BMO 6630: Dining Consumption Theory and Research Analysis Report

This report presents a structured abstract of research on dining consumption, focusing on the impact of restaurant experiences on brand image, customer loyalty, and the moderating role of dining motivation. The analysis draws upon four academic articles, including seminal work by Thorstein Veblen on conspicuous consumption and more recent studies employing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research designs. The report synthesizes the evolution of the theory, identifying common and divergent themes across the articles, such as the influence of environment and food quality on brand image and satisfaction. It also examines study limitations inherent in each research approach and proposes directions for future research, including further investigation of the link between brand image and customer satisfaction and loyalty. The research highlights the importance of understanding consumer behavior in the restaurant industry, particularly the influence of dining motivations on the formation of brand image and customer loyalty. This research contributes to the development of effective marketing strategies for full-service restaurants.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254379362
Impact of Restaurant Experience on Brand Image and Customer Loyalty:
Moderating Role of Dining Motivation
Article in Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · August 2012
DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2012.701552
CITATIONS
53
READS
6,980
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Quality Parameters for Ranking Hospitality ProgramsView project
Naehyun Paul Jin
George Mason University
27PUBLICATIONS385CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Lynn Huffman
Texas Tech University
36PUBLICATIONS528CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Naehyun Paul Jin on 08 October 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin]
On: 08 August 2012, At: 08:29
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttm20
Impact of Restaurant Experience on Brand Image
Customer Loyalty: Moderating Role of Dining Mot
Naehyun (Paul) Jin
a , Sangmook Lee
a & Lynn Huffman
b
a Department of Nutrition Hospitality, and Retailing, Texas Tech University, College of Hu
Sciences, Lubbock, TX, 79409, USA
b Department of Nutrition Hospitality, and Retailing, Texas Tech University, College of
Human Sciences, Lubbock, TX, USA
Version of record first published: 08 Aug 2012
To cite this article: Naehyun (Paul) Jin, Sangmook Lee & Lynn Huffman (2012): Impact of Restaurant Experience on
Image and Customer Loyalty: Moderating Role of Dining Motivation, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29:6, 532-5
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2012.701552
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29:532–551, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1054-8408 print / 1540-7306 online
DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2012.701552
IMPACT OF RESTAURANT EXPERIENCE ON
BRAND IMAGE AND CUSTOMER LOYALTY:
MODERATING ROLE OF DINING MOTIVATION
Naehyun (Paul) Jin
Sangmook Lee
Lynn Huffman
ABSTRACT. This study seeks to determine which restaurant experiences influence the image of a
restaurant’s brand and formation of customers’ loyalty. The research examines the connections among
restaurant experiences, brand image, satisfaction, and loyalty in the context of full-service restaurants.
This study also investigates the moderating effect of customers’ dining motivations on the formation of
brand image. The results of this study suggest that: (a) A restaurant’s environment and food quality pos-
itively influences brand image and customers’ satisfaction, (b) customers’ perceptions of price fairness
do not influence brand image but does affect customers’ satisfaction, (c) development of customers’
positive brand image does not drive satisfaction but does influence loyalty in full-service restaurants,
and (d) customers’ dining motivations moderate the relationship between restaurant experiences and
perceptions of brand image. These results provide a basis for investigating which restaurant experiences
are critical in eliciting development of a positive brand image and which have behavioral consequences.
This study also offers mangers a perspective for developing marketing strategies to strengthen brand
image in full-service restaurants.
KEYWORDS. Restaurant experiences, brand image, customer loyalty, dining motivation
INTRODUCTION
A well-respected brand—a message to the
customer of a certain level of product / service
quality—is, arguably, one of the most important
sources of information at the point of purchase
because brand image reduces the complexity
of purchasing products/ services with confi-
dence (Muller, 1998). Once customers associate
positive experiences with a brand, they are often
Naehyun (Paul) Jin (E-mail: [e-mail]) and Sangmook Lee (E-mail: [e-mail]) are doc-
toral students in the Department of Nutrition, Hospitality, and Retailing at Texas Tech University, College of
Human Sciences, P.O. Box 41240, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA.
Lynn Huffman, PhD, is Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Hospitality, and Retailing at Texas Tech
University, College of Human Sciences, Lubbock, TX, USA (E-mail: [e-mail]).
Address correspondence to: Naehyun (Paul) Jin at the above address.
loyal to that brand and recommend it to oth-
ers (Tepeci, 1999). Consequently, building a
favorable brand image is an important market-
ing strategy in order for companies to sustain
an increased revenue stream in today’s market-
place.
Effective management of positive brand
image is also imperative in the restaurant indus-
try to differentiate one restaurant from its com-
petitors and to elicit customers’ satisfaction
532
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

Jin, Lee, and Huffman 533
and loyalty in the midst of rapid increases in
the number of restaurants and fierce competi-
tion among them (Ryu, Han, & Kim, 2008).
Since customers’ positive brand images lead
to continuing purchases of the same brand
from among the various alternatives, under-
standing the mechanism for developing a dis-
tinctive brand image in the restaurant industry is
important.
A meaningful examination involves the rela-
tionship between customer experience in restau-
rants and brand image. Customers’ perceptions
of brand image and their post-consumption
responses may differ based on their experiences
in a restaurant. Generating high-quality cus-
tomer experience is one of the central concepts
to creating a loyal customer base and a sustain-
able competitive advantage (Berry, Carbone, &
Haeckel, 2002; Berry, Wall, & Carbone, 2006;
Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Verhoef et al., 2009).
In line with this view, Pine and Gilmore (1998)
stressed that creating a distinctive customer
experience can bring enormous economic value
to firms. Encouraging these experiences has
become the core focus of the hospitality sector
because many products in the hospitality indus-
try are experiential and can be categorized as a
“total experiences” (Williams, 2006). Moreover,
the relationship between customer experience
and brand image inextricably links to business
success in the restaurant industry (Kim & Kim,
2004).
Despite the increasing importance of brand
image in the hospitality industry, particularly
in the restaurant industry, the subject has not
enjoyed scrutiny in depth. Although research
has considered restaurant experiences and brand
image separately in a number of studies, simul-
taneous examination of the two in the restau-
rant context has not occurred. In other words,
investigators have not considered the mecha-
nism for the effect of customers’ experiences
with restaurant service on formation of brand
image. In addition, little research has explained
the relationships among restaurant experiences,
brand image, customers’ satisfaction, and cus-
tomers’ loyalty. For example, one question that
remains unanswered concerns whether or not
brand image predicts both customer satisfaction
and customer loyalty in the restaurant industry.
Furthermore, this study examines the mod-
erating effect of dining motivation in order to
deepen the holistic framework for formation
of consumer brand image. Research has shown
that dining motives vary according to restau-
rant types (Kim, Raab, & Bergman, 2010). For
example, a customer’s motivation at a quick
service restaurant is different from that at a full-
service restaurant. Understanding of customer
dining motivations and their impacts on dining
experiences is a critical issue to restaurateurs
who must develop effective marketing strate-
gies to satisfy customers and encourage them
to patronize the restaurant. Identifying the influ-
ence of dining motivation on consumer behav-
ior allows marketers to better tailor services
for specific market segments. To the best of
current knowledge, no prior research has stud-
ied the moderating role of dining motivation
on the relationship among restaurant experi-
ences, brand image, and consumers’ postdin-
ing behavior. Dining motivation may affect this
relationship because it determines consumers’
evaluative judgments during their dining expe-
riences (Park, 2004). This study proposes that
quick service / convenience dining consumers
will be more positively affected by functional
aspects (food quality) in evaluating brand image
than people who value hedonic aspects (envi-
ronment) of social occasions in dining experi-
ences. Thus, the study attempts to incorporate
the moderator “dining motivation” to evaluate
how customers’ main reasons for dining out
(quick service / convenience versus social occa-
sion) strengthen or lessen the effect of their per-
ceived restaurant experiences on brand image
and satisfaction.
The primary objectives of this study, there-
fore, are to: (a) propose a theoretical model that
focuses on the relationships among restaurant
experience, brand image, and customer loyalty;
(b) empirically examine which restaurant expe-
riences elicit positive brand images; (c) investi-
gate the relationship among brand image, cus-
tomer satisfaction, and loyalty in the restaurant
industry, and (d) explore the moderating effect
of dining motivations (differentiating customers
for quick service / convenience and customers
for social occasion) on restaurant experiences,
brand image, satisfaction, and loyalty.
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

