Journal of Foodservice Business Research

ISSN: 1537-8020 (Print) 1537-8039 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wfbr20

Influence of price and brand image on restaurant

customers’ restaurant selection attribute

Sungpo Yi, Jinlin Zhao & Hyun-Woo (DAVID) Joung

To cite this article: Sungpo Yi, Jinlin Zhao & Hyun-Woo (DAVID) Joung (2018) Influence of
price and brand image on restaurant customers’ restaurant selection attribute, Journal of
Foodservice Business Research, 21:2, 200-217, DOI: 10.1080/15378020.2017.1368808

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2017.1368808

Published online: 25 Sep 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2323

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 22 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wfbr20
JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH
2018, VOL. 21, NO. 2, 200–217
https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2017.1368808

Influence of price and brand image on restaurant customers’

restaurant selection attribute
Sungpo Yia, Jinlin Zhaob, and Hyun-Woo (DAVID) Joungc
a
Department of Hospitality and Retail Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA; bChaplin
School of Hospitality & Tourism Management, Florida International University, North Miami, Florida, USA;
c
Department of Nutrition and Hospitality Management, The University of Mississippi, Oxford, Massachusetts, USA.

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The study examines the influence of price and brand image on three Restaurant quality; price;
major restaurant quality attributes (ambiance, food quality, and service brand image; customer
quality). A total number of 363 cases from the survey were used to assess preference
the proposed model for structural equation modeling. The results of this
study indicated that brand image significantly affected customers’ restau-
rant attribute preference. Living status (residents vs. tourists) partially
affected customers’ restaurant attribute preference. This study provides
valuable information about restaurant customers’ preferences. The results
also demonstrate how restaurant operators attract new customers and
retain existing customers by improving their ambiance, food, and service
quality.

Introduction
The restaurant business is one of the most competitive businesses in industry. Thirty
percent of all restaurants close or change ownership within a year and 60% of them within
3 years (White, 2011). Therefore, knowing the major characteristics of restaurants’ target
markets and deciding which competitive factors could attract new customers and retain
existing customers are critical for managing a successful restaurant. Moreover, restaurant
managers or operators should know what makes their restaurant unique and why customers
choose a certain restaurant for their dining experiences. Given the intangible characteristics
of restaurant products, customers heavily rely on tangible and realistic clues to judge
products before they purchase them (Kotler, Bowen, Makens, Xie, & Liang, 1996).
In the hospitality industry, price and brand image are considered the major indicators that
affect consumers’ behavior. Traditionally, price plays an important role in providing an
objective clue about the quality of products and services. A previous study found that a
customer’s purchasing behavior is influenced by price information (Shoemaker, Mary, &
Wade, 2005). In marketing research, price is considered an important factor that defines
customer expectations and therefore their evaluation of their purchase. Oh (2000) asserted
that price is a critical antecedent in the formation of a customer’s evaluation of a product’s
quality during their dining experience. Chiang and Jang (2006) also found that product price
positively affects customer perceptions of quality and value. That is, if customers consider the
offered price to be reasonable, they tend to be more satisfied with their dining experience.

CONTACT Sungpo Yi [email protected] Department of Hospitality and Retail Management, Texas Tech University 1301
Akron Ave, Lubbock, TX 79409.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 201

