrison, A. M. (2007). Senior citizens and their dining-out traits: Implications for restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(2), 376-394. Taiwan Council for Economic Planning and Development. (2012). Population projection for R.O.C. Retrieved from http://www.cepd.gov.tw/encontent/m1.aspx?sNo=0001457 Tso, G. K. F., Yau, K. K. W., & Cheung, M. S. M. (2010). Latent constructs determining internet job search behaviors: Motivation, opportunity and job change intention. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 122-131.

36 TAIWAN SENIORS’ MOTIVATION TO CONSUME FOOD-AWAY-FROM-HOME

Turnbull, D. R., & Uysal, M. (1995). An exploratory study of German visitors to the Caribbean: Push and pull motivations. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 4(2), 85-92. Uncles, M., & Ehrenberg, S. (1990). Brand choice among older consumers. Journal of Advertising Research, 30(4), 19-22. United Nations. (2009). World population aging 2009. Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division, pp. 1-82. United Nations. (2012). Wall chart on population ageing and development 2012. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2012PopAgeingDev_Chart/2012AgeingWallchart.html Uysal, M., & Hagan, L. R. (1993). Motivation of pleasure to travel and tourism. In M. A. Khan, M. D. Olsen, & T. Var (Eds.), VNR’s encyclopedia of hospitality and tourism (pp. 798-810). New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Waldrop, J. (1989). America’s households. American Demographics, 20-27. Welch, D. S. (1995). Your call to action now! Research Information Center, AARP, Washington, DC. Williams, J. A., DeMicco, F. J., & Kotschevar, L. (1998). The challenges that face restaurants in attracting and meeting the needs of the mature customer. Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing, 2(4), 49-64. World Tourism Organization. (1997). Second International Conference on Senior Tourism, Madrid. Yamanaka, K., Almanza, B. A., Nelson, D. C., & DeVaney, S. A. (2003). Older Americans’ dining out preferences. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 6(1), 87-103. Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45-56. Yuan, S., & McDonald, C. (1990). Motivational determinates of international pleasure time. Journal of Travel Research, 29(1), 42-44. Zabkar, V., Brencic, M. M., & Dmitrovic, T. (2010). Modelling perceived quality, visitor satisfaction and behavioural intentions at the destination level. Tourism Management, 31(4), 537-546. Zhang, H. Q., & Lam, T. (1999). An analysis of Mainland Chinese visitors’ motivations to visit Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 20(5), 587-594.