Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management ...

This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University] On: 14 May 2015, At: 08:09 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm20

Predictors and Outcomes of Perceived Image of Restaurant Innovativeness in Fine-Dining Restaurants a

b

c

Naehyun (Paul) Jin , Ben Goh , Lynn Huffman & Jingxue Jessica c

Yuan a

School of Recreation, Health, and Tourism, George Mason University, Manassas, Virginia, USA b

Click for updates

School of Hotel and Restaurant Administration, College of Human Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA c

Department of Nutrition, Hospitality, and Retailing, College of Human Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA Accepted author version posted online: 10 Jul 2014.Published online: 10 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: Naehyun (Paul) Jin, Ben Goh, Lynn Huffman & Jingxue Jessica Yuan (2015) Predictors and Outcomes of Perceived Image of Restaurant Innovativeness in Fine-Dining Restaurants, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 24:5, 457-485, DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2014.915781 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2014.915781

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:09 14 May 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 24:457–485, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1936-8623 print/1936-8631 online DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2014.915781

Predictors and Outcomes of Perceived Image of Restaurant Innovativeness in Fine-Dining Restaurants NAEHYUN (PAUL) JIN Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 08:09 14 May 2015

School of Recreation, Health, and Tourism, George Mason University, Manassas, Virginia, USA

BEN GOH School of Hotel and Restaurant Administration, College of Human Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA

LYNN HUFFMAN and JINGXUE JESSICA YUAN Department of Nutrition, Hospitality, and Retailing, College of Human Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA

This study proposed and empirically tested a model of the relationships among five predictors of restaurant innovativeness (e.g., perceived innovativeness of food quality, perceived innovativeness of environment quality, perceived innovativeness of service quality, price fairness, and satisfaction with existing service), perceived image of restaurant innovativeness, and three outcome variables (e.g., brand credibility, brand preference, and customer loyalty) within the context of fine-dining restaurant patronage. Specifically, the study focused on the role that perceived image of restaurant innovativeness plays in explaining the link between five predictors and three outcome variables. Hypotheses implied by the model were tested on a sample of 375 patrons of U.S. fine-dining restaurants. Findings revealed that perceived innovativeness of food quality, perceived innovativeness of environment quality, and price fairness are significant predictors of perceived image of restaurant innovativeness. The analysis also showed that perceived image of restaurant innovativeness

Address correspondence to Naehyun (Paul) Jin, PhD, George Mason University, School of Recreation, Health, and Tourism, 10900 University Blvd., Manassas, VA 20110, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

457

458

N. Jin et al.

influences both brand credibility and brand preference, while brand credibility had effect on both brand preference and customer loyalty. KEYWORDS innovative service, fine-dining restaurant, brand credibility, customer loyalty


INTRODUCTION When a firm desires to gain unrivaled esteem, become prolific through superior service, and maintain committed clients, the advancement of novel product is critical for the success of the business (Ottenbacher & Harrington, 2009). Similarly, in the service industry, a company’s strategies for “marketcreating service innovation” add intangible value to its offerings that allow customers to perceive new and additional benefits in their consumption experience (Berry, Shankar, Parish, Cadwallader, & Dotzel, 2006). The fine-dining restaurant is a bourgeoning service industry (Walker, 2008). Beyond food, fine-dining provides customers with a pleasurable social activity and dining experience. Thus customers expect differentiated and quality service in a fine-dining setting (Walker & Lundberg, 2005). An increase in demand is forecasted for the fine-dining restaurant segment as consumers’ interests in luxury products are rising (National Restaurant Association, 2007). The number and popularity of fine-dining restaurants have grown remarkably compared to other restaurant segments, which in turn generated a profit of $298 billion as reported in 2006 (Barnes Reports, 2006). Given these reports, it comes as no surprise that fine-dining is one of the most profitable restaurant sectors (Hwang & Hyun, 2013). Previous studies of perceived quality suggested that customers cognitively evaluate their dining experience (Ha & Jang, 2010; Jin, Lee, & Huffman, 2012). A customer’s perceived quality is an antecedent of the formation of an overall image toward a restaurant (Jin, Line, & Goh, 2013). In other words, a customer’s innovation perception of key qualities of the restaurant experience (e.g., food, environment, and service) influences his/her overall image about restaurant innovativeness. Beyond the innovative drivers in relation to perceived quality, various factors such as contentment with menu options (Hyun & Han, 2012) and price (Lee, 2012) are also associated with the perception of restaurant innovativeness in evaluative situations. Despite the importance of the development of innovative service, knowledge about how to achieve success through innovation is scarce. While a plethora of the literature has focused on innovative products and companies’ revenue maximization from marketer’s perspective (e.g., Moreau, Lehmann, & Markman, 2001; Pennings & Smidts, 2000; Sawhney, Wolcott,


Predictors and Outcomes of Restaurant Innovativeness

459

& Arroniz, 2006), little research has been done to analyze the antecedents of perceived innovativeness and the impact of innovativeness on consumer behaviors depending on a specific service sector. In the restaurant industry there are few reports, conceptual frameworks, or empirical studies about how to create innovative service. This means that restaurant marketers often depend on personal knowledge and subjective judgment when introducing an innovative service system. As the fine-dining restaurant sector fiercely competes to strive for success, it is crucial for restaurant marketers to understand the process of perceived innovativeness during consumers’ dining experience. Furthermore, understanding the relationship between perceived innovativeness and postconsumption evaluation provides restaurant marketers with useful information in developing differentiated marketing strategies. The drivers of perceived innovativeness and proper strategies vary according to the types of product and service (Ram, 1989). Because each product/service in a specific sector has its unique characteristics and functions in relation to influencing factors, the impact of marketers’ innovative marketing strategies on the success of a business cannot be standardized. Therefore, it is crucial, from a restaurant marketer’s perspective to understand which factors increase a customer’s perceived innovativeness about their restaurant experience in order to better understand the formation of perceived innovativeness and to develop proper marketing strategies. Accordingly, perceived innovativeness, especially in terms of restaurant experience, needs to be tested in order to understand the impact of increased innovativeness on the postconsumption behaviors such as brand preference and behavioral loyalty. The purpose of this study is therefore to investigate diners’ perception of innovativeness in terms of service evaluation based on their total dining experience. Specifically, the objectives of this study are: (a) to investigate the impact of perceived innovativeness of quality on overall perceived restaurant innovativeness; (b) to examine the effect of price fairness and satisfaction with existing service on perceived image of restaurant innovativeness; and (c) to test the impact of perceived restaurant innovativeness on brand credibility, brand preference, and customer loyalty.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Perceived Image of Restaurant Innovativeness Innovativeness in marketing literature refers to “the desire to seek out the new and different” (Hirschman, 1980). According to Hyun and Han (2012), if a consumer has a high level of innovativeness, he/she is likely to try new services and products. Although a consumer’s level of innovativeness is related to their inherent personality characteristics, it still can be affected by


