Tables and Stools for Flexible Seating Arrangements

Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Creative Components Dissertations

Spring 2020

Solo Seating Design: Tables and Stools for Flexible Seating Arrangements

Carl Swenson

Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/creativecomponents

Part of the Interior Architecture Commons

Recommended Citation Swenson, Carl, "Solo Seating Design: Tables and Stools for Flexible Seating Arrangements" (2020). Creative Components. 556. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/creativecomponents/556

This Creative Component is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Creative Components by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Solo Seating Design: Tables and Stools for Flexible Seating Arrangements

Carl Harold Swenson

A Creative Component Thesis submitted to the graduate faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Major: Interior Design

Program of Study Committee: Yongyeon Cho, Major Professor Lee Cagley Paul Shao

The student author, whose presentation of the scholarship herein was approved by the program of study committee, is solely responsible for the content of this creative component thesis. The Graduate College will ensure this creative component thesis is globally accessible and will not permit alterations after a degree is conferred.

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa

2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES ...... iiv

LIST OF FIGURES ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...... vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... vii

ABSTRACT ...... viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 9 Statement of problem ...... 9 Purpose of the research ...... 10 Research questions ...... 11 Significance of research ...... 11

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 12 Fine restaurant design - requirements ...... 12 Fine restaurant design - culture ...... 14 Single person visitor - perception and psychology ...... 15 Solo Dining, Space, and Distance ...... 15 Gender and Solo Dining in Upper-Class Restaurants ...... 17 Solo Dining and Technology ...... 17 Solo Dining and Healthy Eating ...... 19 Conclusion ...... 20

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ...... 21 Quantitative research - Online survey ...... 21 Quantitative research - Case studies ...... 21 Conclusion ...... 22

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS ...... 23 Quantitative research - Online survey ...... 23 Quantitative research - Case studies ...... 33 Conclusion ...... 39

CHAPTER 5. CREATIVE COMPONENTS ...... 40 iii

Process work and images ...... 40 Final furniture images and layouts ...... 52

CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 57 Summary of the research ...... 57 Limitation of the research ...... 57 Future research ...... 58

REFERENCES ...... 59

APPENDIX A. IRB CERTIFICATE ...... 61

APPENDIX B. IRB APPROVAL FORM ...... 62

APPENDIX C. INFORMATION CONSENT FORM ...... 64

APPENDIX D. ONLINE SURVEY ...... 68

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 4.1. Students consider themselves “Somewhere in-between” ...... 23

Figure 4.2. Majority of the students are very young ...... 24

Figure 4.3. Gender is equal male and female ...... 24

Figure 4.4. Ethnic group is mostly white ...... 25

Figure 4.5 Engineering and Liberal Arts and Sciences college’s prevail! ...... 26

Figure 4.6 Fast food and casual restaurants are most visited ...... 27

Figure 4.7 Students do not dine-out a lot on their own ...... 28

Figure 4.8 Majority of students like 20 – 40 minutes to enjoy their meal ...... 29

Figure 4.9 Café seating preference ...... 30

Figure 4.10 Fast food seating preference ...... 30

Figure 4.11 Casual seating preference ...... 31

Figure 4.12 Fine dining seating preference ...... 31

Figure 4.13 Bar seating preference ...... 32

Figure 5.1 Table top model ...... 40

Figure 5.2 Table shapes poster ...... 41

Figure 5.3 Small triangle table and stoolw ...... 42

Figure 5.4 Large triangle table and stool...... 42

Figure 5.5 Half round table and stool ...... 43

Figure 5.6 Quarter round table and stool ...... 43

Figure 5.7 Rectangle table and stool ...... 44

Figure 5.8 Yin-Yang table and stool ...... 44

Figure 5.9 (2) Yin-Yang tables and (2) stools ...... 45 v

Figure 5.10 (2) Triangle tables and (2) stools ...... 45

Figure 5.11 (2) Half round tables and (2) stools ...... 46

Figure 5.12 (2) Quarter round tables and (2) stools ...... 46

Figure 5.13 (4) Quarter round tables and (4) stools ...... 47

Figure 5.14 (4) Quarter round tables and (4) stools ...... 47

Figure 5.15 (2) rectangle tables and (2) stools ...... 48

Figure 5.16 (2) rectangle tables and (2) stools ...... 48

Figure 5.17 (4) Rectangle tables and (4) stools ...... 49

Figure 5.18 (4) Rectangle tables and (4) stools ...... 49

Figure 5.19 Model ...... 50

Figure 5.20 Model ...... 50

Figure 5.21 Model ...... 51

Figure 5.22 Model ...... 51

Figure 5.23 Model with seating arrangements ...... 52

Figure 5.24 Model with seating arrangements ...... 52

Figure 5.25 Model with seating arrangements ...... 53

Figure 5.26 Model with seating arrangements ...... 53

Figure 5.27 Model with seating arrangements ...... 54

Figure 5.28 Model with seating arrangements ...... 54

Figure 5.29 Model with seating arrangements ...... 55

Figure 5.30 Model with seating arrangements ...... 55

Figure 5.31 Model with seating arrangements ...... 56

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1. Guidelines on tabletop sizes ...... 13

Table 4.1. Somewhere in-between ...... 23

Table 4.2. Age ...... 24

Table 4.3. Ethnicity ...... 25

Table 4.4. College ...... 26

Table 4.5. Restaurant types most familiar with ...... 27

Table 4.6. Dine-out on your own? ...... 28

Table 4.7. How long did you stay at the restaurant of your first choice? ...... 29

Table 4.8. Restaurants seating analysis in a campus town ...... 33

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my major professor, Yongyeon Cho and my committee members,

Lee Cagley and Paul Shao, for their guidance and support throughout the course of this creative

component thesis.