534 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
LITERATURE REVIEW AND
HYPOTHESES
Brand Image
Brand image has been a vital concept in con-
sumer behavior research because it affects indi-
viduals’ subjective perceptions and consumers’
senses of value, satisfaction, and consequent
behavior (Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Dobni &
Zinkhan, 1990; Pavesic, 1989; Verhoef et al.,
2009). Due to the complex nature of brand
image, little consensus exists for a definition.
For instance, Dobni and Zinkhan (1990) defined
it as “a subjective and perceptual phenomenon
that is formed through consumer interpreta-
tion, whether reasoned or emotional” (p. 118).
Further, Keller (1993) described brand image
as a set of perceptions that the consumers
form as reflected by brand associations. Despite
conceptual deviations, clearly marketing activi-
ties, contextual variables, and each customer’s
characteristics affect and form brand image
(Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990). Hence, brand image
plays an important role, especially in situations
that make differentiation of products or ser-
vices based on tangible quality features difficult
(Mudambi, Doyle, & Wong, 1997). Moreover,
since brand image for a restaurant is often
beyond visible or tangible factors, crucial to the
success of food-service firms is strong brand
image, which aids customers’ visualizing and
therefore developing positive attitudes toward
services prior to purchasing (Pavesic, 1989).
Based on these ideas and theories, this study
views brand image as made up of emotions,
ideas, or attitudes that customers associate with
full-service dining restaurants.
Restaurant Experiences
Environment
Kotler (1973) defined atmospherics as the
conscious designing of space to elicit specific
emotional effects in consumers and increase
their purchasing probability. Investigating the
influence of physical surroundings on customers
and employees, Bitner (1992) introduced the
term servicescape to explain “the built envi-
ronment” or, more specifically, “the man-made,
physical surroundings as opposed to the natu-
ral or social environment” (p. 58), and identi-
fied three dimensions of atmospherics: “ambient
conditions”; “spatial layout and functionality”;
and “signs, symbols, and artifacts.”
Additionally, Wakefield and Blodgett (1999)
proposed that the tangible physical environment
functions as a pivotal factor in strengthening
excitement in leisure settings, which, in turn,
results in determining customers’ intentions to
re-patronize and willingness to recommend.
A potentially important role of atmospherics is
to generate a positive first impression that will
enhance customers’ service experiences (Berry
et al., 2006). For example, creative use of phys-
ical design in a restaurant’s service leads to
specific marketing achievements such as pos-
itive customer perception of quality, positive
evaluation of experience, and positive attitude
(Han & Ryu, 2009).Thus, in this study, envi-
ronment refers to the man-made physical condi-
tions in restaurants, organized by the restaurant
operators, as opposed to a naturally occurring
environment.
Food Quality
In a restaurant setting, food quality is the
most essential factor influencing customers’
decisions to patronize a restaurant, and it is an
influential element for customer loyalty (Ha &
Jang, 2010b; Namkung & Jang, 2007; Sulek &
Hensley, 2004). Emphasizing the importance of
food quality in the dining experience, previous
studies evaluated food quality according to vari-
ous characteristics (Josiam & Monteiro, 2004;
Kivela, Inbakaran, & Reece, 2000; Raajpoot,
2002). For example, Kivela et al. (2000) iden-
tified the tastiness of food, menu variety, and
nutrition as major attributes of food quality and
investigated the impact of excellence of food on
customer satisfaction and revisiting patronage.
Focusing on the food service industry,
Raajppot (2002) included food presentation,
serving size, menu design, and variety of food
to assess food quality. In another study, Josiam
and Monteiro (2004) stated that seven general
food attributes determine quality: taste, presen-
tation, menu variety, healthful options, fresh-
ness, appropriate temperature, and food safety.
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

Jin, Lee, and Huffman 535
More recently, Ha and Jang (2010b) chose taste,
portion, menu variety, and healthful options to
measure food quality.
Price Fairness
Zeithaml (1988) conceptualized price as
“what is given up or sacrificed to obtain a prod-
uct” (p. 10). Further, price can represent both
objective price and perceived price (Jacoby &
Olson, 1977). Objective price is the actual price
of serving the product; whereas, perceived price
refers to the price as understood by the customer
(Jacoby & Olson, 1977). A further suggestion
is that the objective price of a product / service
becomes meaningful to the customer when
interpreting the price subjectively (Oh, 2000).
In line with this view, price fairness can
become “a consumer’s assessment and asso-
ciated emotions of whether the difference (or
lack of difference) between a seller’s price and
the price offered by a comparable other party
is reasonable, acceptable, or justifiable” (Xia,
Monroe, & Cox, 2004, p. 3). This shows that
the basis for a price evaluation is the comparison
between actual price and reference price, com-
petitors’ prices, costs, and / or other consumers’
costs (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1986).
Thus, a widely accepted notion is that price
fairness or unfairness derives from comparing
one’s reference price and the actual price paid
(Petrick, 2005). The impact of this price percep-
tion on consumers’ behavior is likely prominent
in the restaurant industry because customers’
experiences will not be identical, despite pro-
viding similar services from the same service
providers (Han & Ryu, 2009). This suggests
that the prices offered at a restaurant should
reflect what the market expects to pay in order to
reduce consumers’ perceptions of unfair prices.
Thus, price fairness, in this study, is consumers’
subjective perceptions of sellers’ prices.
Customer Satisfaction
As one of the most critical factors influenc-
ing customers’ future behavior, satisfaction has
undergone extensive research as an organiza-
tional goal, especially in the highly competitive
hospitality and tourism industry. Westbrook and
Oliver (1991) defined satisfaction as “a com-
parison of the level of product or service per-
formance, quality, or other outcomes perceived
by the consumer with an evaluative standard”
(p. 85). The key foundational concept of satis-
faction is the expectancy-disconfirmation model
(Lewin, 1938), which posits that perceived per-
formance exceeding consumers’ expectations
elicits customers’ satisfaction. In contrast, if
perceived performance fails to meet consumers’
expectations, a negative disconfirmation leads to
consumers’ dissatisfaction (Oliver, 1980).
However, another suggestion is that eval-
uation of satisfaction includes affective and
cognitive variables since emotion is an impor-
tant source of human motivation and relates
to judgments of satisfaction (Westbrook, 1987;
Westbrook & Oliver, 1991). As an example,
Westbrook (1987) argued that incorporation of
emotional aspects contributes to evaluations of
satisfaction beyond expectancy-disconfirmation
beliefs. Hence, understanding both the cogni-
tive and affective aspects of satisfaction can aid
restaurateurs’ designing and delivering appro-
priate services that cater to customers’ demands
(Ha & Jang, 2010a; Namkung & Jang, 2008).
Accordingly, in this study, customer satisfaction
refers to cognitive evaluation of service quality
and affective aspects generated by experiences
during consumption.
Customer Loyalty
Customer loyalty is an important goal for
marketing in service marketing industries as it is
a pivotal component for a company’s long-term
competitive edge. Oliver (2010) defined loyalty
as “a deeply held commitment to re-buy or repa-
tronize a preferred product or service consis-
tently in the future, despite situational influences
and marketing efforts having the potential to
cause switching behavior” (p. 432). According
to Oliver (1999, 2010), four sequential stages
constitute achievement of customers’ loyalty
(cognition-affective-conative-action): (a) Brand
attribute aspects are the bases for cognition loy-
alty, (b) affective loyalty focuses on a positive
attitude toward a brand, (c) conative loyalty
refers to strong intentions for future exchange,
and (d) action loyalty is a commitment to a
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

