The Concept of Subjective Well-Being and Its Process in Restaurant Experiences
Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations
2008 The concept of ubjecs tive well-being and its process in restaurant experiences Jee Hye Shin Iowa State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Family, Life Course, and Society Commons
Recommended Citation Shin, Jee Hye, "The oncc ept of subjective well-being and its process in restaurant experiences" (2008). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 11044. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/11044
This Dissertation 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 Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].
The concept of subjective well-being and its process in restaurant experiences
by
Jee Hye Shin
A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Major: Foodservice and Lodging Management
Program of Study Committee: Haemoon Oh, Major Professor Mary Gregoire Miyoung Jeong Elena Karpova Jacques Lempers
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
2008
ii
TABLE OF CONTSNTS
LIST OF TABLES ...... iv
LIST OF FIGURES...... v
ABSTRACT...... vi
CHAPTER 1. INSTRUCTION...... 1 Objectives of the Study...... 5 Significance of the Study...... 7 Definitions ...... 8 Organization of the Study...... 10
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 11 Subjective Well Being (SWB)...... 11 Hedonic and Utilitarian Performance ...... 31 Customer Satisfaction...... 33 Value...... 37 Behavioral Intention ...... 39
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY...... 41 Research Model ...... 41 Research Hypotheses ...... 43 Research Design ...... 49 Sampling ...... 53 Data Analysis...... 55
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 59 Demographic Description of the Sample...... 59 Preliminary Analysis...... 62 Structural Equation Modeling...... 65 Discussion...... 77
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...... 82 Summary of Research...... 82 iii
Managerial Implications ...... 84 Limitations and Future Research ...... 85
REFERENCES...... 87
APPENDIX A. COVER LETTER AND SURVEY INSTRUMENT ...... 104
APPENDIX B. HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL ...... 112
APPENDIX C. CORRELATION MATRICES...... 113
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... 116
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Definition and measurement of well being...... 13
Table 2.2. Summary of SWB studies ...... 23
Table 4.1. Characteristics of the restaurant customer sample ...... 60
Table 4.2. Chi square tests results of demographic variables between casual dining and fine dining restaurant respondents...... 61
Table 4.3. Kurtosis and skewness testing results ...... 63
Table 4.4. Reliability coefficients for the casual dining group ...... 66
Table 4.5. Reliability coefficients for the fine dining group...... 67
Table 4.6. Convergent validity results for the casual dining respondents...... 71
Table 4.7. Convergent validity results for the fine dining respondents ...... 72
Table 4.8. Discriminant validity results (squared correlation and average)...... 74
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1. Hypothesized framework ...... 42
Figure 4.1. Structural model for the casual dining restaurant group ...... 76
Figure 4.2. Structural model for fine dining restaurant group...... 77
vi
ABSTRACT
This research attempted to demonstrate the antecedents of Subjective Well Being
(SWB) and the effects of SWB, especially through the relationships among performance, satisfaction, value, SWB, and behavioral intention, in a dining out context. A conceptual model was developed and tested regarding the relationship between SWB mediated satisfaction and value toward behavioral intention.
The sample for this study consisted of fine dining (N = 157) and casual dining restaurant customers (N = 245). The proposed model was empirically tested through a field survey. Preliminary analyses, including kurtosis and skewness tests and internal consistency, were performed using SPSS 16.0. The proposed model and hypotheses tests were conducted using the LISREL 8.71 program.
The results of preliminary analyses met the recommended guidelines suggested by previous studies. In confirmatory factor analysis, the overall fit of the measurement models was acceptable in both casual dining and fine dining restaurants. The structural model of both casual and fine dining groups exhibited an acceptable level of fit. However, for the hypothesis tests, both the casual and fine dining groups showed slightly different results. In casual dining restaurants, all path coefficients were statistically significant. In the fine dining group, satisfaction and value were driven only by utilitarian performance, but not by hedonic performance. SWB, a central concept examined in this study, was driven by customer satisfaction and value. Customer satisfaction, value, and SWB directly influenced customers’ behavioral intention, and SWB mediated satisfaction and value towards behavioral intention. vii
These results provide valuable information for restaurateurs and managers following current trends seeking to satisfy customers’ needs.
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Happiness is generally everyone’s goal in which people pursue their happiness in everyday life. An America n survey revealed that people think about happiness, on average, at least once a day (Freedman, 1978). On that account, researchers have studied happiness for decades to understand what brings happiness to people.
There are various reasons for seeking happiness. Happiness may come from the achievement of one’s personal life goals. Happiness can also be achieved from relative advantages in various living conditions such as a comfortable income, good health, a satisfying marriage, or lack of tragedy. People may even experience happiness from extreme and unexpected life events; for example, winning in the lottery (Lyubomirsky, 2001).
Happiness can also be felt from small events in everyday life; for example, shopping, trip, exercise, watching TV, and leisure activities such as hiking and skiing (Gilbert & Abdullah,
2004; Hills & Argyle, 1998). Some may sense happiness during watching movie wherein their favorite actor plays, whereas others may feel happy when they buy a luxury car.
Thus, happiness has become one of the prevailing issues in our life and our society.
Due to the increase of a disposable income and the rise in education level, people are constantly seeking quality, value, and pleasurable environments away from the pressures of daily life. This is a new lifestyle of today and more specifically it includes improved physical health, fitness, and appearance, greater use of leisure and vacation time for self improvement, more hedonic lifestyle, and greater emphasis on the nutritional qualities of food (Lewis,
Chambers, & Chacko, 1995). People are more and more interested in physical health as well as psychological happiness. 2
Such a lifestyle of pursuing not only physiological but also psychological happiness can be summed up in the concept of “Well Being” (WB). WB refers to optimal psychological experience and functioning and it has been extensively studied in the field of psychology over the past quarter century (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Broadly, WB is defined as “life happiness” and, narrowly, it is expressed in physical and biological terms. Between the two extreme notions of WB, WB is generally used to express physical and psychological health and happiness.
Subjective Well Being (SWB), which is often used interchangeably with WB, is defined as a person’s evaluation of his or her life. SWB is an umbrella term that encompasses the various ways in which people evaluate their lives, including life satisfaction, pleasant emotions, satisfaction with domains such as work and health, feelings of fulfillment and meaning, and low levels of unpleasant emotions (Diener & Scollon, 2003). The idea of SWB or happiness has intrigued thinkers for millennia, although it is only in recent years that it has been measured and studied in a systematic way (Diener, Suh, & Oishi, 1997).
The experience of SWB, which is felt differently by people living in different social and cultural backgrounds, must be stigmatized deeply by differential culture (Xing, 2005).
Because the current study is keeping with Korea's current preoccupation with "SWB,” it should be based on SWB in Korea. In Korea, SWB means all activities and consumer cultures which can elevate the quality of life along with physical and psychological health and happiness. The concept of SWB in Korea has rapidly spread since 2003, and now it is prevailing all over the country throughout the various fields of life such as food, clothing, travel, and health. Due to the rapid growth of the Korean economy, Korean people have become well off and they are pursuing not only improved material wealth but also spiritual 3 and physical health. Moreover, the growing concern about the aging population has prompted people to pay attention to their health and SWB. Currently, people are currently spending ever larger fractions of their income on health. From food to tourism, SWB has become one of Korea's mainstream current trends.
SWB comes from abundant episodes experienced in our life. SWB is filtered into all arenas of the daily life, such as food, clothing, living supplies, and leisure activities. Argyle and Martin (1991) claimed that various activities, including exercise, sports, reading, and music, tended to increase SWB in general (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000). Researchers have found that the domains that are closest and most immediate to people’s personal lives are those that most influence SWB (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976).
As an everyday circumstance, dietary life can provide a sense of SWB, especially through the experience of dining out. Dining out has potent and immediate effects on people’s physiologic, psychological, and emotional states (De Castro, 2000; Levy, 1959).
Moreover, the restaurant experience transforms dining activity into a social event, and a person’s positive connection with dining partners enhances the level of happiness. Anecdotal and research evidences suggest that a favorable dining out event with familiar people enhances the relaxation level in restaurant customers, and reduces the stresses of daily life
(Finkelstein, 1989). Good experience in a restaurant plays an important role to contribute to customers’ mental and physical health and also to afford great pleasure and energy. In the case of a full service restaurant, for example, appetizing foods, comfortable surroundings, modern facilities, and good service upgrade customers’ feelings.
The restaurant industry reflects these customers’ new lifestyle of SWB to gain a competitive advantage in today’s market (Soriano, 2002). In recent years, a healthful lifestyle 4 is a pervasive trend in the restaurant industry (Casey, 2004; Popp, 2005; Yee, 2005). Because knowing what customers desire and the factors that cause customers to come back is vital to the restaurant industry, the restaurants are strongly influenced by developments in lifestyle
(Dailey, 1998). Major trends in the restaurant industry are emphasis on fresh and high quality ingredients, healthy lifestyle driven meal choices, adjusted portion sizes, full nutritional disclosure on menus, and more organic choices (Casey, 2004). Healthy lifestyles are not the only menu driver. Consumers are additionally demanding fun occasions, to be enjoyed, even celebrated, as part of the fabric of family, social and cultural life (Yee, 2005). Through the dining out experience, customers receive psychological benefits as well as satisfy their hunger (Park, 2004a).
It is apparent that restaurant dining out imparts upon customers various experiences in terms of hedonic and utilitarian performance. Hedonic performance represents the consumer’s fun, entertainment, and novelty and utilitarian performance is defined as a value related to the functional, instrumental and cognitive aspects (Park, 2004a). These hedonic and utilitarian performances evoked from the dining out experience can induce customer satisfaction (Carpenter & Fairhurst, 2005; Jiang & Wang, 2006). Cognitively utilitarian performance can influence diners’ perceived value. If diners evaluate dining out performance and these performance evaluations are connected to SWB through customer satisfaction and value, it is natural that diners feel SWB as a result of the dining out experience. Thus, a question arises: how are performance, customer satisfaction, value and SWB related?
A number of research studies have investigated SWB; mostly, the causes of SWB have been researched so far, especially in terms of personality (Cha, 2003; Eid & Diener,
2004; Hayes, & Joseph, 2003; Headey & Wearing, 1989) and demographic variables which 5 include age, gender, income, and educational level (Diener, 1984). Additionally, studies have addressed SWB derived from leisure activities (Hills & Argyle, 1998), life satisfaction and leisure travel (Neal, Sirgy, & Uysal, 1999), and holiday taking (Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004).
However, SWB in the foodservice sector has not yet received research attention. Little is known about the relationship between SWB in restaurant context and customers’ purchase decisions. Moreover, no theoretical attempt has been made to conceptualize SWB and understand its role in customer behavior in the hospitality discipline. The lack of related studies makes this study particularly worthwhile and promises potential contributions.
Objectives of the Study
Based on the premise that restaurant attributes may reach diners’ SWB through some psychological route, this study provides a causal framework of SWB by hypothesizing that overall judgment of SWB is influenced by the restaurant performance, customer satisfaction, and value, directly or indirectly. Although prior studies on post consumption behaviors supported structural interrelationships among evaluations, value, and satisfaction (Chiu,
Hsieh, Li, & Lee, 2005; Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000; Fornell, Johnson, Anderson, Cha, &
Bryant, 1996; Hallowell, 1996; Hsu, 2006; Lee, Park, Park, Lee, & Kwon, 2005), such relationships have not been tested in light of SWB, especially in the hospitality context.
The objectives of this study are threefold.
1. Extend the SWB literature in the hospitality field and provide a theoretical framework.
2. Develop the concept of SWB in the restaurant industry and measure SWB in a
transactional aspect of restaurant dining. 6
3. Help restaurant marketers enhance their understanding of the psychological process
underlying customers’ dining decisions by using the SWB concept.
Objective 1
This study extends the SWB literature, especially in the hospitality field, and provides a theoretical framework to explore SWB. Literature on SWB to date is concerned with definition, measurement, and causal factors of SWB, largely from the perspective of a person’s social life and personality. As a result, researchers examined the meaning of SWB, various measurement methods, demographic correlates, and other factors of SWB such as health, social contact, activity, and personality (Diener, 1984). Based on past research, the current study applies SWB to the restaurant industry to understand its antecedents and consequences. Because no general, theoretical model of SWB has been proposed to date, this study attempts to organize the SWB construct and its plausible correlates.
A great deal of consumer behavior research involves hedonic and utilitarian consumption; however, it has seldom touched on SWB. Since hedonic and utilitarian performance, customer satisfaction, value, and SWB may be highly associated (Carter, 2004;
Cha, 2003; Cheng, 2004; Dagger & Sweeney, 2006; Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004), the current study integrates these four constructs and proposes how they are related. Based on the model, this study tests the causal relationship of SWB with performance evaluations, customer satisfaction, and value, and assesses the influence of SWB on customers’ restaurant dining decisions. By doing so, this study attempts to provide initial empirical evidence for the viability of the SWB concept in studying the behaviors of hospitality customers and lays a sound theoretical framework for future research and applications.
7
Objective 2
This study attempts to develop the concept of SWB in the restaurant industry and measure SWB in a transactional aspect of restaurant dining. Most past researchers have considered SWB as life satisfaction as a whole, even though SWB also includes relatively short lasting happiness from a psychological and physical health perspective (Bradburn,
1969; Diener, 1984, 2000; Diener & Larsen, 1993; Kozma, Stone, Stone, Hannah, & McNeil,
1990; Veenhoven, 1997). This study conceptualizes SWB as a transaction derived state of happiness from a small but frequently repeated event, such as a healthy and pleasurable dining experience. This is accomplished by linking the concept of SWB to evaluative restaurant attributes that lead to diners’ subjective feelings of WB.
Objective 3
This study also aims to help restaurant marketers enhance their understanding of the psychological process underlying customers’ dining decisions by using the SWB concept.
Restaurant managers are much concerned about customers’ decisions to return to their establishments. This study demonstrates how SWB affects on customers’ decision making and to what extent SWB influences customers’ behaviors in the restaurant context.
Significance of the Study
This study has both significant theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, first, this study conceptualizes a new trend of the foodservice industry. SWB is new trend which people are more and more concerned about and foodservice industry pays attention to.
This study theorizes SWB in the restaurant dining context, conceptualizes, and tests the antecedents and consequences of SWB. Second, this study contributes to the restaurant 8 research tradition by providing a new SWB concept and research model. Though SWB has been studied for a long time in psychology, it has hardly been used in the study of the restaurant and hospitality industries. If SWB is proved to be an influential variable affecting consumer behavior, it may contribute to the theoretical development of the hospitality discipline. Third, this study assesses the usefulness of transaction oriented SWB, while most previous research measured SWB as a life satisfaction over a long term period. Accordingly, this study broadens the conceptual meaning and measurement scope of SWB.
In a practical sense, this study may be valuable to restaurant managers in several ways. First, this study provides restaurant managers with an insight into customers’ behaviors and the role of restaurant attributes. Restaurant managers are able to comprehend how restaurant performances reach in customers’ future behavioral intention through satisfaction, value, and SWB. Second, this study helps restaurant business gain a competitive advantage in today’s market by retaining customers with SWB concept. If SWB leads to future purchases and if SWB are used as a predictor of revisit intentions, SWB can be one way to retain the market as well as build customer loyalty. Restaurant managers can approach to the customers with SWB concept; therefore, this study may help restaurant managers make strategic marketing plans to retain customers.
Definitions
Listed below are the definitions of the key terms used in the study. A more detailed discussion on them appears in Chapter 2.
Customer Satisfaction : An emotional response to the judgmental disparity between product performance and a corresponding normative standard (Cadotte, Woodruff, & Jenkins, 1987; 9
Day, 1984; Hunt, 1977). It is a judgment that a customer’s a pleasurable level of consumption related fulfillment, including levels of under or over fulfillment of the product or service feature (Boshoff, 2006; Oliver, 1997).
Hedonic Performance : Derived more from fun and enjoyment rather than from task completion, it is experiential and affective (Batra & Ahtola, 1990; Chiu et al., 2005). Hedonic performance in dining out represents the consumer’s fun, entertainment, and novelty (Park,
2004a).
Subjective WB : Refers to the multidimensional self evaluations of people’s lives, including cognitive judgments of life satisfaction as well as affective evaluations of moods and emotions (Eid & Diener, 2004), while objective WB is well being reported from other sources such as a spouse or close friend/relatives (Lepper, 1998). Applied in this study, SWB in the restaurant context is defined as self evaluation of the person’s healthy and pleasurable feeling to body and soul contributing to the personal life resulted from a dining activity.
Utilitarian Performance : Results from the conscious pursuit of an intended consequence and it is primarily instrumental, functional, and cognitive (Chiu et al., 2005). Utilitarian performance in dining out is defined as a value related to the functional and economic aspects of eating out (Park, 2004a).
Value : in current study, value is a customer’s overall assessment after his/her interaction experience in dining activities, based on perceptions of what is given and what is received
(Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994; Zeithaml, 1988;).
10
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces and provides an overview. Chapter 2 presents a review of related literature including hedonic and utilitarian evaluation, affect, value, SWB and behavioral intention as support for this study. Chapter 3 introduces the research model, hypotheses, research design, such as survey instrument and sampling, and methods of data analysis. Chapter 4 reports the findings of data analysis and a discussion of the result. Finally, Chapter 5 presents a summary of the result, implications for restaurateurs, limitations, and recommendation for future study.
11
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Generally, people spend their entire lives in pursuit of Subjective Well Being (SWB), and SWB is an important issue. On that account, many researchers have studied SWB for several decades. As SWB is well known to everybody, the role of SWB in everyday life has received increased attention in recent years. This study examines the relationship among
SWB and other constructs in the restaurant context. Restaurant performance evaluation, customer satisfaction, and value are major elements in assessing dimensions of consumption experience in restaurants.
This chapter is organized into five sections reviewing relevant theoretical literatures such as WB, hedonic and utilitarian performances, customer satisfaction, value, and the behavioral intention. Because this study is conducted in Korea, cultural background and
SWB fad in Korea will be examined. This chapter begins by examining SWB from the literature. The definition, measurement, previous studies of SWB, and SWB in Korea will be reviewed in detail. Then, the other constructs of interest will follow the similar order.
Subjective Well-Being (SWB)
Definition
According to the dictionary, WB is a contented state of being happy and healthy. In other words, WB is concerned with a person’s physical and mental soundness. Today, the words well being and happiness are used interchangeably; however, WB is more comprehensive term including physical health. Maximizing one’s WB has been viewed as maximizing one’s feelings of happiness, but WB consists of more than just happiness (Deci 12
& Ryan, 2008). Subjective WB (SWB) is defined as the individual’s current evaluation of one’s WB or the degree to which a person experiences a sense of WB.
For several decades, psychology researchers have been interested in SWB (Bradburn,
1969; Diener, 1984, 2000; Diener & Larsen, 1993; Kozma et al., 1990; Veenhoven, 1997) and SWB has been used as an indicator for analyzing the quality of life (Diener, 1984;
Diener & Larsen, 1993; Eid & Diener, 2004). Researchers have focused on two components of SWB: affective part and cognitive part (see Table 2.1). The former is an experience of pleasure resulted from the meeting of one’s needs, and the latter is a relatively general judgment about one’s life experience. More specifically, the affective part is related to a hedonic evaluation guided by emotions and feelings, while the cognitive part is an information based appraisal of one’s life. According to Bradburn’s (1969) findings, attempts to enhance life must both reduce negative affect and increase positive affect (Diener, 1984).
Eid and Diener (2004) referred to SWB as people’s multidimensional evaluations of their lives, including cognitive judgments of life satisfaction as well as affective evaluations of moods and emotions. Xing (2005) argued that two elements of SWB were “form” and
“content”. As far as form is concerned, SWB is a kind of experience; and, as to the content,
SWB is a positively satisfying state of existence.
Previously, SWB has been considered as life satisfaction (Neugarten, Havighurst, &
Tobin, 1961; Shin & Johnson, 1978), and as having more positive affect and lack of negative affect (Bradburn, 1969). However, now SWB is an umbrella term that refers to separable components: life satisfaction and satisfaction with life domains such as work life, leisure life, family life, social life, love life; feeling positive affect most of the time; experiencing 13
Table 2.1. Definition and measurement of well being
Author (year) Definition Measurement
Gurin, Veroff, & Feld Not available Gurin Scale (single item) (1960) Cantril (1965) Not available Self Anchoring Ladder (single item) Bradburn (1969) SWB is a function of the difference Affect Balance Scale between positive affect and negative (positive affect minus affect negative affect) Andrew & Withey (1976) How respondents feel about their life Delighted Terrible Scale as a whole (single item) Tellegen, (1982) Not available 18 item Well Being Scale Kammann & Flett (1983) Not available Affectometer Larsen (1983) Not available Affective Intensity Measure (AIM) Diener, Emmons, Larsen, Cognitive component of SWB has 5 item Satisfaction with Life & Griffin, (1985) been assessed with life satisfaction Scale (SWLS) inventories. Argyle & Crossland SWB as an individual’s affective and Not available (1989) & Diener (2000) cognitive evaluation of their life
Argyle, Martin, & Not available 29 item Oxford Happiness Crossland (1989) Inventory Csikszentmihalyi (1990) Not available Experience Sampling Method (ESM) McGreal & Joseph (1993) Self report scale representing a mix of 25 item Depression affective, cognitive, and bodily Happiness Scale (D H S) experiences Veenhoven (1997) SWB as a set of affective and Not available cognitive appraisals concerning one’s life including ‘‘how good it feels, how well it meets expectations, how desirable it is deemed to be, etc.’’