In addition, I would also like to thank my friends, colleagues, and the department faculty and staff for making my time at Iowa State University a wonderful experience. I also offer my

appreciation to those who were willing to participate in my survey and observations, without

whom, this thesis would not have been possible.

Finally, thanks to my family for their encouragement and to my son, Aaron, for his endless support and love throughout the years.

Thank you.

viii

ABSTRACT

The typical restaurant today does not address the need for single table seating. Restaurant table and seating designs cater to two (2) or more customers. This study reflects the needs and seating preferences of a solo (single) person that is dining alone.

The research with visits to many local restaurants in Ames, Iowa. Photos and comments are documented showing the lack of single seating and examples of restaurants that address the need to provide seating for one person.

An online survey administered to Iowa State University students reflects seating choices shown on five (5) different restaurant-type layouts. The plans reflect a mix of seating choices that include designs and table layouts for one (1), two (2), four (4), and six (6) person table seating. The survey results indicate the percentage of students choosing a table for one (1). The student picks a seat of his/her choice in Café, Fast Food, Casual, Fine Dining, and Bar establishments.

The researcher’s creative component consists of a model built (1” = 1’-0” scale) of a space with tables and stools that the researcher designed for single seating. These geometric table shapes have magnetic edges that will allow the single tables to snap together to create seating for more than one person. This flexible concept may benefit hospitality establishments because no seat will be wasted.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Statement of Problem

Restaurants today are very inefficient in their provision of seating for one (1) person.

Most restaurants do not have a table for one (1). The consequences of this lack of efficient

seating for a single person may be as follows:

The comfort level of a person dining in a busy restaurant may be low due to taking more

seats than needed. Sitting at a table with more seats than one (1) may cause a person to feel

uncomfortable in a busy dining environment when others are still waiting to be seated. Lack of

privacy while sitting at a large table could create stress on the single dinner, and the diner may

experience a loss of feeling cozy and relaxed.

Wasted valuable floor space with unused, rigid seating arrangements cause massive loss

of floor space. Lack of flexibility creates empty seats, and wasted seating causes increased

waiting times for customers who may leave due to long waiting periods. If individuals and

groups continue to experience these waiting periods over time, they may not return at all.

Unoccupied seats due to lack of flexibility in seating arrangements and inefficient seating

plans may result in significant cash loss. One (1) person sitting at a 2-top, 4-top, or 6-top table results in a huge waste of revenue that could be easily obtained by creative and efficient designs that would serve any size group of customers. Lack of flexible seating creates empty seats that could always be filled to benefit the business owners’ financial goals.

Purpose of the Research

The purpose of this study is to analyze the physical cues influencing single pedestrian

diners’ seating selections within interior restaurant spaces. This study focuses on the seating

choice patterns of people dining alone. The online survey was administered to male and female

Iowa State University students over the age of 18 years old who self-reported as having introvert and extrovert personalities. The survey aimed to determine if these students chose a single seat design vs. sitting at a 2-top, 4-top or 6-top table. The five (5) restaurant designs from which students selected a seat offered all types of table selections. The purpose of including areas of single seating table layouts was to determine if people are attracted to this new solo seating concept.

The next phase of this creative component thesis includes a model study created to provide hands on table flexibility. This 1” = 1’ model provides 16 tables and stools that are all solo (single) seats. The tables are designed with magnetic edges that allow the handler to snap together these multi-geometrical shaped tables to create any size table needed.

The purpose of this research and creative component model is to offer a “new design” for the single person diner. The researcher’s long-term goal is to manufacture and supply this product to restaurants that want tables that can be efficiently used, will decrease customer wait time, and that increase profits.

Research Questions

What effect on future hospitality seating design will this research and online survey

results have on my future designs and possibly other restaurant designers?

Will this online survey (results) reflect the patterns and needs of the average solo (single

person) diner? Although this group of participants (63 Iowa State University students) is small,

will this reflect similar patterns of a larger group and not necessarily college students?

Significance of Research

The significance of this research is to acquire as much knowledge as possible about the

current solo (single person) seating designs, what typical restaurants offer today and past times,

and the psychological effects on solo diners in the restaurant environment.

This study will assist in the researcher’s new design options that cater to the solo (single person) diner. The researcher’s creative component concept models will reflect thoughts on how to address the problem of lack of seating flexibility, lack of privacy (psychological issues), and wasted unused seats that are not wanted in any hospitality establishment.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Fine Restaurant Design – Requirements

Seating design and layout is on the top of the list of importance when it comes to diner

experience and satisfaction. The restaurant must have enough seats to make the establishment

profitable. The seats/tables should be comfortable and have ample elbowroom (Fullen, 2003).

