An

Sa

b

a

KMAPMHRBL

1

iLvpa2tv2(

hMmr

h0

International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 57–70

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

jo u r n al homep age: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / i jhosman

better investment in luxury restaurants: Environmental oron-environmental cues?

unghyup Sean Hyuna,1, Juhee Kangb,∗

Department of Tourism and Convention, Pusan National University, Jangjeon-Dong, San 30, Kumjung-Gu, Busan 609-735, South KoreaDepartment of Hospitality Services, University of Central Florida, Rosen College of Hospitality Management, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

eywords:ehrabian–Russell model

rousalleasureotivational orientationedonismestaurant environmentehavioral intentionuxury restaurant

a b s t r a c t

The purposes of this study were (1) to examine the impact of environmental and non-environmentalcues on patrons’ emotional responses and (2) to examine the influence of emotions on patrons’ behav-ioral intentions, as moderated by motivational orientation and hedonism. Based on a thorough literaturereview, 11 theoretical hypotheses were proposed and a structural model was developed. The modelwas then tested using data collected from 379 actual luxury restaurant patrons residing in the UnitedStates. According to the results of data analysis, it was revealed that both environmental and non-environmental cues induce patrons’ arousal in the luxury restaurant setting; however, environmentalcues have a stronger impact on arousal than do non-environmental cues. More importantly, among thevarious environmental cues, ambient conditions were found to be the most powerful element that drives

patrons’ arousal. Data analysis also revealed the positive effect of arousal on pleasure and the positiveeffect of pleasure on behavioral intentions. Thus, it can be interpreted that arousal is a required conditionin inducing patrons’ pleasure. The moderating roles of motivational orientation and hedonism were alsosupported. Theoretical and practical implications based on the findings are discussed in the latter part ofthe study.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Patrons’ emotional responses have long been an important topicn restaurant marketing research (e.g. Han et al., 2010; Kim andee, 2010; Lee et al., 2009; Mattila and Ro, 2008). Customer sur-eys commonly find that large percentages of revisiting patrons areatrons who had positive emotional responses (e.g. pleasure androusal) during previous visits (Han et al., 2009; Jang and Namkung,009; Kim and Moon, 2009). It has also been argued that posi-ive emotional responses significantly increase patrons’ perceivedalue (Hyun et al., 2011) and satisfaction levels (Lin and Mattila,010; Mattila and Ro, 2008), thus helping to create patron loyaltyBowden and Dagger, 2011; Lee et al., 2009).

For these reasons, factors inducing positive emotional responsesave been an issue of great importance in the restaurant industry.

ehrabian and Russell’s (1974) M–R model theorizes that environ-ental cues play a critical role in inducing an individual’s emotional

esponses. For instance, a restaurant’s lighting, background music,

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 407 903 8138.E-mail addresses: shyun@pusan.ac.kr (S.S. Hyun), Juhee.Kang@ucf.edu (J. Kang).

1 Tel.: +82 51 510 1856; fax: +82 51 512 1853.

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.02.003278-4319/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

temperature, food aromas, interior decorating, and layout inducepatrons’ positive or negative emotional responses, thus influencingthe overall dining experience and revisit intentions. However, ourunderstanding of the mechanisms by which environmental cuesinduce patrons’ positive emotions is relatively weak in the restau-rant industry. The current restaurant literature focuses heavilyon the impact of non-environmental cues (such as food quality,service quality, price, and location) on patrons’ satisfaction andrevisit intentions (e.g. Chow et al., 2007; Hyun, 2010; Law et al.,2008). Considering that a luxury restaurant is a specialized type ofrestaurant operation that invests relatively high expenditures on asuperior physical environment (Kim et al., 2006, 2011), investigat-ing the role of environmental cues on emotional responses in theluxury restaurant setting is an issue of great importance.

However, luxury restaurant owners/managers do not currentlyhave a practical model demonstrating the link between a restau-rant’s environmental and non-environmental cues and patrons’emotional responses. Therefore, upper-level luxury restaurantpersonnel have been under constant pressure to find more

effective investments that can induce patrons’ positive emo-tions. Specifically, it is critical to determine whether investmentin environmental cues (e.g. lighting, furniture, interior decora-tion, renovations) or non-environmental cues (e.g. food quality

5 l of Ho

ig

ecmDetLhHr

ieoo

2

2

imAeo2awe

tsr(ao

dtmap2lcbtSS

ttttccmna

t

8 S.S. Hyun, J. Kang / International Journa

mprovements, service quality improvements, and pricing strate-ies) is more effective.

Therefore, the purpose of this research was to simultaneouslyxamine the impact of both environmental and non-environmentalues on patrons’ emotional responses in order to provide invest-ent guidelines for luxury restaurant owners and managers.uring the research process, it was also hypothesized that patrons’motional responses could be strengthened and/or weakened byheir dining motivation, which refers to motivational orientation.astly, since a large number of luxury restaurant patrons seekedonic benefits from their luxury dining experiences (Hwang andyun, 2012), this study also theoretically proposes the moderating

ole of hedonism.In summary, the purposes of this study were (1) to examine the

mpact of environmental and non-environmental cues on patrons’motional responses and (2) to examine the influence of emotionn patrons’ behavioral intentions, as moderated by motivationalrientation and hedonism.

. Literature review

.1. The M–R model

The M–R model (1974) theorized that environmental stimulinfluence an individual’s behavioral intentions, with the impact

ediated by emotional responses (Mehrabian and Russel, 1974).ccording to the existing literature on emotion, an individual’sxperience of emotion is a multi-dimensional construct composedf two sub-dimensions: (1) pleasure and (2) arousal (Walsh et al.,011; Jang and Namkung, 2009). Pleasure refers to the degree ofn individual’s feeling in a situation (e.g. happy, joyful, or good),hereas arousal refers to the degree to which an individual feels

xcited, stimulated, or active in a situation (Ladhari, 2007).In the history of emotion research, arousal is the first emo-

ional response that an individual has when facing a certainituation (Bagozzi et al., 1999; Lazarus, 1982). Accordingly, emotionesearchers have postulated that arousal occurs prior to pleasuree.g. Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). This causal relationship betweenrousal and pleasure will be further explained in the later sectionf behavioral intentions (the consequence of emotional responses).

Environmental stimuli include various physical cues such asesign, music, layout, and décor (Koo and Kim, 2013). Accordingo the M–R model, when customers are exposed to such environ-

ental stimuli, they experience emotional responses (i.e. pleasure,rousal), particularly in the hedonic consumption that relates toositively emotive aspects of the consumption experience (Lucas,003; Ryu and Jang, 2007). Consequently, such emotional responses

ead to behavioral intentions (Hyun et al., 2011). Due to the criti-al impact of environmental stimuli on customers’ emotions andehavioral intentions, a large number of studies have examinedhe role of in-store environmental cues in retail settings (e.g.pangenberg et al., 2005; Sweeney and Wyber, 2002; Yalch andpangenberg, 2000).

Expanding the M–R model, Baker et al. (2002) investigatedhe role of non-environmental stimuli in the formation of cus-omers’ emotional responses and behavioral intentions. Accordingo their study, an individual’s emotional response is determined bywo categories of store-related cognitions: (1) store environmentalues and (2) store-choice criteria that relate to non-environmentalues. Walsh et al.’s (2011) study further supports this argu-ent. They empirically verified that both environmental and

on-environmental cues significantly influence customer emotionsnd behavioral intentions.

According to the cognitive appraisal theory, a person’s subjec-ive evaluation is influenced by the environmental cues in which

spitality Management 39 (2014) 57–70

he or she is situated (Lazarus, 1991). Similarly, in the restau-rant context, patrons’ dining out experiences/evaluations shouldtheoretically be influenced by their cognitive appraisal of envi-ronmental cues consisting of décor and artifacts, spatial layout,and ambient conditions (Han and Ryu, 2009; Jang and Namkung,2009; Ryu and Jang, 2007). The existing literature supports thetheory that non-environmental store-choice criteria induce cus-tomers’ emotions, thus influencing behavioral intentions (Jang andNamkung, 2009; Walsh et al., 2011). In the restaurant context,non-environmental criteria typically involve four elements: foodquality, service quality, price, and location (Hyun, 2010; Soriano,2002).

Based on the above discussion, it can be theorized that both envi-ronmental cues and non-environmental cues positively influencepatrons’ emotional responses. More specially, this study postulatedand tested the impact of such predictors on arousal, which is arequired condition for the pleasure (Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006).

2.2. Restaurant environmental cues

Han and Ryu (2009) emphasized the critical role of environ-ment in influencing patron behaviors in the restaurant industry.Restaurant environment is defined as the physical surroundingsestablished by and controlled by the restaurateurs (Kim and Moon,2009). Because patrons are consciously and/or unconsciously influ-enced by their physical surroundings throughout their diningexperiences (e.g. before, during, and after their meals), an attrac-tive restaurant environment affects overall patron satisfaction andfuture behaviors (Han and Ryu, 2009; Lin, 2004). Moreover, whenpatrons make dining-out decisions, they consider the physical sur-roundings of a restaurant as much as the food and service (Lee et al.,2008). Thus, a comfortable, creative, and innovative store design ina restaurant is a key component in inducing positive evaluationsand emotional responses and consequently in influencing ongoingpatronage (Ryu and Han, 2011; Wu and Liang, 2009).

Ryu and Jang (2007) examined the effects of restaurant envi-ronmental cues on patrons’ emotions in upscale restaurants. Theirstudy employed five DINESCAPE constructs that included onlyinternal environmental cues: facility esthetics, lighting, ambience,layout, and dining equipment. Jang and Namkung (2009) employedspace, design, color, and music as the elements of restaurantenvironmental cues in full-service restaurants. Integrating thoseprevious studies and using the luxury restaurant setting, Han andRyu (2009) comprehensively proposed three essential constructs ofrestaurant environmental cues: (1) décor and artifacts, (2) spatiallayout, and (3) ambient conditions. The three constructs have beenidentified as key signals that determine restaurant environmentquality (Kim and Moon, 2009; Wall and Berry, 2007). Since Han andRyu (2009) comprehensively integrated sufficient measurementsfor the physical environment, which are pertinent to the luxuryrestaurant industry (which is the boundary of the present study),this study employed the environmental cues of décor and artifacts,spatial layout, and ambient conditions to measure the effects ofsuch cues in the luxury restaurant context.

