How Do Diners Make Decisions Among Casual ...

International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 16:1–15, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1525-6480 print/1525-6499 online DOI: 10.1080/15256480.2015.991985

How Do Diners Make Decisions Among Casual Dining Restaurants? An Exploratory Study of College Students

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 10:27 26 January 2015

CHENG PENG Phunware, Inc., Newport Beach, California, USA

ANIL BILGIHAN Department of Marketing, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA

JAY KANDAMPULLY Department of Consumer Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

Casual dining is a unique sector in the foodservice industry, and consumer decisions in this market are of great interest to marketers. Adopting the well-established Consumer Styles Inventory, this study explores the decision-making styles of college-age diners—an important and emerging growth segment. With survey data collected from a self-administered survey, it identifies five decision– making styles adopted by college students: hedonistic, habitual, price conscious, confused by overchoice, and brand conscious. The discussion highlights some notable managerial implications, as well as some limitations and directions for research. KEYWORDS casual dining, decision-making models, Generation Y, dining out, restaurant, college students

INTRODUCTION The restaurant industry constitutes an important sector in the modern U.S. economy, such that food consumed away from home accounts for about half of total U.S. food expenditures (Stewart, Blisard, & Jolliffe, 2006); that is, 46% Received December 10, 2012; accepted May 13, 2013. Address correspondence to Anil Bilgihan, Department of Marketing, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Rd., Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 1


2

C. Peng et al.

compared with just 25% of their food dollars spent in 1995 (Thomas & Mills, 2006). Almost three quarters of people surveyed eat out at least once a week (Stewart et al., 2006). Accordingly, the 2012 Restaurant Industry Forecast by the National Restaurant Association indicates that foodservice industry sales should reach $631.8 billion, an increase of 3.5% from 2011, making 2012 the third consecutive year of positive growth (Lockyer, 2012). Such rapid growth is not evenly spread across all subsectors within the foodservice industry though. For example, casual dining spending remained flat in the first quarter of 2011, even as quick-service restaurant sales grew 5.2% and fine dining grew 4.2% (Maze, 2011). These varying growth rates prompt several questions for practitioners about their patrons: What underpins their decision-making process for dining out experiences? How do people select restaurants? What attributes affect their selection? Finding answers to such questions is in the interest of both practitioners and consumer science researchers. Previous studies have shown that a variety of factors influence restaurant selections (Auty, 1992; Clark & Wood, 1998; Cullen, 2004; Lalwani, 2002; Pedraja & Yagüe, 2001; Riesco, 2008), including food quality, food type, speed of service, convenience, entertainment, price, atmosphere, reputation, and interpersonal influence. However, most studies that focus on restaurant selections address dining in general, rather than any specific dining category. Instead, noting the difference in growth rates for casual dining versus quick service restaurants, we aim to investigate how consumers make decisions about casual dining restaurants in particular. Similarly, the broad category of restaurant consumers encompasses a large group of people who represent various demographic segments. For this study, we focus on an emerging growth segment, namely, college-age restaurant patrons. College is often the period when young consumers build their personal spending habits. As they transition from children in a family to individual consumers, college students form spending and consumption habits that can lead to lifelong brand loyalty. Furthermore, this segment of consumers spends the highest proportion of their disposable income eating out (Studentawards Inc., 2010), making them increasingly interesting to marketers (Lachance & Choquette-Bernier, 2004). As these young adults grow up, they likely will maintain the brand recognition and spending habits they developed in this stage of their lives. Fernandez (2009) highlights that Generation Y founds their brand preferences in college-ages, thus, signifies the importance of marketing efforts that focus on this cohort to create a pool of brand loyal customers for future. Therefore, it is a timely question to ask how college students make decisions about casual dining restaurants. The main purpose of this study is to identify college students’ decision-making styles when they seek casual dining restaurants and to provide implications for restaurant marketers who hope to better understand young consumers and reach them more effectively.

How Do Diners Make Decisions?

