An Examination of Customer Satisfaction in the Restaurant Industry
VerifiedAdded on 2022/09/18
|9
|8642
|35
Report
AI Summary
This research paper investigates the factors influencing customer satisfaction within the full-service restaurant industry. The study employs a transaction-specific model, examining how service quality (particularly responsiveness), price, and food quality impact customer satisfaction. The research, based on secondary research and qualitative interviews, utilizes a structured questionnaire and statistical analysis (factor analysis and multiple regression) to test the model. The findings reveal that employee responsiveness is the most significant driver of customer satisfaction, followed by price and food quality. The physical design and appearance of the restaurant were found to have no significant effect. The paper highlights limitations, such as the need for more comprehensive measures of food quality and consideration of customer motivations for dining. It concludes with practical implications, suggesting that restaurants should prioritize service quality, price, and food quality to enhance customer satisfaction, and contributes to the existing literature on restaurant service management.
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant
industry:an examination of the
transaction-specific model
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Sam and Irene Black Schoolof Business,Penn State Erie,The Behrend College,Erie,Pennsylvania,USA
Abstract
Purpose – To determine the factors that explain customer satisfaction in the fullservice restaurant industry.
Design/methodology/approach – Secondary research and qualitative interviews were used to build the model of customer s
questionnaire was employed to gather data and test the model. Sampling involved a random selection of addresses from th
supplemented by respondents selected on the basis of judgment sampling. Factor analysis and multiple regression were us
Findings – The regression model suggested that customer satisfaction was influenced most by responsiveness of the frontli
price and food quality (in that order). Physicaldesign and appearance of the restaurant did not have a significant effect.
Research limitations/implications – To explain customersatisfaction better,it may be importantto look atadditionalfactors orseek better
measures of the constructs. For example, the measures of food quality may not have captured the complexity and variety o
be important to address the issue of why customers visit restaurants. Instead of the meal, business transactions or enjoying
others may be more important. Under the circumstances, customer satisfaction factors may be different. The results are als
sampled area may have different requirements from restaurants.
Practical implications – Full service restaurants should focus on three elements – service quality (responsiveness), price, an
– if customer satisfaction is to be treated as a strategic variable.
Originality/value – The study tests the transaction-specific modeland enhances the literature on restaurant service management.
Keywords Restaurants,Catering industry,Customer satisfaction,Service levels,United States of America
Paper type Research paper
An executive summary for managers can be found at
the end of this article.
Introduction
The restaurant industry in the USA is large and ubiquitous.
Providing a range of products and services, it touches nearly
every household in one way or another. Reflecting on the size
of the industry, The NationalRestaurant Association (NRA)
predicted in 2003 that Americans would spend $426.1 billion
on food consumed outside the home (NationalRestaurant
Association, 2003). Of this amount, it was predicted that full
servicerestaurantscould secureabout $153.2 billion or,
roughly, 36 percent of the share. The restaurant industry has
grown over the years, largely because the American way of life
has changed. Since 1950, the proportion of married women in
the work force has nearly tripled (Goch,1999),resulting in
women having less time to plan and prepare meals at home.
Today, mealsare more of an afterthoughtrather than a
planned occasion (Mogelonsky, 1998). People find
themselveshungry with no time to cook;so they eatout.
The result is the booming restaurant industry.
The NRA also predicted that on an average day in 2003,
the restaurant industry would post $1.2 billion in sales. The
winner of this contestover America’staste buds is the
customer who has more restaurant options than ever before,
allowing him or her to be more finicky and demanding.
Customers’expectations for value,in relation to price,also
seem to be on the rise: people want “more” for their money.
These findingshave interesting theoreticaland practical
implications for the service literature, service establishments,
and especially the restaurantindustry which is lucrative in
size,fiercely competitive,and very importantto the public
palate.In particular, it is importantto comprehend the
dynamicsof this industry from the perspectiveof the
customer who is the finalarbiter of how much to spend and
where, when and what to eat. Therefore, an understanding of
the factors thatinfluence customer satisfaction oughtto be
usefulin guiding restaurant owners and managers to design
and deliver the right offering.
The main research question driving thisstudy is “What
explains customersatisfaction in the fullservice restaurant
industry?” Given our geographic focus, we believe this study
representsa small step in a seriesof needed studiesto
understand the bigger picture.
Customersatisfaction isat the heartof marketing.The
ability to satisfy customers is vitalfor a number ofreasons.
For example,it has been shown thatdissatisfied customers
tend to complain to the establishmentor seek redress from
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm
Journalof Services Marketing
20/1 (2006) 3–11
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045]
[DOI 10.1108/08876040610646536]
3
industry:an examination of the
transaction-specific model
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Sam and Irene Black Schoolof Business,Penn State Erie,The Behrend College,Erie,Pennsylvania,USA
Abstract
Purpose – To determine the factors that explain customer satisfaction in the fullservice restaurant industry.
Design/methodology/approach – Secondary research and qualitative interviews were used to build the model of customer s
questionnaire was employed to gather data and test the model. Sampling involved a random selection of addresses from th
supplemented by respondents selected on the basis of judgment sampling. Factor analysis and multiple regression were us
Findings – The regression model suggested that customer satisfaction was influenced most by responsiveness of the frontli
price and food quality (in that order). Physicaldesign and appearance of the restaurant did not have a significant effect.
Research limitations/implications – To explain customersatisfaction better,it may be importantto look atadditionalfactors orseek better
measures of the constructs. For example, the measures of food quality may not have captured the complexity and variety o
be important to address the issue of why customers visit restaurants. Instead of the meal, business transactions or enjoying
others may be more important. Under the circumstances, customer satisfaction factors may be different. The results are als
sampled area may have different requirements from restaurants.
Practical implications – Full service restaurants should focus on three elements – service quality (responsiveness), price, an
– if customer satisfaction is to be treated as a strategic variable.
Originality/value – The study tests the transaction-specific modeland enhances the literature on restaurant service management.
Keywords Restaurants,Catering industry,Customer satisfaction,Service levels,United States of America
Paper type Research paper
An executive summary for managers can be found at
the end of this article.
Introduction
The restaurant industry in the USA is large and ubiquitous.
Providing a range of products and services, it touches nearly
every household in one way or another. Reflecting on the size
of the industry, The NationalRestaurant Association (NRA)
predicted in 2003 that Americans would spend $426.1 billion
on food consumed outside the home (NationalRestaurant
Association, 2003). Of this amount, it was predicted that full
servicerestaurantscould secureabout $153.2 billion or,
roughly, 36 percent of the share. The restaurant industry has
grown over the years, largely because the American way of life
has changed. Since 1950, the proportion of married women in
the work force has nearly tripled (Goch,1999),resulting in
women having less time to plan and prepare meals at home.
Today, mealsare more of an afterthoughtrather than a
planned occasion (Mogelonsky, 1998). People find
themselveshungry with no time to cook;so they eatout.
The result is the booming restaurant industry.
The NRA also predicted that on an average day in 2003,
the restaurant industry would post $1.2 billion in sales. The
winner of this contestover America’staste buds is the
customer who has more restaurant options than ever before,
allowing him or her to be more finicky and demanding.
Customers’expectations for value,in relation to price,also
seem to be on the rise: people want “more” for their money.
These findingshave interesting theoreticaland practical
implications for the service literature, service establishments,
and especially the restaurantindustry which is lucrative in
size,fiercely competitive,and very importantto the public
palate.In particular, it is importantto comprehend the
dynamicsof this industry from the perspectiveof the
customer who is the finalarbiter of how much to spend and
where, when and what to eat. Therefore, an understanding of
the factors thatinfluence customer satisfaction oughtto be
usefulin guiding restaurant owners and managers to design
and deliver the right offering.
The main research question driving thisstudy is “What
explains customersatisfaction in the fullservice restaurant
industry?” Given our geographic focus, we believe this study
representsa small step in a seriesof needed studiesto
understand the bigger picture.
Customersatisfaction isat the heartof marketing.The
ability to satisfy customers is vitalfor a number ofreasons.
For example,it has been shown thatdissatisfied customers
tend to complain to the establishmentor seek redress from
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm
Journalof Services Marketing
20/1 (2006) 3–11
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045]
[DOI 10.1108/08876040610646536]
3
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
them more often to relieve cognitive dissonance and failed
consumption experiences(Oliver, 1987; Nyer, 1999). If
service providers do not properly address such behavior, it can
have serious ramifications. In extreme cases of dissatisfaction,
customers may resort to negative word-of-mouth as a means
of getting back. A disgruntled customer can, thus, become a
saboteur,dissuading other potentialcustomers away from a
particular service provider.
Researchers have also found a strong relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty.Szymanskiand Henard (2001),in
their meta-analysis,indicate 15 positive and significant
correlations between the two constructs.Bearden and Teel
(1983) have also shown a relationship between satisfaction
and loyalty. In fact Jones et al. (1995) argue that this
relationship is not a simple linear one;these behaviors may
depend on consumer attributions, i.e. their belief in the causes
of the CS/D assessment.
Quite understandably,marketing practitioners have often
aligned theirbets with customersatisfaction,using slogans
such as “Our focus is customer satisfaction”, or “Customer is
king.” The University ofMichigan tracks customers across
200 firms representing all major economic sectors to produce
the ACSI (American CustomerSatisfaction Index).Each
company receives an ACSI score computed from its
customers’ perceptions of quality, value, satisfaction,
expectations,complaints,and future loyalty (Fornellet al.,
1996).
Customersatisfaction isdefined here in Oliver’s(1997)
terms:that it is the consumer’s fulfillmentresponse.It is a
judgment that a product or service feature, or the product or
service itself,providesa pleasurable levelof consumption-
related fulfillment.In other words,it is the overalllevelof
contentment with a service/product experience.