Lyubomirsky & Lepper, Not available 4 item Subjective Happiness (1999) Scale (SHS) Hills & Argyle (2002) Not available 29 item Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OHQ) Kahneman, Krueger, Not available Day Reconstruction Method Schkade, Schwarz & (DRM) Stone (2004)
14 infrequent feelings of negative affect; and judging one’s life to be fulfilling and meaningful
(Diener, & Biswas Diener, 2003).
Sometimes objective standard such as money, house, or educational level can be one of reasons for SWB; however, these objective standards do not always affect SWB.
According to Myers’s (2000) study, Americans’ personal income has nearly tripled in the last half century, but their happiness levels have remained the same. Thus, it is considered that
SWB is the subjective reflection to the real life and it is not only related to the people’s objective life condition, but also related to their needs and value (Xing, 2005).
SWB has several characteristics. First, the factors that influence SWB are quite inconsistent owing to the difference in value, nationality, and degree of social development caused by culture (Xing, 2005). Because SWB depends on people’s experience, SWB is based on the cultural background which people are living in. Xing (2005), who studied the
Chinese citizens’ SWB, found that SWB research should be based on indigenous culture firmly. If societies have different values, the members of those societies will use different criteria in evaluating the success of their society (Diener & Suh, 2000). Second, current mood is found to sometimes contribute as a predictor of self report measures of SWB
(Diener, Sandvik, Pavot, & Gallagher, 1991). Yardley and Rice (1991) who studied the relationship between mood and SWB revealed that both current mood and previous WB had significant effects on current SWB. Thus, to measure global SWB, it needs control of the effect of current mood. Third, social relationships are very important to SWB. SWB results from immersion into interesting and pleasurable activities, and positive social relationships
(Diener, Saoyta, & Suh, 1998). Research also suggested that the experience of positive emotions lead to the related behavioral characteristics such as sociability, feelings of self 15 confidence, and better immune functioning and cardiovascular fitness (Diener & Biswas
Diener, 2003).
A person’s overall SWB is not the sum of its parts (Diener, Scollon, Oishi, Dzokoto,
& Suh, 2000). Therefore, the current study focused on transaction specific SWB in the context of restaurant dining. In this study, SWB is defined as a person’s healthy and pleasurable feeling to body and soul from dining experience, contributing to the personal life.
Specifically, SWB is satisfaction with life domains such as healthy life, social life, and happy life occurring in restaurant context.
Measurement
The question “How happy are you?” or “How satisfied are you in this moment or these days?” is intended to assess the subjective quality of life. How can one measure the level of happiness or SWB? How do people distinguish whether someone is happy or unhappy? Even though many researchers (Diener, 2000; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999;
Veenhoven, 1997) have studied how to measure the levels of SWB, no appropriate SWB measurement tool has been available.
Researchers have relied generally on self reports. Self report survey instruments have been the mainstay of the SWB research since its inception. These subjective indicators have replaced the measure of the objective standard of living. Lepper (1998) compared self report with objective reports. “Objective” reports included 1) in depth interviews, 2) recording of nonverbal expressions and behaviors, 3) reports provided by significant others, and 4) use of behavioral information such as sleep disturbances, smoking habits, appetite levels, alcohol consumption, and even frequency of crying (Diener, 1994; Pavot, Diener, Colvin, & Sandvik, 16
1991). To validate SWB, Lepper (1998) used revelations from a spouse or close friend as objective statements, and found that a greater level of congruency exists between one’s self and other’s statements. He also demonstrated that the self report was not influenced highly by external circumstances. These subjective measures have dominated SWB research in the social sciences.
Early researchers measured SWB by single item global evaluations (Andrews &
Withey, 1976; Cantril, 1965; Gurin, Veroff, & Feld, 1960). Respondents selected one response ranging ‘very happy’ to ‘not too happy’ from the question of how things were these days. Such single item scales have a number of problems. They are not able to assess separately the various dimensions of SWB and tend to be less reliable over time than multi item scales, although the temporal reliability of the single item measures has been moderately high (Stock, Okun, Stock, Haring, & Witter, 1982). Despite these shortcomings, the choice of measures always deals with the cost and benefit in terms of the purposes of the study. Single item scales are adequate if a very brief measure of global SWB is required
(Diener, 1984). Many researchers developed multiple item SWB or happiness scales (see
Table 2.1). Two traditions of multi item SWB measure research are self administered surveys about quality of life and momentary appraisal. The former is Satisfaction With Life Scale
(SWLS) or Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OHQ), and the latter is Experience Sampling
Method (ESM) or Day Reconstruction Method (DRM).
The measurement of quality of life has been conducted as SWB measure since several decades ago. Because SWB is comprised of both emotional and cognitive evaluation, the multi item SWB measures assess either one of its two components (affect or life satisfaction) or both of the two. 17
As an affective component of SWB measurement, respondents are typically asked to rate their levels of positive affect and negative affect over a particular period of time. The most widely used measurement scale is Bradburn’s (1969) Affect Balance Scale, which assesses the balance of positive affect and negative affect experienced during the past four weeks. The Affect Balance Scale is presumably a measure of the affective component of
SWB that many researchers have used (Carter, 2004; Cheng, 2004). Kammann and Flett
(1983) devised an “Affectometer” to measure the frequency of positive affect and negative affect, and Larsen (1983) made the “Affective Intensity Measure” to determine the intensity of affective SWB. The Affective Intensity Measure reveals how strongly various emotions are usually felt on those occasions when they are experienced.
In contrast, the cognitive component of SWB has been used to assess life satisfaction by many researchers (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; Eid & Diener, 2004; Hills &
Argyle, 1998, 2001, 2002; Westerhof, Dittmann Kohli, & Thissen, 2001). Several geriatric multi item scales of SWB such as the Life Satisfaction Index (Neugarten, et al, 1961) and
Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale (Lawton, 1975) have emerged for geriatric populations. Because these scales were designed only for aged respondents, they are unsuitable for young or mid aged people. More recently, life satisfaction scales have been developed for populations of all ages (Diener, et al., 1985). Cognitive measurement scales of
SWB include: Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS), Oxford Happiness Inventory (OHI), and
Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS).
Diener et al. (1985) developed the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). It has been used several times to measure SWB (Diener et al., 1985; Eid & Diener, 2004). SWLS is focused to assess global life satisfaction and does not tap related constructs such as positive 18 affect or loneliness. The SWLS has been shown to have high internal consistency and high temporal reliability. Scores on the SWLS have correlated moderately to highly with other measures of SWB, and predictably with specific personality characteristics. Westerhof et al.
(2001) also used SWLS to measure SWB.
Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999) developed a new 4 item measure of global subjective happiness, called the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS), which was validated in
14 studies with a total of 2,732 participants. The SHS showed high internal consistency, reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity. In four items of SHS, two items ask respondents to characterize themselves using both absolute ratings and ratings relative to peers, whereas the other two items offer brief descriptions of happy and unhappy individuals and ask respondents the extent to which each characterization describes them. Responses to the four items are then combined and averaged to provide a single continuous composite score ranging from 1 to 7 (Lyibomirsky, 2001).
Recent studies have used both affective and cognitive measure rather than either of two components individually (Cha, 2003; McGreal & Joseph, 1993). McGreal and Joseph
(1993) devised a 25 item Depression Happiness Scale (DHS) to measure SWB. The Oxford
Happiness Inventory (OHI) was devised as a broad measure of personal happiness (Argyle,
Martin, & Crossland, 1989). Hills and Argyle (1998) used the 29 item OHI to measure happiness of leisure participants. More recently, Hills and Argyle (2002) derived an improved instrument, Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OHQ), from the OHI. The revised OHQ instrument is compact, easy to administer, and allows endorsements over an extended range.
The OHQ has proven to be more valid and much strongly associated with SWB than the OHI
(Hills & Argyle, 2002). Both the DHS and OHI are global measures of happiness assessing 19 cognitive and affective aspects, whereas the SWLS assesses the cognitive aspect of happiness
(Hayes & Joseph, 2003).
However, a self report study about one’s life satisfaction or happiness has a couple of disadvantages. First, life satisfaction is neither a verifiable experience nor a known personal fact such as one’s address or age. Life satisfaction/happiness is a global retrospective judgment, which is constructed only when asked, and is determined in part by the respondent’s current mood and memory, and by the immediate context (Kahneman &
Krueger, 2006). Thomas and Diener (1990) found that people’s memories of emotional experiences are somewhat inaccurate. Findings from neuroscience research also support the view that life satisfaction measures are related to individuals’ emotional states (Kahneman &
Krueger, 2006). Thus, researchers must be careful not to assume that global findings reflect an accurate aggregation of individual situations (Diener & Biswas Diener, 2003). Second, there are research biases that can influence these self report scales, such as memory biases for one’s experiences. Most of these surveys depend on people’s recall of memories. Even though these methods produce a fairly valid portrait of people’s experiences of SWB, when study participants complete surveys about happiness in the moment versus in retrospect, somewhat different patterns of happiness emerge. Therefore, SWB researchers currently examine happiness as a phenomenon, and the most direct approach to the measurement of experienced SWB avoids the effects of memory as much as possible.
Accordingly, having subjects complete the self evaluation on the spot can avoid retrospective distortion. Abundant literature has revealed that retrospective biases can be substantial; therefore, the use of momentary appraisals help to limit these biases as much as 20 possible. Two measurement approaches to overcome these weaknesses are the Experience
Sampling Method (ESM) and the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM).
To evaluate emotional experience as it occurs in everyday life, researchers have developed a technique known as experience sampling. The Experience Sampling Method
(ESM) not only accounts for momentary states, but it can also yield trait like measures by adding up the separate momentary responses for each person (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990;
Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter, 2003). ESM collects information on individuals’ experiences in real time in their natural environments. It is intended to overcome problems inherent in global satisfaction questions, namely, imperfect recall and duration neglect. ESM is carried out by supplying subjects with an electronic diary that beeps at random times during a day and asks respondents to describe what they were doing just before the prompt and to indicate the intensity of various feelings. These data may be averaged to produce a metric reflecting actual daily experience. ESM appears to meet the principal requirements for a measure of
SWB that reflects an integration of immediate experience (Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade,
Schwarz, & Stone, 2004).
However, applications of ESM have been limited because it is difficult to implement in large population samples. An alternative that relies on a short recall period is the Day
Reconstruction Method (DRM) which has been used by Kahneman et al. (2004). DRM is a more recently developed technique that shares most of the advantages of ESM but appears overall to be a more practical method. The DRM combines elements of experience sampling and time diaries, and is designed specifically to facilitate accurate emotional recall.
Respondents are first asked to fill out a diary summarizing episodes that occurred in the preceding day. Then they describe each episode by indicating: when the episode began and 21 ended; what they were doing; where they were; and with whom they were interacting. To ascertain how they felt during each episode in regards to selected affective dimensions, respondents are asked to report the intensity of their feelings along nine categories on a scale from 0 “Not at all” to 6 “Very Much” (Kahneman & Krueger, 2006).
Many SWB measurement scales have been developed, however, previous studies have not measured transaction specific SWB. Although existing measurement scales of SWB are appropriate for general occasion or trait like measures during a certain time period, they are not suitable for a one time measure of transaction specific SWB. Because the situation for the current study is a specific occasion, SWB from a dining out activity should be measured using a different SWB measurement scale. Therefore, a new measurement scale for transaction specific SWB would be required based on theory driven definitions and empirical research on the structure of SWB.
Previous studies
Researchers have studied SWB as much as people have been interested in happiness.
Major issues in previous studies have focused on definition, measurement, causes, cultural differences and so on. Diener (1984, 1994, 2000) studied SWB over a long period of time and organized its definition, developed measurement scales, studied it at individual and national levels, and investigated the momentary mood effect on SWB.
Conceptual papers have dealt with SWB extensively and diversely (see Table 2.2).
Suranyi Unger (1981) studied consumers’ SWB as an economic view to clarify the interpretation of SWB in economics. Economic concepts of SWB in relation to consumer behavior were classified into hedonic, commodity specific, and income specific approach. 22
Ryan and Deci (2001) reviewed two principal approaches to define SWB, namely, hedonic and eudaimonic approaches. During the same period of time, Lyubomirsky (2001) studied multiple cognitive and motivational processes to understand why some people are happier than others. Lyubomirsky explored hedonically relevant psychological processes, such as social comparison, self evaluation, and personal perception, in chronically happy and unhappy individuals, and concluded that multiple cognitive and motivational processes moderate the impact of the objective environment on SWB. Kashdan (2004) assessed recent measurements of SWB, such as OHQ and OHI, and criticized that OHQ employs self esteem, sense of purpose, social interest and kindness, sense of humor, and aesthetic appreciation, instead of assessing the structure of SWB.
One issue in psychology literatures lies in whether a SWB measure is reliable and valid. Stock, Okun, and Benito (1994) computed reliability and validity of three SWB scales: the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale, Life Satisfaction Index, and Affect Balance
Scale translated in Spanish version. Slivinske, Fitch, and Morawski (1996) developed a “WB index” designed to assess the SWB of elderly which has acceptable reliability and validity.
Joseph and Lewis (1998) confirmed the unidimensionality and validity of the Depression
Happiness Scale (DHS). In their study, Crooker and Near (1998) doubted the distinctions between cognitive and affective measures by analyzing data from six national samples which indicated that happiness could be predicted better from cognitive measures of domain satisfaction and work attitudes than from a measure of positive affect. Thus, empirical reevaluation is needed on the frequently cited view that SWB is measured with only affective scales.
23
Table 2.2. Summary of SWB studies
Author Topic Comment Study type Suranyi unger SWB as an economic Used hedonic, commodity specific, and Conceptual (1981) view income specific approaches to SWB Diener (1984) Defining and Focuses on measurement issues, Conceptual measuring SWB influences on SWB, and SWB theory Diener, Emmons, Measurement issue Developed Satisfaction With Life Scale Empirical Larsen, & Griffin (SWLS) (1985) Headey & Life event and SWB, Studied relationship between Empirical Wearing (1989) Personality and SWB personality, life events, and SWB using a Dynamic Equilibrium Model Diener, Sandvik, Response artifacts in Studied four response artifacts (social Empirical Pavot & the measurement of desirability, current mood, moral belief Gallagher (1991) SWB about happiness, and happiness image management) and their effects on SWB Yardley & Rice Relationship between Studied effects of current mood and Empirical (1991) mood & SWB previous SWB on current SWB. Stock, Okun, & Translation of SWB Measured reliability and validity of Benito (1994) and reliability SWB measurement among Spanish elders Ringen (1995) Concept of SWB and Recommend SWB based on choice Conceptual measurement issue which is defined as a function of personal resources and arena options Slivinske, Fitch, Measurement issue Developed ‘The Wellness Index’ Empirical & Morawski (1996) Crooker, & Near Distinctions between Found that cognitive measure was Empirical (1998) cognitive and better than affective measures for SWB affective measures Diener, Sapyta, & Concept of SWB Insisted SWB is essential to WB and Conceptual Suh (1998) argued to the Ruff and Singer’s value Hills & Argyle Event, Personality Studied SWB and positive moods by Empirical (1998) and SWB four leisure activities comparatively Joseph & Lewis Measurement issue Validated McGeal and Joseph’s Empirical (1998) Depression Happiness Scale (DHS) Lepper (1998) Measurement issue Used other reports to validate SWB Empirical (Compare objective measures and compared it with measures and subjective measures subjective measures) Lyubomirsky & Measurement issue Developed Subjective Happiness Scale Empirical Lepper (1999) (SHS) Diener, Suh, Concept of SWB Reviewed current evidence for Wilson’s Conceptual Lucas, & Smith (1967) conclusion and discussed (1999) modern theories of SWB 24
Table 2.2. (Continued).
Author Topic Comment Study type Neal, Sirgy, & Life event and SWB Studied impact of travel/tourism trip on Empirical Uysal (1999) the overall life satisfaction Diener, Scollon, National and Predicted life satisfaction beyond Empirical Oishi, Dzokoto, individual analysis of objective measures at both the & Suh (2000) SWB individual and national levels Sagiv & Schwart Value priorities and Found that achievement, self direction, Empirical (2000) SWB stimulation, tradition, conformity, and security values correlated with affective WB. Hills & Argyle Personality and SWB Focused on emotional stability as a Empirical (2001) major dimension of happiness Lyubomirsky Concept of SWB Studied impact of multiple cognitive Conceptual (2001) and motivational processes on the happiness Ryan & Deci Hedonic and Reviewed research on hedonic and Conceptual (2001) Eudaimonic view of eudaimonic WB SWB Steptoe & National and cultural Compared emotional SWB in Eastern Empirical Wardle (2001) difference in SWB and Western Europe Hills & Argyle Measurement issue Developed Oxford Happiness Empirical (2002) Questionnaire (OHQ) Keyes, Shmotkin, SWB and Found the fact that SWB and Empirical Ryff (2002) Psychological WB Psychological WB are related but distinct concept of WB Cha (2003) Personality and SWB Studied the relationship between SWB Empirical and personality such as self esteem, collective self esteem, and optimism Csikszentmihalyi Happiness in Used Experience Sampling Method to Empirical & Hunter (2003) everyday life measure SWB Hayes & Joseph Measurement issue Compared three measures of SWB Empirical (2003) Biswas Diener, Psychology of SWB Studied crucial factors of SWB such as Conceptual Diener & Tamir personality and social relations (2004) Blanchflower & National difference in Focused on SWB over time in Britain Empirical Oswald (2004) SWB and the USA Carter (2004) Measurement issue Measured affective state, subjective Empirical WB, and affective disposition Cheng (2004) Endowment Contrast Studied the role of positive and negative Empirical Theory emotions on WB appraisal Eid & Diener Mood effect on SWB Studied the associations between Empirical (2004) momentary mood ratings and SWB Gilbert & Life event and SWB Studied impact of holidaytaking Empirical Abdullah (2004) vacations on the SWB 25
Table 2.2. (Continued).
Author Topic Comment Study type Kashdan (2004) Measurement issue Criticized recent measures of SWB Conceptual Spence, Oades, & Emotional WB Studied emotional intelligence, goal Empirical Caputi (2004) self integration and emotional SWB Xing (2005) Measurement issue Studied the effect of cultural difference Conceptual on SWB measure Deci & Ryan Hedonia, eudaimonia Reviewed SWB studies from the Conceptual (2008) and SWB eudaimonic tradition Kahneman, & Measurement issue Introduced Day Reconstruction Method Empirical Krueger (2006) to measure SWB
Because SWB is associated with personality, the relationship between the two (i.e., personality and subjective well being) has been studied a lot (Cha, 2003; Eid & Diener,
2004; Hayes, & Joseph, 2003; Headey & Wearing, 1989; Hills & Argyle, 1998, 2001).
Generally, a person who has great extroversion and low neuroticism characteristics can be happier in social and achievement situations than the others (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Hayes
& Joseph, 2003; Headey & Wearing, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1991). Headey and Wearing
(1989) studied the relationships among personality, life events, and SWB using a Dynamic
Equilibrium Model. According to this model, very stable personality traits, such as neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, predispose people to experience moderately stable levels of life events and moderately stable levels of SWB. Hills and Argyle
(1998) examined the associations of leisure activities with the Eysenck Personality traits and found that the most frequent association is with the personality of extraversion. However, in a later study, Hills and Argyle (2001) came to the conclusion that emotional stability is more strongly associated with happiness than extraversion and the greater correlate for a majority of the 29 items of the OHI. Hayes and Joseph (2003) also studied the correlation with personality and SWB using three measurements of SWB: OHI, DHS, and SWLS. In Korea, 26
Cha (2003) examined the SWB of Korean college students in relation to personality constructs, such as self esteem, collective self esteem, and optimism. The results indicated that all of the personality constructs are significantly correlated with life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect.