Monroe and Krishnan (1985) found that price not only affects customer perceptions of quality
and value but also their willingness to purchase products and their revisiting intentions.
The perception of brand (i.e., brand image) has also been an important concept in
restaurant-related research because brand image affects customers’ subjective perceptions,
which influence purchase intention, satisfaction, and loyalty (Jin, Lee, & Huffman, 2012).
Specifically, a positive brand image plays a critical role in stimulating positive emotions in
customers concerning the restaurant, which in turn lead to customer satisfaction and loyalty
(Lee, Back, & Kim, 2009). A positively perceived brand directly affects a customer’s
decision-making more than any other consumer value (e.g., service quality) in full-service
restaurant settings (Hwang & Ok, 2013). Tepeci (1999) also suggested that restaurant
customer loyalty is proportional to restaurant brand preference. In this regard, building a
positive brand image is a critical marketing strategy in today’s marketplace for retaining
existing customers and attracting new ones.
Therefore, these two factors (price and brand image) have been considered major
influences on customers in their evaluation of the overall quality of a restaurant.
Moreover, the careful consideration of these two factors is very important for being
successful in the market because they include both intangible and tangible attributes of
a restaurant’s products and service.
Nowadays, with customers’ increased desire to have an exceptional dining experience,
the ambiance of a restaurant has become another significant influential factor in restaurant
customer experiences (Hyun, 2010; Sulek & Hensley, 2004). Moreover, restaurant ambiance
often plays an important role in enhancing the effect of the quality of the food and service
(Ha & Jang, 2010; Hyun, 2010; Ryu & Han, 2010).
In hospitality literature, food quality is a fundamental factor of restaurant customers having a
satisfactory dining experience (Namkung & Jang, 2008; Sulek & Hensley, 2004). Recent
literature on restaurant food includes taste, portion size, menu variety, healthy options, food
temperature, and food presentation as attributes of food quality (Ha & Jang, 2010; Hyun, 2010;
Namkung & Jang, 2008).
Like food quality, service quality plays an important role in restaurant customer
satisfaction. Service quality is a very subjective and emotional factor of overall restaurant
quality. Customers consider that the service staff makes the service personal because the
interpersonal skill of service staffs directly correlate with perception of how good the
service is (Sulek & Hensley, 2004). For example, impersonal service is very unpleasant
while a warm attitude from service staff makes customers feel very welcome, as well as
making them want to reward the staff for their hospitality. Moreover, Hyun (2010) found
that service quality affects not only customer satisfaction but also customer trust, followed
by customer loyalty (i.e., revisit intentions, speaking positively about the restaurant, and
intent to recommend it to others).
The current study investigates how brand image and price affect these three major
restaurant selection attributes (ambiance, food quality, and service quality). More specifi-
cally, the objectives of the study are 1) to test the impact of brand image on the restaurant
selection attributes and 2) to examine the impact of perceived price on the restaurant
selection attributes. Furthermore, the current study explores how a respondent’s living
status (i.e., local resident or tourist) influences their restaurant selection attribute
preferences.
202 S. YI ET AL.

Literature review
Restaurant selection attributes
Ambiance
In the service literature, Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) showed that facilities and
equipment are critical components of ambiance. However, several researchers later pointed
out that factors such as spatial layout, decoration, and having relaxed furnishings also
contribute to higher levels of service quality, and these came to be considered suitable
indicators for evaluating ambiance (Nguyen & Leblanc, 2002; Raajpoot, 2002).
Kotler (1973) divided the aspects of atmosphere (ambiance) into three categories: 1)
attention-creating mediums, 2) message-creating mediums, and 3) effect-creating mediums.
Specifically, an attention-creating medium plays an important motivating role in differentiating
the restaurant from its competitors. A message-creating medium provides tangible information
through which customers can infer the level of quality of the restaurant. That is, the restaurant
can communicate with its customers through the environment, which greatly influences
customers’ dining experiences (Bitner, 1992). These results were also supported by Hartline
and Jones (1996), who showed that ambient factors become more important in consumer
quality expectations when not enough information is available in hotel industry. Lastly, an
effect-creating medium stimulates customers’ emotional reactions. For example, a restaurant’s
ambient factors, such as interior design, music, lighting, and aroma, powerfully influence
customers’ emotions and therefore the formation of their preferences (Spangenberg, Crowley,
& Henderson, 1996).
Wall and Berry (2007) maintained that the physical environment is positively related to
customer perceptions of quality because it is part of the dining experience. Namasivayam
and Mattila (2007) also found that the physical environment of a restaurant plays an
important role in stimulating potential customers’ pre-consumption desires by influencing
the customers’ feelings. They found that restaurant ambiance also has a positive influence on
perceptions of food quality. Moreover, restaurant ambiance encourages customers toward
positive purchasing decisions because comfortable interior, pleasant aroma, and nice uten-
sils enable customers to have more favorable perceptions. Han and Ryu (2009) found that a
relaxed interior affects the dining satisfaction of customers and their repeat-patronage
intentions. Every aspect of ambiance leads to customers evaluating their experiences more
positively. Therefore, it is expected that ambiance will be a considerable factor in customer
motivation and service expectations.

Food quality
Various food quality attributes, such as taste, presentation, and temperature have been
investigated by researchers (Hyun, 2010; Namkung & Jang, 2008; Raajpoot, 2002; Ryu &
Han, 2010; Sulek & Hensley, 2004). The results indicate that food quality is one of the main
factors in customers choosing to visit a restaurant. Out of the various food quality attributes, it
is not surprising that the taste of the food is one of the most important criteria in customer
restaurant selection because having tasty food provides customers with both a positive sensory
experience and emotional satisfaction during their dining experience.
Moreover, with people’s increased attention toward healthy lifestyles, food quality has
come to include not only food taste but also nutrition and food safety issues (Choi & Zhao,
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 203