536 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
specific product or service regardless of the
marketing efforts of competitors.
Both behavioral and attitudinal aspects are
useful assessing loyalty (Alan & Kunal, 1994;
Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978; Oliver, 1999). The
behavioral measure refers to the concept of
repeat patronage or repeat purchase frequency,
while the attitudinal measure associates with
psychological commitment toward the physi-
cal business or brand (Alan & Kunal, 1994).
Both aspects of loyalty have lead to several
perspectives useful for measuring each aspect.
Thus, Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) investigated
loyalty measurements classifying them as atti-
tudinal, behavioral, and compound measure-
ments. They argued that consistent purchas-
ing as an indicator of loyalty could be invalid
due to customers’ preferences for convenience
and multibrand loyalty, suggesting that elabo-
ration of an attitude-based framework is neces-
sary. Similarly, Dick and Basu (1994) claimed
that behavioral approaches are insufficient for
explaining the mechanics of brand loyalty’s
development.
In recent years, the attitudinal approach has
received much attention in gauging the level
of customer loyalty, especially in the hospital-
ity industry (Han & Ryu, 2009; Mattila, 2001;
Schall, 2003). Compared to manufacturing
industries, hospitality businesses more closely
involve attitudinal and emotional commitments
to providers of products or services (Schall,
2003). Thus, frequency of purchasing would not
necessarily represent the only indicator of cus-
tomers’ loyalties. For instance, restaurants’ fre-
quency programs provide a limited view of cus-
tomers’ loyalties because the programs’ focuses
are not toward attitudinal or emotional com-
mitments (Mattila, 2001). That is, customers
with a high-frequency patronage are also sus-
ceptible to competitors’ marketing efforts unless
patrons have high levels of emotional commit-
ments to a product or service provider (Mattila,
2001; Tepeci, 1999). In this respect, Mattila
(2001) showed empirical support for affective
commitments to a service provider strengthen-
ing customers’ brand perceptions and behav-
ioral responses. Accordingly, the current study
applies attitudinal concepts to assess restaurant
customers’ loyalties.
Relationships Between Environment and
Brand Image/ Satisfaction
Many previous conceptual and empirical
studies showed that physical environment
influences the image of a product/ service
and customers’ satisfaction with the set-
tings for consumption (Baker, Grewal, &
Parasuraman, 1994; Han & Ryu, 2009; Oh,
Fiorito, Cho, & Hofacker, 2008; Wu & Liang,
2009). Employing the Stimulus-Organism-
Response (S-O-R) model for online outlets,
Oh et al. (2008) examined the design factors
of stores’ environments to discover the rela-
tionship between store image and consumers’
expectations of merchandise quality. The
results of empirical study of online purveyors
suggested that a thematic and picture-based
atmosphere is more efficient for generating a
safe and entertaining image than non-thematic,
text-based atmosphere. Further, Baker et al.
(1994) claimed that store environment, mer-
chandise quality, and service quality could
be predictors of store image in the gift shop
merchandising sector.
Using 279 data sets collected from three full-
service restaurants, Han and Ryu (2009) inves-
tigated the influence of three components of
physical environment (i.e., artifacts, spatial lay-
out, and ambient conditions) on customers’ sat-
isfaction and loyalty. Their findings indicated
that customers’ perception of a restaurant’s
environment impact perceptions of price, and
this price perception, in turn, strengthened cus-
tomers’ satisfaction and loyalty. In addition,
Wu and Liang (2009) investigated the effect of
service encounters (i.e., environment, interac-
tion with employees, and interaction with cus-
tomers) on experiential value and customers’
satisfaction. Their findings indicated that restau-
rants’ environmental factors and interactions
with other consumers indirectly and positively
influence consumers’ satisfaction through expe-
riential value. Based on the above discussions,
this study proposes:
H1. Environment has a positive effect on
brand image.
H2. Environment has a positive effect on
customers’ satisfaction.
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

Jin, Lee, and Huffman 537
Relationship Between Food Quality and
Brand Image/ Satisfaction
Grönroos (1984) claimed that formulation of
corporate image occurs through both technical
and functional qualities. In the context of the
hotel industry, Hu, Kandampully, and Juwaheer
(2009) examined the relationship among per-
ceived service quality, perceived value, cus-
tomers’ satisfaction, and hotels’ images. Their
findings indicated that a customer’s perceived
service quality affected a hotel’s positive image.
Empirical studies also showed the influence
of food quality on customers’ satisfaction in
service settings (Clark & Wood, 1999; Fu &
Parks, 2001; Mattila, 2001). Clark and Wood
(1998) determined dimensions related to creat-
ing customers’ loyalty in the restaurant indus-
try. Results of that study showed that food
quality was the critical predictor of customers’
loyalty when selecting restaurants. Using “the
quality of food” item, Fu and Parks (2001)
tested family-style restaurants’ service quality
dimensions when focusing on older diners’ re-
patronage intentions. According to Sulek and
Hensley (2004), food quality is the most critical
component of customers’ satisfaction compared
to other elements (e.g., environment and service
qualities) during restaurant experiences. Further,
Mattila (2001) stated that food quality is the
main factor for casual-dining restaurants’ retain-
ing customers. Recently, Ha and Jang (2010b)
examined the influence of food quality on cus-
tomers’ satisfaction and loyalty and found that
a positive relationship exists between food qual-
ity and satisfaction / loyalty. Based on a review
of the literature, this study proposes:
H3. Food quality has a positive effect on
brand image.
H4. Food quality has a positive effect on
customers’ satisfaction.
Relationship Between Price Fairness and
Brand Image/ Satisfaction
Although empirical support for price
perception-brand image and price perception-
satisfaction links is scant in the restaurant
industry’s literature, much recent research
attempted to verify marketing’s specific role
in price perception when explaining con-
sumers’ behavior (Erdem, Swait, & Louviere,
2002; Han & Ryu, 2009; Martin-Consuegra,
Molina, & Esteban, 2007; Ranaweera & Neely,
2003; Villarejo-Ramos & Sanchez-Franco,
2005).
Villarejo-Ramos and Sanchez-Franco (2005)
examined the influence of marketing commu-
nication and price deals on brand image. Their
findings revealed that the hypothesized causal
relationship between price deals and brand
image, established in terms of a negative influ-
ence, was unverifiable due to a lack of meaning
in its structural coefficient. In addition, Erdem
et al. (2002) found that credibility toward a
brand decreased customers’ price sensitivity for
the product. Han and Ryu (2009) tested the role
of price perception in the restaurant industry,
when explaining the relationship among phys-
ical environment, price perception, customers’
satisfaction, and customers’ loyalty. Their find-
ings indicated that price perception strengthened
customers’ satisfaction level and influenced
customers’ loyalty. With the data collected
from airline passengers, Martin-Consuegra et al.
(2007) empirically investigated the relationships
among price fairness, customer satisfaction, and
price acceptance. Their findings revealed that
price fairness among travelers influenced cus-
tomers’ satisfaction, which, in turn, leads to
price acceptance. Customer feelings toward the
reasonableness of prices relate to price per-
ception. In this respect, Ranaweera and Neely
(2003) argued that price perception could be an
important avenue to strengthen a firm’s profit
level as well as the levels of customers’ service
experience and satisfaction. Thus, if customers
believe that they are being overcharged, they
will not trust the restaurant resulting in nega-
tive dining experiences from the perception of
price unfairness. Hence, based on these the-
oretical and empirical supports, the inference
is that price fairness significantly drives brand
image and customer satisfaction in the restau-
rant industry. Based on the literature review, this
study proposes:
H5. Price fairness has a positive effect on
brand image.
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