460

N. Jin et al.

various marketing activities (Manning, Bearden, & Madden, 1995). Further, a customer’s innovativeness is domain specific; that is, a customer tends to show innovativeness in a specific category while being insensitive to other categories (Goldsmith & Newell, 1997). Innovation is an important procedure for a firm’s success and growth; it has evolved from a strategic option into an essential process of the management (Ottenbacher & Harrington, 2009). The restaurant business, from the clients view, is overwhelmed with numerous comparable and frequently replicable offerings. This creates a major challenge for mangers who desire to differentiate their restaurants. Given these challenges, the key is to creatively discover enduring innovations that are difficult for competitors to replicate (Vila, Enz, & Costa, 2012). Innovation allows restaurants to make their product portfolio competitive and thereby strengthens their competitive advantage. The innovation process of a restaurant can be defined as a holistic process for fulfilling a consumer’s perceived innovativeness from the idea stage through to market launch and beyond (Ottenbacher & Harrington, 2009). For instance, the presentation of new menu options alone does not determine the novelty of a restaurant. Consumers perceive a restaurant’s innovativeness from all kinds of restaurant efforts that are viewed as unique and creative compared to its competitors. Consumers deem a firm as being innovative if a larger or more global impact is observed (Kunz, Schmitt, & Meyer, 2011). An innovative firm can have an impact on established consumption patterns and can be considered by consumers as a forerunner in its segment (Kamins, Alpert, & Elliott, 2000). The innovation process of restaurants can include any idea, practice, or material artifact that generates a novel perception by customers. Thus, the increase in innovation helps restaurants to satisfy new customer needs, save marketing costs, and improve the performance of product-related services (Su, 2011; Tomala & Sénéchal, 2004). In sum, this study conceptualized the perceived image of restaurant innovativeness as a consumer’s perception of a restaurants enduring creative capability. More specifically, it comprises the consumer’s view of innovative ideas and solutions that the restaurant is capable of producing. This research developed a number of potential antecedents of perceived restaurant innovativeness based on previous research.

The Impact of Perceived Qualities on Restaurant Innovativeness Perceived quality refers to “the consumer’s judgment about a product’s overall excellence or superiority” (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 4). In general, researchers agree that a perceived quality is a significant predictor that influences postconsumption behavior. When consumers perceive that a firm provides a high quality of products/service, they tend to form a favorable attitude toward the firm and show positive behavioral intentions.



461

Grönroos (1984) claimed that service quality is comprised of functional service quality and technical service quality. Functional service quality has to do with the interaction between customers and service providers. Technical service quality refers to both the tangible and intangible service outputs. Along these lines, service quality in a restaurant service setting can be perceived through both technical (e.g., food quality and environmental factors) and functional attributes (e.g., quality of employee service). Therefore, we defined perceived quality as food quality, environmental quality, and service quality in a fine-dining restaurant. Food quality is the most important factor affecting customers’ postconsumption evaluation in a restaurant setting (Ha & Jang, 2010; Jin, Lee, & Huffman, 2012; Namkung & Jang, 2007). Previous studies evaluated food quality based upon various characteristics (Josiam & Monteiro, 2004; Kivela, Inbakaran, & Reece, 1999; Raajpoot, 2002). For example, Kivela et al. (2000) utilized the tastiness of food, menu variety, and nutrition as key attributes of food quality. Furthermore, Raajppot (2002) identified food presentation, serving size, menu design, and variety of food to estimate food quality. Environment, or atmospherics, refers to the conscious designing of space to draw specific emotional impacts from consumers and increase their purchasing intentions (Kotler, 1973). Thus, the creative use of physical spaces can result in results in specific marketing achievements such as positive perceived quality and positive attitude toward dining experience (Han & Ryu, 2009). Another attribute of perceived quality of a restaurant experience, service quality, has been proven to be a critical factor influencing customer evaluation of services (Berry, Wall, & Carbone, 2006; Gremler & Gwinner, 2000; Wall & Berry, 2007). Consumers tend to use aspects of interaction as clues for evaluation because service has intangible character and is difficult to measure during their dining experience (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985). For example, consumption at restaurants is related to extensive interpersonal interaction with service providers: greeting, ordering, serving, complimenting/complaining, and tipping. Each of these processes is an essential factor with which customers evaluate service perceptions (Namkung & Jang, 2009). In marketing and management research, there has been a conceptual delineation between terms innovation and innovativeness (Kunz et al., 2011). While innovation refers to the outcome of firm activity, innovativeness emphasizes the alacrity of firm in the pursuit of new ideas and new solutions (Crawford & Di Benedetto, 2003). In addition, innovativeness, rather than success at one point in time, has a more enduring connotation (Im & Workman, 2004; Kunz et al., 2011). Crawford and Di Benedetto (2003) indicated that newness (or novelty) has been proven as a core dimension of innovativeness. Innovativeness also


462

N. Jin et al.

has been viewed as the capability of a firm to create new product solutions within a short time period (Roehrich, 2004). Thus, consumers are more likely to perceive qualities in their dining experience as innovative if those qualities have novel and creative characteristics when compared to other restaurants. Thus, if a restaurant provides novel food presentation, unique decoration, and has a unique serving style through well-trained employees, consumers tend to view the qualities of that restaurant as innovative and different from other restaurants. In sum, the present study conceptualized perceived innovativeness of qualities as a consumer’s view of a restaurant’s differentiated quality of creativity and novelty compared to other restaurants. Although the specific link between the perceived innovativeness of quality and the perceived image of a restaurant’s innovativeness has not been plainly confirmed for the service sector, some empirical findings related to perceived quality and image along with theoretical schemes support this relationship (Baker, Grewal, & Parasuraman, 1994; Hu, Kandampully, & Juwaheer, 2009; Jin et al., 2012). In examining the impact of store environment on store image in a retail setting, Baker et al. (1994) found that store environment, merchandise quality, and service quality were all predictors of store image. Jin et al. (2012) investigated the impact of restaurant experience (e.g., food quality, environment quality, and price fairness) on brand image focusing on full-service restaurants. The results revealed that food quality affected brand image positively and customer satisfaction, and brand image was an antecedent of customer loyalty. With empirical data from the lodging industry, Hu et al. (2009) tested the role of service quality in explaining customer satisfaction, corporation image, and behavioral intentions. Their findings indicated that the high-quality service in a hotel generates high customer satisfaction, thus influencing the hotel’s positive image. Based on this rationale, the following hypotheses are suggested: H1: Perceived innovativeness of food quality positively influences perceived image of restaurant innovativeness. H2: Perceived innovativeness of environmental quality positively influences perceived image of restaurant innovativeness. H3: Perceived innovativeness of service quality positively influences perceived image of restaurant innovativeness.

Effect of Perceived Price Fairness on Perceived Image of Restaurant Innovativeness The price-expectancy model of consumer choice suggests that consumers evaluate product quality based upon the products price information. More specifically, consumers rely on a reasonable–expensive continuum to make a comparison if the expected price is consistent with the product’s quality and category (Ordonez, 1998). Ultimately, consumers deduce product quality



463

from the price information provided. Thus, a consumer’s subjective interpretation changes the objective product price into meaningful information for the decision process (Oh, 2002). Bolton and Lemon (1999) investigated the role of price perception on the customers’ service evaluation of cellular phone and entertainment services. The study found that customers’ perceived price fairness/unfairness was a critical predictor of his/her overall satisfaction and behavioral intention in both industries. Using empirical data from three full-service restaurants in the United States, Han and Ryu (2009) tested the function of price perception in relation to the functions of the physical environment and postconsumption evaluation. Their findings revealed that the most significant predictors of price perception were the ambiance and aesthetics of a space. Moreover, price perception had a positive impact on customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. Liu and Jang (2009) found that perceived price unfairness may result in a consumer’s negative responses, such as dissatisfaction, complaining, and bad word-of-mouth. Because restaurant experience includes intangible factors—they cannot be seen, felt, tasted, or touched—thus, consumers cannot evaluate a restaurant’s total experience in an objective way. However, if the consumer perceives that the price for the overall service at a restaurant is reasonable, then he or she will have a positive image toward a restaurant’s innovativeness, hence: H4: Price fairness positively influences perceived image of restaurant innovativeness.