3

LITERATURE REVIEW


Casual Dining and College Students Casual dining is a unique sector of the foodservice industry. These restaurants “serve moderately priced food, averaging $10 to $40 for dinner per diner, in an informal and relaxed atmosphere with a full-service wait staff” (Young, Clark, & McIntyre, 2007, p. 89). Whereas the fast-food industry focuses on price as a means to differentiate itself from competitors (Mohammad, Barker, & Kandampully, 2005), casual dining restaurants compete on a more complex combination of factors, including menu variety, atmosphere, and food quality. A Market Force (2011) survey has attempted to determine why people select one casual dining restaurant over another; it shows that the top influences on people’s choices are food quality, taste, speed of service, cleanliness, and value. Another survey (cited by Young et al., 2007) highlighted the importance of food quality for the selection of a casual dining restaurant, followed by cleanliness, service, value, menu variety, reputation, atmosphere, and convenience. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2010), college enrollment reached 20 million in 2009; it is expected to exceed 23 million by 2019 (http://nces.ed.gov). The incoming generations of college students are likely to be more sophisticated in their dining choices (Zopiatis & Pribic, 2007), largely because of their willingness to expand their dining horizons and try out new things. However, Zopitatis and Pribic (2007) still found that overall cleanliness, employees’ attitudes, and quality of menu items represented the most important factors influencing college students’ dining choices. In Lee’s (2010) investigation of the factors that college students consider when selecting a restaurant, the important attributes that emerged were price, cuisine, atmosphere, service and food quality, name brand, location, convenience, architectural design, other customers, previous experience, and alcohol service.

Consumer Decision-Making Styles Although various factors influence a person’s restaurant decisions in particular, more general decision-making styles also have a tendency to direct people in their decisions. Consumer decision-making is a prominent area of interest in consumer behavior studies (Tai, 2005), which approach the question in different ways. For example, Ozdipciner, Li, and Uysal (2010) use a frequency analysis of individual decision criteria; more systematically, conjoint analysis (Green & Srinivasan, 1978), the Consumer Styles Inventory (Sproles & Kendall, 1986), and discrete-choice analysis (DCA; Verma, Plaschka, & Louviere, 2002) have been widely deployed to understand and model consumer decision-making. Conjoint analysis relies on comparisons of experimentally designed product descriptions, focusing mostly on rating


4

C. Peng et al.

and ranking particular attribute packages (Verma et al., 2002). In contrast, DCA identifies the relative weights that consumers assign to product or service features and attributes (Verma et al., 2002; Verma & Plaschka, 2003; Verma, 2010). Both conjoint analysis and DCA reflect specific, designed scenarios and individual cases. The Consumer Styles Inventory instead offers a more general, comprehensive typology of consumer decision-making styles, defining them as mental orientations that characterize people’s approaches to making decisions (Sproles & Kendall, 1986). This study relies on this well-established Consumer Styles Inventory to investigate how people make decisions among casual dining restaurants, according to eight basic styles (see Table 1). Although its original function was to educate consumers about their own decision-making characteristics and counsel families on financial management (Sproles & Kendall, 1986), the Consumer Styles Inventory also has drawn attention from researchers and marketers who seek to understand consumer-spending behavior. It has received empirical validation in various studies (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003, 2006; Cowart & Goldsmith, 2007; Durvasula, Lysonski, & Andrews, 1993; Fan & Xiao, 1998; Hafstrom, Chae, & Chung, 1992; Lysonski, Durvasula, & Zotos, 1995; Mitchell & Walsh, 2004; Mokhlis & Salleh, 2009; Siu & Hui, 2001; Siu, Wang, Chang, & Hui, 2001; Wesley, LeHew, & Woodside, 2006). Hafstrom et al. (1992) found that neither price-conscious nor habitual/brand-loyal styles apply to their Korean student sample, but they identify a new style: the “time and energy

TABLE 1 Decision-Making Styles Style Perfectionistic Brand conscious

Novelty-fashion conscious Hedonistic/Recreational Price conscious Impulsive Confused by overchoice Habitual/brand loyal

Definition These consumers search for the very best quality in products and are not satisfied with the “good enough” product. These consumers tend to buy the more expensive, well-known brands and are likely to believe that a higher price means better quality. They also appear to prefer best-selling and advertised brands These consumers are likely to gain excitement and pleasure from seeking out new things. These consumers find shopping pleasant. They shop just for the fun of it. These consumers look for sales prices. They are concerned with getting the best value for their money. These consumers do not plan their shopping. They shop spontaneously. They appear to be unconcerned about how much they spend. These consumers have difficulty making choices from many brands and stores. They experience information overload. These consumers have favorite brands and have formed habits in choosing brands.