538 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
H6. Price fairness has a positive effect on
customer satisfaction.
Relationship Between Brand Image,
Satisfaction, and Customer Loyalty
Previous research showed that image can be
a significant factor affecting customers’ satis-
faction and loyalty (Bloemer & Ruyter, 1998;
Faullant, Matzler, & Füller, 2008; Martenson,
2007; Ryu et al., 2008). In the ski resort setting,
the findings of Faullant et al. (2008) revealed
that image and overall satisfaction generate a
strong influence on intentional loyalty, espe-
cially if the visitors held the intention to revisit
a destination.
Thus, the interrelationship between satisfac-
tion and image results in a relatively stable
perception of image. Using data collected from
a department store, Bloemer and Ruyter (1998)
showed that customer satisfaction is a medi-
ator between a store’s image and customers’
loyalty. Further, in the grocery retailing sector,
Martenson (2007) examined the influence of a
corporate store’s image on customer satisfaction
and loyalty. That study indicated that retailers’
job performances were more influential than
were store brands for eliciting customers’ sat-
isfaction. Specifically, in the restaurant industry,
Ryu et al. (2008) found that a restaurant’s image
can be a predictor for both customers’ satisfac-
tion and behavioral intentions.
In the service industry’s context, scores of
studies investigated the relationship between
customer’s satisfaction and customer’s loy-
alty (Andreassen & Lindestad, 1998; Bloemer
et al., 1998; Han & Ryu, 2009; Hyun, 2010;
Kim, Suh, & Eves, 2010; Sweeney & Swait,
2008). A study conducted by Andreassen and
Lindestad (1998) in the package tour industry
showed that corporate image directly influences
customer loyalty; whereas, customer’s satisfac-
tion does not, thereby, challenge the disconfir-
mation paradigm that customer satisfaction is
the primary route to customer loyalty.
Bloemer et al. (1998) verified that service
quality indirectly relates to loyalty via sat-
isfaction, and satisfaction also has a direct
effect on loyalty. In addition, Sweeney and
Swait (2008), in investigating the relationship
among brand credibility, satisfaction, loyalty,
and brand / business-switching propensity, sug-
gested that satisfaction serves to enhance cus-
tomers’ loyalty as well as to reduce the propen-
sity to switch to an alternative service / product.
Hyun (2010) assessed the role of relationship
quality as a link between five dimensions and
customers’ loyalty in the chain restaurant indus-
try, and found that satisfaction influences loy-
alty formation directly and indirectly via trust.
Additionally, Han and Ryu (2009) indicated that
in the restaurant industry customers’ satisfaction
has a positive influence on customers’ loyalty.
Integrating previous theoretical and empirical
results, the derived hypotheses are:
H7. Brand image has a positive effect on
customers’ satisfaction.
H8. Brand image has a positive effect on
customers’ loyalty.
H9. Customers’ satisfaction has a positive
effect on customers’ loyalty.
The Moderating Effects: Quick
Service/ Convenience Versus Social
Occasion
In consumer behavior research, motivation
has the reputation for being an important factor,
which impacts customers’ perceptions of ser-
vice and evaluative judgments. Tauber (1972)
attempted to find the motivation behind shop-
ping behavior and suggested that purchases not
only satisfy functional values but also satisfy
entertainment and emotional needs. In a related
vein, Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994) found
that customers with functional shopping motiva-
tions regard achieving their goals and effective
decisions as important factors. They attain value
from shopping when a purchasing a product is
intentional and effective. In contrast, customers
with hedonic shopping motivations are seeking
happiness, fantasy, and enjoyment (Babin et al.,
1994).
Furthermore, consumers’ motivations for
restaurant dining include quick service, con-
venience, entertainment, and social interaction.
Dining outside the home provides consumers
with functional and hedonic values (Park,
2004). Park (2004) demonstrated that hedonic
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

Jin, Lee, and Huffman 539
motivations (good mood, interior design, and
fun) are stronger influences than functional
(convenience and economical) ones for restau-
rant patrons of Korean fast-food restaurants.
Likewise, Ha and Jang (2010a) suggested that
American customers consider the utilitarian
more so than the hedonic aspects for dining in
Korean restaurants. Focusing on the fast-casual
restaurant industry, Ryu, Han, and Jang (2010)
found that the impact of utilitarian motivation on
both satisfaction and behavioral intention was
greater than that of hedonic value. Clark and
Wood (1998) indicated that customers choose
a restaurant based on relatively concrete fac-
tors. Thus, according to their main reasons for
dining-out at restaurants, consumers evaluate
their overall restaurant experiences with differ-
ent standards. For example, if consumers regard
a restaurant as an eat-out operation or a substi-
tute for cooking at home, they tend to respond to
price sensitively. Meanwhile, if customers visit
a restaurant for a social occasion, price is not
the critical factor (Pavesic, 1989). Based on this
rationale, although it may be difficult to predict
the exact relationship among restaurant expe-
riences, brand image, satisfaction, and loyalty,
it can be assumed that the effect of restau-
rant experiences on brand image and satisfaction
could vary depending on the dining motivator.
Therefore, to fully understand the rela-
tionship among restaurant experiences, brand
image, satisfaction, and loyalty, this study
investigated whether the effect of restau-
rant experiences on consumer behaviors actu-
ally vary across different dining motivation
types. That is, the evaluative judgments of
customers with functional motivation (quick
service/ convenience) are likely to differ from
customers with hedonic motivation (social inter-
action), resulting in different restaurant experi-
ences regarding brand image. The results of this
investigation will suggest whether dining moti-
vations matter in brand image formation and
service evaluation. Despite the potential impor-
tance of these findings, to our best knowledge,
no previous studies examined the moderating
role of dining motivation in conjunction with
brand image and satisfaction in the context of
full-service restaurants. Thus, this study pro-
posed the following hypothesis:
H10. The links among restaurant experi-
ences, brand image, satisfaction, and
customer loyalty are different accord-
ing to the motivation for dining at
restaurants.
Hypothesized relationships among variables
are presented in Figure 1.
METHODOLOGY
Measurement Items
A self-administrated questionnaire was
designed for this study. The questionnaire com-
prised six sections. The first three parts included
three constructs related to customer restaurant
experiences: environment, food quality, and
FIGURE 1. Conceptual Model
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

540 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
price fairness. All items from Sections 1–4 were
measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale
(1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree)
for the following: “Please indicate your level
of agreement with the following statement.”
To measure the perception of restaurant envi-
ronment, our study adopted three items from
Baker, Parasuraman, Grewal, and Voss (2002)
and Mathwick, Malhotra, and Rigdon (2001).
Perception of food quality was measured with
three items (taste, presentation, and variety)
based on a study by Namkung and Jang (2007).
Perception of price fairness was measured
using three items from a study by Oh (2000).
In Section 4, response to brand image—such as
fashionable and trendy image, reputation, and
familiarity—were measured based on the Kim
and Kim (2004) study. Section 5 was designed
to identify the impact of restaurant experience
and brand image. The three items for customer
satisfaction were based on earlier research by
the Hellier, Geursen, Carr, and Rickard (2003)
and Oliver (1980) studies. Customer loyalty was
measured using three items that were modified
from Baloglu (2002).The final section of the
questionnaire included respondents’ relevant
personal information—such as age, gender,
household income, and dining motivation.
Data Collection
Modification of an initial questionnaire
occurred after pretesting with a sample of nine
graduate students and faculty members from
a university’s hospitality department. A pilot
test, to ensure the reliability of the scales, used
66 United States’ Southwestern university stu-
dents who had visited a full-service restaurant
within the previous four weeks. Slight modi-
fications to the instrument’s wording were the
result of feedback from the pilot test. The main
study conducted an online survey. Distribution
of the questionnaire encompassed 1,528 full-
service restaurant customers in the United States
via an online survey company’s system. From
these samples, 628 customers participated in the
survey (41% response rate). Of the 628 partic-
ipants, eliminations included 30 questionnaires
with missing values and 100 disqualifications
because last visits to a full-service restaurant
was more than one month earlier. An additional
97 disqualifications arose from participants’
first visit to the most-recently visited restau-
rant was less than three months prior. Last, tests
for multivariate and univariate outliers found
33 outliers. After all checks for sample valid-
ity, 368 responses from participants remained
for hypotheses testing.
Data Analysis
Following the two-step approach proposed by
Anderson and Gerbing (1988), a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) examined whether or not
the observed variables reflected the hypothe-
sized latent constructs (factors) using a covari-
ance matrix. Calculation of composite relia-
bility confirmed the measurement’s reliability.
Checking factor loading and average variance
extracted (AVE) assessed convergent validity
and discriminate validity. After confirming the
measurement model, structural equation mod-
eling (SEM) tested overall fit of the proposed
model and assessed hypotheses. To verify the
moderating effect of dining motivation, two
models (constrained model and unconstrained
model), which are different only concerning
each path coefficient, were compared.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 shows the respondents’ demographic
profiles. Among the 368 valid respondents,
50.5% were female and 49.5% were male.
The majority of respondents were Caucasian
(88.9%), the occupations of more than half of
the respondents were professional or retired
(33.2% for the former and 22.8% for the lat-
ter), and 31% reported that their annual incomes
were over $100,000.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
To refine all measures for the struc-
tural model, assessment of the measurement
model used the maximum likelihood estimation
method. The results show a proper fit to the
data, χ2 = 414.68, df = 120, p < .001,
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

