THE IMPACT OF SUSTAINABLE FOOD ON RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS' EXPERIENCE AND DECISION-MAKING PDF Free Download
1 / 166/166
100%
THE IMPACT OF SUSTAINABLE FOOD ON RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS’
EXPERIENCE AND DECISION-MAKING
By
LU LU
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
Carson College of Business
MAY 2016
© Copyright by LU LU, 2016
All Rights Reserved
© Copyright by LU LU, 2016
All Rights Reserved
ii
To the Faculty of Washington State University:
The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of LU LU find it
satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.
Dogan Gursoy, Ph.D., Co-Chair
Christina Geng-qing Chi, Ph.D., Co-Chair
Nancy Swanger, Ph.D.
Jeffrey Joireman, Ph.D.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, my utmost gratitude goes to my major advisors: Dr. Dogan Gursoy
and Dr. Christina Chi. Throughout my Ph.D. studies at Washington State University, Drs.
Gursoy and Chi have provided enormous support that helped me accomplish the transition from
a Ph.D. student to an independent scholar. Dr. Gursoy is a role model that exemplifies
outstanding scholarship and exceptional mentorship. His encouragement and positive outlook
towards life have always motivated me to produce meaningful research and assisted me in
overcoming challenges. His commitment to academia and his students’ success will continue to
influence my career trajectory after I earn my Ph.D. degree. I am very fortunate to have Dr. Chi
as my co-advisor. Professionally, Dr. Chi demonstrates all the abilities required to become an
influential researcher and excellent hospitality educator. Personally, I highly appreciate Dr. Chi’s
emotional support throughout my Ph.D. studies in countless ways. Besides school work, I
cherish every moment and holiday that we celebrated together. Drs. Gursoy and Chi are icons of
integrity, hard work, and inspiration. I am humbled and honored to have these two outstanding
researchers to serve as my dissertation co-chairs. They will continue to make positive influences
throughout the rest of my career.
I would also like to extend my appreciation to the other two committee members that
have provided assistance: Dr. Swanger and Dr. Joireman. Dr. Swanger has inspired me to pursue
research streams that not only contribute to theory but also foster the progress of the hospitality
industry. As a department chair, Dr. Swanger is extremely approachable, understanding, and
compassionate. I appreciate all the support she has provided throughout my Ph.D. journey. I
admire Dr. Joireman’s devotion to research and classroom excellence. Dr. Joireman has inspired
iv
my passion for consumer behavior research, which will continue to grow throughout my
academic career.
I also want to thank the faculty, staff, and fellow Ph.D. students in the School of
Hospitality Business Management and my friends at Washington State University. Thank you for
providing support along the way. Thank you for making my Ph.D. adventure full of joy and
pleasure.
Finally, yet importantly, a giant thank you to my mother, Fengying Qi and my father,
Bingzhong Lu. They are the ultimate reason that I work so hard for everything. Their endless
love makes me brave and gives me the courage to embrace challenges. Mom and dad, you are
my world.
v
THE IMPACT OF SUSTAINABLE FOOD ON RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS’
EXPERIENCE AND DECISION-MAKING
Abstract
by Lu Lu, Ph.D.
Washington State University
May 2016
Chair: Dogan Gursoy; Christina Geng-qing Chi
The first study aims to explore perceived the hedonic/utilitarian value of organic dining
and the relationships between their antecedents (i.e., involvement) and outcomes (i.e.,
satisfaction and behavioral intentions). The results suggest that perceived hedonic value has two
dimensions (e.g., Dining-Centered Excitement and Social Attention & Escapism) and so does
perceived utilitarian value (e.g., Tangible Value and Intangible Value). Involvement with organic
food is a significant antecedent of perceived value. Satisfaction mediates the relationship
between perceived hedonic value and behavioral intentions. However, it does not mediate the
relationship between perceived utilitarian value and behavioral intentions.
The second study examines the impact of sustainable ingredients on diners' restaurant
choices. A scenario-based experiment was conducted with 405 U.S. consumers. MANCOVA
results indicate that using sustainable ingredients (e.g., organic food), despite charging a
premium price, offers a greater advantage for the quick service segment regarding perceived
food quality, attitudes and willingness to select the restaurant when compared to casual dining
and upscale segments. The magnitude of a premium price of organic ingredients negatively
vi
influences consumers’ decision-making. When a small premium price is charged, customers
perceive the restaurant with better food quality and consumers have more favorable attitudes
compared to the rival restaurant. When a large premium price is charged, customers are more
willing to choose its rival which offers a conventional menu.
The third study explores whether or not disclosing local suppliers’ information using
menu stimuli (e.g., picture and descriptive messages) can increase diners’ attitudes and purchase
intentions of local food at restaurants. A scenario-based experiment was administered to 830
U.S. consumers. The three-way ANCOVA results suggest that involvement has a significant
main effect on attitudes and purchase intentions. A significant three-way interaction effect also
exists for both dependent variables (e.g., attitudes and purchase intentions). When consumers
exhibit low levels of involvement with local food, travelers’ reactions towards three menu
treatments (e.g., picture, descriptive messages and control) significantly differ from that of
residents. However, no differences between these two types of diners exist in their responses to
the three menu treatments when consumers present high levels of involvement with local food.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................. iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ v-vi
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... xiii
MANUSCRIPTS
1. MANUSCRIPT ONE .........................................................................................................1
Introduction ..............................................................................................................1
Literature review .....................................................................................................3
Organic food and organic dining ................................................................3
Perceived value ............................................................................................5
Perceived hedonic/utilitarian value and restaurant segments .....................6
Involvement and perceived value ...............................................................9
Perceived value and satisfaction ...............................................................10
Perceived value and behavioral intentions ................................................13
Method ..................................................................................................................15
Measures ...................................................................................................15
Procedure and sample ................................................................................16
Results ....................................................................................................................18
Structure of perceived value, reliabilities and correlation analysis ..........18
Hypotheses testing ....................................................................................20
Involvement as an antecedent of perceived value .........................20
viii
Perceived value, satisfaction, behavioral intentions, and mediation analysis
....................................................................................................................21
Discussion and implications .................................................................................24
Theoretical implications ............................................................................24
Managerial implications ............................................................................28
Limitation and future research ..............................................................................30
References .............................................................................................................31
Appendix ...............................................................................................................51
A. Initial items of perceived value ................................................................ 51
B. Variables and measures for data analysis ............................................... 52
2. MANUSCRIPT TWO .............................................................................................................. 53
Introduction ...........................................................................................................53
Literature review ...................................................................................................55
Healthy eating and sustainable dining ......................................................56
Food quality, attitudes, and willingness to select .....................................57
Food, price, and restaurant segments ........................................................61
Method ..................................................................................................................65
Study design and sample ...........................................................................65
Procedure and measures ............................................................................66
Results ...................................................................................................................68
Sample profile and treatment conditions ..................................................68
Hypothesis testing .....................................................................................69
Discussion and implications .................................................................................74
ix
Theoretical implications ............................................................................74
Managerial implications ............................................................................78
Limitation and future extensions ..........................................................................81
References .............................................................................................................83
Appendix ...............................................................................................................97
A. Scenarios of each experimental condition .............................................. 97
B. Price treatment by experiment conditions .............................................. 99
3. MANUSCRIPT THREE ........................................................................................................ 100
Introduction .........................................................................................................100
Literature review .................................................................................................102
Consuming local food: travelers and residents .......................................102
Menu complexity and consumer perceptions .........................................105
Visual and verbal depictions in promoting local menu items .................106
Involvement ............................................................................................110
Method ................................................................................................................113
Study design and sample .........................................................................113
Procedure and measures ..........................................................................115
Results .................................................................................................................116
Sample profile .........................................................................................116
Hypotheses testing ..................................................................................118
Discussion and implications ...............................................................................122
Theoretical implications ..........................................................................122
Managerial implications ..........................................................................126
x
Limitation and future research ............................................................................129
References ...........................................................................................................131
Appendix .............................................................................................................148
A. Scenarios of each experimental condition ............................................ 148
GENERAL CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................150
xi
LIST OF TABLES
MANUSCRIPT ONE
1. Demographics of consumer sample..................................................................................40
2. Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and reliabilities .............................................42
3. Effect of involvement on four value dimensions (quick-service segment) ......................43
4. Effect of involvement on four value dimensions (upscale fine dining segment) .............44
5. Hierarchical regression results: the effect of perceived value of organic dining on
consumer satisfaction .......................................................................................................45
6. Hierarchical regression results: the effects of perceived value of organic dining and
consumer satisfaction on behavioral intentions ................................................................46
7. Hayes process procedure for testing mediating effect of satisfaction (quick-service
segment) ...........................................................................................................................47
8. Hayes process procedure for testing mediating effect of satisfaction (Upscale segment).
..........................................................................................................................................48
MANUSCRIPT TWO
1. Demographic profile of respondents (n = 405) ................................................................90
2. Mean, standard deviations, cell sizes by experimental condition and dependent variables
..........................................................................................................................................91
3. One-way MANCOVA results and univariate follow-ups ................................................92
4. Two-way MANCOVA results and univariate follow-ups ...............................................93
MANUSCRIPT THREE
1. Demographic profile of respondents (n = 830) ..............................................................140
xii
2. Means, standard deviations, cell sizes by experimental condition and dependent
variables ..........................................................................................................................141
3. ANCOVA results for attitudes towards local food items ...............................................142
4. ANCOVA results for purchase intentions of local food items ......................................143
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
MANUSCRIPT ONE
1. Conceptual diagram ..........................................................................................................49
2. Adjusted conceptual diagram based on empirical results ................................................50
MANUSCRIPT TWO
1. Means of perception distance between restaurant A and B regarding food quality .........94
2. Means of perception distance between restaurant A and B regarding attitudes ..............95
3. Means of perception distance between restaurant A and B regarding WTS ....................96
MANUSCRIPT THREE
1. Two-way ANCOVA: attitudes as a function of type of diner and stimulus (visual, verbal,
and control) applied ........................................................................................................144
2. Two-way ANCOVA: purchase intentions as a function of type of diner and stimuli
(visual, verbal, and control) applied ...............................................................................145
3. Three-way ANCOVA: attitudes as a function of diner type, stimuli applied (visual,
verbal, and control), and involvement with local food. ..................................................146
4. Three-way ANCOVA: purchase intentions as a function of diner type, stimuli applied
(visual, verbal, and control), and involvement with local food ......................................147
xiv
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother and father
who provided unconditional support and love
1
MANUSCRIPT ONE
EXAMINATION OF CONSUMER PERCEIVED VALUE OF ORGANIC DININ
1. Introduction
Consumers’ enthusiasm for a healthier and sustainable life has hitherto diversified menu
choices at restaurants, such as light (low-fat/low-calorie) alternatives, gluten-free dishes, organic
and locally sourced food (e.g., Wang et al., 2013). Providing organic food is amongst the fastest
growing restaurant movements and has become a top menu trend in recent years (NRA, 2013,
2015). It is worth noting that organic food is no longer a special diet pursued by a small group of
consumers, but rather has become a mainstream food choice for many Americans (USDA, 2014).
As of today, the United States is a leader in organic consumption, jointly with Germany and
Great Britain, producing the largest sales growth of organic produce (Poulston & Yiu, 2011).
According to the Organic Trade Association (2015), sales of organic products have reached
$39.1 billion, surpassing the record of 2014 by 11.3%. It is forecasted that the U.S. organic food
market will continue to expand at a compound annual growth rate of 14% between 2014 and
2018 (Omkara, 2014). Consumers’ increased patronage of restaurants using organic ingredients
has given rise to the proliferation of organic dining. As the world’s largest restaurant chain,
McDonald’s has incorporated organic ingredients to boost their dwindling sales (Patton, 2014).
Other fast food restaurants including Chipotle, Dig Inn, Elevation Burger, Veggie Grill, Native
Foods, Sweet Green, and others also use organic ingredients to signal a socially responsible
image and to exemplify a mission involving “Food with Integrity” (MacEachern, 2014). Studies
suggest that the growth of the organic market is primarily driven by consumers who perceive
significant benefits in consuming organic food (e.g., Zepeda, & Nie, 2012) such as health
2
benefits and expressions of their world values towards the society and the environment in
general.
The existing literature has explored numerous subjects centered on organic food,
including consumer perceptions (e.g., Sirieix et al., 2013), motivational factors of purchasing
organic products (e.g., Kareklas, Carlson, & Muehling, 2015; Nasir & Karakaya, 2014; Teng &
Wang, 2015), and profiles of organic consumers (Verain et al., 2012; Zepeda & Nie, 2012).
Organic food sales in the U.S. account for 50% of global sales (Organic Trade Association,
2015a). Nevertheless, most of the existing studies are heavily restricted to the European context
with little exploration of American consumers’ opinions and experiences. Moreover, findings of
these studies primarily apply to a grocery shopping context, leaving an obvious challenge for
both researchers and restaurateurs to comprehend consumers’ experience with organic food at
restaurants and the subsequent effects on satisfaction and future behaviors. Although many
restaurants are swimming with the tide of “going organic” (Poulston & Yiu, 2011), academic
research still lags in offering an empirical examination of this significant culinary movement.
When dining out, perceived value is central to consumers’ restaurant experience and
future behaviors (e.g., Harrington et al., 2011; Ryu, Lee, & Gon Kim, 2012; Kim et al., 2013).
While tapping into the organic market, it is critical to understand the perceived value of organic
dining from a customer’s perspective. In contrast to grocery purchases, dining events are more
hedonically driven and often involve frequent interactions with other individuals within and
outside a group. The perceived value of organic dining is likely intertwined with dining
attributes. In addition to better understanding organic food purchases in retail contexts, scholarly
research needs to delve into this culinary trend to bridge the gap with industry’s practices.
3
Therefore, this study aims to explore the perceived hedonic/utilitarian value of organic dining
and its relationships with an antecedent (i.e., involvement) and outcomes (i.e., satisfaction,
behavioral intentions) within two types of restaurant segments (e.g., quick-service and upscale).
Quick-service and upscale restaurants represent the lower and higher end of the restaurant scale,
respectively, and each has distinctive criteria concerning food quality, dining attributes, and
guest expectations (Hwang & Ok, 2013). Therefore, these two segments are selected in order to
capture the perceived value of organic dining from a broader scope.
This study is one of the first attempts to empirically examine the perceived value of
organic dining. Future research in this sphere may draw upon the findings of this study to
address more complicated questions. Although many restaurants have already placed organic
dining into execution, it is critical for managers to more fully understand the underlying
dimensions of perceived value and how perceived value is translated into post-consumption
behaviors. The plethora of perceived benefits associated with organic food needs to be
streamlined and explained within a dining context. Thus, findings of this study may also enable
managers from different restaurant segments to make informed marketing decisions in an effort
to enhance diners' gastronomic experience and retain loyal customers.
2. Literature review
2.1. Organic food and organic dining
Agricultural products are certified as “organic” if they are produced through approved
methods that promote resource cycling, ecological balance, and biodiversity without using
synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics, and growth hormones (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2015).
4
Many consumers consider organic food healthier and tastier than mass produced food, and
believe that it demonstrates responsibility for the environment (Nasir & Karakaya, 2014). In
addition to related merits associated with food quality (e.g., taste, nutrients, and healthiness),
consumers purchase organic food as an expression of their social values and beliefs towards
environmental viability, animal welfare, ethical consumption, and a sustainable lifestyle (e.g.,
Gilg, Barr, & Ford, 2005; Smith & Paladino, 2010). Most consumers indicate that paying a
premium price is reasonable for organic food, considering the higher production costs and
relatively lower yield (Chang & Zepeda, 2004). However, chefs still find a premium price (e.g.,
additional 50-70% food cost) and source availability as major barriers to pursuing an organic
menu and using organic ingredients at restaurants (Brown & Sperow, 2005; Poulston & Yiu,
2011). While earlier studies report organic buyers tend to be older, well-educated, and wealthier
(e.g., Roitner-Schobesberger et al., 2008), recent studies argue that organic consumers are not
limited to a certain demographic group, and the number of organic consumers has significantly
increased (e.g., Nasir & Karakaya, 2013). For example, three in four American families
incorporate organic food into their regular consumption and 58% of consumers express a
preference for organic food over conventional/mass-produced food (Organic Trade Association,
2015a).
Scholarly research on organic dining is embryonic. According to previous research,
restauranteurs have seen a significant shift from conventional dining to healthier organic dining
(Poulston & Yiu, 2011). Many reasons account for restaurants’ motivations to source organic
ingredients. For example, organic dining leads to lucrative returns, helps differentiate restaurants
from competitors, contributes to gastronomic delight and demonstrates restaurants’ beliefs about
5
socially responsible business practices (e.g., Chait, 2014). Besides, restaurants utilize organic
food to connote engagement in green and sustainable practices. According to the Green
Restaurant Association (2007), offering green food (i.e., organic and locally sourced food) is one
of the top three areas where restaurants' green practices are applied (Schubert et al., 2010). Most
American consumers believe that dining at green restaurants helps protect the environment and is
healthier (Schubert et al., 2010). Research demonstrates that restaurants’ sustainable practices
project a socially responsive image in consumers’ minds, which prompts favorable attitudes,
patronage intentions, and meal satisfaction (Kim et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2014). In the case of
organic dining, restaurant managers believe that the growth of organic dining is principally
driven by consumers’ awareness and needs (Poulston & Yiu, 2011). Many consumers believe
that organic food makes a wholesome and healthier meal. Beyond meal attributes, consuming
organic food also allows consumers to seek a sense of recognition and respect from others
(Poulston & Yiu, 2011), given that dining at restaurants is considered a social event and occurs
in the presence of other consumers.
2.2. Perceived value
Perceived value is an essential construct used to understand consumers' decision-making
in business transactions. Given the nebulous nature of perceived value, scholars have proposed a
spectrum of conceptualizations and measurements. One of the most commonly used definitions
is provided by Zeithaml (1988, p. 14) who defines value as “the consumer’s overall assessment
of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given." This
definition assumes that perceived value is a unidimensional construct that serves as a “trade-off”
between perceived benefit and sacrifice (Sánchez-Fernández, & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). This
6
conceptualization is grounded in a traditional view that consumers interpret value as a pure
discrepancy between “utility” and the “price” paid. Many service scholars suggest that perceived
value could be a multidimensional construct capturing various facets within a transaction (e.g.,
Babin et al., 1994; Sheth et al., 1991; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; Jo, Lee, & Reisinger, 2014). For
example, Sheth et al. (1991) propose five distinctive lenses to better understand perceived value:
social, emotional, functional, epistemic, and conditional. Holbrook (1999) conceptualizes value
using three dichotomies: extrinsic/intrinsic, self-oriented/other-oriented, and active/reactive.
Another research stream interprets value drawing on functional, social, and emotional
dimensions (e.g., Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). The perceived value of a dining experience involves
a sophisticated appraisal of many components such as food/meal quality, the efficiency of
service, social interactions, and excitement and pleasure (Park, 2004). A close examination of the
hospitality literature reveals that dining value is predominantly explained through a
hedonic/utilitarian approach (e.g., Jo, Lee, & Reisinger, 2014; Overby & Lee, 2006). Scholars
attribute the pertinence of this value approach to the nature of dining which includes both
hedonic and utilitarian considerations, and studies have confirmed its substantial efficacy in
explaining diners’ decision-making (e.g., Park, 2004; Ryu, Han, & Jang, 2010; Ha & Jang,
2010). Accordingly, this study examines the perceived value beyond a mere trade-off between
"utility" and "price," rather, it employs a hedonic/utilitarian perspective to assess the perceived
value of organic dining.
2.3. Perceived hedonic/utilitarian value and restaurant segments
Babin et al. (1994) theorized that hedonic value is a reflection of the entertainment,
excitement, and emotional worth of a shopping experience. The hedonic notation of a
7
consumption experience stems from the product’s (service’s) uniqueness, symbolic sense, or the
emotional arousal and mental imagery involved (Ha & Jang, 2010). In the context of this study,
diners consume organic food as a way to receive functional or gastronomic benefits (e.g., taste,
healthiness, and concerns about additives) as well as emotional rewards (Hartmann et al., 2006).
When dining on organic food, diners are likely to be emotionally aroused by the excitement of a
new gastronomic experience while engaging in socially and environmentally responsible
practices. This sense of excitement may be amplified when consumers are surrounded by other
consumers in a dining environment. Utilitarian value is assessed by the functional benefits
associated with efficacy, task-oriented attributes, and their economic appraisals of the
product/service. The utilitarian dimension features more cognitive, rational, and instrumental
assessments, as opposed to the hedonic dimension (Babin et al., 1994). Dining on organic food
requires consumers to evaluate the economic costs and task-centered factors (e.g., menu variety,
taste, and healthiness of food provided). From a utilitarian perspective, diners may believe that
dishes prepared using organic ingredients are loaded with nutrients, and are devoid of pesticides
and growth hormones, etc. Therefore, both hedonic and utilitarian assessments constitute the
perceived value of organic dining.
The quality of food is at the heart of consumers’ dining satisfaction. Although the criteria
for high-quality food vary across restaurant segments, food quality is regarded as the most
important factor in influencing consumers’ dining experiences, compared to other attributes
within the same segment (e.g., Harrington et al., 2012; Bujisic, Hutchinson, & Parsa, 2014).
Consumers prioritize dining attributes according to the type of restaurant patronized. When
visiting quick-service restaurants, consumers place an emphasis on a convenient location, speedy
8
service, and good value for money (Harrington et al., 2012). Waiting time is found to be the most
significant factor that compromises consumers’ experience at quick-service restaurants (Sulet &
Hensley, 2004). As for mid-to-upper scale restaurants, research shows that food quality,
atmospherics, and service are essential attributes that affect diners’ emotional states, dining
satisfaction and future behaviors (Hyun & Kang, 2014; Jang & Namkung, 2009; Numkung &
Jang, 2008). Besides being served a higher quality meal, upscale restaurant patrons expect a
sophisticated hedonic experience, and they are less mindful of utilitarian concerns (e.g.,
convenience, cost, and functionality) (Hwang & Ok, 2013). Exquisite cuisines, well-designed
atmospherics, quality service, and friendly staff jointly provide a refined dining experience at
upscale restaurants. In addition, dining at upscale restaurants also satisfies consumers’ emotional
and social needs, such as seeking prestige (Jin, Line, & Merkebu, 2015).
Existing studies have sought to explore the perceived hedonic/utilitarian value within
various restaurant settings. When dining at fast-casual restaurants, studies conclude that
utilitarian value exerts greater influence than the hedonic value on dining satisfaction (e.g.,
Nejati, & Parakhodi Moghaddam, 2013; Ryu, Han, & Jang, 2010). Conversely, Hwang and Ok
(2013) conduct a comparative study between casual dining and upscale restaurants, and suggest
that consumers’ hedonic attitudes consistently surpass their utilitarian attitudes in restaurant
brand preference. In the context of this study, providing menu items using organic ingredients
has a greater likelihood to exceed diners’ expectations at lower scale restaurants, as organic food
denotes better quality than food ingredients normatively used at fast food restaurants. However,
significantly overpriced organic dishes may reduce the perceived utilitarian value and undermine
patrons’ dining experiences to a greater extent at quick-service restaurants, when compared to
9
upscale restaurants (Harrington et al., 2012). Differing from quick-service restaurants, upscale
restaurants are expected to stay abreast of food trends to keep menus exciting and fresh. In
addition to serving functional purposes, presenting organic food at upscale restaurants also adds
spice to an adventurous experience and contributes to guest satisfaction.
2.4. Involvement and perceived value
Involvement has long been discussed in consumer research as a critical psychographic
antecedent of attitudes and decision-making (e.g., Prebensen et al., 2012; Lu, Chi, & Liu, 2015).
Prior research has identified three major domains of consumer involvement: involvement with
products, involvement with advertisements, and involvement with purchase decisions
(Zaichkowsky, 1986). This study confines the scope of involvement through the theoretical lens
of Zaichkowsky’s (1985) personal involvement with a product, which defines involvement as “a
person’s perceived relevance of the consumption object and is based on inherent needs, values,
and interests” (p. 342). Involvement is depicted as a motivational variable that drives an
individual towards the object concerned (Olsen, 2007). Therefore, highly involved individuals
tend to be more receptive to information about the object and place more importance on object
related attributes (Jamrozy, Backman, & Backman, 1996; Rahman & Reynolds, 2015).
In hospitality and tourism studies, personal involvement with products/activities is often
found to predict consumer attitudes and behaviors. For example, Prebensen et al. (2012) identify
a positive link between involvement and the perceived value of destination experience. Rahman
and Reynolds (2015) examine wine drinkers’ product involvement, and find that highly involved
consumers consider wine’s intrinsic attributes (e.g., appearance, bouquet) more important than
10
less concerned consumers. Campbell, DiPietro and Remar’s (2014) study shows that
involvement with local food has a significant influence on the perceptions of product quality.
Involvement occurs when a product meets the utilitarian and/or sign-value, and/or hedonic goals
(Mittal & Lee, 1989). Thus, consumers who are highly involved with organic food are more
likely to generate positive appraisals on the utilitarian merits of meals prepared with organic
ingredients. Further, involvement manifests an internal interest and a pleasant interaction
between one’s self and the product being consumed. When dining on organic cuisines at
restaurants, involvement with organic food may reinforce consumers’ perceived hedonic
experiences of organic dining. Given the nature of involvement, highly involved individuals are
apt to derive more pleasure and emotional capital from organic dining, as opposed to those who
express little interest in organic food. Drawing on the rationale above, it is hypothesized that:
H1: Levels of involvement with organic food significantly predict the perceived hedonic value
of organic dining at (a) quick-service restaurants and (b) upscale restaurants.
H2: Levels of involvement with organic food significantly predict the perceived utilitarian value
of organic dining at (a) quick-service restaurants and (b) upscale restaurants.
2.5. Perceived value and satisfaction
Satisfaction in service contexts has been extensively studied, accompanying a variety of
conceptualizations. This study assesses diners’ satisfaction in light of Oliver’s (1997) definition:
“the consumer’s fulfillment response, the degree to which the level of fulfillment is pleasant or
unpleasant” (p. 28), which delineates an overall emotional response towards a performance. The
positive relationship between perceived value and customer satisfaction has been consistently
tested and confirmed in a service marketing context (e.g., Cronin et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2013).
11
Prior research suggests that value is one of the primary drivers of customer satisfaction across
service sectors (McDougall & Levesque, 2000; Jo et al., 2014). Drawing on the Appraisal-
Emotional Response-Coping theory (Bagozzi, 1992), scholars conclude that consumers’
appraisals (perceived value) are a significant proxy of an emotional response (satisfaction) which
ultimately leads to behavioral intentions (a coping response) (Cronin et al., 2000; Kim et al.,
2013). In line with this value-satisfaction-behavioral intentions framework, dining on organic
food at restaurants leads consumers to make rational judgments regarding cost, efficiency and
dish quality (e.g., taste, healthiness, and safety concerns). A favorable assessment of functional
attributes is apt to foster an overall satisfactory evaluation of the dining experience. Studies
suggest that an evaluation process of service activities needs to incorporate emotional cues (Jo et
al., 2014; Ryu et al., 2010), as providing a pleasant dining experience is paramount to
restaurants’ success. Thus, a positive appraisal of the hedonic experience may directly trigger
customers’ positive responses and meal satisfaction. Numerous studies have documented
significant relationships between perceived hedonic/utilitarian value and dining outcomes (e.g.,
customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions) (e.g., Ha & Jang, 2010; Nejati & Parakhodi
Moghaddam, 2013). However, each value dimension may influence dining outcomes differently,
depending on the type of restaurant visited. For example, Ryu et al. (2010) suggest that when
dining at fast-casual restaurants, utilitarian value trumps hedonic value in determining
satisfaction and intentions to return. Nejati and Parakhodi Moghaddam (2013)’s study concludes
that the impact betwween utilitarian and hedonic values on satisfaction is approximately equal.