Several research studies were based on the supposition that the most likely causes of
SWB are major life events and experience (Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004; Headey & Wearing,
1989; Hills & Argyle, 1998; Schwarz & Strack, 1999). People of all ages are interested in their SWB from various small events in their everyday lives. A particularly happy event may increase corresponding to the individual’s happiness with his or her life as a whole (Schwarz
& Strack, 1999). Hills and Argyle (1998) revealed that a positive mood is generated from common leisure activities such as sport/exercise, music, church and watching TV soaps. Hills and Argyle used the OHI, and found that each activity was a significant source of positive moods and only sport/exercise appeared to result in increased happiness. Neal et al. (1999) also found that travel/tourism trip experiences has a direct impact on the overall life satisfaction of leisure travelers. From the same point of view, Gilbert and Abdullah (2004) studied the relationship between the activity of holiday taking and SWB and found that such activity changes the sense of WB of the participants. This result is in accordance with the view that people travel because they are motivated by their psychological needs and can only be satisfied by tourism activity. Therefore, the holidaymakers’ motivations represent the goals to be achieved in SWB.
Another interesting topic of SWB is national difference and SWB (Blanchflower, &
Oswald, 2004; Diener et al., 2000; Steptoe & Wardle, 2001). Theoretically, the factors that influence people’s SWB are quite inconsistent, owing to the differences in value, nationality, 27 and the degree of social development caused by culture (Diener & Suh, 2000; Xing, 2005). If societies have different values, the members of those societies will use different criteria in evaluating their experiences of SWB. Research on SWB, which measures experience, emphasizes the indigenous cultural foundation of SWB. Diener et al. (2000) studied why some nations are higher in SWB than others one might expect based on wealth and concluded that positivity predicted SWB beyond objective measures. Steptoe and Wardle
(2001) compared Eastern and Western European’s health behavior and emotional SWB, and found that Eastern European students have less healthy life styles and are less likely to be aware of the relationship between life style factors, such as smoking and exercise, and cardiovascular disease risk. They also revealed lower social support and a higher belief in
“chance” and “powerful others” locus of control than Western European students.
Blanchflower and Oswald (2004) studied SWB in the United States and Great Britain from a demographic view, and revealed SWB is greatest among women, married people, the highly educated, and those who parents did not divorce. An interesting finding was that happiness and life satisfaction are U shaped regarding age. In both Britain and the U.S., SWB reached a minimum around the age of 40, when other factors were held constant.
Another interesting research issue is the relationship between mood and SWB. Mood effect to the SWB (Eid & Diener, 2004), Psychological WB (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff,
2002), and emotional WB (Diener & Lucas, 2000; Spence, Oades, & Caputi, 2004) were studied. In terms of momentary effect, it is said that individuals use their current mood as a parsimonious indicator of their SWB, unless the informational value of their affective state is questioned (Schwarz & Strack, 1991, 1999). However, Eid and Diener (2004) called in a question of momentary mood effect to the global judgment of SWB. They revealed that 28 global SWB is more strongly related to mood on a trait level than on the occasion specific deviation level.
A few researchers have suggested theoretical models (Carter, 2004; Cheng, 2004;
Headey & Wearing, 1989). Headey and Wearing (1989) proposed a Dynamic Equilibrium
Model. Cheng (2004) presented the Affective Endowment Contrast Theory. Cheng’s study criticized linear additive models of affect and SWB because they do not account for why people can uphold their sense of SWB during adversity. During the same period of time,
Carter (2004) examined the relationships among three widely used measures of three constructs: affective state, SWB, and affective disposition, and concluded that these constructs were related but not in equal magnitude.
Studies in Korea
The Korean society and culture are highly homogenous. Hence, one of the most outstanding aspects of the Korean character is the deeply rooted sense of homogeneity.
Koreans are united geographically on the Korean Peninsula since ancient times; thus Korean society is a consanguineous community from a single ancestor. Moreover, Koreans use a single language. Due to these reasons, Koreans have maintained their identity throughout their long history and they have made unique culture. Owing to geographical, unilingual, cultural and historical reasons, the introduction of foreign culture has spread out very quickly to all Koreans as well as the concept of SWB.
From an economic point of view, until the 1990s South Koreans were characterized as hardworking, and committed to corporate values and a drive for achievement. More recently, due to newly gained material wealth and increasing disposable income and leisure time, 29 people have looked for an improved quality of life as well as a happier and healthier life. The growing desire to improve the quality of one’s life is also along the changing of value systems. In the 2000s, these increasing desires have emerged as a nationwide boom for SWB spanning all aspects of life.
Nowadays most Koreans have generally become conscious of their SWB. In particular, greater concern for disease prevention and a rapidly aging population are major factors driving demand for SWB. SWB is everywhere in Korea these days. Restaurants, pharmacies, and fitness centers—virtually every service available in the country—is prefacing the service upon offer with “WB” (Scofield, 2004).
In Korea, the food industry, which adopted the WB trend a few years prior to other industries, has developed food and beverage products containing healthy ingredients, vitamins and minerals. Organic food sales are continuing are rapidly increasing due to the current trend of customers’ seeking a healthier diet. As Korean society is growing more conscious of health risks, it has pressured restaurants to improve product quality and offer healthier options. Thus, most restaurants are trying to offer consumers a more “healthy” option amidst this WB trend.
As people are concerned about pursuing better life styles, SWB has been the key phrase in marketing. Companies dealing with organic food, fitness and safety construction materials have benefited the most. In fact, Korea's organic food sector has experienced a 30% to 40% per year growth in recent years. Industry watchers have noted that the SWB based healthcare product market in Korea would reach US$3.4 billion in 2005 (Park, 2004b). In a general view of market watchers, the SWB trend symbolizes that Korean society has reached 30 a certain degree of maturity. All nations are not the case, whereas, at least in Korea, SWB is the sign of a society whose basic needs have been met.
SWB in the restaurant
SWB in the restaurant can be considered by a set of attributes, which may include food, service, and restaurant environment with facilities. Restaurant diners recognize different levels of importance to each attribute. According to attribute value theory, consumers weigh the overall value of an offering in terms of the degree to which each attribute is present and the importance they attach the attribute as having (Park, 2004a).
Restaurant food consumption can directly influence a customers’ happiness
(Finkelstein, 1989); therefore, SWB in the restaurant starts with the food. Physiological pleasure is basically derived from the consumption of the foods people want. Nowadays there is more of an emphasis on freshness and in organic foods than previously. More people seek low fat, low carbohydrate foods, as well as fruits and vegetables. Well presented foods satisfy diners’ five senses, and nutritious, safe, and reliable foods make diners feel healthy and pleased (Brumback, 1998).
Excellent and well trained service plays an important role in diners’ SWB. The better the service received, the happier the customers. For this reason many restaurants pay particular attention to the employees’ service training. Moreover, the atmosphere and facilities of the restaurant contribute to diners’ SWB. A comfortable and sociable mood through good ambiance and polished decoration gives diners pleasure (Finkelstein, 1989). If diners feel healthy mentally and physically through a restaurant dining experience, and if dining out makes them joyful and sociable state, the diners are compelled to feel a positive 31 state of SWB. Hence, a restaurant is unquestionably a splendid situation where people can feel SWB.
Hedonic and Utilitarian Performance
Many consumption activities produce both hedonic and utilitarian outcomes, because consumers purchase goods and services for two basic reasons: (1) affective gratification from sensory attitudes; and (2) instrumental, utilitarian reasons (Batra, & Ahtola, 1990). Many researchers have adopted a two dimensional conceptualization of consumer attitudes. One dimension is a hedonic dimension resulting from sensations derived from the experience of using products. Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) defined hedonic consumption as consumers’ multisensory images, fantasies and emotional arousal in using products. Since hedonic values, such as entertainment, exploration, and self expression (Ailawadi, Neslin, & Gedenk, 2001;
Chandon, Wansink, & Laurent, 2000) derive more from fun and enjoyment than from task completion and are noninstrumental, experiential, and affective (Chaudhuri & Holbrook,
2001; Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982), hedonic values are more subjective and personal
(Babin et al., 1994). The other is a utilitarian dimension derived from functions performed by products (Voss, Spangenberg, & Grohmann, 2003).
Utilitarian value results from the conscious pursuit of an intended consequence
(Babin et al., 1994). It is primarily instrumental, functional, and cognitive (Chandon et al.,
2000) and it is related to the performance perception of usefulness, value, and wisdom (Batra
& Ahtola, 1990). For example, savings, convenience, and product quality can be classified as utilitarian values (Ailawadi et al., 2001; Chandon et al., 2000; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001).
Traditionally, marketers believed that market choices and consumer preferences were driven 32 by utilitarian value (Arnould, Price, & Zinkhan, 2004). In sum, a hedonic determinant of overall evaluations is presumed to be based on the consumer’s assessment of how much pleasure he/she gets, and a utilitarian determinant is based on his/her assessment about the instrumental value of the brand’s functional attributes (Batra & Ahtola, 1990).
In order to measure hedonic and utilitarian performance, many researchers developed measurement scales (Babin et al., 1994; Batra & Ahtola, 1990; Voss et al., 2003). Batra and
Ahtola (1990) tested if the theoretical notion of hedonic and utilitarian components is supported in consumer data, and suggested reliable and valid scales to measure the hedonic and utilitarian components. In their study, utilitarian component items were useful/useless, valuable/worthless, beneficial/harmful, and wise/foolish, whereas hedonic items were pleasant/unpleasant, nice/awful, agreeable/disagreeable, and happy/sad. Babin et al. (1994) developed and validated the scale measuring both values obtained from the pervasive consumption experience of shopping. Voss et al. (2003) established reliable, valid, generalizable, and useful measures of the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of overall brand/product attitudes. The researcher found that two dimensional hedonic and utilitarian attitudes produce a stronger model than using a one dimensional measure of brand attitude.
Specifically, the hedonic and utilitarian constructs are separate and important dimensions of attitude toward products and brands. In their measurement, each dimension had five items.
Hedonic dimension included fun, exciting, delightful, thrilling, and enjoyable. Utilitarian dimension contained effective, helpful, functional, necessary, and practical.
In a dining out experience, consumers also perform both hedonic and utilitarian evaluation from restaurant attributes. Park (2004a) studied two aspects of dining out evaluation into utilitarian and hedonic and investigated the relationships between consumers’ 33 evaluation eating out and the importance of fast food restaurant attributes in Korea. In the study, the utilitarian evaluation of eating out was defined as an assessment regarding the instrumental benefits they derive from its nonsensory attributes; therefore, this aspect is judged according to whether the particular purpose is accomplished (Davis, Bagozzi, &
Warshaw, 1992; Venkatesh, 2000). The hedonic aspect of dining out is the evaluation of restaurant experience based on the assessment regarding the amount of fun, playfulness, and pleasure they experience or anticipate from the restaurant. It reflects a dining out entertainment value derived from its sensory attributes (Batra & Ahtola, 1990, Crowley,
Spangenberg, & Hughes, 1992). This study presented empirical evidence showing that
Korean consumers choose fast food restaurants more by hedonic values of eating out.
In other contexts, researchers have examined consumers’ hedonic and utilitarian beliefs; shopping value (Babin et al., 1994; Griffin, Babin, & Modianos, 2000; Stoel,
Wickliffe, & Lee, 2004), product/brand (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001, 2002; Mano & Oliver,
1993), and Web performance (Huang, 2003). Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) studied the relationship between hedonic evaluation and product consumption because they viewed consumption experience as a phenomenon directed toward the pursuit of fantasies, feelings, and fun. Mano and Oliver (1993) assessed the structure of the consumption experience comprised of evaluation, feeling and satisfaction. In their study, utilitarian and hedonic evaluation were viewed as causal antecedent to two dimension of affect (pleasant and arousal) and product satisfaction.
Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is central to marketing and, thus, it has been studied for a long 34 time. Customer satisfaction is basically an overall post purchase evaluation. Yi (1991) defined customer satisfaction as an attitude like judgment following a purchase act or based on a series of consumer product interactions, while Day (1983) conceptualized it as an emotional response manifested in feelings and is distinct from cognitive responses, brand affect, and behavioral responses. Hausknecht (1990) reviewed more than 30 different measures from previous research and came to a conclusion that customer satisfaction can be defined as a function of general satisfaction, confirmation of expectations, and the distance from the customer’s hypothetical ideal product. Many researchers have defined satisfaction variously; however, the popular definition of customer satisfaction is explained in terms of the so called Disconfirmation Paradigm. The Disconfirmation Paradigm proposes that meeting or exceeding customer expectations lead to customer satisfaction (known as positive disconfirmation), but dissatisfaction results if performance falls short of those expectations
(Boshoff, 2006; Yuksel & Rimmington, 1998). According to Oliver (1980), customer satisfaction is relatively short lived and eventually decays into overall attitude.
Researchers have developed various competing theories of and measurement approaches for satisfaction, however, there is no universally accepted method or measurement scale. Because the measurement of consumer satisfaction is more exploratory in its development rather than a precise and exact science, there exist several theories to assess customer satisfaction (Gilbert & Veloutsou, 2006). The scales used, the format of the questionnaires, and the data collection methods are varied. Hausknecht (1990) reviewed over
30 measures from literatures and classified customer satisfaction measures into three categories: (a) evaluative/cognitive measures; (b) emotional/affective measures; and (c) behavioral/cognitive measures. Hausknecht recommended emotional/affective measures, 35 because it assesses directly the concept of customer satisfaction and should be strong candidates for measures of the construct. Yuksel and Rimmington (1998) compared six measurement forms of customer satisfaction, which are performance only, performance weighted by importance, importance minus performance, direct confirmation disconfirmation, confirmation disconfirmation weighted by importance, and performance minus predictive expectations. In their study, measuring customer satisfaction as performance only emerged as the most reliable and valid measure of satisfaction.
From previous studies, there are several leading theories associated with customer satisfaction measurement, such as the expectancy disconfirmation approach, the performance only approach, overall satisfaction approach, the technical and functional dichotomy approaches, the service quality versus service satisfaction approach, and the attribute importance approach, but the most notable theory is the expectancy disconfirmation paradigm (Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004). Expectation disconfirmation states that customers compare actual product and service performance with their prior expectations. There are two methods for investigating confirmation and disconfirmation of expectations; one is an inferred approach, whereas the other is a direct approach (Yuksel & Rimmington, 1998). The inferred approach involves computing the discrepancy between expectations of performance and evaluation of outcomes. The direct approach, by contrast, requires the use of summary judgment scales to measure confirmation and disconfirmation (e.g., a Likert type scale of
“better than expected” to “worse than expected”). The researcher directly asks the respondent the extent to which the service experience exceeded, met, or fell short of expectations
(Yuksel & Rimmington, 1998). Both inferred and direct methods of expectancy disconfirmation paradigm have been used by hospitality and tourism researchers in various 36 hotel and tourism related studies (Barsky, 1992; Barsky & Labagh, 1992; Pizam & Milman,
1993).
When selecting one of the aforementioned measuring methods, each researcher should choose carefully in accordance with the definition and context of the study. However, it is an irony that, although most recent theoretical treatments identify customer satisfaction as a feeling or emotion concept, the disconfirmation cognition does play a role and has historically been used as a measurement of customer satisfaction. The current study followed the expectancy disconfirmation paradigm, and used the direct approach to measure SWB. It was assumed that, if expectations are measured simultaneously with the service experience, those expectations can be biased by the experience.
Customer satisfaction and subjective well-being
Satisfaction and SWB seem to be a similar concept, but they are distinctive.
Satisfaction is conceptualized as an emotional response to the judgmental disparity between product performance and a corresponding normative standard (Cadotte et al., 1987; Day,
1984; Hunt, 1977). It is a judgment that the customers’ pleasurable level of consumption related fulfillment, including levels of under or over fulfillment of the product or service feature (Oliver, 1997). On the other hand, SWB is considered as mental and physical health and happiness contributing to the personal life. Theoretically, SWB is overall life satisfaction and the satisfaction with life domains.
Customer satisfaction is the feeling that one has accomplished a goal during a short period of time, and as long as people feel their goals are being reached, satisfaction remains unaffected. However, SWB is an ongoing perception that this time in one’s life is fulfilling, 37 meaningful, and pleasant (Myers, 1993). Bottom up Spillover theory suggested the satisfaction hierarchy (Lee, Sirgy, Larsen & Wright, 2002; Sirgy, Lee, & Rahtz, 2007), and according to this theory, customer satisfaction with events and experience within the various life domains is an important source of satisfaction with life domains (Lee et al., 2002; Sirgy et al., 2007). Therefore, in the current study customer satisfaction with dining out experience was assumed to contribute to the customers’ SWB.
Value
Customer value has become an important concept for understanding buyer behavior
(Holbrook, 1994; Zeithaml, 1988). Because value is the consequences of using a product or service, the degree of value is as closely related to the customer’s intended use of the product or service (Gardner, 2001). Thus, value is intimately associated with consumption and key outcome variable in a general model of consumption experiences (Holbrook, 1986).
The definition of value varies according to the context. Perceived value has been variously conceptualized as customer utility, perceived benefits relative to sacrifice, psychological price, worth and quality (Woodruff, 1998). Woodruff (1998) defined value as the customer’s perceived preference for and evaluation of those product attributes, attribute performances, and consequences arising from the use that facilitate achieving the customer’s goals and purposes in use situation. Sheth, Newman, and Gross (1991) described five types of value that drive consumer choice—functional value, social value, emotional value, epistemic value, and conditional value. Chiu et al. (2005) conceptualized value as an outcome of consumption experiences and customers’ experiences with relational bonds influence their value perceptions. According to Dumond (2000), value usually involves a 38 trade off between what customer receives (e.g., quality, benefits, worth), and what he or she gives up to acquire and use a product or service (e.g., price, sacrifices). More recently,
Cengiz and Kirkbir (2007) found perceived value to be a multidimensional construct composed of seven dimensions: functional value (installation, service quality, price, and professionalism), emotional value (novelty, control, and hedonics), and social value.
Thus, definition of value is determined in the context of customer use. The most common conceptualization of value today is Zeithaml’s (1988) “give” versus “get” model.
Zeithaml (1988) identified four common uses of the term ‘value.’ One definition equates value with price. Second, value is conceptualized in the exchange process by representing the trade off between costs and benefits. Third is more specific expressing value as a trade off between perceived product quality and price. A fourth definition equates value with an overall assessment of subjective worth considering all relevant evaluative criteria.
Among these, the most common definition of value in the marketing literatures is the ratio or trade off between quality and price, which is a value for money conceptualization.
The significant “gives” includes not only direct monetary costs, but also non monetary cost such as the time, effort, and risk assumption associated with utilizing the service. Here, customers’ judgment on service value is influenced by gaps in differences in monetary costs, non monetary costs, customer tastes, and customer characteristics (Bolton & Drew, 1991).
Thus, in current study, value is a customer’s overall assessment of one’s interaction experience in dining activities based on perceptions of what is given and what is received
(Babin et al., 1994; Zeithaml, 1988). Value generally takes the role of an important intervening variable caused directly by consumer perceptions of quality, sacrifice, and a product’s intrinsic and extrinsic attributes (Dodds & Monroe, 1985; Dodds, Monroe, & 39
Grewal, 1991). In this study, value is hypothesized to directly influence SWB and behavioral intention in the restaurant context. From several previous studies, the direct relationships of value with SWB (Oishi, Diener, Suh, & Lucas, 1999; Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000) and with willingness to buy (Aaker, 1991; Cronin et al., 2000; Dodds, 1991; Dodds et al., 1991; Kwun
& Oh, 2004; Monroe & Krishnan, 1985; Oh, 2000) have already been supported.
Behavioral Intention
Behavioral intentions are clear indicators that show whether the customer will continue with or leave the firm, which include: (1) making favorable comments about the firm (Boulding, Karla, Staelin, & Zeithaml, 1993); (2) recommending it (Reichheld & Sasser,
1990); (3) remaining loyal to it (LaBarbera & Mazursky, 1983; Rust & Zahornik, 1993); (4) spending more with the company (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996); and (5) paying a premium price (Zeithaml et al., 1996).
Among these, repurchase intentions and word of mouth are the most used behavioral intentions measured (Boulding et al., 1993; Cronin et al., 2000). Thus, the current study used repurchase intentions and word of mouth as measures of behavioral intention. Word of mouth is informal communication and is defined as the likelihood of the customer recommending characteristics of particular goods and services and/or the retailer to other customers (Keiningham, Cooil, Aksoy, Andreassen, & Weiner, 2007; Netemeyer & Maxham,
2007). Word of mouth is a key in attracting new customers, while repurchase intention is a key in maintaining existing customers. Although the correlation between intentions and repurchase is not perfect, it will be long used to help future purchasing behavior. With regard to customer satisfaction’s relationship with customer behavior, research has shown a link 40 between customer satisfaction and customers’ behavioral intention (Carpenter & Fairhurst,
2005; LaBarbera & Mazursky, 1983; Newman & Webel, 1973; Oh, 2000; Sirgy et al., 2007).