Jin, Lee, and Huffman 541
TABLE 1. Demographic and Dining-Out Profiles
Variable Frequency
(n = 368)
Percentage
Gender
Male 182 49.5
Female 186 50.5
Ethnicity
African American 8 2.2
Hispanic 6 1.6
Asian 21 5.7
Caucasian (White) 327 88.9
Other 6 1.6
Occupation
Trades and related 21 5.7
Professional 122 33.2
Manager or administrator 49 13.3
Students 10 2.7
Clerical, services, sales 45 12.2
Retiree 84 22.8
Homemakers 22 6.0
Unemployed 15 4.1
Annual income ($)
Under 25,000 7 1.9
25,000–39,999 10 2.7
40,000–54,999 36 9.8
55,000–69,999 70 19.0
70,000–84,999 71 19.3
85,000–99,000 60 16.3
Over 100,000 114 31.0
Main reason for dining out
Quick meal/ convenience 161 43.8
Social occasion 160 43.5
Others 47 12.7
χ 2/ df = 3.46, root mean square error of approx-
imation (RMSEA) = .082, comparative fit index
(CFI) = .948, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)= .934,
and normed fit index (NFI) = .929.
Composite reliability was the method for
assessing the instrument’s reliability, as shown
in Table 2. Multiple measures achieved relia-
bility for assessing each construct because all
values of composite reliability estimates were
over .70. The study satisfies convergent validity
because all items had relatively high standard-
ized factor loadings on their underlying con-
structs (values ranged from .67 to .94), and
all were significant at an alpha level of .01
(Table 2). Furthermore, the average variance
extracted (AVE) from all constructs exceeded
the minimum standard of .50, showing that
constructs explain the majority of the vari-
ances (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 1995). Comparison of AVE
values for each construct and squared correla-
tions between the paired constructs tested for
discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Table 3 indicates that AVE for each construct
is greater than the squared correlations between
paired constructs, showing discriminant validity.
Structural Model
The integrated model provides an adequate
fit to the data in the restaurant service setting,
χ2 = 425.46, df = 123, p < .001, χ 2/ df = 3.46,
RMSEA = .082, CFI = .947, TLI = .934, and
NFI = .927. Table 4 summarizes the path coef-
ficients for all hypothesized paths in the model
and Figure 2 visualizes the paths.
All but two of the path coefficients in the
model were positive and significant. Therefore,
empirical support accrues to all the hypotheses
except for Hypotheses 5 and 7, which referred
to the path from price fairness to brand image
and from brand image to customers’ satisfac-
tion. In other words, although a full-service
restaurant’s environment and food quality pos-
itively and significantly affects brand image,
price fairness did not. Furthermore, brand image
affected customers’ loyalty; whereas, the impact
of brand image on customer satisfaction was not
statistically significant.
The results confirm the proposed effects of
environment and food quality on brand image
(Hypothesis 1: β = .50, t = 5.46; Hypothesis
3: β = .25, t = 3.73), as were the proposed
effects of environment and food quality on sat-
isfaction (Hypothesis 2: β = .35, t = 4.22;
Hypothesis 4: β = .25, t = 3.44). Apparently,
both environment and food quality have a direct
effect and an indirect effect (mediated by brand
image) on customers’ satisfaction. In contrast,
price fairness has only a direct effect on cus-
tomers’ satisfaction (Hypothesis 6: β = .36,
t = 8.55), and the impact of price fairness
on brand image was not statistically significant
(Hypothesis 5: β = .09, t = 1.63). Among
the three predictors of brand image, environ-
ment has the strongest effect on brand image;
whereas, price fairness has the strongest effect
on customer satisfaction. In accordance with
the hypotheses, brand image has a direct effect
on customers’ loyalty (Hypothesis 8: β = .22,
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

542 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
TABLE 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Measurement Model
Constructs and indicators Standardized
factor loadings
Compositereliability AVE
Environment .86 .67
The furnishing of the restaurant are aesthetically appealing .83
The atmosphere of the restaurant is wonderful .88
Employees in this restaurant appear neat and clean .73
Food quality .86 .66
The restaurant serves tasty food .87
Food presentation at this restaurant is visually attractive .84
The restaurant offers a variety of menu items .74
Price fairness .91 .78
The food prices at this restaurant are reasonable .89
The beverage prices at this restaurant are Reasonable .81
The prices charged by this restaurant are appropriate for the level of
service
.94
Brand image .82 .61
The brand of this restaurant has a fashionable and trendy image .67
The brand of this restaurant has a reputation for quality .92
The brand of this restaurant is familiar to me .73
Satisfaction .95 .86
All things considered, I feel good about my decision to dine out at
this restaurant
.94
Considering all my experiences with this restaurant, my choice to
dine out at this restaurant was a wise one
.93
Overall, I am pleased with the dining experiences at this restaurant .91
Loyalty .85 .66
My relationship with this restaurant has a personal meaning .71
Although there are other restaurant alternatives, I still like going to
this restaurant
.87
The friendliness of the employee in this restaurant makes me feel
good
.85
TABLE 3. Comparison of AVE and Squared
Correlations of Paired Constructs
Constructs EV FQ PF BI SA LO
Environment (EV) .67
Food quality (FQ) .65 .66
Price fairness (PF) .37 .39 .78
Brand image (BI) .65 .61 .57 .61
Satisfaction (SA) .63 .62 .57 .52 .86
Loyalty (LO) .58 .45 .45 .50 .70 .66
Note. AVE is on the diagonal. Squared correlations of paired
constructs are on the off-diagonal.
t = 3.60), and satisfaction affected customer
loyalty (Hypothesis 9: β = .68, t = 10.97).
However, the impact of brand image on cus-
tomers’ satisfaction was not statistically signifi-
cant (Hypothesis 7: β = .09, t = 1.63). Overall,
the study produces significant support for the
notion that environment and food quality, as per-
ceived by customers during their consumption
experience in a restaurant, positively affected
their perceptions of brand image, and that this,
in turn, has a positive effect on customers’
loyalty to that restaurant.
Based on dining motivation, analyzing the
same model with separated data indicates that
the two groups included different covariant
structures (Table 5 and Figures 3 and 4).
Environment has significantly positive impacts
on both brand image (β = .343, t = 2.475; β =
.750, t = 4.410) and satisfaction (β = .279, t =
2.372; β = .560, t = 2.826) among customers
for both quick meal/ convenience and customers
for social occasions. Food quality has signif-
icantly positive impact on brand image ( β =
.499, t = 3.291) among customers for quick
meal/ convenience; whereas, among customers
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

Jin, Lee, and Huffman 543
TABLE 4. Structural Parameter Estimates
Hypothesized path Coefficient t value Results
Hypothesis1:
Environment → Brand image
.50 5.46∗∗ Supported
Hypothesis 2:
Environment → Customer satisfaction
.35 4.22∗∗ Supported
Hypothesis 3:
Food quality → Brand image
.33 3.73∗∗ Supported
Hypothesis 4:
Food quality → Customer satisfaction
.25 3.44∗∗ Supported
Hypothesis 5:
Price fairness → Brand image
.09 1.63 Not Supported
Hypothesis 6:
Price fairness → Customer satisfaction
.36 8.55∗∗ Supported
Hypothesis 7:
Brand image → Customer satisfaction
.02 0.29 Not Supported
Hypothesis 8:
Brand image → Customer loyalty
.22 3.60∗∗ Supported
Hypothesis 9:
Customer satisfaction → Customer loyalty
.68 10.97∗∗ Supported
∗∗p < .01.
FIGURE 2. Results of Structural Equation Model (Total)
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01
for social occasions, food quality only influ-
ences satisfaction (β = .310, t = 3.113).
For the link between price fairness and brand
image/ satisfaction, neither group detects an
impact from price fairness on brand image, but
price fairness has significantly positive impacts
on satisfaction for both groups ( β = .416, t =
6.286; β =.295, t = 4.389). Brand image has no
significant impact on satisfaction in both groups,
but brand image has an influence on loyalty for
both groups (β =.199, t = 2.370; β =.292, t =
2.862).
Moderating Effects
In order to examine whether or not din-
ing motivation moderates the relationship
among restaurant experiences, brand image,
satisfaction, and loyalty, comparison of two
models (constrained model versus uncon-
strained model) examined each of 10 path
coefficients (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The differ-
ence of chi-square values between constrained
model and unconstrained model employed
one degree of freedom (Table 6). Significant
differences in the chi-square statistic appear
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