We used the transaction-specific modelsuggested by Teas
(1993) and laterexpanded by Parasuraman,Zeithamland
Berry (1994)– PZB henceforth – to address our research
question because this modelsuggests how overallcustomer
satisfaction can be explained by evaluating experiences with
specific aspects of service quality,product quality,and price
(PZB, 1994).Also, by using the transaction-specific model,
we emphasize that the offering for the fullservice restaurant
industry must be viewed as a mixture of service and product
features.Thus, customersare likely to consider specific
aspects of the transaction such as product features (e.g. food
quality and restaurantambience),service features(e.g.
responsiveness of the server), as wellas price, to be satisfied
with their overall restaurantexperience.The conceptual
framework and the corresponding hypotheses are outlined in
the next section,followed by an explanation of the research
method, the analyses, results, and discussion.
Conceptual framework and hypotheses
Service quality
An important factor driving satisfactionin the service
environmentis servicequality.On this matter,however,
there is some controversy as to whether customer satisfaction
is an antecedent or consequence of service quality. One school
of thoughtrefersto service quality asa global assessment
abouta service category or a particular organization (PZB,
1988). Research conducted by PZB (1985) illustrated
instanceswhere respondentswere satisfied with a specific
event,but did not feelthe organization offered overallhigh
quality. Because most measures of customer satisfaction relate
to a specific evaluationof a serviceepisode,customer
satisfaction isviewed asit relatesto a specific transaction
(Howard and Sheth, 1969; Hunt, 1979; Singh, 1990); hence
incidentsof satisfaction overtime resultin perceptionsof
service quality (PZB, 1988). Oliver (1981) stated that
satisfaction soon decaysinto one’s overallattitude.From
this perspective, service quality could be viewed as the whole
family picture album,while customer satisfaction is just one
snapshot.
Recently,however,it has been argued thatwhile the two
concepts have things in common,“satisfaction is generally
viewed as a broader concept . . . service quality is a component
of satisfaction” (Zeithamland Bitner,2003,p. 85). Because
satisfaction derives from various sources, Bitner and Hubbert
(1994) propose two waysof viewing satisfaction:service-
encounter satisfaction (i.e. satisfaction or dissatisfaction with
specific service encounters) and overall satisfaction (based on
multiple encountersor experiences).In other words,little
satisfactions based on each service encounter lead to overall
satisfaction with the service.
Clearly, service quality is an issue that has engaged
academics, leading to substantial debate over its
conceptualization.In 1988, PZB developed SERVQUAL,a
method to assess customer satisfaction for service industries,
which started a stream of researchon service quality
measurement that continues to this day. Their measurement
involved the difference between customers’perceptions and
expectationsbased on five genericdimensions:tangibles,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy.
Research based on this framework has been applied to the
restaurant industry by Stevens (1995), who created
DINESERV from SERVQUAL with some encouraging
results. Although the SERVQUAL framework has been
pursued with some enthusiasm in various service industries,
empirical support for the suggested framework has not always
been encouraging.Cronin and Taylor (1992) suggested that
service quality can be predicted adequatelyby using
perceptionsalone. In addition, Carman (1990) suggested
that in specific service situationsit might be necessary to
delete or modify some of the SERVQUAL dimensions. Teas
(1993) argued that measuring the gap between expectations
and performance can be problematic.
When SERVQUAL, consisting of the five original
dimensions,was originally conceptualized by PZB (1988), it
was used to assess four organizations – a bank, a credit card
company, a repair and maintenance organization, and a long
distance phone service carrier.In these industries customers
typically develop long-term relationshipswith just one
organization.Moreover, PZB did not distinguishthese
organizationson the basis of experience,search, and
credence criteria (Zeithamland Bitner,2003,p. 36). Each
of these services is also a “pure type” with little or no physical
products exchanging hands. In the restaurant industry, only a
part of the offering is a service which is intangibleand
heterogeneous,and where the production and consumption
of the productcannotbe separated.In addition,customers
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
4
consumption experiences(Oliver, 1987; Nyer, 1999). If
service providers do not properly address such behavior, it can
have serious ramifications. In extreme cases of dissatisfaction,
customers may resort to negative word-of-mouth as a means
of getting back. A disgruntled customer can, thus, become a
saboteur,dissuading other potentialcustomers away from a
particular service provider.
Researchers have also found a strong relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty.Szymanskiand Henard (2001),in
their meta-analysis,indicate 15 positive and significant
correlations between the two constructs.Bearden and Teel
(1983) have also shown a relationship between satisfaction
and loyalty. In fact Jones et al. (1995) argue that this
relationship is not a simple linear one;these behaviors may
depend on consumer attributions, i.e. their belief in the causes
of the CS/D assessment.
Quite understandably,marketing practitioners have often
aligned theirbets with customersatisfaction,using slogans
such as “Our focus is customer satisfaction”, or “Customer is
king.” The University ofMichigan tracks customers across
200 firms representing all major economic sectors to produce
the ACSI (American CustomerSatisfaction Index).Each
company receives an ACSI score computed from its
customers’ perceptions of quality, value, satisfaction,
expectations,complaints,and future loyalty (Fornellet al.,
1996).
Customersatisfaction isdefined here in Oliver’s(1997)
terms:that it is the consumer’s fulfillmentresponse.It is a
judgment that a product or service feature, or the product or
service itself,providesa pleasurable levelof consumption-
related fulfillment.In other words,it is the overalllevelof
contentment with a service/product experience.
We used the transaction-specific modelsuggested by Teas
(1993) and laterexpanded by Parasuraman,Zeithamland
Berry (1994)– PZB henceforth – to address our research
question because this modelsuggests how overallcustomer
satisfaction can be explained by evaluating experiences with
specific aspects of service quality,product quality,and price
(PZB, 1994).Also, by using the transaction-specific model,
we emphasize that the offering for the fullservice restaurant
industry must be viewed as a mixture of service and product
features.Thus, customersare likely to consider specific
aspects of the transaction such as product features (e.g. food
quality and restaurantambience),service features(e.g.
responsiveness of the server), as wellas price, to be satisfied
with their overall restaurantexperience.The conceptual
framework and the corresponding hypotheses are outlined in
the next section,followed by an explanation of the research
method, the analyses, results, and discussion.
Conceptual framework and hypotheses
Service quality
An important factor driving satisfactionin the service
environmentis servicequality.On this matter,however,
there is some controversy as to whether customer satisfaction
is an antecedent or consequence of service quality. One school
of thoughtrefersto service quality asa global assessment
abouta service category or a particular organization (PZB,
1988). Research conducted by PZB (1985) illustrated
instanceswhere respondentswere satisfied with a specific
event,but did not feelthe organization offered overallhigh
quality. Because most measures of customer satisfaction relate
to a specific evaluationof a serviceepisode,customer
satisfaction isviewed asit relatesto a specific transaction
(Howard and Sheth, 1969; Hunt, 1979; Singh, 1990); hence
incidentsof satisfaction overtime resultin perceptionsof
service quality (PZB, 1988). Oliver (1981) stated that
satisfaction soon decaysinto one’s overallattitude.From
this perspective, service quality could be viewed as the whole
family picture album,while customer satisfaction is just one
snapshot.
Recently,however,it has been argued thatwhile the two
concepts have things in common,“satisfaction is generally
viewed as a broader concept . . . service quality is a component
of satisfaction” (Zeithamland Bitner,2003,p. 85). Because
satisfaction derives from various sources, Bitner and Hubbert
(1994) propose two waysof viewing satisfaction:service-
encounter satisfaction (i.e. satisfaction or dissatisfaction with
specific service encounters) and overall satisfaction (based on
multiple encountersor experiences).In other words,little
satisfactions based on each service encounter lead to overall
satisfaction with the service.
Clearly, service quality is an issue that has engaged
academics, leading to substantial debate over its
conceptualization.In 1988, PZB developed SERVQUAL,a
method to assess customer satisfaction for service industries,
which started a stream of researchon service quality
measurement that continues to this day. Their measurement
involved the difference between customers’perceptions and
expectationsbased on five genericdimensions:tangibles,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy.
Research based on this framework has been applied to the
restaurant industry by Stevens (1995), who created
DINESERV from SERVQUAL with some encouraging
results. Although the SERVQUAL framework has been
pursued with some enthusiasm in various service industries,
empirical support for the suggested framework has not always
been encouraging.Cronin and Taylor (1992) suggested that
service quality can be predicted adequatelyby using
perceptionsalone. In addition, Carman (1990) suggested
that in specific service situationsit might be necessary to
delete or modify some of the SERVQUAL dimensions. Teas
(1993) argued that measuring the gap between expectations
and performance can be problematic.
When SERVQUAL, consisting of the five original
dimensions,was originally conceptualized by PZB (1988), it
was used to assess four organizations – a bank, a credit card
company, a repair and maintenance organization, and a long
distance phone service carrier.In these industries customers
typically develop long-term relationshipswith just one
organization.Moreover, PZB did not distinguishthese
organizationson the basis of experience,search, and
credence criteria (Zeithamland Bitner,2003,p. 36). Each
of these services is also a “pure type” with little or no physical
products exchanging hands. In the restaurant industry, only a
part of the offering is a service which is intangibleand
heterogeneous,and where the production and consumption
of the productcannotbe separated.In addition,customers
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
4
expectand desire a variety offood selections and places to
frequent, and typically develop a “consideration set” which is
a cluster of restaurants that they patronize on a rotating basis
(Neal, 1999).
In this mixed product-service contextand where service
assessmentsare largelyexperiencebased (as opposed to
healthcareor auto repair organizationswhere service
assessmentsare credence based),we contend thatall five
originaldimensions ofSERVQUAL need not be included.