41
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Based on the literature review, this study explored the role of subjective well being
(SWB) and its relationship with other constructs in the restaurant industry. To this end, this study proposed that hedonic performance and utilitarian performance experienced in restaurants would induce customers’ SWB through customer satisfaction and value, as shown in the research model. The research hypotheses are discussed in the next section, followed by the research instrument. Data collection and analysis methods are also explained in this chapter.
Research Model
This study conceptualizes SWB and integrates it with hedonic and utilitarian performance, customer satisfaction, and value in a customer decision model. It also posits some direct and indirect relationship among hedonic and utilitarian performance, customer satisfaction, value, SWB, and behavioral intention. Specifically, this study suggests that the impact of restaurant performance on SWB is mediated by customer satisfaction and value.
For the better understanding of the nature of the relationship between hedonic and utilitarian performance and SWB, it is essential to uncover the underlying mechanisms and processes through which these relationships operate. Figure 3.1 provides a graphical summary of these hypothesized relationships.
Customers who experience SWB as a result of a restaurant event may wish to revisit that particular establishment, and/or may communicate their pleasurable experience to their friends and acquaintances. The rationale is that performance evaluations from a dining out experience, which are composed of hedonic and utilitarian consumption activities, may 42
Customer H7
Hedonic Performance H1 Satisfaction H5
Subjective H9 Behavioral
H2 H 4 Well Being Intention
Utilitarian Performance H 6
H3 Perceived Value H 8
Figure 3.1. Hypothesized framework
influence the customer’s satisfaction, value, and SWB. If the customer perceives SWB as a consequence of restaurant performance encounters, SWB is likely to affect their revisit intention positively. Thus, the customer will be motivated to become loyal and to create positive word of mouth, two consequences that are captured in behavioral intention in the model.
The model hypothesizes a direct relationship of hedonic and utilitarian performances with customer satisfaction (H 1 H2), as well as a straightforward connection between utilitarian performance and value (H 3). The model also suggests direct relationships among customer satisfaction, value, and SWB (H 4 H6); among customer satisfaction, value, and behavioral intention (H 7 H8); and between SWB and behavioral intention (H 9).
43
Research Hypotheses
Hedonic performance, utilitarian performance, and customer satisfaction
This study anticipates that both positive hedonic and utilitarian performance of a restaurant will generate customer satisfaction. Traditionally researchers have focused on two major dimensions of product evaluation: hedonic and utilitarian evaluations. Empirical evidence has shown that both hedonic and utilitarian evaluations of product consumption are positively correlated with customer satisfaction (Babin, Lee, Kim, & Griffin, 2005; Carpenter
& Fairhurst, 2005; Jiang & Wang, 2006). Carpenter and Fairhurst (2005) examined the effect of hedonic and utilitarian shopping benefits on customer satisfaction and found that significant and positive relationships between hedonic and utilitarian shopping benefits and customer satisfaction. These results may be applicable to the restaurant experience, because restaurants also provide both hedonic and utilitarian aspects in their offerings. In the restaurant context, Babin et al. (2005) studied the relationships among hedonic and utilitarian value, customer satisfaction and word of mouth and their study also displayed positive relationships of both hedonic and utilitarian value with customer satisfaction.
Restaurant experience is comprised of a complex set of restaurant attributes including food, service, restaurant facilities, and ambience. Customers will also evaluate restaurant performance hedonically or functionally. From the hedonic point of view, if a restaurant provides a fun and pleasurable experience, customers will be satisfied with the dining experience. Hence, the current study proposes:
H1: Hedonic performance of a restaurant is positively related to customer satisfaction.
44
The current study also proposes that customer perceptions of utilitarian performance have an impact on customer satisfaction. Since utilitarian performance is defined as the customer’s functional and useful evaluation in relation to restaurant attributes, utilitarian performance is derived from the customer’s belief that specific consumption goals are satisfied in terms of eating the food meeting their needs. Anecdotal evidence also illustrates that low price and good dining experience often provide the customers with satisfactory feelings. Another example provides that if restaurant foods meet nutritional requirements, such as low sodium or no cholesterol, the utility of the foods is likely to result in satisfactory feelings in the customer.
H2: Utilitarian performance of a restaurant is positively related to customer satisfaction.
Utilitarian performance and value
Utilitarian performance results from the conscious pursuit of an intended consequence. It also indicates the usefulness of an event and the appreciation of activities
(Babin et al., 1994). Customers procure benefits from their experiences, and their pursuit of intended purchase goals helps acquire the desired value. Thus, customers’ utilitarian experiences may naturally influence their value perceptions (Chiu et al., 2005). Since utilitarian performance influences rational judgments, higher utilitarian evaluation may prompt higher perceptions of value. For example, healthy food seekers who possess positive attitudes toward exercise and nutrition tend to value more wholesome foods. When the customer finds high utility in the fresh and healthy foods they buy, they will tend to perceive greater value for the money they paid. Hence,
H3: Utilitarian performance of a restaurant is positively related to value.
45
Perceived value and customer satisfaction
Value and customer satisfaction are essential to all marketing activities. Accordingly, perceived value and customer satisfaction have been studied heavily over the past two decades and a key research question has been how they are related to each other. Previous research suggests that perceived value has a positive effect on overall customer satisfaction
(Cronin et al., 2000; Fornell et al., 1996; Hallowell, 1996; Hsu, 2006; Lee et al., 2005).
Likewise, a highly valued restaurant experience is likely to be a highly satisfactory dining experience.
H4: Perceived value is positively related to customer satisfaction.
Customer satisfaction, value, and SWB
Customer satisfaction is current feelings based on the evaluations given to the utilitarian and hedonic performance of a target purchase. SWB is defined as a contented state of being happy and healthy and it is related broadly to healthy and happy life. Customer satisfaction and SWB are important outcomes of a consumption process in the service context. However, until recently marketers have overlooked the role of SWB as an outcome of service delivery. Lee and Sirgy (2004) suggested that SWB marketing is a new paradigm succeeding sales and profit, customer satisfaction, and relationship marketing.
Customer satisfaction is a customer’s response to a product or service following a purchase or based on a series of consumer product interactions (Boshoff, 2006; Yi, 1991). On the other hand, SWB is more macro outcome related to health and happy life (Dagger &
Sweeney, 2006). Hence, customer satisfaction is assumed to contribute to the customer’s 46 personal life, because the customer who is satisfied with dining experience is likely to feel a higher level of SWB
In this study, transaction specific SWB means life satisfaction with domains such as personal health, family, and interpersonal relationships from the dining out event. The greater the satisfaction with a dining out event, the greater the satisfaction with life domains such as personal health, friends and leisure is. That is, satisfaction with life domains is influenced directly by satisfaction with particular events such as dining out (Lee et al., 2002). A few previous studies have provided evidence supporting the link between customer satisfaction and SWB. Dagger and Sweeney (2006) developed a model resulting in empirical support that service satisfaction significantly enhanced SWB and behavioral intention. These results lead to the following hypothesis for the current study.
H5: Customer satisfaction is positively related to SWB.
SWB perceptions are influenced by value as well as customer satisfaction. Sagiv and
Schwartz (2000) investigated relationships between value and SWB and suggested that the realization of values increases personal SWB. They proposed that particular values, such as freedom, interpersonal relationships, family relationships, and personal growth contribute positively to individual mental health. For example, a person who values interpersonal relationships is likely to feel SWB as the result of eating with, conversing with, and smiling amongst close friends in a restaurant situation. Additionally, one who values superior food quality may feel a high degree of SWB as a consequence of eating organic foods, because organically grown foods are perceived to be good for the body. The pursuit of ‘healthy’ values leads to perceptions, attitudes or behaviors that, in turn, increase personal happiness or 47 satisfaction with life domains (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000). When customers get benefits from healthy foods, they will think dining out is worth the price they pay, which is an integral element of value judgments. If such value judgments are closely related to satisfaction with life domains, they should also contribute to SWB. Hence, SWB may be associated with emphasizing values, and the resulting value judgment contributes to one’s SWB.
H6: Perceived value is positively related to SWB.
Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention
Customer satisfaction has been shown to be a primary predictor of future purchase behavior (Carpenter & Fairhurst, 2000; LaBarbera & Mazursky, 1983; Newman & Webel,
1973; Oh, 2000; Sirgy et al., 2007), because memory of a good experience is likely to evoke a customer’s repeat intention. Behavioral intention includes willingness to provide positive word of mouth communications and repurchases (Boulding et al., 1993; Reichheld & Sasser,
1990). When customers are satisfied with products or services provided by a restaurant, their behavioral intentions toward the restaurant, its product, and/or services will be more favorable. Thus, customer satisfaction seems to be a factor motivating repeat purchase behavior and positive word of mouth communication.
H7: Customer satisfaction is positively related to behavioral intention.
Value, SWB, and behavioral intention
A review of several studies shows that value significantly influences the customer’s willingness to buy (Aaker, 1991; Cronin et al., 2000; Dodds, 1991; Dodds et al., 1991; Kwun
& Oh, 2004; Lee et al., 2005; Oh, 2000), and value is also a substantial determinant of customers’ behavioral intentions to spread positive word of mouth communication (Bolton & 48
Drew, 1991). Monroe and Dodds (1985) asserted that perceptions of value were directly related to preferences or choices; that is, the higher the perception of value, the more probable the buyer would be to express willingness to purchase or a preference for the product. These previous value studies have focused on price and quality as determinants of perceived value. A higher perceived value is a motivator to buy a product, and there are those who would express willingness to pay a price premium (Baldauf, Cravens, & Binder, 2003).
In the restaurant context, a direct relationship between value and behavioral intention can be expected for similar reasons.
H8: Perceived value is positively related to behavioral intention.
The behavioral intention of customers is significant to the restaurant industry and it is measured as repurchase intention and word of mouth (Netemeyer & Maxham, 2007). The former is a key to maintaining current customers, and the latter is essential to attracting new customers. Restaurateurs recognize the importance of repurchase intention as it is more cost effective to retain existing customers than to prospect new ones (Spreng, Harrell, & Mackoy,
1995). The effect of SWB on behavioral intention, however, has yet to be examined empirically.
Peoples are always in pursuit of a happy and healthy life. From the customer’s point of view, a customer who perceives a higher level of SWB from a restaurant is more likely to revisit that restaurant. From the restaurateur’s point of view, a positive SWB toward product or service can be construed as a positive result of marketing to retain customers. Therefore, this study expects the relationship between SWB and customers’ behavioral intention to be positive. 49
H9: SWB is positively related to customers’ behavioral intention.
SWB and indirect relationships
In addition to the direct links described above, several indirect relationships are of interest to the current study. One of these indirect effects is associated with the relationship between customer satisfaction and behavioral intention through SWB. In addition, the indirect effect of perceived value on customer’s behavioral intention through SWB should be of similar interest, because a person’s SWB is assumed to be an antecedent of the customer’s behavioral intention. Examinations of indirect effects like these will help restaurant marketers clearly understand the mediating role of SWB in the customer’s performance evaluation process.
Research Design
Questionnaire
This study followed a field survey approach with a self administered questionnaire.
The questionnaire contained six sections of descriptive and exploratory questions which examined customers’ perceptions of a restaurant experience and SWB (see Appendix A). The descriptive questions focused on frequency of responses, whereas the exploratory questions concentrated on understanding the customer’s perceptions conceptualized in the research model.
Section 1 of the questionnaire consisted of the respondents’ evaluations of the performance of the restaurant they patronized. Based on research by Voss et al. (2003), nine measurement items were used to assess the targeted dining out experience. Five of the ten 50 items measured performance on the hedonic dimension and the remaining four focused on the utilitarian dimension.
Section 2 assessed customer satisfaction with four measurement items. Customer satisfaction was measured by one item based on an overall rating of satisfaction with a 5 point Likert scale from “very unsatisfied” to “very satisfied” and the other three items were based on the degree to which performance meets expectation with a 5 point Likert scale from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” or from “much worse than expected” to “much better than expected”. These measurement items resulted from an extensive review of relevant literature (Fornell, 1992; Fornell et al., 1996).
Section 3 examined the respondent’s perceived value of the restaurant experience.
Three direct measures of value were included in the survey to capture the value construct on a 5 point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001).
Section 4 assessed the respondent’s SWB arising from the dining out experience.
SWB measures typically have included a global assessment of all aspects of a person’s life.
For the purpose of this study, however, the scales proposed to measure SWB in previous studies were not suitable for measuring transaction specific SWB in the restaurant context.
For a transaction specific SWB in this study, a six item SWB scale was used. Three items were made up of the respondent’s feelings about SWB with life domains such as a happy life, healthy life, and social life. The remaining three items were composed of overall SWB after dining. The six items were based on previous theoretical and empirical studies relevant to the current research purpose. The respondents were asked to indicate how they felt for each of the six items on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 51
Section 5 utilized three questions of behavioral intentions, often used in service marketing literatures (Cronin et al., 2000) and composed of making favorable comments, revisiting, and recommending the restaurant. A 5 point Likert scale was also used to operationalize these items, with the scale scores ranging from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree.”
The final section consisted of questions pertaining to demographic characteristics such as gender, age, income, education level, and career. This section also inquired as to average expenditure during the restaurant visit.
Pretest
Prior to administering the actual survey, a pretest was conducted to improve the validity of the survey instrument. The pretest allows determining if the respondents would experience any difficulty in understanding the questionnaire or if there are any ambiguous or biased questions (Zikmund, 2000). Initial questionnaires were pre tested with 20 Korean restaurant customers who completed the pretest on site after their dining out experience.
They were asked to evaluate the questionnaire for its clarity and appropriateness of questions before the items were finalized. The final questionnaire was revised based on the comments collected from the pre test. The survey instrument was then submitted to and approved by
Iowa State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the protection of human subjects in research.
Translation
The original questionnaire was drafted in English and subsequently translated to
Korean. When translating an existing instrument, the translation back translation method has 52 been considered to be a preferred method of obtaining a culturally equivalent instrument
(Erkut, Alarcon, Garcia, Troop, & Vazguez Garcia, 1999). When questionnaires include social and psychological dimensions, translation into different languages raises a problem of transcultural reliability and, thus, it is essential to confirm that each item is related to the same concept, whatever the language used (Guillemin, Bombardier, & Beaton, 1993). The back translation method suggested by Jones (1987), Jones and Kay (1992) and Brislin (1970) is a three step procedure. The text is translated from English into the target language. A different translator converts that version back into English, and finally an English speaking person compares the original test with the back translation (Maxwell, 1996). The translation phase has the purpose of checking for discrepancies between the content and meaning of the original version and the translated instrument (Kara, van der Bijl, Shortridge Baggett, Asti, &
Erguney, 2006). The processes of translation and back translation tend to highlight translation mistakes, omissions, and biases, and, more generally, to identify problems raised by the cross cultural adaptation of the instrument.
In the current study, the original questionnaire was drafted in English and subsequently translated into Korean by a certified translator whose mother tongue was
Korean. It was back translated into English by two bilingual translators who were certified
Korean English translators. The original and back translated English versions of the questionnaire were then compared by the researcher and two other native English speaking persons to check for differences in the wording and the meaning of corresponding questions.
53
Sampling
A convenience sample of restaurant customers living in Seoul, Korea participated in the study. The sample was comprised of actual restaurant customers who had undergone a dining experience in selected restaurants. Customers completed questionnaires on site to capture transaction specific measures of SWB, because this study considered SWB in a transaction rather than as life satisfaction. Previous studies have shown that the direct emotional experience of a particular event and the emotional memory relating to it do not always match well (Biswas Diener, Diener, & Tamir, 2004). Moreover, due to the fact that retrospective reports of past episodes are susceptible to systematic biases and have the dimensionality of unequaled weighted average of moment utilities (Kahneman, Fredrickson,
Schreiber & Redelmeier, 1993; Kahneman & Krueger, 2006), the current study conducted on site survey of transaction specific SWB.
The scope of this study was restricted to full service fine dining and casual dining restaurants in Seoul, Korea. Because this study assumed that different types of restaurants would reflect the different degrees of SWB contribution to customers the specific type of restaurant was likely to play an important role in generating feelings of SWB the two different types of restaurants were selected. Full service establishments were selected because customers were likely to have more sources of SWB in these restaurants.
Alternatively, limited service restaurants, such as fast food restaurants, were excluded because they are not providers of waiter/waitress services (U.S.Census Bureau, n.d.).
The sample size is situation specific, and depended on statistical requirements, study objectives, times available, costs, and data analysis plans (Kinnear & Taylor, 1996). In structural equation modeling, previous studies recommended the sample size based on the 54 number of parameters to be estimated (Bentler & Chou, 1987; Jackson, 2003; Kline, 1998).
These studies suggested that the ratio of sample size (N) to parameters to be estimated (q) be a meaningful way to determine sample size. Bentler and Chou (1987) recommended at least
5 cases per estimated parameter, and Kline (1998) suggested 10 observations per each estimated parameter. The range of the N:q ratio seemed to be appropriate from 5:1 to 10:1.
The current study had 65 parameters including error terms as well as path coefficients and, thus, it had about total 400 samples from two groups, leading to an N: q ratio of 6:1. Five casual dining restaurants and five fine dining restaurants were chosen in the Seoul area and contacted the managers of these selected establishments in advance for cooperation. A manager of one fine dining restaurant did not want to survey in his restaurant; therefore, the researcher chose finally five casual dining restaurants and four fine dining restaurants in the
Seoul area. Then, a convenience sample of approximately 50 customers at each restaurant was surveyed.
The researcher obtained permission from the managers to distribute surveys, on the condition that a summary of the results would be supplied to the managers. In a selected restaurant, the researcher designated several seats sampling, and the servers placed the questionnaire on the selected seats before the customers arrived. The customers who sat in those specified seats were then asked if they wished to participate in the study. Those who agreed completed the questionnaires anonymously. The customers who did not feel comfortable returning the questionnaire to their server dropped it in a box located at the cashier’s desk of the restaurant. Although an exact response rate cannot be computed due to the situational difficulty to track all questionnaire distributions, participating restaurant 55 managers estimated a response rate of about 80%. This survey was conducted during a four week period.
Data Analysis
Data analysis consisted principally of two parts: preliminary analysis and Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM). Preliminary analysis included demographic information, kurtosis and skewness tests, and internal consistency. This study used SEM to analyze the links which exist between hedonic and utilitarian performance, customer satisfaction, value, SWB, and behavioral intention. SEM examined complex and multidimensional relationships and allowed for complete and concurrent tests of all relationships.
Preliminary analyses
Descriptive analysis of the data provided a description of the sample responding to the survey. For generalized evaluations, gender, age, income, and educational level were summarized by frequency and the percentage of responses. Then preliminary analyses including kurtosis and skewness tests and internal consistency were conducted using SPSS
16.0.
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
SEM is a multivariate statistical technique used to examine direct and indirect relationships between one or more independent variables and one or more dependent variables (Ullman, 1996). SEM is a family of statistical techniques which incorporates and integrates path analysis and factor analysis. The proposed model used the Linear Structural 56
Relationship (LISREL) 8.71 program (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2004). The general form of SEM consisted of two components: the measurement model and the structural model.
Measurement model
The measurement model specifies how the latent variables or the hypothetical constructs are measured in terms of the observed variables. The measurement model assessment is designed to ensure the quality of the measures (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
Validating the measurement model is accomplished primarily through Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA).
CFA seeks to determine if the number of factors and the indicator variables on them confirm to what is expected on the basis of a pre specified theory. CFA is used to estimate the parameters and fit of the hypothesized factor model. The parameters of the confirmatory factor model can be estimated using the maximum likelihood estimation technique (Sharma,
1996).
Validity of the indicators of the latent variables was assessed even before the measurement model was fitted to the data. Construct validity refers to the extent to which different constructs are distinct from each other (Bagozzi, 1980; Bollen, 1989). Establishing the construct validity involves two elements: convergent and discriminant validity (Campbell
& Fiske, 1959). Convergent validity is examined by factor loadings and average variance extracted (AVE), which shows directly “the amount of variance that is captured by the construct in relation to the amount of variance due to measurement error” (Fornell & Lacker,
1981). To examine discriminant validity, two methods are used: chi square difference test and
AVE test. With the variance extracted test, variance extracted estimates for any pair of two 57 factors are compared to the squared of the correlation between the two factors. Discriminant validity is demonstrated if both variance extracted estimates are greater than this squared correlation.