544 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
TABLE 5. Structural Parameter Estimates According to Dining Motivation
Path Standardized path coefficient (t value)
Quick meal/ convenience Social occasion
Environment → Brand image .34 (2.48)∗∗ .75 (4.41)∗∗
Environment → Satisfaction .28 (2.37)∗ .56 (2.83)∗∗
Food quality → Brand image .50 (3.29)∗∗ .07 (0.51)
Food quality → Satisfaction .24 (1.80) .31 (3.11)∗∗
Price fairness → Brand image .04 (0.53) .12 (1.48)
Price fairness → Satisfaction .42 (6.29)∗∗ .30 (4.39)∗∗
Brand image → Satisfaction .07 (0.75) −.17 (−1.06)
Brand image → Loyalty .20 (2.37)∗ .29 (2.86)∗∗
Satisfaction → Loyalty .71 (7.86)∗∗ .63 (6.63)∗∗
Note. Quick service/ Convenience: χ 2 = 247.626, df = 123, NFI = .905, TLI = .937, CFI = .949,
IFI = .950, REMSEA = .080. Social occasion: χ 2 = 262.081, df = 123, NFI = .903, TLI = .932,
CFI = .946, IFI = .946, REMSEA = .084.
∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.
FIGURE 3. Results for Dining Motivation Responses: Quick Meal/ Convenience
Note. *p < .05. **p < .01
FIGURE 4. Results for Dining Motivation Responses: Social Occasion
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01
for 2 of the 10 individual paths: environment
→ brand image (p = .042) and food quality
→ brand image (p = .018). The multigroup
analysis found structural differences in the
model, in particular in the way customers
perceive the connections among restaurant
experiences, brand image, satisfaction, and
loyalty according to dining motivation.
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

Jin, Lee, and Huffman 545
TABLE 6. Moderating Effects of Dining Motivation (Quick Meal/ Convenience Versus
Social Occasion)
Model χ 2 df χ 2 df Significant level (p)
Unconstrained 509.707 246 NA NA .000∗∗
Constrained
Environment → Brand image 513.833 247 4.126 1 .042∗
Environment → Satisfaction 512.014 247 2.307 1 .129
Food quality → Brand image 515.352 247 5.645 1 .018∗
Food quality → Satisfaction 509.903 247 0.658 1 .658
Price fairness → Brand image 510.169 247 0.462 1 .497
Price fairness → Satisfaction 510.985 247 1.278 1 .258
Brand image → Satisfaction 511.573 247 1.866 1 .172
Brand image → Loyalty 510.608 247 0.901 1 .342
Satisfaction → Loyalty 509.808 247 0.101 1 .751
∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.
Therefore, Hypothesis 10 gains partial
support.
DISCUSSION
This study examines the relationship among
environment, food quality, price fairness, brand
image, satisfaction, and loyalty in the full-
service restaurant segment. The results clearly
show that brand image has a significant effect
on customers’ loyalty and concurrently, environ-
ment and food quality have critical impacts on
brand image. The findings suggest several theo-
retical and managerial implications. From a the-
oretical standpoint, this study plays an important
role in extending understanding of brand image
as a critical factor in customers’ loyalty through
a comprehensive conceptual model and empiri-
cal study.
While the importance of environment, food
quality, price, and brand image has endured
wide discussion in the hospitality literature,
little research has emphasized the relation-
ship among these constructs. Based on previ-
ous research, this study uses three constructs
(e.g., environment, food quality, and price fair-
ness) as antecedents of brand image to verify
the relationship, empirically, and suggests that
environment and food quality are important
predictors of brand image for full-service
restaurants. Moreover, the exact relationship
among brand image, customers’ satisfaction,
and customers’ loyalty in a restaurant setting
has not been clear. This study addresses this
question as well, and the findings show that
the brand image of a restaurant is an indica-
tor of customers’ loyalty but not customers’
satisfaction.
In addition, analysis of different dining moti-
vations, evaluated the research framework sepa-
rately for quick service / convenience and social
occasions with a series of structural equation
model analyses. The result of this study may
contribute to the literature in the sense that
it examined different restaurant motivations:
quick meal/ convenience and social occasion, as
moderator in the relationship among environ-
ment, food quality, price fairness, brand image,
satisfaction, and customer loyalty. The find-
ings of this study suggested that environment
and food quality were significant predictors
of brand image in full-service restaurants and
brand image was influenced differently by type
of dining motivation: quick meal / convenience
and social occasion. Different dining moti-
vations play a significant moderating role
that can affect the relationship between envi-
ronment, food quality, and brand image of
full-service restaurants. This study found that
while food quality is the stronger predic-
tor of brand image for respondents who had
quick meal/ convenience dining motivations,
environment was the stronger indicator of brand
image in customers who visit a full-service
restaurant because of a social occasion. This
result confirms that the relationship among
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

546 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
consumer experience, brand image formation,
and postdining evaluation, in general, is dis-
similar between restaurant consumers for quick
service/ convenience and restaurant consumers
for social occasions.
This study also has some practical and man-
agerial implications for restaurant marketers and
managers. First, price fairness strongly influ-
ences customer satisfaction among this popu-
lation. Therefore, restaurateurs should provide
customers with reasonable prices that are con-
sistent with the reference prices that customers
have internalized through previous dining expe-
riences at restaurants of similar type. If a restau-
rant excessively emphasizes quality of service
with relatively expensive prices, customers may
not be satisfied with their dining experiences,
regardless of the high quality service, because
they feel that the prices are unfair. In this sense,
one management approach is to consider an
appropriate balance between quality and reason-
able price when developing various menu items.
In addition, customers’ perception of reasonable
prices, as indicated by the findings in this study,
does not mean that customers will have a posi-
tive brand image of the restaurant. For example,
lowering prices may have a negative impact
on brand image because this causes confusion
among customers, and generates a perception of
unstable brand quality (Winer, 1986). Swani and
Yoo (2010) also argued that price incentives do
not have an identical effect across brands but
a differing effect according to the price level
of the brand, indicating that price incentives
for a high-priced brand may lead to a negative
effect on brand equity. In these respects, full-
service restaurant managers should be careful
when employing discount price strategies that
are common to fast and quick service segments
as this marketing strategy may adversely affect
the brand image of the full-service restaurant.
Second, environment and food quality have a
significant independent role that influences for-
mation of customers’ loyalty. Particularly, the
environment proved to be a stronger predictor
of brand image than did food quality. Elements
of the environment (e.g., furnishings, atmo-
sphere, and employees) are likely to distin-
guish a specific restaurant from its competitors.
Accordingly, if financial resources are available,
creating an appealing environment is critical for
full-service restaurants in order to strengthen
positive brand image, thereby improving the
chances of retaining customers. For example,
restaurateurs should consider a selection and
arrangement of furniture that engenders an ideal
ambience for the dining experience. In addition,
restaurateurs could provide unified and differen-
tiated clothing for employees along with regular
quality-service training in order to insure deliv-
ery of an ambience congruent with the restau-
rant’s overall brand image. Further, the findings
of the current study suggest that a customer’s
food quality perception is the predictor that
evaluates brand image. For example, appeal-
ing presentation and a healthy menu might
be more important in full-service restaurants
than in fast-food restaurants. Thus, restaurateurs
should carefully consider the elements related to
food quality as a marketing strategy to induce
positive brand image and to improve customers’
experiences.
Third, a greater probability exists for cus-
tomers’ being loyal to full-service restaurants
where the brand images are satisfactory. These
findings suggest that brand image is a criti-
cal factor for customers’ loyalty. Thus, restau-
rant operators should invest in forming a pos-
itive brand image to create an emotional bond
with customers because this affective commit-
ment elevates customers’ resistance to switching
service providers (Mattila, 2001). Particularly,
the three marketing activities (i.e., delivering
fashionable and trendy image, increasing rep-
utation of quality, and establishing familiarity
with customers) found in the current study may
directly impact the brand image of full-service
restaurants. For example, restaurateurs could
advertise their brands through partnerships, as
with social media, logos and sponsorships, and
by participation in socially responsible activi-
ties, in order to imprint positive brand images
on customers’ perceptions.
Last, as the results of the study sug-
gest, consumers evaluate restaurant experiences
differently depending on the dining motivation.
Because food quality was the most important
predictor of brand image among customers who
have quick meal / convenience dining motiva-
tion, and environment was the only antecedent
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