In the context of organic dining, both hedonic and utilitarian experiences are assessed, regardless
of the types of restaurant. As the existing literature has barely begun to explore this dining
12
theme, this study limits the hypothesis concerning the magnitude of hedonic and utilitarian
values’ influence on satisfaction. Based on the rationale mentioned above, it is hypothesized that:
H3: The perceived hedonic value of organic dining positively relates to satisfaction at (a) quick-
service restaurants and (b) upscale restaurants.
H4: The perceived utilitarian value of organic dining positively relates to satisfaction at (a)
quick-service restaurants and (b) upscale restaurants.
An overall satisfactory dining experience is critical to the viability of a restaurant
business. Diners’ satisfaction can directly trigger a plethora of post-consumption behaviors such
as revisit intentions, complaining behaviors, positive word-of-mouth (WOM) communications
through social networks, and others (e.g., Ha & Jang, 2010; Ryu et al., 2012; Ryu & Han, 2011;
Namkung & Jang, 2007). While a few studies suggest that satisfaction may be a weak predictor
of repeat patronage (e.g., Chow et al., 2007), most studies that examine the satisfaction-
behavioral intentions link within a restaurant context have reported satisfaction as being a strong
predictor of behavioral intentions (e.g., Kim et al., 2013). For example, Namkung and Jang
(2007) identify a positive relationship between dining satisfaction and behavioral intentions at
mid-to-upscale restaurants. Studies also confirm a significantly positive role of satisfaction in
behavioral intentions at ethnic restaurants (e.g., Ha & Jang, 2010; Ryu et al., 2012). Hence, it is
hypothesized that:
H5: Satisfaction with organic dining is positively related to diners' behavioral intentions at (a)
quick-service restaurants and (b) upscale restaurants.
The Appraisal-Emotional Response-Coping theory suggests that an emotional response
(satisfaction) plays a mediating role in explaining the link between perceived value and
13
behavioral intentions. In previous studies, satisfaction is found to partially mediate the path from
tourists’ perceived value to behavioral intentions (e.g., Chen & Chen, 2010). Satisfaction is also
found to explain the path from restaurants’ image (quick-casual segment) and perceived value to
behavioral intentions (e.g., Ryu, Han, & Kim, 2008). Drawing on the Appraisal-Emotional
Response-Coping theory, Kim et al. (2013) suggest that perceived value leads to patrons’ revisit
intentions of mid-to-upscale restaurants, mostly through satisfaction. Further, Ryu et al. (2010)
conclude that the relationship between perceived hedonic/utilitarian value and behavioral
intentions is explained by consumers’ satisfaction. In the current context, favorable appraisals of
utilitarian and hedonic attributes of organic dishes is likely to result in an overall satisfactory
evaluation of the dining experience, which in turn triggers diners’ intentions to return and spread
positive WOM. It is hypothesized that:
H6: Satisfaction mediates the relationship between perceived hedonic value and behavioral
intentions at (a) quick-service restaurants and (b) upscale restaurants.
H7: Satisfaction mediates the relationship between perceived utilitarian value and behavioral
intentions at (a) quick-service restaurants and (b) upscale restaurants.
2.6. Perceived value and behavioral intentions
Behavioral intentions refer to individuals’ likelihood to engage in behaviors (Oliver,
1997). Zeithamal (1988) and Babin et al. (1994) suggest that behavioral intentions towards a
service or product are activated by consumers’ perceived value. In this study, behavioral
intentions are measured as diners’ post-purchase intentions such as intentions to revisit,
spreading positive word-of-mouth (WOM), and recommending restaurants to friends/family.
Although the Appraisal-Emotional Response-Coping theory delineates a mediating role of
14
satisfaction, perceived value could also directly influence behavioral intentions in the absence of
satisfaction per the Cost-Benefit Framework (Bettman, Johnson, & Payne, 1991; Gursoy &
McCleary, 2004). Specifically, when diners develop positive appraisals of organic dining, repeat
transactions and other positive behaviors towards the restaurant are likely to occur. Dining on
organic food also drives consumers to evaluate the emotional worth, which draws on the
uniqueness and symbolic sense of being an organic patron and the pleasure aroused. As
suggested by Swan and Oliver (1989), WOM may be directly evoked by an emotional response
to a transactional experience. Hence, the perceived hedonic value of organic dining may
instantaneously prompt diners’ post-consumption intentions. Meanwhile, cognitive appraisals of
organic dining involve economic, rational and diet-oriented considerations. Positive evaluations
of these functional attributes might also result in post-purchase behavioral outcomes (e.g., Liu &
Jang, 2009). Drawing on the aforementioned rationale, this study hypothesizes that:
H8: The perceived hedonic value of organic dining positively affects diners’ behavioral
intentions towards (a) quick-service restaurants and (b) upscale restaurants, in the absence of
dining satisfaction.
H9: The perceived utilitarian value of organic dining positively affect diners’ behavioral
intentions towards (a) quick-service restaurants and (b) upscale restaurants, in the absence of
dining satisfaction.
The proposed hypotheses are presented in a conceptual diagram (see Figure 1). Perceived
hedonic/utilitarian value includes attributes identified from the existing literature to characterize
organic dining. Involvement with organic food is proposed as an antecedent of perceived
hedonic/utilitarian value, and satisfaction and behavioral intentions are considered outcome
15
variables. In addition to direct links between these constructs, satisfaction is hypothesized to
mediate the relationship between two value dimensions and behavioral intentions. The
significance of perceived hedonic and utilitarian values of organic dining is further prioritized,
based on empirical results. Considering the substantial limits of literature exploring the perceived
value of organic dining, this study does not hypothesize differences between the two restaurant
segments in the proposed links presented in the conceptual diagram. However, the findings from
both segments are compared and discussed in the implication section.
3. Method
3.1. Measures
Perceived hedonic/utilitarian value was operationalized using existing measures from the
hospitality literature (e.g., Babin et al., 1994; Ha & Jang, 2010) in conjunction with items
identified from studies of organic food consumption, which were tailored to fit the characteristics
of organic dining. Perceived hedonic value was measured with a total of thirteen items, and
perceived utilitarian value was measured by eight items (see Appendix A). Example items of
hedonic value are: “Consuming organic food at restaurants was fun and unique to me,” “Dining
organically entertained me,” and “I felt respected by other consumers when I ordered organic
dishes at restaurants.” The utilitarian value was quantified by items such as “The dish made from
organic ingredients was tasty,” “The cost of organic menu items was reasonable,” and “Dining
organically is healthier to my body compared to conventional menu items.” Items were rated on
a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 7 = “strongly agree”). Involvement was
measured using Zaichkowsky’s (1985) Personal Involvement Inventory comprised of twenty
items. Satisfaction was measured by six items adopted from existing studies (e.g., Ryu et al.,
16
2010) such as “I was pleased to dine in at the restaurant providing organic items,” “The overall
feeling that I got from dining on organic food at the restaurant was satisfactory,” and “I was
happy with the dining experience at the restaurant where I had organic dish/dishes.” Behavioral
intentions were measured using items such as “I would like to revisit the restaurant where I had
organic items,” “I would recommend the restaurant where I had organic items to my friends and
others,” and “I would say positive things about the restaurant where I consumed organic food.”
3.2. Procedure and sample
Before the survey was administered to two groups of consumers, a total of seven
hospitality academics examined the structure and verbiage of the questionnaire to ensure the face
validity. Research instruments were further polished by drawing on suggestions of these
experienced scholars. Then, consumers were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk
(www.mturk.com), and only qualified participants were directed to complete an online survey
launched through Qualtrics. Responses completed within an excessively short period (< 2 min)
suggested that respondents rushed through the task and thus were removed. A randomization
technique was applied throughout the measures of the questionnaire. Therefore, the sequence of
constructs and items within each construct were fully randomized prior to presenting them to
each respondent. This approach allowed researchers to minimize method biases, including order
effect, hypothesis guessing, item priming, and context induced mood (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Two sets of questionnaires were administered simultaneously. Consumers were allowed to take a
part in this study upon meeting the following criteria: they must currently reside in the U.S. and
have purchased organic food at either quick-service restaurants or upscale restaurants over the
past six months. A total of 624 (323 = quick-service segment, 301 = upscale segment) consumers
17
started the survey, and 387 responses (202 = quick-service segment, 185 = upscale segment)
were included in the final dataset after the screening procedure was applied. Consumers’
demographics are presented in Table 1. Among participants who visited quick-service restaurants
for organic food, females (59.7%) slightly outnumbered males (40.3%). The majority of the
participants were in the age brackets of “26-34” (37.81%), “35-54” (32.84%), and “18-25”
(23.88%). Approximately 40.3% of the participants were “Married”, and 38.81% of them were
“Single.” This set of consumer data captured diverse ethnic groups which were dominated by
“Caucasian/White” (77.89%).
The second data set included customers who visited fine dining restaurants for organic
food. This consumer sample contained more females (60.87%) than males (39.13%). Most of the
participants were in the age brackets of "26-34" (41.85%) and "35-54" (36.41%). About 36.13%
of the participants were “Married” and 35.33% of them were reported as “Single.” Less than half
of them earned a “Bachelor’s degree” (41.53%), followed by “Associate degree” (21.31), “High
school graduate” (16.39%), “Master’s degree” (15.30%), and “Doctoral degree” (3.28%). Most
of these participants were “Caucasian/White” (75.41%). Both sets of consumer data were
distributed across all presented occupation and income levels.
Due to the exploratory nature of perceived value of organic dining, a factor analysis was
first conducted as a data reduction method using principal component analysis with Varimax
rotation (Hair et al., 2010). Dimensions of the hedonic/utilitarian value were determined using
eigenvalue greater than 1.0 as a criterion (Kaiser, 1960). Internal consistencies of variables were
examined using reliability alphas. Items were then converted into composite scores before
proceeding to hierarchical regression analyses. To test the proposed hypotheses, a total of six
18
hierarchical regression analyses were performed separately. The mediating effect of satisfaction
on the relationship between hedonic/utilitarian value and behavioral intentions was gauged via
Hayes (2013) process procedure that allowed the examination of the effect size and significance
levels of total effect, direct effect, and indirect effect. Respondents’ hunger levels, income, and
age were included as control variables before primary predictors were entered.
4. Results
4.1. Structure of perceived value, reliabilities and correlation analysis
A standard factor analysis was performed to reduce the size of measures and uncover the
underlying dimensions of the hedonic/utilitarian value of organic dining within each restaurant
segment. Assumptions for the factor analysis were examined before concluding a factor
structure, such as data distribution (skewness & kurtosis), sampling adequacy (Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin score), anti-image, and commonalities. Inferior items were deleted one at a time to ensure
the rigor of analysis. In the case of quick-service restaurants, the final structure of hedonic value
contained ten items representing two factors (Appendix B). The first factor included items such
as “Consuming organic food at restaurants was fun and unique to me,” “The time spent on dining
organic food at restaurants was truly enjoyable, compared to other things I could have done,” and
“Having organic food at restaurants made me excited about the dining experience,” which
featured a “Dining-Centered Excitement.” The second factor emphasized the perceived social
attentions from other customers and a sense of escapism from routines, containing items such as
“I felt that I was recognized by people around me when I ordered an organic menu item” and
“Consuming food made from organic ingredients made me feel an escape from ordinary life.”
Therefore, this dimension was named as “Social Attention & Escapism.” The utilitarian value
19
was found to have two dimensions as well including seven items. Three items converged to
represent the “Tangible Value” of organic dining, such as "The cost of my organic items was
reasonable,” “The dish made from organic ingredients was tasty, and "The portion of the organic
dish was reasonable.” Four items represented the “Intangible Value” of organic dining, such as
“Dining organically is healthier for my body compared to conventional menu items,” “I think
organic menu items were more nutritious than conventional food,” “I ordered food with organic
ingredients to avoid pesticides, antibiotics, growth hormones, etc.” At quick-service restaurants,
utilitarian value of organic dining was characterized by “Tangible Value” which evaluated
tangible attributes such as cost, taste, and portion of dish, and “Intangible Value” which featured
an appraisal of intangible aspects of organic dining such as healthiness, quality, concerns about
pesticides, growth hormones, etc. The same procedure applied to the dataset of upscale
restaurants. Results revealed small variances in factor loadings and identified a different item for
“Dining-Centered Excitement” at upscale restaurants (vs. quick-service restaurants) (see
Appendix B). Overall, final solutions of the factor analysis yielded a two-dimensional structure
for each value type, thus explaining over 62% of total variance within each dataset.
Internal consistencies were examined, and results were listed in Table 2. Reliability
scores ranged from 0.720 to 0.973 in the dataset of quick-service restaurants; scores ranged from
0.642 to 0.972 within the dataset of upscale restaurants. Items within each factor were converted
to a composite score for hierarchical regression analyses. Table 2 presents the descriptive
statistics, reliability ratings, and pairwise correlations among research variables. Regarding the
quick-service segment, an examination of correlations suggested that involvement was
significantly correlated with all value dimensions especially with Intangible Value (r = 0.706, p
20
< .01) and Dining-Centered Excitement (r = 0.513, p < .01). All value dimensions were
significantly correlated with satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Dining-Centered Excitement
(satisfaction: r = 0.707, p < .01; behavioral intentions: r = 0.684, p < .01) and Tangible Value
(satisfaction: r = 0.656, p < .01; behavioral intentions: r = 0.639, p < .01) exerted relatively
greater influence than other types. Overall, correlations between involvement and the four value
dimensions were stronger within upscale restaurants, when compared to the quick-service
restaurants. The four value dimensions were positively related to satisfaction regardless of
restaurant segments. Correlation results suggested that perceived value exhibited a larger impact
on behavioral intentions at upscale restaurants, when compared to quick-service restaurants.
4.2. Hypotheses testing
4.2.1. Involvement as an antecedent of perceived value
Hypothesis 1 and 2 proposed that involvement with organic food is a critical precursor of
perceived hedonic/utilitarian value of organic dining. Four value dimensions were regressed on
involvement, respectively after control variables (e.g., hunger, income, and age) were entered.
Results at quick-service restaurants are presented in Table 3. It was found that none of the
covariates influenced perceived hedonic/utilitarian value. Involvement exerted significant
impacts on all four value dimensions (Dining-Centered Excitement: β =.516, p < .001; Social
Attention & Escapism: β = .244, p < .001; Tangible Value: β = .265, p < .001; and Intangible
Value: β = .698, p < .001). It is noticeable that Intangible Value (a utilitarian dimension) and
Dining-Centered Excitement (a hedonic dimension) were more influenced by involvement than
the other two value dimensions. The results of the quick-service segment fully support
21
hypotheses 1a and 2a. Therefore, involvement was positively related to perceived
hedonic/utilitarian value of organic dining at quick-service restaurants.
The results at the upscale restaurants (Table 4) suggested that females (β = .168, p < .05)
and older consumers (β = .169, p < .05) were more likely to discern Intangible Value of organic
dining, as opposed to males and younger consumers. Involvement had a primary influence on
perceived Intangible Value (β = .720, p < .001) and Dining-Centered Excitement (β = .528, p
< .001) of dining organic food at upscale restaurants. As suggested by the findings (Table 4),
involvement also significantly affected Social Attention & Escapism (β = .408, p < .001) and
Tangible Value (β = .399, p < .001). Hence, involvement was positively related to hedonic and
utilitarian value of organic dining at upscale restaurants, supporting hypotheses 1b and 2b. The
findings drawing on the two groups of customers indicated that involvement is a relatively
stronger predictor of perceived value when consumers visit upscale restaurants versus quick-
service restaurants.
4.2.2. Perceived value, satisfaction, behavioral intentions, and mediation analysis
Hierarchical regression analyses were undertaken to examine the predictive role of
perceived value in dining satisfaction. Consumer satisfaction was regressed on each of the four
value dimensions. Control variables were entered in the first step, followed by the entry of four
hedonic and utilitarian dimensions. The results for both restaurant segments are presented in
Table 5. According to the findings, Dining-Centered Excitement (β = .546, p < .001) and
Tangible Value (β = .361, p < .001) exerted significant influence on consumers’ dining
satisfaction at quick-service restaurants. Perceived value as a whole explained 60.3% variance in
dining satisfaction at quick-service restaurants. Social Attention & Escapism and Intangible
22
Value were not able to affect satisfaction when all value dimensions were controlled for.
Therefore, hypotheses 3a and 4a are supported. In the case of upscale restaurants, three out of
four value dimensions significantly influence customer satisfaction, including Dining-Centered
Excitement, (β = .654, p < .001), Tangible Value (β = .256, p < .001), and Social Attention &
Escapism (β = -.130, p < .05), jointly explaining 55.2% total variance. Hypothesis 4b proposed a
positive role of utilitarian value at upscale restaurants and is thus supported by the findings.
However, Social Attention & Escapism was identified to have a negative influence (β = -.130, p
< .05) on customer satisfaction. Therefore, Hypothesis 3b is rejected.
Two separate hierarchical regression analyses were then carried out to gauge the leverage
of perceived value on behavioral intentions and the mediating effect of consumer satisfaction.
The results are presented in Table 6. Three out of four dimensions of perceived value were
identified as significant predictors of behavioral intentions, including Dining-Centered
Excitement (β = .429, p < .001), Tangible Value, (β = .329, p < .001), and Intangible Value (β
= .211, p < .001). Perceived value explained 59.5% of the total variance of behavioral intentions
towards quick-service restaurants. Likewise, similar findings were concluded for upscale
restaurants. Three value dimensions (Dining-Centered Excitement: β = .510, p < .001; Tangible
Value: β = .266, p < .001; and Intangible Value: β = .204, p < .001) were positively associated
with behavioral intentions, while contributing to 58.8% of the total variance. The results also
(Table 6) revealed that satisfaction significantly led to behavioral intentions in both restaurant
segments (quick-service: β = .630, p < .001; upscale: β = .586, p < .001). Overall, consumers’
behavioral intentions were mostly accounted for by perceived value (quick-service: ∆R2 = .574;
23
upscale: ∆R2 = .581) in comparison to satisfaction (quick-service: ∆R2 = .152; upscale: ∆R2
= .148).
The results exhibited in Table 6 also suggest a mediating effect of satisfaction. After
satisfaction was entered, Dining-Centered Excitement was no longer significant, and its
standardized coefficient dropped dramatically (quick-service: β = .429, p < .001 .086, p > .05;
upscale: β = .510, p < .001 .127, p > .05). Tangible Value became less influential in predicting
behavioral intentions (quick-service: β = .329, p < .001 β = .102, p < .05; upscale: β = .266
β =.116, p < .05). The standardized coefficient of Intangible Value slightly dropped for both
restaurants (quick-service: β = .211, p < .001 β =.188, p < .001; upscale: β = .204 β =.203,
p < .001). These changes suggest a mediating effect of satisfaction between perceived value and
behavioral intentions.
Two separate mediation analyses were then conducted following Hayes process
procedure (Hayes, 2013). Using a recommended bootstrapping technique (sample size corrected
to 1000), the results showed that Dining-Centered Excitement did not have an indirect
relationship (quick-service: 95% confidence interval [CI] = -.051 - .224; upscale: [CI] = -.004
- .267) with behavioral intentions but only exhibited an indirect relationship with behavioral
intentions through satisfaction (quick-service: 95% [CI] = .195 - .558; upscale: [CI] = .228 -.535)
for both restaurant segments, as suggested by the absence of zero values within CIs (Table 7, 8).
Therefore, satisfaction fully mediates the link between hedonic value and behavioral intentions
for both restaurant segments.
As suggested by the results reported in Table 7 and 8, the indirect effect of Tangible
Value on behavioral intentions is significant for both segments (quick-service: [CI] = .152 - .371;
24
upscale: [CI] = .076 - .269), and so are the direct effects (quick-service: [CI] = .245 - .496;
upscale: [CI] = .183 - .420). Therefore, satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between
Tangible Value and behavioral intentions for both restaurant segments. The results (Table 7, 8)
also suggested that satisfaction did not intervene with the link between Intangible Value and
behavioral intentions, reflected by the non-significant indirect effect and trivial effect sizes (ES)
in both segments (quick-service: ES = .019, [CI] = -.061- .097; upscale: ES = .005, [CI] = -.086
- .081). Accordingly, the influence of Intangible Value on behavioral intentions does not involve
satisfaction.
In summary: hypotheses 5a, 5b are bolstered by the finding that satisfaction directly led
to behavioral intentions for both segments; hypotheses 6ab and 7ab are also supported,
suggesting that satisfaction fully mediates the link between hedonic value (Dining Centered-
Excitement) and behavioral intentions and partially mediates the relationship between utilitarian
value (Tangible Value) and behavioral intentions. Because results from both datasets revealed a
full mediating effect of satisfaction between perceived hedonic value and behavioral intentions,
hypothesis 8 is thus rejected. Therefore, perceived hedonic value cannot positively affect
behavioral intentions in the absence of satisfaction. As for the perceived utilitarian value, the
results conclude that a direct relationship exists between Tangible Value and behavioral
intentions, and between Intangible Value and behavioral intentions after controlling for
satisfaction. Therefore, hypothesis 9 is supported. An adjusted diagram is presented in Figure 2
drawing on the results of this study.
5. Discussion and implications
5.1. Theoretical implications
25
The findings from this study extend the existing literature and shed light on a significant
dining trend. This study attempts to explore consumer perceived hedonic/utilitarian value of
organic dining within two distinct restaurant segments. The findings reveal that consumers
perceive an emotional worth from organic dining as characterized by a Dining-Centered
Excitement and Social Attention & Escapism, and also perceive functional benefits through
evaluating both Tangible Value and Intangible Value of organic dining. Prior studies have
concluded that concerns about health and additives (e.g., pesticides, chemicals, growth
hormones, etc.) are the key drivers of purchasing organic food (Yiridoe, Bonti-Ankomah, &
Martin, 2005). These health-related benefits of dining organic food, although significant, are not
as influential as the hedonic value in predicting diners’ satisfaction and behavioral intentions.
This finding might be attributed to the hedonic nature of dining events. Research shows that
customers’ emotional responses are of the utmost importance at upscale restaurants (Hyun &
Kang, 2014; Han & Jeong, 2013). Previous studies also find that almost all dining-related
attributes (e.g., physical environment, interactions with service staff, and food quality) can evoke
diners' emotional responses, and the resultant hedonic attitudes can be stronger determinants of
diners’ restaurant preferences, when compared to utilitarian attitudes (e.g., Jang & Namkung,
2009; Hwang & Ok, 2013). This result also supports Hwang and Ok’s (2013) finding that food
quality elicits more positive hedonic (vs. utilitarian) attitudes among restaurant customers.
Second, this research underscores the essential role of perceived value in predicting post-
consumption outcomes. The results indicate that perceived hedonic/utilitarian value vastly
explains satisfaction and behavioral intentions, irrespective of restaurant segments. Dining-
Centered Excitement and the two dimensions of utilitarian value are of central concern to
26
restaurant businesses, as consumers’ behavioral dynamics are a direct outcome of these
appraisals. This study also discovers that dining outcomes are primarily driven by a perceived
hedonic value that brings a sense of excitement and entertainment of organic dining. This
hedonic pleasure that is obtained from organic dining surpasses any functional benefits in
determining behavioral intentions for both lower and upper scale restaurant segments. This
finding highlights the uniqueness of organic dining versus conventional dining. Previous
research concludes that guest satisfaction and behavioral intentions mainly stem from the
perceived utilitarian value (e.g., convenience, cost, and speedy service) that consumers
experience at quick-service restaurants (Nejati & Parakhodi Moghaddam, 2013; Ryu et al.,
2010), which contradicts the case of organic dining. This study reveals that weights of hedonic
and utilitarian values in different dining contexts are likely to vary and should be empirically
tested before reaching a conclusion. Moreover, this study also reveals that restaurant patrons
consider the Tangible Value (vs. Intangible Value) of organic dining as being more critical when
considering future behaviors.
Conceptually, the results have conferred a theoretical rationale regarding the mediating
role of satisfaction on the relationship between the perceived value of organic dining and
behavioral intentions. Most of these findings are consistent with the Appraisal-Emotional
Response-Coping theory (Bagozzi, 1992). The results also echo prior findings and suggest that
satisfaction fully mediates the relationship between perceived hedonic value and behavioral
intentions (e.g., Ryu et al., 2010). Nevertheless, this study also differs from the existing literature
and underlines a direct link between the utilitarian value (Tangible/ Intangible Value) and
27
behavioral intentions bolstered by the Cost-Benefit Framework. Hence, this study adds to the
theoretical foundation of perceived dining value in hospitality research.
Last but not the least, this research also provides insights to better understand restaurant
segments (e.g., Parks, 2004; Ryu et al., 2010; Ha & Jang, 2013). In the context of organic dining,
most findings point in the same directions between quick-service and upscale restaurants except
for a handful of differences. Involvement is found to be a stronger predictor of perceived value
of organic dining at upscale restaurants, when compared to quick-service restaurants. Therefore,
involved consumers perceive more value of organic dining when they visit upscale restaurants as
opposed to when visiting quick service restaurants. The results related to upscale restaurants also
indicate that an increased social attention and departure from routines upon ordering organic
food may undermine the overall pleasure of dining experience. This finding could be ascribed to
consumers' desire for privacy when dining at high-end restaurants (Harrington et al., 2012), as
most of the fine dining occasions involve small groups of people and relatively important
agendas. This finding suggests that the sense of Social Attentions may serve a disturbing factor
that negatively affects guest experience at fine dining sectors (Harrington et al., 2012). It is also
possible that this “Social Attention & Escapism” may subconsciously raise consumers’
expectations for a satisfactory experience on top of the normative anticipations for luxurious
experiences at fine dining restaurants, which are extraordinarily challenging for upscale
restaurants to further exceed these expectations. This study also suggests that hedonic value (i.e.,
Dining-Centered Excitement) appears significantly more important at upscale (vs. quick-service)
restaurants, while utilitarian value (i.e., Tangible Value) is considered more critical at quick-
service (vs. upscale) restaurants in influencing satisfaction.
28
5.2. Managerial implications
This research offers timely implications for restaurants managers. First, highly involved
consumers are important patrons of restaurants offering organic dishes, particularly at upscale
restaurants. As organic consumers are not homogeneous in demographics nor beliefs (Hughner et
al., 2007), service staff may inquire about diners’ interest in organic food and purchase
frequency to decide if he/she needs to recommend organic items from the menu. Second,
restaurant owners and managers should be informed about the necessity of capitalizing on the
excitement and entertainment elicited from organic dining. According to the results, perceived
hedonic value is the key to boosting customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions for both
restaurant categories. For example, restaurants may improve menu diversity using organic
ingredients, create seasonal menus, or blend an “organic flavor” with other special dietary
options (e.g., low calorie/low fat, gluten-free) in order to add excitement to organic dining. When
designing a menu, restaurants may use the italicized font style to differentiate organic dishes
from other items, and intensify a symbolic meaning and perceived quality (Magninia & Kim,
2016). At upscale restaurants, employees (e.g., professionalism, appearance) have a significant
impact on customers’ emotional states and behavioral intentions (Ryu & Jang, 2008). Therefore,
service employees should be professional and effective in communicating with customers who
consider ordering organic menu items. To instill a sense of excitement and entertainment,
upscale restaurants could serve organic food on aesthetic china or flatware to underscore the
uniqueness of organic dishes. Quick-service restaurants could use specially designed packaging
(e.g., with inspiring mottos) to increase the fun and entertainment of organic dining.