Structural model
The structural model specifies the structural relationships among the constructs and describes the causal effects and the amount of explained variance (Sharma, 1996). Fitting the structural model is accomplished primarily through path analysis with latent variables.
Goodness of fit tests. The purpose of assessing fit of the model is to determine the extent to which the model as a whole is consistent with the empirical data. Goodness of fit tests determine if the model should be accepted or rejected. If the model fit is adequate and acceptable to the researcher, then one can proceed with the evaluation and interpretation of the estimated model parameters (Sharma, 1996).
The overall model fit is assessed using a number of goodness of fit indices. The present study used several types of goodness of fit measures, which are generally cited in studies using SEM: Chi square ( x2), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA),
Normed Fit Index (NFI), Non Normed Fit Index (NNFI), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI).
RMSEA is discrepancy per degree of freedom. By convention, there is a good model fit if RMSEA is less than or equal to .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). NFI reflects the proportion by which the researcher’s model improves fit compared to the null model. By convention, NFI values above .95 are good, between .90 and .95 are acceptable, and below .90 indicate a need to improve the model (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). NNFI is similar to NFI, but penalizes 58 for model complexity. NNFI close to 1 indicates a good fit. Values close to .90 reflect a good model fit. CFI compares the existing model fit with a null model which assumes the latent variables in the model are uncorrelated. By convention, CFI should be equal to or greater than .90 to accept the model, indicating that 90% of the covariation in the data can be reproduced by the given model.
Path coefficient. Each path coefficient should be individually significant (p<0.05) based on a t test. When the Critical Ratio (CR) is > 1.96 for a regression weight, that path is significant at the .05 level (i.e., its path parameter is statistically significant). In addition to path coefficients, several other considerations were given in assessing the structural model.
First, R 2 for model constructs were examined. It is the percent of variance explained in the construct. Second, the signs of the parameters representing the paths between the latent variables were examined to see whether the directions of the relationships were as hypothesized (i.e., positive).
59
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter describes and discusses the results of the survey undertaken to discover the relationship between restaurant performance, satisfaction, value, well being, and behavioral intentions. The results are presented in three sections. The first section discusses the demographic information collected from responses of the study. The second section presents the preliminary analyses which include kurtosis and skewness tests and internal consistency using SPSS 16.0. The last section discusses the results of the proposed model and the hypothesis tests using the LISREL 8.71 program (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2004).
Demographic Description of the Sample
The survey respondents consisted of restaurant customers from five casual dining and four fine dining restaurants. The number of respondents was 402, comprised of 245 respondents (60.9%) from casual dining restaurants and 157 respondents (39.1%) from fine dining restaurants. Demographic information of the respondents in terms of gender, age, educational level, household annual income, and average expenditure per person is presented in Table 4.1.
The sample characteristics of the casual dining group (245 respondents) in terms of gender included 40% male, and in terms of age included 3.3% of younger than 20 years old,
75.1% of 21 to 30 years old, 16.7% of 31 to 40 years old, and 4.1% of 41years or older. The average age of the respondents was 28 (SD = 6.57) and the majority of respondents were between 20 and 29 years of age.
The sample characteristics of the fine dining group (157 respondents) in terms of gender included 42% male, and in terms of age included 4.4% of younger than 20 years old, 60
25.5% of 21 to 30 years old, 28.7% of 31 to 40 years old, and 41.4% of 41 years or older. The average age of the respondents was 41 (SD = 14.89) and the majority of the respondents were between 40 and 49 years of age.
In terms of education level, half the respondents in the casual dining group were college students or had a college degree, while half the respondents in the fine dining group had a postgraduate degree. Overall, respondents in this study were highly educated.
Table 4.1. Characteristics of the restaurant customer sample
Restaurant type Demographic Category Total variables Fine Dining Casual Dining N (% a) N(%) Gender Male 66 (42.0) 98 (40.0) 164 (40.8) Female 91 (58.0) 147 (60.0) 238 (59.2) Age 20 7 ( 4.4) 8 ( 3.3) 15 ( 3.7) 21~30 40 (25.5) 184 (75.1) 224 ( 55.7) 31~40 45 (28.7) 41 (16.7) 86 ( 21.4) ≥ 41 65 (41.4) 10 ( 4.1) 75 ( 18.7) Education ≤ High school 5 ( 3.2) 6 ( 2.4) 11 ( 2.7) Level High school 12 (7.6) 62 (25.3) 74 (18.4) College graduate 55 (35.0) 123 (50.2) 178 (44.3) Post graduate 85 (54.1) 53 (21.6) 138 (34.3) Household Below $20,000 5 ( 3.2) 63 (25.7) 68 (16.9) Annual $20,001~$30,000 6 ( 3.8) 40 (16.3) 46 (11.4) Income b $30,001~$40,000 18 (11.5) 44 (18.0) 62 (15.4) $40,001~$50,000 14 ( 8.9) 16 ( 6.5) 30 (7.5) $50,001~$60,000 26 (16.6) 19 ( 7.8) 45 (11.2) More than $60,000 82 (52.2) 30 (12.2) 112 (27.9) Average Less than $20 12 ( 7.6) 90 (36.7) 102 (25.4) Expenditure $20.01~$30 40 (25.5) 107 (43.7) 147 (36.6) Per Person $30.01~$40 55 (35.0) 32 (13.1) 87 (21.6) 0ver $40.01 49 ( 31.2) 7 (2.8) 56 (13.9) a Percentage may not total 100% due to missing values. b for 2007,
61
Nearly half the respondents in the fine dining group reported more than $60,000 in annual household income, while almost 60% of the respondents in the casual dining group reported less than $40,000 in annual household income. Most respondents in the fine dining group paid $20 to 30 or $30 to 40 per person as an average check (25.5% and 35.0%, respectively). In the casual dining group, most respondents paid less than $20 or $20 to 30 per person as an average check (36.7% and 43.7%, respectively).
This study analyzed demographic differences between the two dining groups using chi square tests. The tests included comparisons on gender, age, educational level, household income, and average amount of check of the respondents between the fine dining and casual dining groups. As shown in Table 4.2, there were significant differences in all demographic variables between the two groups, except for gender.
The fine dining respondents tended to be older than the casual dining respondents, and they tended to be more highly educated than the casual counterpart as half of the fine diners held a postgraduate degree. The fine dining respondents tended to earn higher income and spend more than the casual dining respondents. Table 4.2 shows the results of the Chi square tests.
Table 4.2. Chi square test results of demographic variables between casual dining and fine dining restaurant respondents
Demographic variable Chi square value df Sig.
Gender 0.165 1 .685 ** Age 122.125 3 .000 Education level 50.788 3 .000 ** Household Income 103.543 5 .000 ** ** Average check per person 117.088 5 .000 ** p < 0.01 62
Preliminary Analysis
Kurtosis and skewness tests
In this study kurtosis and skewness tests were conducted to test for normality of each variable included in the research model. Kurtosis and skewness tests are used to test the hypothesis that the distribution of each variable is normal. Kurtosis tests the peakedness of a distribution, while skewness evaluates the symmetry of the distribution. The expected value of kurtosis and skewness would be zero for normal distributions.
For both dining groups, kurtosis values for all 25 variables fell within ±1.7. Positive kurtosis indicates a distribution more “peaked” than normal, while negative kurtosis indicates a distribution more “flat” than normal. Several of the 25 variables exhibited positive kurtosis values. Skewness values for all variables in the two groups fell within ±1.0, which was near zero. The results of kurtosis and skewness tests are summarized in Table 4.3, showing that the values of kurtosis and skewness are acceptable indicating that distributions of variables in each group were close to normal.
Internal consistency
The measurement scales were purified based on item to total correlations as recommended by Nunnally (1978). Item to total correlation is the statistical correlation between a given item and the scale to which it belongs. If a scale contains an item with a low item to total correlation, then the scale may be deemed to be unreliable in that the items are not internally consistent. Therefore, items with low item to total correlations can be deleted from the scale as a method of scale refinement (Nunnally, 1978; Saraph, Benson, & 63
Table 4.3. Kurtosis and skewness testing results Item Casual Dining Fine Dining Kurtosis Skewness Kurtosis Skewness Hedonic Performance (HED) Dining at XYZ restaurant was fun. .111 .385 .864 .052 Dining at XYZ restaurant was exciting. .691 .116 .886 .119 Dining at XYZ restaurant was delightful. .112 .541 .663 .321 Dining at XYZ restaurant was thrilling. .507 .310 1.003 .017 Dining at XYZ restaurant was enjoyable. * .425 .461 .148 .696
Utilitarian Performance (UT) XYZ was convenient as my choice. * .650 .229 .380 .426 XYZ restaurant was a successful dining option * .176 .398 .421 .429 The employees of XYZ restaurant were .004 .705 .607 .571 helpful. Everything in XYZ was in working order to .076 .508 .380 .804 serve.
Satisfaction (SAT) How would you rate the food you ate at XYZ? * .157 .508 .055 .624 How would you rate employees’ service at .262 .768 .651 .800 XYZ? * How satisfied are you with this XYZ .692 .220 .473 .421 restaurant? Overall, XYZ met my expectations. 1.041 .760 .342 .616
Value (VAL) This dining experience was good for the price. .746 .233 .295 .125 This restaurant offered a good value for the .336 .087 .320 .367 money. The value for my dining at XYZ was high. .274 .121 .140 .387
Subjective Well-Being (SWB) Dining experience contributed to my .170 .238 .655 .289 happiness. Dining experience contributed to my health. .151 .018 .070 .235 Dining experience contributed to my social .477 .096 .263 .464 life. .518 .156 .242 .399 Dining experience helped me feel better about my life. .278 .209 .210 .273 I felt life was good when I dined at XYZ. .310 .230 .066 .575 Dining at XYZ contributed positively to my WB.
Behavioral Intention (BI) I will make favorable comments about this .895 .673 1.656 .842 restaurant. I will recommend this restaurant. .014 .601 1.491 .993 I will dine in this restaurant again. .651 .682 .597 .760 * Italicized items were later eliminated due to low item to total correlation. 64
Schroeder, 1989). In this study, five indicators with item to total correlationsbelow 0.6 were eliminated to improve reliability, with the cut off value 0.6 being a criteria imposed judiciously for this study. The five eliminated items were “dining at XYZ restaurant was enjoyable,” “XYZ was convenient as my choice,” “XYZ restaurant was a successful dining option,”
“How would you rate the food you ate at XYZ?” “How would you rate employees’ service at XYZ?”
(also see Table 4.3).
The internal consistency among items comprising each construct was tested using
Cronbach’s alpha (α) reliability. Cronbach’s alpha is a commonly used measure testing the extent to which multiple indicators consistently measure the same latent variable. It varies from 0 to 1.0, and a Cronbach’s alpha of .70 is considered an acceptable indicator of internal consistency for social research (Churchill, 1979; Kline, 1998; Nunnally, 1978). In this study, reliability coefficients estimates ranged from .82 (Utilitarian Performance) to .90 (SWB) in the casual dining group, and from .84 (Hedonic and Utilitarian Performance) to .89 (SWB and Behavioral Intention) in the fine dining group. These alpha coefficients indicated strong internal consistency of the items of each construct, and the measures were sufficiently reliable for use in the subsequent analyses (Churchill, 1979).
The item means ranged from 3.42 to 4.15 on a 5 point Likert scale in the casual dining group, and from 3.56 to 4.13 in the fine dining group. Standard deviations for the scales indicated substantial variance in responses ranging from .77 to .94 in the casual dining group. Standard deviations in the fine dining restaurant group ranged from .65 to .94. Tables
4.4 and 4.5 present means, standard deviations, item to total correlations, and Cronbach’s α values for all 20 items.
65
Structural Equation Modeling
Measurement model
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to determine the fit of the hypothesized factor model. CFA was conducted with LISREL 8.71 as input with a total of 20 items: six items for two exogenous variables (four for hedonic performance, two for utilitarian performance) and 14 items for four endogenous variables (two for satisfaction, three for value, six for SWB, and three for behavioral intention). For the two groups, CFA was conducted separately.
The goodness of fit of the model was judged by examining the Normed Fit Index
(NFI), the Non Normed Fit Index (NNFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA ). A NFI value above 0.95 is good. In both NNFI and CFI, which reflect fit independently of sample size, a value of 0.9 or higher is considered an adequate fit, and 0.95 or higher is recommended as a good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1998,
1999). The RMSEA is a standardized measure of error of approximation. An RMSEA value of 0.06 or less indicates good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and 0.08 is an upper bound for acceptable fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1992). 66
Table 4.4. Reliability coefficients for the casual dining group
Standard Item to total Item Mean a Cronbach’s α Deviation correlation Hedonic Performance (HED) .88 Dining at XYZ restaurant was fun. 3.87 .82 .80 Dining at XYZ restaurant was exciting. 3.84 .81 .75 Dining at XYZ restaurant was delightful. 4.01 .81 .79 Dining at XYZ restaurant was thrilling. 3.89 .83 .72
Utilitarian Performance (UT) .82 Employees of XYZ restaurant were helpful. 4.10 .86 .60 Everything in XYZ was in working order to 4.03 .82 .63 serve. Satisfaction (SAT) .88 How satisfied are you with this XYZ 3.98 .78 .84 restaurant? Overall, XYZ met my expectations. 3.93 .85 .81
Value (VAL) .87 Dining experience was good for the price. 3.54 .88 .75 This restaurant offered a good value for the money. 3.66 .83 .82 The value for my dining at XYZ was high. 3.71 .81 .69 .90 Subjective Well-Being (SWB) Dining experience contributed to my 3.74 .81 .74 happiness. Dining experience contributed to my health. 3.42 .87 .69 Dining experience contributed to my social life. 3.74 .84 .70 Dining experience helped me feel better about my life. 3.89 .76 .73 I felt life was good when I dined at XYZ. Dining at XYZ contributed positively to my 3.70 .83 .78 WB. 3.60 .94 .74 .89 Behavioral Intention (BI) I will make favorable comments about this 4.08 .77 .78 restaurant. I will recommend this restaurant to other 4.10 .82 .80 people. I will dine in this restaurant again. 4.06 .80 .77
a Item scores ranged from 1 to 5.
67
Table 4.5. Reliability coefficients for the fine dining group
Standard Item to total Item Mean a Cronbach’s α Deviation correlation
Hedonic Performance (HED) .84 Dining at XYZ restaurant was fun. 3.80 .85 .67 Dining at XYZ restaurant was exciting. 3.69 .87 .71 Dining at XYZ restaurant was delightful. 4.14 .72 .71 Dining at XYZ restaurant was thrilling. 3.96 .75 .65 Utilitarian Performance (UT) .84 Employees of XYZ restaurant were helpful. 4.11 .87 .63 Everything in XYZ was in working order to 4.10 .86 .64 serve. Satisfaction (SAT) .86 How satisfied are you with this XYZ 4.13 .65 .75 restaurant? Overall, XYZ met my expectations. 4.09 .75 .71
Value (VAL) .87 Dining experience was good for the price. 3.56 .81 .74 This restaurant offered a good value for the 3.75 .84 .80 money. The value for my dining at XYZ was high. 3.82 .81 .71
Subjective Well-Being (SWB) .89 The dining experience contributed to my 3.94 .83 .72 happiness. The dining experience contributed to my 3.69 .80 .69 health. The dining experience contributed to my 3.95 .82 .65 social life. The dining experience helped me feel better 4.03 .76 .74 about my life. I felt life was good when I dined at XYZ. 3.83 .84 .70 Dining at XYZ contributed positively to my 3.85 .94 .72 WB.
Behavioral Intention (BI) .89 I will make favorable comments about this 4.10 .78 .79 restaurant. I will recommend this restaurant to other 4.13 .83 .83 people. I will dine in this restaurant again. 4.10 .82 .73 a Item scores range from 1 to 5
68
In both casual dining and fine dining restaurants, the overall fit of the measurement models was acceptable. In the casual dining restaurant study, results indicated that overall model fit was adequate: χ2(155) = 315.56, p = 0.00; RMSEA = 0.065; NFI = 0.97; NNFI =
0.98; CFI = 0.99. The CFI, NFI, and NNFI values were above the criteria value of 0.95 recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999). This provided adequate support for the good fit of this model to the data. Since the RMSEA was very close to the numbers acceptable for a good fit (0.06) and within the upper limit of 0.08 for an acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999), it was considered acceptable. All factor loadings for indicators were statistically significant
(p<.01), providing evidence of convergent validity (Table 4.6).
In the fine dining restaurant study, results also showed that the overall model fit of the measurement model was adequate: χ2(155) = 274.62, p = 0.00; RMSEA = 0.070; NFI = 0.95;
NNFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97. As in the casual dining study, the CFI, NFI, and NNFI values were equal to or above the criteria value of 0.95. The RMSEA value of 0.07 was an acceptable fit
(Browne & Cudeck, 1992). This also provided adequate support for the good fit of this model to the data. All indicators loaded significantly (p<.01) on the latent variables (Table 4.7), again providing evidence of item convergence.
Construct validity
Construct validity seeks agreement between a theoretical concept and a specific measuring device or procedure. For construct validity, correlation would be first examined and followed by convergent and discriminant validity, which are two subcategories of construct validity.
69
Correlation. The correlation matrices in the casual dining and fine dining groups
(Appendix C) showed correlations among variables and the significance of these coefficients.
The bottom half of the diagonal line of these tables contained the Pearson correlation coefficients between all pairs of variables, with all coefficients being significant (p < .01).
Items loading on the same construct correlated well. For the casual dining group the correlations ranged from 0.60 to 0.73 for hedonic performance, 0.70 for utilitarian performance, 0.79 for satisfaction, 0.61 to 0.77 for value, 0.50 to 0.69 for SWB, and 0.71 to
0.75 for behavioral intention, indicating good convergent validity. In fine dining group, the correlations were moderate or high, ranging from 0.47 to 0.72 for hedonic performance, 0.72 for utilitarian performance, 0.75 for satisfaction, 0.62 to 0.74 for value, 0.46 to 0.64 for SWB, and 0.67 to 0.79 for behavioral intention, indicating again good convergent validity.
Somewhat low correlations between the items loading on different constructs in the two groups could be interpreted as an indication of discriminant validity.
Convergent validity. Convergent validity of the measurement model should be supported by factor loading, construct reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE). All factor loadings in both groups were significant (t values ranged from 12.50 to 17.90 for casual dining and from 9.10 to 14.35 for fine dining, all significant at p < 0.01). Thus, moderate and significant factor loadings for each latent variable provided evidence of convergent validity.
Construct reliability (composite reliability) presents internal consistency of a measure and is calculated by dividing the square of the sum of individual loadings by the square of the sum of individual loadings plus the sum of the error terms (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). High 70 construct reliability provides confidence that the individual items are consistently measuring their constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Adequate construct reliability is achieved when it is greater than a suggested cut off level of .60 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). As shown in Tables 4.6 and 4.7, acceptable construct reliabilities in both cases were achieved for each construct except for one (0.54 Satisfaction for fine dining) and showed that almost all measurements of the constructs were reliable.
Average variance extracted (AVE) is another conservative test of convergent validity
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). It measures the amount of variance captured by the construct in relation to the amount of variance attributable to measurement error. Convergent validity is judged to be adequate when AVE equals or exceeds 0.50, and it means the variance captured by the construct exceeds the variance due to measurement error (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Tables 4.6 and 4.7 showed that several AVE indices did not exceed 0.50 for constructs in both groups, ranging from 0.43 to 0.53 for the casual dining group and from 0.37 to 0.54 for the fine dining group. Although the AVE for several constructs was found to be slightly below the cut off value of 0.50, other tests such as factor loadings and construct reliability were satisfactory. Hence, given the exploratory nature of the measurement items in this study, convergent validity of the measures seems to be marginal, and the tests and interpretation of the model necessitated cautionary approaches. Tables 4.6 and 4.7 present the results of the measurement model, including standardized factor loadings, measurement errors, construct reliability, and AVE. 71
Table 4.6. Convergent validity results for the casual dining respondents
Parameter estimated Average Construct Variable Standardized Measurement Variance Reliability loading Error Extracted
Hedonic Performance 0.76 0.44 Dining at XYZ restaurant was fun. 0.69 (15.75) 0.52 Dining at XYZ restaurant was exciting. 0.65 (14.80) 0.58 Dining at XYZ restaurant was delightful. 0.69 (16.42) 0.52 Dining at XYZ restaurant was thrilling. 0.61 (13.06) 0.63
Utilitarian Performance 0.66 0.49 The employees of XYZ were helpful. 0.68 (13.60) 0.54 Everything was in working order to serve. 0.72 (15.72) 0.48
Satisfaction 0.69 0.53 How satisfied are you with this restaurant? 0.71 (17.90) 0.50 Overall, XYZ met my expectations. 0.74 (16.57) 0.45
Value 0.74 0.49 This dining experience was good for the 0.72 (15.00) 0.48 price. This restaurant offered a good value for 0.74 (17.26) 0.45 the money. The value for my dining at XYZ was high. 0.64 (14.31) 0.59
SWB 0.82 0.43 The experience contributed to my 0.67 (15.54) 0.55 happiness. The experience contributed to my health. 0.62 (12.50) 0.62 The experience contributed to my social 0.62 (12.92) 0.62 life. The experience helped me feel better 0.61 (14.89) 0.63 about my life. I felt life was good when I dined at XYZ. 0.68 (15.10) 0.54 Dining at XYZ contributed positively to 0.72 (13.71) 0.48 my well being.