Effect of Satisfaction With Existing Service on Perceived Image of Restaurant Innovativeness Satisfaction refers to an overall evaluation of a consumption experience or response to a firm that a consumer contacts for the transaction (Oliver, 1993). Although both researchers and practitioners have explained the definition of satisfaction in various ways, it is commonly recognized that satisfaction is an affective, or emotional, state (Lam, Shankar, Erramilli, & Murthy, 2004). Thus, customer satisfaction is an important construct affecting post-consumption responses, such as attitude change, repeat purchase, word-of-mouth, and loyalty (Arora, 2012; Jin, Lee, & Gopalan, 2012; Jin et al., 2012; Oliver, 1980). A consumer with habitual behavior is resistant to change. For example, if a consumer is satisfied with the current service, he/she is likely to maintain their current status (Ram, 1989). Furthermore, a customer with an emotional attachment to the existing service tends to accept the firm’s new strategies and generously evaluates its performance including innovative approaches. Arora (2012) examined the function of emotions and delight in affecting satisfaction and attitude in restaurant settings. Those findings reveal that prior

464

N. Jin et al.

attitude is the predictor for the sensual arousal and emotions and satisfaction directly influenced consumers’ postexperience attitude. Therefore, it is proposed that: H5: Satisfaction with existing service positively influences perceived image of restaurant innovativeness.


Brand Credibility Brands provide signals of product positioning when consumers are unsure about brands and the market segment is characterized by asymmetric information (Erdem, Swait, & Louviere, 2002). That is, firms know the characteristics of their consumers, while consumers have little information about service providers. Signaling theory contends that an exchange partner can properly share information with others, in order to placate uncertainty arising from conflicting sources (Spence, 1973). By the same token, screening theory illustrates how an exchange partner seeks to receive information about another exchange partner to mitigate uncertainty (Spence, 1973). Taken together, the service firms’ point of view and signaling theory illuminate that brands serve as mechanisms that consumers might use to envisage the service. Based on screening theory, brands are reliable indicators that have the ability to ameliorate the uncertainty likely to be experienced by consumers as they signify service quality (Leischnig, Geigenmüller, & Enke, 2012). For a proper indication of product positioning, firms use brands to deliver credibility of products/service with various marketing strategies: charging a high price, providing rewarding service, differentiating distribution channels, and offering a specific warranty (Erdem & Swait, 1998). The effect of each strategy may or may not be credible according to market environments including competitiveness and consumer characteristics. The important characteristic of brand, distinguished from other marketing mix elements, is the cumulative effect of past marketing mix strategies and activities (Baek, Kim, & Yu, 2010). Erdem and Swait (1998), based on consumer-based brand equity, defined brand credibility as a consumer’s perception of the trustworthiness of the information provided by the brand to the extent that the brand has demonstrated capability in delivering consistently. It is widely recognized that brand credibility has been conceptualized as a higher-order construct comprised of trustworthiness, knowledge, skills, and abilities. The literature characterizes trustworthiness as the reliable tendencies of the firm in meeting their commitments. Furthermore, knowledge, ability, and skills are in reference to a firm’s expert potential to deliver proposed goods and services (Erdem & Swait, 1998; Erdem, Swait, & Iacobucci, 2004; Erdem et al., 2002; Sweeney & Swait, 2008). Thus, brand credibility, in the context of a fine-dining restaurant, is best characterized as the consumer’s perceptions


465

that the brand shows trustworthiness and expertise to provide a satisfactory dining experience for customers.


Brand Preference Brand preference refers to “the extent to which the customer favors the designated service provided by other companies in his or her consideration set” (Hellier, Geursen, Carr, & Rickard, 2003, p. 1765). However, previous research conceptualizes brand preference in different ways and suggests that there are specific interactions between brand preference and various unrelated factors. For instance, brand loyalty and brand equity have been delineated as predictors of brand preference (Keller, 2003); whereas Chang and Liu (2009) suggested that brand loyalty and brand equity are antecedents of brand preference. Rundle-Thiele and Mackay (2001) argued that brand preference and brand loyalty can be used interchangeably. Thus, brand preference should be considered based on the market characteristics and the interrelationship of those with other related variables. Customers develop brand preference to minimize the complexity of the decision-making process. Consumers are usually exposed to many brands during the decision-making process and can delete some products from their consideration set while the brand is selected for purchase.

Customer Loyalty Loyalty refers to “a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product or service consistently in the future, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior” (Oliver, 2010, p. 432). Customer loyalty is a fundamental goal for service marketing industries because it is an important component for a firm’s long-term competitive edge. Previous research explains that customer loyalty includes both a behavioral aspect and an attitudinal aspect (Alan & Kunal, 1994; Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978). While the behavioral aspect measures the concept of repeat purchase frequency, the affective aspect centers on psychological commitment toward the physical business or brand (Alan & Kunal, 1994). In recent years, many researchers in the hospitality industry emphasized the significance of attitudinal approach in measuring the level of customer loyalty (Han & Ryu, 2009; Mattila, 2001; Schall, 2003). Compared to attitudinal loyalty, the behavioral dimension tends to ignore the decision-making making process that does not distinguish brand loyalty from simple repeated purchasing behavior (Dick & Basu, 1994). For example, restaurant reward programs provide a limited aspect for customer loyalty because the main focus of those programs is not on attitudinal or emotional attachments to service providers (Mattila, 2001). Repeat purchase may not always mean that

466

N. Jin et al.

the customer recommends the service provider to others or retains a favorable attitude toward the firm (Bowen & Chen, 2001). In this respect, Mattila (2001) found that affective commitment to a service provider increased positive brand perceptions and behavioral responses. Accordingly, the present study uses the attitudinal approach to gauge restaurant customer loyalty.


The Relationship Among Perceived Image of Restaurant Innovativeness, Brand Credibility, Brand Preference, and Customer Loyalty Although direct empirical support for the link among perceived image of innovativeness, brand preference, and customer loyalty is limited in the marketing literature, recent studies have attempted to explore the impact of image on loyalty (Faullant, Matzler, & Füller, 2008; Jin et al., 2012; Ryu, Han, & Kim, 2008; Yoshida, James, & Cronin, 2013). Previous research has suggested that brand perceptions are highly impacted by the corporate reputation of the associated company. Similarly, Souiden, Kassim, and Hong (2006) indicated that corporate reputation increased a customer’s emotional bond with the service provider. Mulyanegara and Tsarenko (2009) posited that a brand with reputation affects brand preference. Thus, a credible restaurant brand may increase customer favor and preference for that restaurant before the dining experience. In examining customer behaviors in eleven service categories, Baek and King (2011) examined how the role of brand credibility differs depending on service type and involvement level. They found that brand credibility generates a strong effect on purchase through essential mediators, such as perceived quality, perceived value for money, and information costs saved. Kemp and Bui (2011) investigated the relationship between brand credibility and commitment to understand and develop the brand strategy of “health brands” in the food segment. The results showed that credibility decreased risk and strengthened consumer confidence. That is, brand credibility is a crucial predictor for a consumer’s repeated purchase. As shown earlier, brand preference and brand loyalty can be used interchangeably; thus, the relationship of three constructs (e.g., image, brand preference, and loyalty) can be inferred from the results of previous empirical studies. Using empirical data collected from spectators attending a college football game, Yoshida et al. (2013) tested the role of a consumer’s perceived sport event innovativeness and its relationship with brand equity and behavioral intention. Their findings indicated that overall innovativeness positively influenced brand equity that, in turn, had an impact on behavioral intentions. Faullant et al. (2008) suggested that ski resorts should work to provide favorable image for customers in order to encourage them to revisit resorts. In examining the relationship between restaurant image and consumer behavior in quick-casual restaurants, Ryu et al. (2008) found that



467

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model. Note. BC = brand credibility; BPR = brand preference; CL = customer loyalty; PIRI = perceived image of restaurant innovativeness; PIFQ = perceived innovativeness of food quality; PISQ = perceived innovativeness of service quality; SES = satisfaction with existing service; PF = price fairness.

a consumer’s positive restaurant image increased the possibility of positive word-of-mouth and revisit intention to the restaurant. Jin et al. (2012) noted that positive brand image led to customer loyalty in full-service restaurants. Thus, it can be inferred that: H6: Perceived image of restaurant innovativeness positively influences brand credibility. H7: Perceived image of restaurant innovativeness positively influences customer loyalty. H8: Perceived image of restaurant innovativeness positively influences brand preference. H9: Brand credibility positively influences customer loyalty. H10: Brand credibility positively influences brand preference. H11: Brand preference positively influences customer loyalty.

