Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry

Presenter: Anne ChenInstructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa HsuDate: March 17, 2014

1

Citation

Ryu, K., Han, H., & Jang, S. (2010). Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality, 22(3), 416-423.

2

ContentsⅠ

Ⅱ

Ⅲ

Ⅳ

Ⅴ

Ⅵ

3

Conclusion

Introduction

4

Background

Literature Review

Gap

Purpose of the Study

Background

5

Explanations for traditional product acquisition may not fully reflect the totality of consumer behavior.

Some scholars have shown new interest in the hedonic aspects of consumption behavioral.

(Arnold &Reynolds, 2003)

6

Literature Review

The fast-casual dining segment, which falls between the “quick service” and “ full service” segments, has been a contemporary trend in the foodservice industry.

(Anderson, 2003; Sloan, 2002; Tillotson, 2003)

Quick service• Fast, efficient, take-out-ready foods at affordable prices

Full service• That offers fine dining with a wide selection of foods

and beverages, and table service.

7

Utilitarian consumer behavior is described as a functional or task-related standpoint and may be thought of as work.

(Babin et al., 1994; Batra & Ahtola, 1990)

Hedonic value can be defined as being “ more subjective and personal than its utilitarian counterpart and resulting more from fun and playfulness than from task completion”.

(Babin et al., 1994)

Literature Review

8

The researcher defined customer satisfaction as “ an evaluation rendered that the (product) experience was at least as good as it was supposed to be”.

(Hunt, 1997)

Behavioral intention can be described as a state likelihood to return to the restaurant and to recommend it to family, friends, and others in the future.

(Oliver, 1996)

Literature Review

Gap

9

The role and relative importance of instrumental characteristics versus hedonic aspects will likely vary across contexts.

There has been no investigation of whether customers in this fast-casual restaurant segment are primarily driven by emotional or practical value.

Purpose of the Study

10

To explore the relationships among consumer service value (hedonic and utilitarian values), customer satisfaction and behavioral intention in the fast-casual restaurant segment

Literature Review

11

Value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions

Hypotheses

12

Value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions

Many researchers agree that value has a significant influence on customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions.

(Chen & Tsai, 2007; Lee et al., 2007; Pura, 2005)

The researchers found that customer satisfaction is significantly related to two specific intention constructs: intentions as expectations and intentions as wants.

(Soderlund & Ohman, 2005)

13

Value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions

The researchers evidenced the significant impact of customer satisfaction on behavioral intentions, including revisit, recommendation, and positive word-of-mouth intentions.

(Namkung & Jang, 2007)

Hypotheses

H1. Perceived value has positive impact on customer satisfaction in the fast-casual restaurant segment.

H1a: Hedonic value of dining experiences has a positive impact on customer satisfaction.

H1b: Utilitarian value of dining experiences has a positive impact on customer satisfaction.

14

Hypotheses

H2. Perceived value has positive impact on behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant segment.

H2a: Hedonic value of dining experiences has a positive impact on behavioral intentions.

H2b: Utilitarian value of dining experiences has a positive impact on behavioral intentions.

15

16

Hypotheses

H3: Customer satisfaction has a positive impact on behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant segment.

H4: The perceived utilitarian value has a stronger influence on customer satisfaction than perceived hedonic value in the fast casual restaurant segment.

17

H5: The perceived utilitarian value has a stronger influence on behavioral intentions than perceived hedonic value in the fast-casual restaurant segment.

Hypotheses

18

Methodology

Participants

Instrument

Data Analysis

19

20

Questionextremely disagree

disagreesomewhat disagree

neither agree

somewhat agree

agreeextremely

agree

Service at the fast-casual restaurant was quick

□ □ □ □ □ □

Instrument

(1 = extremely disagree; 7= extremely agree)

21

Data Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis

To identify whether the measurement variables reliably reflected the hypothesized latent variable

Structural equation modeling

To determine the adequacy of the constructs of the model and test the hypotheses

22

Data Analysis

The Sobel test

To test the mediating role of customer satisfaction for the linkage between hedonic or utilitarian value and behavioral intentions in a SEM model

23

ResultDescriptive information for questions

Correlations, the squared correlations, and average variance extracted (AVE)

Structural parameter estimates

The Sobel test and results of the structural model

Questions Mean SD

Hedonic value I ate out at a fast-casual restaurant since I could have good feelingEating-out at the fast-casual restaurant was fun and pleasantThe dining experience at the fast-casual restaurant was truly a joyDuring the dining experience at the fast-casual restaurant, I felt the excitement of searching foodAlthough the cost was higher than fast-food restaurants, I liked to eat out at the better place