For example, the assuranceand empathy dimensions
originally suggested in the SERVQUAL framework may not
be of great significance for the following reasons: Assurance is
defined as employees’knowledgeand courtesyand their
ability to inspire trust and confidence.This particular
dimension of service quality is significant largely for
credence based industries such as healthcare,legalservices,
or auto repair, that have a higher degree of risk per purchase
and where the outcome ofthe service encounter is neither
easy to predict, nor well understood.In the restaurant
industry, the customer’s risk is low given the purchase price,
the outcome ofthe service,and the alternativesavailable.
Hence assurance isnot likely to be as importantin this
industry.Moreover,the use ofscale items such as “you felt
safe in your transactions with the restaurant” or “the behavior
of employees instilled confidence in you” (both derived from
SERVQUAL) simply did not seem appropriatefor the
restaurantcontext.Yet we acknowledgethat elementsof
assurance – knowledge and courtesy – are important,but
may have contextuallymodified meaningsas we shall
subsequently argue.
Similarly, empathy is defined in the SERVQUAL literature
as the individualized caring attention that is displayed to each
customer.This dimension ismore applicable to industries
where “relationship marketing” as opposed to “transaction
marketing” iscritical to the organization’ssurvival.These
types of industriesneed personnelthat can offer “high
technical” advice and/or develop important business alliances
where empathy can play a vitalrole. However,the need to
demonstrate empathy in the context of restaurants, especially
for contact personnelsuch as a server in a busy dinner rush
when one is typically waiting on 20 or more people at a time,
may be fleeting at best. Customers also do not want a doting
server providing personalattention when allthey want is to
enjoy the food and the company. At the same time, scale items
such as “the restaurant gives you individual attention” or “the
restauranthad your best interestat heart” (derived from
SERVQUAL) seemed inappropriate for the context. Why else
would customers be there when a variety of other alternatives
are available? Instead, reliable and responsive services may be
more desirable for restaurants when provided in a pleasing
environment.
Reliability has been regarded as the most critical factor for
US customers based on both direct measures and importance
weights derived from regression analysis (PZB,1988).The
SERVQUAL literature identifies reliability as the ability to
perform promised services dependably and accurately. For the
restaurant industry, reliability translates into the freshness and
temperature of the food (the promise), and receiving the food
error-freeand as ordered thefirst time (dependably and
accurately).
Interestingly,these aspects or measures of reliability could
also be interpreted to represent“food quality” (provided
fresh, at the right temperature, and error-free). In this regard,
we were surprised atour inability to uncover any previous
research on food quality.Considerable research hasbeen
conducted over whether people desire fish more than chicken
and/or vice versa. Menu design and the number of
appropriateitems on a menu has also been extensively
researched and reported in the trade literature.However,
what attributes of “food quality” restaurant goers desire most
has received little attention.It is probable thatthe “chain”
restaurants have conducted their own research, but have not
shared this information due to proprietary rights. We interpret
this dimensioninterchangeablyas “reliability” or “food
quality” because of the common features as explained above
and hypothesize that:
H1a. The more reliable the service provided by the
restaurant, the greater the level of customer
satisfaction, or
H1b. The higherthe levelof food quality,the greaterthe
level of customer satisfaction.
Responsiveness,as defined by the SERVQUAL literature,is
identified as the willingness of the staff to be helpfuland to
provide prompt serviceto the customer.In full service
restaurants, customers expect the servers to understand their
needs and address them in a timely manner. For this
dimension, we propose that:
H2. The more responsivethe serviceprovided by the
restaurant, the greater the level of customer
satisfaction.
Product quality
Because the “product offering” for a full service restaurant is
likely to be assessed by evaluating an actualproduct(the
meal) and by where it is delivered (physical place), we decided
to separate the tangibility dimension in SERVQUAL into its
two aspects: food quality and the physical design/de´cor of the
restaurant. The former has been discussed earlier along with
reliability.
From the perspective ofphysicaldesign,environmental
psychologists suggest that individuals react to places with two
general,and opposite, forms of behavior:approachor
avoidance(Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). It has been
suggested thatin addition to the physicaldimensions ofa
business attracting or deterring selection, the physicaldesign
of a businesscan also influencethe degreeof success
consumersattain once inside (Darley and Gilbert,1985).
This involves research on the “servicescape” (Bitner,1992)
which is the “built man-madeenvironment” and how it
affects both customers and employees in the service process.
Thus, we propose that:
H3. The better the physicaldesign and appearance of the
restaurant, the greater the level of customer
satisfaction.
Price
The price of the items on the menu can also greatly influence
customers because price has the capability ofattracting or
repelling them (Monroe, 1989), especiallysince price
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
5
frequent, and typically develop a “consideration set” which is
a cluster of restaurants that they patronize on a rotating basis
(Neal, 1999).
In this mixed product-service contextand where service
assessmentsare largelyexperiencebased (as opposed to
healthcareor auto repair organizationswhere service
assessmentsare credence based),we contend thatall five
originaldimensions ofSERVQUAL need not be included.
For example, the assuranceand empathy dimensions
originally suggested in the SERVQUAL framework may not
be of great significance for the following reasons: Assurance is
defined as employees’knowledgeand courtesyand their
ability to inspire trust and confidence.This particular
dimension of service quality is significant largely for
credence based industries such as healthcare,legalservices,
or auto repair, that have a higher degree of risk per purchase
and where the outcome ofthe service encounter is neither
easy to predict, nor well understood.In the restaurant
industry, the customer’s risk is low given the purchase price,
the outcome ofthe service,and the alternativesavailable.
Hence assurance isnot likely to be as importantin this
industry.Moreover,the use ofscale items such as “you felt
safe in your transactions with the restaurant” or “the behavior
of employees instilled confidence in you” (both derived from
SERVQUAL) simply did not seem appropriatefor the
restaurantcontext.Yet we acknowledgethat elementsof
assurance – knowledge and courtesy – are important,but
may have contextuallymodified meaningsas we shall
subsequently argue.
Similarly, empathy is defined in the SERVQUAL literature
as the individualized caring attention that is displayed to each
customer.This dimension ismore applicable to industries
where “relationship marketing” as opposed to “transaction
marketing” iscritical to the organization’ssurvival.These
types of industriesneed personnelthat can offer “high
technical” advice and/or develop important business alliances
where empathy can play a vitalrole. However,the need to
demonstrate empathy in the context of restaurants, especially
for contact personnelsuch as a server in a busy dinner rush
when one is typically waiting on 20 or more people at a time,
may be fleeting at best. Customers also do not want a doting
server providing personalattention when allthey want is to
enjoy the food and the company. At the same time, scale items
such as “the restaurant gives you individual attention” or “the
restauranthad your best interestat heart” (derived from
SERVQUAL) seemed inappropriate for the context. Why else
would customers be there when a variety of other alternatives
are available? Instead, reliable and responsive services may be
more desirable for restaurants when provided in a pleasing
environment.
Reliability has been regarded as the most critical factor for
US customers based on both direct measures and importance
weights derived from regression analysis (PZB,1988).The
SERVQUAL literature identifies reliability as the ability to
perform promised services dependably and accurately. For the
restaurant industry, reliability translates into the freshness and
temperature of the food (the promise), and receiving the food
error-freeand as ordered thefirst time (dependably and
accurately).
Interestingly,these aspects or measures of reliability could
also be interpreted to represent“food quality” (provided
fresh, at the right temperature, and error-free). In this regard,
we were surprised atour inability to uncover any previous
research on food quality.Considerable research hasbeen
conducted over whether people desire fish more than chicken
and/or vice versa. Menu design and the number of
appropriateitems on a menu has also been extensively
researched and reported in the trade literature.However,
what attributes of “food quality” restaurant goers desire most
has received little attention.It is probable thatthe “chain”
restaurants have conducted their own research, but have not
shared this information due to proprietary rights. We interpret
this dimensioninterchangeablyas “reliability” or “food
quality” because of the common features as explained above
and hypothesize that:
H1a. The more reliable the service provided by the
restaurant, the greater the level of customer
satisfaction, or
H1b. The higherthe levelof food quality,the greaterthe
level of customer satisfaction.
Responsiveness,as defined by the SERVQUAL literature,is
identified as the willingness of the staff to be helpfuland to
provide prompt serviceto the customer.In full service
restaurants, customers expect the servers to understand their
needs and address them in a timely manner. For this
dimension, we propose that:
H2. The more responsivethe serviceprovided by the
restaurant, the greater the level of customer
satisfaction.
Product quality
Because the “product offering” for a full service restaurant is
likely to be assessed by evaluating an actualproduct(the
meal) and by where it is delivered (physical place), we decided
to separate the tangibility dimension in SERVQUAL into its
two aspects: food quality and the physical design/de´cor of the
restaurant. The former has been discussed earlier along with
reliability.
From the perspective ofphysicaldesign,environmental
psychologists suggest that individuals react to places with two
general,and opposite, forms of behavior:approachor
avoidance(Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). It has been
suggested thatin addition to the physicaldimensions ofa
business attracting or deterring selection, the physicaldesign
of a businesscan also influencethe degreeof success
consumersattain once inside (Darley and Gilbert,1985).
This involves research on the “servicescape” (Bitner,1992)
which is the “built man-madeenvironment” and how it
affects both customers and employees in the service process.
Thus, we propose that:
H3. The better the physicaldesign and appearance of the
restaurant, the greater the level of customer
satisfaction.
Price
The price of the items on the menu can also greatly influence
customers because price has the capability ofattracting or
repelling them (Monroe, 1989), especiallysince price
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
5
functions as an indicator ofquality (Lewis and Shoemaker,
1997).