Figure 1 describes the conceptual model for the study.

METHODOLOGY Research Instrument Overall, extracted from the literature, previously validated items were modified to fit the fine-dining restaurant segment. The present study amalgamated nine constructs to form and develop a conceptual model. The proposed hypothesis was tested utilizing a self-report questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of four sections: (a) predictors of perceived restaurant innovativeness in fine-dining restaurants, (b) perceived restaurant


468

N. Jin et al.

innovativeness and outcomes of restaurant innovativeness, (c) brand perceptions (e.g., brand credibility and brand preference) and customer loyalty, and (d) demographic information. A preliminary questionnaire, comprised of validated measures adopted for a restaurant context, was prepared for a pretest. Content validity was conducted utilizing four PhD students and three faculty members from a university’s hospitality management program before the questionnaire was finalized. All items from Sections 1–4 were measured using a 7-point, Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) for the following: “Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement.” To measure perceived image of restaurant innovativeness, our study adopted seven items from Kunz et al. (2011). Perceived innovativeness of food quality was measured with six items employed by Namkung and Jang (2007). Perceived innovativeness of environment quality was measured with five items previously employed by Baker et al. (1994) and Mathwick, Malhotra, and Rigdon (2001). Perceived innovativeness of service quality was measured using five items employed by Gremler and Gwinner (2000) and Mathwick et al. (2001). Price fairness was measured with three items developed by Oh (2002). The three items regarding satisfaction with existing service were adapted from Carpenter (2008). Brand credibility was measured with six items developed by Erdem and Swait (1998). Brand preference was measured with three items developed by Hellier et al. (2003) and Kim, Ok, and Canter (2010). Customer loyalty was measured using three items that were modified from Han and Ryu (2009).

Pilot Study The original questionnaire was modified according to the responses of a pretest. The small sample of participants included seven graduate students and faculty members from a university’s hospitality department. Additionally, a pilot test was conducted to ensure the reliability of the scales. Participants of the pilot study comprised 60 customers who had visited fine-dining restaurant within the previous 4 weeks. According the feedback received from the pilot study, the wording on the instrument was slightly modified for clarity.

Data Sample and Collection For the main data collection process, survey questionnaires were disseminated online to panel members in the United States. A research company was hired to conduct a web-based survey. Participants of the research company panel were 18 years of age or older. To examine the moderating impact of gender on the relationship among constructs, participants were evenly divided into female and male. The target usable sample size was 400; thus the survey was nationwide. In order to recruit participants for the study, the research company sent an invitation with an online survey link to the panel


469


members. Subsequently, interested participants were instructed to individually respond to questions concerning predictors of perceived restaurant innovativeness and consequent variables such as brand preference, brand credibility, and customer loyalty. The questionnaire was distributed to 5,710 fine-dining restaurant customers through an online survey company’s system. Of this group, 460 customers participated in the survey (7.20% response rate). Of the 460 respondents, responses from 42 participants were not taken into account. These participants failed to adequately complete the questionnaire or provided inconsistent responses. Finally, among these 418 respondents, 43 multivariate outliers were excluded. In the end, 375 respondents remained for analysis (6.60% valid response rate).

RESULTS Demographic Information Table 1 shows the demographic information of respondents. The sample contained more males than females, but the proportion of each group indicated that the sample was evenly dispersed between genders (male = 51.5%; female = 48.5%). For ethnicity, most respondents were White (79.2%). The majority of respondents were professional (34.9%). About one third of the respondents had an annual income of more than $100,000 and two thirds of the respondents had a university or higher degree. In terms of marital status, 77.9% of the respondents were married. For religion, most respondents (65.1%) were Christian. Table 2 illustrates the purposes behind the fine-dining related activities for this sample. Among the 375 participants, it appears that the fundamental purpose of visiting fine-dining restaurants was a social occasion (47.7%), followed by a celebration (34.7%) and quick meal/convenience (9.1%). For dining-out companion, more than half of the respondents dined with spouse (husband or wife), followed by immediate family (14.4%) and friends (11.2%). In terms of generational cohort, about two thirds of the respondents were Generation X (born 1965–1980), followed by Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964) and Generation Y (born 1981–2000).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Table 3 shows the measurement items and loadings. The factor loadings for the items were equal to or greater than 0.63 and were all significant at the 0.001 level. The AVE was greater than 0.50 for all constructs (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). The factor loadings and AVE estimates together ensured adequate convergent validity for the items (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

470

N. Jin et al.

TABLE 1 Demographic information


Variable Gender Male Female Ethnicity African American Hispanic Asian Caucasian (White) Other Occupation Trades and related Professional Managers, administrator Students Clerical, service, sales worker Retired Home makers Unemployed Annual income ($) Under 25,000 25,000–39,999 40,000–54,999 55,000–69,999 70,000–84,999 85,000–99,000 Over 100,000 Education Less than high school degree High school degree Some college College graduate Graduate degree Marital Single Married Other Religion Christianity Islam Hinduism Buddhism Chinese traditional Indigenous Nonreligious

Frequency (n = 375)

%

193 182

51.5 48.5

15 30 29 297 4

4.0 8.0 7.7 79.2 1.1

19 131 89 8 37 65 23 3

5.1 34.9 23.7 2.1 9.9 17.3 6.1 0.8

1 6 5 19 68 90 186

0.3 1.6 1.3 5.1 18.1 24.0 49.6

2 24 75 179 93

0.5 6.4 20.0 47.7 24.8

65 292 18

17.3 77.9 4.8

244 3 6 6 5 2 66

65.1 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.3 0.5 17.6

Table 4 displays discriminant validity analysis for the constructs. For each corresponding construct, verification of discriminant validity was achieved when each squared correlation (R 2 ) between a pair of constructs was less than the AVE (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), except for those

471

Predictors and Outcomes of Restaurant Innovativeness TABLE 2 Dining-out profile


Variable

Frequency (n = 375)

%

34 179 32 130

9.1 47.7 8.5 34.7

7 221 20 54 9 42 10 10 2

1.9 58.9 5.3 14.4 2.4 11.2 2.7 2.7 0.5

62 109 129 75

16.5 29.1 34.4 20.0

Main reason for dining out Quick meal/convenience Social occasion Business occasion Celebration (birthday, anniversary) Companion Alone Spouse (husband or wife) Boyfriend/girlfriend Immediate family Other relatives Friends Colleagues Business partner(s) Other Generation Before 1945 (Silent generation) 1946–1964 (Baby Boomer generation) 1965–1980 (Generation X) 1981–2000 (Generation Y)

between brand preference and perceived innovativeness of food quality, customer loyalty and satisfaction with existing service, perceived image of restaurant innovativeness and perceived innovativeness of food quality, perceived image of restaurant innovativeness and perceived image of environment quality, perceived innovativeness of food quality and perceived innovativeness of environment quality, perceived innovativeness of TABLE 3 Confirmatory factor analysis for the measurement model Constructs and indicators Perceived image of restaurant innovativeness The restaurant is dynamic. The restaurant launches new types of menus. The restaurant is a pioneer in its category. The restaurant has changed the market with its offers. The restaurant offers current technologies. Perceived innovativeness of food quality The restaurant provides creative food presentation. The types of food in the restaurant offer unique taste compared to other restaurants. The food in this restaurant is fresher than that of other restaurants. The restaurant has more healthy foods than other restaurants.