2.2.1. Décor and artifactsDécor and artifacts are the essential components for generat-

ing the attractiveness of the physical environment in restaurantsettings (Mattila and Wirtz, 2001; Nguyen and Leblanc, 2002).Restaurant customers consciously and/or subconsciously evaluatethe pleasant environment of a restaurant through tangible cuessuch as the quality of construction materials, artwork, and interior

designs and decorations (Han and Ryu, 2009; Ryu and Jang, 2007).More specifically, these tangible cues include “the color schemesof the dining area, ceiling/wall decorations, pictures/paintings,plants/flowers, tableware (e.g. glass and silverware), linens (e.g.

l of Ho

tdcrra

2

moaatTifMtaflmt

2

t(oaeeMrnWats

2

oPepciR

2

dmssmc2aoAas

S.S. Hyun, J. Kang / International Journa

able cloths and napkin), floor coverings, and quality furniture (e.g.ining table and chair)” (Han and Ryu, 2009, p. 490). Customersonsider these cues when evaluating their overall experiences at aestaurant because they help create a positive image of the restau-ant and give an esthetic impression to the customers (Martineznd Martinez, 2007).

.2.2. Spatial layoutSpatial layout refers to the arrangement of objects such as

achinery, equipment, and furnishings, the size and shape of thebjects, and the spatial relationships among those objects (Nguyennd Leblanc, 2002). In restaurants, various objects (tables, seats,isles, food service lines, restrooms, etc.) are designed and arrangedo enhance the service delivery process (Kim and Moon, 2009).he effectively designed spatial layout of a physical environments important in achieving customer satisfaction because it fulfillsunctional needs and gives a sense of comfort to customers (Kim and

oon, 2009; Wakefield and Blodgett, 1994). Moreover, an effec-ive layout prevents customers from feeling crowded by providingmple space that enables customers to move around and sit in com-ort (Kim and Moon, 2009). Thus, a positive perception of spatialayout can help customers experience a sense of coziness and inti-

acy and can consequently evoke positive emotional responses tohe environment (Lin, 2004).

.2.3. Ambient conditionsAmbient conditions refer to intangible background characteris-

ics that influence the subconscious evaluation of an environmentHan and Ryu, 2009; Nguyen and Leblanc, 2002). The elementsf ambient conditions include temperature, lighting, noise, music,nd scent (Han and Ryu, 2009). For example, a pleasantly scentednvironment can result in more positive customer perceptions andvaluations than an unscented environment (Morrison et al., 2011).usical style and the physical dimensions of music (e.g. tempo,

hythm, pitch, and volume) have also been shown to have a sig-ificant impact on restaurant customers’ behaviors (Mattila andirtz, 2001). When these ambient conditions provide a pleasant

tmosphere within the service facility, customers are more likelyo exhibit positive behaviors such as a desire to stay longer and topend more (Han and Ryu, 2009; Nguyen and Leblanc, 2002).

.3. Non-environmental cues in restaurant selection

In addition to environmental cues, restaurant patrons use vari-us sets of other attributes when selecting a restaurant (Johns andine, 2002). In the history of restaurant marketing research, differ-nt scholars have proposed various attributes to explain restaurantatron behavior, but it is widely accepted that four attributes areritical determinants of patrons’ dining experiences: (1) food qual-ty, (2) service quality, (3) price, and (4) location (Hyun, 2010;aajpoot, 2002; Soriano, 2002).

.3.1. Food qualityPrevious studies have reported that food quality is the absolute

eterminant in evaluating a restaurant experience for the funda-ental reason that patrons expect that their dining out experiences

hould satisfy hunger (Lo and Lam, 2004; Peri, 2006). In numeroustudies, food quality has been evaluated based on various deter-inants such as taste, freshness, appealing presentation, healthy

omponents, and appropriate temperature (Acebron and Dopico,000; Namkung and Jang, 2008). With regard to food quality, foodnd beverages were the major components to determine the quality

f a dining experience (Lo and Lam, 2004; Sulek and Hensley, 2004).s customers become knowledgeable about products and servicest restaurants, various primary attributes that influence restaurantelection have been proposed in different studies; for example, the

spitality Management 39 (2014) 57–70 59

taste of food (Namkung and Jang, 2007) and the variety of foodchoice (Ha and Jang, 2010).

2.3.2. Service qualityConsiderable research has reported the importance of service

quality in the restaurant selection process because the interac-tion between customers and service employees affects customerevaluation of the dining experience (Jang and Namkung, 2009).According to Brady and Robertson (2001), such interaction includesservice employees’ responsiveness, assurance, and empathy whileproviding services. As the Stevens et al. (1995) DINESERV dimen-sions suggested, responsiveness refers to staff assistance inaccommodating customers’ needs and requests pertaining to menuitems and wine selections. Assurance relates to customer confi-dence in the staff’s recommendations on menu items, safe feelingsthat food has been prepared safely, and the ability to expressconcerns without fear. Empathy indicates personalized attentionto customers by offering assistance with special dietary require-ments or by showing sympathy for customers’ moods and emotions(Stevens et al., 1995). For example, a service employee’s attentionto when to serve the next course is a factor of service quality (Walland Berry, 2007). Service quality implies a restaurant’s promise toprovide a standard of service, including service employees’ respon-siveness to customer needs and requests, individualized attentionto customers, and willingness to provide prompt service and helpcustomers (Namkung and Jang, 2008).

2.3.3. PriceAlong with food quality, price also has been a key criterion in

the restaurant selection process that influences customer behav-ior (Law et al., 2008). Price has been suggested as a tool to attractand retain customers, as does improved food quality (Hyun, 2010).A reasonable price can positively influence customer evaluationsof dining experiences (Andaleeb and Conway, 2006), whereas aninflated price (compared to the quality of food/service) can nega-tively affect customers’ future decisions to revisit (Kim et al., 2006).

2.3.4. LocationRestaurant location is another factor that customers consider

in their restaurant selection decision-making processes (Tzenget al., 2002; Yuksel and Yuksel, 2002). According to Soriano (2002),restaurant customers consider the accessibility of a restaurantwhen they decide to dine out. The primary reason for this can beexplained by customers’ desire to save time in travel (Heung, 2003).In many studies, a convenient location has been found to be an influ-ential factor in generating satisfaction and determining behavioralintentions (Law et al., 2008; Yuksel and Yuksel, 2002).

2.4. Restaurant environmental cues and arousal

Restaurant patrons consider various environmental factorswhen they evaluate dining out experiences (Hansen, 2005). In manycases, customer revisit/repurchase decisions are made based onevaluations of the physical environment. For instance, customersdecide whether to stay longer and/or spend more when they feelpositive responses (e.g. excitement, arousal) to a store environment(Mattila and Wirtz, 2008). Along these lines, Kaltcheva and Weitz(2006) identified environmental cues as arousal-inducing featuresthat lead to positive behavioral intentions. Mattila and Wirtz’s(2001) empirical study further supports the impact of environ-mental cues on arousal inducement. Therefore, feelings of arousalcan be evoked as a result of the evaluation of environmental cues

(Sweeney and Wyber, 2002; Yalch and Spangenberg, 2000). Basedon previous studies, three hypotheses are proposed below.

According to Wakefield and Baker (1998), the overall designand décor of the physical environment influences the form of

6 l of Ho

escs

Hp

sctidew1sebe2atobf

Ha

ag(etmiwVwsiettsefeef

Hp

2

iJatp2qp

0 S.S. Hyun, J. Kang / International Journa

xcitement experienced by customers. Ryu and Jang (2007) empha-ized the role of the color schemes of restaurant settings. Differentolors cause different emotional responses and feelings in a diningite (Lin, 2004). Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

1. Décor and artifacts have a positive and significant effect onatrons’ arousal in a restaurant.

An optimal spatial layout expedites the exploration of theervice environment and stimulates the emotional responses ofustomers (Ryu and Jang, 2007). Inseparability addresses simul-aneous production and consumption that emphasizes consumernvolvement in the service process. In other words, a customer’sining experience can be influenced by other customers (Kotlert al., 1993). For example, customers typically experience stresshen the layout of a service setting is crowded (Hui and Bateson,

990). Poor spatial layout results in negative emotional responsesuch as embarrassment, feelings of neglect, and avoidance (Angt al., 1997). Based on the discussions, providing sufficient spaceetween tables and seats in a luxury restaurant has a consid-rable impact on positive emotional responses (Kim and Moon,009). If customers cannot easily pass through aisles and navigateround in a restaurant, their dining experiences may induce nega-ive emotional responses. Luxury restaurants can increase the levelf arousal to the service environment by providing ample spaceetween tables and seats (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1994). There-ore, we propose the following hypothesis:

2. Spatial layout has a positive and significant effect on patrons’rousal in a restaurant.

Affective responses occur when evaluating the servicescapembiance (e.g. music, aromas, and ambient temperature), whichenerates an overall impression of a store and its service levelsSweeney and Wyber, 2002; Yalch and Spangenberg, 2000). Walsht al. (2011) investigated the effects of store environment on cus-omer emotions (i.e. arousal and pleasure). A direct link between

usic (a component of store environmental cues) and arousal wasdentified, which indicated that customers feel good or get excited

hen listening to pleasant music (e.g. Kellaris and Kent, 1993;anderark and Ely, 1993). Russell and Pratt (1980) found that roomsith specific types of atmospheres can arouse particular emotional

tates in customers. The result of Lin’s (2010) experimental studyndicated that positive arousal occurs when hotel guests experi-nce an ambience in hotel rooms that they perceive as similar tohat of their preconceived expectations toward the hotel room. Inhe restaurant industry, all ambient conditions such as pleasantcents, pleasing music, comfortable temperature, low noise lev-ls, and adequate lighting create a synergy effect in generatingavorable perceptions of the restaurant and resulting in a positivexperience. Ryu and Jang (2007) found the essential role of ambi-nce in inducing arousal from dining experiences. Accordingly, theollowing hypothesis is proposed:

3. Ambient conditions have a positive and significant effect onatrons’ arousal in a restaurant.

.5. Non-environmental cues and arousal

In a restaurant setting, many stimuli play significant roles innfluencing customers’ emotional responses (Parsa et al., 2005).ang and Namkung (2009) identified the quality of food and services intangible features of restaurants that trigger customer emo-ions. Food quality is a critical factor that can induce patrons’

ositive emotional responses and future behaviors (Law et al.,008; Raajpoot, 2002). Wall and Berry (2007) found that serviceuality is the most powerful dimension in affecting customers’ositive dining experiences at table-service restaurants, while Jang

spitality Management 39 (2014) 57–70

and Namkung (2009) found a positive relationship between servicequality and customer emotions in a full-service restaurant. Particu-larly in a luxury restaurant, where customers expect a high qualityof food and service can make customers more likely to experiencearousal when receiving their expected dining experiences. Basedon the discussion above, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H4. Food quality has a positive and significant effect on patrons’arousal in a restaurant.