The pricing of restaurant items also varies according to the
type of restaurant. If the price is high, customers are likely to
expect high quality, or it can induce a sense of being “ripped
off.” Likewise, if the price is low, customers may question the
ability of the restaurant to deliver product and service quality.
Moreover, due to the competitivenessof the restaurant
industry,customers are able to establish internalreference
prices. When establishing prices for a restaurant,an internal
reference price is defined as a price (or price scale) in buyers’
memory that serves as a basis for judging or comparing actual
prices(Grewal et al., 1998). This indicatesthat the price
offering for the restaurant needs to be in accord with what the
marketexpectsto pay by avoiding negative deviation (i.e.
when actualprice is higherthan the expected price).We
propose that:
H4. The less the accordanceof the actual price with
expectations (negative deviation), the lower the level of
customer satisfaction.
Research method
Research design
Secondary sources were explored first to assess past research
conducted on customer satisfaction in the restaurant
industry. The next stage involved gatheringinformation
via qualitative methods from restaurantgoers.This process
allowed us to identify and narrow down the key factors and
the related items comprising the factors thatwere expected
to explain customer satisfaction for the restaurantindustry.
The next step involved designing and pre-testing a
questionnairethat was administeredto a convenient
sample. The pre-testwas instrumentalin assessingthe
strengthsand weaknessesof the questionnaireand in
ensuring thatall pertinentvariables were included.At this
stage,severalmodifications were made to the instrument to
remove ambiguities,to eliminate items that did not seem to
fit the context(e.g. feeling safe in one’stransactionswith
restaurants),and to improve the flow ofthe questions.The
final version was administered to a representative sample in
a test-marketcity in Pennsylvania.
Measurement
The questionnaire asked respondents to evaluate the last full
service restaurant they had frequented. It included perceptual
measures that were rated on seven-point Likert scales.This
design is consistent with prior studies on customer satisfaction
and service quality.Each scale item wasanchored atthe
numeral1 with the verbalstatement “strongly disagree” and
at the numeral7 with the verbalstatement “strongly agree.”
Multiple items were used to measure each construct so that
their measurement properties could be evaluated on reliability
and validity. The scale items measuringthe dependent
variable were chosen to reflectpeople’soverallsatisfaction
with the services provided by the restaurant (see Appendix).
Demographic data were also obtained from the respondents.
We did not use the gap score approach that measures the
difference between perceptions and expectations suggested in
the originalSERVQUAL framework due to the problems
discussed earlierin the paper;instead we only focused on
perceptual measures,which also helped to keep the
instrument and the analysessimple. This approach is
consistentwith other studies(Cronin and Taylor, 1992;
Andaleeb and Basu, 1994).
Sampling
Respondentswere selected by utilizing a table ofrandom
numbersapplied to the local telephonedirectory,which
resulted in mailing out 600 surveys.Respondent anonymity
was ensured by notrequiring them to identify themselves
anywhere in the survey. In addition, respondents were asked
to return the completed surveys by mailin a postage paid
envelope. Respondents were also informed that the study was
being conducted by a well-known localcollege.
A total of 85 questionnaires were completed and returned
by mail, resulting in a response rate of 14 percent. Such rates
are not atypical:accordingto Harbaugh (2002, p. 70),
“Response rates for traditional mail surveys have continued to
decline to a point where the average is below 20%.” We might
have been able to increase the response rates using follow-up
mailings or including monetary incentives as these seem to
maximize response rates (Larson and Chow, 2003). However,
because ofresource constraints,such measureshad to be
abandoned. Instead, to increase the sample size to more than
100, an additional 34 restaurant users were interviewed using
judgment sampling to eliminate potential biases and to select
respondents from a wide spectrum. This approach resulted in
a final sample size of 119 respondents.The sample
demographicsindicated thata broad cross section of the
population responded.
Analyses
Factor analysiswas conducted with varimaxrotation to
examinehow the selected measuresloaded on expected
constructs. Four factors were recovered from the analysis (see
Table I). The Eigenvalue of each factor was greater than one.
The total cumulative variation explained by factoranalysis
was 72.4 percent. The factor structure did not fully emerge as
expected.For example,responsiveness measures loaded on
one single dimension but included measures from assurance
(knowledge of menu) and tangibles (server’s appearance was
neat) (see Appendix).The justification forincluding these
items in “responsiveness” is elaborated in the discussions.
Table II containsthe summary statistics,as well as the
reliability coefficientsand correlationsamong the variables
included in this study.
Reliability
The reliability ofeach multiple-item scale was assessed by
coefficientalpha indicated in the diagonalof Table II.
Reliability analyses showed thatthe internalconsistency of
each of the four explanatory constructsin the study was
relativelyhigh and considered to be very good because,
according to Nunnally (1978), the alpha value should be 0.70
or higher.
Validity
The resultsin Table II providesupport for discriminant
validity because the correlation between one scale and another
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
6
1997).
The pricing of restaurant items also varies according to the
type of restaurant. If the price is high, customers are likely to
expect high quality, or it can induce a sense of being “ripped
off.” Likewise, if the price is low, customers may question the
ability of the restaurant to deliver product and service quality.
Moreover, due to the competitivenessof the restaurant
industry,customers are able to establish internalreference
prices. When establishing prices for a restaurant,an internal
reference price is defined as a price (or price scale) in buyers’
memory that serves as a basis for judging or comparing actual
prices(Grewal et al., 1998). This indicatesthat the price
offering for the restaurant needs to be in accord with what the
marketexpectsto pay by avoiding negative deviation (i.e.
when actualprice is higherthan the expected price).We
propose that:
H4. The less the accordanceof the actual price with
expectations (negative deviation), the lower the level of
customer satisfaction.
Research method
Research design
Secondary sources were explored first to assess past research
conducted on customer satisfaction in the restaurant
industry. The next stage involved gatheringinformation
via qualitative methods from restaurantgoers.This process
allowed us to identify and narrow down the key factors and
the related items comprising the factors thatwere expected
to explain customer satisfaction for the restaurantindustry.
The next step involved designing and pre-testing a
questionnairethat was administeredto a convenient
sample. The pre-testwas instrumentalin assessingthe
strengthsand weaknessesof the questionnaireand in
ensuring thatall pertinentvariables were included.At this
stage,severalmodifications were made to the instrument to
remove ambiguities,to eliminate items that did not seem to
fit the context(e.g. feeling safe in one’stransactionswith
restaurants),and to improve the flow ofthe questions.The
final version was administered to a representative sample in
a test-marketcity in Pennsylvania.
Measurement
The questionnaire asked respondents to evaluate the last full
service restaurant they had frequented. It included perceptual
measures that were rated on seven-point Likert scales.This
design is consistent with prior studies on customer satisfaction
and service quality.Each scale item wasanchored atthe
numeral1 with the verbalstatement “strongly disagree” and
at the numeral7 with the verbalstatement “strongly agree.”
Multiple items were used to measure each construct so that
their measurement properties could be evaluated on reliability
and validity. The scale items measuringthe dependent
variable were chosen to reflectpeople’soverallsatisfaction
with the services provided by the restaurant (see Appendix).
Demographic data were also obtained from the respondents.
We did not use the gap score approach that measures the
difference between perceptions and expectations suggested in
the originalSERVQUAL framework due to the problems
discussed earlierin the paper;instead we only focused on
perceptual measures,which also helped to keep the
instrument and the analysessimple. This approach is
consistentwith other studies(Cronin and Taylor, 1992;
Andaleeb and Basu, 1994).
Sampling
Respondentswere selected by utilizing a table ofrandom
numbersapplied to the local telephonedirectory,which
resulted in mailing out 600 surveys.Respondent anonymity
was ensured by notrequiring them to identify themselves
anywhere in the survey. In addition, respondents were asked
to return the completed surveys by mailin a postage paid
envelope. Respondents were also informed that the study was
being conducted by a well-known localcollege.
A total of 85 questionnaires were completed and returned
by mail, resulting in a response rate of 14 percent. Such rates
are not atypical:accordingto Harbaugh (2002, p. 70),
“Response rates for traditional mail surveys have continued to
decline to a point where the average is below 20%.” We might
have been able to increase the response rates using follow-up
mailings or including monetary incentives as these seem to
maximize response rates (Larson and Chow, 2003). However,
because ofresource constraints,such measureshad to be
abandoned. Instead, to increase the sample size to more than
100, an additional 34 restaurant users were interviewed using
judgment sampling to eliminate potential biases and to select
respondents from a wide spectrum. This approach resulted in
a final sample size of 119 respondents.The sample
demographicsindicated thata broad cross section of the
population responded.
Analyses
Factor analysiswas conducted with varimaxrotation to
examinehow the selected measuresloaded on expected
constructs. Four factors were recovered from the analysis (see
Table I). The Eigenvalue of each factor was greater than one.
The total cumulative variation explained by factoranalysis
was 72.4 percent. The factor structure did not fully emerge as
expected.For example,responsiveness measures loaded on
one single dimension but included measures from assurance
(knowledge of menu) and tangibles (server’s appearance was
neat) (see Appendix).The justification forincluding these
items in “responsiveness” is elaborated in the discussions.
Table II containsthe summary statistics,as well as the
reliability coefficientsand correlationsamong the variables
included in this study.
Reliability
The reliability ofeach multiple-item scale was assessed by
coefficientalpha indicated in the diagonalof Table II.
Reliability analyses showed thatthe internalconsistency of
each of the four explanatory constructsin the study was
relativelyhigh and considered to be very good because,
according to Nunnally (1978), the alpha value should be 0.70
or higher.