5

conserving style.” In contrast, Durvasula et al. (1993) supported the eight original decision-making styles. Lysonski et al. (1995) analyzed the cross-country validity of these eight consumer decision-making styles and determine that they may apply more accurately to more developed countries. Thus, when Fan and Xiao (1998) studied Chinese college students, they proposed several additional styles, beyond the original eight, namely, quality conscious, time conscious, and information utilizing styles. Siu and Hui (2001) examined the shopping behavior of Chinese female consumers and found general, overall support for the decision-making styles, though the reliabilities were low for four styles: price conscious, impulsive, confused by overchoice, and habitual/brandloyal. Siu et al. (2001) included business-major undergraduate students in their study and uncovered low reliabilities for the price conscious and habitual/brand-loyal styles. Among Generation Y female consumers in the United Kingdom, Bakewell and Mitchell (2003) identified five new styles: recreational quality seeking, recreational discount seeking, shopping & fashion uninterested, trend-setting loyal, and time/money conserving styles. Yet Wesley et al. (2006) confirmed the existence of the original consumerdecision making styles among adult mall shoppers and further noted that these styles were closely associated with visitor satisfaction. Finally, Cowart and Goldsmith (2007) investigated the influence of decision styles on online apparel shopping by college students. Their results showed that quality, brand, and fashion consciousness; hedonistic shopping; impulsiveness; and brand loyalty related positively to online apparel purchasing, whereas price sensitivity correlated negatively with it. These empirical studies of the Consumer Styles Inventory tend to investigate consumers’ general shopping decisions. But validations in this context may be inapplicable to specific consumer decisions, such as dining. Because we know relatively little about the decision-making process of restaurant diners, this study offers an initial attempt to profile college students on the basis of the decision-making styles they apply to choose casual dining restaurants.

METHODOLOGY Data Collection A self-administered survey was conducted among undergraduate students from the Hospitality Management Program of a Midwestern U.S. university. To ensure the feasibility of the Consumer Styles Inventory in a casual dining setting, 38 undergraduate students enrolled in a hospitality management class completed a pilot study; the results yielded some minor modifications to the original measurement scale. Next, another 257 undergraduate students enrolled in four hospitality management classes were chosen as participants, with the data collected in class. Participants enrolled in two or more of these

6

C. Peng et al.

classes at the same time were asked to not duplicate questionnaires. They did not receive any credit. The 162 usable questionnaires represented a response rate of 63.0%.


Instrument The pilot study featured the 24-item, short-form measurement scale of consumer decision-making styles (Sproles & Kendall, 1986; Shim, 1996; Shim & Gehrt, 1996), with three items to measure each of the eight styles. All items, adjusted to refer to a casual dining context, used a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Respondents received instructions to respond in accordance with their decision-making process for casual dining restaurants. Thus, they responded to the item, “I have my favorite restaurants that I regularly visit,” rather than the more general item provided by Sproles and Kendall (1986, p. 272), “I have favorite brands I buy over and over.” The results of the pilot study showed moderate reliability and some unclear loadings, so the original measurement scale needed further adjustment. The transfer of the scale from general shopping to casual dining likely left some unsuitable items or inapplicable factors. Therefore, following a broader scope literature review (Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994; Jones, Reynolds, & Arnold, 2006; Kim & Kim, 2004; Nguyen, Nguyen, & Barnett, 2007; Ryu, Han, & Jang, 2010; Sakar, 2011), the revised scale was submitted to a panel of experts, consisting of hospitality management professors and industry professionals. The revised measurement scale appears in Table 2; the items in the final questionnaire were randomly ordered.