H5. Service quality has a positive and significant effect on patrons’arousal in a restaurant.

Price and restaurant location have been identified as tangi-ble cues for evaluating customer experiences at a restaurant (Hanand Ryu, 2009). Due to the intangible nature of service, customerexperiences at a restaurant vary depending on expectations andevaluations of restaurant products/services. In this situation, cus-tomers tend to use price as a tangible cue in assessing the qualityof products and in making purchase decisions (Mattila and O’Neill,2003). Because customers do not know the actual cost of a spe-cific product/service, they subjectively interpret the price set bythe restaurant in a meaningful way, such as ‘a good value for themoney’ (Han and Ryu, 2009). For example, restaurant customersare likely to show positive emotional responses when receivinggood service at a reasonable price (Namkung and Jang, 2010). Coffeeshop customers were aroused by lower prices, especially when theywere lower than their reference prices, which in turn, evoke arousalresponses (Walsh et al., 2011). Based on the discussion above, thefollowing hypothesis is proposed:

H6. Price has a positive and significant effect on patrons’ arousalin a restaurant.

In many restaurant studies, a convenient location has been a cru-cial attribute in restaurant evaluation (e.g. Tzeng et al., 2002; Yukseland Yuksel, 2002). Barsky and Nash (2003) found that a convenientlocation gives customers a feeling of comfort. However, in the caseof a full-service restaurant, customers are willing to travel greaterdistances for excellent food and service (Eliwa, 2006). If a restau-rant is in a unique location, traveling a long distance may not bea concern to customers who seek the experience of the favorableenvironment in which the restaurant is situated (e.g. overlooking alake or golf course). Since location relates to environmental percep-tions (Yüksel, 2007), the effect of location on restaurant evaluationcan be influenced by emotional responses such as feelings of alert-ness and excitement. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H7. Location has a positive and significant effect on patrons’arousal in a restaurant.

2.6. Behavioral intentions: the consequence of emotionalresponses (arousal–pleasure)

Empirical studies support the causal relationship betweenarousal and pleasure. In other words, it is theorized that arousalis a required condition for the formation of pleasure. For instance,Ladhari (2007) examined the causal relationship between cus-tomers’ arousal and pleasure using the empirical data collectedfrom 470 moviegoers. Their structural equation modeling resultsrevealed that arousal significantly influences pleasure levels, whichin turn positively influence customer satisfaction and word ofmouth. Mattila and Wirtz (2000) further emphasized the role ofarousal as an amplifier of pleasure on post-consumption assess-ment. They analyzed the empirical data collected from the four

service settings: (1) a beauty center, (2) a dental clinic, (3) aroller-coaster ride, and (4) a passport section of an immigrationdepartment. In addition to the above studies, the causal relation-ship between arousal and pleasure has been further supported

l of Ho

bMpvsit2ecs2ttropstewre

H

cSWtlsaswbadmb

liLititraie

b2abm

Hi

2

p

S.S. Hyun, J. Kang / International Journa

y several empirical studies (e.g. Bigné et al., 2005; Chebat andichon, 2003). However, this causal relationship (between arousal,

leasure, and behavioral intentions) has never been tested in pre-ious restaurant studies. In fact, the majority of existing restauranttudies has dichotomized restaurant patrons’ emotional responsesnto two sub-dimensions: (1) positive emotions and negative emo-ions (see Lee et al., 2009; Liu and Jang, 2009a; Jang and Namkung,009; Jang et al., 2011). Some restaurant studies have dichotomizedmotion into (1) pleasure and (2) arousal; however, those studiesoncluded that arousal plays a moderating role in the relation-hip between pleasure and behavioral intentions (see Hyun et al.,011). Our study is the first research to propose the causal rela-ionship between arousal, pleasure, and behavioral intentions inhe restaurant context. This route has never been tested in previousestaurant studies. Based on the M–R model (which posits the effectf environmental stimuli on emotions and behaviors), we haveroposed the causal relationship, which differentiates the presenttudy from other existing restaurant studies. This study adoptedhe arousal–pleasure route based on the existing theoretical andmpirical backgrounds. In a luxury restaurant setting, customersho feel high arousal in response to an innovative restaurant envi-

onment are likely to exhibit high pleasure during their diningxperience.

8. Arousal has a positive and significant effect on pleasure.

Individual’s emotions about a particular environment signifi-antly influence what they do and how they do it (Chebat andlusarczyk, 2005; Martinez and Martinez, 2007; Sweeney andyber, 2002; Yalch and Spangenberg, 2000). For this reason, emo-

ions have been considered an action-oriented component in prioriterature (Bergenwall, 1998; Zajonc, 1980). Arousal and plea-ure, for instance, as discussed in the M–R model (1974), inducepproach behaviors (e.g. unplanned shopping, staying longer at atore, and interaction with employees) in a pleasant environment,hereas unpleasant and non-arousal feelings induce avoidance

ehaviors (e.g. the opposite of approach behaviors) in an unpleas-nt environment (Donovan et al., 1994). These emotional responseserived from consumption experiences are stored as affectiveemories in patrons’ minds and influence post-consumption

ehaviors (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982; Walsh et al., 2011).Oliver (1996) defined behavioral intention as a firmly stated

ikelihood of engaging in a certain behavior. In restaurant market-ng research, scholars (e.g. Ha and Jang, 2010; Hyun et al., 2011;iu and Jang, 2009b; Ryu and Han, 2010) have measured behav-oral intention using three variables: likelihood of (1) returning tohe restaurant, (2) recommending the restaurant to others includ-ng friends, family, and others, and (3) saying positive things abouthe restaurant. Behavioral intention is a critical determinant of aestaurant’s revenue maximization and business success; as such,

large number of studies have examined the antecedents of behav-oral intentions in the restaurant setting (Ha and Jang, 2010; Hyunt al., 2011; Liu and Jang, 2009b; Ryu and Han, 2010).

Among the antecedents of behavioral intentions, emotion haseen in the spotlight by restaurant marketers (e.g. Han et al.,010; Hyun et al., 2011; Lin, 2004). Such studies have shown thentecedent role of emotional responses in the formation of patrons’ehavioral intentions such as willingness to repurchase and toake recommendations.

9. Pleasure has a positive and significant effect on behavioralntention.

.7. Motivational orientation as moderator

Based on the theoretical/empirical backgrounds, this studyroposed the causal relationship between arousal and pleasure

spitality Management 39 (2014) 57–70 61

(Hypothesis 8). More importantly, previous studies have proposedthat there is a key moderator in the relationship between arousaland pleasure: motivational orientation (e.g. Kaltcheva and Weitz,2006). For instance, in Kaltcheva and Weitz’s (2006) study, moti-vational orientation is a situational variable that moderates therelationship between shoppers’ arousal and pleasure. Motivation isdefined as psychological/biological needs and wants that are driv-ing forces behind an individual’s behavior and activity (Dann, 1981;Dawson et al., 1990; Pearce, 1982). For this reason, motivational ori-entation has been utilized in consumer behavior research to explainwhy people visit particular retailers and consume specific products.From the perspective of practitioners, investigating why customersvisit a particular business is an issue of great importance becausemotivational orientation influences not only customers’ consump-tion experiences, but also future behaviors (Dawson et al., 1990).

According to the existing literature, there are two different typesof consumer motivational orientation: (1) task-oriented motiva-tional orientation (also referred to as utilitarian motivation) and (2)recreational motivational orientation (also referred to as hedonicmotivation) (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982).

Consumers with a strong task-oriented motivational orientationare efficient and rational (Batra and Ahtola, 1991). They go shoppingmainly to satisfy specific purposes or needs (e.g. obtaining particu-lar products or services), rather than for enjoyment of the shoppingexperience itself (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Customers with a strongtask orientation feel satisfaction from the outcome of shopping;especially when they efficiently complete the goal of shopping withminimal effort/time expended (Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). Forinstance, restaurant patrons with a strong task-oriented motiva-tional orientation visit a particular restaurant mainly because thefood is tasty, it provides healthy food choices (e.g. an organic menu),and/or the restaurant is located near several other places wherethey will be spending time during their day.

In contrast, consumers with a strong recreational motivationalorientation pursue affective and experiential consumption expe-riences, and place great emphasis on the experience of fun andplayfulness derived from the consumption experience (Babin et al.,1994). They leisurely enjoy the shopping activity itself more thanbuying particular products/services. Restaurant patrons with astrong recreational motivational orientation leisurely enjoy theirdining out experiences and enjoy pleasing interior design, relaxingmusic, and/or an exotic ambiance.

Consequently, restaurant patrons with a strong recreationalmotivational orientation expect to receive unusual dining experi-ences from restaurants with extraordinary environments, pleasingbackground music, and exotic scents which create a positive overallambiance. Because such patrons visit a luxury restaurant not pri-marily to dine but to enjoy an overall sensual dining experience(Lucas, 2003; Newman, 2007), they feel a higher level of plea-sure from an arousal-inducing environment. In this sense it can beargued that motivational orientation moderates the relationshipbetween patrons’ arousal and pleasure.

Empirical studies further support this theoretical hypothesis.For example, Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006) empirically examinedthe moderating role of motivational orientation in the relationshipbetween arousal and pleasure. Based on their ANOVA test results,it was revealed that participants with a recreational motivationalorientation found a high-arousal environment to be statisti-cally significantly more pleasure than a low-arousal environment.Therefore, the moderating role of motivational orientation in therelationship between arousal and pleasure was statistically con-firmed.

H10. Compared to patrons with a task-oriented motivational ori-entation, patrons with a recreational motivational orientation willexperience a stronger and significant effect of arousal on pleasure.

6 l of Ho

2

h1aatIep1enwft

Hwa

2m

mcrve

i(wd

tciIs

2

hbctipctob

3

3

tSnA

2 S.S. Hyun, J. Kang / International Journa

.8. Hedonism as moderator

In the stream of pleasure and arousal research, the concept ofedonism has received considerable attention from scholars (Bell,978; Bozkurt et al., 2010; Campbell, 1987). Hedonism is defined asn individual’s propensity for pursuing psychological benefits, suchs experiential, intangible, and multi-sensory benefits; and emo-ional happiness (Ahtola, 1985; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982).ndividuals with strong levels of hedonism tend to seek pleasure inveryday life (Campbell, 1987). A hedonists’ life goal is experiencingleasure and having fun in the moment (Hirschman and Holbrook,982). For hedonic consumers, dining out itself is a pleasurablevent that brings fun and happiness in daily life. Thus, a hedo-ist shows stronger behavioral intentions than the non-hedonisthen attaining pleasure from a consumption experience. It there-

ore can be hypothesized that hedonism plays a moderating role inhe relationship between pleasure and behavioral intentions.