29
According to the results, restaurants are advised to craft organic cuisines with a
reasonable price point, appropriate portion sizes, appealing presentation, and pleasant palatability
to maintain guest satisfaction. Managers should be creative in an attempt to elicit perceived
Intangible Value of organic menu items in that Intangible Value directly results in revisit
intentions and positive WOM, independent of satisfaction. Although Intangible Value of organic
food is not visible and automatically perceived, restaurants could incorporate educational
messages on the menu or on the table. Service staff could be trained with knowledge about
different kinds of organic ingredients (e.g., seafood, meat, vegetables and grains) and production
methods so that they can articulate benefits associated with organic food and assist consumers (if
needed) while taking their orders. It is also noteworthy to upscale restaurants that a sense of
social attentions and escapism of dining on organic food may compromise guests’ dining
satisfaction. In fact, consumers may anticipate that higher quality ingredients (e.g., organic
ingredients) are used in upscale restaurants (Perlik, 2005; Poulston, & Yiu, 2011) given the price
paid and scale of the restaurant. However, a sense of adventure (e.g., unfamiliarity) might signal
uncertainties associated with an organic dish. Because food at upscale restaurants is more
expensive than those from lower scale segments and consumers often use upscale restaurants for
important occasions, these uncertainties might incur concerns with financial and psychological
risks if diners do not appreciate the food ordered. Upscale restaurants may consider downplaying
the innovativeness of organic items (e.g., using relatively familiar recipes or cooking methods) or
employing a descriptive menu that characterizes the cooking procedure and mouthfeel to assist
diners to anticipate their dishes (Wansink, Painter, Van Ittersum, 2001). Service employees at
fine dining restaurants should be fully attentive to customers’ emotional responses (Hang &
Jeong, 2013) and especially cautious when making recommendations for organic items.
30
To avoid diners’ excessive expectations that may be catalyzed by the presence of organic
food, upscale restaurant managers may have to go the extra mile in boosting guests’ excitement
of organic dining. Chefs may consider crafting daily specials with organic ingredients and
frequently updating their menus. Upscale restaurants may also utilize organic ingredients to
renovate existing recipes to a moderate extent in order to improve the gastronomic delight of
organic dishes. On the other hand, the tangible/utilitarian value is more bound to post-
consumption outcomes at quick-service (vs. upscale) restaurants. Quick-service restaurants are
strongly urged to monitor tangible attributes of organic meals and make them fairly priced,
served via a reasonable portion at the optimal temperature, and ensure a pleasant palatability.
6. Limitation and future research
This study has several limitations. First, prior studies, including this research, have
attempted to understand hedonic/utilitarian value by adapting existing measures into a particular
dining context (e.g., Ha & Jang, 2010, Jeong & Jang, 2015). As studies consistently conclude the
significance of perceived hedonic/utilitarian value in hospitality research, future endeavors may
strive to develop a hedonic/utilitarian value scale that is tailored to hospitality settings. Second,
this study is limited in that respondents had to rely on their recent memories about a past dining
experience when completing the survey. The results may be compromised due to recall bias or
the effect of temporal distance. Future research may consider collecting on-site responses to
corroborate findings of this study. Also, this study incorporates quick-service and upscale
segments to capture organic dining with a broader scope. As brand awareness and
trustworthiness are likely to play a part in consumers' judgments and behavioral dynamics (Hyun
& Kim, 2011) follow-up research may also examine branded chains and independent restaurants
regarding perceived value of organic dining.
31
References
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 644-656.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social
Psychology, 22, 453–474.
Bettman, J., E. Johnson, and J. Payne (1991). Consumer Decision Making. In Handbook of
Consumer Research, T. Robertson and H. Kassarjian, eds., pp. 50–84. Englewood Cliffs
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brown, C., & Sperow, M. (2005). Examining the cost of an all-organic diet. Journal of Food
Distribution Research, 36(1), 20-26.
Campbell, J., DiPietro, R. B., & Remar, D. (2014). Local foods in a university setting: Price
consciousness, product involvement, price/quality inference and consumer's willingness-
to-pay. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 42, 39-49.
Chang, H.-S. & Zepeda, L., 2004. Consumer perceptions and demand for organic food’in
Australia: focus group discussions. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 20 (3),
155–167.
Chait, J. (2014). Ten reasons for restaurants to go organic. Retrieved from
http://organic.about.com/od/organicrestaurantsfoods/tp/Ten-Reasons-For-Restaurants-To-
Go-Organic.htm
Chen, C. F., & Chen, F. S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and
behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31(1), 29-35.
Chow, I. H. S., Lau, V. P., Lo, T. W. C., Sha, Z., & Yun, H. (2007). Service quality in restaurant
32
operations in China: Decision-and experiential-oriented perspectives. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(3), 698-710.
Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and
customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal
of Retailing, 76(2), 193-218.
Gilg, A., Barr, S., & Ford, N. (2005). Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying
the sustainable consumer. Futures, 37(6), 481-504.
Green Restaurant Association (GRA). (2007) Environmental guidelines, Retrieved from
http://www.dinegreen.com/twelvesteps.asp
Gursoy, D., & McCleary, K. W. (2004). An integrative model of tourists’ information search
behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 353-373.
Ha, J., & Jang, S. S. (2010). Perceived values, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: The role of
familiarity in Korean restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
29(1), 2-13.
Han, H., & Jeong, C. (2013). Multi-dimensions of patrons’ emotional experiences in upscale
restaurants and their role in loyalty formation: Emotion scale improvement. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 59-70.
Hair, J. F. Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis, 7.
Harrington, R. J., Ottenbacher, M. C., & Kendall, K. W. (2011). Fine-dining restaurant selection:
Direct and moderating effects of customer attributes. Journal of Foodservice Business
Research, 14(3), 272-289.
Harrington, R. J., Ottenbacher, M. C., Staggs, A., & Powell, F. A. (2012). Generation Y
33
consumers key restaurant attributes affecting positive and negative experiences. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36(4), 431-449.
Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza Ibáñez, V. (2006). Green value added. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, 24(7), 673-680.
Hayes, A.F., 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Press, Guilford, New York.
Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Consumer value: a framework for analysis and research. Psychology
Press.
Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C. J., & Stanton, J. (2007). Who are organic
food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food.
Journal of Consumer Behavior, 6 (2-3), 94-110.
Hwang, J., & Ok, C. (2013). The antecedents and consequence of consumer attitudes toward
restaurant brands: A comparative study between casual and fine dining
restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 121-131.
Hyun, S. S., & Kim, W. (2011). Dimensions of brand equity in the chain restaurant industry.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 52(4), 429-437.
Jang, S. S., & Namkung, Y. (2009). Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral intentions:
Application of an extended Mehrabian–Russell model to restaurants. Journal of Business
Research, 62(4), 451-460.
Jamrozy, U., Backman, S. J., & Backman, K. F. (1996). Involvement and opinion leadership in
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(4), 908-924.
Jeong, E., & Jang, S. S. (2015). Healthy menu promotions: A match between dining value and
temporal distance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 45, 1-13.
34
Jin, N., Line, N. D., & Merkebu, J. (2015). The Impact of Brand Prestige on Trust, Perceived
Risk, Satisfaction, and Loyalty in Upscale Restaurants. Journal of Hospitality Marketing
& Management, (accepted).
Jo, W., Lee, C. K., & Reisinger, Y. (2014). Behavioral intentions of international visitors to the
Korean hanok guest houses: Quality, value and satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research,
47, 83-86.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151
Kareklas, I., Carlson, J. R., & Muehling, D. D. (2014). “I eat organic for my benefit and yours”:
egoistic and altruistic considerations for purchasing organic food and their implications
for advertising strategists. Journal of Advertising, 43(1), 18-32.
Kim, H. J., Park, J., Kim, M. J., & Ryu, K. (2013). Does perceived restaurant food healthiness
matter? Its influence on value, satisfaction and revisit intentions in restaurant operations
in South Korea. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 397-405.
Lee, K., Conklin, M., Cranage, D. A., & Lee, S. (2014). The role of perceived corporate social
responsibility on providing healthful foods and nutrition information with health-
consciousness as a moderator. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 29-
37.
Liu, Y., & Jang, S. S. (2009). The effects of dining atmospherics: An extended Mehrabian–
Russell model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 494-503.
MacEachern, D. (2014). 8 Fast food chains that serve local, organic, vegan food. Retrieved from
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/8-fast-food-chains-that-serve-local-organic-vegan-
food.html
35
Magnini, V. P., & Kim, S. (2016). The influences of restaurant menu font style, background
color, and physical weight on consumers’ perceptions. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 53, 42-48.
McDougall, G. H., & Levesque, T. (2000). Customer satisfaction with services: putting
perceived value into the equation. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(5), 392-410.
Mittal, B., & Lee, M. S. (1989). A causal model of consumer involvement. Journal of economic
Psychology, 10(3), 363-389.
Nasir, V. A., & Karakaya, F. (2014). Underlying motivations of organic food purchase
intentions. Agribusiness, 30(3), 290-308.
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.
National Restaurant Association. (2013). What’s Hot in 2013 culinary forecast predicts menu
trends. Retrieved from www.restaurant.org/News-Research/News/What%E2%80%99s-
Hot-in-2013-culinary-forecast-predicts-menu
National Restaurant Association. (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.restaurant.org/downloads/pdfs/news-research/whatshot2015-results.pdf
Nejati, M., & Parakhodi Moghaddam, P. (2013). The effect of hedonic and utilitarian values on
satisfaction and behavioral intentions for dining in fast-casual restaurants in Iran. British
Food Journal, 115(11), 1583-1596.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Olsen, S. O. (2007). Repurchase loyalty: The role of involvement and satisfaction. Psychology &
36
Marketing, 24(4), 315-341.
Omkara, A. (2014). U.S. Organic food trend forecasted for growth through 2018. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/31/us-organic-food-trend-forecasted-
growth-through-20/
Overby, J. W., & Lee, E. J. (2006). The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping value
on consumer preference and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 59(10), 1160-
1166.
Organic Trade Association. (2015a). R&P Program Application Industry Overview.
http://ota.com/sites/default/files/indexed_files/OrganicCheckoffApplicationUSDA_Comb
ined.pdf
Organic Trade Association (2015b). Retrieved from https://www.ota.com/resources/market-
analysis
Park, C. (2004). Efficient or enjoyable? Consumer values of eating-out and fast food restaurant
consumption in Korea. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(1), 87-94.
Patton, L. (2014). Bloomberg Business. McDonald’s May Sell More Organic Foods to Boost
Sales. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-21/mcdonald-s-
may-sell-more-organic-foods
Perlik, A., 2005. Organics’ chemistry. Restaurants & Institutions. Retrieved from
http://www.rimag.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6519636&article
prefix=CA&article id=6519636
Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (2012). Motivation and involvement as
antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience. Journal of Travel
Research, 0047287512461181.
37
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Poulston, J., & Yiu, A. Y. K. (2011). Profit or principles: Why do restaurants serve organic
food?. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), 184-191.
Rahman, I., & Reynolds, D. (2015). Wine: Intrinsic attributes and consumers’ drinking
frequency, experience, and involvement. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 44, 1-11.
Roitner-Schobesberger, B., Darnhofer, I., Somsook, S., & Vogl, C. R. (2008). Consumer
perceptions of organic foods in Bangkok, Thailand. Food policy, 33(2), 112-121.
Ryu, K., Han, H., & Jang, S. (2010). Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values,
satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3), 416-432.
Ryu, K., Han, H., & Kim, T. H. (2008). The relationships among overall quick-casual restaurant
image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(3), 459-469.
Ryu, K., Lee, H. R., & Gon Kim, W. (2012). The influence of the quality of the physical
environment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer
satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 24(2), 200-223.
Sánchez-Fernández, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. Á. (2007). The concept of perceived value: a
systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory, 7(4), 427-451.
Schubert, F., Kandampully, J., Solnet, D., & Kralj, A. (2010). Exploring consumer perceptions
38
of green restaurants in the US. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(4), 286-300.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: a theory of
consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159-170.
Sirieix, L., Delanchy, M., Remaud, H., Zepeda, L., & Gurviez, P. (2013). Consumers'
perceptions of individual and combined sustainable food labels: a UK pilot investigation.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(2), 143-151.
Sulek, J. J., & R. L. Hensley. (2004). The relative importance of food, atmosphere, and fairness
of wait: The case of a full-service restaurant. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly 45(3), 235-247.
Smith, S., & Paladino, A. (2010). Eating clean and green? Investigating consumer motivations
towards the purchase of organic food. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 18(2), 93-
104.
Swan, J. E., & Oliver, R. L. (1989). Postpurchase communications by consumers. Journal of
Retailing, 65(4), 516-533.
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a
multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220.
Teng, C. C., & Wang, Y. M. (2015). Decisional factors driving organic food consumption:
Generation of consumer purchase intentions. British Food Journal, 117(3), 1066-1081.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, (2014). Organic Market Overview. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic
agriculture/organic-market-overview.aspx
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing Service. National Organic Program,
2015. http://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national-organic-program
39
Verain, M. C., Bartels, J., Dagevos, H., Sijtsema, S. J., Onwezen, M. C., & Antonides, G. (2012).
Segments of sustainable food consumers: a literature review. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 36(2), 123-132.
Wang, Y. F., Chen, S. P., Lee, Y. C., & Tsai, C. T. S. (2013). Developing green management
standards for restaurants: An application of green supply chain management.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 263-273.
Wansink, B., Painter, J., & Van Ittersum, K. (2001). Descriptive menu labels' effect on sales. The
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,42(6), 68-72
Yiridoe, E. K., Bonti-Ankomah, S., & Martin, R. C. (2005). Comparison of consumer
perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: a
review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20(04),
193-205.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 341-352.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of advertising, 15(2), 4-34.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model
and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of Marketing, 2-22.
Zepeda, L., & Nie, C. (2012). What are the odds of being an organic or local food shopper?
Multivariate analysis of US food shopper lifestyle segments. Agriculture and Human
Values, 29(4), 467-480.
40
Table 1 Demographics of consumer sample
Quick-service
(n = 202)
Upscale
(n = 185)
Number
%
Number
%
Gender
Male
Female
81
120
40.30
59.70
72
112
39.13
60.87
Age
18-25
26-34
35-54
55-64
65 over
48
76
66
9
2
23.88
37.81
32.84
4.48
1.00
28
77
67
11
1
15.22
41.85
36.41
5.98
0.54
Marital Status
Single
Widowed
Divorced
Married
Live together
78
1
13
81
28
38.81
0.50
6.47
40.30
13.93
65
1
16
72
30
35.33
0.54
8.70
39.13
16.30
Occupation
Student
Management, professional, and related
Service
Sales & office
Farming, fishing, and forestry
Construction, extraction, and maintenance
Production, transportation, and material moving
Government
Retired
Unemployed
Other
26
60
17
20
1
3
6
12
4
28
24
12.94
29.85
8.46
9.95
0.50
1.49
2.99
5.97
1.99
13.93
11.94
25
53
19
16
2
2
9
12
2
16
27
13.66
28.96
10.38
8.74
1.09
1.09
4.92
6.56
1.09
8.74
14.75
Education
Less than high school
High school graduate
Associated degree
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Doctorate degree
Other
1
52
36
74
27
9
1
0.50
26.00
18.00
37.00
13.50
4.50
0.50
1
30
39
76
28
6
3
0.55
16.39
21.31
41.53
15.30
3.28
1.64
Ethnicity
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Black/African American
Caucasian/White
Hispanic/Latino
Mixed
3
15
12
155
6
8
1.51
7.54
6.03
77.89
3.02
4.02
2
16
12
138
10
5
1.09
8.74
6.56
75.41
5.46
2.73
Income
41
Under $15,000
$15,000 - $29,999
$30,000 - $44,999
$45,000 – $59,999
$60,000 -$74,999
$75,000 - $89,999
$90,000 - $104,999
$105,000 - $119,999
$120,000 - $134,999
$135,000 and above
31
34
34
23
35
13
9
6
5
10
15.50
17.00
17.00
11.50
17.50
6.50
4.50
3.00
2.50
5.00
18
34
36
36
22
13
10
4
5
5
9.84
18.58
19.67
19.67
12.02
7.10
5.46
2.19
2.73
2.73
42
Table 2 Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and reliabilities
Restaurant
Segment
Variable
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Quick-
service
1.Involvement
1
2.Hedonic: excitement
0.513**
1
3.Hedonic social
0.243**
0.546**
1
4.Utilitarian tangible
0.286**
0.547**
0.117**
1
5.Utilitarian intangible
0.706**
0.559**
0.331**
0.383**
1
6.Satisfaction
0.407**
0.707**
0.244**
0.656**
0.437**
1
7.Behavioral intentions
0.466**
0.684**
0.247**
0.639**
0.546**
0.841**
1
Mean
5.522
5.038
3.676
5.373
5.504
5.681
5.662
S.D.
1.093
1.008
1.172
0.981
1.074
0.971
1.088
NO. of items
20
6
4
3
4
6
4
Reliability alpha
0.973
0.883
0.782
0.720
0.799
0.945
0.931
Upscale
1.Involvement
1
2.Hedonic: excitement
0.519**
1
3.Hedonic social
0.413**
0.608**
1
4.Utilitarian tangible
0.400**
0.503**
0.324**
1
5.Utilitarian intangible
0.731**
0.640**
0.463**
0.396**
1
6.Satisfaction
0.360**
0.705**
0.345**
0.548**
0.470**
1
7.Behavioral intentions
0.474**
0.714**
0.388**
0.574**
0.594**
0.825**
1
Mean
5.692
5.370
3.845
5.497
5.673
6.068
5.945
S.D.
1.110
1.011
1.310
0.916
1.129
0.790
0.996
NO. of items
20
6
4
3
4
6
4
Reliability alpha
0.972
0.866
0.783
0.642
0.834
0.916
0.914
Note: All variables were calculated based on summated scores; n = 202 for quick-service restaurants; n =
185 for upscale restaurants; S.D. = standard deviation; **p < .01 (two-tailed test)
43
Table 3 Effect of involvement on four value dimensions of organic dining (quick-service segment)
Dependent variables
Hedonic value
Utilitarian value
Dining-centered
excitement
Social attention
& Escapism
Tangibles
Intangibles
β
t
β
t
β
t
β
t
Control variables
Gender a
Age
Income
.109
.010
-.052
1.530
.135
-.699
-.004
.088
-.089
-.063
1.179
-1.192
.147
.084
.017
2.079
1.132
.234
.110
.108
.057
1.564
1.460
.768
R2
Adjusted R2
∆R2
F-value
F change
.014
-.001
.014
.914
.914
.011
-.004
.011
.719
.719
.029
.014
.029
1.961
1.961
.031
.016
.031
2.070
2.070
Independent variable
Involvement
.516***
8.322
.244***
3.484
.265***
3.840
.698***
13.635
R2
Adjusted R2
∆R2
F-value
F change
.272
.257
.258
18.236***
69.249***
.069
.050
.058
3.605***
12.139***
.097
.079
.068
5.261***
14.747 ***
0.504
0.494
0.473
49.496***
185.917***
Note: a Male = 1, Female = 2; β = standardized path coefficients; t = t value; n = 202; * p < .05 (two-tailed test);**p < .01 (two-tailed
test); ***p < .001 (two-tailed test)
44
Table 4 Effect of involvement on four value dimensions of organic dining (upscale segment)
Dependent variables
Hedonic value
Utilitarian value
Dining-centered
excitement
Social attention
& Escapism
Tangibles
Intangibles
β
t
β
T
β
t
β
t
Control variables
Gender a
Age
Income
.065
.089
-.015
.817
1.130
-.184
.081
.114
-.081
1.088
1.450
-1.034
.079
.076
.044
1.066
.970
.561
.168*
.169*
.071
2.324
2.208
.931
R2
Adjusted R2
∆R2
F-value
F change
.012
-.005
.012
.702
.702
.021
.004
.021
1.264
1.264
.016
-.001
.016
.962
.962
.068
.053
.068
4.387**
4.387**
Independent variable
Involvement
0.528***
7.981
0.408***
5.792
0.399***
5.626
0.720***
13.856
R2
Adjusted R2
∆R2
F-value
F change
.272
.256
.260
16.633***
63.690***
.176
.158
.155
9.509***
33.552***
.164
.146
.149
8.758***
31.654***
.552
.542
.483
54.796***
191.981***
Note: a Male = 1, Female = 2; β = standardized path coefficients; t = t value; n = 185; * p < .05 (two-tailed test);**p < .01 (two-
tailed test); ***p < .001 (two-tailed test)
45
Table 5 Hierarchical regression results: the effect of perceived value of organic dining on consumer
satisfaction
Quick-service
Upscale
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
β
t
β
T
β
t
β
t
Control variables
Gender a
Age
Income
.126
-.023
-.032
1.783
-.303
-.429
..010
-.053
-.021
.213
-1.108
-.449
.040
.053
.111
.544
.678
1.414
-.012
-.010
.099
-.243
-.191
1.849
Independent variable
Hedonic: excitement
Hedonic: social
Utilitarian: tangible
Utilitarian: intangible
.546***
-.107
.361***
.037
7.687
-1.909
6.418
.663
.654***
-.130*
.256***
.002
8.499
-2.052
4.421
.0360
R2
Adjusted R2
∆R2
F-value
F change
.018
.003
.018
1.188
1.188
.617
.603
.599
44.190***
75.094***
.020
.004
.020
1.231
1.231
.569
.552
.549
32.988***
55.677**
Note: a Male = 1, Female = 2; β = standardized path coefficients; t = t value; n = 202 for quick-service segment; n = 185 for
upscale fine dining segment; * p < .05 (two-tailed test);**p < .01 (two-tailed test); ***p < .001 (two-tailed test)
46
Table 6 Hierarchical regression results: the effects of perceived value of organic dining and consumer
satisfaction on behavioral intentions
Quick-service segment
Upscale
Behavioral intentions
Behavioral intentions
Model 2*
Model 3
Model 2
Model 3
β
t
β
T
β
t
β
t
Control variables
Gender a
Age
Income
.068
-.041
-.023
1.481
-.850
-.488
.062
-.008
-.010
1.720
-.202
-.266
-.004
-.004
.048
-.076
-.079
.932
.004
.002
-.010
.092
.047
-.248
Independent variable
Excitement
Social
Tangible
Intangible
Satisfaction
.429***
-.094
.329***
.211***
5.989
-1.675
5.791
3.784
.086
-.027
.102*
0.188***
0.630***
1.332
-.612
2.069
4.296
11.029
.510***
-.101
.266***
.204***
6.918
-1.655
4.794
3.152
.127
-.024
0.116*
0.203***
0.586***
1.822
-.498
2.498
3.945
10.200
R2
Adjusted R2
∆R2
F-value
F change
.609
.595
.574
42.744***
70.529***
.761
.751
.152
76.105**
121.638***
.604
.588
.581
38.082***
64.192***
.752
.741
.148
98.82***
101.039***
Note: a Male = 1, Female = 2; *Control variables were entered as step 1; β = standardized path coefficients; t = t value; n = 202
for quick-service segment; n = 185 for upscale segment; * p < .05 (two-tailed test);**p < .01 (two-tailed test); ***p < .001 (two-
tailed test)
47
Table 7 Hayes process procedure for testing mediating effect of satisfaction (quick-service segment)
Total
effect
CI
Direct
effect
CI
Indirect
effect
z
CI
Mediation
Hedonic:
excitement
.466***
.312, .620
.087
-.051, .224
.379***
6.319
.195, .558
Full
mediation
Utilitarian:
tangible
.370***
.245, .496
.117*
.010, .225
.253***
5.467
.152, .371
Partial
mediation
Utilitarian:
intangible
.222***
.109, .336
.203***
.115, .292
.019
.511
-.061; .097
Non-
mediation
Note: t = t value; z = z score; CI = 95% confidence interval; * p < .05 (two-tailed test);**p < .01 (two-tailed test); ***p < .001
(two-tailed test)
48
Table 8 Hayes process procedure for testing mediating effect of satisfaction (Upscale segment)
Total
effect
CI
Direct
effect
CI
Indirect
effect
z
CI
Mediation
Hedonic:
excitement
.493***
.351, .636
.132
-.004, .267
.362***
6.332
.228, .535
Full
mediation
Utilitarian:
tangible
.302***
.183, .420
.136**
.035, .237
.166***
4.148
.076, .269
Partial
mediation
Utilitarian:
intangible
.201***
.089, .312
.196***
.106, .286
.005
.138
-.086, .081
Non-
mediation
Note: t = t value; CI = 95% confidence interval; * p < .05 (two-tailed test);**p < .01 (two-tailed test); ***p < .001 (two-tailed test)
49
Figure 1 Conceptual diagram
Consumer
Involvement
Hedonic value of organic dining
• Entertainment
• Environmentally, socially
responsible
• Recognition
• Respect
• Excitement
• Escapism, adventure
Utilitarian value of organic dining
• Cost
• Portion
• Taste
• Quality
• Healthiness
• Safety concerns (pesticides,
growth hormones, etc.)
Satisfaction
Behavioral
Intentions
H8
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5, 6, 7
H9
50
Figure 2 Adjusted conceptual diagram based on empirical results
Consumer
Involvement
Hedonic value of organic dining
Dining-centered excitement
Social attention & escapism
Utilitarian value of organic
dining
Tangible attributes (e.g., cost,
portion, taste)
Intangible attributes (e.g.,
healthiness, safety, quality)
Satisfaction
Behavioral
Intentions
51
Appendix A Initial items of perceived value
Perceived value
Items
Hedonic value of
organic dining
Dining organic food at restaurants made me feel socially responsible.
Dining organically entertained me.
I felt respected by other consumers when I ordered organic dishes at restaurants.
I felt I was recognized by people around me when I ordered an organic menu item
Consuming food made from organic ingredients made me feel like an escape
from ordinary life.
I was protecting the environment when I purchased organic menu items.
Consuming organic food at restaurants was fun and unique to me.
I was excited about their menu diversity because of the presence of organic items.
Consuming organic food at restaurants was fully a joy.
The time spent on dining organic food at restaurants was truly enjoyable,
compared to other things I could have done.
I had a good time at the restaurant where I ordered an organic item.
Having organic food at restaurants made me excited about the dining experience.
I felt a sense of adventure when I had organic food at the restaurant.
Utilitarian value of
organic dining
The cost of my organic menu items was reasonable.
The dish made from organic ingredients was tasty.
The portion of the organic dish was reasonable.
When I ordered organic food at restaurants, I believed that it had better quality
than items made from conventional materials.
Dining organically is healthier to my body compared to conventional menu items.
I ordered food with organic ingredients to avoid pesticides, antibiotics, growth
hormones, etc.
I think organic menu items were more nutritious than conventional food.
It is a waste of my money to purchase organic items when dining at restaurants.
52
Appendix B Variables and measures for data analysis (two restaurant segments)
Variables
Items
Involvement
Zaichkowsky, (1985)’s Personal Involvement Inventory
Hedonic value
1. Dining-Centered
Excitement
Consuming organic food at restaurants was fun and unique to me (quick-
service segment)/ Dining organic menu items entertained me (upscale
segment).
I was excited about menu diversity because of the presence of organic items
Consuming organic food at restaurants was a joy.
The time spent on dining organic food at restaurants was truly enjoyable,
compared to other things I could have done.
I had a good time at the restaurant where I ordered an organic item.
Having organic food at restaurants made me excited about the dining
experience.
2. Social Attention &
Escapism
I felt respected by other consumers when I ordered organic dishes at
restaurants.
I felt that I was recognized by people around me when I ordered an organic
menu item.
Consuming food made from organic ingredients made me feel an escape
from ordinary life.
I felt a sense of adventure when I had organic food at the restaurant.
Utilitarian value
1. Tangible value
The cost of my organic menu items was reasonable.
The dish made from organic ingredients was tasty.
The portion of the organic dish was reasonable.
2. Intangible value
When I ordered organic food at a restaurant, I believed that it had better.
quality than items made from conventional materials.
Dining organically is healthier for my body compared to conventional menu
items.
I think organic menu items were more nutritious than conventional food.
I ordered food with organic ingredients to avoid pesticides, antibiotics,
growth hormones, etc.
Satisfaction
I was pleased to dine in at the restaurant providing organic items.
The overall feeling I got from dining organic food at that restaurant was
satisfactory.