Data Analysis The data were analyzed using SPSS 19.0, and an exploratory factor analysis helped validate consumers’ dining decision-making styles. The reliability analysis reflected the Cronbach’s alpha values. Finally, a derived dining decision-making styles inventory served to profile respondents according to their decision-making styles.

RESULTS Validity and Reliability The results of the principal component analysis using Varimax rotation appear in Table 3. Extracting the factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 led to five distinct factors, which matched the factors cited by Sproles and Kendall (1986): Habitual Style, Hedonistic Style, Price-Conscious Style, Confused by Overchoice Style, and Brand-Conscious Style. As Table 3 further


7

TABLE 2 Revised Measurement of Consumer Dining Decision-Making Styles Factors

Items

Perfectionist

PER 1 PER 2 PER 3

My standards and expectations for food are very high. Everything about a restaurant has to be perfect to satisfy me. I usually try to dine at places that have the best food and service.

Price conscious

PRI 1

I go to restaurants that have special offers (e.g., happy hours, everyday specials, etc.) as much as possible. Price is important when selecting a restaurant. I look carefully to find the restaurants for the best value for money.

PRI 2 PRI 3


Brand conscious

BRD 1 BRD 2 BRD 3

Novelty-fashion conscious

FSN 1 FSN 2 FSN 3

Restaurants of well-known national brands are usually my choices. The restaurant must be well-known for me to consider it. The more expensive brands of restaurants are usually my choices. I would try new food and cuisine out without knowing what to expect. I catch up with up-to-date dining trend. Stylish ambience and fashionable decor of a restaurant are very important to me.

Hedonistic/ Recreational

HED 1 HED 2 HED 3

Eating out is fun and pleasant. The time I spend in eating out is truly enjoyable to me. I dine out not because I have to, but because I want to.

Habitual/ Brand-loyal

HAB 1 HAB 2 HAB 3

I have my favorite restaurants that I regularly visit. Once I find a restaurant I like, I stick with it. I usually use the same restaurant as my first choice.

Impulsive

IMP 1 IMP 2 IMP 3

I should plan my dining-out meals more carefully than I do. I am impulsive when dining out. I often make careless decisions of restaurants that I later wish I had not.

Confused by overchoice

CON 1

There are so many restaurants to choose from that I often feel confused. Sometimes it’s hard to choose which restaurants to go to. The more I learn about each restaurant, the harder it seems to choose the best.

CON 2 CON 3

shows, the comparisons between the reliabilities for the current study and those of Sproles and Kendall’s (1986) work indicate that the reliability coefficients for each factor are generally acceptable. However, three factors appear invalid for identifying college students’ decision-making styles for casual dining restaurants: Perfectionist Style, Novelty Conscious Style, and Impulsive Style. In general shopping situations, perfectionist shoppers are those with extremely high standards and expectations about product quality; in casual dining, perfectionists instead might confront more complex considerations, because the quality of a dining-out

8

BRD 1 BRD 2

Brand conscious (adjusted)a .80 .80

.79 .79 .61

.80 .70 .68

.86 .73 .68

.82 .79 .68

Loadings

.51

.63

N/Ab

.48

.71

.54

Sproles and Kendall (1986)

.61

.60

.65

.69

Current study

6.9

9.4

10.3

12.7

11.2

Three-item scale M

8

23

31

76

48

High (12–15)

42

66

61

22

50

Medium (7–11)

Percentage scoring

50

11

8

2

2

Low (3–6)

Note. a Brand-conscious style is measured by two items, while all the other four styles are measured by three items. To make the final scores comparable, the two-item scale mean of Brand-conscious style was multiplied by 3/2. b With only two measuring items, a Pearson’s r is reported instead of Cronbach’s alpha. The correlation coefficient, r = .412, is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