Standard factor Composite loading reliability

AVE

.91

.68

.89

.68

.78 .81 .85 .85 .81 .84 .88 .82 .74 (Continued)

472

N. Jin et al.

TABLE 3 (Continued)


Constructs and indicators Perceived innovativeness of env. quality The decorations of the restaurant were unconventional compared to the decoration of other restaurants. The background music is pleasant compared to other restaurants. The facility layout of the restaurant is easy to move around in compared to other restaurants. Perceived innovativeness of service quality The restaurant provides prompt and quick service compared to other restaurants. The restaurant has well-trained employees who answer your question well. The design of employees’ uniforms for the restaurant is unique. Satisfaction with existing service I was happy with the dining experience at this restaurant. I was pleased with the dining experience at this restaurant. Overall I was satisfied with the dining experience at this restaurant. Price fairness The food prices at this restaurant are reasonable. The beverage prices at this restaurant are reasonable. The prices charged by this restaurant are appropriate for the level of service. Brand credibility Product claims from this restaurant brand are believable. Over time, my experience with this restaurant brand led me to expect it to keep its promises. This restaurant brand is committed to delivering on its claims. The restaurant brand has a name you can trust. This restaurant brand has the ability to deliver what it promises. Brand preference When I make a dining out decisions, I consider this restaurant a viable choice very often. This restaurant meets my dining needs better than other comparable fine-dining restaurants. I am interested in trying various menu items in this restaurant more than in other comparable fine-dining restaurants. Customer loyalty I would like to come back to this restaurant in the future. I would recommend this restaurant to my friends or others. I am willing to spend more than I planned at this restaurant. Note. AVE = average variance extracted.

Standard factor Composite loading reliability

AVE

.87

.69

.81

.58

.96

.89

.92

.80

.95

.81

.88

.72

.90

.76

.76 .84 .89 .87 .78 .63 .95 .93 .71 .93 .92 .82 .87 .92 .90 .87 .91 .79 .93 .82

.95 .93 .71

473

Predictors and Outcomes of Restaurant Innovativeness TABLE 4 Comparison of AVE and squared correlations of paired constructs Constructs

BC

BPR

CL

PIRI

PIFQ

PIEQ

PISQ

SES

PF

BC BPR CL PIRI PIFQ PIEQ PISQ SES PF

.81 .50 .78 .32 .52 .27 .49 .80 .21

.72 .47 .64 .74 .55 .27 .43 .44

.76 .31 .51 .30 .49 .89 .26

.68 .82 .74 .64 .33 .46

.68 .70 .79 .52 .42

.69 .81 .27 .43

.58 .48 .37

.89 .24

.80

Note. χ = 1324.604, df = 428, NFI = 0.899, TLI = 0.918, CFI = 0.929, RMSEA = 0.075. BC = brand credibility; BPR = brand preference; CL = customer loyalty; PIRI = perceived image of restaurant innovativeness; PIFQ = perceived innovativeness of food quality; PISQ = perceived innovativeness of service quality; SES = satisfaction with existing service; PF = price fairness; AVE = average variance extracted; NFI = normed fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. AVE is on the diagonal; squared correlations of paired constructs are on the off-diagonal.


2

food quality and perceived innovativeness of service quality, and perceived innovativeness of environment quality and perceived innovativeness of service quality. For those exceptions, discriminant validity between the constructs of each pair, combining two constructs into a single construct allowed performing a χ 2 difference test on the two models: hypothesized measurement model and alternative model (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). The resulting χ 2 differences were equal to, or greater than, 102.337 (df = 8), and the differences were all significant at the 0.001 level. The discriminant validity was confirmed between all the pairs of the constructs. Thus, perceived image of restaurant innovativeness, perceived innovativeness of food quality, perceived innovativeness of environment quality, perceived innovativeness of service quality, satisfaction with existing service, price fairness, brand credibility, brand preference, and customer loyalty represent nine unique constructs. Last, confirmatory measurement models indicated the soundness of measurement properties (χ 2 = 1324.604; df = 428; p < .001; NFI = 0.899; TLI = 0.918; CFI = 0.929, and RMSEA = 0.075).

Structural Model Results The proposed model with nine constructs was estimated using structural equation modeling. Table 5 illustrates the path coefficients for all hypothesized paths in the model, and Figure 2 creates a visualization of the paths. The goodness-of-fit statistics indicate that the structural model reasonably fits the data in the fine-dining restaurant context (χ 2 = 1903.640, df = 428, p < .001; NFI = 0.856; TLI = 0.871; CFI = 0.885; and RMSEA = 0.094).

474

N. Jin et al.

TABLE 5 Structural parameter estimates


Hypothesized path Hypothesis 1: Perceived innovativeness of food quality → Perceived image of restaurant innovativeness Hypothesis 2: Perceived innovativeness of environment quality → Perceived image of restaurant innovativeness Hypothesis 3: Perceived innovativeness of service quality → Perceived image of restaurant innovativeness Hypothesis 4: Price fairness → Perceived image of restaurant innovativeness Hypothesis 5: Satisfaction with existing service → Perceived image of restaurant innovativeness Hypothesis 6: Perceived image of restaurant innovativeness → Brand credibility Hypothesis 7: Perceived image of restaurant innovativeness → Customer loyalty Hypothesis 8: Perceived image of restaurant innovativeness → Brand preference Hypothesis 9: Brand credibility → Customer loyalty Hypothesis 10: Brand credibility → Brand preference Hypothesis 11: Brand preference → Customer loyalty

Coe.

t-value

Results

.80

7.32∗∗

Supported

.40

3.03∗∗

Supported

−.31

−1.86

Not supported

.10

2.31∗

Supported

.03

0.60

Not supported

.65

12.35∗∗

.11

1.57

.68

12.24∗∗

Supported

.78

15.51∗∗

Supported

.26

5.84∗∗

Supported

.04

0.60

Not supported

Supported

Not Supported

Note. χ 2 = 1903.640; df = 428; NFI (normed fit index) = 0.856; TLI (Tucker-Lewis index) = 0.871; CFI (comparative fit index) = 0.885; RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) = 0.094. ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.

Hypothesis 1 proposed a positive relationship between perceived innovativeness of food quality and perceived image of restaurant innovativeness, and was supported by a positive standard coefficient of .80 (t = 7.32, p < .001). Hypothesis 2, which suggested a significant relationship between perceived innovativeness of environment quality and perceived image of restaurant innovativeness, was supported by a positive standardized coefficient of .40 (t = 3.03, p < .01). Hypothesis 3 proposed that perceived innovativeness of service quality affects perceived image of restaurant innovativeness, but this relationship was not supported statistically. In summary, this study proposed three hypotheses to explain the effects of perceived innovativeness of qualities on perceived image of restaurant

475


PIFQ .80 (7.32)**

BC PIEQ

.65 (12.35)**

.78 (15.51)**

.40 (3.03)**

.80 (7.32)**

PIFQ

PISQ -.31(-1.86) .10 (2.31)**

.04 (0.60)

.68 (12.24)**

PF

BPR

.03 (0.60)

SES

CL .11 (1.57)

2


R : Perceived image of restaurant innovativeness = .936; Brand credibility = .420 ; Brand preference = .768 ; Customer loyalty = .790

FIGURE 2 The results of structural relationship in fine-dining restaurants.