4.40

5.40

4.96

4.13

5.40

1.22

1.06

1.14

1.36

1.32

Utilitarian value Eating-out at the fast-casual restaurant was convenientEating-out at a fast-casual restaurant was pragmatic and economicalIt was a waste of money when eating-out at the fast-casual restaurantService at the fast-casual restaurant was quick

5.22

4.62

2.665.17

1.07

1.12

1.391.07

Table I. Descriptive information for questions used in the study

24One item’s standardized factor loading did not meet the minimum criterion of 0.40.

Questions Mean SD

Customer satisfaction I was pleased to dine in at the fast-casual restaurantThe overall feeling I got from the fast-casual restaurant was satisfiedThe overall feeling I got from the fast-casual restaurant put me in a good moodI really enjoyed myself at the fast-casual restaurant

5.41

5.50

5.135.21

1.09

1.06

1.221.14

Behavioral intentions I would like to come back to the fast-casual restaurant in the futureI would recommend the fast-casual restaurant to my friends or othersI would more frequently visit the fast-casual restaurant

5.84

5.865.11

1.17

1.141.27

Note: SD = Standard deviation

25

Table I. Descriptive information for questions used in the study

MeasureHedonic

valueUtilitarian

valueCustomer

satisfactionBehavioralintention

AVECompositereliability

1. Hedonic value 1.00 0.50 0.82

2. Utilitarian value

0.67 (0.45) 1.00 0.43 0.69

3. Customer satisfaction

0.69 (0.48) 0.79 (0.62) 1.00 0.70 0.90

4. Behavioral intention

0.57 (0.32) 0.78 (0.61) 0.87 (0.76) 1.00 0.77 0.91

Notes: All correlations were significant at 0.05 level; Model measurement fit: X2 = 210.85 (df = 83, p<0.001), RMSEA = 0.068, CFI = 0.99, NFI = 0.99

Table II. Measure correlations, the squared correlations, and AVE

26

0.5↑ 0.6↑

There are high relationship among hedonic and utilitarian value, customer satisfaction and behavioral intention. The scale is stable.

Hypothesized path Coefficient t-value Results

H1a. Hedonic value → Customer satisfaction 0.30 3.65** Supported

H1b. Utilitarian value → Customer satisfaction 0.59 6.31** Supported

H2a. Hedonic value → Behavioral intention 0.13 2.12* Supported

H2b. Utilitarian value → Behavioral intention 0.28 3.16** Supported

H3. Customer satisfaction → Behavioral intention 0.74 9.23** Supported

Note: R2(Customer satisfaction) = 0368; R2(Behavioral intention) = 0.79; Goodness-of-fit statistics: X2 (83) = 210.82, p < 0.001; X2ldf = 2.54; RMSEA = 0.068; CFI = 0.99; NFI = 0.99; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

Table III. Structural parameter estimates

27

H1a: Hedonic value of dining experiences has a positive impact on customer satisfaction.

H1b: Utilitarian value of dining experiences has a positive impact on customer satisfaction.

H2a: Hedonic value of dining experiences has a positive impact on behavioral intentions.

H2b: Utilitarian value of dining experiences has a positive impact on behavioral intentions.

H3: Customer satisfaction has a positive impact on behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant segment.

HedonicValue

BehavioralIntentions

CustomerSatisfaction

UtilitarianValue

0.13* (2.12)

0.74** (9.23)

0.28** (3.16)

0.30** (3.65)

0.59** (6.31)

Notes: *p < 0.05; **p <0.01

Figure 1. The Sobel test and results of the structural model

28

H4: The perceived utilitarian value has a stronger influence on customer satisfaction than perceived hedonic value in the fast casual restaurant segment.

H5: The perceived utilitarian value has a stronger influence on behavioral intentions than perceived hedonic value in the fast-casual restaurant segment.

29

Conclusion

30

The proposed model could well predict consumers’ behavioral intentions to revisit the fast-casual restaurant and talk positively about their dining experience about the restaurant, indicating its applicability in the hospitality industries.

Conclusion

31

Critiques and Suggestions

32

The researchers choose students as their participants . The sampling is not representative of all the population.

It will be better to increase wide participants. Besides, intervening variable should be considered in future study, such as time pressure.

Critiques and Suggestions

33

Thank you for

listening.