CON 2 CON 3 CON 1

Confused by overchoice

HED 2 HED 1 HED 3

Hedonistic

PRI 2 PRI 3 PRI 1

HAB 2 HAB 1 HAB 3

Habitual

Price conscious

Items

Factors

Cronbach’s alpha

TABLE 3 Validity, Reliability, and Dining Styles Inventory




9

experience is complex by nature. Beyond food quality, factors such as service, atmosphere, nutrition, and location all can affect overall quality. In addition, unlike fast food restaurants, with their standard food production lines, casual dining restaurants may be less consistent in their food quality. As Johns and Pine (2002, p. 130) noted, “attributes of restaurant experience vary between different outlets and dining occasions.” Even within a single casual dining restaurant, the food quality might vary with the visit time or day of the week. For chain restaurants, food quality might differ in different locations with different chefs. Therefore, the complexity of dining experience and the characteristics of casual dining might prevent the use of a perfectionist style to describe diners’ decision-making styles. A similar rationale could explain the lack of validity of the fashionnovelty conscious style. While shopping, especially for apparel, fashionnovelty consciousness represents the desire for fashionable and trendy products, whereas in casual dining, novelty likely signifies cuisine styles, ambience, and the decor of the restaurant. Finally, an impulsive style failed to describe casual dining decisionmaking. In general shopping scenarios, impulsive shoppers shop spontaneously for items that are not on their shopping lists. In casual dining, an impulsive style does not suggest that diners seek restaurants when they are not hungry but rather that when they need food, they might choose restaurants impulsively or without specific criteria in mind. The concept of “window shopping” does not apply to casual dining. The change in the meaning of the concept likely helps explain why the impulsive style does not apply to casual dining.

Dining Decision-Making Styles Inventory for College Students Table 3 also presents summary data regarding the consumer decision-making styles, calculated by adding the scores of the three items for each factor. This summation yielded scores ranging from 3 to 15 for each respondent on each factor, as reflected in the “three-item scale mean” column. The scores indicate three groups defined by their scores (low scores [3–6], medium scores [7–11], and high scores [12–15]; Sproles & Kendall, 1986), which enables the calculation of the percentages of respondents in each group. According to the results in Table 3, respondents scored highest on Hedonistic Style (M = 12.7), followed by Habitual Style (M = 11.2), PriceConscious Style (M = 10.3), Confused by Overchoice Style (M = 9.4), and then Brand-Conscious Style (M = 6.9). That is, of five decision-making styles, a Hedonistic Style represents the most typical casual dining behavior of college students. More than three quarters (76%) of the respondents scored high, whereas only 2% of the respondents scored low, such that the scores were densely distributed in the upper range. Thus, college students exhibit extremely hedonistic characteristics when making dining decisions, and most


10

C. Peng et al.

of them find dining out enjoyable. They dine out because they want to enjoy, rather than simply feed, themselves, and they enjoy this experience. The prevalence of the habitual style implies that respondents also tend to be loyal when choosing a casual dining restaurant and consider their favorite restaurant brand each time they go out to eat. Only 2% of the participants scored low on Habitual/Brand-Loyal Style, whereas 50% scored medium and 48% scored high. The results thus show that college students find a brand they like and keep going back to it when making casual dining decisions; only a marginal amount (2%) of them exhibit little habitual or brand-loyal behavior. Yet the respondents also appear price conscious, such that 31% of them scored high on this scale, 61% scored medium, and 8% scored low. Even as they enjoy themselves with their favorite dining out brands, college students remain price conscious. They care about getting the best value for their money and carefully consider whether they can afford the food and service they desire. On the 3-point item scale for Confused by Overchoice Style, 23% of the respondents scored high, 66% scored medium, and 11% scored low. In this sense, many respondents display at least some confusion in their restaurant decisions. The more they learn about each restaurant, the harder it becomes for them to choose the best place to go to. Finally, respondents scored lowest on the Brand-Conscious Style scale. Only 2% of the respondents scored high on this scale, 57% scored medium, and 41% of them scored low. On the whole then, college students exhibit low brand awareness and are less brand conscious in making casual dining decisions. They are unlikely to choose a restaurant simply because of its brand name or reputation.