innovativeness in fine-dining restaurants. Among them, two hypotheses were supported, indicating that perceived innovativeness of food quality and perceived innovativeness of environment quality positively influence perceived image of restaurant innovativeness. Hypothesis 4, which proposed that price fairness directly affects the perceived image of restaurant innovativeness, was supported by a positive standard coefficient of .10 (t = 2.31, p < .05). However, Hypothesis 5, which suggested a significant relationship between satisfaction with existing menu and perceived image of restaurant innovativeness, was not supported statistically. Hypothesis 6, proposing a positive relationship between perceived image of restaurant innovativeness and brand credibility, was supported by a positive standardized coefficient of .65 (t = 12.35, p < .01). Hypothesis 7 suggested that there was a positive relationship between perceived image of restaurant innovativeness and customer loyalty but was not supported by the statistical results. Hypothesis 8, which proposed a positive relationship between perceived image of restaurant innovativeness and brand preference, was supported by a positive standardized coefficient of .68 (t = 12.24, p < .01). In summary, perceived image of restaurant innovativeness had a positive effect on brand credibility and brand preference, while the effect of perceived image of restaurant innovativeness on customer loyalty was not significant. Hypotheses 9 and 10 proposed that brand credibility affects postconsumption experience. Hypothesis 9, which proposed a positive relationship between brand credibility and customer loyalty, was supported by a positive standard coefficient of .78 (t = 15.51, p < .01). Moreover, Hypothesis 10, which proposed a positive relationship between brand credibility and brand preference, was also supported by a positive standardized coefficient of .26

476

N. Jin et al.


(t = 5.84, p < .01); however, the effect of brand preference on customer loyalty (Hypothesis 11) was not supported. Based on the squared multiple correlations, all five predictive constructs explained 93.6% of the total variance of perceived image of restaurant innovativeness. Perceived image of restaurant innovativeness explained 42.0 % of the total variance of brand credibility. Brand credibility and perceived image of restaurant innovativeness explained 76.8% of the total variance of brand preference. Finally, brand preference, brand credibility, and perceived image of restaurant innovativeness explained 79.0% of the total variance of customer loyalty.

DISCUSSION The study generally shows that perceived image of restaurant innovativeness in the restaurant industry is a major component to success because of its effects on brand credibility and brand preference. In fact, many previous studies suggested that restaurant managers should emphasize service quality in order to create high levels of satisfaction with customer (e.g., Ha & Jang, 2010; Hyun, 2010; Jin et al., 2012). Unlike previous studies, however, the current study suggested interrelationships among five predictors of perceived image of restaurant innovativeness (perceived innovativeness of food quality, perceived innovativeness of environment quality, perceived innovativeness of service quality, price fairness, and satisfaction with existing service) and the effects of five predictors on perceived image of restaurant innovativeness. In addition, via a thorough literature review, three postconsumption evaluations of perceived image of restaurant innovativeness were derived: brand credibility, brand preference, and customer loyalty. Taken together, a theoretical model was derived to test the 12 hypothesis developed, using consumers of fine-dining restaurant (n = 375). The important findings of the current study were the effects of predictors on the perceived image of restaurant innovativeness in fine-dining restaurants. Typically, perceived quality is deemed as a significant predictor of future behavioral intentions. Accordingly, it was assumed that perceived image of restaurant innovativeness could be affected by a customer’s perception of qualities that constitute major restaurant attributes. Among the three different dining attributes, perceived innovativeness of food quality and perceived innovativeness for environment quality were significant drivers of perceived image of restaurant innovativeness. More specifically, perceived innovativeness of food quality had positive influence on perceived image of restaurant innovativeness (Hypothesis 1). In addition, perceived innovativeness of environment quality had a positive effect on perceived image of restaurant innovativeness (Hypothesis 2). These results suggest that innovative qualities of food and environment in fine-dining restaurants



477

generate a customer’s positive image toward a restaurant’s innovativeness. Recent work by Ryu, Lee, and Kim, (2012) suggested that food quality and environment quality could enhance the overall restaurant image to encourage customers to revisit the restaurant. Thus, this study extended the existing research by finding the relationship between innovative restaurant attributes and positive evaluation toward the restaurant’s overall innovativeness. These results suggested that novel and creative food quality and unconventional decorations of the restaurant could differentiate the image of the restaurant compared to other restaurants in the fine-dining sector. However, in this study, perceived innovativeness of service quality was not a significant driver of perceived image of restaurant innovativeness in the restaurant evaluation situation (Hypothesis 3). This implies that diners do not seek innovative service from employees in a restaurant, but remain satisfied with high levels of traditional service. That is, customers do not recognize the employee service as a critical innovative factor that induces a unique and novel experience compared to other restaurants. In addition, the result of this study showed that price fairness affects perceived image of restaurant innovativeness (Hypothesis 4). This means that restaurant operators should provide diners with reasonable prices that are consistent with the reference price that diners have recognized through previous dining experiences at similar fine-dining restaurants. If a restaurant excessively focuses on innovativeness by increasing food and beverage prices, customers may not perceive a restaurant’s innovative effort in a positive way, because they perceive that the prices are not proper. In this sense, restaurant managers should consider a proper balance between the investment in restaurant innovation and appropriate prices. This study hypothesized that satisfaction with existing service positively influences perceived image of restaurant innovativeness in fine-dining restaurants (Hypothesis 5). Overall, consumers who are satisfied with the service show positive attitude regarding the restaurant’s innovative service, which results in emotional attachment to the restaurant via brand credibility and brand preference. In contrast, customer satisfaction with existing service was not significant driver of perceived image of restaurant innovativeness in the restaurant experience evaluation situation. Recent work by Hyun and Han (2012) suggested that satisfaction with the existing menu/food does not have an effect on innovativeness toward a chain restaurant brand. This research replicated and extended this literature by empirically verifying the relationship between satisfaction with exiting service and perceived image of restaurant innovativeness in fine-dining restaurants. However, even though customer satisfaction with existing service does not have an effect on perceived image of restaurant innovativeness, this does not mean that dissatisfied customers are likely to have a positive attitude toward a restaurant’s innovativeness. The results of this study merely indicate that a customer’s


478

N. Jin et al.

satisfaction with existing service does not affect his/her perception toward a restaurant’s innovativeness in the restaurant experience evaluation. Hypotheses 6 to 8 proposed relationships between perceived image of restaurant innovativeness and three postconsumption evaluations (e.g., brand credibility, brand preference, and customer loyalty). In the fine-dining restaurant segment, perceived image of restaurant innovativeness was not a significant driver of customer loyalty (Hypothesis 7), but perceived image of restaurant innovativeness did improve brand credibility (Hypothesis 6) and brand preference (Hypothesis 8). These results suggested that a customer’s perceived image of restaurant innovativeness strengthens more attitudinal loyalty than behavioral loyalty. This means that a customers’ positive image of restaurant innovativeness leads to emotional attachment to the brand or the restaurant. Another significant factor of the study is the role of brand credibility in fine-dining restaurants. Specifically, as customers have brand credibility at a particular restaurant, they are more likely to select the restaurant in his/her consideration set (Hypothesis 9) and revisit the restaurant (Hypothesis 10). In fact, many previous studies suggest the indirect effect of brand credibility on purchased intention via perceived quality, perceived risks, and perceived value. Unlike previous studies, however, this study proposed a direct relationship with customer loyalty and the effect of brand credibility on brand preference in the context of restaurant servers. The findings of the current study indicated that brand credibility is a predictor for both customer loyalty and brand preference but brand preference had no significant effect on the customer loyalty. This means that the strength of the relationship between customers and serves results in a customer’s brand preference. The present study has made theoretical and empirical contributions to the hospitality and tourism literature. First, it defined perceived image of restaurant innovativeness as a consumer’s perception of the enduring creative capability of a restaurant; evidenced by innovative and novel solutions. This definition reflects that perceived innovativeness is influenced by restaurant attributes and has an effect on consumer behavior. In this respect, this study considered possible key qualities of a customer’s perceived innovativeness in restaurant experience: perceived innovativeness of food quality, perceived innovativeness of environment quality, and perceived innovativeness of service quality. Furthermore, the present study identified more specific effects of price and previous experience (e.g., satisfaction with existing service) on the consumer’s perceived image of restaurant innovativeness. This study also confirmed the influences of perceived image of restaurant innovativeness on attitudinal aspects (e.g., brand preference and band credibility) and behavioral aspect (e.g., customer loyalty). Besides perceived innovativeness, this study investigated the relationship among brand credibility, brand preference, and customer loyalty to identify the formation of