Behavioral Intention 0.72 0.47 I will make favorable comments. 0.67 (16.53) 0.55 I will recommend this restaurant. 0.71 (16.74) 0.50 I will dine in this restaurant again. 0.67 (15.43) 0.55
All values are significant at p<.01.
72
Table 4.7. Convergent validity results for the fine dining respondents
Parameter estimated Average Construct Variable Standardized Measurement Variance Reliability loading Error Extracted
Hedonic Performance 0.70 0.38 Dining at XYZ restaurant was fun. 0.66 (10.96) 0.56 Dining at XYZ restaurant was exciting. 0.73 (12.29) 0.47 Dining at XYZ restaurant was delightful. 0.52 (9.97) 0.73 Dining at XYZ restaurant was thrilling. 0.51 (9.10) 0.74 Utilitarian Performance 0.70 0.54 The employees of XYZ were helpful. 0.75 (11.81) 0.44 Everything was in working order to serve. 0.72 (11.28) 0.48 Satisfaction 0.54 0.37 How satisfied are you with this 0.57 (13.00) 0.68 restaurant? Overall, XYZ met my expectations. 0.64 (12.78) 0.60 Value 0.73 0.47 This dining experience was good for the 0.66 (11.85) 0.56 price. This restaurant offered a good value for 0.75 (13.53) 0.44 the money. The value for my dining at XYZ was 0.64 (11.37) 0.59 high.
SWB 0.80 0.40 The experience contributed to my 0.67 (11.77) 0.55 happiness. The experience contributed to my health. 0.60 (10.82) 0.64 The experience contributed to my social 0.58 ( 9.75) 0.66 life. The experience helped me feel better 0.58 (10.97) 0.66 about my life. I felt life was good when I dined at XYZ. 0.61 (10.32) 0.63 Dining at XYZ contributed positively to 0.72 (10.94) 0.48 my well being.
Behavioral Intention 0.73 0.48 I will make favorable comments. 0.67 (13.25) 0.55 I will recommend this restaurant. 0.75 (14.35) 0.44 I will dine in this restaurant again. 0.65 (11.52) 0.58
All values are significant at p<.01.
73
Discriminant validity. Discriminant validity refers to the extent to which a given construct differs from other constructs in the same model. The most common test of discriminant validity is the chi square test. A chi square difference test was conducted to compare the constrained model (i.e., where the between construct correlation was fixed to 1) and the unconstrained model (i.e., where the correlation was freely estimated). To conduct a chi square difference test, the difference in chi square values and the difference in degrees of freedom for the two models should be calculated. In general, if the difference is significant, the constrained model is rejected, and discriminant validity is achieved (Bagozzi & Philips,
1982). Since this model had more than two constructs, a series of chi square difference tests on each pair of constructs was conducted so that discriminant validity could be ensured. In this study, all values were statistically significant, and the chi square tests supported the discriminant validity of all constructs.
Another test of discriminant validity is to examine whether the AVE exceeds the squared correlations between all pairs of the constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Discriminant validity is substantial when the variance shared between one construct and any other construct in the model is less than the variance that the construct shares with its measures (Fornell, Tellis, & Zinkhan, 1982). The variance shared by any two constructs is obtained by squaring the correlation between the two constructs. The variance shared between a construct and its measures corresponds to AVE.
Table 4.8 shows the result of discriminant validity. Diagonal elements present the
AVE, and the bottom half of the diagonal line of these tables indicated squared multiple correlations. In both dining groups, the AVE for most constructs exceeded the squared correlations between factor pairs, providing evidence of discriminant validity of the scales. 74
However, several exceptions showed that they did not have very strong discriminant validity.
Thus, the measurement model of each group seems acceptable, though marginal, as a starting point for the planned analyses of the structural model.
Table 4.8. Discriminant validity results (squared correlation and average) Casual Dining Restaurant Mean SD 1. HED 2. UT 3. SAT 4. VAL 5. SWB 6. BI 1.Hedonic Performance 3.90 0.70 0.44 0.63 0.72 0.60 0.71 0.65 2. Utilitarian Performance 4.07 0.77 0.39 0.49 0.64 0.44 0.51 0.49 3. Satisfaction 3.95 0.77 0.52 0.40 0.53 0.59 0.61 0.67 4. Value 3.64 0.75 0.34 0.19 0.36 0.49 0.65 0.64 5. SWB 3.68 0.69 0.50 0.26 0.37 0.42 0.43 0.71 6. Behavioral Intention 4.08 0.72 0.42 0.25 0.45 0.41 0.51 0.47 Fine Dining Restaurant 1. Hedonic Performance 3.90 0.66 0.38 0.43 0.43 0.52 0.59 0.42 2. Utilitarian Performance 4.11 0.80 0.18 0.54 0.53 0.32 0.50 0.48 3. Satisfaction 4.11 0.65 0.19 0.28 0.37 0.52 0.65 0.68 4. Value 3.71 0.73 0.27 0.11 0.28 0.47 0.52 0.59 5. SWB 3.88 0.66 0.35 0.25 0.42 0.28 0.40 0.67 6. Behavioral Intention 4.11 0.73 0.18 0.23 0.46 0.35 0.45 0.48 Note: The diagonal (bold) entries are the average for each construct; entries above the diagonal are correlations between constructs; entries below the diagonal are the squared correlations between all pairs of constructs.
Structural model
Goodness of fit tests
The overall structural model (Figure 3.1) of the casual dining group exhibited an acceptable level of fit: χ2 (160) = 374.32, p = 0.00; RMSEA = 0.074; NFI = 0.97; NNFI =
0.98; CFI = 0.98. The amount of variance explained for the constructs was 0.74 for
Satisfaction, 0.41 for Value, 0.70 for SWB, and 0.74 for Behavioral Intention. The structural model of the fine dining group also exhibited an acceptable level of fit: χ2 (160) = 314.70, p
= 0.00; RMSEA = 0.079; NFI = 0.94; NNFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.97. The amount of variance explained for the constructs was 0.58 for Satisfaction, 0.19 for Value, 0.62 for SWB, and 0.69 75 for Behavioral Intention.
The squared multiple correlations (R 2) for the SWB construct were 0.70 for the casual dining group and 0.62 in the fine dining group, indicating that well over 60% of the variance in SWB was explained by its antecedents in both groups. R 2 for the Value construct was considerably small at 0.19 for the fine dining group, indicating the need for further investigation of its antecedents.
Hypothesis testing
The structural path coefficients (γ & β) were examined to test Hypotheses 1–9. In the casual dining group, all path coefficients were individually statistically significant (p<.05)
based on t tests, and their standardized values ranged from 0.18 (β 12, β42 ) to 0.59 (γ 22 ).
Hypothesis 1 proposed that hedonic performance would be positively related to satisfaction. Hedonic performance affected satisfaction positively and significantly (p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 predicted that utilitarian performance would be positively related to satisfaction, and the test resulted in a significant (p< .01) relationship as predicted. Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship between utilitarian performance and value. A significant (p< .01) and positive relationship supported Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 4 posited a positive relationship between value and satisfaction. The finding of a significant
(p< .01) relationship supported Hypothesis 4.
Hypotheses 5 and 6 concerned relationships with subjective well being (SWB).
Hypothesis 5 proposed that satisfaction would be positively related to SWB, which was confirmed by the significant (p< .01) path coefficient. Hypothesis 6 predicted that value 76 would be positively related to SWB. The positive relationship between value and SWB was significant (p< .01), as predicted in Hypothesis 6.
Hypotheses 7 through 9 considered relationships with behavioral intention.
Hypothesis 7 stated that satisfaction would be positively related to behavioral intention. This relationship was significant (p< .01) as predicted. The positive relationship of value and behavioral intention also was found to be significant (p< .05), supporting Hypothesis 8.
Hypothesis 9 proposed that SWB would be positively related to behavioral intention, which was supported by a significant (p< .01) path. Figure 4.1 illustrates the findings thus far.
Hedonic 0.48 ** (5.07) Customer 0.36 ** (4.92) Performance Satisfaction 0.48 ** (6.80) Subjective 0.42 ** (4.92) Behavioral 0.33 ** (2.98) 0.18 ** (3.04) Well being Intention 0.40 ** (5.66) Utilitarian Value Performance 0.59 ** (8.20) 0.18 *(2.53)
χ2 (160) = 374.32, p = .00, R 2 (SAT) = .74, R 2 (VAL) = .41, R 2 (SWB) = .70, R 2 (BI) = .74 The path coefficients are standardized values and the t values are in parenthesis. ** p<0.01, *P<0.05
Figure 4.1. Structural model for casual dining restaurant group
In the fine dining group, however, eight out of nine path coefficients were significant
(p<.05), ranging from 0.19 ( ƀ32 ) to 0.49 (γ 12). Only one path coefficient (Hypothesis 1:
Hedonic Performance → Satisfaction, γ11 = 0.06) was insignificant (p> .05). Hypothesis 1, which stated that hedonic performance would be positively related to satisfaction, was not supported in the fine dining group. The other hypotheses, however, were all supported as predicted in the fine dining group. Figure 4.2 illustrates these findings. 77
Hedonic 0.06(0.72) Customer 0.38 ** (3.25) Performance Satisfaction 0.66 ** (6.50) Subjective 0.35 ** (3.14) Behavioral 0.49 ** (4.82) 0.37 ** (4.48) Well being Intention 0.19 *(2.13) Utilitarian Value Performance 0.43 ** (4.71) 0.20 *(2.56)
χ2 (160) = 314.70, p = .00, R 2 (SAT) = .58, R 2 (VAL) = .19, R 2 (SWB) = .62, R 2 (BI) = .69 The path coefficients are standardized values and the t values are in parenthesis. ** p<0.01, *P<0.05
Figure 4.2. Structural model for fine dining restaurant group
The results indicated that satisfaction had quite a strong influence on SWB in both casual and fine dining studies (β=.48, β=.66, respectively), thus supporting Hypothesis 5.
Satisfaction had the greatest direct impact on SWB in the model, whereas value also had a small but significant impact on SWB (β=.40, β=.19, respectively), supporting Hypothesis 6.
Value also had a smaller but still significant influence on behavioral intention in both groups
(β=.18, β=.20, respectively). Thus, Hypothesis 8 was supported overall.
Discussion
Customer interest in SWB is on the rise, and SWB is a rapidly growing research and applied area. How to conceptualize and measure SWB, however, is less apparent. The current study attempted to show the antecedents of SWB and the effects of SWB, especially through the relationships among performance, satisfaction, value, SWB, and behavioral intention, in a dining out context. A conceptual model was developed and tested whether SWB mediated 78 satisfaction and value toward behavioral intention. The current study found that both the casual and fine dining groups showed slightly different results.
Casual dining group
Many researchers adopted two dimensional conceptualizations of consumer attitudes, hedonic and utilitarian attitudes. This dual characterization of motivations was consistent with the restaurant performance, and these hedonic and utilitarian performances affected customer satisfaction separately. Utilitarian performance also affected customers’ value concepts. Since most customers of the casual dining group were young college students who might consider a fun and enjoyable experience to be important, this could have an effect on their satisfaction.
SWB, the central concept examined in this study, was driven by customer satisfaction and value. As hypothesized before, satisfaction and value judgment contributed directly to satisfaction with life domains such as a happy life, a healthy life, and a social life (SWB).
The amount of variance explained (R 2) for the SWB was 0.74, and it indicated that almost three quarters of the variance in SWB was explained by satisfaction and value. However, hedonic and utilitarian performance from the restaurant dining experience indirectly affected
SWB, as mediated by satisfaction and value.
Many previous studies indicated that customer satisfaction and value directly influenced customers’ behavioral intention (Carpenter & Fairhurst, 2005; Cronin et al., 2000;
Dodds, 1991; Dodds et al., 1991; Kwun & Oh, 2004; LaBarbera & Mazursky, 1983; Lee et al., 2005; Newman & Webel, 1973; Oh, 2000; Sirgy et al., 2007). This study provided empirical evidence for the existence of both the relationships among satisfaction, value, and 79 behavioral intention, and the relationships among satisfaction, value, SWB, and behavioral intention. In this study, SWB directly influenced behavioral intention, and SWB mediated satisfaction and value towards behavioral intention.
The ultimate objective of the restaurant industry is to make profit through customers’ behavioral intention such as word of mouth and repeated visits. When behavioral intention is studied, the role of SWB deserves special emphasis. The total effect of satisfaction on behavioral intention (0.56), including an indirect effect through SWB (0.20), was much greater than the direct effect of satisfaction on behavioral intention (0.36). Total effect of value on behavioral intention (0.35), including an indirect effect through SWB (0.17), was also greater than the direct effect of value on behavioral intention (0.18). Thus, SWB is found to play a leading role in service delivery as well as satisfaction and value.
Fine dining group
In the fine dining group, satisfaction was not driven by the two dimensional conceptualizations of consumer attitudes—hedonic and utilitarian performance. Satisfaction and value were driven only by utilitarian performance. Thus, hedonic performance was found to exert no influence on any construct in this group. The results of the tests with the casual dining group (Figure 4.1) supported all hypotheses (Hypotheses 1–9). Only the fine dining group (Figure 4.2) did not support Hypothesis 1 (Hedonic Performance → Satisfaction).
This can be inferred with following two reasons. First, the relationship between hedonic performance and satisfaction may depend on restaurant type. Hedonic performance may not influence satisfaction in the fine dining situation. Although the tests with the overall sample indicated that hedonic performance influenced satisfaction, only the fine dining group 80 did not support this relationship. The customers in this group could develop satisfaction more from cognitive evaluations of restaurant performance rather than affective ones. Casual dining restaurants mostly provide customers with hedonic performance such as excitement and playfulness. Casual dining restaurants tend to provide a more casual and comfortable atmosphere fine dining restaurant and, thus, hedonic performance may be more important.
On the other hand, fine dining restaurants provide a formal, structured dining experience at the high end of the market. Thus, the impact of hedonic performance on satisfaction can be less observed in the fine dining restaurant, and cognitive responses may overwhelm affective ones. In the fine dining restaurant, the utilitarian or functional aspect of consumption may be more important, and rational decisions may be dominant over emotional responses. Therefore, those seemingly contradictory findings may be due to different service contexts in which research was conducted.
Second, differences in demographic variables seemed to have made the difference in the results with the casual dining customers. The chi square test (Table 4.2) showed significant differences in all demographic variables between the two groups except for the case of gender. This study found that fine dining customers tended to be older, wealthier, and more highly educated than casual dining customers. These demographic differences between two groups might influence on the effect of hedonic performance on satisfaction. Though hedonic performance of customers in casual dining group directly influence on satisfaction, hedonic performance in fine dining group could influence satisfaction indirectly through other constructs not included in the research model in this study. In a similar vein, Mano and
Oliver (1993) found that satisfaction is shown to be a function of the hedonic and utilitarian outcomes; however, no significant hedonic relation appeared for satisfaction. Instead, it is 81 apparently mediated through positive affect. The precise nature of the positive relationship between the two aspects of performance and satisfaction should be pursued in future studies.
The effects of satisfaction, value, SWB, and behavioral intention were similar to the results of the casual dining group, and this group also demonstrated the effect of SWB on behavioral intention. The current study not only supported previous studies in which satisfaction and value affected behavioral intention (Carpenter & Fairhurst, 2000; Dodds et al., 1991; Lee et al., 2005; Oh, 2000; Sirgy, Lee, & Rahtz, 2007) but also newly proved empirically the effect of SWB on behavioral intention.
The study of the fine dining group also revealed that customers’ SWB was based on how satisfied they were with and how much they valued their dining experience. The amount of variance explained (R 2) for the SWB was 0.62, and it indicated that almost 62% of the variance in SWB was explained by satisfaction and value. Satisfaction had an especially large influence on SWB (β=0.66) as compared to that of value on SWB (β=0.19). Utilitarian performance from the restaurant dining experience, however, affected SWB only indirectly. 82
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Summary of Research
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among hedonic and utilitarian performance, customer satisfaction, value, subjective well being, and behavioral intention in a restaurant context. Previous studies demonstrated that performance evaluation, customer satisfaction, and value are closely connected (Babin et al., 2005; Mano & Oliver,
1993). With the introduction of SWB to the relationships, however, the relationships between these constructs and SWB and the extent to which SWB contributes to predicting customer behaviors are expected to change significantly marketers’ understanding of the consumer’s purchase decision process. The results of this study offer important information regarding these relationships.
First, it was found that SWB perception was driven by perceptions of satisfaction and value, and SWB was indirectly affected through value and satisfaction by both the hedonic and utilitarian performances of the restaurant. This finding makes a key contribution to the literature, extending the understanding of how service delivery affects customer satisfaction.
In this study, customer satisfaction and value from restaurant performance led the customer to feeling healthy and happy, resulting in SWB. Therefore, satisfaction and value must be antecedents of SWB.
Second, the results supported previous research showing the influence of satisfaction and value on the customer’s behavioral intention. Both satisfaction and value are important variables to the customer’s future behavior. The current study revealed that SWB also affected behavioral intention. In addition to the direct relationship of satisfaction and value to 83 behavioral intention, satisfaction and value also indirectly influenced behavioral intention through SWB. The customer’s behavioral intention is a key in attracting new customers as well as maintaining current customers (Spreng et al., 1995). The finding that SWB affects behavioral intention is particularly important to the service sector including the restaurant industry. Diners who perceive that eating in a restaurant provided SWB are more likely to visit that restaurant again in the future.
The results of this research contributed to the literature concerning the role of SWB.
Previous research has emphasized maintaining and enhancing customer satisfaction for successful marketing. This study revealed that SWB also played an important role in attracting the customer to visit again or recommend the restaurant to others.
Third, it is found that satisfaction mediated hedonic and utilitarian performances toward SWB, and value mediated utilitarian performance toward SWB. In this study, satisfaction and value were mediating variables in the relationship between performance and
SWB. To feel SWB, customers should be satisfied with their performance or should feel value from their performance. The current data, however, did not show the relationship between hedonic performance and satisfaction in the fine dining restaurant sectors. Hedonic performance was found to influence satisfaction directly in the casual dining restaurant but not in the fine dining restaurant. Consumers’ evaluations of hedonic performance are based on the assessment of how much pleasure they get, whereas their evaluations of utilitarian performance are based on the assessment of the instrumental utility the service’s functional attributes provide (Barta & Ahtola, 1991). Consequently, hedonic performance such as fun and excitement has less impact on satisfaction in the fine dining restaurant sector. Although satisfaction in the fine dining restaurant has been regarded as more cognitive and less likely 84 to be influenced by hedonic performance, the findings from the overall study indicated that hedonic and utilitarian performance might influence satisfaction and value in a general restaurant context. Therefore, it can be concluded that in general hedonic and utilitarian performance may influence satisfaction and value; nevertheless, such influence may also depend on restaurant type.
Fourth, while the majority of the previous studies examined SWB as a life satisfaction or as a global measure (Neugarten et al., 1961; Shin & Johnson, 1978), the current study focused on transactional SWB. SWB can be defined as physical and psychological health and happiness as well as a life satisfaction. Thus, this study regarded SWB as the physical and psychological health and happiness a customer might feel as a result of experiencing restaurant dining. Transactional SWB is as important as life satisfaction for people to enjoy quality of their life. Though this study attempted to measure transactional SWB, the SWB measurement scale used in this study needs to refine further to reveal less attenuated relationship structures among the variables under study.
Managerial Implications
Managerial implications from previous research have emphasized a need to create customer satisfaction. This study, however, centered on how to make customers feel SWB.
From a managerial standpoint, these findings underscore the importance of SWB as a decision making variable for restaurant marketers. These findings will help restaurant marketers enhance their understanding of the psychological process underlying customers’ dining decisions by using the SWB concept. Thus, the SWB concept may not only expand existing marketing theories but also produce efficient and practical marketing strategies. The 85 increasing competition in the restaurant industry today dictates restaurateurs to follow the trend and satisfy customers’ needs. For managers assessing behavioral intention in conjunction with SWB, satisfaction, and value, this study can be useful in making managerial decision. Therefore, restaurant managers need to implement an integrated program that jointly considers SWB as well as satisfaction and value.