DISCUSSION An important aim of this study has been to understand college students’ decision-making styles when they select among casual dining restaurants. Using the well-established decision-making styles developed by Sproles and Kendall (1986) to profile college-age diners, this study identifies five that are pertinent to casual dining choices: Habitual, Hedonistic, Price-Conscious, Confused by Overchoice, and Brand-Conscious Styles. Of these five decision-making styles, hedonistic style is the most widespread, and it likely reflects improved quality of life over the decades. Modern college students in the United States have been raised in a relatively peaceful, food-abundant time compared with previous generations. This background gives them unique notions about food. To most college students, dining out means enjoying oneself rather than simply getting food. This finding should inspire restaurant marketers to create a relaxing, enjoyable



11

ambience and to emphasize the recreational aspect of dining out, if they want to attract more college-age diners. College students are also very habitual and brand loyal, though not very brand conscious, in choosing casual dining restaurants. The difference is important. Brand-loyal diners frequent their favorite brands of restaurants, whether those are well-known national brands or small local favorites. Brand-conscious diners instead attach more importance to the brand name itself; they like the brand because it is well-known or frequently advertised. The college students in this study clearly have their favorite brands of restaurants in mind, depending on their own tastes or dining preferences, but their favorite brands are not necessarily well-known on a national level. For marketers, these findings reinforces once again the importance of retaining loyal customers; in particular, perhaps the greatest mistake a modern marketer can make is underestimating college students’ massive spending potential. To attract loyal customers, a restaurant might enroll college students in loyalty programs, especially if they offer discounts to loyal patrons. Today’s college students are tomorrow’s wage earners, and in the very near future, they will be the primary patrons of casual dining restaurants. Therefore, it is never too early for marketers to target college students. This recommendation aligns with the finding that the students are highly price conscious. They care about the best value for the money in their casual dining experience; many of them likely remain financially dependent on their parents or work part-time to supplement their spending money. With these tight budgets, college students hate to waste their monetary resources on something that is not worth it (Sutton, 2010). They may like to dine out for fun, but they also display a utilitarian orientation; in this sense, college students are value seekers. Thus, together with its loyalty program, a restaurant might advertise special offers, discounts, and happy hours explicitly for these young patrons. Furthermore, it is important for restaurant marketers to consider that college students are highly technologically savvy and heavy users of social media websites (Nusair, Bilgihan, Okumus, 2013). Social media is changing the ways college students view their buying habits as they receive and send positive and negative messages from/to millions of people a day about the restaurants they visit, how they were treated, how the food was, and if they would return again. These messages are likely to impact their restaurant decisions and will only continue to be heavily relied upon in the future. Therefore, social media marketing is a vital concept for casual dining restaurant marketers. Finally, some college students find it hard to choose the best option when making decisions among casual dining restaurants. Two explanations seem likely. First, the vast amounts of information available everyday mean that people, and perhaps especially college students, virtually never escape from information overload. Second, the variety of restaurants from which

12

C. Peng et al.

to choose truly has increased greatly in recent years. Restaurants should keep in mind that information overload is not an effective way to attract or impress diners. The use of a clear and evident facade, unique themes, and impressive commercials and catchphrases are better ways to attract the eyeballs of college students.


LIMITATIONS AND RESEARCH DIRECTIONS This study represents an initial attempt to use the Consumer Styles Inventory to study consumer decision-making styles in the context of casual dining restaurants. As is true for many empirical studies, the generalizability of these results is limited. The sample represents a largely homogeneous group of students, so additional work should seek to improve the diversity of the participants and perhaps make pertinent comparisons across demographic groups to get a better understanding of how these different groups are similar and different in their dining decisions. Considering the exploratory nature of this study though, it contributes to at least the recognition of the importance of studying college-age consumers further. A few questions also remain to be answered. First, the measurement scale for the Consumer Style Inventory demands further refinement. Casual dining is very different from general shopping, and further modifications to the original measurement scale likely are needed. By further examining restaurant selection criteria—as well as other unique contexts—new dimensions of decision-making styles could be added to the inventory. Second, consumers’ dining decision-making styles could be measured together with other dependent variables. For example, researchers might examine the influence of decision-making styles on restaurant brand loyalty, consumer information-seeking behavior online, or consumer attitudes toward organic food served in restaurants. Third, some evidence suggests the applicability of consumer decision-makings styles to other areas of the hospitality industry. For example, Petrick, Li, and Park (2007) identified two groups of cruisers, differentiated by their decision-making process: those who are brand loyal and those who go through complex decision-making. Additional research should seek to apply the Consumer Styles Inventory to various other industries as well.