Validity
The resultsin Table II providesupport for discriminant
validity because the correlation between one scale and another
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
6
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
is not as high as each scale’s coefficientalpha (Gaskiand
Nevin, 1985).
Results
Multiple-regression analysis was used with the four factors as
independentvariablesto test the model for customer
satisfaction (see Table III).The full modelwas found to be
significant as indicated by the overallF-statistic ( p , 0.000).
The regression model explained 56 percent of the variation in
the dependentvariable,satisfaction,as indicated by the
adjusted R2 value. Three of the four factors had a significant
effect on customer satisfaction. These include responsiveness
(b ¼ 0.566;p , 0.000); food quality/reliability (b ¼ 0.231;
p , 0.025); and price (b ¼ 2 0.186; p , 0.000). The
“physicaldesign and appearance”dimension (b ¼ 0.006,
p , 0.94) was not significant.The results suggestthat our
modified model explains customer satisfaction in the
restaurant industry reasonably well.
The standardized beta values suggestthat responsiveness
has the greatestimpacton customer satisfaction.Price and
food quality (or reliability)were also determined to be
significant, having an impact on customer satisfaction in that
order.
Discussion
This study tested a modelof customersatisfaction forthe
restaurant industry using the transaction-specific framework.
The results suggestthat our model satisfactorily explains
customer satisfaction and that fullservice restaurant owners
and managers should focus on three major elements – service
quality (responsiveness),price, and food quality (or
reliability)– if customersatisfaction isto be treated asa
strategic variable and enhanced.
From the results, it was determined that the
“responsiveness”dimensionof service quality was most
important to customers.This multiattributedimension
Table IFactor analysis of independent variables with varimax rotation (extraction method: principalcomponent analysis)
Responsiveness Food quality/reliability Physical design Price
1 2 3 4
Attentive 0.855 0.261 0.148 2 0.066
Helpful 0.836 0.270 0.121 2 0.047
Prompt 0.807 0.141 0.098 2 0.128
Neat appearance 0.793 0.088 0.313 0.156
Understood needs 0.788 0.384 0.136 2 0.121
Courteous 0.744 0.355 20.022 2 0.166
Knowledge of menu 0.714 0.313 0.259 2 0.050
Exact order 0.213 0.821 0.090 2 0.136
Order error-free 0.247 0.810 0.049 2 0.128
Fresh 0.346 0.723 0.228 2 0.062
Temperature just right 0.342 0.671 0.095 0.077
Lighting appropriate 0.147 0.067 0.880 2 0.102
Adequate parking 0.025 20.040 0.778 2 0.181
Clean 0.309 0.213 0.704 0.138
De´cor appealing 0.198 0.290 0.618 0.231
Expensive 20.117 20.060 0.008 0.900
Paid more than planned 20.081 20.126 20.044 0.879
Eigenvalue % of variation Cumulative %
Factor 1 7.29 42.88 42.88
Factor 2 2.03 11.98 54.86
Factor 3 1.65 9.71 64.57
Factor 4 1.33 7.83 72.41
Table IIDescriptive statistics, correlations and reliability coefficients
Variables SAT RSPNSV PHYS DESIGN FOOD QL/REL PRICE x s
Satisfaction (4) 0.9 5.88 1.24
Responsive (7) 0.72 0.93 5.6 1.17
Tangibles (4) 0.31 0.41 0.77 5.69 0.94
Food quality (4) 0.57 0.61 0.32 0.83 5.86 1.07
Price (2) 20.39 20.19 20.05 20.27 0.78 3.03 1.61
Notes: Figures in italics represent reliability coefficients; figures in parentheses indicate the number of items measuring each construp, 0.05; the last two
columns indicate means and standard deviation
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
7
Nevin, 1985).
Results
Multiple-regression analysis was used with the four factors as
independentvariablesto test the model for customer
satisfaction (see Table III).The full modelwas found to be
significant as indicated by the overallF-statistic ( p , 0.000).
The regression model explained 56 percent of the variation in
the dependentvariable,satisfaction,as indicated by the
adjusted R2 value. Three of the four factors had a significant
effect on customer satisfaction. These include responsiveness
(b ¼ 0.566;p , 0.000); food quality/reliability (b ¼ 0.231;
p , 0.025); and price (b ¼ 2 0.186; p , 0.000). The
“physicaldesign and appearance”dimension (b ¼ 0.006,
p , 0.94) was not significant.The results suggestthat our
modified model explains customer satisfaction in the
restaurant industry reasonably well.
The standardized beta values suggestthat responsiveness
has the greatestimpacton customer satisfaction.Price and
food quality (or reliability)were also determined to be
significant, having an impact on customer satisfaction in that
order.
Discussion
This study tested a modelof customersatisfaction forthe
restaurant industry using the transaction-specific framework.
The results suggestthat our model satisfactorily explains
customer satisfaction and that fullservice restaurant owners
and managers should focus on three major elements – service
quality (responsiveness),price, and food quality (or
reliability)– if customersatisfaction isto be treated asa
strategic variable and enhanced.
From the results, it was determined that the
“responsiveness”dimensionof service quality was most
important to customers.This multiattributedimension
Table IFactor analysis of independent variables with varimax rotation (extraction method: principalcomponent analysis)
Responsiveness Food quality/reliability Physical design Price
1 2 3 4
Attentive 0.855 0.261 0.148 2 0.066
Helpful 0.836 0.270 0.121 2 0.047
Prompt 0.807 0.141 0.098 2 0.128
Neat appearance 0.793 0.088 0.313 0.156
Understood needs 0.788 0.384 0.136 2 0.121
Courteous 0.744 0.355 20.022 2 0.166
Knowledge of menu 0.714 0.313 0.259 2 0.050
Exact order 0.213 0.821 0.090 2 0.136
Order error-free 0.247 0.810 0.049 2 0.128
Fresh 0.346 0.723 0.228 2 0.062
Temperature just right 0.342 0.671 0.095 0.077
Lighting appropriate 0.147 0.067 0.880 2 0.102
Adequate parking 0.025 20.040 0.778 2 0.181
Clean 0.309 0.213 0.704 0.138
De´cor appealing 0.198 0.290 0.618 0.231
Expensive 20.117 20.060 0.008 0.900
Paid more than planned 20.081 20.126 20.044 0.879
Eigenvalue % of variation Cumulative %
Factor 1 7.29 42.88 42.88
Factor 2 2.03 11.98 54.86
Factor 3 1.65 9.71 64.57
Factor 4 1.33 7.83 72.41
Table IIDescriptive statistics, correlations and reliability coefficients
Variables SAT RSPNSV PHYS DESIGN FOOD QL/REL PRICE x s
Satisfaction (4) 0.9 5.88 1.24
Responsive (7) 0.72 0.93 5.6 1.17
Tangibles (4) 0.31 0.41 0.77 5.69 0.94
Food quality (4) 0.57 0.61 0.32 0.83 5.86 1.07
Price (2) 20.39 20.19 20.05 20.27 0.78 3.03 1.61
Notes: Figures in italics represent reliability coefficients; figures in parentheses indicate the number of items measuring each construp, 0.05; the last two
columns indicate means and standard deviation
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
7
encompassesall the personal contact attributesof the
employeeswith the customers including whether the
employees were prompt,courteous,knowledgeable,neatin
appearance,helpful, attentive,and understoodcustomer
needs (see Appendix).It is instructive to note that courtesy
and knowledge of the menu, generally considered as
assurance items,loaded with measures of responsiveness.In
the restaurant business,one could easily look upon a server
who is knowledgeable about the menu to be able to “respond”
to customer requests or questions effectively;hence it could
arguably be seen as a responsiveness item.Similarly,being
courteousis how customerswant contact personnelto
“respond” to their presence – hence explaining its links to
responsiveness.
Interestingly,a server’s appearance (neatness) also loaded
with responsiveness and not with the “physical design” items
(i.e. tangibles).Whetherthis was due to the factthat our
measures of tangibles included only one employee feature (as
in SERVQUAL) and four restaurant features, or whether neat
employees again represent how customers expect personnel to
be (i.e. respond) in theirpresence is a mootquestion and
demands additional investigation. In fact, as past studies have
suggested (Carman,1990; Andaleeb,1998; Andaleeb and
Simmonds, 1998), our results seem to corroborate that strict
adherence to specific measures(such as SERVQUAL) in
differentcontextsmay not be appropriate.As a specific
example, it may be perfectly reasonablefor employee
knowledge to be categorized as an assurance item in a high-
risk credence-based context such as medical or legal services,
but as a responsiveness item in a lower-risk experience-based
contextsuch as dining out, suggesting thatcontextscan
change meaningsof subjective measures.This contention
ought to be recognized and further addressed by researchers
so that reasonable interpretations of measures can prevail over
the need to adhere to popular models or to traditional
interpretations of measures that may be considered by some
as immutable.
From a managerialperspective,it is important to develop
appropriate programs and provide on-going training on the
various attributes of responsiveness to strengthen employees’
ability to improve customer service. Although easy to suggest,
instilling these qualities in the frontline personnel and gaining
their commitment can be challenging. However, if full service
restaurants want to deliver high levels of customer
satisfaction,they could periodically track staffperformance
on the seven items that measure “responsiveness.” By doing
so, supervisors and owners of restaurants can design targeted
training programsthat encourage employeesto instill this
dimension of service quality.
Based on the standardized regression coefficients,price
expectation wasdetermined to be nextin importancein
influencing customersatisfaction.The negative beta value
suggeststhat when prices are not in accordancewith
expectations (with negative deviation),customer satisfaction
declines.As our secondary research suggested,restaurant
customers typically have internalreference prices stored in
their memories (Grewal et al., 1998). Consequently, if prices
on the menu are higherthan whatthe customerexpects,
customer satisfaction will be adverselyaffected. It is
important,therefore,for restaurantsto assesscompetitive
prices and customers’ reference prices for a selected segment
in which they desire to position their offering.