The goal in choosing dining room seating is to balance beauty, functionality, and psychological

factors. Seating choices add decorative elements to the room, dictate the traffic/workflow, and

signal diners to the upcoming experience. Fullen (2003) offers the following guidelines for

achieving this goal.

When choosing seating, select chairs/tables that:

• are easy to move, stack and store

• provide plenty of elbowroom

• do not overlook solo diners

• provide plenty of deuces (tables for two) in good locations and communal tables for those

craving some company

• provide chairs that are appropriate height in relationship to the table

• provide chairs and tables that are sturdy and stable that can handle the wear-and-tear of a

busy restaurant.

Selection of tables and chairs must have uniform heights and widths and offer tables sizes for a variety of customer size and people with disabilities.

Table 2.1. Guidelines on tabletop sizes

GUESTS TABLE SIZE

1 – 2 guests (2-top) 24-in. x 30-in. square

3 – 4 guests (4-top) 36-in. x 36-in. square

30-in. x 48-in. rectangle

42-in. round

5-6 guests 2-top and 4-top joined

48-in. or 54-in. round

7-8 guests Joined two 4-tops

2-in. round

Disabled guests: Table: 27-in. H x 30-in. W x 19-in. D

Selecting table guidelines

• Determine whether your tabletops will be visible or covered. There may be savings on

less attractive, yet practical, surfaces if tablecloths hide them.

• Choose light-colored tabletops if using white or pale tablecloths.

• Confirm that tabletop surfaces are waterproof. Sealants or a glass top can be added to less

durable surfaces.

• Look for self-leveling legs/bases to compensate for uneven flooring.

• Think of the tables as decorative opportunities. Make tables complement the

environment.

• Review customer makeup and mix and match tables. Factor in guests with books,

newspapers, and briefcases and solo diners preferring larger tables. 14

Fine Restaurant Design – Culture

The Ancient Art of “Feng Shui” is the Chinese art form dealing with the proper

placement of buildings and the elements within and how they can positively and negatively

affect human behavior and fortunes (Fullen, 2003). Feng Shui can make a restaurant more

inviting and create a pleasant experience for diners who receive positive Qi, which means “life

energy.” Furniture is an integral part of Feng Shui (Fullen, 2003). Some of the principles that relate to interior design are seating, organization, and color. Seating is considered bad when one’s back faces an entryway because enemies could surprise you. Tables should not be near doorways or between access routes to the restrooms, kitchen or back areas. This makes moving around difficult and dampens the dining experience (Fullen, 2003). The design translation:

Sitting with your back to the door or blocking passageways will create an uncomfortable feeling for diners. Organization is essential because clutter causes distress and chaos. Colors also should be used in specific areas of the building to create positive influences, actions, and fortunes.

From traditional coffee house to hamburger joints, informal eateries conceal a fascinating yet little acknowledged archaeology of the present. Often the national identity of a food or environment involves a complex game of transplantation – the ‘hamburger’ or ‘frankfurter’ in the USA, the Viennese café serving ‘Turkish’ coffee and the Tandoori restaurant in Britain all point to different cultures and yet also manage to seem intrinsic to their new home. New foods are introduced, often by immigrants, and a particular stylized environment then evolves, melding aspects of the new and old that packages up a taster of another culture. Stones, J. (2011).

Single Person Visitor – Perception and Psychology

Recent demographic and cultural trends such as the growth in single-person households,

late marriage, divorce, hectic schedules, travel, and increased time spent away from home have

led many Americans to eat meals alone at restaurants (Bae, Slevitch & Thomas, 2018; Jargon,

2014; Muhammad, 2012). Yet, Bae, Slevitch & Thomas (2018) mentioned “solo diners have not

received worthy attention in the hospitality literature despite their importance as a growing

market segment and their wide-ranging influence on food and beverage businesses.”

Solo consumption contributes 1.9 trillion dollars to the US economy annually, yet there is

scant research that focuses on understanding solo consumption experiences (Hwang, Y., Shin, J.,

& Mattila, A. 2018). To fill this gap, several researchers have recently studied spatial distance; the positive and negative sides of being alone; effects of eye contact and distance during meals;

impact of size and spacing of tables on dining experience; gender and solo dining; robotic dining; and the association between dining alone and healthy eating.

Solo Dining, Space, and Distance:

It is well known in the hospitality industry that effective management of restaurant

capacity includes ensuring that dining rooms have appropriate size and type of tables to meet

diners’ demand and expectations (Robinson & Kimes, 2009). In order to maximize seat

utilization in their dining rooms, restaurateurs usually try to sit parties at the right-size table; at

some restaurants, tables are set fairly close together to make the best use of floor space

(Robinson & Kimes, 2009). Robinson and Kimes (2009) conducted a study to determine the 16

importance of restaurant table spacing. They were interested in determining if providing diners

with extra personal space at a New York City restaurant improved their satisfaction, increased their spending, or resulted in longer time spent at their table. One finding revealed that diners at closely spaced tables were significantly more dissatisfied with their dining experience than those at tables that were more generously spaced (Robinson & Kimes, 2009). Robinson and Kimes

(2009) also stated, “Patrons seemed uncomfortable when tables were set as close as seventeen inches apart and were more satisfied when the distance was closer to a yard apart.” Robinson and

Kimes (2009) concluded that restauranteurs practice seating parties at appropriately sized tables and suggested they carefully consider table spacing in their dining rooms.