479

customer loyalty in relation to a customer’s perceived innovativeness. Result revealed that brand credibility could be a factor leading to brand preference and customer loyalty in fine-dining restaurants. These findings suggest that a customer’s brand preference results not only from perceived image of restaurant innovativeness but also from the mutual relationship between customers and service providers in consumption situations. This study provides practical implications for managers of fine-dining restaurants. The results indicated that perceived innovativeness of food quality is a critical factor leading to positive image of restaurant innovativeness, which suggests that an innovative food quality is a mechanism that strengthens novel and creative restaurant image. Accordingly, restaurant managers should consider developing different menu items. For example, restaurants could hire professional food stylists to provide creative food presentation. Restaurant marketers can identify innovative food designs and better provide increased value of food quality by purposefully soliciting feedback from consumers. Attractive food presentation will provide customers with unique and creative experience, affecting their image with regard to restaurant innovativeness. In addition, menus that can display fresh and healthy ingredients of foods can strengthen the perceived innovativeness of the restaurant. This study also uncovered that higher perceived innovativeness of environment quality was positively related to the perceived image of restaurant innovativeness, which implies that an innovative dining environment would enhance customers’ positive attitude toward a restaurant’s overall efforts for innovativeness. Therefore, restaurant owners might consider making an investment in unconventional decor to set them apart from other restaurants. Such an esthetic environment can create additional value for customers to enjoy the dining experience. A great change of restaurant environment is not the only answer. Small changes can also generate a different mood for customers. For example, a renovation that modifies the existing restaurant could create positional changes that could be disseminated as a positive aspect of the restaurant and in turn be used to attract new customers. Moreover, technology can also be used to capture the appealing aspects of the restaurant environment in order to attract customers. Accordingly, restaurant marketers can use social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to spread a restaurant’s innovative design by sharing interesting pictures with current or future customers. For the relationship between price fairness and perceived image of restaurant innovativeness, this study revealed that price fairness is a critical factor leading to positive attitude toward restaurant innovativeness. However, customer’s lower price perception does not mean that customers will have a positive image of restaurant innovativeness but rather cause a negative restaurant image considering relatively high price range in fine-dining restaurants. Swani and Yoo (2010) indicated that price incentives do not work


480

N. Jin et al.

positively across restaurant types but can be varied based on the price level of the restaurant. Accordingly, fine-dining restaurant operators need to make an effort to set a competitive price via creating an innovative dining environment within the price range of fine-dining restaurants. In this regard, restaurant marketers can make an effort to understand what customers value through different mechanisms, such as surveys or customer blogs, to prevent negative word-of-mouth about the restaurant. When customers are satisfied with innovative dinning factors, they are also more likely to have brand credibility and brand preference for the restaurant, which indicates that development of innovative restaurant physical spaces significantly impact customers’ emotional attachment to the brand. Such an approach can retain existing customers and thus restaurant operators should consider creating innovative restaurant image one of important marketing strategies. Despite its contributions and managerial implications, the present study is not without limitations. Hence, addressing these limitations leads to suggestions for future research. First, this research was conducted only within the context of fine-dining restaurants. Recent research suggests, however, that expectations, especially those related to socially embedded phenomena vary depending on restaurant types (Line, Runyan, Costen, Frash, & Antun, 2012). Thus, future research would benefit from exploring the moderating impact of restaurant types on the relationships developed in the present study. Additionally, it may also be meaningful to apply or extend the present model in the context of hotel service setting to determine if the same dimensional structure remains intact. Second, this study, similar to most previous research related to innovation, viewed innovative activities in restaurants as a one-dimensional construct. A better bridge between research and practice may be achieved by exploring restaurant innovativeness as a multidimensional construct. Accordingly, a more holistic perspective can be incorporated by addressing other aspects such as functional and hedonic. Third, the data of the study were collected from a sample of U.S. citizens only. Thus, a potential limitation is the extent to which our findings can be generalized across cultures. In this light, a possible first step in extending this stream of study would be to examine the perceived innovativeness and predictors and outcome variables for cross cultural measurement invariance. Verifying measurement invariance would provide additional insight into conceptual confirmation of the constructs as well as a justification for extending the present study to other cultures. Future research would benefit from examining personal characteristics that serve as possible moderators such as educational level, perceived innovativeness, income-level or perceived socioeconomic class, which could relate to perceived quality and innovativeness in fine-dining restaurant. How does the level of socioeconomic class affect the way customers experience


481

and evaluate innovative activities in fine-dining restaurants? Are highly educated customers more likely to evaluate innovative service positively than less educated customers? Are highly innovative customers more likely to go to innovative restaurants than less innovative customers? Thus, additional research that includes these variables may provide restaurant marketers with specific information to broaden their knowledge of a customer’s perceived restaurant innovativeness and its relationship with brand credibility and brand preference formation constructs.


REFERENCES Alan, D., & Kunal, B. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–113. Arora, R. (2012). A mixed method approach to understanding the role of emotions and sensual delight in dining experience. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29, 333–343. Baek, T. H., Kim, J., & Yu, J. H. (2010). The differential roles of brand credibility and brand prestige in consumer brand choice. Psychology and Marketing, 27, 662–678. Baek, T. H., & King, W. K. (2011). Exploring the consequences of brand credibility in services. Journal of Services Marketing, 25, 260–272. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The influence of store environment on quality inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(4), 328–339. Barnes Reports. (2006). U.S. industry & market outlook. Woolwich, ME: C. Barnes & Co. Berry, L. L., Shankar, V., Parish, J. T., Cadwallader, S., & Dotzel, T. (2006). Creating new markets through service innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(2), 56–63. Berry, L. L, Wall, E. A., & Carbone, L. P. (2006). Service clues and customer assessment of the service experience: Lessons from marketing. The Academy of Management Perspectives ARCHIVE, 20(2), 43–57. Bolton, R. N., & Lemon, K. N. (1999). A dynamic model of customers’ usage of services: Usage as an antecedent and consequence of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 171–186. Bowen, J. T., & Chen, S. L. (2001). The relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13, 213–217. Carpenter, J. M. (2008). Consumer shopping value, satisfaction and loyalty in discount retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15, 358–363. Chang, H. H., & Liu, Y. M. (2009). The impact of brand equity on brand preference and purchase intentions in the service industries. The Service Industries Journal, 29, 1687–1706.