11. Compared with patrons with low levels of hedonism, patronsith high levels of hedonism will be more strongly and significantly

ffected by pleasure on behavioral intentions.

.9. The differences between hedonism and recreationalotivation

The recreational motivational orientation is a ‘consumptionotivation’ that places great emphasis on affective and experiential

onsumption experiences (Babin et al., 1994). In other words, theecreational motivational orientation is the motivator for diners toisit a luxury restaurant that has pleasing interior design (Dawsont al., 1990).

In contrast, hedonism is an individual’s personality character-stic aimed at pursuing psychological benefits, such as happinessAhtola, 1985). In short, hedonism is a personality characteristic,hile the recreational motivation orientation is a motivation forining at a luxury restaurant.

A non-hedonist might choose to visit a luxury restaurant in ordero relax in the pleasing interior design, while a hedonist mighthoose to visit a luxury restaurant because of the exceptional qual-ty of the food (a strong task-oriented motivational orientation).n other words, a hedonist does not necessarily have to possess atrong recreational motivational orientation.

.10. Proposed conceptual model

Based on the theoretical and empirical backgrounds, 11ypotheses were proposed in the literature review section. Com-ining all of the proposed hypotheses, a structural model wasreated (Fig. 1). The proposed conceptual model hypothesizeshat restaurant environmental cues and non-environmental cuesnduce patron arousal. As such, the arousal will impact patrons’leasure, thus influencing behavioral intentions. During this pro-ess, patrons’ motivational orientations play a moderating role inhe relationship between arousal and pleasure. Lastly, the levelf patrons’ hedonism plays moderating role in the relationshipetween pleasure and behavioral intentions.

. Methodology

.1. Sample

To empirically test the proposed conceptual model, data collec-

ion was conducted using a consumer panel database in the Unitedtates. The database consisted of 27,000 email addresses and phoneumbers of luxury restaurant patrons residing in the United States.n Internet invitation was sent to the 27,000 patrons. From the

spitality Management 39 (2014) 57–70

27,000 invitations, 389 responses were received. Via a screeningprocess, it was revealed that ten responses were not usable (e.g. dueto missing information, incomplete answers, extreme answers);consequently 379 usable responses were used for further data anal-ysis (usable response rate of 1.4%).

3.2. Non-respondent error check

The study used an online database of luxury restaurant patronsthat yielded 379 usable responses out of 27,000 invitations. Itwas necessary to ensure that those who participated were notdifferent from those who chose not to participate. Significant differ-ences between respondents and non-respondents would representa “non-respondent error” (Zikmund, 2003, p. 178). As Zikmund(2003) stated, in order to reduce non-respondent error, researchersshould select a sample of non-respondents and then re-contactthem in order to assess whether there is a group differencebetween those who responded and those who did not. Follow-ing Zikmund’s (2003) suggestion, this study identified the extentof non-respondent error. When the first e-mail invitations weresent out, only 210 respondents participated in the survey. The210 samples were analyzed, following which data analysis resultsand conclusion were derived. In order to subsequently assess fornon-respondent error, we sent out another invitation email to thenon-respondents (26,790 samples) several times, and obtained anadditional 179 responses from initial non-respondents. Next, weanalyzed the 179 samples, and found that the results and conclu-sion were not different to the previous ones. Finally, we mergedthe two different sample sets and wrote a final report based on thedata analysis results. In summary, we assessed for non-respondenterror using Zikmund’s (2003) methodology, and found that therespondents who participated following the first request were notdifferent from those who did not participate initially.

3.3. Measures

To empirically measure the 12 theoretical concepts proposed inthis study, validated measurement items were adapted from theexisting literature in various areas (restaurant operation, psychol-ogy, and consumer behavior) as follows:

• Restaurant-environmental cues were measured with 13 itemsunder three dimensions employed by Han and Ryu (2009). Thethree sub-dimensions were (1) décor and artifacts, (2) spatiallayout, and (3) ambient conditions;

• Non-environmental cues were measured with 13 items underfour dimensions adapted from Delwiche (2004), Hyun (2010),Law et al. (2008), Namkung and Jang (2008), and Parasuramanet al. (1988). The four sub-dimensions were (1) food quality, (2)service quality, (3) price, and (4) location;

• To measure patrons’ emotional responses, Ladhari’s (2007) 11items under two dimensions (arousal and pleasure, which arewidely used in behavioral research) were employed;

• Behavioral intensions were measured with three items adaptedfrom Zeithaml et al. (1996);

• Patrons’ motivational orientations were measured by twopsychological behavioral orientations: (1) the task-orientedmotivational orientation and (2) the recreational motivationalorientation. These two dimensions were measured with 12 itemsadapted from Ha and Jang (2010), Hyun (2009), and Park (2004)(see Appendix A);

• Hedonism was measured by five items adapted from Bozkurt et al.

(2010) (see Appendix A).

The initial questionnaire was created by combining the mea-surement items named above (All measurement items in this study,

S.S. Hyun, J. Kang / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 57–70 63

H9H8 BehavioralIntentions

Spatial Layout

Ambient Conditions

PleasureArousal

Motivational Orientation

Décor and Artifacts

Food Quality

Location

Service Quality

Price

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

H6

H7

H10

Hedonism

H11

Restaurant environmental

cues

Non-environmental

cues

d con

eT(strfkrtTtatd2

4

4

4wfrtt7a$r

4

ms

Fig. 1. Propose

xcept motivational orientations and hedonism, can be found inable 1). Multi-items and a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1‘strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’) were adapted for thistudy to measure all of the proposed constructs. To ensure the con-ent validity of the initial questionnaire, three professional groupseviewed all of the questions. The groups consisted of (1) threeaculty members whose major research area were restaurant mar-eting, (2) four graduate students who had previously worked inestaurants, and (3) two luxury restaurant managers. Based onhe three groups’ feedback, the initial questionnaire was revised.hen, a pre-test was conducted with 80 luxury restaurant patronso double-check the readability of the questionnaire. Cronbach’slpha values higher than 0.7 further supported the reliability ofhe adapted scales. The survey questionnaire was finalized andistributed to 27,000 luxury restaurant patrons in the summer of011.

. Data analysis

.1. Respondents’ socio-demographic profile

The socio-demographic profile of the respondents found that8.8% of respondents in the sample were female (n = 185) and 51.2%ere male (n = 194). The respondents were fairly evenly distributed

rom 18 to 90 years of age, with a mean age of 46.8. More than half ofespondents reported that they dined out at any restaurant at leasthree times per month. In terms of income and education levels,he sample had respondents of relatively prestigious status levels.3.1% of respondents possessed higher than a bachelor’s degree,nd 70.5% of respondents possessed an annual income higher than100,000. In summary, the socio-demographic profile accuratelyepresented the U.S. luxury restaurant population.

.2. Measurement model analysis

To assess the construct validity and internal consistency, theeasurement model was evaluated via confirmatory factor analy-

is (CFA) (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The CFA results showed

ceptual model.

that the measurement model had a satisfactory fit with theempirical data [�2 = 1435.030 (df = 691, p < 0.001), RMSEA = 0.053,CFI = 0.943, IFI = 0.944, TLI = 0.936]. The values of CFI, IFI, and TLIexceeded the 0.9 threshold (Byrne, 1998), while the RMSEA valuebetween 0.04 and 0.08 further supported an adequate model fit(Turner and Reisinger, 2001). Table 1 displays the specific variablesused for this study, with their standardized factor loading values.

As shown in Table 1, all of the factor loadings were equal toor higher than 0.658. In addition, all of the constructs’ averagevariances extracted (AVEs) were higher than the 0.50 threshold(Table 2) (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Based on (1) the high factorloadings and (2) the acceptable AVE values, it was judged that con-vergent validity for the scale items had been achieved (Fornell andLarcker, 1981).

In the next step, discriminant validity was tested by comparingthe squared correlations between proposed concepts and AVE esti-mates (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). All of the squared correlations(R2) between a pair of proposed concepts were smaller than theintended AVE estimate with the exception of one pair: ambient con-ditions and arousal. In this case, discriminant validity between thepairs was re-evaluated by combining them into a single constructand then conducting a �2 difference test on the values obtainedfrom the combined and uncombined models, as the existing lit-erature recommends (e.g. Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). The resulting �2

difference was 223.558 (df = 9), which was statistically significant atp < 0.001. Consequently, discriminant validity between the ambientconditions and arousal pair was empirically confirmed. In sum-mary, all of the constructs’ discriminant validities were adequatelysupported by data analysis. Lastly, all of the constructs’ compositereliability exceeded 0.7 thresholds, thus confirming internal con-sistency (Hair et al., 1998).

4.3. Structural equation modeling

Following the assessment of the measurement model, a struc-tural model was estimated to validate the proposed conceptualmodel in Fig. 1. Goodness-of-fit statistics and the summary offindings revealed that the proposed model adequately fit the

64 S.S. Hyun, J. Kang / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 57–70

Table 1Confirmatory factor analysis: items and loadings.

Construct and scale item Standardizedloading

Restaurant environmental cuesDécor and artifactsThe paintings/pictures in this luxury restaurant are attractive. 0.724The plants/flowers in this luxury restaurant make me feel

happy.0.866

This restaurant’s ceiling decorations are attractive. 0.917The wall décor in this restaurant is visually appealing. 0.761The colors used create a warm atmosphere in this restaurant. 0.750The furniture (e.g. dining tables, chairs) in this restaurant is of

high quality.0.832

Spatial layoutOverall, the layout in this luxury restaurant makes it easy to

navigate.0.934

The table/seating arrangements offer me enough space. 0.948The seating arrangements make me feel comfortable. 0.829

Ambient conditionsThe lighting in this luxury restaurant creates a warm

atmosphere.0.911

The background music is pleasing. 0.925The temperature is comfortable. 0.839The food aromas are enticing. Overall, the layout in this luxury

restaurant makes it easy to navigate.0.919

Non-environmental cuesFood qualityThis luxury restaurant serves tasty food. 0.910This luxury restaurant’s food presentation is attractive. 0.909Food is served at the appropriate temperature. 0.911

Service qualityEmployees in this restaurant are always willing to help me. 0.796Employees have the knowledge to answer my questions. 0.845This luxury restaurant has my best interests in mind. 0.788The meals are served in a timely manner. 0.795

PriceThis restaurant offers good value for the money. 0.916The prices at this restaurant are reasonable. 0.912The prices charged by this restaurant are appropriate. 0.885

LocationThis restaurant is located in a convenient location. 0.771This restaurant is located near where I live or work. 0.777This restaurant is located near several other places I patronize. 0.740

Emotional responsesArousalCalm/excited 0.820Relaxed/stimulated 0.713Sluggish/frenzied 0.702Dull/jittery 0.705Sleepy/awake 0.658Unaroused/aroused 0.694

PleasurePleased/annoyed 0.870Contended/melancholic 0.818Hopeful/despairing 0.684Relaxed/bored 0.770Happy/unhappy 0.789

Behavioral intentionsI would like to dine out at this restaurant again. 0.973I would recommend this restaurant to my friends or others. 0.994I would say positive things about this restaurant to others. 0.710

N

dI

c

2 pti

ve

stat

isti

cs

and

asso

ciat

ed

mea

sure

s.