Dining at the restaurant where I had organic food put me in a good mood.
I really enjoyed myself at the restaurant offering organic items.
I was happy with the dining experience at the restaurant where I had organic
dish/dishes.
I was content with the dining experience at the restaurant where I had
organic food.
Behavioral Intentions
I would like to revisit the restaurant where I had organic items.
I would recommend the restaurant where I had organic items to my friends
or others.
I would more frequently visit that restaurant featuring organic options.
I would say positive things about the restaurant where I consumed organic
food.
53
MANUSCRIPT TWO
DOES A SUSTAINABLE MENU HELP RESTAURANTS EXCEL IN COMPETITION? AN
EXAMINATION OF DINERS’ DECISION-MAKING
1. Introduction
“As consumers today increasingly incorporate restaurants into their daily lives, they
want to be able to follow their personal preferences and philosophies no matter where or how
they choose to dine. So, it’s only natural that culinary themes like local sourcing, sustainability,
and nutrition top our list of menu trends for 2015. Those concepts are wider lifestyle choices for
many Americans in other aspects of their lives that also translate into the food space.”
- Hudson Riehle, senior vice president of the National Restaurant Association’s research
and knowledge group
In recent years, consumers have shown an increasing enthusiasm for organic food and
begun to incorporate it into their staple diets. According to the Organic Trade Association
(2015), eighty-three percent of U.S. families at least occasionally purchase organic products. The
organic food market is expanding rapidly at an annual rate of twenty percent growth (Pino,
Peluso, & Guido, 2012). This growing interest in organic food is grounded in the belief in a
healthier and sustainable lifestyle. This emerging social value has guided many individuals to
endorse products and/or services that are ecologically viable and socially responsible (e.g.,
organic and local produce, green hotels and restaurants, and eco-tourism) (e.g., Jeong et al.,
2014; Lu, Gursoy, & Del Chiappa, 2014; Wang et al., 2013). As of today, food choices at
restaurants not only serves the purpose of satiation but also signifies individuals’ beliefs and
some form of social identity (e.g., environmentalism and ethical consumer) (Pino et al., 2012).
54
Consumers indicate that having organic or local produce on a menu as a key reason for choosing
a restaurant (NRA, 2014). The National Restaurant Association (NRA, 2015) reports that
seventy percent of consumers would support restaurants providing sustainable food (i.e., food
produced via sustainable methods) such as organic food or local produce (NRA, 2015). As a
consequence, sustainable food has quickly become a top menu trend at many restaurants (NRA,
2013; 2015).
Existing research has shown that sourcing organic ingredients helps restaurateurs to
underscore their beliefs in an ethical business concept and green practices (e.g., Wang et al.,
2013). More importantly, restaurants believe that providing sustainable food is likely to be an
effective marketing strategy to differentiate their menus from their competitors (Patton, 2014).
Individuals’ interest in dining out has fueled competition within the restaurant industry. This
steep competition has overwhelmed consumers with more than enough restaurant choices before
making a final decision. To decide where to dine, many consumers choose to search restaurants’
menus and customer reviews before making a restaurant choice, either through web browsers or
mobile devices (NRA, 2014). Research suggests that three in four smartphone users choose
restaurants through the assistance of online search results (Brandau, 2013). Eighty percent of
consumers believe that it is necessary to view restaurant menus before they decide where to eat
because they want to have multiple restaurants to choose from before finalizing a decision
(Brandau, 2013). Therefore, restaurants' menu offerings become critically important to today’s
consumers.
Notwithstanding restaurants’ desire to gain a marketing edge through sourcing
sustainable ingredients, the current literature has not yet delved into this practice from a
55
consumer’s perspective. Once restaurants incorporate organic menu items, pricing issues are
inevitable due to the higher cost of organic ingredients compared to their conventional
counterparts (Poulston & Yiu, 2011). Also, the heterogeneity that exists among restaurant
segments further complicates how this menu practice is executed and received by consumers. For
example, diners at upscale restaurants tend to have higher expectations of food quality, including
ingredients, and are less price sensitive (e.g., Hwang & Ok, 2013). When eating at quick-service
restaurants, consumers may pay more attention to the price paid and are less likely to expect
specially sourced ingredients due to the scale of the restaurant visited. Therefore, when
capitalizing on sustainable food, there is no “one size fits all” within the restaurant industry. It is
of great importance for managers within each segment to better comprehend how diners’
decision-making corresponds to this menu trend before executing strategies.
With this regard, this study utilizes a scenario-based experiment approach to characterize
consumers’ decision-making between two competing restaurants after an online menu search.
One of the restaurants provides organic food items and is referred to the “target” restaurant while
the other one has comparable attributes but uses conventional ingredients and is referred to the
“rival” restaurant. Hense, this study aims to 1) examine the impact of sustainable ingredients on
diners’ decision-making between a target restaurant and its rival, 2) examine the differences in
perceived food quality, attitudes, willingness to select, and final decisions between two
competing choices at three major restaurant segments (e.g., quick-service, casual dining, and fine
dining), and 3) explore how the magnitude (small vs. large) of a premium price of sustainable
food influences diners' decision-making drawing on two commonly used pricing methods.
2. Literature review
56
2.1. Healthy eating and sustainable dining
Spurred by the belief in a sustainable and healthier lifestyle, eating healthier food has
played an essential part in consumer dining choices (e.g., Jeong & Jang, 2015; Kim et al., 2013;
NRA, 2013). In response to this growing demand, while attempting to establish a socially
responsible image, many restaurants have modified traditional menu options, such as offering
healthier items (e.g., low-fat or low-calorie) and nutritional labeling on their menus (Gregory,
2006; Mariani, 2011). This growing attention that is centered on healthy eating has prompted
research progress but is primarily confined around the concept of weight control. For example,
studies have found that diners with significant health values are likely to respond favorably to
healthier dining options. (Jun, Kang, & Arendt, 2014; Kang, Jun, & Arendt, 2015). Kim et al.
(2013) revealed the positive impact of perceived healthiness of restaurants’ food offerings on
diners’ perceived value, satisfaction, and intentions to revisit. Scholars also delve into
communication strategies and menu engineering that may help promote healthier menu items
(e.g., Jeong & Jang, 2015; Wansink & Love, 2014).
As consumers dwell on their health more than before, a healthy eating belief captures
more than a low-fat or low-calorie diet designed to increase fitness and reduce obesity risks but
also features a wholesome meal that is loaded with nutrients and high-quality ingredients.
Joining the healthy dining trend, consuming sustainable food (e.g., organic and local produce)
has gained exponential attention among the public (NRA, 2015; Jang, Kim, & Bonn, 2011;
Namkung & Jang, 2013). In the current literature, organic food and locally sourced ingredients
are typical representatives of “sustainable food,” referring to agricultural products that are
manufactured via an environmentally sustainable method with restricted pesticide use, growth
57
hormones, and antibiotics (Jang et al., 2011; LaVecchia, 2008). In this study, sustainable food at
restaurants refers to menu items prepared with organic ingredients. Thus, the ensuing discussion
is centered on organic dining.
According to the Organic Trade Association (2015), health motivation is the primary
driving force for the growing popularity of organic food. Supporting organic food also signals
consumers’ world values (e.g., environmental consciousness and social responsibility). Many
consumers believe that the restaurant industry should be responsible for their customers’
engagement in healthier and eco-friendly eating behaviors. Meanwhile, offering sustainable food
is amongst three principal areas (i.e., green action, and green donation) that restaurants use to
enforce green practices (Schubert et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2013). Unlike hotel operations that
directly involve guest interactions to conserve water, energy and participate in recycling, most
green practices at restaurants are performed behind the scene (Schubert et al., 2010). Thus,
providing sustainable food becomes a visible and tempting approach for restaurants to project a
favorable image through conveying societal and environmental benefits.
2.2. Food quality, attitudes, and willingness to select
Consumers’ restaurant choices are determined by several key attributes such as being
family- or children-friendly, providing good value for money, offering appealing menu items,
great service, and a convenient location (NRA, 2014). Past research suggests that food quality,
service, and atmosphere are core attributes in determining customers’ dining experiences
(Hwang & Ok., 2013; Parsa et al., 2012). The existing literature frequently examines the roles of
atmospherics and service quality in diners' experiences, and research on food quality remains
fragmented with an unbalanced concentration on healthy eating from a weight control
58
perspective (e.g., Jeong & Jang, 2015; Wansink & Love, 2014). Studies suggest that high-quality
food is critical in luring new customers as well as ensuring repeat visits due to its leverage on a
memorable dining experience (Harrington et al., 2012; Sulek & Hensley, 2004). When making a
restaurant decision, customers may compromise other attributes in exchange for a high-quality
meal (Parsa et al., 2012).
Restaurants’ food quality is gauged by the presentation, the presence of nutritious and
healthy food, taste, freshness, and temperature (Namkung & Jang, 2007). Organic food is known
to carry a plethora of superior features for crafting a quality meal, as it usually tastes better, is
more nutritionally abundant, has pesticide restrictions, and allows menu diversity when
compared to mass manufactured produce. Many chefs from fine dining restaurants suggest that
the primary reasons for using organic ingredients are the profit associated with a high-quality
meal and a fine gastronomic experience conferred by organic food (Poulston & Yiu, 2011).
Many casual dining restaurateurs firmly believe that organic dining is a sustainable trend that
supports consumers’ life philosophy (Poulston & Yiu, 2011). When diners are exposed to a menu
with organic ingredients, meritorious benefits of organic food are likely to trigger positive
inferences. Drawing on the Consumer Inference Theory, individuals tend to make heuristic
assumptions based on cues received (Kardes, Posavac, & Cronley, 2004). Positive cues
associated with sustainable food may automatically lead consumers to perceive the existence of
superior quality dishes made from organic ingredients (Kardes et al., 2004). Therefore, a positive
expectation for food quality may be signaled by the use of organic ingredients before consuming
meals. Attitudes are an “evaluation of an object, concept, or behavior along a dimension of favor
or disfavor, good or bad, like or dislike” (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000, pp. 3). According to
59
Fishbein’s theory, attitudes are formed automatically and inevitably upon receiving any attribute
information relevant to the product and consumers directly subscribe the value of this attribute to
the object evaluated (Fishbein, 1967; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000). In line with this rationale, diners’
attitudes toward a restaurant might be positively affected as soon as they discern a favorable
attribute that is associated with the restaurant, for example, the existence of healthier and organic
menu offerings. Existing studies have provided support for this rationale and found that
perceived healthiness is a core quality attribute that positively influences diners’ attitudes and
behavioral intentions (Hur & Jang, 2015; Kim et al., 2013; Kozup, Creyer, & Burton, 2003).
Findings of these studies further reveal that perceived food quality positively contributes to
favorable attitudes and intentions to revisit restaurants (e.g., Hur & Jang, 2015). Hwang and Ok
(2013) find that favorable perceptions of food quality significantly result in diners' intentions to
choose a particular restaurant over another. Apart from supporting the belief in healthy eating,
sourcing sustainable food represents restaurants' engagement in green practices (Schubert et al.,
2010; Wang et al., 2013), which significantly boosts consumers’ attitudes and behavioral
intentions (e.g., Jang et al., 2011; Jeong et al., 2014; Numkang & Jang, 2013).
However, the role of menu offerings in shifting diners’ perceptions may vary according
to the scale of the restaurant. As explained by Oliver’s (1997) Expectation-Disconfirmation
Theory, when individuals’ expectations are positively disconfirmed they are likely to develop
positive evaluations and behavioral intentions. Menu items served at mid-to-upper scale
restaurants are expected to be evaluated via more complicated criteria, such as the quality of
ingredients, delicate presentation, and creative recipes, which holistically contribute to a
delightful and refined gastronomic experience when compared to food expected at quick-service
60
restaurants. Therefore, offering healthier and organic menu items is more apt to exceed diners’
expectations at quick-service restaurants when compared to upper scale sectors. Prior research
shows that providing healthier menu options may instantaneously contribute to a positive dining
experience at quick-service restaurants while exhibiting less influence on mid-to-upper scale
segments (e.g., casual dining and upscale restaurants) (Harrington et al. 2012). According to the
rationale above, it is hypothesized that:
H1: When choosing between two competing restaurants, consumers have more positive
perceptions toward the target restaurant (i.e., a restaurant that sources organic ingredients) than
the rival (i.e., a restaurant that uses conventional ingredients) when holding other attributes equal
(e.g., the attractiveness of food, prior customer reviews).
a. Consumers perceive the target restaurant with better food quality than that of the rival
restaurant;
b. Consumers’ attitudes towards the target restaurant are more favorable compared to that of
the rival restaurant;
c. Consumers are more willing to select the target restaurant over the rival restaurant as a
final choice.
H2: The perception distance between the target and the rival restaurant in terms of food quality,
attitudes, and willingness to select is likely to vary across restaurant segments such that:
a. Sourcing sustainable ingredients offers a greater advantage for the target restaurant to
overshadow the rival regarding perceived food quality within the quick-service
segment, compared to casual dining and upscale restaurants.
61
b. Sourcing sustainable ingredients offers a greater advantage for the target restaurant to
overshadow the rival regarding attitudes within the quick-service segment, compared
to casual dining and upscale restaurants.
c. Sourcing sustainable ingredients offer a greater advantage for the target restaurant to
overshadow the rival regarding willingness to select within the quick-service
segment, compared to casual dining and upscale restaurants.
2.3. Food, price, and restaurant segments
Serving appealing food with a superb quality is a fundamental factor that results in
pleasant dining experiences and intentions to return (Gupta, McLaughlin & Gomez, 2007;
Harrington et al. 2012). According to Harrington et al. (2012), diners rate the quality of
food/drink as the most influential dining attribute consistently across three restaurant categories
(e.g., quick service, casual dining, and upscale). Nevertheless, the criteria for a quality meal are
subject to the type of restaurants visited. When dining at upscale restaurants, consumers expect
elegant meals with a well-crafted presentation, great aroma, delicious taste, and that are perfectly
cooked using fine ingredients. As for lower scale restaurants (e.g., fast food/quick service),
diners are happy with a quick bite to alleviate hunger and desire good value for the money. Due
to the variations in expectations across restaurant segments, food considered high quality at
quick-service restaurants may not meet the criteria to be served at casual or upscale restaurants.
The presence of various types of restaurants offers customers freedom when making
choices to match their dining needs with their budgets. When visiting a quick-service restaurant,
consumers emphasize convenience, prompt service, and good value for money and may not
62
expect a sophisticated experience or special ingredients (e.g., healthier options, organic
ingredients) (Hur & Jang, 2015). In light of the Expectancy-Disconfirmation Theory (Oliver,
1997), diners are likely to be impressed by lower scale restaurants’ endeavors in seeking
alternative and high-quality ingredients (e.g., organic food), when compared to upper-scale
restaurants. Customers, who visit upscale restaurants often anticipate a fine and luxury
experience that is characterized by the food, service, and atmosphere. In the U.S., there is a much
higher percentage of organic food appearing at upscale restaurants than lower scale restaurants,
as the superior quality of organic ingredients meets their gastronomic expectations at upscale
restaurants (Perlik, 2005; Poulston, & Yiu, 2011). Though pleased, consumers may not be
surprised when an upscale restaurant uses sustainable ingredients. In this study, it is postulated
that despite diners’ positive perceptions of organic food, an organic menu is less helpful for
upper scale restaurants (e.g., casual dining and fine dining) in surpassing competitors when
compared to lower scale segments (e.g., quick service).
Because sustainable ingredients inevitably cause an increase in food cost (Chang &
Zepeda, 2004), this study primes an organic food menu with a premium price (vs. a conventional
menu). This research examines how the scope of a premium price interferes with diners’
perceptions of food quality, attitudes, and willingness to select between the target and rival
restaurant. The levels of premium price are characterized using two commonly used menu
pricing methods: “contribution margin method,” which results in a small premium price (i.e.,
premium price is calculated based on the same contribution margin and this method leads to an
increased food cost percentage); “food cost percentage method,” which results in a large
premium price (i.e., premium price is calculated based on the same food cost percentage [30%]
63
and this method leads to a larger contribution margin). In the marketing literature, price
symbolizes product quality and the perceived sacrifice in exchange for a product or service,
which directly influences perceived value (Teas & Agarwal, 2000; Zeithamal, 1988). The
existing literature suggests that price and availability are the primary barriers challenging
consumers’ acceptance of organic products (Brown & Sperow, 2005). The higher cost of organic
ingredients is mainly attributed to issues with seasonality, supply system, and manufacturing.
Research shows that it is understood by consumers that organic ingredients are worth a premium
price due to the superior quality and limited yield (Chang & Zepeda, 2004). A higher price may
not undermine the perceived food quality of organic menu items given the fact that organic food
usually costs much more than their conventional counterparts, which is commonly seen on
grocery shelves. However, consumers’ attitudinal evaluations and preference for the target
restaurant over its rival may be negatively affected by the magnitude of a premium price charged
by an organic food menu. Prior research concludes that a premium price is a behavioral
hindrance for consumers to purchase off a restaurant menu (Poulston & Yiu, 2011).
When deciding on a place to dine, price influences consumer decisions depending on the
type of restaurant considered. For example, good value for money is more important in fast food
than upper scale restaurants (Harrington, et al., 2012). When dining at fast food restaurants,
consumers may be hesitant to purchase overpriced organic items due to price sensitivity. On the
other hand, upscale restaurant patrons are found to be more hedonically-driven, expecting more
fun and excitement while downplaying utilitarian considerations (e.g., convenience, cost, and
functionality) (Hwang & Ok, 2013). Prior research suggests that value for money influences
consumers’ dining experiences at quick-service restaurants, but it does not affect experiences at
64
casual and fine dining restaurants (Harrington et al. 2012). In this sense, consumers may interpret
price as a proxy for food quality in justifying their meal expenses when dining at upper-scale
restaurants. Overall, a premium price may discourage consumers to pursue sustainable food
items, but consumers’ tolerance for the magnitude of a premium price may vary across restaurant
segments. Based on the rationale above, it is hypothesized that:
H3: The magnitude of a premium price (small vs. large) of organic food menu (vs. a
conventional menu) significantly influences consumers' favorable evaluations towards the target
restaurant over the rival (measured by the perception distance between two restaurants), in terms
of attitudes and willingess to select, but it has little influence on the perception distance in
perceived food quality between two competing restaurants.
a. The magnitude of a premium price does not affect perception distance in food quality
between the target restaurant and the rival.
b. The magnitude of a premium price has a negative impact on the perception distance
in attitudes between the target restaurant and the rival.
c. The magnitude of a premium price has a negative impact on the perception distance
in willingness to select between the target restaurant and the rival.
H4: The effect of organic food menu on diners’ perceptions of food quality, attitudes, and
willingness to select between the target and rival restaurants may differ across restaurant
segments (hypothesis 2), and this variation across segments is likely to depend on the price
premium (small vs. large) of an organic food menu. Therefore, there is an interaction between
restaurant segment and price premium on diners’ perception distance between two competing
restaurants. Specifically:
65
a. When an organic food menu is paired with a small premium price, consumers’
perception distance in food quality between the two restaurants is greater in the quick-
service segment when compared to the two upper-scale segments; when an organic
food menu is paired with a large premium price, the differences between the
restaurant segments becomes smaller.
b. When an organic food menu is paired with a small premium price, consumers’
perception distance in attitudes between the two restaurants is greater in the quick-
service segment when compared to the two upper-scale segments; when an organic
food menu is paired with a large premium price, the differences between the
restaurant segments becomes smaller.
c. When an organic food menu is paired with a small premium price, consumers’
perception distance in willingness to select between the two restaurants is greater in
the quick-service segment when compared to the two upper-scale segments; when an
organic food menu is paired with a large premium price, the differences between the
restaurant segments becomes smaller.
3. Method
3.1. Study design and sample
A scenario-based experiment was conducted to emulate a situation where consumers
were browsing menus online before making a restaurant decision. In the scenario, consumers
were asked to indicate their perceptions of two competing choices (Restaurant A and B). Both
restaurants were described to provide appealing menu items, have positive online reviews by
prior customers, and have similarly attractive atmospheres within the same restaurant segment.
66
Ingredients of most menu items at Restaurant A (“the target restaurant”) were organic, and thus,
the average price was a bit higher than that of Restaurant B (“the rival restaurant”). This study
used two pricing methods to manipulate the two levels of a price discrepancy between Restaurant
A and Restaurant B (a small price premium vs. a large price premium) to test the effect of price.
A total of six scenarios were manipulated by restaurant segment (e.g., quick service, casual
dining and fine dining) and the scope of the price discrepancy between the target and rival
restaurants.
This study utilized a 3 (restaurant type: quick service vs. casual dining vs. fine dining) ×
2 (price discrepancy: small vs. large) between-subjects factorial design. In each condition,
participants were asked to indicate their perceived food quality, attitudes towards the restaurant,
and willingness to select for both restaurant choices (A and B). Apart from their rating scores,
participants were also asked to make a final selection between A and B. The consumer panel was
recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (www.mturk.com). Participants were randomly assigned
to one of the six experimental conditions. The primary purpose of using a completely
randomized experiment was to generate substantial reliability and validity of manipulated factors
and to eliminate biases caused by nuisance variables (e.g., individual differences, demographics),
which may potentially influence the final results (Kuehl, 2000).
3.2. Procedure and measures
A web-based survey was developed to collect consumers’ responses under different
treatment conditions. Participants were asked to imagine an occasion that they were going to a
quick-service/casual dining/fine dining restaurant for dinner with a friend. They used
smartphones to search menus and online reviews to narrow down choices. Eventually, they were
67
limited to two competing Restaurants (A and B) (e.g., based on appealing food, atmosphere,
convenient location, favorable customer reviews, etc.). Most menu items from Restaurant A were
made from organic ingredients while Restaurant B’s menu did not mention the source of
ingredients. It was also visible to participants that Restaurant A charged a higher price than that
of Restaurant B due to the ingredients used. Two levels of price treatment (price discrepancy
between A and B: small vs. large) were applied to all segments using two pricing techniques
commonly employed by industry practitioners. Appendix B presents price treatments by
experimental conditions and detailed formula for each menu pricing method. Therefore, in the
small price discrepancy treatment, Restaurant A holds the same contribution margin (i.e., gross
profit) as Restaurant B but a higher food cost percentage. In the large price discrepancy
treatment, Restaurant A holds the same food cost percentage as Restaurant B and thus results in a
higher contribution margin. After reading the scenario, participants were subjected to multiple
manipulation check questions that examined whether or not manipulated stimuli were received.
Only those who successfully passed the manipulation check and attention check items were
allowed to proceed to the rest of the questionnaire. Afterward, participants were asked to rate
Restaurant A and Restaurant B regarding perceived food quality, attitudes, and willingness to
select, respectively. Respondents’ hunger level and mood were also measured to exclude
preexisting biases. Six scenarios in this study only differ from one another by the manipulative
treatment (see Appendix A).
All measurements were adopted from existing scales with slight modifications to fit the
context of this study. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or
disagree with each statement using a 7-point Likert-scale (1 = “strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly
68
agree”). Perceived food quality was captured via items from Ryu et al. (2012) and Namkung and
Jang (2007). Items were asked in a future tense to measure respondents’ expected quality such as
“The food served at restaurant A (or B) will be delicious” and "The food offered by restaurant A
(or B) will be fresh." The measure of attitudes followed Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1970; 2000)
conceptualization as an overall evaluation of one’s favorableness or unfavorableness towards an
object. Therefore, attitudes towards the restaurant were gauged using a semantic differential
scale with items such as “bad/good,” “unfavorable/favorable,” and “undesirable/desirable”
(Bennett and Rundle-Thiele, 2002). Four items were utilized to measure diners’ willingness to
select drawing on prior studies (e.g., Han, Hsu, & Sheu, 2010). Respondents’ demographic
information was collected (e.g., gender, age, education, race, occupation, and income).
4. Results
4.1. Sample profile and treatment conditions
This study only included consumers who currently reside in the U.S. and visited a quick
service, casual dining, and fine dining restaurants at some time over the past six months. A total
of 405 valid responses were included in the final dataset for statistical analysis. As presented in
Table 1, female respondents (64.1%) outnumbered male respondents (34.2%). The average age
of the consumer sample was 36.3 years old. Most respondents were either “Single” (31.2%) or
“Married” (42.8%). Regarding the education level, 39.8% of the respondents obtained a
“Bachelor's degree,” and 22.1% of them were “High school graduates.” The sample was
dominated by “Caucasians” (79.6%) followed by other ethnic groups. The respondents exhibited
a broad range of income levels starting from “under $15,000” to “$135,000 and above.”
Approximately half of the respondents lived in suburbs (54.5%) and about 30% of them lived in
69
urban areas (32.5%). Respondents’ demographic profiles were analyzed (Table 1) utilizing a
series of Chi-square difference tests to confirm the randomization before proceeding to
hypothesis testing. Results of Chi-square tests indicated a complete randomization as none of the
demographic variables significantly differed across treatment conditions (e.g., gender: p = .779;
marital status: p = .473; occupation: p = .647; education: p = .661; ethnicity: p = .403; income: p
= .171 residence: p = .990).
Means, standard deviations of dependent variables (e.g., perceived food quality, attitudes,
and willingness to select), and cell sizes of six treatment conditions are presented in Table 2. Six
experimental conditions presented comparable cell sizes ranging from 64 to 70. Perception
distance in the dependent variables (e.g., perceived food quality, attitudes, and willingness to
select) between Restaurant A and B were created by subtracting the rating of Restaurant B from
that of Restaurant A. A positive score denoted the magnitude of preference for the target
restaurant whereas a negative score suggested a preference for the rival restaurant, and thus a
larger (vs. smaller) numeric value reflected a tendency towards Restaurant A. Before converting
to a summated score, dependent variables were examined for internal consistency. Cronbach’s
alpha values of the dependent variables ranged from .882 to .951, suggesting a substantial
internal consistency among items within each dependent variable.
4.2. Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis 1 proposed that due to the presence of an organic food menu consumers’
perceived food quality, attitudes towards the restaurant, and willingness to select of the target
restaurant (“Restaurant A”) were higher than those of the rival restaurant (“Restaurant B”). Three
separate Paired Sample t-tests were carried out for the entire sample. The results indicated that
70
consumer perceived food quality in Restaurant A significantly surpassed that of Restaurant B
(MA-B = .940, t = 18.47, df = 404, p < .001). Respondents’ attitudes towards Restaurant A were
significantly more favorable than that of Restaurant B (MA-B = .428, t = 5.46, df = 404, p < .001).
However, respondents’ overall willingness to select was rated higher for Restaurant B, as
opposed to Restaurant A (MA-B = -.486, t = -3.76, df = 404, p < .001). Therefore, hypotheses 1a
(perceived food quality) and 1b (attitudes) were fully supported, and hypothesis 1c was thus
rejected.
The respondents were also asked to indicate their final decision between two competing
restaurants. The findings revealed that 38.6% of the entire sample selected Restaurant A, which
provided organic menu items at a higher price while the majority (61.2%) endorsed Restaurant
B, which offered a conventional menu with a lower price. A close examination of each cell
revealed that when an organic food menu was charged at a small premium price (“contribution
margin method”) at quick-service restaurants, 63.6% of the respondents selected Restaurant A
over B (Table 2). However, when a quick service restaurant was paired with a large premium
price (“food cost percentage method”), the majority (67.1%) of consumers chose Restaurant B
over A. In selecting a casual dining restaurant, most respondents chose Restaurant B over A,
regardless of the price treatments (small premium price: 67.6%, large premium price: 82.8%). As
for the fine dining segment, more than half of the respondents chose Restaurant A over B when
an organic food menu was slightly over priced; conversely, 68.6% of the respondents favored
restaurant B over A when a large premium price appeared on the organic food menu. Overall,
when an organic food menu (“Restaurant A”) was primed with a small premium price most
consumers chose Restaurant A over B when selecting quick service and upscale restaurants;
71
however, a large premium price flipped the directional effect. When selecting a casual dining
restaurant, consumers consistently favored Restaurant B, which offered a conventional menu at a
lower price.