Jin, Lee, and Huffman 547
of brand image among people who have social
occasion dining motivation, restaurateurs can
apply this knowledge to creating more cus-
tomized service and cultivating positive brand
images and customers’ loyalty. This finding sup-
ported by work of Auty’s study (1992), who
found that customers were influenced by the
attributes of a restaurant (e.g., food type, food
quality, value, image/ atmosphere, location, and
so on) and by purchase occasion (social, occa-
sion celebration, and speed/ convenience). More
specifically, the author reported that when the
occasion is a celebration or social night out,
image and atmosphere became a more vital part
than when customers chose a restaurant because
of a fast or convenient meal. Accordingly, the
current study extends the prior literature regard-
ing the role of different occasions for dining
out in the full-service restaurant sector and pro-
vides a fresh viewpoint for the linkage among
vital factors such as environment, food qual-
ity, price fairness, brand image, satisfaction, and
loyalty. There are some managerial implications
based on this result related to different dining
motivations.
First, although, a full-service restaurant deals
with many factors in encouraging their restau-
rants customers to want to recommend and
to come back, full-service restaurant man-
agers may differently allocate resources into
enhancing the environment and quality of food
to improve brand image depending on din-
ing motivations, especially when restaurants
have limited resources with which to develop
brand image strategies. More specifically, full-
service restaurant managers can provide better
environments for customers who visit because
of social occasions, and spend more time and
effort to emphasize high quality food to visi-
tors who just want a quick meal or convenience.
Therefore, in order to reach the target mar-
ket segments, full-service restaurateurs should
recognize the type of dining motivations and
where they should focus their efforts in order to
improve their brand image and further customer
loyalty. To do so, it would be important for
full-service restaurant managers or companies
to know the primary reason (motivation) a cus-
tomer has for visiting such as for a quick meal
or social occasion. Consequently, administrators
of full-service restaurants could add a simple
question on their reservation website that asks
about the reason for coming to the restaurant—
whether just for a meal or for another reason
such as a formal function. Also, employees
could ask their customers the purpose of their
visit before providing a seat.
Second, for people who come to full-service
restaurant primarily for the food, restaurant
managers would be wise to provide more ample
information. For example, managers can train
their staff to present detailed information about
new or popular menu items when their cus-
tomers cannot choose or when they ask for sug-
gestions. In addition, managers can make their
menus more visually appealing and improve the
variety to help their customer when they decide
on what to order. For example, adding of visi-
ble food images and developing of various menu
options such as a healthy food option or vege-
tarian foods can help customers to choose their
own food in the restaurant. By doing so, cus-
tomers will satisfy their food needs, and brand
image of the full-service restaurants will ulti-
mately be improved.
On the other hand, social occasions or busi-
ness functions, in addition to enjoying a meal,
can be significant reasons for using a full-
service restaurant. Results of this study showed
that environment was only a significant pre-
dictor of brand image in the “social occa-
sion group” of dining motivation. This reveals
that restaurant managers could consider provid-
ing different services for the social occasion
group compared to quick meal / convenience
group. Full-service restaurant managers or staff
can offer quiet space to customers who are
using the restaurant for a social occasion or
business function in order to make their meet-
ing more comfortable. Managers can provide
separate spaces for these customers by renovat-
ing the interior or simply by rearranging tables.
Furthermore, if managers can control the light-
ing or the volume of the music for those spaces,
this would provide a higher quality of ser-
vice environment. With this kind of thoughtful
consideration, the image of the restaurant would
be improved among customers.
As with all research, limitations exist. First,
this study employs a web-based survey and
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

548 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
respondents answered the survey questions
according to their previous restaurant expe-
riences. The time-gap between dining at the
restaurant and taking the survey could cause
memory bias pertaining to the experiences,
resulting in inaccurate evaluations. Further, this
study only considered full-service restaurants,
and thus, if the data arose from a different seg-
ment, such as fast-food and/ or ethnic-restaurant
segments, the relationship among the constructs
of this study might reveal different results
because the perceptions of brand image may dif-
fer according to restaurant type. Accordingly,
investigation of the role of brand image in other
restaurant segments is an imperative.
Also, as with most previous research, this
study, similar to most previous research, limited
the concept of brand image to favorable aspects
only (e.g., fashion, reputation, and familiarity)
to explain customers’ brand image perceptions.
Unfavorable aspects of brand image (e.g., unfa-
miliarity, aversion) are not considerations in this
study when evaluating customers’ perceptions
of brand image. Future studies may need
to develop a multidimensional construct that
includes unfavorable viewpoints in order to
assess, more precisely, customers’ stated atti-
tudes about engaging in subsequent behav-
iors. This study did not attempt to specify a
hypothesis concerning dining motivation (quick
service/ convenience versus social occasion) in
conjunction with the formation of brand image
because there is a lack of theoretical support
in the previous research. Future inquiry could
extend the present study by further consolidat-
ing the developed hypotheses.
Last, this study focuses on the mecha-
nisms for different influential factors (e.g.,
environment, food quality, price fairness) effects
on customers’ perceptions of brand image
and subsequent behaviors such as satisfaction
and loyalty. However, the current study did
not discuss various other issues that influ-
ence customers’ brand image perceptions. For
example, Gremler and Gwinner (2000) argued
that the interaction between service employ-
ees and customers can create positive service
experiences. Therefore, a reasonable sugges-
tion is that future studies investigate the inter-
action between customers and employees in
restaurants and how it affects customers’ brand
image perceptions. Future studies might also
examine the role of brand image as a moder-
ator between predictors of customers’ loyalty
(e.g., service quality, food quality, and environ-
ment) and actual customers’ loyalty in different
restaurant segments.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural
equation modeling in practice: A review and rec-
ommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin,
103(3), 411–423.
Andreassen, T. W., & Lindestad, B. (1998). Customer loy-
alty and complex services. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 9(1), 7–23.
Auty, S. (1992). Consumer choice and segmentation in the
restaurant industry. Service Industries Journal, 12(3),
324–339.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work
and/ or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shop-
ping value. The Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4),
644–656.
Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The
influence of store environment on quality inferences
and store image. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 22(4), 328–339.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., & Voss, G. B.
(2002). The influence of multiple store environment
cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage
intentions. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 120–141.
Baloglu, S. (2002). Dimensions of customer loy-
alty. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 43(1), 47–59.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-
mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consid-
erations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51(6), 1173–1182.
Berry, L. L., Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (2002).
Managing the total customer experience. MIT Sloan
Management Review,43(3), 85–89.
Berry, L. L., Wall, E. A., & Carbone, L. P. (2006).
Service clues and customer assessment of the ser-
vice experience: Lessons from marketing. Academy of
Management Perspectives,20(2), 43–57.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical
surroundings on customers and employees. The Journal
of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71.
Bloemer, J., De Ruyter, K., & Peeters, P. (1998).
Investigating drivers of bank loyalty: The complex
relationship between image, service quality and satis-
faction. Bank Marketing, 16(7), 276–286.
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