Based on the regression coefficients and the standardized
beta values the construct ”food quality” or reliability ranked
third in importance.At first glance,this finding was a little
surprising becausefood – the meal – is considered the
primary purpose fordining out. Perhaps,restaurantshave
refined the science of food preparation to the point where this
is not the distinguishing factorany more.In other words,
restaurants are doing such a good job in this area that this is
not the principalfactor in a person’sdecision to selecta
restaurant. Future studies ought to test this contention.
Curiously, although the exploratoryanalysis and the
secondary research supported it,the physicaldesign ofthe
restaurantdid not have a significanteffect on customer
satisfaction as shown by the regression coefficients. We were
puzzled when this factor turned out to be insignificant
because the substantialresearch that has been conducted on
atmosphericsor physicaldesignsof restaurantsand other
facilities substantiate the validity of including this factor in the
model.Perhapsthe physicalcharacteristicsof a restaurant
work through some other mediatingvariableto explain
customersatisfaction;this should be explored in future
research.In this regard,Zeithamland Bitner (2003,p. 98)
suggest that most companies combine tangibles with another
dimension to develop service strategies;however,firms that
do not attend to tangibles “can confuse and even destroy an
otherwise good strategy”.
We believe our model for assessing customer satisfaction in
the full service restaurantindustry is a usefulone. We also
believethat if restaurantowners truly want to gain a
competitive edge,they mustcontinually strive to increase
the levels ofcustomer satisfaction by emphasizing the three
significant factors discerned in this study and as suggested by
the transaction-specific model.
Table IIIMultiple regression results (dependent variable: satisfaction)
Variables Unstandardized coefficients Std error Standardized coefficients t-value Significancep<
Constant 1.891 0.584 3.24 0.002
Responsiveness 0.566 0.087 0.523 6.49 0
Food quality/reliability 0.231 0.089 0.203 2.6 0.011
Physical design 0.006 0.087 0.005 0.08 0.938
Price 20.186 0.047 2 0.246 23.93 0
Notes:F4,113¼ 38.85;p, 0.001; AdjR2 ¼ 0.56
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
8
employeeswith the customers including whether the
employees were prompt,courteous,knowledgeable,neatin
appearance,helpful, attentive,and understoodcustomer
needs (see Appendix).It is instructive to note that courtesy
and knowledge of the menu, generally considered as
assurance items,loaded with measures of responsiveness.In
the restaurant business,one could easily look upon a server
who is knowledgeable about the menu to be able to “respond”
to customer requests or questions effectively;hence it could
arguably be seen as a responsiveness item.Similarly,being
courteousis how customerswant contact personnelto
“respond” to their presence – hence explaining its links to
responsiveness.
Interestingly,a server’s appearance (neatness) also loaded
with responsiveness and not with the “physical design” items
(i.e. tangibles).Whetherthis was due to the factthat our
measures of tangibles included only one employee feature (as
in SERVQUAL) and four restaurant features, or whether neat
employees again represent how customers expect personnel to
be (i.e. respond) in theirpresence is a mootquestion and
demands additional investigation. In fact, as past studies have
suggested (Carman,1990; Andaleeb,1998; Andaleeb and
Simmonds, 1998), our results seem to corroborate that strict
adherence to specific measures(such as SERVQUAL) in
differentcontextsmay not be appropriate.As a specific
example, it may be perfectly reasonablefor employee
knowledge to be categorized as an assurance item in a high-
risk credence-based context such as medical or legal services,
but as a responsiveness item in a lower-risk experience-based
contextsuch as dining out, suggesting thatcontextscan
change meaningsof subjective measures.This contention
ought to be recognized and further addressed by researchers
so that reasonable interpretations of measures can prevail over
the need to adhere to popular models or to traditional
interpretations of measures that may be considered by some
as immutable.
From a managerialperspective,it is important to develop
appropriate programs and provide on-going training on the
various attributes of responsiveness to strengthen employees’
ability to improve customer service. Although easy to suggest,
instilling these qualities in the frontline personnel and gaining
their commitment can be challenging. However, if full service
restaurants want to deliver high levels of customer
satisfaction,they could periodically track staffperformance
on the seven items that measure “responsiveness.” By doing
so, supervisors and owners of restaurants can design targeted
training programsthat encourage employeesto instill this
dimension of service quality.
Based on the standardized regression coefficients,price
expectation wasdetermined to be nextin importancein
influencing customersatisfaction.The negative beta value
suggeststhat when prices are not in accordancewith
expectations (with negative deviation),customer satisfaction
declines.As our secondary research suggested,restaurant
customers typically have internalreference prices stored in
their memories (Grewal et al., 1998). Consequently, if prices
on the menu are higherthan whatthe customerexpects,
customer satisfaction will be adverselyaffected. It is
important,therefore,for restaurantsto assesscompetitive
prices and customers’ reference prices for a selected segment
in which they desire to position their offering.
Based on the regression coefficients and the standardized
beta values the construct ”food quality” or reliability ranked
third in importance.At first glance,this finding was a little
surprising becausefood – the meal – is considered the
primary purpose fordining out. Perhaps,restaurantshave
refined the science of food preparation to the point where this
is not the distinguishing factorany more.In other words,
restaurants are doing such a good job in this area that this is
not the principalfactor in a person’sdecision to selecta
restaurant. Future studies ought to test this contention.
Curiously, although the exploratoryanalysis and the
secondary research supported it,the physicaldesign ofthe
restaurantdid not have a significanteffect on customer
satisfaction as shown by the regression coefficients. We were
puzzled when this factor turned out to be insignificant
because the substantialresearch that has been conducted on
atmosphericsor physicaldesignsof restaurantsand other
facilities substantiate the validity of including this factor in the
model.Perhapsthe physicalcharacteristicsof a restaurant
work through some other mediatingvariableto explain
customersatisfaction;this should be explored in future
research.In this regard,Zeithamland Bitner (2003,p. 98)
suggest that most companies combine tangibles with another
dimension to develop service strategies;however,firms that
do not attend to tangibles “can confuse and even destroy an
otherwise good strategy”.
We believe our model for assessing customer satisfaction in
the full service restaurantindustry is a usefulone. We also
believethat if restaurantowners truly want to gain a
competitive edge,they mustcontinually strive to increase
the levels ofcustomer satisfaction by emphasizing the three
significant factors discerned in this study and as suggested by
the transaction-specific model.
Table IIIMultiple regression results (dependent variable: satisfaction)
Variables Unstandardized coefficients Std error Standardized coefficients t-value Significancep<
Constant 1.891 0.584 3.24 0.002
Responsiveness 0.566 0.087 0.523 6.49 0
Food quality/reliability 0.231 0.089 0.203 2.6 0.011
Physical design 0.006 0.087 0.005 0.08 0.938
Price 20.186 0.047 2 0.246 23.93 0
Notes:F4,113¼ 38.85;p, 0.001; AdjR2 ¼ 0.56
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
8
Future research
The coefficient of determination (adjusted R2) in our model
suggests that we consider additional factors to explain overall
satisfaction with the fullservice restaurantexperience.Two
such factors come to mind upon post hoc reflection:one is
that our focus on food quality was rather limited and that the
four measures that were selected may not be reflective of the
array of considerations that may go into customer assessment
of food quality (or reliability). This factor by itself would seem
to require additionalstudy and is likely to vary with the type
of restaurant one visits and with the demographic profiles of
customers. Clearly, this is an area that could be substantially
enriched to explain customer satisfaction.
The second area that we believe requires further study is the
assumption that the primary reason people go to restaurants is
for the meal. This view may not hold true for those full service
restaurant visitors whose main purpose is to transact business
or to enjoy the company of cherished others (friends, family,
spouse,etc.). The extent to which these restaurants are able
to facilitate transactions or create conditions in which people
are able to enjoy the company of others may also be important
determinants ofcustomersatisfaction thatmay need to be
included in future models of customersatisfaction.By
considering theseaspects,it may be possibleto provide
deeperinsightinto the factorsthat full service restaurant
owners and managers need to stress in their totaloffering.
References
Andaleeb, S.S. (1998), “Determinants of customer satsifaction
with hospitals: a managerial model”, International Journal of
Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 11 No. 6-7, pp. 181-7.
Andaleeb, S.S. and Basu, A.K. (1994), “Technical complexity
and consumer knowledge as moderators of service quality
evaluation in the automobile industry”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 70, Winter, pp. 367-81.
Andaleeb,S.S. and Simmonds,P. (1998),“Explaining user
satisfaction with academic libraries: strategic implications”,
College and Research Libraries, Vol. 59, March, pp. 156-67.
Bearden, W.O. and Teel, J.E. (1983), “Selected determinants
of consumer satisfaction and complaints reports”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 20, February, pp. 21-8.
Bitner, M.J. (1992),“Servicescapes:the impactof physical
surroundingson customersand employees”,Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56, April, pp. 57-71.
Bitner, M.J. and Hubbert, A.R. (1994), “Encounter
satisfactionversus overall satisfactionversus quality”,
in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New
Directions in Theory and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 76-7.
Carman, J. (1990), “Consumer perceptions of service quality:
an assessmentof SERVQUAL dimensions”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 66, Spring, pp. 33-55.
Cronin, J. and Taylor, S. (1992), “Measuring service quality:
a reexamination and extension”,Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-68.
Darley, J.M. and Gilbert, D.T. (1985), “Socialpsychological
aspects of environmentalpsychology”,in Lindzey,G. and
Aronson,E. (Eds), Handbook ofSocialPsychology, 3rd ed.,
Random House, Inc., New York, NY, pp. 949-91.