2014; Knight, Worosz, & Todd, 2007) because nutritional and safe food is directly connected
with customers’ health and safety concerns. Eckel et al. (2009) investigated customers’
awareness of nutritional issues and found that more restaurant customers changed their
favorite restaurant due to concerns over the healthiness of the menu in 2007 compared to
2006. Choi and Zhao (2010) reported that 62% of their respondents were concerned about
health issues when eating out. They also indicated that 60% of their research participants
considered nutritional value important when selecting a restaurant.
Food safety issues have affected restaurant customers’ behavior as well. Thirty-nine percent of
respondents in the study of Henson et al. (2006) had been ill after having restaurant food and
56% of the respondents had stopped eating certain restaurants’ food because of food safety
concerns. Green, Selman, Scallan, Jones, and Marcus (2005) also supported this result, reporting
that 25% of their respondents believed that restaurant food had caused them an illness.
Regarding the influence of hygiene factors on customer restaurant selections, Aksoydan
(2007) indicated that food cleanliness is the most important factor of safe food, and it
significantly affects customers’ restaurant selections. Fatimah, Boo, Sambasivan, and Salleh
(2011) also suggested that food sanitation is ranked more important by customers than both
price and nutritional value. Moreover, food safety issues remain far more important than any
other food quality factors; bad reports or experiences last for a long time in restaurant customers’
memories. For example, the 1993 Jack in the Box E.coli outbreak remains a major issue of food
safety in the history of the restaurant industry. Again, in 2015, about 500 customers were sick
with E. coli and Norovirus after they visited Chipotle, which brought the restaurant down by
14.6% in total sales while profits plunged 44% (Storm, 2016). This reveals how food safety issues
affect customers’ restaurant selections and preferences.
Moreover, when customers evaluate food quality, they judge not only the taste but also the
presentation of food (Sulek & Hensley, 2004). Presentation describes the process of enhancing
food’s aesthetic appeal by arranging, modifying, or decorating it. Kivela, Inbakaran, and Reece
(1999) asserted that food presentation is a key attribute in improving customers’ dining
satisfaction. Presentation is not as critical as food taste or flavor in customers’ restaurant
selection criteria, but it can still generate either favorable or unfavorable customer preferences
(Raajpoot, 2002).
On the basis of these empirical results, many restaurant evaluators and researchers use
food quality as a key criterion of total restaurant quality and customer satisfaction because
the aforementioned food quality attributes can be used to determine the trustworthiness of
a restaurant (Knight et al., 2007). Therefore, it is necessary to examine the important
components of food quality as they pertain to customer restaurant selection.

Service quality
Service quality is as important as food quality and it plays a critical role in customers’
patronization and positive perceptions of a restaurant and their dining experience there
(Chow, Lau, Lo, Sha, & Yun, 2007; Namkung & Jang, 2008). In service quality research,
Zeithaml (1988) defined service quality as customers’ subjective quality judgments based on a
comparison between what they expected and what they received. Nikolich and Sparks (1995)
found that the aspects of service quality are positively related to customer expectations and the
performance of service providers. Wall and Berry (2007) divided the factors of service quality
into two major groups: human and mechanical effects. They defined the human factors as
professionalism, kindness, concern, efficiency, and enthusiasm from service providers. These
204 S. YI ET AL.

play an important role in determining restaurant quality. Their study found that the employ-
ees’ effort and professional performance are the most critical factors of service. These results
imply that the quality of employees’ service positively influences customer perceptions of
restaurant quality and their intentions to revisit the restaurant (Berry & Bendapudi, 2003).
Recently, Ha and Jang (2010) studied the importance of service quality and food quality
according to the perceptions of ethnic restaurant customers. They found that service quality
has a more significant influence on customer perceptions and loyalty than food quality.
Additionally, Ryu and Han (2010) found that service quality is one of three important
components in customers’ restaurant selection criteria in fast, casual restaurant settings.
Moreover, in full-service restaurant settings, host politeness and server attentiveness are the
top two indicators of customer satisfaction and repeat patronage (Sulek & Hensley, 2004).
Therefore, we can conclude that service quality affects not only customers’ evaluation of the
total experience but also their post-purchase behavior such as loyalty and revisit intentions.