REFERENCES Auty, S. (1992). Consumer choice and segmentation in the restaurant industry. The Service Industries Journal, 12(3), 324–339. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. The Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.



13

Bakewell, C., & Mitchell, V. W. (2003). Generation Y female consumer decisionmaking styles. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(2), 95–106. Bakewell, C., & Mitchell, V. W. (2006). Male versus female consumer decision making styles. Journal of Business Research, 59(12), 1297–1300. Clark, M. A., & Wood, R. C. (1998). Consumer loyalty in the restaurant industry—A preliminary exploration of the issues. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(4), 139–144. Cowart, K. O., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2007). The influence of consumer decisionmaking styles on online apparel consumption by college students. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(6), 639–647. Cullen, F. (2004). Factors influencing restaurant selection in Dublin. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 7(2), 53–85. Durvasula, S., Lysonski, S., & Andrews, J. C. (1993). Cross-cultural generalizability of a scale for profiling consumers’ decision-making styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 27(1), 55–65. Fan, J. X., & Xiao, J. J. (1998). Consumer decision-making styles of young-adult Chinese. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(2), 275–294. Fernandez, P. R. (2009). Impact of branding on Gen Y’s choice of clothing. The Journal of the South East Asia Research Center, 1(1), 79–95. Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(2), 103–123. Hafstrom, J. L., Chae, J. S., & Chung, Y. S. (1992). Consumer decision-making styles: Comparison between United States and Korean young consumers. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 26(1), 146–158. Johns, N., & Pine, R. (2002). Consumer behaviour in the food service industry: A review. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21(2), 119–134. Jones, M. A., Reynolds, K. E., & Arnold, M. J. (2006). Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value: Investigating differential effects on retail outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 59(9), 974–981. Kim, W. G., & Kim, H. B. (2004). Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity. Investigating the relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 115–131. Lachance, M. J., & Choquette-Bernier, N. (2004). College students’ consumer competence: A qualitative exploration. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28(5), 433–442. Lalwani, A. K. (2002). Interpersonal orientation of spouses and household purchase decisions: The case of restaurants. The Service Industries Journal, 22(1), 184–200. Lee, C. (2010). Analysis of social dine-out preferences of the university members according to personal characteristics: A case study of the university in the southwestern region in the U.S. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality & Culinary Arts, 2(1), 81–97. Lockyer, S. E. (2012, February 1). NRA: Foodservice sales to hit record $632 billion. Retrieved from http://nrn.com/article/nra-foodservice-sales-hit-record-632billion?page=0,0 Lysonski, S., Durvasula, S., & Zotos, Y. (1996). Consumer decision-making styles: A multi-country investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 30(12), 10–21.