No.

of

item

sM

ean

(Std

. dev

.)A

VE

Déc

or

and

arti

fact

sSp

atia

lla

you

tA

mbi

ent

con

dit

ion

sFo

od

qual

ity

Serv

ice

qual

ity

Pric

e

Loca

tion

Aro

usa

l

Plea

sure

Beh

avio

ral

inte

nti

ons

r

and

arti

fact

s

6

4.12

(0.7

3)

0.65

8

0.94

1a0.

490b

0.49

1

0.52

2

0.48

9

0.32

8

0.31

5

0.55

2

0.56

8

0.30

9ia

l lay

out

3

3.96

(0.7

5)

0.81

9

0.24

0c0.

938

0.70

6

0.52

8

0.36

8

0.30

8

0.22

7

0.71

4

0.49

5

0.31

3ie

nt

con

dit

ion

s

4

2.13

(0.9

3)

0.80

9

0.24

1

0.49

8

0.94

3 0.

508

0.39

6

0.28

0

0.17

8

0.75

0

0.44

9

0.22

3

qual

ity

3

2.51

(1.1

2)

0.82

8

0.27

2

0.27

9

0.25

8 0.

896

0.46

6

0.28

9

0.12

8

0.53

4

0.67

9

0.39

3ic

e

qual

ity

4

3.85

(0.7

2)

0.65

0

0.23

9

0.13

5

0.15

7

0.21

7

0.92

9

0.55

2

0.37

4

0.44

2

0.65

5

0.47

1

3

3.20

(1.1

8)

0.81

8

0.10

8

0.09

5

0.07

8

0.08

4

0.30

5

0.94

2

0.49

3

0.35

7

0.48

1

0.38

3ti

on

3

3.12

(1.4

6)

0.58

2

0.09

9

0.05

2

0.03

2

0.01

6

0.14

0

0.24

3

0.72

7

0.21

8

0.28

0

0.36

7sa

l

6

3.34

(0.8

1)

0.51

4

0.30

5

0.51

0 0.

563

0.28

5

0.19

5

0.12

7

0.04

8

0.86

3

0.57

9

0.28

0su

re

5

3.91

(0.8

9)

0.62

2

0.32

3

0.24

5 0.

202

0.46

1

0.42

9

0.23

1

0.07

8

0.33

5

0.91

6

0.52

6vi

oral

inte

nti

ons

3

3.91

(0.8

9)

0.81

7

0.09

5

0.09

8

0.05

0

0.15

4

0.22

2

0.14

7

0.13

5

0.07

8

0.27

7

0.94

7

ness

-of-

fit

stat

isti

cs:

91) =

1435

.030

, p

<

0.00

1f =

2.07

7

0.94

3;

IFI =

0.94

4;

TLI =

0.93

6EA

=

0.05

3

VE:

aver

age

vari

ance

extr

acte

d

esti

mat

e;

CFI

:

com

par

ativ

e

fit

ind

ex;

IFI:

Incr

emen

tal fi

t

ind

ex;

TLI:

Tuck

er-L

ewis

ind

ex;

RM

SEA

:

root

mea

n

squ

are

erro

r

of

app

roxi

mat

ion

.m

pos

ite

reli

abil

itie

s

are

alon

g

the

dia

gon

al.

rrel

atio

ns

are

abov

e

the

dia

gon

al.

uar

ed

corr

elat

ion

s

are

belo

w

the

dia

gon

al.

ote: All factors loadings are significant at p < 0.001.

ata [�2 = 1639.419 (df = 706, p < 0.001), RMSEA = 0.059, CFI = 0.929,FI = 0.929, TLI = 0.922].

Fig. 2 shows the SEM results with standardized theoretical pathoefficient and relevant t-values, while Table 3 summarizes the Ta

ble

Des

cri

Déc

oSp

atA

mb

Food

Serv

Pric

eLo

caA

rou

Plea

Beh

a

Goo

d�

2(6

�2/d

CFI

=R

MS

Not

e:

Aa

Co

bC

oc

Sq

S.S. Hyun, J. Kang / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 57–70 65

.15 8 (3.121 )*

.276 (4.787)*

.334 (5.807)*

.147 (2.930 )*

.11 8 (2.148 )*

.10 0 (2.003 )*

H7

BehavioralIntentions

PleasureArousal

Motiva tiona l Orientation

.15

.276 (

.33

Spatial Layo ut

Ambient Conditi ons

Décor and Artifacts

.147

.118 (2(( .14

.100 (2(( .0

H

Food Quality

Loca tion

Ser vice Quality

Price

Restaurant env iron mental

cues

Non-env iron mental

cues

Signifi can t

Hedonism

Signifi can t

.68 5 (12 .202 )* .525 (10.542)*

F e t-vaD

ho

4

moab

awml

•

TS

ig. 2. The results of the proposed model. Note: 1. Numbers in parentheses are thotted lines indicate non-significant paths (p < 0.05).

ypotheses testing results. According to the SEM results, eight outf nine hypotheses were statistically supported.

.4. Testing the moderating effects

In the literature review section, this study hypothesized twooderating functions: (1) the moderating effect of motivational

rientation in the relationship between arousal and pleasure (H10)nd (2) the moderating effect of hedonism in the relationshipetween pleasure and behavioral intentions (H11).

To empirically check the moderating effects, this study adapted multiple-group analysis method (Byrne, 2001). First, respondentsere split into two sub-groups by using a moderator score. Theoderator score for motivational orientation was calculated as fol-

ows:

Five variables measuring task-oriented motivational orienta-

tion (utilitarian) were reverse-coded. Then, the moderator scorewas calculated as the sum of the five motivational orientation(reverse-coded) items and seven recreational motivational ori-entation items.

able 3tandardized parameter estimates for structural model.

Paths

H1 Décor and artifacts → Arousal

H2 Spatial layout → Arousal

H3 Ambient conditions → Arousal

H4 Food quality → Arousal

H5 Service quality → Arousal

H6 Price → Arousal

H7 Location → Arousal

H8 Arousal → Pleasure

H9 Pleasure → Behavioral intentions

H10 Motivational orientation’s moderating function between arousal and pleasure

H11 Hedonism’s moderating function between pleasure and behavioral intentions

lues. 2. Numbers outside of parentheses are the standardized path coefficients. 3.

The moderator score for hedonism was calculated as the sumof the five hedonism scale items. Following the calculation oftwo moderator scores, two sub-samples were selected based onthe median split of the moderating score (Chandrashekaran andGrewal, 2003). Then, multiple-group analyses were performed witha hierarchical approach that compared the two newly createdsub-samples. To test the differential effects caused by the moder-ating variable, the chi-square difference between constrained andunconstrained models was compared with regard to the differencein degrees of freedom (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).

First, the moderating function of motivational orientation in therelationship between arousal and pleasure was assessed (H10).The coefficient for the path between arousal and pleasure wascompared between the task-oriented and recreational motiva-tional orientation groups. The chi-square difference between theconstrained model and the unconstrained model was statisti-cally significant at the 0.05 level [�2 = 28.625 > �2 0.5(1) = 3.84,df = 1]. This result indicates that the effect of arousal on pleasurewas significantly different between the task-oriented motivational

orientation group and the recreational motivational orientationgroup, which supported Hypothesis H10. With regard to thetask-oriented motivational orientation group, the path coefficientbetween arousal and pleasure was 0.568 (p < 0.001). In contrast, for

Standardized estimate t-Value Hypothesis

0.158 3.121 Supported0.276 4.787 Supported0.334 5.807 Supported0.147 2.930 Supported0.118 2.148 Supported0.100 2.003 Supported0.031 .642 Not supported0.685 12.202 Supported0.525 10.543 Supported

SupportedSupported

6 l of Ho

tciot

bTut9olbI0ii

rai

5

erithT3

5

ilpa

qae

2b(plta

sbtlTrc

imt

6 S.S. Hyun, J. Kang / International Journa

he recreational motivational orientation groups, the path coeffi-ient was 0.866 (p < 0.001). In summary, arousal was more effectiven inducing consumers’ pleasure in the recreational motivationalrientation group than in the task-oriented motivational orienta-ion group.

Second, the moderating function of hedonism in the relationshipetween pleasure and behavioral intentions was assessed (H11).he chi-square difference between the constrained model and thenconstrained model was also found to be statistically significant athe 0.05 level [�2 = 8.726 > �2 0.5(1) = 3.84, df = 1]. Thus, Hypothesisa was supported. This finding indicates that the effect of pleasuren behavioral intentions was statistically different across hedonismevels. With regard to the high-hedonism group, the path coefficientetween pleasure and behavioral intentions was 0.542 (p < 0.001).

n contrast, for the low-hedonism group, the path coefficient was.396 (p < 0.001). In summary, pleasure was more effective in induc-

ng positive behavioral intentions in the high-hedonism group thann the low-hedonism group.

Based on the hypotheses testing results, the next section of thisesearch will discuss the possible interpretations for the output,nd will derive the theoretical/managerial implications of the find-ngs.

. Discussions and implications

The purposes of this study were (1) to examine the impact ofnvironmental and non-environmental cues on patrons’ emotionalesponses, (2) to examine the influence of emotion on behavioralntentions, with the impact moderated by motivational orienta-ion and hedonism. Based on a literature review, 11 theoreticalypotheses were proposed and a structural model was developed.he proposed structural model was tested using data collected from79 luxury restaurant patrons.

.1. Summary of the results

According to the data analysis results, patrons’ arousal isnduced by (1) décor and artifacts (H1: 0.158, p < 0.05), (2) spatialayout (H2: 0.276, p < 05), and (3) ambient conditions (H3: 0.334,

< 0.05). Thus, it was revealed that all of the environmental cues in restaurant significantly influence patrons’ arousal.