Fornell, C., Johnson,M.D., Anderson,E.W., Cha, J. and
Everitt-Bryant, B. (1996), “The American Customer
Satisfaction Index: nature, purpose, and findings”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 7-18.
Gaski, J.F. and Nevin, J.R. (1985), “The differential effects of
exercised and unexercised powersourcesin a marketing
channel”,Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 130-42.
Goch, L. (1999),“The 51% niche market”,Best’sReview;
Life/Health Edition, Vol. 99, pp. 40-3.
Grewal, D., Monroe, K.B. and Krishnan, R. (1998),
“The effectsof price-comparison advertising on buyers’
perceptionsof acquisitionsvalue,transaction value,and
behavioral intentions”, Journalof Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2,
pp. 46-59.
Harbaugh,R. (2002),“Proven lessons for generating good
mailsurvey response rates”, MedicalMarketing and Media,
Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 70-5.
Howard, J. and Sheth, J. (1969), The Theory of Buyer
Behavior, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Hunt, K. (1979), Conceptualizationand Measurementof
ConsumerSatisfactionand Dissatisfaction,Marketing
Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Jones,T., Sasser,W. and Earl,W. Jr (1995), “Why satisfied
customers defect”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 6,
pp. 88-99.
Larson, P.D. and Chow, G. (2003), “Total cost/response rate
trade-offsin mail survey research:impact of follow-up
mailingsand monetaryincentives”,IndustrialMarketing
Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, p. 533.
Lewis, R.C. and Shoemaker,S. (1997), “Price-sensitivity
measurement:a tool for the hospitality industry”,Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38, April,
pp. 44-7.
Mehrabian,A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to
EnvironmentalPsychology,MassachusettsInstitute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Mogelonsky,M. (1998), “Food on demand”, American
Demographics, Vol. 20 No. 1, p. 57.
Monroe, K. (1989), “The pricing of services”, in
Congram,C.A. and Friedman,M.L. (Eds), Handbook of
Services Marketing, AMACOM, New York, NY, pp. 20-31.
NationalRestaurantAssociation (2003),RestaurantIndustry
Forecast: Executive Summary, National Restaurant
Association, Washington, DC.
Neal, W.D. (1999), “Satisfaction isnice, but value drives
loyalty”, Marketing Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 20-3.
Nunnally, J. (1978), PsychometricTheory, 2nd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Nyer, P. (1999), “Cathartic complainingas a meansof
reducing consumerdissatisfaction”,Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction,Dissatisfaction,and ComplainingBehavior,
Vol. 12, pp. 15-25.
Oliver, R.L. (1981), “Measurementand evaluationof
satisfaction process in retailsettings”,Journalof Retailing,
Vol. 57, Fall, pp. 25-48.
Oliver, R.L. (1987), “An investigation of the interrelationship
between consumer (dis)satisfactionand complaining
reports”, in Wallendorf, M. and Anderson, P. (Eds),
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
9
The coefficient of determination (adjusted R2) in our model
suggests that we consider additional factors to explain overall
satisfaction with the fullservice restaurantexperience.Two
such factors come to mind upon post hoc reflection:one is
that our focus on food quality was rather limited and that the
four measures that were selected may not be reflective of the
array of considerations that may go into customer assessment
of food quality (or reliability). This factor by itself would seem
to require additionalstudy and is likely to vary with the type
of restaurant one visits and with the demographic profiles of
customers. Clearly, this is an area that could be substantially
enriched to explain customer satisfaction.
The second area that we believe requires further study is the
assumption that the primary reason people go to restaurants is
for the meal. This view may not hold true for those full service
restaurant visitors whose main purpose is to transact business
or to enjoy the company of cherished others (friends, family,
spouse,etc.). The extent to which these restaurants are able
to facilitate transactions or create conditions in which people
are able to enjoy the company of others may also be important
determinants ofcustomersatisfaction thatmay need to be
included in future models of customersatisfaction.By
considering theseaspects,it may be possibleto provide
deeperinsightinto the factorsthat full service restaurant
owners and managers need to stress in their totaloffering.
References
Andaleeb, S.S. (1998), “Determinants of customer satsifaction
with hospitals: a managerial model”, International Journal of
Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 11 No. 6-7, pp. 181-7.
Andaleeb, S.S. and Basu, A.K. (1994), “Technical complexity
and consumer knowledge as moderators of service quality
evaluation in the automobile industry”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 70, Winter, pp. 367-81.
Andaleeb,S.S. and Simmonds,P. (1998),“Explaining user
satisfaction with academic libraries: strategic implications”,
College and Research Libraries, Vol. 59, March, pp. 156-67.
Bearden, W.O. and Teel, J.E. (1983), “Selected determinants
of consumer satisfaction and complaints reports”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 20, February, pp. 21-8.
Bitner, M.J. (1992),“Servicescapes:the impactof physical
surroundingson customersand employees”,Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56, April, pp. 57-71.
Bitner, M.J. and Hubbert, A.R. (1994), “Encounter
satisfactionversus overall satisfactionversus quality”,
in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New
Directions in Theory and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 76-7.
Carman, J. (1990), “Consumer perceptions of service quality:
an assessmentof SERVQUAL dimensions”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 66, Spring, pp. 33-55.
Cronin, J. and Taylor, S. (1992), “Measuring service quality:
a reexamination and extension”,Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-68.
Darley, J.M. and Gilbert, D.T. (1985), “Socialpsychological
aspects of environmentalpsychology”,in Lindzey,G. and
Aronson,E. (Eds), Handbook ofSocialPsychology, 3rd ed.,
Random House, Inc., New York, NY, pp. 949-91.
Fornell, C., Johnson,M.D., Anderson,E.W., Cha, J. and
Everitt-Bryant, B. (1996), “The American Customer
Satisfaction Index: nature, purpose, and findings”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 7-18.
Gaski, J.F. and Nevin, J.R. (1985), “The differential effects of
exercised and unexercised powersourcesin a marketing
channel”,Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 130-42.
Goch, L. (1999),“The 51% niche market”,Best’sReview;
Life/Health Edition, Vol. 99, pp. 40-3.
Grewal, D., Monroe, K.B. and Krishnan, R. (1998),
“The effectsof price-comparison advertising on buyers’
perceptionsof acquisitionsvalue,transaction value,and
behavioral intentions”, Journalof Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2,
pp. 46-59.
Harbaugh,R. (2002),“Proven lessons for generating good
mailsurvey response rates”, MedicalMarketing and Media,
Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 70-5.
Howard, J. and Sheth, J. (1969), The Theory of Buyer
Behavior, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Hunt, K. (1979), Conceptualizationand Measurementof
ConsumerSatisfactionand Dissatisfaction,Marketing
Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Jones,T., Sasser,W. and Earl,W. Jr (1995), “Why satisfied
customers defect”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 6,
pp. 88-99.
Larson, P.D. and Chow, G. (2003), “Total cost/response rate
trade-offsin mail survey research:impact of follow-up
mailingsand monetaryincentives”,IndustrialMarketing
Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, p. 533.
Lewis, R.C. and Shoemaker,S. (1997), “Price-sensitivity
measurement:a tool for the hospitality industry”,Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38, April,
pp. 44-7.
Mehrabian,A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to
EnvironmentalPsychology,MassachusettsInstitute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Mogelonsky,M. (1998), “Food on demand”, American
Demographics, Vol. 20 No. 1, p. 57.
Monroe, K. (1989), “The pricing of services”, in
Congram,C.A. and Friedman,M.L. (Eds), Handbook of
Services Marketing, AMACOM, New York, NY, pp. 20-31.
NationalRestaurantAssociation (2003),RestaurantIndustry
Forecast: Executive Summary, National Restaurant
Association, Washington, DC.
Neal, W.D. (1999), “Satisfaction isnice, but value drives
loyalty”, Marketing Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 20-3.
Nunnally, J. (1978), PsychometricTheory, 2nd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Nyer, P. (1999), “Cathartic complainingas a meansof
reducing consumerdissatisfaction”,Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction,Dissatisfaction,and ComplainingBehavior,
Vol. 12, pp. 15-25.
Oliver, R.L. (1981), “Measurementand evaluationof
satisfaction process in retailsettings”,Journalof Retailing,
Vol. 57, Fall, pp. 25-48.
Oliver, R.L. (1987), “An investigation of the interrelationship
between consumer (dis)satisfactionand complaining
reports”, in Wallendorf, M. and Anderson, P. (Eds),
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
9
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Advancesin ConsumerResearch,Vol. 14, Association of
Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 218-22.
Oliver, R.L. (1997),Satisfaction:A BehavioralPerspective on
the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Parasuraman,A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1985),
“A conceptual model of service quality and its
implicationsfor future research”,Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman,A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1988),
“SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptionsof service quality”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-37.
Parasuraman,A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1994),
“Reassessmentof expectations as a comparison standard
in measuringservice quality: implicationsfor further
research”, Journalof Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 111-24.
Singh, J. (1990), “A multifacet typology of patient satisfaction
with a hospital”, Journal of Health Care Management, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 8-21.
Stevens, P. (1995), “DINESERV: a tool for measuring service
quality in restaurants”, Cor nellHotel & Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 56-60.
Szymanski,D.M. and Henard, D.D. (2001), “Customer
satisfaction:a meta-analysisof the empiricalevidence”,
Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 16-35.
Teas, K. (1993), “Expectations, performance evaluation, and
customers’perceptionsof quality”,Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 18-34.
Zeithaml,V. and Bitner, M.J. (2003), ServicesMarketing,
3rd ed., McGraw-HillIrwin, Boston, MA.