In their study of effects of eye contact, distance and anchoring in a café, Staats and Groot

(2019) found that “individuals who have to choose between two seats in an otherwise completely occupied café would prefer seats of low intimacy and of high privacy, being seats that restrain eye contact and seats that are located next to a wall.”

Hwang et al. (2018) conducted a study to determine the effect of spatial distance between solo diners and nearby diners. Their results showed that, “when the spatial distance between the dining tables is small and nearby diners are solo diners (vs. social diners), individuals form a more favorable attitude towards their fellow customers. Such in-group bias has a positive impact on enjoyment.”

Jang and Namkung (2009), who used Chinese restaurants as their research setting, found that a restaurant's atmosphere (dining atmospherics) has significant effects on customers’ 17 positive emotions, negative emotions, and perceived dining value. For diners, “music, lighting, artwork, and spacing combine to create comfort, intimacy and even romance.”

(http://3sdadesign.blogspot.com/). Using structural equation modeling, Jang and Namkung

(2009) found “atmospherics and service function as stimuli that enhance positive emotions while product attributes, such as food quality, act to relieve negative emotional responses.”

Gender and Solo Dining in Upper-Class Restaurants:

Dining out in upper-class restaurants is a worldwide trend and includes diverse consumer groups (Meiselman, H. L. (Ed.). 2009). It is still difficult for a large number of solitary customers, both male and female, for whom lone dining in upper-class restaurants is not as easy

(Meiselman, H. L. (Ed.). 2009). Yet, according to Jonsson and Ekstrom (2019), women today wish to take their place in urban settings, including eating in restaurants, even if they are alone.

Based on their studies, Jonsson and Ekstrom recommend that women should be a “potentially important clientele group worthy of the attention of the restaurant branch.”

Solo Dining and Technology:

Ashok (2019) states that even though commensal eating has known benefits, eating alone is becoming an increasingly common activity. However, he argues that eating alone can “be boring, less motivating and shown to have negative impact on health and wellbeing of a person”

(Ashok, 2019). His research, which explores the use of robotic technology to “remedy such situations,” suggests this robotic technology offers “unique opportunities for solo diners to feel 18

engaged and indulged in dining” (Ashok, 2019). He introduces Fobo, a robotic design prototype that, behaving like a human, serves as a co-diner. Part of Ashok’s work on Fobo aims to

“reorient the perception that robots are not always meant to be infallible. They could be

erroneous and clumsy, like we humans are” (Ashok, 2019).

Spence et al. (2019) believe that one of the dining issues in the UK is many people tend

to feel self-conscious about eating out alone. For example, people worry that anyone who sees

them would think they are “lonely losers.” However, studies by Spence et al. (2019) show solo

dining seems to be losing this stigma. They suggest the use of mobile devices (which could

include smart phones, laptops, tablets) may decrease stigma; mobile devices, used by a majority

of people today, can make it easy for solo diners to socialize with people in other locations while

eating alone at their table. Many people will argue that one does not have to be physically

together to maintain strong relationships. According to OnePoll on behalf of the U.S. Highbush

Blueberry Council, “three in four respondents (76 percent) feel that engaging with their friends

and family on social media platforms helps them feel more connected” (SWNS, 2019). However,

Spence et al. (2019) argue that there is a need for more research to understand the role of

technology during the dining experience. Spence et al. (2019) reviewed diverse literatures

focusing on “the digital commensality among the growing number of solo diners.” They

conclude:

Several approaches to using technology to connect those who, for whatever reason, find

themselves alone have been discussed and include Mukbang [eating in front of a camera],

artificial dining assistants [e.g., socially assistive robots], and Skeating [skyping while

eating]. While all three approaches look potentially promising … further suitably 19

powered research is needed before any strong conclusions can be drawn concerning the

merits, in terms of health and well-being of these digital commensality solutions. (Spence

et al.)

Solo Dining and Healthy Eating:

Pliner and Bell (2009) focused on individuals’ feelings, thoughts, and behavior when eating alone. They contend that “commensal eating is deeply embedded in cultural consciousness and eating alone is an anomalous behavior,” i.e., eating alone is abnormal, unnatural. (Pliner &

Bell, 2019). For many people, eating alone is not a desirable experience, and “often is not considered to be a meal at all” (Pliner & Bell, 2019). Individuals typically eat less when they dine alone than they do when they dine with others; however, Pliner and Bell (2019) have found that solo dining provides opportunities for individuals to “escape public scrutiny and to eat as much as desired.” They contend that “eating alone is associated with negative nutritional outcomes in both the young and the old” (Pliner & Bell, 2019).

Other researchers who have studied the pleasures of group eating, e.g., sharing appetizers and other dishes, conversation and ordering larger-than-needed meals, consider both the positive and negative consequences of eating in groups. Herman (2017) argues:

From a public-health perspective, the problem is that eating in groups with friends has

become so commonplace that what used to be a special occasion is now a regular

occurrence, with a corresponding increase in the frequency of overindulgence. And

overindulgence, as we know, is a threat to the well-being of the individual and society - 20

again, from a public-health perspective (Herman, 2017).