Hypothesis 2 postulated that consumers’ perception gaps between Restaurant A and B
(measured as a tendency towards Restaurant A) regarding perceived food quality, attitudes, and
willingness to select are likely to vary across restaurant segments. A Multivariate Analysis of
Variance with Covariates (MANCOVA) was conducted with restaurant segment as a fixed factor
and a few metric variables (e.g., hunger, mood and age) as covariates. A number of assumptions
were examined before proceeding to data analysis such as independence, normality, equality of
variance-covariance matrices, and linearity.
The univariate results of MANCOVA were demonstrated in Table 3 and Figure 1.
Among the covariates entered, only age (Wilks’ Lambda = .941, F (3, 390) = 8.08, p < .001, partial
η2 = .059) exhibited a significant effect on the perceptions distance between Restaurant A and B
concerning food quality, attitudes, and willingness to select. Restaurant segment (Wilks’ Lambda
= .954, F(6, 780) = 3.108, p < .01, partial η2 = .023) presented a significant effect on respondents’
perception distance in perceived food quality (F(2, 392) = 6.368, p < .01, partial η2 = .031, observed
power = .90), attitudes (F (2, 392) = 5.585, p < .05, partial η2 = .028, observed power = .86), and
willingness to select (F (2, 392) = 6.744, p < .05, partial η2 = .033, observed power = .92).
According to Figure 1, providing an organic food menu offered a greater advantage at quick-
service restaurants in terms of food quality (M (A-B) = 1.183, SD = .086), compared to the other
two segments (casual dining: M (A-B) = .771, SD = .086; fine dining: M (A-B) = .861, SD = .084).
Perception distance in attitudes between Restaurant A and B was larger in the quick-service
72
segment (M (A-B) = .780, SD = .135), compared to the mid-to-upper scale restaurants (casual
dining: M (A-B) = .151, SD = .136; fine dining: M (A-B) = .362, SD = .133). Interestingly, findings
on willingness to select suggested that only quick-service restaurant patrons were more willing to
select Restaurant A over B (M (A-B) = .091, SD = .133). Customers in casual dining (M (A-B) = -
1.069, SD = .224) and fine dining segments (M (A-B) = -.505, SD = .218) were less willing to
select Restaurant A compared to Restaurant B. Planed contrast comparison results found that
perception distances in food quality (p < .01), attitudes (p < .01), and willingness to select (p
< .01) were consistently greater when selecting a quick-service restaurant, compared to the other
two segments. Thus, hypothesis 2 was fully supported.
Building on the effects proposed in hypothesis 2, hypotheses 3 and 4 examined the
influence of price premium and the interaction between price and restaurant segment on
consumers’ decision-making. A two-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance with Covariates
(MANCOVA) was performed with restaurant segment and price discrepancy as fixed factors and
several metric variables (e.g., hunger, mood and age) as covariates. Perception distance in food
quality, attitudes, and WTS was entered as dependent variables. Age was found to have a
significant impact on dependent variable (Wilks’ Lambda = .942, F (3, 387) = 8.002, p < .01,
partial η2 = .058). As suggested by Table 4, restaurant segment (Wilks’ Lambda = .951, F (6, 774) =
3.247, p < .01, partial η2 = .025, observed power = .931) and the magnitude of a premium price
(Wilks’ Lambda = .934, F (3, 387) = 9.135, p < .001, partial η2 = .066, observed power = .996)
exerted significant main effects on three dependent variables. Univariate results suggested that
the magnitude of price did not influence consumers’ perception distance in food quality (p
= .511) but exerted a significant main effect on perception distance in attitudes (p < .01) and
73
willingness to select (p < .001). As plotted in Figure 1, consumers' preference for Restaurant A
(as indicated by a positive score in perception distance) regarding food quality persisted across
three segments and the levels of premium price had little effect, supporting hypothesis 3a.
However, a significant main effect of premium price was detected when perception difference in
attitudes (p < .01) and willingness to select (p < .001) were entered as dependent variables.
As suggested in Figure 2 and 3, a large premium price shortened the perception distance
score regarding attitudes and willingness to select. Therefore, the magnitude of a premium price
has a negative impact on the perception distance in attitudes and willingness to select between
the target restaurant and the rival, confirming hypotheses 3b and 3c. The role of price suggested
that a large (vs. small) premium price charged by an organic food menu could discourage
consumers' positive attitudes for the target restaurant relative to the rival. This adverse effect was
more concerning in casual dining restaurants because a large premium price overrode the
advantage of using organic ingredients reflected by consumers’ preferred attitudes towards
Restaurant B versus A (M (A-B) = -.045, SD = .193). Results also indicated that when perception
distance in attitudes were considered as dependent variable both price discrepancy (F (1, 389) =
8.927, p < .01, partial η2 = .022, observed power = .85) and restaurant segment (F (2, 389) = 5.744,
p < .01, partial η2 = .029, observed power = .87) exhibited significant main effects. When
measuring the perception distance in willingness to select, the role of price became very
influential (F (1, 389) = 23.804, p < .001, partial η2 = .058, observed power = .998). A large
premium price charged by an organic food menu discouraged consumers’ behavioral intentions
to such an extent that consumers were more willing to select a restaurant with a conventional
menu (Figure 3), which was found in all three restaurant segments (Table 4 and Figure 3). Both
multivariate and univariate results suggested no significant interaction between restaurant
74
segment and price no matter which dependent variable was considered (Table 4, Figure 1, 2, 3).
Therefore, the effect of restaurant segment (as suggested in hypothesis 2) did not depend on
levels of premium price and thus hypothesis 4 was rejected.
5. Discussion and implications
5.1. Theoretical implications
The results reveal that using organic ingredients to transform a conventional menu
certainly helps restaurants gain an edge over competitors through influencing diners’ perceptions
of food quality and attitudes towards restaurants. However, the results should be carefully
interpreted with consideration of restaurant segments and pricing strategies used for employing
an organic menu.
First, consumers intuitively associate the target restaurant (organic ingredients) with
higher food quality and thus develop more favorable attitudes, compared to the rival restaurant
(conventional ingredients). This result underscores a prosocial image, in other words, a positive
“halo” effect that is associated with organic ingredients. In line with the Consumer Inference
Theory, consumers make associative inferences of the product based on attributes associated
with the product. In the current context, the presence of high-quality ingredients might have
triggered consumers’ positive attitudes and heuristic inferences on other closely related aspects,
such as meal quality. The findings also reveal that a premium price is still a critical barrier in
consumers’ behavioral intentions/final choice. If the rival restaurant has competitive dining
attributes such as appealing food, great service, and ambiance, consumers are more willing to
select the rival restaurant that offers conventional ingredients at a smaller cost, when compared
to the target restaurant that provides sustainable ingredients at a larger cost. Therefore, it seems
75
challenging for most diners to endorse a premium price of organic dishes without factoring in the
real dining experience.
This study examines the variations in customers’ attitudes and behaviors towards fast
food, casual and upscale restaurants that offer organic menu items and conventional menu items.
Findings suggest that quick-service restaurants are likely to receive a greater competitive edge
through featuring organic ingredients, followed by upscale and casual dining segments. This
competitive edge is evaluated based on three positive perception gaps between the target
restaurant and its competitor, namely, perceived food quality, attitudes, and willingness to select.
When selecting restaurants, an organic food menu might trigger greater positive perceptions of
food quality and attitudes, when compared to the restaurant offering a conventional menu. In line
with Oliver's (1997) Expectation-Disconfirmation Theory, this study finds that consumers’
expectations are positively disconfirmed when restaurants use organic ingredients, which
engenders favorable attitudes towards the restaurant. Specifically, consumers’ expectations are
exceeded to a greater extent when this alternative menu is provided at a quick-service restaurant
when compared to upper scale restaurants. According to the results of this study, the presence of
sustainable food could significantly influence diners’ decisions when selecting a quick-service
restaurant in spite of a premium price. With the public’s growing interest in a healthier diet,
quick-service restaurants have made significant efforts to shun an unhealthy image caused by
menu offerings, through strategies such as promoting healthier alternatives (e.g., McDonald’s
“Favorite under 400 [calories]”) and involving registered dietitians in creating menu recipes and
nutritional labeling (e.g., Wendy’s Nutrition apps) (Hur & Jang, 2015; Lando & Labiner-Wolfe,
2007). Thus, this study sheds light on fast food restaurants' movements in combating an
unhealthy image and supporting socially responsible practices.
76
However, findings suggest that this noticeable extra cost of organic ingredients may
challenge consumers' decision-making processes when selecting upper-scale restaurants. The
results could be attributed to consumers’ sophisticated expectations for upper level restaurants.
When choosing mid-to-upper scale restaurants consumers have higher expectations for food
quality and other attributes that match the price charged. Upscale restaurants are considered a
luxury segment and the use of high-quality ingredients is usually expected (e.g., Poulston & Yiu,
2011). Previous research shows that consumers place more emphasis on the hedonic experience
than utilitarian experience when dining at upscale restaurants (Hwang & Ok, 2013). The
performance of environmental facilities such as décor and artifacts, spatial layout, and ambient
conditions, are critical to providing a fine dining experience (Ryu & Han, 2011; Han & Jeong,
2013). Therefore, the price paid at upscale restaurants is influenced by a number of criteria.
Diners may not be fully convinced to pay an overt premium price at upscale restaurants solely
based on the food ingredients used. Also, a premium price charged at upper-scale restaurants is
more visible due to a larger basis of food cost, when compared to quick service restaurants (see
Appendix B). Interestingly, the results from these two upper scale segments suggest that food
ingredients are more likely to be a differentiating factor for fine dining, versus casual dining
restaurants. This result parallels Namkung and Jang’s (2013) findings that consumers’ behavioral
intentions are more positively influenced when an upscale (vs. casual dining) restaurant
incorporates sustainable food when the role of price is excluded. Hence, although food quality is
positioned as a core attribute for all types of restaurants, customers assign more weight to the
food when they visit upscale restaurants (vs. casual dining restaurants) and thus are more subject
to food-related cues than other informational cues while making a restaurant decision, (e.g.,
Namkung & Jang, 2013).
77
Lastly, this research sheds light on pricing strategies at different restaurant segments
regarding organic menu items. Raising menu prices is a delicate task. The results suggest that the
influence of food ingredients on menu pricing differs depending on the scale of restaurants. The
quick-service segment is more flexible in raising menu price when drawing on the quality of
food ingredients (e.g., organic ingredients) than the other two segments. However, raising menu
price at casual dining and upscale restaurants should be strategic and subtle. To offset the extra
cost of organic ingredients, restaurants may consider redistributing the profit gained from items
with higher margins instead of raising the entire menu price. Though the results of this study
clearly favor the “contribution margin method” (small price raise) over the “food cost percentage
method” (large price raise), menu pricing may not be limited to a single method approach.
Rather, a combination of multiple pricing methods may be more tactical due to the critical
influence of menu price on consumers’ value perception and restaurants’ profitability. For
example, competition pricing (i.e., pricing according to competitors and the general market) and
demand-driven pricing methods (i.e., pricing based on the economics of demand and supply)
should also be considered (Parpal, 2015).
In the present study, the adverse effect of the “food-cost percentage” method could
partially be attributed to the presence of a competition pricing within restaurants. Also, the
“demand-driven” method suggest that restaurants need to factor in the demand driven by
customers (e.g., limited choice in the vicinity, customers’ interest) before raising the menu price.
Because the menu is at the core of restaurants’ strategy and drives consumers to select or “veto”
a restaurant, menu pricing requires numerous deliberations to maximize the perceived value that
is provided to customers (McCall & Lynn, 2008; Wansink & Love, 2014). Instead of rigidly
raising the menu price, previous research on menu pricing also urges restaurants to use “menu
78
psychology” tactics as supplementary/alternative approaches to increase profits (see Wansink &
Love, 2014). Consumers’ hedonic attitudes are particularly important to their restaurant
preference within the upper scale segment (Hwang & Ok, 2013). To counterbalance the extra
food costs associated with organic ingredients, using indirect approaches to stimulate guests’
hedonic interests (e.g., excitement, fun, and entertainment) may provide a better solution than
injudiciously raising menu price.
Also, if sustainable food is not strategically priced, consumers tend to draw alternative
conclusions about the restaurant, including insincerity, opportunism, and egotism (Nyilasy,
Gangadharbatla, & Paladino, 2014). Attribution theory suggests that individuals make inferences
based on skeptical attributes. Prior studies have shown that consumers often have adverse
perceptions towards corporate’s greenwashing behaviors (e.g., Nyilasy et al., 2014; Rahman,
Park & Chi, 2015). In this study, consumers may perceive the restaurant as opportunistic when
raising the menu price solely based on the presence of sustainable ingredients. This is a short-
sighted strategy and is likely to backfire due to consumers’ misinterpretations.
5.2. Managerial implications
While differentiation strategies may help restaurants succeed, restaurant managers need
to better understand consumers’ reactions towards providing organic ingredients. This study
provides valuable insight that may assist these managers in making informed business decisions
while helping consumers pursue a healthier diet through sourcing organic ingredients. Though
using sustainable (e.g., organic) ingredients may provide restaurants a competitive edge, the
advantage of using sustainable food significantly varies across restaurant segments. Hence,
79
restaurant managers should realize that using an organic food menu to attract customers should
be strategically enforced by factoring in restaurant segments and pricing methods.
A strong message emanated from the findings is that restaurants from the quick-service
segment might primarily benefit via adopting an organic food menu as far as potential profit and
customers’ visitation are concerned. Organic food served at quick-service restaurants is likely to
set the business apart from its competitors, as it significantly exceeds many consumers’
expectations for food served in fast food restaurants. Notwithstanding a price challenge,
consumers perceive higher food quality and express greater positive attitudes and behavioral
intentions towards a restaurant where sustainable food is offered, as opposed to its rival.
However, the advantage of using sustainable ingredients becomes smaller when a “food cost
percentage” pricing method it utilized, which corresponds to a larger premium price, which is
used for an organic food menu.
Managers who operate casual dining and upscale restaurants should be warned about the
possible consequences of overpricing an organic food menu. Based on the findings of this study,
a larger premium price may turn consumers away when choosing between competitors in the
casual and upscale dining restaurant segments. This finding corroborates previous research that
argues that the cost of organic ingredients is a persistent challenge associated when attempting to
implement organic food menus (e.g., Poulston & Yiu, 2011). Though higher food quality is
perceived by consumers when restaurants use organic ingredients, this does not result in
favorable attitudes and willingness to select. An injudicious pricing approach in casual dining
and upscale restaurants may turn potential customers towards their competitors. Albeit
seasonality, a lack of variety and inefficiency of delivery systems inevitability makes organic
80
ingredients more expensive (Poulston & Yiu, 2011). Therefore, mid-to-upper scale restaurants
should avoid using a single menu pricing method (e.g., contribution margin pricing and food cost
percentage methods).
From a practitioner’s standpoint, this research also parallels a prior contention that
sustainable food enjoys a promising future among restaurant customers. When appropriately
priced, the competitive advantage of using an organic food menu is consistent across restaurant
segments. Managers are encouraged to source sustainable ingredients either in the belief of an
ethical business concept or as an approach to enforcing green practices (e.g., Namkung & Jang,
2013); however, mid-to-upper scale restaurants should execute this menu trend in the knowledge
of the critical role of menu price in decision-making.
Managers may also consider promoting sustainable food at the temporary sacrifice of a
reduced profit margin, which may lead to a long-term viability through crafting a socially
responsible image and retaining loyal consumers. Otherwise, managers need to be resourceful in
menu engineering to counterbalance the cost of organic ingredients. Restaurants are encouraged
to utilize “menu psychology” tactics to nudge diners towards more profitable items and increase
perceived value (Wansink & Love, 2014). For example, restaurants may enhance taste
expectations through creating a descriptive menu. Items could be crafted with sensory names
(e.g., Velvety chocolate mousse), geographic names (e.g., Iowa farm-raised pork chops), or
nostalgic names (e.g., Old-style Manicotti; ye old potato bread) (Wansink, Painter, & Van
Ittersum, 2001; Wansink & Love, 2014). In addition to commonly used pricing methods,
restaurants may avoid using a straight column when listing item prices because diners’ attention
may migrate from the food towards the price (Poundstone, 2010). Additionally, diners are less
likely to pay attention to the cost of each item when a meal involves multiple items (Poundstone,
81
2010). When the price increase is due to major ingredients/items, a restaurant may offer
inexpensive side dishes to downplay this price challenge. Alternatively, chefs may improve meal
presentations, adjust portion sizes, select inexpensive auxiliary ingredients to reduce food costs,
and develop wine/beer and food pairing menu options to improve diners’ perceived value and
gastronomic delight.
As suggested in prior research, expansion of organic marketing is still subject to
consumers’ beliefs (e.g., Poulson & Yiu, 2011). Despite the obstacles (e.g., price and supply)
associated with sustainable dining, restaurant managers can still be confident about the future of
organic marketing and public support. In Europe, organic farming has flourished under the
interventions of governmental policies (Stolze & Lampkin, 2009). If there is an anticipated
growth of public’s belief in sustainable diet and a mature organic food supply system that is
bolstered by various governmental or social support, sustainable dining might prosper at
restaurants as risks attributed to the cost and supply issues become less significant.
6. Limitation and future extensions
Limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, this research only examines
consumers’ psychological dynamics in a restaurant search. Given the paucity of research on
dining sustainable food at restaurants, future studies may continue to explore meal satisfaction
and perceived value of sustainable dining, as well as post-consumption outcomes such as trust,
revisit intentions, and consumers’ positive word of mouth communications either online or
offline.
Second, this study explores the impacts of restaurant segment and menu price, while
controlling for other factors such as food attractiveness and service and ambiance based on
82
previous customers' reviews. Realistically, many restaurant choice situations may require
consumers to make a decision among unequally weighted dining attributes. For example,
Restaurant A may have an appealing menu with good food, but previous customers suggest an
average service and dining environment (e.g., noise, interior and exterior layout, and lighting);
meanwhile, Restaurant B may have less attractive food options, but previous customers
consistently suggest an excellent service and atmospherics. To increase the applicability and
external validity, future research could conduct a series of choice experiments including multiple
trade-offs of dining attributes along with the presence of an organic food menu. These discrete
choice experiments may need to be performed within a pre-defined restaurant segment to
increase the applicability to real life occasions.
It is also worth mentioning that the respondents of this study are not further categorized.
Ample evidence from existing literature indicates that consumers’ values/beliefs (e.g., health
consciousness, short-/long-term orientations) and food-related orientations (e.g., food
adventurers, food involvement) have a significant impact on dining choices (e.g., Jun et al.,
2014; Kang et al., 2015). Future research involving these critical variables may help researchers
and practitioners to better understand how restaurants can further profile potential consumers of
sustainable food.
83
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: reasoned and
automatic processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 1-33.
Bennett, R., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2002). A comparison of attitudinal loyalty measurement
approaches. The Journal of Brand Management, 9(3), 193-209.
Brandau, M. (2013). Finding answers for mobile search. Retrieved from
http://nrn.com/blog/finding-answers-mobile-search
Brown, C., & Sperow, M. (2005). Examining the cost of an all-organic diet. Journal of Food
Distribution Research, 36(1), 20-26.
Fishbein, M. (1967). Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in
Attitude Theory and Measurement (pp. 477-492). New York: Wiley.
Chang, H.-S., Zepeda, L., (2004). Consumer perceptions and demand for organic food in
Australia: focus group discussions. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20 (3),
155–167.
Gupta, S., McLaughlin, E., & Gomez, M. (2007). Guest satisfaction and restaurant
performance. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 284-298.
Gregory, S., McTyre, C., & DiPietro, R. B. (2006). Fast food to healthy food: a paradigm shift.
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 7(4), 43-64.
Han, H., Hsu, L. T. J., & Sheu, C. (2010). Application of the theory of planned behavior to green
hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tourism
Management, 31(3), 325-334.
Han, H., & Jeong, C. (2013). Multi-dimensions of patrons’ emotional experiences in upscale
84
restaurants and their role in loyalty formation: Emotion scale improvement. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 59-70.
Harrington, R. J., Ottenbacher, M. C., Staggs, A., & Powell, F. A. (2012). Generation Y
consumers key restaurant attributes affecting positive and negative experiences. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36(4), 431-449.
Hur, J., & Jang, S. S. (2015). Consumers’ inference-dynamics about healthy menu promotions in
a bundle context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 44, 12-22.
Hwang, J., & Ok, C. (2013). The antecedents and consequence of consumer attitudes toward
restaurant brands: A comparative study between casual and fine dining
restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 121-131.
Jang, Y. J., Kim, W. G., & Bonn, M. A. (2011). Generation Y consumers’ selection attributes
and behavioral intentions concerning green restaurants. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 30(4), 803-811.
Jeong, E., & Jang, S. S. (2015). Healthy menu promotions: A match between dining value and
temporal distance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 45, 1-13.
Jeong, E., Jang, S. S., Day, J., & Ha, S. (2014). The impact of eco-friendly practices on green
image and customer attitudes: An investigation in a café setting. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 41, 10-20.
Jun, J., Kang, J., & Arendt, S. W. (2014). The effects of health value on healthful food selection
intention at restaurants: Considering the role of attitudes toward taste and healthfulness of
healthful foods. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 42, 85-91.
Kang, J., Jun, J., & Arendt, S. W. (2015). Understanding customers’ healthy food choices at
85
casual dining restaurants: Using the Value–Attitude–Behavior model. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 48, 12-21.
Kardes, F. R., Posavac, S. S., & Cronley, M. L. (2004). Consumer inference: A review of
processes, bases, and judgment contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 230-
256.
Kim, H. J., Park, J., Kim, M. J., & Ryu, K. (2013). Does perceived restaurant food healthiness
matter? Its influence on value, satisfaction and revisit intentions in restaurant operations
in South Korea. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 397-405.
Kozup, J. C., Creyer, E. H., & Burton, S. (2003). Making healthful food choices: the influence of
health claims and nutrition information on consumers’ evaluations of packaged food
products and restaurant menu items. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 19-34.
Kuehl, R.O., 2000. Design of experiments: statistical principles of research designand
analysis, 2nd ed. Duxbury/Thomson Learning, Pacific Grove, CA.
Lando, A. M., & Labiner-Wolfe, J. (2007). Helping consumers make more healthful food
choices: consumer views on modifying food labels and providing point-of-purchase
nutrition information at quick-service restaurants. Journal of Nutrition Education and
Behavior, 39(3), 157-163.
LaVecchia, G. (2008). GREEN: THE NEW GOLD-Restaurants are facing public pressure to be
more environmentally responsible. Some forward-thinking operators are responding with
creative solutions. Restaurant Hospitality, 92(4), 36-47.
Lu, A. C. C., Gursoy, D., & Del Chiappa, G. (2014). The influence of materialism on
ecotourism attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Travel Research, 0047287514541005
Mariani, S. (2011). Fast-Food restaurants’ trend to increase healthy alternatives: a work in
86
progress, Retrieved from
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=178421
McCall, M., & Lynn, A. (2008). The effects of restaurant menu item descriptions on perceptions
of quality, price, and purchase intention. Journal of Foodservice Business Research,
11(4), 439-445.
National Restaurant Association. (2013). Restaurant industry pocket fact book. Retrieved from
http: //www.restaurant.org.
National Restaurant Association. (2014). Video: What do consumers look for in a restaurant?
Retrieved from http://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/News/Video-What-do-
consumers-look-for-in-a-restaurant
National Restaurant Association. (2015). Technology, lifestyle food choices evolving trends for
2015. Retrieved from http://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/News/Technology-
lifestyle-food-choices-evolving-trends
Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. (2007). Does food quality really matter in restaurants? Its impact on
customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 31(3), 387-409.
Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. S. (2013). Effects of restaurant green practices on brand equity
formation: Do green practices really matter?. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 33, 85-95.
Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., & Paladino, A. (2014). Perceived greenwashing: The
interactive effects of green advertising and corporate environmental performance on
consumer reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 693-707.
Oliver, R. L. (1977). Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on postexposure product
87
evaluations: An alternative interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 480-486
Organic Trade Association. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.ota.com/resources/market-
analysis
Parpal, M. (2015). A Quick Guide on Pricing Restaurant Menu Items. Retrieved from
http://www.foodservicewarehouse.com/blog/quick-guide-pricing-restaurant-menu-items/
Parsa, H. G., Self, J. T., Gregory, A., & Dutta, K. (2012). Consumer behaviour in restaurants:
assessing the importance of restaurant attributes in consumer patronage and willingness
to pay. Journal of Services Research, 12(2), 29-56.
Patton, L. (2014). Bloomberg Business. McDonald’s may sell more organic foods to boost sales.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-21/mcdonald-s-may-sell-more-
organic-foods
Perlik, A., 2005. Organics’ chemistry. Restaurants & Institutions. Retrieved from
http://www.rimag.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6519636&article
prefix=CA&article id=6519636
Pino, G., Peluso, A. M., & Guido, G. (2012). Determinants of regular and occasional consumers'
intentions to buy organic food. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 46(1), 157-169.
Poulston, J., & Yiu, A. Y. K. (2011). Profit or principles: Why do restaurants serve organic
food? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), 184-191.
Poundstone, W. (2010). Priceless: The myth of fair value (and how to take advantage of it).
Macmillan.
Rahman, I., Park, J., & Chi, C. G. Q. (2015). Consequences of “greenwashing” Consumers’
reactions to hotels’ green initiatives. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 27(6), 1054-1081.
88
Riehle, H. (2015). Top menu trends: what’s HOT 2015 culinary forecast. Retrieved from
http://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/Research/What-s-Hot
Ryu, K., Lee, H. R., & Gon Kim, W. (2012). The influence of the quality of the physical
environment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer
satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 24(2), 200-223.
Ryu, K., & Han, H. (2011). New or repeat customers: How does physical environment influence
their restaurant experience?. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3),
599-611.
Schubert, F., Kandampully, J., Solnet, D., & Kralj, A. (2010). Exploring consumer perceptions
of green restaurants in the US. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(4), 286-300.
Stolze, M., & Lampkin, N. (2009). Policy for organic farming: Rationale and concepts. Food
Policy, 34(3), 237-244.
Sulek, J. M., & Hensley, R. L. (2004). The relative importance of food, atmosphere, and fairness
of wait the case of a full-service restaurant. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 45(3), 235-247.
Teas, R. K., & Agarwal, S. (2000). The effects of extrinsic product cues on consumers’
perceptions of quality, sacrifice, and value. Journal of the Academy of marketing
Science, 28(2), 278-290.
Wang, Y. F., Chen, S. P., Lee, Y. C., & Tsai, C. T. S. (2013). Developing green management
standards for restaurants: An application of green supply chain management.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 263-273.
Wansink, B., & Love, K. (2014). Slim by design: Menu strategies for promoting high-margin,
89
healthy foods. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 42, 137-143.
Wansink, B., Painter, J. E., & Van Ittersum, K. (2001). Do Descriptive Menu Labels Bias a
Person's Taste? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administrative Quarterly, 42(6), 68-72.
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.
90
Table 1Demographic profile of respondents (n = 405)
Note: *Age is presented as an average score calculated based on all respondents; † the sum of certain demographic
characteristics may not equal the sample size due to existence of missing values
Characteristics
Frequency†
Percentage (%)
Gender
Male
Female
139
261
34.2
64.1
Age *
36.3
NA
Marital Status
Single
Widowed
Divorced
Married
Live together
127
6
36
174
57
31.2
1.5
8.8
42.8
14.0
Occupation
Student
Professional
Managerial
Sales
Homemaker
Other
40
170
46
43
49
52
9.8
41.8
11.3
10.6
12.0
12.8
Education
Less than high school
High school graduate/G.E.D.