Appendix.Measures of constructs (Likert scales:
strongly agree-strongly disagree)
Responsiveness
. Employees were attentive.
. Employees were helpful.
. Service was prompt.
. Server’s appearance was neat.
. Employees understood your needs.
. Server was courteous.
. Server had knowledge of the menu.
Food quality/reliability
. You received exactly what you ordered the first time.
. Your order was served error-free.
. The food was fresh.
. The temperature of the food was just right.
Physical design and appearance
. Lighting in the restaurant was appropriate.
. Adequate parking was available.
. The restaurant was clean.
. The de´cor was visually appealing.
Price
. Food items were expensive.
. You paid more than you had planned.
Satisfaction
. Overall, you were satisfied with your dining experience.
. You would return to the restaurant in the future.
. You would recommend the restaurant to others.
. Considering the type of restaurant,the quality of service
was excellent.
Corresponding author
Syed Saad Andaleeb can be contacted at: ssa4@psu.edu
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executi
a rapid appreciation ofthe contentof the article.Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description o
research undertaken and itsresultsto getthe fullbenefitof the
materialpresent.
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry:
an examination of the transaction-specific model
A father’s well-meant advice to his daughter, who was looking
at career options, was: “Go into the cateringindustry.
Everybody’s got to eat.” If she took the advice,she may now
be working in one ofthe most fiercely-competitive industries
where the customer has enormous choice and where, to survive,
managementhas to understand the dynamicsof how those
customers decide how much to spend, where and what to eat.
Understanding why people go out to eat is also essential,
and it’s certainly not just because they’re hungry and haven’t
the time or inclination to eat at home, or are away from home
and dependent on restaurants. Socializing and doing business
also come into the frame.
That being the case, restaurants must consider the extent to
which they can facilitate these businesstransactions,and
socialgatherings.The food, of course,has to be enjoyable,
well-presentedand value-for-money;yet, important and
essentialas it is, the meal is no longer considered the
primary reason why people visit a restaurant.
The reason for the meal not being crucial in selecting where
to eat may be that restaurants have been doing such a good
job in food preparation thatit is no longer a distinguishing
factor between many of them.
Focusing on customer satisfactionsounds a sensible
starting point for designingthe businessfor optimum
custom, especially when you bear in mind that a disgruntled
customer can become a saboteur,dissuading other potential
customers away from a particular service provider. But what is
customer satisfaction,and to what extent do its component
parts (price, ambience, quality of the meal, helpfulness of the
staff) combine to build “service quality”?
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway, who studied the
flourishing restaurant industry in the USA, see service quality
as something that is built up as a result of various experiences
of customer satisfaction – “service quality could be viewed as
the whole family picture album, while customer satisfaction is
just one snapshot.”
Of great importance to customers is the responsiveness of
the service– the ingredientsof which include staffbeing
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
10
Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 218-22.
Oliver, R.L. (1997),Satisfaction:A BehavioralPerspective on
the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Parasuraman,A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1985),
“A conceptual model of service quality and its
implicationsfor future research”,Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman,A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1988),
“SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptionsof service quality”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-37.
Parasuraman,A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1994),
“Reassessmentof expectations as a comparison standard
in measuringservice quality: implicationsfor further
research”, Journalof Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 111-24.
Singh, J. (1990), “A multifacet typology of patient satisfaction
with a hospital”, Journal of Health Care Management, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 8-21.
Stevens, P. (1995), “DINESERV: a tool for measuring service
quality in restaurants”, Cor nellHotel & Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 56-60.
Szymanski,D.M. and Henard, D.D. (2001), “Customer
satisfaction:a meta-analysisof the empiricalevidence”,
Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 16-35.
Teas, K. (1993), “Expectations, performance evaluation, and
customers’perceptionsof quality”,Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 18-34.
Zeithaml,V. and Bitner, M.J. (2003), ServicesMarketing,
3rd ed., McGraw-HillIrwin, Boston, MA.
Appendix.Measures of constructs (Likert scales:
strongly agree-strongly disagree)
Responsiveness
. Employees were attentive.
. Employees were helpful.
. Service was prompt.
. Server’s appearance was neat.
. Employees understood your needs.
. Server was courteous.
. Server had knowledge of the menu.
Food quality/reliability
. You received exactly what you ordered the first time.
. Your order was served error-free.
. The food was fresh.
. The temperature of the food was just right.
Physical design and appearance
. Lighting in the restaurant was appropriate.
. Adequate parking was available.
. The restaurant was clean.
. The de´cor was visually appealing.
Price
. Food items were expensive.
. You paid more than you had planned.
Satisfaction
. Overall, you were satisfied with your dining experience.
. You would return to the restaurant in the future.
. You would recommend the restaurant to others.
. Considering the type of restaurant,the quality of service
was excellent.
Corresponding author
Syed Saad Andaleeb can be contacted at: ssa4@psu.edu
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executi
a rapid appreciation ofthe contentof the article.Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description o
research undertaken and itsresultsto getthe fullbenefitof the
materialpresent.
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry:
an examination of the transaction-specific model
A father’s well-meant advice to his daughter, who was looking
at career options, was: “Go into the cateringindustry.
Everybody’s got to eat.” If she took the advice,she may now
be working in one ofthe most fiercely-competitive industries
where the customer has enormous choice and where, to survive,
managementhas to understand the dynamicsof how those
customers decide how much to spend, where and what to eat.
Understanding why people go out to eat is also essential,
and it’s certainly not just because they’re hungry and haven’t
the time or inclination to eat at home, or are away from home
and dependent on restaurants. Socializing and doing business
also come into the frame.
That being the case, restaurants must consider the extent to
which they can facilitate these businesstransactions,and
socialgatherings.The food, of course,has to be enjoyable,
well-presentedand value-for-money;yet, important and
essentialas it is, the meal is no longer considered the
primary reason why people visit a restaurant.
The reason for the meal not being crucial in selecting where
to eat may be that restaurants have been doing such a good
job in food preparation thatit is no longer a distinguishing
factor between many of them.
Focusing on customer satisfactionsounds a sensible
starting point for designingthe businessfor optimum
custom, especially when you bear in mind that a disgruntled
customer can become a saboteur,dissuading other potential
customers away from a particular service provider. But what is
customer satisfaction,and to what extent do its component
parts (price, ambience, quality of the meal, helpfulness of the
staff) combine to build “service quality”?
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway, who studied the
flourishing restaurant industry in the USA, see service quality
as something that is built up as a result of various experiences
of customer satisfaction – “service quality could be viewed as
the whole family picture album, while customer satisfaction is
just one snapshot.”
Of great importance to customers is the responsiveness of
the service– the ingredientsof which include staffbeing
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
10
prompt, courteous,knowledgeable,neat in appearance,
helpful, attentive and understanding of customer needs.
Andaleeb and Conway comment:“It is important to
develop appropriate programs and provide ongoing training
on the variousattributesof responsivenessto strengthen
employees’ ability to improve customer service. Although easy
to suggest, instilling these qualities in the frontline personnel
and gaining their commitment can be challenging.
“However,if full service restaurants wantto deliver high
levels ofcustomer satisfaction,they could periodically track
staff performance on the seven items that measure
‘responsiveness.’By doing so, supervisorsand owners of
restaurantscan design targetedtraining programs that
encourageemployeesto instil this dimension of service
quality.”
Prices vary according to the type ofrestaurantand if the
price is high, the quality must also be high or a sense of being
“ripped off ” may be induced. Many customers have
perceptions ofwhat a restaurantis likely to charge,and if
the prices are higher than they expect, customer satisfaction is
adversely affected.Conversely,low prices could result in
potentialcustomersquestioning the ability to produce the
mealand service they require.It is important,therefore,for
restaurantsto assesscompetitiveprices and customers’
reference prices for the selected segment in which they want
to operate.
(A pre´cis of the article “Customersatisfaction in the restaurant
industry:an examinationof the transaction-specificmodel”.
Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
11
helpful, attentive and understanding of customer needs.
Andaleeb and Conway comment:“It is important to
develop appropriate programs and provide ongoing training
on the variousattributesof responsivenessto strengthen
employees’ ability to improve customer service. Although easy
to suggest, instilling these qualities in the frontline personnel
and gaining their commitment can be challenging.
“However,if full service restaurants wantto deliver high
levels ofcustomer satisfaction,they could periodically track
staff performance on the seven items that measure
‘responsiveness.’By doing so, supervisorsand owners of
restaurantscan design targetedtraining programs that
encourageemployeesto instil this dimension of service
quality.”
Prices vary according to the type ofrestaurantand if the
price is high, the quality must also be high or a sense of being
“ripped off ” may be induced. Many customers have
perceptions ofwhat a restaurantis likely to charge,and if
the prices are higher than they expect, customer satisfaction is
adversely affected.Conversely,low prices could result in
potentialcustomersquestioning the ability to produce the
mealand service they require.It is important,therefore,for
restaurantsto assesscompetitiveprices and customers’
reference prices for the selected segment in which they want
to operate.
(A pre´cis of the article “Customersatisfaction in the restaurant
industry:an examinationof the transaction-specificmodel”.
Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry
Syed Saad Andaleeb and Carolyn Conway
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 20 · Number 1 · 2006 · 3 –11
11
1 out of 9
Related Documents
![Retail Grocery Customer Satisfaction Analysis Report - [University]](/_next/image/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdesklib.com%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Fbv%2Fb8a73bdc393b4353b49353de50973546.jpg&w=256&q=75)
Your All-in-One AI-Powered Toolkit for Academic Success.
+13062052269
info@desklib.com
Available 24*7 on WhatsApp / Email
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
Unlock your academic potential
© 2024 | Zucol Services PVT LTD | All rights reserved.