It was also found that patrons’ arousal is induced by (1) fooduality (H4: 0.147, p < 0.05), (2) service quality (H5: 0.118, p < 0.05),nd (3) price (H6: 0.100, p < 0.05). Thus, it was confirmed that non-nvironmental cues also have a direct impact on patrons’ arousal.

However, contrary to the theoretical background (e.g. Soriano,002), it was revealed in the present study that location does notear a significant impact on arousal in the luxury restaurant contextt = 0.642, p = 0.031). It can be interpreted that luxury restaurantatrons are willing to travel far distances as long as their chosen

uxury restaurants can meet their expectations in terms of attrac-ive environments, gourmet food, and excellent service along withppropriate pricing.

Data analysis revealed (1) a positive effect of arousal on plea-ure (H8: 0.685, p < 0.05) and (2) a positive effect of pleasure onehavioral intentions (H9: 0.528, p < 0.05). Only a few studies inhe fields of retail and marketing have theorized and/or tested theinks between arousal and pleasure (Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006).his study is the first to examine this link in the luxury restau-ant context. Thus, it can be interpreted that arousal is a requiredondition in inducing patrons’ pleasure.

Another important contribution of this study is the find-ng of two psychological moderators in patrons’ behavior: (1)

otivational orientation and (2) hedonism. It was revealedhat arousal was more effective in inducing pleasure in the

spitality Management 39 (2014) 57–70

recreational-oriented patrons group than in the task-orientedpatrons group. In a restaurant, patrons with a strong recreation-oriented motivation are highly interested in exciting experiences.Thus, when they feel arousal in a restaurant, they feel higher levelof pleasure. In contrast, for patrons with a strong task-orientedmotivation, the impact of arousal on pleasure was relativelyweak. The moderating effect of hedonism was also significant. Forhigh-hedonism patrons, pleasure has a strong impact on positivebehavioral intentions. In contrast, for low-hedonism patrons, plea-sure has a relatively weak impact on positive behavioral intentions.The life goal of hedonists is to seek pleasure (Campbell, 1987),such that their experience of pleasure leads to strong behavioralintentions. These findings also account for the characteristics ofluxury restaurant patrons. According to the existing research (e.g.Hwang and Hyun, 2012), many luxury restaurant patrons want tobe entertained and to escape from daily life by visiting a luxuryrestaurant. In other words, hedonists should be a target market ofluxury restaurant marketers.

5.2. Theoretical implications

Previous studies examined the positive relationship betweenrestaurant environmental cues and satisfaction (Lin, 2004;Sweeney and Wyber, 2002; Yalch and Spangenberg, 2000). Thisresearch replicated and further expanded the existing literature byempirically testing the relationship between environmental cuesand arousal inducement. Environmental cues create an overallimage of a facility (Martinez and Martinez, 2007) because patronsunconsciously gather and retrieve all available cues to form anevaluation (Oliver, 1981). Consequently, environmental cues playa critical role in the formation of patrons’ arousal in the restaurantsetting.

Regarding non-environmental cues, in the history of restaurantmarketing, a large number of studies have examined the impor-tance of food quality (Lo and Lam, 2004; Longart, 2010; Ryu et al.,2010a,b), service quality (Chow et al., 2007; de Faria et al., 2012;Jani and Han, 2011; Ladhari et al., 2008), and reasonable price (Johnsand Pine, 2002; Law et al., 2008). However, these previous studiesfocused heavily on their impacts on satisfaction and loyalty (e.g.Hyun, 2010; Ladhari et al., 2008; Namkung and Jang, 2008; Sulekand Hensley, 2004). No previous study has theorized that non-environmental cues contribute to patrons’ arousal. In this regard,this study provides a new guideline for scholars and practitionersin the restaurant field. From the perspective of scholars, it is nec-essary to conduct a field experiment to clarify the psychologicalmechanisms by which patrons feel arousal from food, service, andreasonable price.

The positive effect of arousal on pleasure explains the mecha-nisms and processes by which patrons are made aware of and assessthe environmental and non-environmental attributes in restau-rants. Once patrons feel excited during their dining experiences,they are likely to feel pleasure and as a result, make a decisionto revisit and convey positive things about a restaurant. Thus,restaurant managers should develop and focus upon managerialstrategies that can induce patrons’ arousal. In this sense, futureresearch is needed to further examine this psychological mecha-nism.

Restaurant studies have considered environmental cues as thepredictors of customer emotions (Lin and Mattila, 2010; Ryu andJang, 2007) and their behaviors (Han and Ryu, 2009). Anotherstream of restaurant studies have investigated the impact of non-environmental cues on customer intentions (Kincaid et al., 2009;

Hyun, 2010). Although Ryu et al. (2010a,b) developed a compre-hensive research model of foodservice quality consisting of threedimensions (i.e. physical environment, food, and service), qualitymeasurements were limited to food and service. This study was the

l of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 57–70 67

fit(trsdaetb

erpfspesa

5

tptppastbt

ttiTc2isiai

fTatsascot

mqpaiLt

Low Hedonism

High Hedonism

Recreational Motivational Orientation

Task Oriented Motivation

Target Market

S.S. Hyun, J. Kang / International Journa

rst to incorporate both environmental (i.e. décor and artifacts, spa-ial layout, and ambient conditions) and non-environmental cuesi.e. food quality, service quality, price, and location) into a holis-ic model that delineates relationships between patrons’ emotionalesponses and behavioral intentions. The findings aid in an under-tanding of which sets of restaurant cognitions evoke strongerining excitement. As presented in Fig. 2, environmental cues have

stronger impact on patrons’ behavioral intentions than do non-nvironmental cues. Restaurant managers can utilize this findingo prioritize environmental cues when it comes to allocating theirudgets.

Lastly, a causal relationship between arousal and pleasure wasmpirically confirmed in the luxury restaurant setting. Emotionesearch in the restaurant industry heavily focuses on inducingatrons’ pleasure (e.g. Hyun et al., 2011). However, this studyound that arousal is required in order to effectively induce plea-ure. This finding explains the mechanisms and processes by whichatrons are made aware of and assess the environmental and non-nvironmental attributes in restaurants. Thus, restaurant managershould focus on managerial strategies that can induce patrons’rousal.

.3. Practical implications

These results provide restaurant managers with insights intohe endeavors of creating an attractive physical environment. Asresented in Table 1, it can be a useful strategy to place reproduc-ions of well-known artworks in a restaurant in order to create arestigious image (Hyun and Kim, 2011) and thus help to induceatrons’ arousal. In addition, placing attractive plants/flowers in

restaurant is also a good strategy (Han and Ryu, 2009). Plantsupply oxygen-rich environment (Camenson, 1995), which helpso induce arousal. Upgrading furniture quality is also important,ecause patrons physically experience furniture elements whenhey touch dining tables and chairs.

More importantly, for an optimal spatial layout, it is necessaryo obtain consulting service from experts. The spatial layout ofables and seating arrangements may increase arousal by provid-ng patrons with a degree of privacy (Namkung and Jang, 2008).herefore, it is important to provide ample space and/or a physi-al barrier separating patrons from other nearby patrons (Robson,008). In addition, the layout should be designed to be easily nav-

gated. Finally, managers should adapt a creative spatial layouttrategy when they arrange or modify a layout. For example, revis-ting patrons may feel strong arousal when they regularly see a newrrangement of tables and seats. Such new layouts can provide anmpression of freshness to revisiting patrons.

Among the three environmental cues, ambient conditions wereound to be the most powerful element that drives patrons’ arousal.his may be good news to managers because the elements ofmbience are one of the least expensive and easiest attributeso manage (Ryu and Jang, 2007). Therefore, restaurant managershould inquire about patrons’ music, color scheme, and temper-ture preferences by placing questionnaires on dining tables toolicit (Hyun, 2010; Kotler et al., 1998). Based on patron preferen-es, restaurant owners should provide a harmonious combinationf appropriate music, lighting, aromas, and ambient temperatureo elicit patrons’ arousal.

Among the three non-environmental cues, food quality was theost influential factor for inducing arousal, followed by service

uality. Managers should therefore seek ways to meet or exceedatrons’ expectations about food palatability, plate presentations,

nd variety of menu options (Hyun, 2010; Hyun and Kim, 2011). Its necessary to educate chefs at well-known culinary schools (e.g.e Cordon Bleu in France) to learn about advanced food prepara-ion skills. In addition, recruiting well-known chefs internationally

Orientation

Fig. 3. Selected target market for luxury restaurants.

is a useful strategy for significantly enhancing food quality. Moreimportantly, it is necessary to adapt a chef salary system based onpatrons’ evaluations to determine chefs’ annual salaries in order toachieve food quality improvements.

In addition, luxury restaurant patrons tend to have high expecta-tions about service quality that are primarily related to interactionswith employees. Managers should therefore pay close attention totheir employees’ performance in terms of their willingness to com-municate with patrons and to provide appropriate services (e.g.delivering food courses at the proper pace). Hiring employees whoare congruent with a restaurant’s image in terms of neat appearanceand congenial personality (e.g. friendly, proactive, and pleasant)can be also a key factor in enhancing the effect of service qualityon positive emotions and behaviors (Ryu and Jang, 2007). Luxuryrestaurant managers also need to recognize that their patrons haveexisting perceptions about high-priced menu items, and that pricepolicies such as promotions or discounts create a negative image ofluxury restaurants (Lee and Hwang, 2011). Managers should there-fore target patrons who have adequate disposal income for diningout at luxury restaurants and/or open restaurants in locales wherehigh-income populations reside.

Data analysis revealed that convenient location is not a criticalfactor in the luxury restaurant visitation. Therefore, when luxuryrestaurant owners open new branches, they should place greateremphasis on attractive scenery and landscaping when consideringlocation as opposed to the convenience of the location alone.

Lastly, integrating the moderating effects, this study proposes aneffective market segmentation strategy for luxury restaurant mar-keters. Luxury restaurant marketers should inquire about patrons’(1) dining out motivations and (2) hedonism levels via an in-storesurvey. Next, market segmentation should be conducted based onthe two psychological variables. As presented in Fig. 3, patronswith strong recreational motivational orientations and high lev-els of hedonism should be the main target market for luxuryrestaurant marketers in order to maximize marketing effective-ness. The selected target patrons (Fig. 3) seek exciting experienceswhen dining out in luxury restaurants and place great emphasison the experience of fun and playfulness from these experiences.

Therefore, luxury restaurants should provide unique experiencesthat can be differentiated from other restaurants.