Another implication is that a different strategy would be required depending on restaurant type. In this study, in order to satisfy their dining experiences, customers on fine dining restaurants might have wanted more utilitarian performance than hedonic performance from restaurants. Restaurant managers should manage dining experience according to restaurant type and target customers. The hedonic value had a significant correlation with mood, promotional incentives, variance of menu, and employee kindness while the utilitarian value correlated well with price, food quality, and quick service (Park, 2004a). In the fine dining restaurant, functional performance rather than hedonic performance such as excitement and playfulness seems to contribute more to the customers’ satisfaction. For the high end market, fine dining restaurants should first design their service to meet the customer’s functional needs. On the other hand, managers of casual dining restaurants should make the customer’s dining experiences pleasant and enjoyable, as well as meeting the customer’s functional needs.
Limitations and Future Research
The results of the study provided some valuable information for restaurateurs and researchers. There are some limitations associated with this study, however, that are worthy of discussion. First, a key limitation to this study was that the data were collected from 86 customers of only two types of restaurants, which limits the generalizability of the results to a larger restaurant population. Future studies including more types of restaurants such as family restaurants or fast food restaurants would be advised to see if this model is possibly applicable. Consequently, further investigation would be useful for generalizing the results to other sectors. In addition, the data were collected in Korea, especially only in the Seoul area.
Future research should focus on replicating this study with respondents who have different cultural backgrounds. A large survey of customers in various geographic areas would result in more generalizable results.
Second, this study showed that hedonic performance influenced satisfaction in casual dining restaurants. The same relationship did not hold for fine dining restaurants. Reasons for this could be further explored in future research with further refined measurement scales of hedonic performance.
Third, this study attempted to develop, for the first time, a scale to measure SWB experiences in a relatively short lasting commercial transaction such as a restaurant service encounter. Hence, the measurement scale of SWB is subject to further purification. Future research may conduct preliminary qualitative studies to refine the meaning of SWB and its operationalized scale.
87
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity . New York: The Free Press.
Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. A., & Gedenk, K. (2001). Pursuing the value conscious consumer: store brands versus national brand promotions. Journal of Marketing, 65 (1), 71 89.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411 423.
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: Americans’ perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.
Argyle, M., & Martin, M. (1991). The psychological causes of happiness. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz, Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 77 100). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Argyle, M., Martin, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a function of personality and social encounters. In J. P. Forgas, & J. M. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in social psychology: An international perspective (pp. 189 203). North Holland: Elsevier.
Arnould, E. J., Price, L. L., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2004). Consumers. New York: McGraw Hill/Irwin.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4), 644 656.
Babin, B. J., Lee, Y., Kim, E., & Griffin, M. (2005). Modeling consumer satisfaction and world of mouth: restaurant patronage in Korea. The Journal of Services Marketing, 19 (3), 133 139.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1980). Causal models in marketing. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (3), 459 489.
Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74 97. 88
Baldauf, A., Cravens, K. S., & Binder, G. (2003). Performance consequences of brand equity management: evidence from organizations in the value chain. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12 (4), 220 236.
Barsky, J. D. (1992). Customer satisfaction in hotel industry: Measuring and measurement. Hospitality Research Journal, 16, 51 73.
Barsky, J. D., & Labagh, R. (1992). A strategy for customer satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 33 (5), 32 40.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1990). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2 (2), 159 170.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural equation modeling, Sociological Methods and Research, 16 , 78 117.
Biswas Diener, R., Diener, E., & Tamir, M. (2004). Psychology of subjective well being. Daedalus . Retrieved August 4, 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pa3671/is_200404/ai_n9394174
Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2004). Well being over time in Britain and the USA . Journal of Public Economics. 88 , 1359 1386.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A multistage model of customers’ assessments of service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4), 375 384.
Boshhoff, C. (2006). A proposed instrument to measure the customer satisfaction of visitors to a theme park. Management Dynamics, 15 (3), 2 11.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, A., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). A dynamic process model of service quality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 7 27.
Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being . Chicago: Aldine.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back translation for cross cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 186 216. 89
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21 , 230 258.
Brumback, N. (1998). Inn style. Restaurant Business, 97 (3), 47 59.
Cadotte, E. R., Woodruff, R. B., & Jenkins, R. L. (1987). Expectations and norms in models of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (August), 305 314.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56 (9), 81 105.
Cantril, H. (1965). The Pattern of Human Concerns. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Carpenter, J. M., & Fairhurst, A. (2005). Consumer shopping value, satisfaction, and loyalty for retail apparel brands. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 9 (3), 256 269.
Carter, S. D. (2004). Reexamining the temporal aspects of affect: relationships between repeatedly measured affective state, subjective well being, and affective disposition. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 381 391.
Casey, M. (May 2004). Society trends. Restaurants & Institutions, 114 (11), 41 45 .
Cengiz, E., & Kirkbir, F. (2007). Customer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale in hospitals. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 5 (3), 252 269.
Cha, K. (2003). Subjective well being among college students. Social Indicators Research, 62, 63, 455 477.
Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000, October). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64 , 65 81.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65 (2), 81 93. 90
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2002). Product class effects on brand commitment and brand outcomes: The role of brand trust and brand affect. Journal of Brand Management, 10 (1), 33 58.
Cheng, S. (2004). Endowment and contrast: the role of positive and negative emotions on well being appraisal. Personality and Individual Differences, 37 , 905 915.
Chiu, H., Hsieh, Y., Li, Y., & Lee, M. (2005). Relationship marketing and consumer switching behavior. Journal of Business Research, 58 (12), 1681 1689.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16 , 64 73.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extroversion and neuroticism on subjective well being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 , 668 678.
Cronin, J. J., Jr., Brady, M. K., & Hult. G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76 (2), 193 218.
Crooker, K., & Near, J. (1998). Happiness and satisfaction: measures of affect and cognition. Social Indicators Research, 44 , 195 224.
Crowley, A. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Hughes, K. R. (1992). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of attitudes toward product categories. Marketing Letters, 3 (3), 239 249.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M, & Hunter, J. (2003). Happiness in everyday life: The uses of experience sampling. Journal of Happiness Studies. 4 (2), 185 199.
Dagger, T. S. & Sweeney, J. C. (2006). The effect of service evaluations on behavioral inventions and quality of life. Journal of Service Research, 9 (1), 3 18.
Dailey, P. B. (1998). A healthy does of Dow, Restaurants and Institutions, 108 (30), 12. 91
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (14), 1111 1132.
Day, R, L. (1983). The next step: Commonly accepted constructs for satisfaction research. In R. L. Day & H. K. Hunt (Eds.), International fare in consumer satisfaction and complaining behavior (pp. 113 117). Bloomington: Indiana University.
Day, R. L. (1984). Modeling choices among alternative responses to dissatisfaction, in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 496 499.
De Castro, J. M. (2000). Ingestive behavior and obesity Eating behavior: lessons from the real world of humans. Nutrition, 16 (10), 800 813.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, Eudaimonia, and well being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9 (1), 1 11.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well being. Psychology Bulletin, 95 (3), 542 575.
Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well being: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators Research, 31 (2), 103 157.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 34 43.
Diener, E., & Biswas Diener, R. (2003). Psychological empowerment and subjective well being. In D. Narayan, D (Ed.), Measuring empowerment: Cross disciplinary perspectives (pp. 125 140) . Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Diener, E, Emmons, R. E., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). Satisfaction with life scale. Journal of personality assessment, 49 (1), 71 75.
Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1993). The experience of emotional well being. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 405 416). Guilford, NY.
Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2000). Subjective emotional well being. Retrieved August 4, 2007, from http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~ediener/hottopic/paper2.html 92
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Pavot, W., & Gallagher, D. (1991). Response artifacts in the measurement of subjective well being. Social Indicators Research, 24 (1), 35 56.
Diener, E., Saoyta, J. J., & Suh, E. (1998). Subjective well being is essential to well being. Psychological Inquiry, 9 (1), 33 37.
Diener, E., & Scollon, C. (2003). Subjective well being is desirable, but not the Summum Bonum. Paper to be delivered at the University of Minnesota Interdisciplinary Workshop on Well Being, October 23 25, 2003, Minneapolis (see ADA). Retrieved August 4, 2007, from http://www.tc.umn.edu/~tiberius/workshop_papers/Diener.pdf
Diener, E., Scollon, C. K. N., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., & Suh, E. M. (2000). Positivity and the construction of life satisfaction judgments: global happiness is not the sum of its parts. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 159 176.
Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (2000). Culture and subjective well-being. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. D., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (2), 276 302.
Diener, E., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (1997). Recent findings on subjective well being. Retrieved August 4, 2007, from http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~ediener/hottopic/paper1.html
Dodds, W. B. (1991). In search of value: how price and store name information influence buyers' product perceptions. Journal of Service Marketing, 5(3), 27 36.
Dodds, W. B., & Monroe, K. B. (1985). The effect of brand and price information on subjective product evaluations. Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 85 90.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. E., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (3), 307 319.
Dumond, E. (2000). Value management: an underlying framework. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20 (9), 1062 1077. 93
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2004). Global judgments of Subjective Well Being: Situational variability and long term stability. Social Indicators Research, 65 (3). 245 277.
Erkut, S., Alarcon, O., Garcia Coll, C., Troop, L. R., & Vazguez Garcia, H. A. (1999). The dual focus approach to creating bilingual measures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30 , 206 218.
Finkelstein, J. (1989). Dining out: A sociology of modern manners. Cambridge, UK: Policy Press.
Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience. Journal of Marketing, 56 (January), 6 21.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American customer satisfaction index: Nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing, 60 (4), 7 18.
Fornell, C., & Lacker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 , 39 50.
Fornell, C., Tellis, G. J., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1982). Validity assessment: A structural equations approach using partial least squares. Proceedings, American Marketing Association Educators’ Conference.
Freedman, J. (1978). Happy people: What happiness is, who has it, and why. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovic.
Gardner, B. (2001). What do customers value? Quality Progress, 34 (11), 41
Gilbert, D., & Abdullah, J. (2004). Holidaytaking and the sense of well being. Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (1), 103 121.
Gilbert, G. R., & Veloutsou, C. (2006). A cross industry comparison of customer satisfaction. Journal of Services Marketing, 20 (5), 298 308.
Griffin, M., Babin, B. J., & Modianos, D. (2000). Shopping values of Russian consumers: The impact of habituation in a developing economy. Journal of Retailing, 76 (1), 33 52. 94
Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D., (1993). Cross cultural adaptation of health related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46 , 1417 1432.
Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, S. (1960). Americans view their mental health. New York: Basic Books.
Hallowell, R. (1996). The relationship of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and profitability: An empirical study. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7 (4), 27 42.
Hausknecht, D. R. (1990). Measurement scales in consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 3, 1 11.
Hayes, N., & Joseph, S. (2003). Big 5 correlates of three measures of subjective well being. Personality and Individual Differences, 34 (4), 723 727.
Heady, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (4), 731 739.
Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (1998). Positive moods derived from leisure and their relationship to happiness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 25 , 523–535.
Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2001). Emotional stability as a major dimension of happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1357–1364.
Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: a compact scale for the measurement of psychological well being. Personality and Individual Differences, 33 , 1073–1082.
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982, Summer). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46 , 92 101. 95
Holbrook, M. B. (1986). Emotion in the consumption experience: Toward a new model of the human consumer. In R. A. Peterson, W. D. Hoyer, & D. Wilson (Eds.), The role of affect in consumer behavior: Emerging theories and applications (pp. 17 52) , Lexington, MA: D. C. Health.
Holbrook, M. B. (1994). The nature of customer value: An axiology of services in the consumption experience. In R. T. Rust & R. L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 21 71). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982, September). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132 140.
Hsu, H. (2006). An empirical study of web site quality, customer value, and customer satisfaction based on E shop. Business Review, Cambridge, 5 (1), 190 193.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterization model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424 453.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1 55.
Huang, M. (2003). Designing website attributes to induce experimental encounters. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 425 442.
Hunt, H. K. (1977). CS/D Overview and future direction . In H. K. Hunt (Ed.), Conceptualization and measurement of consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction (pp. 7 28). Cambridge. MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Jackson, D. L. (2003). Revisiting sample size and number of parameter estimates: Some support for the N:q hypothesis. Structural Equation Modeling, 10 (1), 128 141.
Jiang, Y., & Wang, C. L. (2006). The impact of affect on service quality and satisfaction: the moderation of service contexts. Journal of Service Marketing, 20 (4), 211 218.
Jones, E. (1987). Translation on qualitative measures for use in cross cultural research. Nursing Research, 36 , 324 327. 96
Jones, E., & Kay, M. (1992). Instrumentation in cross cultural research. Nursing Research , 41 (3), 186 188.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.71: User’s reference guide . Hillsdale, NJ: Scientific Software International.
Joseph, S, & Lewis, C. A. (1998). The depression happiness scale: reliability and validity of a bipolar self report scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54 , 537 544.
Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B., Schreiber, C. A., & Redelmeier, D. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science. 4 (6), 401 405.
Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well being. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 20 (1), 3 24.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, Schwarz, & Stone. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306 (5702), 1776 1780.
Kammann, R., & Flett, R. (1983). Affectometer 2: A scale to measure current levels of general happiness. Australian Journal of Psychology, 35, 257 265.
Kara, M., van der Bijl, J. J., Shortridge Baggett, L. M., Astı, T., & Erguney, S. (2006). Cross cultural adaptation of the diabetes management self efficacy scale for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: Scale development. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43 (5), 611 621.
Kashdan, T. B. (2004). The assessment of subjective well being (issues raised by the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 36. 1225 1232.
Keiningham, T. L., Cooil, B., Aksoy, L., Andreassen, T. W., & Weiner, J. (2007). The value of different customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics in predicting customer retention, recommendation, and share of wallet. Managing Service Quality, 17 (4), 361 384.
Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (6), 1007 1022. 97
Kinnear, T. C., & Taylor, J. R. (1996). Marketing research: An applied approach (5 th ed.), New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
Kozma, A., Stone, S., Stone, M. J., Hannah, T. E., & McNeil, K. (1990). Long and short term affective states in happiness: Model, paradigm, and experimental evidence, Social Indicators Research, 22, 119 138.
Kwun, J., & Oh, H. (2004). Effects of brand, price, and risk on customers’ value perceptions and behavioral intentions in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 11 (1), 31 49.
LaBarbera, P. A., & Mazursky, D. (1983). A longitudinal assessment of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction: The dynamic aspect of the cognitive process. Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (4), 393 404.
Larsen, R. J. (1983). Manual for the affect intensity measure. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
Lawton, M. P. (1975). The Philadelphia geriatric center morale scale: a revision. Journal of Gerontology, 30 , 85 89.
Lee, Y., Park, K., Park, D., Lee, K., & Kwon, Y. (2005). The relative impact of service quality of service value, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty in Korean Family Restaurant Context. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 6 (1), 27 50.
Lee. D., & Sirgy, M. J. (2004). Quality of life marketing: Proposed antecedents and consequences. Journal of Macromarketing, 24 (1), 44 58.
Lee. D., Sirgy, M. J., Larsen, V., & Wright, N. D. (2002). Developing a subjective measure of consumer well being. Journal of Macromarketing, 22 (2), 158 169.
Lepper, H. S. (1998). Use of other reports to validate subjective well being measures. Social Indicators Research, 44 , 367 379. 98
Levy, S. J. (1959, July August). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37 , 117 119.
Lewis, R. C., Chambers, R. E., & Chacko, H. E. (1995). Marketing leadership in hospitality: Foundations and practices. Second edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, A Division of International Thomson Publishing Inc.
Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive and motivational processes in well being. American Psychologist, 56 (3), 239 249.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research. 46 (2), 137 155.
Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption experience: Evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 , 451 466.
Maxwell, B. (1996). Translation and cultural adaptation of the survey instruments in M.O.Martin and D.L.Kelly (eds.), Third International Mathematical and Science Study (TIMSS) Technical Report, Vol. 1, Design and Development, Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
McGreal, R., & Joseph, S. (1993). The Depression Happiness scale. Psychological Reports, 73, 1279 1282.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: the full five factor model and well being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227 232 .
Monroe, K. B., & Dodds, W. B. (1985). The effect of brand and price information on subjective product evaluations. Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 85 90.
Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1985). The effect of price on subjective product evaluations. In J. Jocoby & J. C. Olson (Eds.), Perceived quality: How consumers view stores and merchandise (pp. 209 232). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Myers, D. G. (1993). The pursuit of happiness , New York: The Aquarian Press, Harper Collins Publishers. 99
Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55, 56 67.
Neal, J. D., Sirgy, M. J., & Uysal, M. (1999). The role of satisfaction with leisure travel/Tourism services and experience in satisfaction with leisure life and overall life. Journal of Business Research. 44 , 153 163.
Netemeyer, R. G.. & Maxham III, J. G.. (2007). Employee versus supervisor ratings of performance in the retail customer service sector: Differences in predictive validity for customer outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 83 (1), 131 145.
Neugarten, B. L., Havighurst, R. J., & Tobin, S.S. (1961). The measurement of life satisfaction. Journal of Gerontology, 16 , 134 143.
Newman, J., & Webel, R. (1973). Multivariate analysis of brand loyalty for major house hold appliances. Journal of Marketing Research. 10 (4), 404 409.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2 nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Oh, H. (2000). Diners’ perceptions of quality, value, and satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly , 58 66.
Oishi, B., Diener, E., Suh, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Value as a moderator in subjective well being. Journal of Personality, 67 (1), 157 184.
Oliver, R. L. (1980, November). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17 , 460 469.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral Perspective on the Consumer . New York: McGraw Hill.
Park, C. (2004a). Efficient or enjoyable? Consumer values of eating out and fast food restaurant consumption in Korea. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87 94.
Park, C. (2004b, June). “Well being” a key phrase in Korean food and beverage. International Market News, Retrieved from http://info.hktdc.com/imn/04060301/food066.htm 100
Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the satisfaction with life scale: Evidence for the cross method convergence of well being measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71 75.
Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Predicting satisfaction among first time visitors to a destination by using the expectancy disconfirmation theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 12, 197 209.
Popp, J. (Jun 2005). Fresh ideas. Restaurants & Institutions, 115 (10), 52 56.
Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, W. E., Jr. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review, 68 (5), 105 111.
Ringen, S. (1995). Well being, measurement, and preferences. Acta Sociologica, 38, 3 15.
Rust, R. T., & Zahornik, A. J. (1993). Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share. Journal of Retailing, 69 (2), 193 215.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 , 141 166.
Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). Value priorities and subjective well being: Direct relations and congruity effects. European Journal of Social Psychology. 30 (2), 177 198.
Saraph, J., Benson, P, & Schroeder, R. (1989). An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision Science, 20 (4), 829 910.
Schumaker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2 nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1991). Evaluating one’s life: A judgment model of subjective well being. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 27 48). Oxford: Pergamon Press. 101
Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1999). Reports of subjective well being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 61 84). New York: Russell Sage.
Scofield, D. (2004, October). Korean “well being” slogan for some, not others. Asia Times, Retrieved from http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FJ20Dg01.html
Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques. Hoboken, NJ: John Willey & Sons, Inc.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22, 159 170.
Shin, D. C., & Johnson, D. M. (1978). Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Social Indicator Research, 5 , 475 492.
Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D., & Rahtz, D. (2007). Research on consumer well being: Overview of the field and introduction to the special issue. Journal of Macromarketing, 27 (4), 341 349.
Slivinske, L. R., Fitch, V. L., & Morawski, D. P. (1996). The wellness index: Developing an instrument to assess elders’ well being. Journal of Gerontological Social Work. 25 (3/4), 185 204.
Soriano, D. R. (2002). Customers' expectations factors in restaurants: The situation in Spain. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19 (8), 1055 1067.
Spence, G., Oades, L. G., & Caputi, P. (2004). Trait emotional intelligence and goal self integration: important predictors of emotional well being? Personality and individual Differences, 37 (3), 449 461.
Spreng, R. A., Harrell, G. D., & Mackoy, R. D. (1995). Service recovery: impact on satisfaction and intentions. Journal of Service Marketing, 9 (1), 15 23.
Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J. (2001). Health behavior, risk awareness and emotional well being in students from Eastern Europe and Western Europe. Social Science & Medicine, 53 (12), 1621 1630. 102
Stock, W. A., Okun, M. A., & Benito, J. G. (1994). Subjective well being measures: Reliability and validity among Spanish elders. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 38 (2), 221 235.