Associate degree/Certificate
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Doctorate degree
Other
1
90
67
162
60
13
7
0.2
22.1
16.5
39.8
14.7
3.2
1.7
Ethnicity
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander
Black/African American
Caucasian/White
Hispanic/Latino
Mixed
Other
2
14
29
324
18
10
3
0.5
3.4
7.1
79.6
4.4
2.5
0.7
Annual Income
Under $15,000
$15,000 - $29,999
$30,000 - $44,999
$45,000 – $59,999
$60,000 -$74,999
$75,000 - $89,999
$90,000 - $104,999
$105,000 - $119,999
$120,000 - $134,999
$135,000 and above
64
69
79
59
44
28
20
20
2
15
15.7
17
19.4
14.5
10.8
6.9
4.9
4.9
0.5
3.7
Residence
Urban
Suburban
Rural
122
222
56
30
54.5
13.8
91
Table 2 Mean, standard deviations, cell sizes by experimental condition and dependent variables
Small Price Difference
Large Price Difference
Quick-
service
Casual
dining
Fine
dining
Quick-
service
Casual
dining
Fine
dining
Perceived Food Quality
Restaurant A, organic
ingredients
Mean
S.D.
5.84
(0.81)
5.90
(0.66)
6.25
(0.58)
5.69
(0.81)
6.05
(0.68)
6.12
(0.79)
Restaurant B
Mean
S.D.
4.55
(1.00)
5.13
(0.70)
5.38
(0.79)
4.61
(0.99)
5.29
(0.84)
5.25
(0.98)
Attitudes
Restaurant A, organic
ingredients
Mean
S.D.
5.91
(1.07)
5.61
(1.13)
5.98
(0.92)
5.48
(1.11)
5.44
(1.03)
5.64
(1.05)
Restaurant B
Mean
S.D.
4.91
(1.32)
5.30
(0.97)
5.36
(1.02)
4.93
(1.15)
5.50
(0.92)
5.49
(1.08)
Willingness to Select
Restaurant A, organic
ingredients
Mean
S.D.
5.33
(1.47)
4.78
(1.50)
5.24
(1.46)
4.64
(1.59)
4.10
(1.64)
4.37
(1.59)
Restaurant B
Mean
S.D.
4.68
(1.33)
5.25
(1.27)
5.14
(1.22)
5.07
(1.48)
5.86
(1.01)
5.40
(1.37)
Final decision towards
Restaurant A
63.6%
32.4%
55.2%
32.9%
17.2%
31.4%
Final decision towards
Restaurant B
36.4%
67.6%
44.8%
67.1%
82.8%
68.6%
Cell size
66
68
67
70
64
70
92
Table 3 One-way MANCOVA results and univariate follow-ups
Source
Dependent Variable
Perception distance in food
quality between A and B*
Perception distance in
attitudes between A and B
Perception distance in
willingness to select
between A and B
F-value
Significance
F-value
Significance
F-value
Significance
Covariate (age)
22.265
.000
2.312
.129
3.901
.049
Restaurant Segment
6.368
.002
5.585
.004
6.744
.001
Means and SD for each segment
Quick service
M =1.183, SD = .086
M = .780, SD = .135
M = .091, SD = .223
Casual dining
M = .771, SD = .086
M = .151, SD = .136
M = -1.069, SD = .224
Fine dining
M = .861, SD = .084
M = .362, SD = .133
M = -.505, SD = .218
Note: *Dependent variable (perception distance) was measured by subtracting the score of restaurant B from the
score of restaurant A.
93
Table 4 Two-way MANCOVA results and univariate follow-ups
Source
Dependent Variable
Perception distance in
food quality between A
and B*
Perception distance in
attitudes between A and B
Perception distance in
willingness to select
between A and B
F-value
Significance
F-value
Significance
F-value
Significance
Covariate (age)
21.97
.000
1.989
.159
3.308
.07
Restaurant Segment
6.387
.002
5.744
.003
7.291
.001
Price Discrepancy
.433
.511
8.927
.003
23.804
.000
Segment * Price Interaction
.573
.564
.059
.943
.023
.977
Means and SD for six treatment conditions
Quick
service
Small
M =1.291, SD = .122
M = 1.037, SD = .191
M = .716, SD = .309
Large
M = 1.077, SD = .121
M = .529 SD = .188
M = -.521, SD = .305
Casual
dining
Small
M = .771, SD = .122
M = .341, SD = .190
M = -.440, SD = .307
Large
M = .771, SD = .124
M = -.045, SD = .193
M = -1.716, SD = .312
Fine
dining
Small
M = .851, SD = .120
M = .614, SD = .188
M = .084, SD = .304
Large
M = .871, SD = .118
M = .122, SD = .184
M = -1.063, SD = .298
Note: *Dependent variable (perception distance) was measured by subtracting the score of restaurant B from the
score of restaurant A.
94
Figure 1 Means of perception distance between restaurant A and B regarding food quality
Perception distance in food quality = perceived food quality (restaurant A) - perceived food quality (restaurant B); WTS =
willingness to select
1.291
0.771
0.851
1.077
0.771
0.871
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Quick Service Casual Dining Fine Dining
Perception distance in food quality
Small
Premium Price
Large
Premium Price
95
Figure 2 Means of perception distance between restaurant A and B regarding attitudes
Perception distance in attitudes = attitudes (restaurant A) - attitudes (restaurant B); WTS = willingness to select
1.037
0.341
0.614
0.529
-0.045
0.122
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Perception distance in attitudes
Quick Servie Casual Dining Fine Dining
Small Premium
Price
Large Premium
Price
96
Figure 3 Means of perception distance between restaurant A and B regarding willingess to select
Perception distance in WTS = WTS (restaurant A) - WTS (restaurant B); WTS = willingness to select
0.716
-0.440
0.084
-0.521
-1.716
-1.063
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
Perception distance in WTS
Quick Service Casual Dining Fine Dining
Small Premium
Price
Large Premium
Price
97
Appendix A Scenarios of each experimental condition
Condition Assigned
Scenario
Quick-service/small price
discrepancy
Scenario: You and your friend plan to go out for dinner on a Friday
night. You both are in the mood for a quick service restaurant. You take
out your smart phone and start browsing menus and customer reviews to
find a place you both like. Finally, you narrow the choices to two
restaurants (A and B) that are very close to what you are looking for.
While reading their menus, you find that most dishes at Restaurant A
use organic ingredients and the average price for most items is
approximately $7.50. Restaurant B seems to provide dishes made from
conventional ingredients, as they do not label anything as organic on the
menu, and the average price for most items is approximately $6.50.
Overall, items from both restaurants appear appetizing to you and your
friend, they both are at convenient locations, and customers posted
positive reviews.
Quick-service/large price
discrepancy
Scenario: You and your friend plan to go out for dinner on a Friday
night. You both are in the mood for a quick service restaurant. You take
out your smart phone and start browsing menus and customer reviews to
find a place you both like. Finally, you narrow the choices to two
restaurants (A and B) that are very close to what you are looking for.
While reading their menus, you find that most dishes at Restaurant
A use organic ingredients and the average price for most items
is approximately $10.50. Restaurant B seems to provide dishes made
from conventional ingredients, as they do not label anything as organic
on the menu, and the average price for most items is approximately
$6.50. Overall, items from both restaurants appear appetizing to you and
your friend, they both are at convenient locations, and customers posted
positive reviews.
Casual dining/small price
discrepancy
Scenario: You and your friend plan to go out for dinner on a Friday
night. You both are in the mood for a casual dining place. You take out
your smart phone and start browsing menus and customer reviews to find
a place you both like. Finally, you narrow the choices to two restaurants
(A and B) that are very close to what you are looking for. While reading
their menus, you realize that most dishes at Restaurant A use organic
ingredients and the average price for most items is
approximately $13.50. Restaurant B seems to provide dishes made from
conventional ingredients, as they do not label anything as organic on the
menu, and the average price for most items is approximately $11.50.
Overall, items from both restaurants appear appetizing to you and your
friend, they both are at convenient locations, and customers liked their
ambiance and service.
Casual dining/large price
discrepancy
Scenario: You and your friend plan to go out for dinner on a Friday
night. You both are in the mood for a casual dining place. You take out
your smart phone and start browsing menus and customer reviews to find
a place you both like. Finally, you narrow the choices to two restaurants
(A and B) that are very close to what you are looking for. While reading
their menus, you realize that most dishes at Restaurant A use organic
ingredients and the average price for most items is approximately $18.50.
98
Restaurant B seems to provide dishes made from
conventional ingredients, as they do not label anything as organic on
the menu, and the average price for most items is approximately $11.50.
Overall, dishes from both restaurants appear appetizing to you and your
friend, they both are at convenient locations, and customers liked their
ambiance and service.
Fine dining/small price
discrepancy
Scenario: You and your friend plan to go out for dinner on a Friday
night. You both are in the mood for a fine dining restaurant. You take
out your smart phone and start browsing menus and customer reviews to
find a place you both like. Finally, you narrow the choices to two
restaurants (A and B) that are very close to what you are looking for.
While reading their menus, you find that most dishes at Restaurant A
use organic ingredients and the average price for most items is
approximately $36.00. Restaurant B seems to provide dishes made from
conventional ingredients, as they do not label anything as organic on the
menu, and the average price for most items is approximately $30.50.
Overall, items from both restaurants appear appetizing to you and your
friend, they both are at convenient locations, and customers liked their
ambiance and service.
Fine dining/large price
discrepancy
You and your friend plan to go out for dinner on a Friday night. You
both are in the mood for a fine dining restaurant. You take out your
smart phone and start browsing menus and customer reviews to find a
place you both like. Finally, you narrow the choices to two restaurants (A
and B) that are very close to what you are looking for. While reading
their menus, you find that most dishes at Restaurant A use organic
ingredients and the average price for most items is approximately $48.50.
Restaurant B seems to provide dishes made from conventional
ingredients, as they do not label anything as organic on the menu, and the
average price for most items is approximately $30.50. Overall, items
from both restaurants appear appetizing to you and your friend, they both
are at convenient locations, and customers liked their ambiance and
service.
99
Appendix B Price treatment by experiement conditions and calculation breakdowns
Segment
Breakdown
Small price discrepancy
Large price discrepancy
Restaurant B
Restaurant A
Restaurant B
Restaurant A
Quick-
service
Price
$6.50
$7.67
$6.50
$10.4
Food cost
$1.95
$3.12
$1.95
$3.12
Contribution margin
$4.55
$4.55
$4.55
$7.28
Food cost percentage
30%
40.7%
30%
30%
Casual
dining
Price
$11.50
$13.57
$11.50
$18.40
Food cost
$3.45
$5.52
$3.45
$5.52
Contribution margin
$8.05
$8.05
$8.05
$12.88
Food cost percentage
30%
40.7%
30%
30%
Fine
dining
Price
$30.50
$35.99
$30.50
$48.80
Food cost
$9.15
$14.64
$9.15
$14.64
Contributiion margin
$21.35
$21.35
$21.35
$34.16
Food cost percentage
30%
40.7%
30%
30%
Note: Organic ingredients are calcuated as 60% more than conventional ingredients, for example, Food cost at Restauratn A =
Food cost at Restaurant B × (1+60%); Price = Food cost + Contribution margin; Food cost percentage = Food cost/Price × 100%
100
MANUSCRIPT THREE
PROMOTING LOCAL FOOD TO TRAVELERS AND RESIDENTS: THE ROLE OF MENU
STIMULI AND INVOLVEMENT
1. Introduction
With the growing interests and frequency of dining out, restaurateurs strive to stay
competitive by keeping abreast of consumers’ preferences and dining philosophies (Riehle,
2015). A core goal of restaurants involves the continuous investment in menu offerings in an
attempt to satisfy consumers' ever-increasing needs for a higher quality and healthier meal
(Jeong & Jang, 2015; Strom, 2013). Among numerous culinary trends, menu offerings prepared
with local ingredients has become the number one menu trend according to national restaurant
association reports (NRA, 2013, 2015). In the wake of dining “local,” local food themed
restaurants are sprouting up throughout the U.S. and the consumption of locally sourced
ingredients has increased drastically in recent years (Alfnes & Sharma, 2010; Sharma, Moon, &
Strohbehn, 2014; Urban Farm). According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (2015), the
number of farmers markets has reached 8,400, which signifies an exponential growth compared
to the 1,755 that existed ten years ago.
Consumers appreciate local produce for a myriad of reasons. Local food is usually
considered fresh and tasty, which qualifies meal palatability (Darby et al., 2008). Consumers
often believe that purchasing local food contributes to environmental sustainability and helps
support the local economy (e.g., Campbell, DiPietro, & Remar, 2014). Research also suggests
that people tend to trust local food more than food transported from other regions (Delind, 2006).
From a restaurant’s perspective, adhering to this “Farm-to-Table” movement fosters business
viability through addressing consumers’ concerns. For instance, restaurants use local food as a
101
differentiation strategy in a bid to overshadow competitors (James, Rickard, & Rossman, 2009).
Promoting local food also allows restaurants to maintain lucrative returns, as most consumers are
willing to pay a price premium for local food dishes (Ortiz, 2010). However, restaurant owners
should be alert about the longevity of this differentiation strategy. As this emerging culinary
practice has fueled the growth of restaurants that source local ingredients, the effectiveness of
this approach may fade over time. Previous research (Sharma et al., 2014) on restaurants’
decisions of utilizing local food has suggested that “[as] locally grown foods are clearly
becoming popular, their ‘localness’ may not be the reason for their popularity” (p. 141). Other
characteristics, such as attributes of the producers (e.g., local farmers) and the establishment of
customer relationships, may also be exploited to sustain diners’ interests in local food (Sharma et
al., 2014). Accordingly, an examination of additional strategies is warranted to promote the
competitive status of local food themed restaurants. Also, the existing literature on local food
consumption is dominantly confined in a tourism context and agruicultual food products, and
most studies are conducted from a traveler’s perspective (e.g., Seo et al., 2013; Kim & Eves,
2012; Kim et al., 2009, 2013). Given the growing interest of sourcing local ingredients at
restaurants, both residents and travelers’ decision-making should be empirically examined.
Therefore, this study aims to develop and test whether or not disclosing the local food
supplier’s information via two menu strategies can improve diners’ attitudes and purchase
intentions of local food cuisines within a restaurant setting. In the current context, this additional
background information is signaled either through a visual or verbal depiction and compared to a
condition in which such information is absent. This study also examines the differences between
102
two types of customers (i.e., travelers vs. residents) in reactions to each menu stimulus,
considering the role of personal involvement with local food.
This research is important to the literature and restaurant practitioners. Findings of this
study provide a comparative examination between travelers and residents’ decision-making
towards local food cuisines, which extends the current literature on local food consumption and
menu communications with major categories of diners. From a practitioner’s perspective, this
study may directly assist managers to formulate effective menu stimuli and precisely capture
local food diners. As consumers’ needs/interests have driven the growth of this local food trend,
examining the magnitude of personal involvement is also necessary to determine diners’
decision-making towards local food cuisines at restaurants. Given the limelight on locally
sourced food and consumers’ interest, it becomes imperative that hospitality/service managers
gain an in-depth understanding of consumers’ decision-making to remain relevant in their
marketing endeavors and thus stay competitive (Campbella, DiPietrob, & Remar, 2014).
2. Literature review
2.1. Consuming local food: travelers and residents
According to the Green Restaurant Association (GRA), local food refers to food grown
within a 100-mile radius of a center operation (Green Restaurant Association, 2012). Other
definitions suggest that food is also qualified as local or regional if it travels less than 400 miles
from the origin, or within the state where it was grown (Campbell et al., 2014). In tourism
research, food consumed at the destination is found to be the most significant factor that
contributes to travelers’ satisfaction and destination popularity (Nield, Kozak, & LeGrys, 2000;
Henderson, 2009). Fresh local products (e.g., vegetables, fruits, poultry and fish) and gourmet
103
cuisines are essential to the overall destination experience and appeal to many travelers (Murphy
& Smith, 2009). Hence, travelers' interests in local food have resulted in a variety of tourism
events such as food festivals and gastronomic tourism (e.g., Kim, Suh, & Eves, 2010; Alonso &
Liu, 2012). Local food and wines are a portrayal of destination lifestyle through which travelers
seek an authentic experience of local culture while connecting with the destination (Alonso &
Liu, 2012: Getz, 2000). Research suggests that travelers spend approximately one-third of their
travel budgets on dining out during vacations (Telfer & Wall, 2000). Compared to other
expenditures, travelers are least sensitive to the price paid for local food (Pyo, Uysal, &
McLellan, 1991). In destination marketing, promoting local food has become a central strategy to
boost the development of the image of destinations and local restaurants (Alonso & Liu, 2012;
Kim, Eves, & Scarles, 2009; Kim et al., 2010).
Compared to travelers, consumers who purchase food grown near their residential areas
or patronize restaurants that source local ingredients may have distinctive mentalities. Prior
studies have revealed that consumers purchase locally grown produce not only due to its
palatability but also for the underlying connotations that include supporting the local economy,
attenuating environmental impacts, and personal wellness beliefs (Delind, 2006). A survey
administered among local food buyers reveals that 71% of them consider supporting local
farmers and the local economy a primary reason for purchasing local products (Carpio &
Isengildina-Massa, 2009), while 24% of these consumers indicate that the superior food quality
of local ingredients (e.g., freshness and tastiness) serves as the primary reason for purchasing
local food. Research also reports that many consumers are willing to pay a premium price (e.g.,
27%) for local produce (Carpio and Isengildina-Massa, 2009). According to the existing
104
literature, residents are highly attached to and are concerned with various aspects of their local
communities. As a consequence, many residents’ behaviors are subsequently influenced by
community concerns, and a sense of belongingness and community attachment, which is likely
to differ significantly from non-locals, such as travelers (e.g., Gursoy, Chi, & Dyer, 2009;
Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004). Therefore, whether being a local or non-local is likely to affect
consumers’ motivations to purchase local food.
Prior studies from the tourism literature have explored a handful of issues concerning
local food, such as travelers’ motivations and perceptions for consuming local food, factors that
drive travelers’ local food consumption, and the antecedents and consequences for attending
food festivals (e.g., Kim et al., 2009; 2013; Mak et al., 2012b; Mynttinen et al., 2015; Seo et al.,
2013, Sims, 2009). Kim’s et al. (2009, 2013) research is fundamental to better understanding
travelers’ psychological motivations for consuming local food. Employing a grounded theory
approach, these studies suggest that consumers dine on local food in a quest for excitement,
escapism, knowledge, an authentic experience, social togetherness, health benefits and sensory
appeal (Kim et al., 2009). According to their later research, health benefits are found to be the
least influential factor in driving travelers’ to consume local food (Kim et al., 2013). Apart from
sensory appeals and health benefits, perceived hedonic value of consuming local food (e.g.,
entertainment, excitement, emotional worth) is considered more appealing to travelers, when
compared to residents who endorse local produce due to the trust in local people and a
sustenance of the local economy (Ryu et al., 2012).
Despite the growing progress of local food research, studies on local food dining remain
embryonic and limited exploration has appeared in supply chain operations (e.g., Murphy &
105
Smith, 2009; Sharma et al., 2014). Both Murphy and Smith (2009) and Sharma’s et al. (2014)
studies explain the influence of supply issues (e.g., souring, operation, delivery, etc.) on
restaurants’ commitment to sourcing local ingredients. Campbell et al. (2014) examined factors
in determining local food consumption in a university setting, suggesting that providing
educational information on local products significantly leads to consumers' willingness to pay for
local food on campus.
2.2. Menu complexity and consumer perceptions
Previous studies have found that offering descriptive information in order to make
restaurants’ menu moderately complex often results in more favorable attitudes and purchase
intentions, when compared to a menu with plain ingredients list (e.g., Guéguen & Jacob, 2012;
Wansink, Painter & Van Ittersum, 2001; McCall, & Lynn, 2008). Studies suggest a few reasons
that explain this effect (Fischer & Vries, 2008; McCall & Lynn, 2008; Organ et al., 2015; Seo et
al., 2013). First, consumers rely on heuristics to associate the complicated menu with better value
and higher quality. Second, a descriptive menu may cause consumers to make inferences about
the characteristics of menu items according to the content described (e.g., Grandma’s homemade
pie). Also, stories behind the meal or the restaurant could add value to perceived dining attributes
and meanings, which further intensifies customers’ experience. In the current context, fueling
background information about local ingredients is postulated to amplify diners’ (e.g., travelers
and residents) positive attitudes and purchase intentions of menu items. It is found that travelers
who read guidebooks that contain images of the food at the destination tend to buy more locally
grown food, versus those who receive little information (Okumus, Okumus, & McKercher,
2007). When serving local food at restaurants, chefs believe that using an elaborate menu is
106
important when items are prepared with locally grown ingredients (Murphy & Smith, 2009).
Specifically, it is strategic to use menu descriptions to underscore the local ingredients, methods
of meal preparation, and local producers as a means of communication about the quality and
origins of food. Communication is essential to helping diners anticipate, interpret and appreciate
their dishes, which increases the perceived value and pleasure of the meal experience (Murphy &
Smith, 2009). Identifying producers of local ingredients not only helps diners understand the
originality of their food but also instills a sense of trust, which triggers increased interests and
behavioral intentions (Murphy & Smith, 2009; Mynttinen et al., 2015). The significance of
informing diners about the history and background of their local food dishes is also alluded to in
past studies (e.g., Campbell et al., 2014; Murphy & Smith, 2009). Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H1a: Consumers generate more favorable attitudes towards local food items when background
information about the local producer is provided, compared to when such information is absent.
H1b: Consumers generate higher purchase intentions of local food items when background
information about the local producer is provided, compared to when such information is absent.
2.3. Visual and verbal cues in promoting local menu items
This study draws on the theoretical underpinnings of the Elaboration Likelihood Model
(ELM) and explores the efficacy of employing visual and verbal depictions to provide the source
information of the local ingredients used by restaurants (e.g., the local producer). Visual and
verbal communication cues are often used in advertising and product promotion (e.g., Meyvis et
al., 2012; Sojka & Giese, 2006; Townsend & Kahn, 2014). Studies have documented distinctive
mechanisms that explain how images and words are processed, and how they influence
individuals’ decision-making (e.g., Petty & Cacioppo, 1983, 1986; Sojka & Giese, 2006). The
107
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) offers a theoretical foundation to better understand
individuals’ attitudes through integrating and processing information (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983,
1986). According to the ELM, consumers process information either through a central route or a
peripheral route. Processing information via a central route requires thoughtful and deliberate
cognition. Advertising/promotional messages may influence individuals’ attitudes through a
peripheral route, which involves little cognitive elaboration. Drawing on the ELM, the likelihood
for consumers to process issue-relevant information using elaborated cognition primarily
depends on their motivation, ability, and the availability of opportunities (Petty & Cacioppo,
1983). Otherwise, individuals tend to make judgments based on peripheral cues received in the
messages which are irrelevant to the issue in question (e.g., emotion aroused, favorable
information sources, and numbers of arguments as opposed to the rigor of arguments). For
example, consumers may favor certain products because of the presence of celebrity
endorsements, information sources (e.g., experts), appealing visual stimuli, or the presence of
positive affect (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983, 1986). However, when individuals are motivated to
make a rational judgment those peripheral cues become less influential.
Visual cues (e.g., image) deliver information in an imaginable and vivid fashion, which
are easier for individuals to capture (Meyvis et al., 2012). Prior research explains how pictures
may serve as peripheral cues and are often persuasive to individuals’ attitudes through multiple
lenses. For example, images can act as a medium that transfers affect, which is either evoked
during the evaluation process or by the content of the image (e.g., smile). Consumers
subconsciously link a positive emotion to their attitudes towards the product and thus develop
favorable attitudes. Alternatively, pictures induce imagery such that consumers associate
108
imaginary scenes with the current product (e.g., sun and sand may evoke an imagery of a
relaxing holiday) (see MacInnis & Price, 1987). As a consequence, images are processed in a
rapid, automatic fashion (Luna & Peracchio, 2003). Therefore, an image delivers meanings faster
than words because all information on the image is accepted as a whole in contrast to
combinations of words. Images also activate individuals' emotional responses more
instantaneously than verbal descriptions (Lee, Amir, & Ariely, 2009). As suggested by previous
research, words are ingested in a piecemeal manner such that individuals take their own pace to
process verbal characters (Hart, 1997). Therefore, words are processed sequentially with a
minimum likelihood of skipping (Carr et al., 1982; Townsend & Kahn, 2014). On the other hand,
visual images carry information in a gestalt fashion, dictating that consumers process such
information all at once (Townsend & Kahn, 2014). In this sense, individuals are not able to
control the pace that visual information is absorbed (Paivio, 1986).
In fact, human beings are recognized as “cognitive misers” and people tend to eschew
effortful cognition (Burnkrant, 1976). This contention is corroborated by a stream of research
which proposes a “visual preference heuristic,” concluding that consumers favor visual over
verbal advertising messages because an image allows efficient and effortless information
processing (Townsend & Kahn, 2014). However, this “visual preference heuristic” is concluded
under the condition that consumers are less involved with most advertised products, and thus it is
easier to process information using a peripheral route (MacInnis, Moorman, & Jaworski, 1991;
Kim & Lennon, 2008). Nevertheless, when individuals are motivated to process verbal cues, a
systematic approach yields a more thorough evaluation of the product and prevents readers from
109
skipping information, as opposed to the gestalt processing of visual cues (Townsend & Kahn,
2014).
As discussed in prior sections, travelers and residents are apt to react distinctively when
encountered with information about the local food supplier considering the role of self-relevance
with the destination. For travelers, local food symbolizes an inexperienced culture and the place
from which travelers are likely to gain excitement and pleasure (Kim et al., 2009). Conversely,
residents perceive local businesses (e.g., local farm) and local food as significant components of
the local community which are bound to their lives. In light of the ELM, personal relevance not
only elicits voluntary attention but also intensifies individuals’ motivation to process cognitive
cues (Petty et al., 1983). Accordingly, self-relevance is critical in determining whether
individuals rely on a central or peripheral route when processing information (Petty &
Cachioppo, 1986). Considering that individuals encode verbal and visual cues differently,
motivated consumers are likely to elaborate cognitive cues (e.g., verbal cues) when making
decisions. Following this rationale, local diners are more likely to be interested in learning
additional information about the local food supplier besides reading off the ingredients list, and
further, undertake a central route to ingest this information (e.g., verbal cues).
Compared to residents, travelers have less personal relevance to the local community. As
discussed in earlier sections, local food represents a novel destination experience which evokes a
sense of excitement among travelers. The presence of local ingredients on restaurants’ menus
may significantly arouse travelers’ interests, without tracing the background of local food. The
ELM suggests that relatively simple cues (e.g., image and music) are preferred when individuals
discern less relevance and thus a peripheral route is likely to dominate how information is
110
processed (Petty & Cachioppo, 1986). If the local supplier needs to be introduced, information
conveyed through a peripheral route or simple cue is more likely to intrigue travelers, as opposed
to information transmitted through a central route (e.g., verbal cues). Therefore, descriptive
messages may be the least considered menu stimuli when promoting local food items to
travelers. Based on the reasoning above, it is hypothesized that:
H2: There is an interaction effect between diner type and menu stimuli on attitudes towards local
food cuisines. Travelers who are exposed to a visual stimulus with supplier’s information and the
control condition (i.e., local ingredients are highlighted on the menu in the absence of source
information) develop more favorable attitudes, compared to a verbal stimulus with supplier’s
information; residents who are exposed to a verbal stimulus may develop more favorable
attitudes, compared to a visual and control conditions.
H3: There is an interaction effect between diner type and menu stimuli on purchase intentions of
local food cuisines. Travelers who are exposed to a visual stimulus and control condition may
develop greater purchase intentions, compared to a verbal stimulus; residents who are exposed to
a verbal stimulus may develop greater purchase intentions, compared to a visual and control
conditions.