The finding of the moderating functions of motivational orienta-tion and hedonism can aid managers in effectively identifying their

6 l of Ho

tr

6

ostatAuiUtn

A

R

Ah

N

R

A

8 S.S. Hyun, J. Kang / International Journa

arget market by understanding patrons’ expectations of a luxuryestaurant.

. Study limitations and future research

Despite its theoretical and practical implications, one limitationf this research should be addressed. The empirical data for thistudy was collected from luxury restaurant patrons who resided inhe United States. Therefore, the extent to which the conclusionsre cross-culturally generalizable is somewhat limited. Consideringhat many luxury restaurant companies open new branches in thesian market, it is necessary to re-examine the proposed modelsing data collected from patrons who reside in Asia. In addition, it

s a useful approach to conduct cross-cultural studies that compare.S. patrons and foreign patrons (e.g. Japan, China, and Russia) in

heir psychological attitudes toward restaurant environmental andon-environmental cues.

cknowledgement

This work was supported by the 2013 Specialization Projectesearch Grant funded by the Pusan National University.

ppendix A. Measures for motivational orientation andedonism

Strongly disagree/strongly agreeMotivational orientationTask-oriented motivation I go this restaurant because the food is tasty.

I go to this restaurant because of the variety ofmenu choices offered.I go to this restaurant because I like its healthyfood options (such as a low-fat menu).I go to this restaurant because the food isserved at the right temperature.I go to this restaurant because it is located nearseveral other places where I spend my leisuretime.

Recreational motivationalorientation

I go to this restaurant because the interiordesign is pleasing to me.I go to this restaurant because the musicplayed in the restaurant entertains me.I go to this restaurant because I feel like it’s anescape from ordinary life.I go to this restaurant because the foodpresentation is attractive.I prefer eating out at this luxury restaurantbecause it’s a wonderful place that gives me agood feeling.I go to this restaurant because eating out hereis fun and pleasant.I go to this restaurant because it’s a wonderfulplace to relieve a sense of boredom.

HedonismI think people should live their lives inaccordance with their feelings and desires.People cannot take their money with themwhen they die, so we should live for today.People should always pursue pleasure in theirlives.People should always live for the presentmoment.People should not sacrifice the pleasure of thepresent for the possibility of something betterin the future.

ote: Other measurement items in this study are listed in detail in Table 1.

eferences

cebron, L.B., Dopico, D.C., 2000. The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cuesto expected and experienced quality: an empirical application for beef. FoodQuality and Preference 11 (3), 229–238.

spitality Management 39 (2014) 57–70

Ahtola, O.T., 1985. Hedonic and utilitarian aspects of consumer behaviour: an atti-tudinal perspective. Advances in Consumer Research 12 (1), 7–10.

Andaleeb, S.S., Conway, C., 2006. Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry:an examination of the transaction-specific model. Journal of Service Marketing20 (1), 3–11.

Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.G., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: areview and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3),411–423.

Ang, S.H., Leong, S.M., Lim, J., 1997. The mediating influence of pleasure and arousalon layout and signage effects: comparing more and less customized retail ser-vices. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 4 (1), 13–24.

Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic andutilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research 20, 644–656.

Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science. 16 (1), 74–94.

Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M., Nyer, P., 1999. The role of emotions in marketing. Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science. 27 (2), 184–206.

Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., Voss, G.B., 2002. The influence of multiple storeenvironment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions.Journal of Marketing 66, 120–141.

Barsky, J., Nash, L., 2003. Customer satisfaction applying concepts to industry-wide measures. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 44 (5/6),173–183.

Batra, R., Ahtola, O.T., 1991. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of con-sumer attitudes. Marketing Letters 2 (2), 159–170.

Bell, D., 1978. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. Basic Books, NewYork.

Bergenwall, M., Meddelanden Working Papers, no. 367 1998. An overview of emo-tion theory: incorporating the concept of emotion into service quality research.Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki.

Bigné, J.E., Andreu, L., Gnoth, J., 2005. The theme park experience: an anal-ysis of pleasure, arousal and satisfaction. Tourism Management 26 (6),833–844.

Bowden, J.J.H., Dagger, T.S., 2011. To delight or not to delight? An investigation ofloyalty formation in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketingand Management 20, 501–524.

Bozkurt, V., Bayram, N., Furnham, A., Dawes, G., 2010. The protestant work ethic andhedonism among Kyrgyz, Turkish, and Australian college students. Journal ofGeneral Social Sciences 19 (4/5), 749–769.

Brady, M.K., Robertson, C.J., 2001. Searching for a consensus on the antecedent roleof service quality and satisfaction: an exploratory cross-national study. Journalof Business Research 51 (1), 53–60.

Byrne, B.M., 1998. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS.Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc., Mahwah, NJ.

Byrne, B.M., 2001. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Appli-cations, and Programming. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Camenson, B., 1995. Careers for Plant Lovers and Other Green Thumb Types.NTC/Contemporary Publishing Group, Chicago, IL.

Campbell, C., 1987. The Postmodern Turn. Guilford Press, New York, NY.Chandrashekaran, R., Grewal, D., 2003. Assimilation of advertised reference prices:

the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Retailing 79 (1), 53–62.Chebat, J.C., Michon, R., 2003. Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers’ emo-

tions, cognition, and spending: a test of competitive causal theories. Journalof Business Research 56, 529–539.

Chebat, J.C., Slusarczyk, W., 2005. How emotions mediate the effects of perceivedjustice on loyalty in service recovery situations: an empirical study. Journal ofBusiness Research 58, 664–673.

Chow, I.H., Lau, V.P., Lo, T.W., Sha, Z., Yun, H., 2007. Service quality in restaurant oper-ations in China: decision- and experiential-oriented perspectives. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management 26 (3), 698–710.

Dann, G.M., 1981. Tourism motivations: an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research 8(2), 189–219.

Dawson, S., Bloch, P.H., Ridgway, N.M., 1990. Shopping motives, emotional states,and retail outcome. Journal of Retailing 66 (4), 408–427.

de Faria, M.D., da Silva, J.F., Ferreira, J.B., 2012. The visually impaired and con-sumption in restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement 24 (5), 721–734.

Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in HumanBehavior. Plenum Press, New York.

Delwiche, J., 2004. The impact of perceptual interactions on perceived flavor. FoodQuality and Preference 15 (2), 137–146.

Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., 1982. Store atmosphere: an environmental psychologyapproach. Journal of Retailing 58, 34–57.

Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., Nesdale, A., 1994. Store atmosphere and purchasingbehavior. Journal of Retailing 70 (3), 283–294.

Eliwa, R.A., (Unpublished Master’s Thesis) 2006. A Study of Customer Loyalty andthe Image of Fine Dining. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.

Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unob-servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1), 39–50.

Ha, J., Jang, S., 2010. Perceived values, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: therole of familiarity in Korean restaurants. International Journal of HospitalityManagement 29 (1), 2–13.

Hair Jr., J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Anal-ysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

l of Ho

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

J

J

J

J

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

L

L

L

L

LL

S.S. Hyun, J. Kang / International Journa

an, H., Ryu, K., 2009. The role of physical environment, price perception, and cus-tomer satisfaction in determining customer loyalty in the restaurant industry.Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 33 (4), 487–510.

an, H., Back, K., Barrett, B., 2009. Influencing factors on restaurant customers’ revisitintentions: the roles of emotions and switching barriers. International Journalof Hospitality Management 28 (4), 563–572.

an, H., Back, K., Barrett, B., 2010. A consumption emotion measurement devel-opment: a full-service restaurant setting. Service Industries Journal 30 (2),299–320.

ansen, T., 2005. Understanding consumer perception of food quality: the cases ofshrimps and cheese. British Food Journal 107 (7), 500–525.

eung, V.C.S., 2003. Internet usage by international travelers: reasons and barriers.International Journal of contemporary Hospitality Management 15 (7), 370–378.

irschman, E.C., Holbrook, M.B., 1982. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts,methods and proposition. Journal of Marketing 46 (3), 92–101.

ui, M.K.M., Bateson, J.E.G., 1990. Testing a theory of crowding in the serviceenvironment. In: Goldberg, M.E., Gorn, G.J., Pollay, R.W. (Eds.), Advances in Con-sumer Research, vol. 17. Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp.866–873.

wang, J., Hyun, S., 2012. The antecedents and consequences of brand prestige inluxury restaurants. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 17 (6), 656–683.

yun, S., 2009. Creating a model of customer equity for chain restaurant brandformation. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 529–539.

yun, S., 2010. Predictors of relationship quality and loyalty in the chain restaurantindustry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51 (2), 251–267.

yun, S., Kim, W., 2011. Dimensions of brand equity in the chain restaurant industry.Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52 (4), 429–437.

yun, S., Kim, W., Lee, M.J., 2011. The impact of advertising on patrons’ emotionalresponses, perceived value, and behavioral intentions in the chain restaurantindustry: the moderating role of advertising-induced arousal. International Jour-nal of Hospitality Management 30 (3), 689–700.

ang, S.C.S., Liu, Y., Namkung, Y., 2011. Effects of authentic atmospherics in ethnicrestaurants: investigating Chinese restaurants. International Journal of Contem-porary Hospitality Management 23 (5), 662–680.

ang, S., Namkung, Y., 2009. Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral intentions:application of an extended Mehrabian–Russell model to restaurants. Journal ofBusiness Research 62 (4), 451–460.

ani, D., Han, H., 2011. Investigating the key factors affecting behavioral intentions:evidence from a full-service restaurant setting. International Journal of Contem-porary Hospitality Management 23 (7), 1000–1018.

ohns, N., Pine, R., 2002. Consumer behavior in the food service industry: a review.International Journal of Hospitality Management 21 (2), 119–134.

altcheva, V.D., Weitz, B.A., 2006. When should a retailer create an exciting storeenvironment? Journal of Marketing 70, 107–118.

ellaris, J.J., Kent, R.J., 1993. An exploratory investigation of responses elicited bymusic varying in tempo, tonality, and texture. Journal of Consumer Psychology2 (4), 381–401.

im, D., Lee, K., 2010. Cultural differences in the customer perception of crowdedrestaurant: emotion, intolerance and perceived price. International Journal ofRevenue Management 4 (3), 420–431.

im, I., Jeon, S.M., Hyun, S., 2011. The role of effective service provider communica-tion style in the formation of restaurant patrons’ perceived relational benefitsand loyalty. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 28 (7), 765–786.

im, W., Lee, Y., Yoo, Y., 2006. Predictors of relationship quality and relationshipoutcomes in luxury restaurants. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research30, 143–169.

im, W.G., Moon, Y.J., 2009. Customers’ cognitive, emotional, and actionableresponse to the servicescape: a test of the moderating effect of the restauranttype. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28, 144–156.