482

N. Jin et al.

Crawford, C. M., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2003). New products management (7th ed.). Retrieved from http://www-marshall.usc.edu/assets/069/14954.doc Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–113. Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131–157. Erdem, T., Swait, J., & Iacobucci, D. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 191–198. Erdem, T., Swait, J., & Louviere, J. (2002). The impact of brand credibility on consumer price sensitivity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(1), 1–19. Faullant, R., Matzler, K., & Füller, J. (2008). The impact of satisfaction and image on loyalty: The case of Alpine ski resorts. Managing Service Quality, 18(2), 163–178. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 382–388. Goldsmith, R. E., & Newell, S. J. (1997). Innovativeness and price sensitivity: Managerial, theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6(3), 163–174. Gremler, D. D., & Gwinner, K. P. (2000). Customer-employee rapport in service relationships. Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 82–104. Grönroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36–44. Ha, J., & Jang, S. (Shawn). (2010). Effects of service quality and food quality: The moderating role of atmospherics in an ethnic restaurant segment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 520–529. Han, H., & Ryu, K. (2009). The roles of the physical environment, price perception, and customer satisfaction in determining customer loyalty in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33, 487–510. Hellier, P. K., Geursen, G. M., Carr, R. A., & Rickard, J. A. (2003). Customer repurchase intention: A general structural equation model. European Journal of Marketing, 37, 1762–1800. Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 283–295. Hu, H.-H., Kandampully, J., & Juwaheer, T. D. (2009). Relationships and impacts of service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and image: An empirical study. The Service Industries Journal, 29(2), 111–125. Hwang, J., & Hyun, S. S. (2013). The impact of nostalgia triggers on emotional responses and revisit intentions in luxury restaurants: The moderating role of hiatus. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 250–262. Hyun, S. S., & Han, H. (2012). A model of a patron’s innovativeness formation toward a chain restaurant brand. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(2), 175–199. Im, S., & Workman, J. P. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 114–132. Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. W. (1978). Brand loyalty: Measurement and management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.



483

Jin, N., Lee, S., & Gopalan, R. (2012). How do individual personality traits (D) influence perceived satisfaction with service for college students (C) in a casual restaurant setting (I)?: The CID framework. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21, 591–616. Jin, N., Lee, S., & Huffman, L. (2012). Impact of restaurant experience on brand image and customer loyalty: Moderating role of dining motivation. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29, 532–551. Jin, N., Line, N. D., & Goh, B. (2013). Experiential value, relationship quality, and customer loyalty in full-service restaurants: The moderating role of gender. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 22, 679–700. Josiam, B. M., & Monteiro, P. A. (2004). Tandoori tastes: Perceptions of Indian restaurants in America. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(1), 18–26. Kamins, M. A., Alpert, F. H., & Elliott, M. T. (2000). Independent and interactive effects of exposure sequence, pioneership awareness, and product trial on consumer evaluation of a pioneer brand. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 223–229. Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Kemp, E., & Bui, M. (2011). Healthy brands: Establishing brand credibility, commitment and connection among consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28, 429–437. Kim, W., Ok, C., & Canter, D. D. (2010). Contingency variables for customer share of visits to full-service restaurant. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 136–147. Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R., & Reece, J. (1999). Consumer research in the restaurant environment, Part 1: A conceptual model of dining satisfaction and return patronage. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11, 205–222. Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48–64. Kunz, W., Schmitt, B., & Meyer, A. (2011). How does perceived firm innovativeness affect the consumer? Journal of Business Research, 64, 816–822. Lam, S. Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. K., & Murthy, B. (2004). Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: An illustration from a business-to-business service context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 293–311. Lee, B. C. Y. (2012). The determinants of consumer attitude toward service innovation—the evidence of ETC system in Taiwan. Journal of Services Marketing, 26(1), 9–19. Leischnig, A., Geigenmüller, A., & Enke, M. (2012). Brands you can rely on! An empirical investigation of brand credibility in services. Schmalenbach Business Review, 64, 44–58. Line, N. D., Runyan, R. C., Costen, W., Frash, R., & Antun, J. M. (2012). Where everybody knows your name: Homophily in restaurant atmospherics. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21(1), 1–19. Liu, Y., & Jang, S. C. (2009). The effects of dining atmospherics: An extended Mehrabian–Russell model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 494–503.


484

N. Jin et al.

Manning, K. C., Bearden, W. O., & Madden, T. J. (1995). Consumer innovativeness and the adoption process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 329–345. Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., & Rigdon, E. (2001). Experiential value: Conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and Internet shopping environment. Journal of Retailing, 77(1), 39–56. Mattila, A. S. (2001). Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(6), 73–79. Moreau, C. P., Lehmann, D. R., & Markman, A. B. (2001). Entrenched knowledge structures and consumer response to new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 14–29. Mulyanegara, R. C., & Tsarenko, Y. (2009). Predicting brand preferences: An examination of the predictive power of consumer personality and values in the Australian fashion market. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 13, 358–371. Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. C. (2007). Does food quality really matter in restaurants? Its impact on customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31, 387–409. Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. C. (2009). The effects of interactional fairness on satisfaction and behavioral intentions: Mature versus non-mature customers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 397–405. National Restaurant Association. (2007). 2006 U.S. industry & market outlook. Retrieved from http://www.restaurant.org/ Oh, H. (2002). Transaction evaluations and relationship intentions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 26, 278–305. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–469. Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 418–430. Oliver, R. L. (2010). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer (2nd ed.). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Ordonez, L. D. (1998). The effect of correlation between price and quality on consumer choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(3), 258–273. Ottenbacher, M. C., & Harrington, R. J. (2009). The product innovation process of quick-service restaurant chains. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21, 523–541. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. The Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50. Pennings, J. M. E., & Smidts, A. (2000). Assessing the construct validity of risk attitude. Management Science, 46, 1337–1348. Raajpoot, N. A. (2002). TANGSERV: A multiple item scale for measuring tangible quality in foodservice industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 5(2), 109–127. Ram, S. (1989). Successful innovation using strategies to reduce consumer resistance: An empirical test. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 6(1), 20–34.



485

Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer innovativeness: Concepts and measurements. Journal of Business Research, 57, 671–677. Rundle-Thiele, S., & Mackay, M. M. (2001). Assessing the performance of brand loyalty measures. Journal of Services Marketing, 15, 529–546. Ryu, K., Han, H., & Kim, T. H. (2008). The relationships among overall quickcasual restaurant image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 459–469. Ryu, K., Lee, H. R., & Kim, W. G. (2012). The influence of the quality of the physical environment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24, 200–223. Sawhney, M., Wolcott, R. C., & Arroniz, I. (2006). The 12 different ways for companies to innovate the 12 different ways for companies to innovate. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(3), 74–81. Schall, M. (2003). Best practices in the assessment of hotel-guest attitudes. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 51–65. Souiden, N., Kassim, N. M., & Hong, H. J. (2006). The effect of corporate branding dimensions on consumers’ product evaluation: A cross-cultural analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 40, 825–845. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The quarterly journal of Economics, 87, 355–374. Su, C. S. (2011). The role of service innovation and customer experience in ethnic restaurants. The Service Industries Journal, 31, 425–440. Swani, K., & Yoo, B. (2010) Interaction between price and price deal. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(2), 143–152 Sweeney, J., & Swait, J. (2008). The effects of brand credibility on customer loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15(3), 179–193. Tomala, F., & Sénéchal, O. (2004). Innovation management: A synthesis of academic and industrial points of view. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 281–287. Vila, M., Enz, C., & Costa, G. (2012). Innovative practices in the Spanish hotel industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53(1), 75–85. Walker, J. R. (2008). Exploring the hospitality industry (2nd ed.). Delhi, India: Pearson Education India. Walker, J. R., & Lundberg, D. E. (2005). The restaurant: From concept to operation (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Wall, E. A., & Berry, L. L. (2007). The combined effects of the physical environment and employee behavior on customer perception of restaurant service quality. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 59–69. Yoshida, M., James, J. D., & Cronin, J. J. (2013). Sport event innovativeness: Conceptualization, measurement, and its impact on consumer behavior. Sport Management Review, 16(1), 68–84. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A meansend model and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.