Jin, Lee, and Huffman 549
Bloemer, J., & Ruyter, K. (1998). On the relation-
ship between store image, store satisfaction and store
loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 32(5–6),
499–513.
Clark, M. A., & Wood, R. C. (1998). Consumer loyalty
in the restaurant industry-A preliminary exploration
of the issues. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 10(4), 139–144.
Clark, M. A., & Wood, R. C. (1999). Consumer loyalty in
the restaurant industry: A preliminary exploration of the
issues. British Food Journal, 101(4), 317–327.
Cretu, A. E., & Brodie, R. J. (2007). The influence of
brand image and company reputation where manu-
facturers market to small firms: A customer value
perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(2),
230–240.
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward
an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2) 99–113.
Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990). In search of brand
image: A foundation analysis. Advances in Consumer
Research, 17(1),110–119.
Erdem, T., Swait, J., & Louviere, J. (2002). The impact
of brand credibility on consumer price sensitivity.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(1),
1–19.
Faullant, R., Matzler, K., & Füller, J. (2008). The impact
of satisfaction and image on loyalty: The case of
Alpine ski resorts. Managing Service Quality, 18(2),
163–178.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement
error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18(3), 382–388.
Fu, Y., & Parks, S. C. (2001). The relationship between
restaurant service quality and consumer loyalty among
the elderly. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
25(3), 320–326.
Gremler, D. D., & Gwinner, K. P. (2000). Customer-
employee rapport in service relationships. Journal of
Service Research, 3(1), 82–104.
Grönroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its mar-
keting implications. European Journal of Marketing,
18(4), 36–44.
Ha, J., & Jang, S. (2010a). Perceived values, satisfaction,
and behavioral intentions: The role of familiarity in
Korean restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 29(1), 2–13.
Ha, J., & Jang, S. (2010b). Effects of service quality and
food quality: The moderating role of atmospherics in
an ethnic restaurant segment. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 29(3), 520–529.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W.
C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis: With readings.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Han, H., & Ryu, K. (2009). The roles of the physical envi-
ronment, price perception, and customer satisfaction in
determining customer loyalty in the restaurant indus-
try. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33(4),
487–510.
Hellier, P. K., Geursen, G. M., Carr, R. A., & Rickard,
J. A. (2003). Customer repurchase intention. European
Journal of Marketing, 37(11–12), 1762–1800.
Hu, H. H., Kandampully, J., & Juwaheer, T. D. (2009).
Relationships and impacts of service quality, per-
ceived value, customer satisfaction, and image: an
empirical study. The Service Industries Journal, 29(2),
111–125.
Hyun, S. S. (2010). Predictors of relationship quality
and loyalty in the chain restaurant industry. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 51(2),
251–267.
Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. W. (1978). Brand loyalty:
Measurement and management. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Jacoby, J., & Olson, J. C. (1977). Consumer response
to price: An attitudinal, information processing per-
spective. Moving Ahead with Attitude Research, 39,
73–97.
Josiam, B. M., & Monteiro, P. A. (2004). Tandoori
tastes: Perceptions of Indian restaurants in America.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 16(1), 18–26.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986).
Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements
in the market. The American Economic Review, 76(4),
728–741.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and
managing customer-based brand equity. The Journal of
Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.
Kim., W. G., & Kim, H.-B. (2004). Measuring customer-
based restaurant brand equity. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45(2),
115–131.
Kim, Y. G., Suh, B. W., & Eves, A. (2010). The
relationships between food-related personality traits,
satisfaction, and loyalty among visitors attending
food events and festivals. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 29(2), 216–226.
Kim, Y. S., Raab, C., & Bergman, C. (2010). Restaurant
selection preferences of mature tourists in Las
Vegas: A pilot study. International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 11(2),
157–170.
Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R., & Reece, J. (2000). Consumer
research in the restaurant environment. Part 3: Analysis,
findings and conclusions. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(1),
13–30.
Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool.
Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48–64.
Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and the
measurement of psychological forces. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

550 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
Martenson, R. (2007). Corporate brand image, satisfaction
and store loyalty: A study of the store as a brand, store
brands and manufacturer brands. International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(7), 544–555.
Martin-Consuegra, D., Molina, A., & Esteban, Á. (2007).
An integrated model of price, satisfaction and loyalty:
An empirical analysis in the service sector. Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 16(7), 459–468.
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., & Rigdon, E. (2001).
Experiential value: Conceptualization, measurement
and application in the catalog and Internet shopping
environment. Journal of Retailing, 77(1), 39–56.
Mattila, A. S. (2001). Emotional bonding and restaurant
loyalty. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 42(6), 73–79.
Mudambi, S. M., Doyle, P., & Wong, V. (1997). An
exploration of branding in industrial markets. Industrial
Marketing Management, 26(5), 433–446.
Muller, C. C. (1998). Endorsed branding: The next step
in restaurant-brand management. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 90–96.
Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. (2007). Does food quality really
matter in restaurants? Its impact on customer satisfac-
tion and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 31(3), 387–409.
Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. (2008). Are highly satisfied
restaurant customers really different? A quality
perception perspective. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(2),
142–155.
Oh, H. (2000). The effect of brand class, brand awareness,
and price on customer value and behavioral intentions.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(2),
136–162.
Oh, J., Fiorito, S. S., Cho, H., & Hofacker, C. F. (2008).
Effects of design factors on store image and expectation
of merchandise quality in web-based stores. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 15(4), 237–249.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents
and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of
Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? The
Journal of Marketing, 63, 33–44.
Oliver, R. L. (2010). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective
on the consumer. New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Park, C. (2004). Efficient or enjoyable? Consumer val-
ues of eating-out and fast food restaurant consump-
tion in Korea. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 23(1), 87–94.
Pavesic, D. V. (1989). Psychological aspects of menu pric-
ing. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
8(1), 43–49.
Petrick, J. F. (2005), Segmenting cruise passengers
with price sensitivity. Tourism Management, 26(5),
753–762.
Pine, I., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the
experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4),
97–105.
Raajpoot, N. (2002). TANGSERV: A multiple item scale
for measuring tangible quality in foodservice indus-
try. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 5(2),
109–127.
Ranaweera, C., & Neely, A. (2003). Some moderat-
ing effects on the service quality-customer retention
link. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 23(2), 230–248.
Ryu, K., Han, H., & Jang, S. (2010). Relationships among
hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction and behav-
ioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant indus-
try. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 22(3), 416–432.
Ryu, K., Han, H., & Kim, T. H. (2008). The relation-
ships among overall quick-casual restaurant image,
perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behav-
ioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 27(3), 459–469.
Schall, M. (2003). Best practices in the assessment of
hotel-guest attitudes. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 51–65.
Sulek, J. M., & Hensley, R. L. (2004). The relative impor-
tance of food, atmosphere, and fairness of wait. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45(3),
235–247.
Swani, K., & Yoo, B. (2010). Interactions between
price and price deal. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 19(2), 143–152.
Sweeney, J., & Swait, J. (2008). The effects of brand cred-
ibility on customer loyalty. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 15(3), 179–193.
Tauber, E. M. (1972). Why do people shop? The Journal
of Marketing, 36(4), 46–49.
Tepeci, M. (1999). Increasing brand loyalty in the hospi-
tality industry. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 11(5), 223–230.
Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A.,
Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2009).
Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics
and management strategies. Journal of Retailing, 85(1),
31–41.
Villarejo-Ramos, A. F., & Sanchez-Franco, M. J. (2005).
The impact of marketing communication and price
promotion on brand equity. The Journal of Brand
Management, 12(6), 431–444.
Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1999). Customer
response to intangible and tangible service factors.
Psychology and Marketing, 16(1), 51–68.
Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/ consumption-
based affective responses and postpurchase
processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3),
258–270.
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012

Jin, Lee, and Huffman 551
Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991). The dimension-
ality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer
satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1),
84–91.
Williams, A. (2006). Tourism and hospitality marketing:
Fantasy, feeling and fun. International of Contem-
porary Hospitality Management, 18(6), 482–495.
Winer, R. S. (1986). A reference price model of brand
choice for frequently purchased products. Journal of
Consumer Research, 13(2), 250–256.
Wu, C. H., & Liang, R. D. (2009). Effect of experiential
value on customer satisfaction with service encoun-
ters in luxury-hotel restaurants. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 586–593.
Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Cox, J. L. (2004). The price
is unfair! A conceptual framework of price fairness
perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 1–15.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price,
quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis
of evidence. The Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
SUBMITTED: September 6, 2011
FINAL REVISION SUBMITTED:
February 16, 2012
ACCEPTED: March 5, 2012
REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY
Downloaded by [Texas Technology University], [Naehyun (Paul) Jin] at 08:29 08 August 2012
View publication statsView publication stats