14

C. Peng et al.

Market Force. (2011, October 11). Market Force study reveals Cheesecake Factory is favorite casual-dining restaurant for second year in a row. Retrieved from http://www.marketforce.com/2011/10/market-force-study-reveals-cheesecakefactory-is-favorite-casual-dining-restaurant-for-second-year-in-a-row/ Maze, J. (2011, March 11). Restaurants and the vanishing middle. Retrieved from http://www.restfinance.com/content/story.php?article=00591 Mitchell, V. W., & Walsh, G. (2004). Gender differences in German consumer decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(4), 331–346. Mohammad, T., Barker, S., & Kandampully, J. (2005). Multicultural student perceptions of fast food restaurant brands: An Australian study. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 12(4), 93–117. Mokhlis, S., & Salleh, H. S. (2009). Consumer decision-making styles in Malaysia: An exploratory study of gender differences. European Journal of Social Sciences, 10(4), 574–584. Nguyen, T. T. M., Nguyen, T. D., & Barrett, N. J. (2007). Hedonic shopping motivations, supermarket attributes, and shopper loyalty in transitional markets: Evidence from Vietnam. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 19(3), 227–239. Nusair, K. K., Bilgihan, A., & Okumus, F. (2013). The role of online social network travel websites in creating social interaction for Gen Y travelers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(5), 458–472. doi:10.1002/jtr.1889 Ozdipciner, N, S., Li, X., & Uysal, M. (2010). An examination of purchase decisionmaking criteria: A case of Turkey as a destination. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19(5), 514–527. Pedraja, M., & Yagüe, J. (2001). What information do consumers use when choosing a restaurant? [Research in brief]. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(6), 316–318. Petrick, J. F., Li, X., & Park, S. Y. (2007). Cruise passengers’ decision-making processes. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23(1), 1–14. Riesco, J. (2008, April 25). Why clients go to your restaurant. Biznik. Retrieved from http://biznik.com/articles/why-clients-go-to-your-restaurant Ryu, K., Han, H., & Jang, S. (2010). Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3), 416–432. Sakar, A. (2011). Impact of utilitarian and hedonic shopping values on individual’s perceived benefits and risks in online shopping. International Management Review, 7(1), 58–65. Shim, S. (1996). Adolescent consumer decision-making styles: The consumer socialization perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 13(6), 547–569. Shim, S., & Gehrt, K. C. (1996). Hispanic and Native American adolescents: An exploratory study of their approach to shopping. Journal of Retailing, 72(3), 307–324. Siu, N. Y. M., & Hui, A. S. Y. (2001). Consumer decision-making styles in China: A cross-cultural validation. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 258–262.



15

Siu, N. Y. M., Wang, C. C. L., Chang, L. M. K., & Hui, A. S. Y. (2001). Adapting consumer style inventory to Chinese consumers: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 13(2), 29–47. Sproles, G. B., & Kendall, E. L. (1986). A methodology for profiling consumers’ decision-making styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20(2), 267–279. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib19/eib19.pdf Stewart, H., Blisard, N., & Jolliffe, D. (2006, October). Let’s eat out. Americans weigh taste, convenience, and nutrition. USDA Economic Information Bulletin Number 19. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/860870/eib19.pdf Studentawards Inc. (2010). Students as consumers: A syndicated study. Retrieved from http://www.studentawardsinc.com/the-latest/news/∼/media/ StudentAwardsInc/Documents/SAC%20Feb%202010/SAC-Wallet-Feb-2010.ashx Sutton, K. (2010, June 18). How to reach those crazy college kids. iMediaConnection. Retrieved from http://www.imediaconnection.com/printpage/printpage. aspx?id=27009 Tai, S. H. C. (2005). Shopping styles of working Chinese females. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(3), 191–203. Thomas, L., & Mills, J. (2006). Consumer knowledge and expectations of restaurant menus and their governing legislation: A qualitative assessment. Journal of Foodservice, 17, 6–22. Verma, R. (2010). Customer choice modeling in hospitality services: A review of past research and discussion of some new applications. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51(4), 470–478. Verma, R., & Plaschka, G. (2003). The art and science of customer-choice modeling. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(6), 156–165. Verma, R., Plaschka, G., & Louviere, J. J. (2002). Understanding customer choices: A key to successful management of hospitality services. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43(6), 15–24. Wesley, S., LeHew, M., & Woodside, A. G. (2006). Consumer decision-making styles and mall shopping behavior: Building theory using exploratory data analysis and the comparative method. Journal of Business Research, 59(5), 535–548. Young, J. A., Clark, P. W., & McIntyre, F. S. (2007). An exploratory comparison of the casual dining experience: Chain versus independent restaurants. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 10(3), 87–105. Zopiatis, A., & Pribic, J. (2007). College students’ dining expectations in Cyprus. British Food Journal, 109(10), 765–776.