2.4. Involvement
According to Zaichkowsky (1985), involvement is defined as “a person’s perceived
relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values, and interests” (p. 342). Involvement is a
central construct in advancing the understanding of consumer behavior through scrutinizing the
way people interact with advertisements, products, or purchase decisions (Zaichkowsky, 1985,
1986). In the advertising domain, involvement is characterized by the manner consumers respond
111
to an advertisement (e.g., personally affected, motivated to respond) (e.g., Petty & Cacciopo,
1981). In the product domain, involvement is a reflection of how consumers associate a product
with personal needs and values. In the purchase decision domain, involvement concerns the
extent to which consumers are motivated to make prudent decisions (Zaichkowsky, 1985, 1986).
Amongst different conceptualizations of involvement proposed by previous research (Bloch,
1981; Laurent & Kapferer, 1985; Zaichkowsky, 1985), this study defines involvement by
drawing on Zaichkowsky’s (1985) theoretical basis. In the current context, involvement with
local food represents consumers’ perceived relevance, significance, and interests in consuming
local food in their daily lives.
Previous studies have documented the influential role of involvement in altering
consumers’ attitudes and product purchase behaviors (e.g., willingness to pay, purchase
frequency) (e.g., Campbell et al., 2014; Prebensen et al., 2013; Rahman & Reynolds, 2015;
Tarkiainen & Sundqvist, 2009). In line with the ELM, levels of involvement determine how
information is received and processed (e.g., a central route or peripheral route) (Chung & Zhao,
2003). Specifically, when individuals exhibit low levels of involvement with a product,
information carried through a peripheral route (vs. a central route) becomes more persuasive
(Petty & Cacciopo, 1981, 1983). When consumers are highly involved with a product, they are
more accepting of issue-relevant information, especially with improved tendencies to process
cognitive cues received through a central route. Compared to less involved individuals, highly
involved ones are likely to be frequent buyers (Tarkiainen & Sundqvist, 2009). The theoretical
underpinnings of ELM suggest the significant moderating role of involvement (e.g., Chung &
Zhao, 2003; Petty et al., 1981). For example, source expertise (a peripheral cue) significantly
112
determines the attitudes of less involved individuals, but not as much amongst highly involved
consumers. However, the rigor of this argument is more influential to highly involved consumers
who tend to overlook peripheral cues (e.g., number of argument, source expertise) in decision-
making (Petty et al., 1981). Miniard et al. (1991) also find that pictures paired with a positive
emotion have a positive influence on purchase intentions and brand attitudes. However, this
influence significantly declines as consumers’ involvement increases. By the same token,
humorous advertising messages have a positive impact on consumers' attitudes about advertised
brands and this impact becomes much stronger when consumers are less involved with the
product being evaluated (Chung & Zhao, 2003). In the context of this study, involvement is
likely to moderate the difference between residents and travelers in their reactions towards two
menu stimuli. In other words, when individuals are highly involved with local food, both
residents and travelers may become considerably accepting to the “local food” stimulus,
regardless the presence or absence of the supplier’s information. Highly involved travelers are
motivated to engage in elaborated cognition when processing information that is relevant to local
food. On the other hand, when residents and travelers are less involved with local food, travelers
might have distinctive responses towards different stimuli because of a lack of relevance.
Accordingly, it is postulated that:
H4: Residents and travelers’ attitudes towards local food items in response to different treatment
stimuli depend on their levels of involvement with local food. Specifically,
H4a: When both residents and travelers have high levels of involvement with local food,
their attitudes towards local food cuisines in response to treatment stimuli are similar, and
thus there is no interaction effect between diner type and treatment stimulus.
113
H4b: When both travelers and residents have low levels of involvement with local food,
travelers present more favorable attitudes towards local food cuisines when exposed to a
visual stimulus and control condition, relative to verbal stimulus; whereas residents
present more favorable attitudes when exposed to a verbal stimulus, relative to visual and
control conditions. Therefore, there is an interaction between diner type and treatment
stimuli.
H5: Residents and travelers’ purchase intentions of local food cuisines in response to different
treatment stimuli depends on their levels of involvement with local food. Specifically,
H5a: When both residents and travelers have high levels of involvement with local food,
their purchase intentions in response to treatment stimuli are similar, and thus there is no
interaction effect between diner type and treatment stimulus.
H5b: When both travelers and residents have low levels of involvement with local food,
travelers present greater purchase intentions when exposed to a visual stimulus and
control condition, relative to a verbal stimulus; whereas residents present greater
purchase intentions when exposed to a verbal stimulus, relative to visual and control
conditions. Therefore, there is an interaction between diner type and treatment stimuli.
3. Method
3.1. Study design and sample
This study employed an experimental approach to test whether or not providing
additional information about the source of local ingredients (e.g., the local food supplier) on a
menu could improve diners’ attitudes and purchase intentions of local food items at restaurants.
114
The source information was presented using two menu stimuli: a visual depiction (i.e., picture)
on the menu which pictured a few farmers working on a farm and smiling. A short statement at
the bottom of the picture acknowledging the local supplier, including verbal depiction which
entails the background information of the local supplier (e.g., name and types of produce
supplied). The manipulative treatments (e.g., verbal stimulus, visual stimulus and control
condition that highlighted the presence of local ingredients without any background information)
used in this study were applied via scenarios. Participants were framed either as travelers or
residents who were dining at a casual style restaurant. According to the scenario, most of the
menu items contained local food ingredients and both travelers and residents were exposed to
one of the three treatment stimuli (e.g., visual stimulus, verbal stimulus, or the control).
Afterward, participants were instructed to rate their attitudes and purchase intentions of local
food items presented on the menu (scenarios are listed in Appendix A).
A total of 830 U.S. adults were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk
(www.mturk.com) and instructed to complete an online survey involving a dining scenario. A
cash incentive ($.40) was rewarded to the participants upon a successful completion of the
questionnaire. Participants were randomized into six manipulative conditions. A complete
randomization produces substantial reliability and validity of manipulated factors and reduces
the interference of nuisance variables (Kuehl, 2000). Questionnaires across conditions differed
from one another by the combinative treatment assigned. After each scenario, a number of
manipulation check questions were included to ensure intended manipulations (e.g., diner type,
menu stimulus) were successfully received by the participants. Further, numerous attention
check questions were incorporated throughout the questionnaire to detect inattentive participants.
115
The final dataset only included responses who successfully passed all manipulation checks and
attention checks. Failure to meet any screening criterion resulted in a removal from the final
dataset.
3.2. Procedure and measures
This study employed a 2 (diner type: traveler vs. resident) × 3 (menu stimulus: visual vs.
verbal vs. control) × 2 (Involvement with local food: low vs. high) between-subject factorial
design. Diner types and menu stimuli were manipulated through treatments. Recruited
participants were randomly assigned to one of six manipulative treatments (i.e., diner type by the
menu stimulus received). Participants were further categorized into “low-involvement” and
“high-involvement” groups. Levels of involvement were measured and categorized based on a
median split of all responses. In each treatment condition, participants (travelers/residents) were
exposed to a restaurant menu paired with either a visual stimulus, verbal stimulus, or control. In
the visual stimulus condition, the scenario provided the participant with a picture and a simple
note saying “The Smith Family Farm: our local supplier." In the verbal stimulus condition, the
menu offered a verbal description of the local supplier (i.e., The Smith Family Farm). The
control condition did not include any message regarding the food supplier besides informing the
participants about the presence of local ingredients. For those who were primed as residents, we
deliberately manipulated "a newly opened restaurant in town" in the scenario to control for the
frequency of patronage, as most travelers are likely to be first-time visitors. The verbal stimulus
was further examined by a number of academic researchers to ensure the absence of explicit
emotions. After reading the scenario, participants were asked to indicate their attitudes and
purchase intentions of the local food items on the menu.
116
The measure of attitudes adhered to Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1970) conceptualization that
attitude is an overall evaluation of one’s favorableness toward an object. Seven semantic
differential items such as “dislike/like,” such as “bad/good,” “unfavorable/favorable,” and
"undesirable/desirable" were included to measure attitudes (Bennett and Rundle-Thiele, 2002).
Items representing purchase intentions were adopted from prior research studies (e.g., “I will
purchase menu items made from local ingredients at this restaurant” and “I am willing to
purchase menu items using local ingredients at this restaurant”) (Hsu & Huang, 2014; Kim,
Niter, & Hancer, 2013). Existing studies have conferred heterogeneous conceptualizations of
involvement (e.g., Bruwer & Buller, 2013; Ogbeide & Bruwer, 2013; Rahman & Reynolds,
2015). This research followed Zaichkowsky’s (1985) definition of involvement due to the
conceptual fit for this study. Respondents were asked to indicate their perceptions of local food
using a twenty-item, 7-point semantic differential scale (e.g., “unimportant-important,”
“significant-insignificant”, “irrelevant-relevant”) (Zaichkowsky, 1985). Reliability alphas were
examined to ensure sufficient internal consistency within each construct. Upon reaching a
sufficient reliability, items were converted to a summated score and used for analysis of variance
with covariates (ANCOVA).
4. Results
4.1. Sample profile
The final dataset consisted of consumers who currently reside in the U.S. and have visited
a casual dining restaurant in the past six months. Responses were retained for the final analysis
only if they successfully passed all screening questions (e.g., manipulation checks, attention
checks). Further, social desirability was also examined, and respondents who answered all items
117
in an extremely desirable manner were removed. Out of the 1311 respondents that initially
started the survey, a total of 830 valid responses were included in data analysis. Respondents’
demographic information is presented in Table 1. More females (55.8%) than males (43.9%)
participated in this study. The average age of participants was 36 years old. Most consumers
were either single (35.7%) or married (41.8%), followed by live together (11.2%), divorced
(9.5%), and widowed (1.4%). Approximately 35.3% of the respondents earned a bachelor's
degree, and 20.12% earned an associated degree. The majority of the respondents were
Caucasians (76.4%). About 20% of the respondents reported their incomes as $30,000-$44,999,
followed by $15,000-$29,999 (19.2%), and $45,000-$59,999 (15.9%). A series of Chi-square
difference tests were carried out to examine the random assignment. The results revealed that
none of the demographic variables (e.g., gender: p = .497; age: p = .627; marital status: p = .393;
occupation: p = .857; education: p = .091; ethnicity: p = .326; income: p = .625; residence: p
= .292) significantly differed across conditions and thus a complete randomization was
confirmed.
Among all remaining responses, a total of 414 respondents were manipulated as
“travelers” while 413 were manipulated as "residents" according to the scenario assigned.
Participants were randomly exposed to a visual, verbal, or control condition, producing six
conditions with similar cell sizes (n = 136-139). Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s
alphas of dependent variables (e.g., attitudes, purchase intentions, involvement) are displayed in
Table 2. Levels of involvement were determined by splitting responses according to their
summated involvement scores. Therefore, the final cell sizes of the 2 (diner type: traveler vs.
resident) by 3 (stimuli: visual vs. verbal vs. control) by 2 (involvement: low vs. high) design
were around 70 (Table 2).
118
4.2. Hypotheses testing
Two separate sets of one-way ANOVA were conducted with attitudes and purchase
intentions as dependent variables to test hypothesis 1. The results suggested that there was no
statistical difference in attitudes (F 2, 827 = 1.056; p = .348), nor purchase intentions (F 2, 827 =
1.464, p = .232) across three stimuli (e.g., visual, verbal, and control). Several post hoc
comparisons indicated that neither visual stimulus (i.e., picture) nor verbal stimulus (i.e.,
descriptive text) led to stronger attitudes and purchase intentions, compared to the control
condition (i.e., local ingredients were labeled excluding supplier’s information). Therefore,
hypothesis 1 was rejected.
Hypotheses 2 and 3 proposed an interaction effect between diner type and menu stimulus
on attitudes and purchase intentions, respectively. Two sets of two-way ANCOVA with a
number of metric variables (e.g., age, income, and hunger level) as covariates were performed
with attitudes and purchase intentions as dependent variables. When attitudes were treated as a
dependent variable, there were no significant main effects. An interaction between diner type and
menu stimulus was significant at a marginal level (F 2, 818 = 2.67, p = .07). Although mean values
(Table 2, Figure 1) have shown a consistency with hypothesis 2 that travelers’ attitudes were
more favorable when exposed to either a visual (M = 6.22) or control condition (M = 6.18),
compared to a verbal stimulus (M = 6.03), and vice versa for residents (verbal: M = 6.20; visual:
M = 6.19; control: M = 6.02), most of these differences were not statistically significant except
for attitudes of residents what were exposed to a verbal stimulus compared to a control condition
(M r/verb = 6.20 vs. M r/cont. = 6.02, t273 = 1.80, p < .1). Hypothesis 2 was thus rejected.
119
When purchase intentions were treated as the dependent variable, results suggested that
diner type had a marginal main effect (F1, 818 = 3.40, p = .058) on purchase intentions (Figure 2).
Therefore, travelers exhibited greater purchase intentions of local food items at restaurants,
compared to that of residents. An interaction effect was also detected that purchase intentions
under three stimuli treatments significantly differs between the two diner types (F 2, 818 = 4.25, p
< .05). Figure 2 suggests that the visual stimulus (M = 5.91) and control condition (M = 5.96)
were more preferred by travelers than a verbal stimulus (M = 5.80) to encourage local food
purchase at restaurants. This result pointed in the direction of hypothesis 3. However, these
differences were not statistically significant. As for residents, the presence of the local food
supplier’s information either through a visual (M = 5.91) or verbal (M = 5.82) stimulus could
produce stronger purchase intentions, compared to when such information is absent (M = 5.59).
A series of posthoc tests revealed that verbal stimuli led to higher purchase intentions than the
control (M r/verb = 5.82 vs. M r/cont. = 5.59, t262 = 2.03, p < .05) and there was no significant
difference in residents’ purchase intentions between visual and verbal stimuli. Hence, hypothesis
3 was not supported.
To test hypothesis 4, two separate three-way factorial ANCOVA with age, income, and
hunger levels as covariates were carried out with attitudes and purchase intentions as dependent
variables. The findings are presented in Table 3 and 4. When attitudes was the dependent
variable, there were a significant main effect of involvement (F1, 812 = 375.604, p < .001) and a
three-way interaction effect (F2, 809 = 4.415, p < .05). As illustrated in Figure 3, travelers’ (vs.
residents) attitudes in response to three stimuli significantly depended on levels of involvement.
Overall, highly involved consumers expressed more favorable attitudes towards menu items
120
using local ingredients, as opposed to those who were less involved. Within the “low
involvement” group, a verbal stimulus appeared to be the least effective approach to soliciting
positive attitudes among travelers, compared to the visual and control treatments (Figure 3).
Results of a series of post hoc tests suggested that travelers’ attitudes in response to verbal
stimulus were significantly lower than when they were treated with a visual stimulus (M t/vis. =
5.74 vs. M t/verb. = 5.40, t137 = 2.00, p < .05) and the control condition (M t/cont. = 5.73 vs. M t /verb.
= 5.40, t140 = 2.01, p < .05). No significant difference was found between visual and control
conditions.
As for the residents in the “low involvement” group, they presented more favorable
attitudes in response to a verbal stimulus, compared with the other two conditions. However,
post hoc tests did not support this in a significant manner. To further explain the effect at two
involvement levels, a two-way ANCOVA was carried out for both low and high involvement
groups (Table 3). A significant two-way interaction (F2, 403 = 3.523, p < .05) was identified
between diner type and stimulus treatment within the “low involvement” group. The plot
illustrated that when diners were less involved with local food, residents’ attitudes were more
positive at the exposure to a verbal stimulus (vs. a visual image and control), and the results
completely flipped for travelers (Figure 3). An examination of the “high involvement” category
indicated that differences in attitudes across diner types and stimulus conditions became smaller,
compared to the “low involvement” group (Table 3, Figure 3). The two-way ANCOVA results
for the “high involvement” group suggested the absence of main effect and interaction effect
(Table 3). Therefore, when consumers are highly involved, neither the experimental factors (e.g.,
diner types, menu stimuli) made a difference to the attitudes towards local food items when
121
dining at restaurants. Therefore, the influence of menu stimulus on consumers’ attitudes varied
according to the type of diner in a significant fashion. Thus, hypothesis 4 was fully supported.
A three-way ANCOVA was also performed with purchase intentions as the dependent
variable, and the results are presented in Table 4 and Figure 4. Diner type (F1, 812 = 5.000, p
< .05) and levels of involvement (F1, 812 = 286.500, p < .001) exerted significant main effects on
purchase intentions. Although not hypothesized, these results suggested that travelers (vs.
residents) and “high involvement” (vs. “low involvement”) diners were more willing to order
local food items when dining out. A two-way interaction between diner type and menu stimulus
was detected at a marginal significance level (F2, 812 = 2.696, p = .068). In addition, a significant
three-way interaction (F2, 812 = 3.305, p < .05) was found for purchase intentions of menu items
using local ingredients. Therefore, the interaction between diner type and menu stimulus was a
function of levels of involvement. To better interpret the results, a two-way ANCOVA was
performed in “low involvement” and “high involvement” groups, respectively (Table 4). In the
“low involvement” group, there was a significant interaction (F2, 403 = 3.971, p < .05) between
diner type and stimulus applied while diner type had marginal main effect on purchase intentions
(F1, 403 = 3.555, p = .060). Therefore, the influence of three menu stimuli on purchase intentions
differed between two diner categories. According to the mean plot presented in Figure 4,
travelers’ purchase intentions were least favorable when exposed to a verbal stimulus versus
either a visual or a control treatment; residents’ purchase intentions were more favorable in the
knowledge of the supplier’s information versus a control condition. Although a significant
interaction between diner type and menu stimulus was identified in the “low involvement”
condition, residents and travelers’ reactions towards menu stimulus were not perfectly consistent
122
with hypothesis 5b. Thus, partial support for hypothesis 5b was suggested. In line with
hypothesis 5a, there was no interaction between diner type and menu stimulus within the “high
involvement” group nor the main effects. Post hoc tests confirmed homogeneous reactions
towards three stimulus treatments within each diner type. Accordingly, highly involved residents
and highly involved travelers responded to treatment stimuli in the same fashion, thus supporting
hypothesis 5a.
5. Discussion and implications
5.1 Theoretical implications
Consuming local food has received substantial attention among consumers and is
believed to satisfy a multiplicity of life-sustaining needs. Acknowledged by tourism scholars, the
popularity of local food has transformed restaurants’ menu offerings and even differentiate
tourism destinations from one another (e.g., Okumus et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2010, 2013;
Mynttinen et al., 2015). However, local food research is still at an infancy stage, especially in a
destination restaurant setting. This study examines whether informing consumers about the
source of local food ingredients could intensify their purchase intentions and positive attitudes.
The results conclude that this strategy should be executed while factoring in the modality of
stimulus (e.g., descriptive text and visual image), diner types, and personal involvement with
local food.
This research reveals different mentalities and information processing behaviors between
travelers and local residents when dining at local food restaurants. When serving local residents,
providing customers with supplier’s information via either visual or verbal stimulus is found to
increase purchase intentions. Travelers (vs. residents) are ardent enthusiasts of local food
cuisines, and additional knowledge about the food supplier does not necessarily elevate their
123
behavioral intentions. This finding underscores travelers’ keen interest in local food dining in
that travelers seek to taste the unique culture, excitement and obtain novel experiences during
travel (Kim et al., 2009; Seo et al., 2013). This research points out that a “local food” cue is
sufficiently intriguing to travelers whereas providing supplementary information about the
producer seems redundant and even overwhelming if too much cognition is required (e.g.,
descriptive messages). This finding echoes and extends prior research on travelers’ perceived
locality of food purchased at a foreign destination (e.g., Mynttinen et al., 2015). Mynttinen et al.
(2015) suggest that travelers do not perceive a difference between Finnish food and food sourced
from a specific local region of Finland.
For travelers, food produced from the destination is “local enough” and it is not so
important to know the exact location that the food is produced within the destination (Mynttinen
et al., 2015). Travelers and residents may have distinctive perceptions of “locality” of food
consumed at a destination (Mynttinen et al., 2015). This could be attributed to the symbolic form
of local food consumption during the trip (Chang, Kiveia, & Mak, 2010; Mak, Lumbers, & Eves,
2012). This form of consumption delineates a novel destination experience and culture, thus
travelers tend to put aside issues with the local food itself such as the taste and environmental
impact (Kim et al., 2009). Therefore, travelers integrate food experiences to the destination and
their trip, which is more experiential and emotionally oriented (Mak et al., 2012; Mynttinen et
al., 2015). Rather, residents connect food consumption with their daily lives and surroundings,
which could be more functional and specific. Therefore, attributes tied to the food per se (e.g.,
taste, safety, and supplier) become important to residents’ decision-making. When consumers
dine out within their home region, trust in local producers and a willingness to support local
124
businesses plays a significant role in consumers’ decision-making towards local food cuisines
(e.g., Mynttinen et al., 2015). Therefore, releasing a local food supplier’s information may
further encourage trust among locals, and reinforce perceived traceability of food ingredients and
customer relationships, which then translate into greater positive attitudes and behavioral
intentions (Fischer & De Vries, 2008).
Conceptually, this study suggests that despite the same dining context, menu
communications with travelers and residents may use divergent approaches. Travelers may
perceive a restaurant’s food as a miniature/portrayal of the destination, and the source is already
articulated by a “local” label. Conversely, communications with local residents may be more
specific such that food offered at the restaurant represents the food per se and the details of the
local food source become material. From a broader scope, this research may suggest distinct
approaches between travelers and residents when interacting with destination services/products.
In other words, travelers may use a holistic perspective (Fox, 2007) when communicating with
destination services/products (e.g., restaurants) such that communications with any particular
service/product would be regarded as an interaction between oneself and the destination,
regardless of the specific context and object (e.g., service staff, restaurants, and other hospitality
and service facilities). On the contrary, residents tend to individualize their interactions with
particular service/product. Therefore, the communication is likely to be perceived only between
oneself and the specific service/product provided. Because the supplier’s information is specific
to the local food per se, information cues are more likely to be processed when local food is
individualized from the destination (e.g., from residents’ perspective), compared when local food
125
is perceived in a holistic and abstract manner as a miniature of destination culture (e.g., from
travelers’ perspective) (Mak et al., 2012).
The findings of this study are well grounded in ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). A sense
of belongingness/relevance to the local community motivates residents to process issue-relevant
and effortful cues through a central route as a consequence of elaborated cognition (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986). For travelers, simple cues (e.g., visual image, pleasant music) are more likely
to influence their decision-making. When individuals perceive more personal-relevance, they are
more attentive to incoming information. Because residents are familiar and more knowledgeable
about the destination where they live, and it is relatively easier to process information regarding
the local area (e.g., local food supplier) (Gursoy & McCleary, 2004), residents are more
accepting of verbal cues, when compared to travelers, who are not quite as familiar with the
destination.
This study also suggests a critical role of involvement in predicting diners’ attitudes and
behavioral intentions towards local food at restaurants. When consumers are not as involved with
local food, menu stimuli are received differently depending on diner types. Travelers are less
likely to engage in cognitive elaboration using verbal cues (e.g., descriptive text), rather, they are
either attracted to simple signals (e.g., image) or cues loaded with reduced information (e.g., the
control treatment) and vice versa for residents. However, when diners have high levels of
involvement with local food, attitudes, and behavioral intentions do not change as a function of
diner types and menu stimuli. The ELM suggests that involved individuals are more likely to
undertake cognitive elaboration, which in theory proposes a preference for cognitive cues.
However, the findings of this study suggest that consumers with an overwhelmingly intense
126
interest are less likely to be influenced by external information. This result could be explained by
previous conceptualization on the role of involvement, prior knowledge, and individuals’
information search behavior (e.g., Gursoy, 2003; Gursoy & McCleary, 2004). Highly-involved
individuals tend to engage in extensive prior thinking through searching product relevant
information and intentional learning. Therefore, they are likely to become familiar and develop
expertise (i.e., in-depth knowledge) as the levels of involvement increase (Gursoy & McCleary,
2004). Research suggests that prior knowledge has an inverted-U shaped relationship with
individuals’ tendency of information search (Gursoy 2003). Because consumers in this study
present relatively moderate-to-high levels of involvement based on the mean scores (> 5 on a 7-
point scale), individuals categorized as “high-involvement” are likely to be extremely involved
with local food. Therefore, these “high-involvement” consumers are in the later phase of the
inverted-U shaped relationship and are not easily influenced by the presence of a supplier’s
information when making local food-related decisions. Due to the extensive prior thinking, "high
involvement” individuals may already have crystallized attitudes towards local food, and thus are
less responsive to external influences (e.g., information about local food supplier), compared to
those who are less involved.
5.2. Managerial implications
This research provides several managerial guidelines. First, the findings highlight that
sourcing local ingredients could be a viable marketing practice at restaurants as diners’ attitudes,
and behavioral intentions of dining local food dishes are substantially positive (scoring around 5-
6 on a 7-point scale). With the growing interests in dining local, restauranteurs may need to act
earlier than competitors who might also tap into this market. This research suggests that besides
127
labeling local ingredients on the menu, disseminating the source of local ingredients (e.g., local
food supplier) using proper menu stimuli is likely to boost consumers’ attitudes and purchase
intentions. For restaurants whose target patrons are local diners, managers may consider adding
supplier’s information on the menu through using descriptive messages that allow consumers to
learn about the local supplier. Apart from having a quality meal, this approach may instill trust
through demystifying the source of local ingredients and showing residents who they are
supporting.
This study suggests that travelers have greater purchase intentions of local food cuisines,
regardless of the presence or absence of food source information. Managers should be informed
that travelers consume local food mainly due to its hedonic and emotional appeal (Mak et al.,
2012) and perceive local food using a holistic perspective. Using the specialties (e.g., source of
the supplier) of local food to differentiate/promote a sub-region of a destination and its
restaurants may be challenging (Frochot, 2003; Mynttinen et al., 2015). Instead, restaurant
managers should strive to improve the gastronomic delight and other dining attributes (e.g.,
service, employee knowledge, and ambiance) in building travelers’ positive experiences and
satisfaction (e.g., Harrington et al., 2012). When hosting travelers, restaurants should particularly
emphasize the symbolic meaning of local food as a reflection of the unique local culture,
authentic experience, and novel learning experience (Mak et al., 2012a). For example, local food
could be prepared using authentic cooking methods and served in traditional flatware or
glassware. Service staff should receive training to be more familiar with food traditions from the
local area. This will allow servers to engage in effective communications with travelers and thus
positively influencing their destination experience and dining satisfaction. As gastronomic
128
experience becomes increasingly important in contributing to travel satisfaction and loyalty
behaviors, restaurants play a significant part in tourism development of a destination.
Also, menu communications tactics should be formulated according to the origin of
diners (e.g., within or outside the local area). When promoting local food to travelers, restaurants
may either highlight local ingredients on the menu or provide a visual image of the local
supplier/farm to signal the presence of local ingredients. When serving residents, managers may
further disclose the food supplier’s information using descriptive messages. Alternatively,
destination restaurants could use two versions of the menu according to the type of customers
served. A dual-menu approach tailored to certain groups of customers is no mystery in restaurant
operations (Liu & Mattila, 2015). With this concern, service employees would identify the type
of diner through courteous inquiries to decide the appropriate version of the menu provided.
This research indicates that personal involvement with local food is fundamental in
selecting a proper menu stimulus. In particular, when serving local food “enthusiasts” restaurants
may not bother to introduce the local food supplier. Rather, the presence of local ingredients is
compelling enough to result in favorable attitudes and purchase intentions. Conversely, when
consumers are less involved with local food, pinpointing the source of local ingredients and the
local food supplier with proposed menu stimuli could nudge consumers towards local food
cuisines, depending on the type of diner served. As discussed earlier, when travelers constitute
the majority of customers, restaurants could emphasize the local ingredients or insert a picture of
the local food supplier on the menu. When accommodating residents, descriptive messages about
the local food supplier may be placed on the menu where customers can quickly notice and read
through before ordering.