Individuals often prefer to eat in groups because together they can overindulge. Herman

(2017) argues many meals diners eat in groups are not diet friendly. He argues that, to avoid overindulgence, people should dine alone often, whenever possible. He understands that this dine

alone recommendation “is not the sort of advice that people are likely to listen to. People want

the experience of caloric overindulgence in the pleasant company of their friends, friends who

are often actively encouraging such overindulgence” (Herman, 2017).

Conclusion

In just the recent past, dining alone was synonymous with restaurant take-outs eaten in

cars or at one’s desk or hotel room service when travelling. Many diners, uncomfortable with the

stigma of being socially alone, avoided eating in restaurants. Today, it is not unusual to see men

and women eating alone in diverse dining establishments. Ever-changing lifestyles and

demographics have sharply increased the number of solo diners in the marketplace (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2019). The U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (2019) reports “28.4% of households that are one person,” a number that has continued to rise. With more and more people choosing to dine out alone, this research on solo dining preferences is relevant today. It underscores the need for restauranteurs to consider the importance of atmospherics, including table spacing, for solo diners. This research will inform the development of new restaurant seating options that provide opportunities for customers to select seating for one or for groups, and for restauranteurs to accommodate their preferences by easily changing table formats. These considerations of diners’ specific wants and needs will likely increase customer satisfaction and number of return diners, positively affecting restauranteurs’ bottom line. 21

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Quantitative Research – Online Survey

Students (over the age of 18 years old) were invited to participate in a survey to choose seating design options, for a solo (as in dining alone) person. There will be five (5) restaurants

(Café, Fast Food, Casual, Fine, and Bar) that they will pick a seat of their choice. In the beginning of the survey, the student selects answers on a series of questions that will include demographic questions that include gender, college, ethnicity, and his/her age. The reviewer is asked to choose their preferred table-seat area (as a solo diner) in five (5) different restaurant types. The survey was posted for 8 days. This survey was sent to 1000 Iowa State University email addresses (random collection of undergraduate and graduate students). The entire process takes approximately 5

minutes to be completed online. The participation was voluntary. All data is kept confidential and

no personal information such as names, addresses, or phone numbers were collected on the survey.

The result of this survey is used for scholarly purposes only.

Qualitative Research – Case Studies

This research study is a series of photographs that the researcher has taken in local restaurants here in Ames, Iowa. The researcher has made comments that relate to each photograph. These photographs range from present day (older) restaurant seating designs and layouts, that do not address the needs of a solo (one person) diner, to the more current (newer) restaurants that do address, in some ways, the single seating trend. A variety of restaurant types are included in this research field study.

Conclusion

The online survey had quick responses from Iowa State University students. 63 students completed the survey. The results and comments have been documented in Chapter 4. Results.

The case (field) study played an important role in this research. The method of visiting the local restaurants and taking photographs of a variety of restaurant types, helped in determining the lack of planning for the single (solo) person diner in restaurants today. These photographs and comments are documented Chapter 4. Results.

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Quantitative Research – Online Survey

The following graphs, comments, figures, and tables are documented results on the online survey taken by 63 Iowa State University students. The survey results will provide a series of answers to questions on the survey and reflects restaurant seating preferences for a single student visitor in a college town.

Would you consider yourself an “Extrovert”, “Introvert”, or somewhere in-between while being in a hospitality environment? An extrovert is defined as “one whose personality is characterized by extroversion. Broadly: a gregarious and unreserved person” (Merriam-

Webster Dictionary, 2020). An introvert is defined as “one whose personality is characterized by introversion. Especially: a reserved or shy person who enjoys spending time alone”

(Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2020). Please check choice which best represents your personality while being in a hospitality environment.

Figure 4.1 The majority of students consider themselves as “Somewhere in-between".

Table 4.1. Somewhere in-between. (46.03%).

# Answer % Count 1 Extrovert 20.63% 13 2 Introvert 33.33% 21 3 Somewhere in-between 46.03% 29 Total 100% 63 24

What is your age?

Figure 4.2 The majority of the students are very young.

Table 4.2. Age. (18 – 24 / 82.54%).

# Answer % Count 2 18 - 24 82.54% 52 3 25 - 34 17.46% 11 4 35 - 44 0.00% 0 5 45 - 54 0.00% 0 6 55 - 64 0.00% 0 7 65 or older 0.00% 0 8 Prefer not to say 0.00% 0 Total 100% 63

What is your gender?

Figure 4.3 The gender is equal male and female. Interesting that it turned out equal. 25

What is your ethnicity?

Figure 4.4 The ethnic group is mostly white. I am surprised with this result. I thought there would be more diversity.

Table 4.3. Ethnicity. (White 84.13%).

# Answer % Count 1 White 84.13% 53 2 Black or African American 3.17% 2 3 American Indian or Alaska Native 0.00% 0 4 Asian 6.35% 4 5 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1.59% 1 6 Other 3.17% 2 7 Prefer not to say 1.59% 1 Total 100% 63

Which college are you in?