incaid, C., Baloglu, S., Mao, Z., Busse, J., 2009. What really brings them back? Theimpact of tangible quality on affect and intention for casual dining restaurantpatrons. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22 (2),209–220.

oo, W., Kim, Y., 2013. Impacts of store environmental cues on store love and loyalty:single-brand apparel retailers. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 25(2), 94–106.

otler, P., Bowen, J., Makens, J., 1998. Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism, 2nded. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

otler, P., Heider, D.H., Rein, I., 1993. Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Indus-try, and Tourism to Cities, States, and Nations. Free Press, New York, NY.

adhari, R., 2007. The effect of consumption emotions on satisfaction and word-of-mouth communications. Psychology and Marketing 24 (12), 1085–1108.

adhari, R., Brun, I., Morales, M., 2008. Determinants of dining satisfaction and post-dining behavior intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27(4), 563–573.

aw, R., To, T., Goh, C., 2008. How do Mainland Chinese travelers choose restau-rants in Hong Kong? An exploratory study of individual visit scheme travelersand packaged travelers. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (3),346–354.

azarus, R.S., 1982. Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. Amer-ican Psychologist 37, 1019–1024.

azarus, R.S., 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.ee, J.H., Hwang, J., 2011. Luxury marketing: the influences of psychological and

demographic characteristics on attitudes toward luxury restaurants. Interna-tional Journal of Hospitality Management 30, 658–669.

spitality Management 39 (2014) 57–70 69

Lee, Y.K., Back, K., Kim, J., 2009. Family restaurant brand personality and its impacton customer’s emotion, satisfaction, and brand loyalty. Journal of Hospitalityand Tourism Research 33 (3), 305–328.

Lee, Y.K., Lee, C., Lee, S., Babin, B., 2008. Festivalscapes and patrons’ emotions, satis-faction, and loyalty. Journal Business Research 61 (1), 56–64.

Lin, I.Y., 2004. Evaluating a servicescape: the effect of cognition and emotion. Inter-national Journal of Hospitality Management 23, 163–178.

Lin, I.Y., 2010. The interactive effect of Gestalt situations and arousal seeking ten-dency on customers’ emotional responses: matching color and music to specificservicescapes. Journal of Services Marketing 24 (4), 294–304.

Lin, I.Y., Mattila, A.S., 2010. Restaurant servicescape, service encounter, andperceived congruency on customers’ emotions and satisfaction. Journal of Hos-pitality Marketing and Management 19 (8), 819–841.

Liu, Y., Jang, S.C., 2009a. The effects of dining atmospherics: an extendedMehrabian–Russell model. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28(4), 494–503.

Liu, Y., Jang, S.C., 2009b. Perceptions of Chinese restaurants in the U.S.: what affectscustomer satisfaction and behavioral intentions? International Journal of Hos-pitality Management 28 (3), 338–348.

Lo, A., Lam, T., 2004. Long-haul and short-haul outbound all-inclusive package tours.Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 9 (2), 161–176.

Longart, P., 2010. What drives word-of-mouth in restaurants? International Journalof Contemporary Hospitality Management 22 (1), 121–128.

Lucas, A.F., 2003. The determinants and effects of slot servicescape satisfaction in aLas Vegas hotel casino. UNLV Gaming Research and Review Journal 7 (1), 1–17.

Martinez, C.L., Martinez, G.J.A., 2007. Cognitive–affective model of consumer satis-faction: an exploratory study within the framework of a sporting event. Journalof Business Research 60, 108–114.

Mattila, A.S., O’Neill, J.W., 2003. Relationships between hotel room pricing, occu-pancy, and guest satisfaction: a longitudinal case of a midscale hotel in theUnited States. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 27 (3), 328–341.

Mattila, A.S., Ro, H., 2008. Discrete negative emotions and customer dissatisfac-tion responses in a casual restaurant setting. Journal of Hospitality and TourismResearch 32 (1), 89–107.

Mattila, A.S., Wirtz, J., 2000. The role of pre-consumption affect in post-purchaseevaluation of services. Psychology and Marketing 17 (7), 587–605.

Mattila, A.S., Wirtz, J., 2001. Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-storeevaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing 77, 273–289.

Mattila, A.S., Wirtz, J., 2008. The role of store environmental stimulation and socialfactors on impulse purchasing. Journal of Services Marketing 22 (7), 562–567.

Mehrabian, A., Russel, J.A., 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MITPress, Cambridge.

Morrison, M., Gan, S., Dubelaar, C., Oppewal, H., 2011. In-store music and aromainfluences on shopper behavior and satisfaction. Journal of Business Research64 (6), 558–564.

Namkung, Y., Jang, S., 2008. Are highly satisfied restaurant customers really differ-ent? A quality perception perspective. International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management 20 (2), 142–155.

Namkung, Y., Jang, S.C.S., 2007. Does food quality really matter in restaurants? Itsimpact on customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitalityand Tourism Research 31 (3), 387–410.

Namkung, Y., Jang, S.C.S., 2010. Effects of perceived service fairness on emotions andbehavioral intentions in restaurants. European Journal of Marketing 44 (9/10),1233–1259.

Newman, A.J., 2007. Uncovering dimensionality in the servicescape: towards legi-bility. Service Industries Journal 27 (1), 15–28.

Nguyen, N., Leblanc, G., 2002. Contact personnel, physical environment and theperceived corporate image of intangible services by new clients. InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management 13, 242–262.

Oliver, R.L., 1981. Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retailsettings. Journal of Retailing 57, 34–57.

Oliver, R.L., 1996. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Parsa, H.G., Self, J.T., Njite, D., King, T., 2005. Why restaurants fail. Cornell Hotel andRestaurant Administration Quarterly 46 (3), 304–323.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scalefor measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing 64(1), 12–37.

Park, C., 2004. Efficient or enjoyable? Consumer values of eating-out and fast foodrestaurant consumption in Korea. International Journal of Hospitality Manage-ment 23, 87–94.

Pearce, P.L., 1982. The Social Psychology of Tourist Behavior. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Peri, C., 2006. The universe of food quality. Food Quality and Preference 17 (1/2),

3–8.Raajpoot, N., 2002. TANGSERV: a multiple item scale for measuring tangible

quality in foodservice industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 5,109–127.

Robson, S.K.A., 2008. Scenes from a restaurant: privacy regulation in stressful situ-ations. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28 (4), 373–378.

Russell, J.A., Pratt, G., 1980. A description of the affective quality attributed to envi-ronments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38, 311–322.

Ryu, K., Han, H., 2010. Influence of the quality of food, service, and physical envi-ronment on customer satisfaction and behavioral intention in quick-casualrestaurants: moderating role of perceived price. Journal of Hospitality andTourism Research 34 (3), 310–329.

7 l of Ho

R

R

R

R

S

S

S

S

S

T

0 S.S. Hyun, J. Kang / International Journa

yu, K., Han, H., 2011. New or repeat customers: how does physical environmentinfluence their restaurant experience? International Journal of Hospitality Man-agement 30 (3), 599–611.

yu, K., Jang, S., 2007. The effect of environmental perceptions on behavioral inten-tions through emotions: the case of upscale restaurants. Journal of Hospitalityand Tourism Research 31 (1), 56–72.

yu, K., Han, H., Jang, S., 2010a. Relationships among hedonic and utilitarianvalues, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant indus-try. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22 (3),416–432.

yu, K., Lee, H., Kim, W.G., 2010b. The influence of the quality of the physicalenvironment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value,customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Con-temporary Hospitality Management 24 (2), 200–223.

oriano, D.R., 2002. Customers’ expectations factors in restaurants: the situationin Spain. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 19 (8/9),1055–1068.

pangenberg, E.R., Grohmann, B., Sprott, D.E., 2005. It’s beginning to smell (andsound) a lot like Christmas: the interactive effects of ambient scent and musicin a retail setting. Journal of Business Research 58 (11), 1583–1589.

tevens, P., Knutson, B., Patton, M., 1995. DINESERV: a tool for measuring servicequality in restaurants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly36 (2), 56–60.

ulek, J.M., Hensley, R.L., 2004. The relative importance of food, atmosphere, and fair-ness of wait: the case of a full-service restaurant. Cornell Hotel and RestaurantAdministration Quarterly 45 (3), 235–248.

weeney, J.C., Wyber, F., 2002. The role of cognitions and emotions in the music-approach-avoidance behavior relationship. Journal of Services Marketing 16,51–69.

urner, W.L., Reisinger, Y., 2001. Shopping satisfaction for domestic tourists. Journalof Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (1), 15–27.

spitality Management 39 (2014) 57–70

Tzeng, G.H., Teng, M.H., Chen, J.J., Opricovic, S., 2002. Multicriteria selection for arestaurant location in Taipei. International Journal of Hospitality Management21 (2), 171–187.

Vanderark, S.D., Ely, D., 1993. Cortisal, biochemical, and galvanic skin responses tomusical stimuli of different preference value by college students in biology andmusic. Perceptual and Motor Skills 77, 227–234.

Wakefield, K.L., Baker, J., 1998. Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects onshopping response. Journal of Retailing 74 (4), 515–539.

Wakefield, K.L., Blodgett, J.G., 1994. The importance of servicescapes in leisureservice settings. Journal of Services Marketing 8 (3), 66–76.

Wall, E.A., Berry, L.L., 2007. The combined effects of the physical environment andemployee behavior on customer perception of restaurant service quality. CornellHotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 48, 59–69.

Walsh, G., Shiu, E., Hassan, L.M., Michaelidou, N., Beatty, S.E., 2011. Emotions, store-environmental cues, store-choice criteria, and marketing outcomes. Journal ofBusiness Research 64, 737–744.

Wu, C.H., Liang, R., 2009. Effect of experiential value on customer satisfaction withservice encounters in luxury-hotel restaurants. Internal Journal of HospitalityManagement 28 (4), 586–593.

Yalch, R.F., Spangenberg, E.R., 2000. The effects of music in a retail setting on realand perceived shopping times. Journal of Business Research 49, 139–147.

Yüksel, A., 2007. Tourist shopping habitat: effects on emotions, shopping value andbehaviours. Tourism Management 28 (1), 58–69.

Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., 2002. Measurement of tourist satisfaction with restaurantservices: A segment-based approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing 9 (1), 52–68.

Zajonc, R.B., 1980. Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American

Psychologist 35, 151–175.

Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1996. The behavioral consequences ofservice quality. Journal of Marketing 60 (2), 31–46.

Zikmund, W., 2003. Business Research Methods. Thomson South-Western, Mason,OH.