129
6. Limitation and future research
This research has a few limitations. The scenario-based design used in this study
attenuates a host of external biases for the purpose of internal validity. However, it does not
adequately represent real life occasions. For example, this research did not use real photos to
represent a geographically confined farm due to concerns with latent noises. Because
respondents in this study were not geographically constrained, exposing “residents” with a photo
that contradicts the image of local farms in their real lives may disrupt respondents’ decision-
making. Moreover, dining occasions also require consumers to be emotionally and
physiologically engaged (e.g., moderate to exceptional levels of hunger) in a certain dining
environment filled with the material layout, design, and lighting, etc. Future research may want
to conduct field experiments across major geographic locations in a bid to better advise
restaurateurs before implementing the findings of this study.
Additionally, this study only selects the casual dining segment to define the context and
thus results may not be exactly replicated in quick-service or upscale restaurants. When dining at
quick-service restaurants, customers may have more explicate expectations for prompt service
and good value for money, compared to sophisticated food ingredients. Therefore, marketing
local food ingredients may either transcend customers' expectations which profoundly boosts
diners' attitudes and behavioral intentions, or, may simply backfire due to a premium price
charged. Meanwhile, local ingredients are normally seen at upscale restaurants due to chefs’
impeccable standards for fresh and quality ingredients that contribute to providing a delightful
gastronomic experience (e.g., Murphy & Smith, 2009). With this regard, managers from upscale
130
and quick-service restaurants may take adequate precautions when interpreting and
implementing the findings of this study.
It is also worth mentioning that this research only examines diners’ pre-consumption
decision making. In recent years, locally grown and organic food is positioned as sustainable
food and has trapped remarkable interests among today’s consumers. Follow-up studies may
delve into subsequent dining experiences and corporate social responsibility perceptions upon
dining on local food (Hanks & Mattila, 2016), which are linked to consumer trust and loyalty
behaviors (e.g., revisit, positive WOM communications). As far as travelers are concerned, local
food restaurants play a critical part in the evaluations of destination authenticity (Björk &
Kauppinen-Räisänen, 2016) and traveler satisfaction. Building on this study, future attempts may
empirically examine post-consumption outcomes on destination restaurants as well as on the
entire destination by drawing on consumers’ local food experience.
131
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1970). The prediction of behavior from attitudinal and normative
variables. Journal of experimental social Psychology, 6(4), 466-487.
Alonso, A. D., & Liu, Y. (2012). Visitor centers, collaboration, and the role of local food and
beverage as regional tourism development tools the case of the Blackwood river valley in
western Australia. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36(4), 517-536.
Alfnes, F., & Sharma, A. (2010). Locally produced food in restaurants: Are the customers
willing to pay a premium and why?. International Journal of Revenue Management, 4(3-
4), 238-258.
Bennett, R., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2002). A comparison of attitudinal loyalty measurement
approaches. The Journal of Brand Management, 9(3), 193-209
Bloch, P. H. (1981). An exploration into the scaling of consumers' involvement with a product
class. Advances in Consumer Research, 8(1), 61-65.
Björk, P., & Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. (2016). Local food: a source for destination attraction.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(1), 177 - 194
Bruwer, J., Buller, C., 2013. Product involvement, brand loyalty, and country-of-origin brand
preferences of Japanese wine consumers. J. Wine Res. 24 (1), 38–58.
Burnkrant, R. E. (1976). A motivational model of information processing intensity. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21-30.
Carr, Thomas H., Charles McCauley, Richard D. Sperber, and C.M. Parmelee (1982), “Words,
Pictures, and Priming: On Semantic Activation, Conscious Identification, and the
Automaticity of Information Processing,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 8 (6), 757–77.
132
Carpio, C. E., & Isengildina-Massa, O. (2009). Consumer willingness to pay for locally grown
products: the case of South Carolina. Agribusiness, 25(3), 412-426.
Campbell, J., DiPietro, R. B., & Remar, D. (2014). Local foods in a university setting: Price
consciousness, product involvement, price/quality inference and consumer's willingness-
to-pay. International Journal of Hospitality Management,42, 39-49.
Chang, R. C., Kivela, J., & Mak, A. H. (2010). Food preferences of Chinese tourists. Annals of
Tourism Research, 37(4), 989-1011.
Chung, H., & Zhao, X. (2003). Humour effect on memory and attitude: moderating role of
product involvement. International Journal of Advertising,22(1), 117-144.
Darby, K., Batte, M. T., Ernst, S., & Roe, B. (2008). Decomposing local: a conjoint analysis of
locally produced foods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(2), 476-486.
Delind, L. B. (2006). Of bodies, place, and culture: Re-situating local food. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 121-146.
Fischer, A. R., & De Vries, P. W. (2008). Everyday behaviour and everyday risk: An approach to
study people's responses to frequently encountered food related health risks. Health, risk
& society, 10(4), 385-397.
Fox, R. (2007). Reinventing the gastronomic identity of Croatian tourist destinations.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(3), 546-559.
Frochot, I. (2003). An analysis of regional positioning and its associated food images in French
tourism regional brochures. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 14(3-4), 77-96.
Hanks, L., & Mattila, A. S. (2016). Consumer response to organic food in restaurants: A serial
mediation analysis. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 19(1), 109-121.
Harrington, R. J., Ottenbacher, M. C., Staggs, A., & Powell, F. A. (2012). Generation Y
133
consumers key restaurant attributes affecting positive and negative experiences. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36(4), 431-449.
Henderson, J. C. (2009). Food tourism reviewed. British Food Journal, 111(4), 317-326.
Getz, D. (2000). Explore wine tourism: Management, development & destinations Cognizant
Communication Corporation, New York.
Green Restaurant Association (GRA), 2012. Certification Standards: SustainableFood. Green
Restaurant Association, Retrieved from http://www.dinegreen.com/standards/Food.html
Guéguen, N., & Jacob, C. (2012). The effect of menu labels associated with affect, tradition and
patriotism on sales. Food Quality and Preference, 23(1), 86-88.
Gursoy, D. (2003). Prior Product Knowledge and its Influence on the Traveler’s Information
Search Behavior. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 10(3/4), 113–131.
Gursoy, D., & McCleary, K. W. (2004). An integrative model of tourists’ information search
behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 353-373.
Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G., & Dyer, P. (2009). Locals' attitudes toward mass and alternative tourism:
the case of Sunshine Coast, Australia. Journal of Travel Research.
10.1177/0047287509346853
Harrington, R. J., Ottenbacher, M. C., Staggs, A., & Powell, F. A. (2012). Generation Y
consumers key restaurant attributes affecting positive and negative experiences. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36(4), 431-449.
Henderson, J. C. (2009). Food tourism reviewed. British Food Journal, 111(4), 317-326.
James, J. S., Rickard, B. J., & Rossman, W. J. (2009). Product differentiation and market
segmentation in applesauce: Using a choice experiment to assess the value of organic,
local, and nutrition attributes. Agricultural & Resource Economics Review, 38(3), 357.
134
Jeong, E., & Jang, S. S. (2015). Healthy menu promotions: A match between dining value and
temporal distance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 45, 1-13.
Jurowski, C., & Gursoy, D. (2004). Distance effects on residents’ attitudes toward tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research,31(2), 296-312.
Kim, Y. G., Eves, A., & Scarles, C. (2009). Building a model of local food consumption on trips
and holidays: A grounded theory approach. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28(3), 423-431.
Kim, M., & Lennon, S. (2008). The effects of visual and verbal information on attitudes and
purchase intentions in internet shopping. Psychology & Marketing, 25(2), 146-178.
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. G., Eves, A., & Scarles, C. (2013). Empirical verification of a conceptual model of local
food consumption at a tourist destination. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 33, 484-489.
Kim, Y. J., Njite, D., & Hancer, M. (2013). Anticipated emotion in consumers’ intentions to
select eco-friendly restaurants: Augmenting the theory of planned behavior. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 255-262.
Kuehl, R.O., 2000. Design of experiments: statistical principles of research designand analysis,
2nd ed. Duxbury/Thomson Learning, Pacific Grove, CA.
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of
Marketing Research, 41-53.
Lee, L., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2009). In search of homo economicus: Cognitive noise and the
135
role of emotion in preference consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 173-
187.
Liu, S. Q., & Mattila, A. S. (2015). Ethnic dining: Need to belong, need to be unique, and menu
offering. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 49, 1-7.
Luna, D., & Peracchio, L. A. (2003). Visual and linguistic processing of ads by bilingual
consumers. Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer Response Perspective, 153-175.
MacInnis, D. J., Moorman, C., & Jaworski, B. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers'
motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. The Journal
of Marketing, 32-53.
MacInnis, D. J., & Price, L. L. (1987). The role of imagery in information processing: Review
and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 473-491.
Mak, A. H., Lumbers, M., & Eves, A. (2012a). Globalization and food consumption in tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 171-196.
Mak, A. H., Lumbers, M., Eves, A., & Chang, R. C. (2012b). Factors influencing tourist food
consumption. International Journal of Hospitality Management,31(3), 928-936.
McCall, M., & Lynn, A. (2008). The effects of restaurant menu item descriptions on perceptions
of quality, price, and purchase intention. Journal of Foodservice Business
Research, 11(4), 439-445.
Meyvis, T., Goldsmith, K., & Dhar, R. (2012). The importance of the context in brand extension:
how pictures and comparisons shift consumers' focus from fit to quality. Journal of
Marketing Research, 49(2), 206-217.
Miniard, P. W., Bhatla, S., Lord, K. R., Dickson, P. R., & Unnava, H. R. (1991). Picture-based
136
persuasion processes and the moderating role of involvement.Journal of Consumer
Research, 92-107.
Mynttinen, S., Logrén, J., Särkkä-Tirkkonen, M., & Rautiainen, T. (2015). Perceptions of food
and its locality among Russian tourists in the South Savo region of Finland. Tourism
Management, 48, 455-466.
Murphy, J., & Smith, S. (2009). Chefs and suppliers: An exploratory look at supply chain issues
in an upscale restaurant alliance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(2),
212-220.
National Restaurant Association. (2013). What’s Hot in 2013 culinary forecast predicts menu
trends. Retrieved from http://www.restaurant.org/News-
Research/News/What%E2%80%99s-Hot-in-2013-culinary-forecast-predicts-menu
National Restaurant Association. (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.restaurant.org/downloads/pdfs/news-research/whatshot2015-results.pdf
Nield, K., Kozak, M., & LeGrys, G. (2000). The role of food service in tourist
satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 19(4), 375-384.
Okumus, B., Okumus, F., & McKercher, B. (2007). Incorporating local and international
cuisines in the marketing of tourism destinations: The cases of Hong Kong and
Turkey. Tourism Management, 28(1), 253-261.
Organ, K., Koenig-Lewis, N., Palmer, A., & Probert, J. (2015). Festivals as agents for behavior
change: A study of food festival engagement and subsequent food choices. Tourism
Management, 48, 84-99.
Ogbeide, O. A., & Bruwer, J. (2013). Enduring involvement with wine: predictive model and
measurement. Journal of Wine Research, 24(3), 210-226.
137
Ortiz, A. (2010). Customers‟ willingness to pay premium for locally sourced menu items
(Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University).
Paivio, A. (1986), Mental Representations: A Dual-Coding Approach, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981), "Issue Involvement As A Moderator of the Effects On
Attitude of Advertising Content and Context," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.
8, ed. Kent B. Monroe, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 20-24.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of
argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer
Research, 135-146.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (pp. 1-
24). Springer New York.
Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (2013). Motivation and involvement as
antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience. Journal of Travel
Research, 52(2), 253-264.
Pyo, S. S., Uysal, M., & McLellan, R. W. (1991). A linear expenditure model for tourism
demand. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(3), 443-454.
Rahman, I., & Reynolds, D. (2015). Wine: Intrinsic attributes and consumers’ drinking
frequency, experience, and involvement. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 44, 1-11.
Riehle, H. (2015). Top menu trends: what’s HOT 2015 culinary forecast. Retrieved from
138
http://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/Research/What-s-Hot
Ryu, K., Lee, H. R., & Gon Kim, W. (2012). The influence of the quality of the physical
environment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer
satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 24(2), 200-223.
Seo, S., Kim, O. Y., Oh, S., & Yun, N. (2013). Influence of informational and experiential
familiarity on image of local foods. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34,
295-308.
Sharma, A., Moon, J., & Strohbehn, C. (2014). Restaurant's decision to purchase local foods:
Influence of value chain activities. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 39,
130-143.
Sims, R. (2009). Food, place and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism
experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 321-336.
Sojka, J. Z., & Giese, J. L. (2006). Communicating through pictures and words: Understanding
the role of affect and cognition in processing visual and verbal information. Psychology
& Marketing, 23(12), 995-1014.
Strom, S., 2013. With tastes growing healthier, McDonald’s aims to adaptits menu. The New
York Times, Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/business/mcdonalds-
moves-toward-a-healthier-menu.html? r=0
Tarkiainen, A., & Sundqvist, S. (2009). Product involvement in organic food consumption: Does
ideology meet practice?. Psychology & Marketing, 26(9), 844-863.
Telfer, D. J., & Wall, G. (2000). Strengthening backward economic linkages: Local food
purchasing by three Indonesian hotels. Tourism Geographies, 2(4), 421-447.
139
Townsend, C., & Kahn, B. E. (2014). The “visual preference heuristic”: the influence of visual
versus verbal depiction on assortment processing, perceived variety, and choice
overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 993-1015.
Urban Farm. Local-food Restaurants. Retrieved from
http://www.urbanfarmonline.com/sustainable-living/urban-farm-resources/local-food-
restaurants/local-food-restaurants.aspx
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2015). National farmers market manager
survey shows farmers markets continue to grow. Retrieved from
www.ams.usda.gov/press-release/national-farmers-market-manager-survey-shows-
farmers-markets-continue-grow
Wansink, B., Painter, J., & Van Ittersum, K. (2001). Descriptive menu labels' effect on sales. The
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,42(6), 68-72
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 341-352.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 4-34.
140
Table 1Demographic profile of respondents (n = 830)
Characteristics
Frequency†
Percentage (%)
Gender
Male
Female
364
463
43.90
55.80
Age *
36.3
Marital Status
Single
Widowed
Divorced
Married
Live together
296
12
79
347
93
35.70
1.40
9.50
41.80
11.20
Occupation
Student
Professional
Managerial
Sales
Homemaker
Other
98
338
64
78
117
132
11.80
40.70
7.70
9.40
14.10
15.90
Education
Less than high school
High school graduate/G.E.D.
Associate degree/Certificate
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Doctorate degree
Other
3
201
167
293
120
18
25
0.36
24.22
20.12
35.30
14.46
2.17
3.01
Ethnicity
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander
Black/African American
Caucasian/White
Hispanic/Latino
Mixed
Other
4
64
53
632
40
31
3
0.48
7.71
6.39
76.14
4.82
3.73
0.36
Annual Income
Under $15,000
$15,000 - $29,999
$30,000 - $44,999
$45,000 – $59,999
$60,000 -$74,999
$75,000 - $89,999
$90,000 - $104,999
$105,000 - $119,999
$120,000 - $134,999
$135,000 and above
122
159
166
132
91
67
37
25
9
19
14.70
19.16
20.00
15.90
10.96
8.07
4.46
3.01
1.08
2.29
Residence
Urban
Suburban
Rural
270
404
153
32.53
48.67
18.43
Note: *Age is presented as an average score calculated based on all respondents; † the sum of certain demographic characteristics may not equal
the sample size due to existence of missing values
141
Table 2 Means, standard deviations, cell sizes by experimental condition and dependent variables
Traveler
Resident
Visual
Verbal
Control
Visual
Verbal
Control
Attitudes
Mean
S.D.
Cronbach α
6.22
(0.86)
0.96
6.03
(1.09)
6.18
(0.86)
6.19
(1.00)
6.20
(0.76)
6.02
(0.94)
Purchase Intentions
Mean
S.D.
Cronbach α
5.91
(0.82)
0.91
5.80
(0.95)
5.96
(0.82)
5.91
(1.04)
5.82
(0.83)
5.59
(1.05)
Involvement
Mean
S.D.
Cronbach α
5.18
(1.17)
0.97
5.04
(1.31)
5.27
(1.06)
5.27
(1.31)
5.27
(1.11)
5.04
(1.13)
Cell size
136
139
139
138
136
139
Low Involvement
66
72
68
62
65
78
High Involvement
70
67
71
76
71
61
142
Table 3 ANCOVA results for attitudes towards local food items
Type of
ANCOVA
Source
Type III
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Three-way
ANCOVA
Corrected Model
Intercept
Hunger
Income
Age
Diner
Stimulus a
Involvement
Diner * stimulus
Diner * Involvement
Stimulus * Involvement
Diner * stimulus * Involvement
Error
Total
Corrected Total
236.551
1738.699
.505
.031
1.969
.046
.328
220.008
2.132
.000
.641
5.172
475.623
31909.640
712.174
14
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
812
827
826
16.896
1738.699
.505
.031
1.969
.046
.164
220.008
1.066
.000
.321
2.586
.586
28.846
2968.365
.862
.052
3.361†
.078
.280
375.604***
1.820
.000
.547
4.415*
.000
.000
.353
.819
.067
.780
.756
.000
.163
1.000
.579
.012
Two-way
ANCOVA
(low levels of
involvement)
Corrected Model
Intercept
Hunger
Income
Age
Diner
Stimulus
Diner * Stimulus
Error
Total
Corrected Total
8.509
657.756
.001
.352
.696
.012
.452
6.521
372.965
13382.560
381.474
8
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
403
412
411
1.064
657.756
.001
.352
.696
.012
.226
3.261
.925
1.149
710.725
.001
.381
.752
.013
.224
3.523*
.329
.000
.980
.538
.386
.910
.784
.030
Two-way
ANCOVA
(high levels of
involvement)
Corrected Model
Intercept
Hunger
Income
Age
Diner
Stimulus
Diner * Stimulus
Error
Total
Corrected Total
3.168
1103.655
.930
.149
1.385
.012
.601
.459
101.683
18527.080
104.851
8
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
406
415
414
.396
1103.655
.930
.149
1.385
.012
.301
.229
.250
1.581
4406.657
3.715†
.596
5.531*
.047
1.200
.916
.128
.000
.055
.440
.019
.829
.302
.401
Note: a Stimulus refers to the type of stimulus applied: visual, verbal, and control; †p < .1; *p < .05; ***p < .001
143
Table 4 ANCOVA results for purchase intentions of local food items
Type of
ANCOVA
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares
Df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Three-way
ANCOVA
Corrected Model
Intercept
Hunger
Income
Age
Diner
Stimulus a
Involvement
Diner * Stimulus
Diner * Involvement
Stimulus * Involvement
Diner * stimulus * Involvement
Error
Total
Corrected Total
202.386
1546.321
.175
.976
1.028
3.166
.593
181.421
3.414
.585
.255
4.186
514.186
28835.188
716.572
14
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
812
827
826
14.456
1546.321
.175
.976
1.028
3.166
.297
181.421
1.707
.585
.127
2.093
.633
22.829
2441.944
.277
1.541
1.623
5.000*
.469
286.500***
2.696†
.925
.201
3.305*
.000
.000
.599
.215
.203
.026
.626
.000
.068
.337
.818
.037
Two-way
ANCOVA
(low levels of
involvement)
Corrected Model
Intercept
Hunger
Income
Age
Diner
Stimulus
Diner * Stimulus
Error
Total
Corrected Total
13.534
589.747
.002
.602
.829
3.150
.778
7.037
357.092
12179.688
370.627
8
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
403
412
1.692
589.747
.002
.602
.829
3.150
.389
3.518
.886
1.909
665.565
.002
.679
.936
3.555†
.439
3.971*
.057
.000
.963
.410
.334
.060
.645
.020
Two-way
ANCOVA
(high levels of
involvement)
Corrected Model
Intercept
Hunger
Income
Age
Diner
Stimulus
Diner * Stimulus
Error
Total
Corrected Total
2.141
976.416
.344
.378
.282
.533
.053
.663
156.800
16655.500
158.940
8
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
406
415
414
.268
976.416
.344
.378
.282
.533
.027
.332
.386
.693
2528.222
.892
.978
.730
.069
1.381
.859
.698
.000
.346
.323
.393
.933
.241
.424
Note: a Stimulus refers to the type of stimulus applied: visual, verbal, and control; †p < .1; *p < .05; ***p < .001
144
Figure 1 Two-way ANCOVA: attitudes as a function of diner types and stimuli (visual, verbal, and
control) applied.
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
Visual Verbal Control
Attitudes
Traveler
Resident
145
Figure 2 Two-way ANCOVA: purchase intentions as a function of diner types and stimuli (visual, verbal,
and control) applied.
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.0
Visual Verbal Control
Purchase Intentions
Traveler
Resident
146
Figure 3 Three-way ANCOVA: attitudes as a function of diner types, stimuli applied (visual, verbal, and
control), and involvement with local food.
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.0
Visual Verbal Control
Attitudes
Low Levels of Involvement
Traveler
Resident
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.0
Visual Verbal Control
Attitudes
High Levels of Involvement
Traveler
Resident
147
Figure 4 Three-way ANCOVA: purchase intentions as a function of diner types, stimuli applied (visual,
verbal, and control), and involvement with local food.
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
Visual Verbal Control
Purchase Intentions
High Levels of Involvement
Traveler
Resident
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
Visual Verbal Control
Purchase Intentions
Low Levels of Involvement
Traveler
Resident
148
Appendix A Scenarios of each experimental condition
Condition Assigned
Scenario
Traveler/visual stimulus
Imagine that you and your family drive to a small town that you have
never been before for a holiday vacation. You spend most of the day
time sight-seeing and exploring the local area, which has been a
wonderful experience. In the evening, you and your family come to a
local restaurant (casual dining style) for dinner. The waitress is very
friendly and hands you a menu before taking your order. You read the
menu carefully and realize that most of their menu items are made
from local produce such as “…with sliced local carrots” and “…topped
with local chicken breast.” Overall, the prices of their menu items look
fair to you. While you are browsing the menu, you notice a picture on
the menu with a few farmers working on the farm and smiling.
Next to the picture, there is a message saying “The Smith Family
Farm: our local supplier.” This photo is an illustration of the place
where local ingredients were sourced at the restaurant.
Traveler/verbal stimulus
You and your family drive to a small town that you have never been
before for a holiday vacation. You spend most of the day time sight-
seeing and exploring the local area, which has been a wonderful
experience. In the evening, you and your family come to a local
restaurant (casual dining style) for dinner. The waitress is very friendly
and hands you a menu before taking your order. You read the menu
carefully and find that most of their menu items are made from local
produce such as “…with sliced local carrots” and “…topped with local
chicken breast.” Overall, the prices of their menu items look fair to
you. While you are browsing the menu, your eyes are landed on a
paragraph that provides some background information of the supplier
(a local farm) where most of the local ingredients were sourced at this
restaurant:
“The Smith Family Farm: our local supplier. The Smith Family
Farm is a family run, local business supplying fresh produce since
1996. The Smith Family farm has been run by two generations of the
Smith family and aims to supply fresh vegetables and fruits to support
local restaurants. Produce from the Smith Family Farm varies across
seasons.”
Traveler/control (supplier
information is absent)
You and your family drive to a small town that you have never been
before for a holiday vacation. You spend most of the day time sight-
seeing and exploring the local area, which has been a wonderful
experience. In the evening, you and your family come to a local
restaurant (casual dining style) for dinner. The waitress is very friendly
and hands you a menu before taking your order. You read the menu
carefully and find that most of their menu items are made from local
produce such as “…with sliced local carrots” and “…topped with local
149
chicken breast.” Overall, the prices of their menu items look fair to
you.
Resident/visual stimulus
You and your family decide to go out for dinner. You heard that there is
a new restaurant (casual dining style) just opened in the local area and
you have not tried it. You and your family choose to go there. The
waitress is very friendly and hands you a menu before taking your
order. You read the menu carefully and find that most of their menu
items are made from local produce such as “…with sliced local
carrots” and “…topped with local chicken breast.” Overall, the prices of
their menu items look fair to you. While you are browsing the menu,
you notice a picture on the menu with a few farmers working on the
farm and smiling.
Next to the picture, there is a message saying “The Smith Family
Farm: our local supplier.” This photo is an illustration of the place
where local ingredients were sourced at this restaurant.
Resident/verbal stimulus
You and your family decide to go out for dinner. You heard that there is
a new restaurant (casual dining style) just opened in the local area and
you have not tried it. You and your family choose to go there. The
waitress is very friendly and hands you a menu before taking the order.
You read the menu carefully and find that most of their menu items are
made from local produce such as “…with sliced local carrots” and
“…topped with local chicken breast.” Overall, the prices of their menu
items look fair to you. While you are browsing the menu, your eyes are
landed on a paragraph that provides some background
information of the supplier (a local farm) where most of the local
ingredients were sourced at this restaurant:
“The Smith Family Farm: our local supplier. The Smith Family
Farm is a family run, local business supplying fresh produce since
1996. The Smith Family farm has been run by two generations of the
Smith family and aims to supply fresh vegetables and fruits to support
local restaurants. Produce from the Smith Family Farm varies across
seasons.”
Resident/control (supplier
information is absent)
You and your family decide to go out for dinner. You heard that there is
a new restaurant (casual dining style) just opened in the local area and
you have not tried it. You and your family choose to go there. The
waitress is very friendly and hands you a menu before taking the
order. You read the menu carefully and find that most of their menu
items are made from local produce such as “…with sliced local
carrots” and “…topped with local chicken breast.” Overall, the prices of
their menu items look fair to you.
150
GENERAL CONCLUSION
Sustainable food (e.g., organic food and locally sourced ingredients) is rapidly growing in
popularity among consumers and has become one of the top menu trends implemented at many
restaurants. Restaurants seek to differentiate offerings from competitors and solicit customers
through sourcing organic and local ingredients. This dissertation sought to examine the impact of
sustainable food (e.g., organic food and locally sourced ingredients) on restaurant customers’
experiences and decision-making. The results reveal that consumers perceive hedonic value (e.g.,
Dining-Centered Excitement and Social Attention & Escapism) and utilitarian value (e.g.,
Tangible Value and Intangible Value) when dining on organic food at restaurants. Involvement
with organic food significantly predicts perceived hedonic/utilitarian value of organic dining.
Perceived hedonic/utilitarian value is found to significantly lead to dining satisfaction and
behavioral intentions (e.g., revisit intentions and willingness to spread positive word of mouth).
When making a restaurant decision, using organic ingredients is likely to provide a
greater advantage for the quick-service segment as this can overshadow competitors, compared
to casual dining and fine dining segments. However, the magnitude of a premium price
associated with organic ingredients plays a negative role in consumers’ decision-making
processes. Finally, the findings suggest that local food themed restaurants may consider
providing background information of their local food suppliers on menus to increase consumers’
attitudes and purchase intentions of local food items, according to the type of consumers (e.g.,
travelers and residents). When serving travelers, restaurants could either use a visual stimulus
(e.g., picture) to disseminate the source information about local ingredients (e.g., the local food
supplier) or simply label local ingredients without much additional menu effort. When serving
residents, restaurants’ menus could provide source information via a verbal stimulus (e.g.,
151
descriptive messages), in addition to highlighting local ingredients. Moreover, personal
involvement with local food is found to moderate the interaction between diner type and menu
stimuli. When consumers have high levels of involvement, they tend to espouse local food
cuisines with enormously favorable attitudes and purchase intentions, regardless of diner type
and menu stimuli. When consumers present low levels of involvement, restaurants are advised to
select menu stimuli based on the specific type of diner.
![[PDF] The Subway: Book One](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/outstation.idea/pdf-mt/2049019886797533184/pdf/c385d97e-5cc4-4ef2-b5ef-c4d4e15e855d/imgs/page1.png)