Figure 4.5 looks like Engineering and Liberal Arts and Sciences college’s prevail!

Table 4.4. College. (Engineering 25.40% and Liberal Arts and Sciences 25.40%).

# Answer % Count 1 Agriculture and Life Sciences 17.46% 11 2 Business 12.70% 8 3 Design 7.94% 5 4 Engineering 25.40% 16 5 Human Sciences 7.94% 5 6 Liberal Arts and Sciences 25.40% 16 7 Veterinary Medicine 1.59% 1 8 Prefer not to say 1.59% 1 Total 100% 63

Please rank the types of restaurants which you are most familiar with? (1 - most, 5 - least)

Figure 4.6 The Fast food and Casual restaurants seem to be the most visited. The Café restaurant is also showing a lot of support from students. Fine dining and Bar restaurants are least familiar with students, which makes a lot of sense because Fine dining restaurants are expensive and many of the students taking this survey are under the age of 21.

Table 4.5. Restaurant types most familiar with. (Fast food 39.68%, Casual 41.27%).

# Question 1 2 3 4 5 Total 1 Cafe 14.29% 9 26.98% 17 34.92% 22 15.87% 10 7.94% 5 63 2 Fast food 39.68% 25 28.57% 18 14.29% 9 12.70% 8 4.76% 3 63 3 Casual 41.27% 26 28.57% 18 23.81% 15 6.35% 4 0.00% 0 63 Fine 4 0.00% 0 9.52% 6 12.70% 8 26.98% 17 50.79% 32 63 dining 5 Bar 4.76% 3 6.35% 4 14.29% 9 38.10% 24 36.51% 23 63

VP-02 - How often do you dine-out on your own?

Figure 4.7 The survey shows that students do not dine-out a lot on their own.

Table 4.6. Dine-out on your own? (Once a month 26.98%, Once or twice a year 23.81%).

# Answer % Count 1 Less often than once a year 1.59% 1 2 Once or twice a year 23.81% 15 3 Once a month 26.98% 17 4 Twice a month 19.05% 12 5 Once a week 12.70% 8 6 Twice a week 4.76% 3 7 More than four times a week 7.94% 5 8 Every day/ multiple time a day 3.17% 2 Total 100% 63

How long did you stay at the restaurant of your first choice (from the previous question) in an average visit?

Figure 4.8 The majority of students like the 20 - 40 minutes to enjoy their meal at the restaurant that they are most familiar with. This also gives them time to open up his/her laptop.

Table 4.7. How long did you stay at the restaurant of your first choice?

(20 ~ 40 minutes 42.86%).

# Answer % Count 1 Less than 10 minutes 12.70% 8 2 10 ~ 20 minutes 25.40% 16 3 20 ~ 40 minutes 42.86% 27 4 40 ~ 60 minutes 12.70% 8 5 1 ~ 2 hours 4.76% 3 6 more than 2 hours 1.59% 1 Total 100% 63

Cafe seating preference for solo 35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

Cafe - Bar seats Cafe - 1 seat Cafe - 2 seats Cafe - Lounge seats Cafe - 4 seats

Figure 4.9 The popular seat in the Café is the 1-seat (solo), also the Bar seat is considered 1-seat

(solo).

Fast food seating preference for solo 35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

Fast food- Bar seats Fast food- 1 seat Fast food- 2 seats Fast food- 4 seats

Figure 4.10 The 2-seat table seems to be popular...but if you add up the Bar seats and the 1-seat count, the solo table is more popular. 31

Casual seating preference for solo 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00%

Casual- Bar seats Casual- 1 seat Casual- 2 seats Casual- Lounge Casual- Booth Casual- 6 seats seats seats

Figure 4.11 The solo seat is the choice in the Casual restaurant.

Fine dining seating preference for solo 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00%

Fine dining- Bar Fine dining- 1 seat Fine dining- 2 Fine dining- Fine dining- 4 Fine dining- 6 seats seats Lounge seats seats seats

Figure 4.12 The Fine Dining restaurant tends to attract the students toward the 2-seat tables.

Bar seating preference for solo 40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

Bar- Bar seat Bar- 1 Seat Bar- 2 Seats Bar- Lounge seats Bar- 4 Seats

Figure 4.13 The Bar by far favors the solo seat. As shown in this graph, students have chosen to sit at the Bar or at a single 1-seat table.

Qualitative Research – Case Studies

This research (field) study is a series of photographs that the researcher has taken in local restaurants here in Ames, Iowa.

Table 4.8. Case study results: Restaurants seating analysis in a campus town in the U.S.

Case Type of Photo Researcher’s comment No. restaurant 1A. Café – local The researcher sees one person sitting in those booths all the time. Such a waste!

1B. Café – local Cool setup if only one chair.

2. Café – local Good old fashion “counter seating”. Spacing is not bad.

3A. Café – local Cool chairs! the researcher would add a screen between for more privacy.

3B. Café – local Very nice single seating.The researcher would prefer some type of separation between tables.

3C Café – local No room for a 2-top in this aisle. The solo diners prevail! They also get a great window view.

4A Café – Communal seating in center of room. chain

4B Café – like this…one table, one chair. Remove the chain bench or chair and it becomes a perfect solo seat.