Stock, W, Okun, M., Stock, S., Haring, M., & Witter, R. A. (1982, August). Reporting reliability: A case study of life satisfaction research. Paper presented at the 90 th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Stoel, L., Wickliffe, V., & Lee, K. (2004). Attribute beliefs and spending as antecedents to shopping value. Journal of Business Research, 57, 1067 1073.
Suranyi Unger, Theodore, Jr. (1981, September). Consumer behavior and consumer well being: An economist’s digest. Journal of Consumer Research, 8 , 132 143.
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77 (2), 203 220.
Tellegen, A. (1982). Multidimensional personality questionnaire manual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Thomas, D., & Diener, E. (1990). Memory accuracy in the recall of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 291 297.
Ullman. J.B. (1996). Structural equation modeling. In B.G. Tabachnick & L.S. Fidell (Eds.), Using Multivariate Statistics (pp. 709 819). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
U.S.Census Bureau. (n.d.). 1997 NAICS Definitions. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from http:www.census.gov/epcd/naics/NDEF722.HTM
Veenhoven, R. (1997).Advances in understanding happiness. Revue Quebecoise de Psychologie, 18 , 29–79.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11 (4), 342 365. 103
Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 310 320.
Westerhof, G. J., Dittmann Kohli, F., & Thissen, T. (2001). Beyond life satisfaction: Lay conceptions of well being among middle aged and elderly adults . Social Indicators Research. 56 (2), 179 203.
Woodruff, R. B. (1998). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (2), 139 153.
Xing, Z. (2005). Reflections on subjective well being measures research. US-China Education Review, 2( 3), 73 81.
Yardley, J. K., & Rice, R. W. (1991). The relationship between mood and subjective well being. Social Indicators Research, 24 (1), 101 111.
Yee, L. (Jan 2005). Custom fit. Restaurants & Institutions, 115 (1), 34 39.
Yi, Y. (1991). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. In V. A. Zeithaml (Ed.), Review of marketing (1990), (pp. 68 123). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Yuksel, A., & Rimmington, M. (1998). Customer satisfaction measurement. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39 (6), 60 70.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988, July). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52 , 2 22.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996, April). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60 , 31 46.
Zikmund, W. G. (2000). Business Research Methods (6 th ed). Fort Worth. TX: Harcourt College Publishers. 104
APPENDIX A. COVER LETTER AND SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Dear Respondent,
This study is conducted to understand the restaurant customer’s perceptions of well being from a dining experience at XYZ. The results of this study will be helpful to improving your future dining experience at XYZ. Accompanying this letter is a short questionnaire that asks you a number of questions regarding your dining experience at XYZ.
This survey takes about 3~5 minutes for you to complete. Your participation is voluntary and all information you provide will remain confidential. You can skip any questions on the survey that you are uncomfortable answering. Responses from all participants will be analyzed in group only and no single participant will be identified. Once you complete the questionnaire, please turn it into the drop box by the entrance of the restaurant.
If you have any questions or concerns about this study, you may contact me at 010 8029 9800; [email protected] or major professor Haemoon Oh at (515) 294 7409 (USA); [email protected]. This research has been approved by Iowa State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). If you have any questions about the right of research subjects or research related injuries, please contact the IRB administrator at (515) 294 4566 (USA) or [email protected].
Sincerely, Jeehye Shin Jee Hye Shin Ph.D. Student Hotel, Restaurant and Institution Management Iowa State University
HaeMoon Oh Hae Moon Oh Associate Professor Department of Apparel, Educational Studies, and Hospitality Management Iowa State University 105
A Study on Restaurant Diners’ Perceived Well-Being
The following questions are designed to understand your perceptions of well-being in restaurant experience. This questionnaire asks your opinion about restaurant performance and asks your feeling about dining out restaurant experience.
Part. I . In this section, we ask your opinion about restaurant performance . Please circle the number that best indicates your opinion by using the following scales. Strongly Strongly Neutral Disagree Agree Hedonic performance 1. Dining at XYZ restaurant was fun. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Dining at XYZ restaurant was exciting. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Dining at XYZ restaurant was delightful. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Dining at XYZ restaurant was thrilling. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Dining at XYZ restaurant was enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5
Utilitarian performance 6. XYZ was convenient as my choice. 1 2 3 4 5 7. XYZ restaurant was a successful dining option for 1 2 3 4 5 me that time. 8. The employees of XYZ restaurant were helpful. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Everything in XYZ was in working order to serve 1 2 3 4 5 customers well
Part II . In this section, we ask how you are satisfied with dining experience at XYZ restaurant. Please indicate your opinion, using the scale provided. Much worse Much better Neutral Than expected than expected 1. How would you rate the food you ate at XYZ? 1 2 3 4 5 2. How would you rate employees’ service at XYZ? 1 2 3 4 5 Very Very Neutral Unsatisfied satisfied 3. How satisfied are you with this XYZ restaurant? 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree 4. Overall XYZ met my expectations. 1 2 3 4 5
106
Part III. In this section, we ask how you perceived value for dining in this restaurant. Please indicate your opinion using the scale provided. Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree 1. This dinning experience at XYZ was good for the price. 1 2 3 4 5 2. This restaurant offered a good value for the money. 1 2 3 4 5 3. The value for my dining at XYZ was high. 1 2 3 4 5
Part IV. In this section, we ask about how you feel well-being through dining experience in this restaurant. Strongly Strongly Neutral Disagree Agree 1. The dining experience at XYZ contributed to my 1 2 3 4 5 happiness. 2. The dining experience at XYZ contributed to my health. 1 2 3 4 5 3. The dining experience at XYZ contributed to my social 1 2 3 4 5 life. 4. The dining experience at XYZ helped me feel better 1 2 3 4 5 about my life. 5. I felt life was good when I dined at XYZ. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Dining at XYZ contributed positively to my well being. 1 2 3 4 5
Part V. In this section, we ask about your future behavioral intention based on your dining experience in this restaurant. Strongly Strongly Neutral Disagree Agree 1. I will make favorable comments about this restaurant to 1 2 3 4 5 others. 2. I will recommend this restaurant to other people. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I will dine in this restaurant again. 1 2 3 4 5
107
Part VI : In this section, we ask about yourself. Please circle or write your answers for each question.
1. You are: Male Female
2. Your age: ______years old
3. What is your education level? ___ Less than high school ___ High school graduate ___ College graduate (including 2 year college) ___ Post graduate
4. What is your job? ______
5. What is your household annual income? ___ below $20,000 ___ $20, 001 ~ $30,000 ___ $30,001 ~ $40,000 ___ $40,001 ~ $50,000 ___ $50,001 ~ $60,000 ___ more than $60,000
6. How much did you spend this time for your dining at XYZ (average check per person)? ___ Less than $20 ___ $20.01 ~30 ___ $30.01~40 ___ $40.01~50 ___ $50.01~60 ___ over $60.01
Thank you four your participation! Please return your completed survey to the restaurant server or drop it off in the box that is located at the cashier’s desk of the restaurant. 108
응답자 분께
이 연구는 고객들의 웰빙에 대한 인식을 이해하기 위해 이루어졌습니다. 이 연구를 통하여 XYZ 레스토랑에서의 식사 경험을 개선시키도록 하는데 도움이 될 것입니다. 이 편지와 함께 XYZ 레 스토랑에서 외식 경험에 대해 몇 가지 질문을 드리고자 합니다.
본 설문을 위해서는 약 3~5 분 정도 소요될 것입니다. 귀하의 참여여부는 자발적인 것이며 귀하 께서 제공하신 모든 정보는 공개되지 않을 것입니다. 또한 설문지 응답 시 대답하기 곤란한 질문 은 대답하지 않으셔도 좋습니다. 모든 참여자께서 주신 응답은 그룹으로 분석될 것이며, 특정 참 여자를 밝히지는 않을 것입니다. 설문지를 완성하시면, 레스토랑 직원에게 주시거나 또는 레스토 랑 입구에 위치한 설문함에 넣어주십시오.
만약, 이 설문에 대한 궁금한 점이나 우려사항이 있으시면 연구자 010 8029 9800; [email protected] 혹은 전공 교수인 오해문 교수 (515) 294 7409 (USA); [email protected] 에게로 연락 주십시오. 이 연구는 아이오와 주립 대학의 검토 기관 (Iowa State University’s Institutional Review Board(IRB)) 에 의해 승인되었습니다. 만약 조사의 주제 혹은 조사와 관련한 사 항으로 질문이 있으시면 IRB 운영자에게 (515)294 4566 (USA) 혹은 [email protected] 로 연락 주십 시오.
감사합니다.
Jeehye Shin 신지혜 Ph.D. student Hotel, Restaurant, and Institution Management Iowa State University
HaeMoon Oh 오해문 Associate Professor Department of Apparel, Educational Studies, and Hospitality Management Iowa State University
109
레스토랑 손님들이 인지하는 웰빙 (Well-Being) 에에에 대한 연구
다음 질문들은 레스토랑의 외식 경험으로부터 귀하께서 가지시는 웰빙에 대한 인식들을 이해하기 위한 목적으로 만들어졌습니다. 본 질문지는 레스토랑이 제공하는 사항들에 대한 귀하의 의견을 구하기 위함이며, 레스토랑에서 외식을 하실 때에 경험하시는 느낌들에 대하여 질문을 드립니다.
Part. I . 본 영역에서는 레스토랑의 전반적인 경험에 대해 질문을 드립니다. 아래 보여지는 척도 들을 사용하여 귀하의 의견을 가장 잘 나타내는 숫자에 동그라미를 그려주십시오.
매우 동의하지 않음 보통 매우 동의함
쾌락적 측면 1. XYZ 레스토랑에서 식사하는 것은 재미있었다. 1 2 3 4 5 2. XYZ 레스토랑에서 식사하는 것은 흥미진진했다. 1 2 3 4 5 3. XYZ 레스토랑에서 식사하는 것은 유쾌했다. 1 2 3 4 5 4.XYZ 레스토랑에서 식사는 기운을 북돋았다. 1 2 3 4 5 5. XYZ 레스토랑에서 식사 하는 것은 즐거웠다. 1 2 3 4 5
실용적인 측면 6. XYZ 레스토랑은 내가 선택하는 데 있어서 편리하 1 2 3 4 5 였다. 7. XYZ 레스토랑은 내게 만족스러운 메뉴들을 가지 1 2 3 4 5 고 있었다. 8. XYZ 레스토랑의 직원들로부터 도움 받기 쉬었다. 1 2 3 4 5 9. XYZ 레스토랑의 모든 것들이 고객들을 대하는 데 1 2 3 4 5 있어서 순차적으로 잘 운용되고 있었다.
Part II . 본 영역에서는 XYZ 레스토랑에서 식사를 하시면서 느끼시는 만족도에 대하여 질문을 드립니다. 제공된 척도를 사용하여 귀하의 의견을 나타내 주시길 바랍니다.
기대한 것보다 보통 기대한 것보다 매우 못함 매우 나음
1. XYZ 레스토랑에서 드신 음식을 어떻게 평가하십 1 2 3 4 5 니까? 110
2. XYZ 레스토랑 직원들의 서비스를 어떻게 평가하 1 2 3 4 5 십니까? 매우 불만족 보통 매우 만족 3. XYZ 레스토랑에 귀하는 만족하십니까? 1 2 3 4 5 매우 그렇지 않다 보통 매우 그렇다 4. 전반적으로 XYZ 레스토랑은 귀하의 기대를 충 1 2 3 4 5 족시키셨습니까?
Part III. 본 영역에서는 본 레스토랑에서 식사하실 때 인식하신 가치 (value) 에 관한 질문을 드 립니다. 제공된 척도를 사용하여 귀하의 의견을 나타내 주시길 바랍니다. 매우 동의하지 않음 보통 매우 동의함
1. XYZ 레스토랑에서의 외식 경험은 가격에 비하여 1 2 3 4 5 적당하였다. 2. XYZ 레스토랑은 가격 대비 좋은 가치를 1 2 3 4 5 제공하였다. 3. XYZ 레스토랑에서 식사는 꽤 가치 있었다. 1 2 3 4 5
Part IV. 본 영역에서는 XYZ 레스토랑에서 식사를 하시면서 느끼신 웰빙에 관하여 질문을 드 립니다.
매우 동의하지 않음 보통 매우 동의함
1. XYZ 레스토랑에서의 식사경험은 나의 행복에 기여 1 2 3 4 5 하였다. 2. XYZ 레스토랑에서의 식사 경험은 나의 건강에 기여 1 2 3 4 5 하였다. 3. XYZ 레스토랑에서의 식사 경험은 나의 사교적인 삶 1 2 3 4 5 에 기여 하였다. 4. XYZ 레스토랑에서의 식사 경험은 나의 기분을 한층 1 2 3 4 5 나아지게 하는 데 기여 하였다. 5. 나는 XYZ 레스토랑에서 식사를 할 때 인생이 즐겁 1 2 3 4 5 다고 느꼈다. 6. XYZ 레스토랑에서 식사는 나의 웰빙에 긍정적인 영 1 2 3 4 5 향을 미쳤다. 111
Part V. 본 영역에서는 XYZ 레스토랑에서의 경험을 바탕으로 한 귀하의 향후 행동 의향에 관 한 질문을 드립니다.
매우 동의하지 않음 보통 매우 동의함
1. 나는 다른 사람들에게 이 레스토랑을 좋게 말할것이다. 1 2 3 4 5 2. 나는 다른 사람들에게 이 레스토랑을 추천할 것이다. 1 2 3 4 5 3. 나는 다음에 이 레스토랑에서 다시 식사를 할 것이다. 1 2 3 4 5
Part VI : 본 영역에서는 귀하에 대하여 질문을 드립니다. 각각의 질문에 답하시거나 동그라미 표시를 해주시길 바랍니다.
1. 당신은: 남성 여성
2. 당신의 나이는: ______세
3. 당신의 학력 수준은 어디에 해당하십니까? ___ 고등학교 미만 ___ 고졸 ___ 대졸 (2 년제 대학 포함) ___ 대학원졸 이상
4. 당신은 직업은 무엇입니까? ______
5. 당신 가족의 연간 소득은 어는 정도입니까? ___ 2,000 만원 이하 ___ 2,001 만원 ~ 3,000 만원 ___ 3,001 만원 ~ 4,000 만원 ___ 4,001 만원 ~ 5,000 만원 ___ 5,001 만원 ~ 6,000 만원 ___ 6,001 만원 이상
6. 이번에 XYZ 레스토랑에서 식사를 하시는 데 1 인당 평균 비용은 어느 정도 되십니까? ___ 20,000 원 이하 ___ 20,001 원 ~ 30,000 원 ___ 30,001 ~ 40,000 원 ___ 40,001 원 ~ 50,000 원 ___ 50,001 원 ~ 60,000 원 ___ 60,000 원 이상
참여해 주셔서 감사합니다! 작성 완료한 질문지를 레스토랑 직원에게 주시거나 레스토랑 계산대 앞에 있는 박스에 넣어주십시오. 112
APPENDIX B. HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL
113
APPENDIX C. CORRELATION MATRICES 114
Table C.1. Correlation matrix (Casual dining restaurant)
HED1 HED2 HED3 HED4 UT3 UT4 SAT3 SAT4 VAL1 VAL2 VAL3 WB1 WB2 WB3 WB4 WB5 WB6 BI1 BI2 BI3
HED1 1.00
HED2 .72 1.00 HED3 .73 .66 1.00 HED4 .60 .61 .61 1.00 UT3 .48 .47 .53 .43 1.00 UT4 .54 .49 .57 .50 .70 1.00 SAT3 .62 .58 .65 .52 .56 .60 1.00 SAT4 .58 .55 * .68 .53 .51 .57 .79 1.00
* 11 VAL1 .44 .48 .44 .29 .30 .31 .49 .46 1.00 116 116 4
VAL2 .43 .54 .47 .35 .35 .34 .51 .49 .77 1.00
VAL3 .46 .50 * .47 .49 .42 .43 .53 .55 .61 .69 1.00 WB1 .58 .57 .65 .57 .43 .57 .57 .56 .48 .51 .59 1.00 WB2 .43 .47 .48 .47 .22 .32 .41 .41 .37 .50 .54 .58 1.00 WB3 .45 .46 .49 .49 .33 .40 .48 .44 .39 .45 .46 .56 .55 1.00 WB4 .52 .48 .57 .53 .41 .47 .52 .47 .42 .48 .57 .69 .50 .62 1.00 WB5 .45 .48 .48 .53 .37 .45 .48 .49 .36 .48 .55 .67 .56 .61 .68 1.00 WB6 .41 .47 .50 .52 .27 .39 .43 .44 .42 .48 .53 .58 .67 .57 .55 .66 1.00 BI1 .53 .51 .60 .45 .41 .48 .61 .59 .47 .53 .61 .59 .47 .49 .60 .58 .54 1.00 BI2 .50 .50 .56 .51 .38 .40 .62 .52 .43 .54 .60 .59 .48 .52 .60 .54 .57 .75 1.00 BI3 .45 .49 .55 .46 .39 .45 .59 .56 .42 .51 .57 .55 .48 .42 .54 .50 .48 .71 .73 1.00.
All correlations are statically significant at p < 0.01. 115
Table C.2. Correlation matrix (Fine dining restaurant)
HED1 HED2 HED3 HED4 UT3 UT4 SAT3 SAT4 VAL1 VAL2 VAL3 WB1 WB2 WB3 WB4 WB5 WB6 BI1 BI2 BI3
HED1 1.00
HED2 .72 1.00 HED3 .57 .56 1.00 HED4 .47 .54 .56 1.00 UT3 .28 .39 .31 .32 1.00 UT4 .27 .34 .28 .44 .72 1.00 SAT3 .22 .26 .34 .44 * .46 .40 * 1.00 SAT4 .23 .33 .47 .45 .50 .48 .75 1.00 117 VAL1 .36 .42 .41 .40 .33 .24 .39 .36 1.00 11 117 5
VAL2 .34 .36 .36 .40 .30 .22 .52 .44 .74 1.00 117
VAL3 .35 .43 .42 .40 .34 .20 .47 .47 .62 .70 1.00
WB1 .38 .42 .53 .47 .41 .37 .53 .53 .46 .48 50 1.00 WB2 .25 .35 .45 .43 .40 .40 .52 .57 .45 .47 .55 .60 1.00 WB3 .30 .48 .45 .46 .42 .40 .41 .50 .33 .31 .33 .52 .48 1.00 WB4 .31 .42 .42 .47 .39 .38 .47 .48 .34 .34 .35 .63 .54 .64 1.00 WB5 .31 .43 .43 .30 .29 .25 .45 .44 .27 .31 .35 .58 .50 .56 .57 1.00 WB6 .28 .37 .38 .39 .37 .42 .49 .48 .27 .33 .38 .58 .65 .46 .58 .63 1.00 BI1 .29 .30 .44 .37 .50 .42 .57 .56 .39 .44 .43 .62 .57 .48 .42 .54 .53 1.00 BI2 .25 .33 .41 .35 .44 .44 .62 .54 .46 .52 .52 .58 .60 .47 .46 .46 .55 .79 1.00 BI3 .22 .24 .34 .33 .36 .30 .59 .58 .46 .53 .53 .55 .47 .37 .37 .30 .44 .67 .72 1.00
All correlations are statically significant at p < 0.01 116
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my deepest thanks to the many people who have supported the completion of this study. First of all, I would like to thank my major professor, Dr. Haemoon Oh, for valuable suggestions, continuous guidance, and support. I express earnest appreciation for his advice and encouragement in spite of his busy schedule. I would like to extend special thanks to Dr. Miyoung Jeong for continuous care and interest in me and my work. She inspired me through her truthful care and love to finish my work. During the process of this dissertation, she has been a professor, sister, and mentor as well. I specially thank other committee members, Drs. Mary Gregoire, Jacques Lempers and Elena Karpova, for willingly serving on my dissertation committee and offering precious suggestions and comments on many parts of this work. Their comments were extremely helpful in the revision process. I also would like to thank many restaurant managers who allowed me to complete my survey for this dissertation. I sincerely thank my parents for giving me this opportunity to work toward my doctoral degree. They deserve my wholehearted and deepest thanks for their continuous concern, support, and encouragement. I am indebted to my parents who believe in me, support, and have always given me strength. Their trust and love made me complete this dissertation. I would additionally like to thank my sister Joo yeon and my brother Sung uk for continuous care and love. Last, but most important, I would like to thank my husband Dr. Joon Chung for consistently encouraging me with their warmhearted love and care. I would also like to express my love and thanks to my son, Ji wook, and my unborn child, due in November. I am the happiest woman with my family members who believe in and love me. They were instrumental in my completing my doctoral studies and this dissertation.