4C. Café – The new trend is “Communal Tables”. Not chain for the researcher …but the younger generation likes it.

This is a perfect example of the new trend “Communal Tables”. Works well on college campus. 5A. Café - Interesting standup counter with seating on University opposite side.

5B. Café - Not sure about the counter on the back of University seating…strange.

5C. Café - The researcher loves these little guys! University

5D. Café - No longer single…sitting next to a couch. University

5E. Café - Great concept…but the researcher would University not sit next to this guy!

5F. Café - These seats are awesome! University

5G. Café - These seats work well in this environment. University Good for the solo person.

Very nice design and flexible (movable) chairs.

6A. Bakery/café Seating on the left could become nice solo - chain seats with little effort. Maybe mix it up.

6B. Bakery/café No single seating in this chain restaurant. - chain

6C. Bakery/café Nice open design without any thought for - chain the solo person.

6D. Bakery/café Restaurant chains should improve their - chain design concepts to attract the solo diner.

7. Bakery/café One person eats up one or two available - chain seats!

8A. Fast food - No solo seating in this part of the chain restaurant. One person could drag away one of those rounds.

8B. Fast food - No solo seating here. chain

8C. Fast food - Very nice designs…but no solo. chain

8D. Fast food - Nice counter…but just a bit tight to sit next chain to a stranger.

8E. Fast food - Some thought for solo seating here.The chain researcher likes the single chair with table and window counter.

8F. Fast food - Nice corner seating in front of fireplace chain and television. But not private enough for solo seating.

9A. Fast food - No solo seating here. chain

9B. Fast food - Not bad for singles…but a bit tight for chain strangers sitting next to each other!

10. Fast food - The researcher loves this table and chairs. chain The design is amazing and strong.

The researcher can see using this design concept…but with only one chair (and not facing each other to the next table).

11A. Cafeteria - No consideration at all for single students. University

11B. Cafeteria - Perfect example of wasted space. University

11C. Cafeteria - The researcher would feel uncomfortable University taking up an entire table myself.

12. Casual - Comfy! the researcher will take one of chain those large booths by myself.

13. Casual - One person wastes 2 potential seats at this chain table.

No thought for single diners here.

14. Fine - chain Communal Tables (they often seat strangers together), also used for large parties.

Conclusion

The online survey had quick responses from Iowa State University Students. The first day

30 students responded. On the eighth day, the survey was closed and a total of 63 surveys were

completed. The researcher is pleased with the results received after reviewing the responses. The survey results show that respondents liked the display of the designs and layouts the researcher created to accommodate the “Solo” single person diner.

After the completion of this field study, the researcher found that the typical restaurant seating, found locally, has no thought or concerns of solo seating design. The newer restaurant construction projects are beginning to include more seating options for the single diner. Trends that include more counter seats and communal tables (large tables that accommodate multiple guests that do not necessarily know each other) for more flexible seating options. There still is a lack of private seating (one-seat at one table) for the solo diners.

CHAPTER 5. CREATIVE COMPONENTS

Process Work and Images

The following images display the researcher’s design concept for “Solo Seating”.

Figure 5.1 This is a model showing that the size (18”x24”) table top is adequate to hold a plate, cup and silverware with room to spare.

Figure 5.2 This poster reflects the different table shapes that the researcher created. The researcher started with these paper cuts and then built all of them with wood. Also, the model tabletops have actual magnetic edges so they can snap together to create a variety of table sizes.

This concept gives flexibility to have a single table or join multiple tables to create more seating if you are dining with friends.

Figure 5.3 Small triangle table and stool.

Figure 5.4 Large triangle table and stool.

Figure 5.5 Half round table and stool.

Figure 5.6 Quarter round table and stool.

Figure 5.7 Rectangle table and stool.

Figure 5.8 Yin-Yang table and stool.

Figure 5.9 (2) Yin-Yang tables and (2) stools.

Figure 5.10 (2) Triangle tables and (2) stools.

Figure 5.11 (2) Half round tables and (2) stools.

Figure 5.12 (2) Quarter round tables and (2) stools. 47

Figure 5.13 (4) Quarter round tables and (4) stools.

Figure 5.14 (4) Quarter round tables and (4) stools. 48

Figure 5.15 (2) rectangle tables and (2) stools.

Figure 5.16 (2) rectangle tables and (2) stools.

Figure 5.17 (4) Rectangle tables and (4) stools.

Figure 5.18 (4) Rectangle tables and (4) stools. 50

Model

Model built with Wood, Styrofoam, and Plastic. Scale 1” = 1’-0”

Figure 5.19 Model.

Figure 5.20 Model.

Figure 5.21 Model.

Figure 5.22 Model.

Final Furniture Images and Layouts

Tables tops have magnetic edges to allow tables to snap together for flexibility.

Figure 5.23 Model with seating arrangements.

Figure 5.24 Model with seating arrangements.

Figure 5.25 Model with seating arrangements.

Figure 5.26 Model with seating arrangements.

Figure 5.27 Model with seating arrangements.

Figure 5.28 Model with seating arrangements.

Figure 5.29 Model with seating arrangements.

Figure 5.30 Model with seating arrangements.

Figure 5.31 Model with seating arrangements.

CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary of the Research

Research supports innovation and creativity as important drivers of a company’s performance and success. However, research in the restaurant sector has primarily focused on the science of food and innovations in the culinary arts. According to Lee et al. (2019), “much less emphasis has been placed on creativity and innovations in marketing, management, processes, and services” (Lee, Hallah, & Sardeshmukh, 2019).

The design of solo seating is an innovation that has been informed by research and the literature. The increase in solo dining in the United States and beyond warrants new considerations of ways restauranteurs can improve dining experiences for individuals and groups.

Enhanced knowledge about innovative solo diner table designs that improve diner experiences will inform researchers and restauranteurs as they acknowledge ever-changing demographics, attitudes, beliefs, and human behaviors.

Limitation of the Research

This study focused on Iowa State University students’ perceptions of and experiences with solo dining; thus, the generalizability of the results is limited. Students are an influential and growing group of customers that, when they graduate and as they age, will become consumers of a wide range of dining experiences at cafes, diners, fast-food restaurants, ethnic restaurants, and upper-class restaurants to name a few. Further research among students living in different geographical areas (e.g., rural, urban, suburban) will increase understanding of their dining preferences. 58

Once solo seating is a part of restaurant interior design, additional research on extent of use of solo seating, seating arrangements, and spatial distancing will provide important insights on diner comfort and satisfaction and return patronage intentions. Additional research could be conducted to evaluate how frequent solo diners perceive their restaurant experience and how

their perceptions differ from those of first-time solo diners.

Future Research

A full-scale model (prototype) of tables and chairs to be developed.

• What other table and seat/stool design options are there?

• How will this full-scale product be packed and shipped?

• What will the weights be on the different style tables and seat/stools?

• What colors will be available?

• What material options will be available on the tables and seat/stools?

• Patent; Trademark; Copyright.

REFERENCES

Ashok, R. (2019). FoBo: Towards designing a robotic companion for solo dining. CHI’19 Extended Abstracts, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332770645_FoBo_Towards_Designing_a_Robotic_Co mpanion_for_Solo_Dining [accessed Mar 17, 2020].

Bae, S., Slevitch, L. & Tomas, S. (2018). The effects of restaurant attributes on satisfaction and return patronage intentions: Evidence from solo diners’ experiences in the United States. Journal of Cogent Business & Management, Vol 1, Issue 1. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493903

Fullen, S. (2003). Restaurant design: Designing, constructing & renovating a food service establishment / by Sharon L. Fullen. (Food service professionals guide to 14). Ocala, Fla.: Atlantic Pub. Group.

Herman, C.P. (2017). The social facilitation of eating or the facilitation of social eating. Journal of Eating Disorders. 5:16. Available at: https://jeatdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40337-017-0146-2

Hwang, Y., Shin, J. & Mattila, A. (2018). So private, yet so public: The impact of spatial distance, other diners, and power on solo dining experiences. Journal of Business Research, Volume 92, November, pp. 36-47. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.004

Jang, S. & Namkung, Y. (2009). Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral intentions: Application of an extended Mehrabian-Russell model to restaurants. Journal of Business Research. Vol. 62 (4) pp. 451-460.

Jargon, J. (2014). How we eat now: Healthy, high-protein, alone. The Wall Street Journal. available at: http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2014/08/06/how-we-eat-now-healthy- high-protein-alone/

Jonsson, I. & Ekstrom, J. (2009). Gender perspectives on the solo diner as restaurant customer. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288815803_Gender_perspectives_on_the_solo_diner_a s_restaurant_customer [accessed Mar 17, 2020].

Lee, C., Hallak, R., & Sardeshmukh, S.R. Creativity and innovation in the restaurant sector: Supply-side processes and barriers to implementation. Tourism Management Perspective. Vol. 1, pp. 54-62.

Meiselman, H. L. (Ed.). (2009). Meals in science and practice: Interdisciplinary research and business applications. Elsevier. 60

Merriam-Webster Dictionary. “Extrovert” and “Introvert.” Available at https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/extrovert and https:www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/introvert. Accessed 9 Apr. 2020.

Muhammad, L. (2012), More workers work through lunch or eat at their desks. USA Today. available at: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/workplace/story/2012-04-15/lunch-at- work/54167808/1/

Pliner, P. & Bell, R. (2009). A table for one: The pain and pleasure of eating alone. In book: Meals in Science and Practice. Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, pp. 169-189. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845695712.4.169

Spence, C., Mancini, M., & Huisman, G. (2019). Digital Commensality: Eating and drinking in the company of technology. Frontiers in Psychology. 10:2252. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02252/full

Staats. J/ & Groot, P. (2019). Seat choices in a crowded café: Effects of eye contact, distance, and anchoring. Frontiers in Psychology. (February 2019). Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00331/full

Stones, J. (2011). Very small cafés & restaurants / John Stones. London: Laurence King Pub.

SWNS. (2019). Here’s how many meals the average American eats alone. New York Post. October 8, 2019.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). Current population survey. Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1964-2019.

APPENDIX A. IRB CERTIFICATE

APPENDIX B. IRB APPROVAL FORM

APPENDIX C. INFORMED CONCENT FORM

APPENDIX D. ONLINE SURVEY