Hypotheses development
Price and restaurant selection attributes
Monroe (1979) defined price as the degree to which something was worth the money paid
for it. Restaurant service quality cannot be evaluated by a customer before he or she has
had an experience in the restaurant, and this uncertainty makes customers hesitant in
choosing a dining option. However, price can provide an important objective clue about
the level of service. With certain price information, a customer can be influenced to
change his or her purchasing behavior (Shoemaker et al., 2005). Therefore, price is a key
indicator in understanding customer behavior.
Moreover, price has a meaningful effect on customers’ value expectations of a restaurant
(Ryu, 2005; Varki & Colgate, 2001). First, price plays a significant role in shaping customer
expectation of quality. That is, the higher the prices observed by the customer, the higher the
quality of products or service the customer expects, because higher prices add value to the
perceived quality of the product (Chen, Gupta, & Rom, 1994). In other words, although price
does not improve the objective quality of the product, it adds subjective value in terms of
customers’ expectations. Han and Ryu (2009) indicated that the expected quality of a restau-
rant is directly proportional to the perceived prices. Second, price plays a moderating role in
customer satisfaction levels and post-purchase preferences for selecting a restaurant (Ryu &
Han, 2010). That is, price moderates the relationship between objective product quality and
customer quality expectations (Taylor & Bearden, 2003). According to Ryu and Han (2010),
food quality is the most important antecedent of customers’ restaurant selection preferences,
followed by ambiance and service quality. These results indicate that price influences not only
customers’ restaurant attribute preferences but also customer priorities based on price
perception. That is, as the price increases, customers interpret this as an improvement in
product quality. The higher the price, the higher the perceived quality and customer expecta-
tions of value are likely to be. (Figure 1).

H1a: Price has a significant influence on customers’ ambiance preference.

H1b: Price has a significant influence on customers’ food quality preference.
H1c: Price has a significant influence on customers’ service quality preference.
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 205

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Brand image and restaurant selection attributes

According to Keller (1993), brand image not only helps with product identification in general
but also helps customers differentiate between products from different brands. That is, brand
image plays an important antecedent role in terms of customer perceptions of the quality of
products, suggesting product value and thus influencing customer purchasing intentions.
Moreover, well-established branding positively affects customers’ preferences and usage, trust,
and loyalty (Siguaw, Mattila, & Austin, 1999). Low and Lamb (2000) asserted that a strong
brand inspires trust in customers and leads to a positive perception of a product. Gundlach
and Murphy (1993, p. 41) defined trust as “the most universally accepted variable as a basis of
any human interaction or exchange.” Trust plays a critical role for customers in establishing
their “brand image” of a product (Stewart, 2003). Dobni and Zinkhan (1990) defined brand
image as customer’s emotional attitudes regarding a specific brand. The level of trust was
proportionate to the level of the brand image (Lau & Lee, 1999). Therefore, brand image has a
direct effect on customers’ perception of value, their trust, and even their immediate purchas-
ing intentions.
In general, with limited experience or knowledge, customers rely heavily on brand image in
making purchasing decisions (Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal, 1991). Brand image provides a
product identity to customers. For example, Vranesevic and Stancec (2003) studied the extent
to which customers perceived a brand positively or negatively and how this brand image
affected their evaluation of a product’s quality. The results of the study indicated that when the
brand of a certain product was visible, 66.7% of customers preferred it; but, in a blind test,
customer preference fell to 40%. In the same study, more than 78% of those polled indicated
that branded products have better quality. This means that brand image is a key factor in
customers’ purchasing decisions and when selecting their favorite restaurant.
Research has been conducted in different ways concerning the impact of brand on
customer perceptions. For example, brand loyalty was found to have a significant impact on
206 S. YI ET AL.

customers’ product preferences and purchasing intentions (Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Taylor,
Celuch, & Goodwin, 2004). A well-established brand image was found to be the major factor
in customers’ brand loyalty (Bendixen, Bukasa, & Abratt, 2004; Walley, Custance, Taylor,
Lindgreen, & Hingley, 2007). Brand familiarity not only indicates less risk in selecting a
product (Hutton, 1997) but also evokes preference (Persson, 2010). However, little empirical
research has been conducted concerning how brand image affects customer preferences
concerning restaurant attributes (food quality, service quality, and ambiance). On the basis
of empirical results provided, the current study proposes that brand image affects customers’
restaurant attribute preferences when selecting their favorite restaurants. (Figure 1).

H2a: Brand image has a significant influence on customers’ ambiance preference.

H2b: Brand image has a significant influence on customers’ food quality preference.

H2c: Brand image has a significant influence on customers’ service quality preference.

Difference between residents and tourists

Each restaurant customer has a different preference and motivation for his or her dining
experience. In particular, tourists who are not familiar with their travel destination have
different preferences from people in their home setting due to the unfamiliar environment
(Mak, Lumbers, Eves, & Chang, 2012). Tourists often focus on trying new, different, and
unique foods in their travel destination. Tourists’ restaurant preferences are closely related to
their perceptions of the place they are visiting (Tikkanen, 2007). In summary, tourists’
preferences in restaurants are different from those of local restaurant customers (Quan &
Wang, 2004).
The Oxford Dictionaries defines gastronomy as “the practice or art of choosing, cooking, and
eating good food.” Gastronomic tourism involves visiting travel destinations for the sake of food
and beverages (Gheorghe, Tudorache, & Nistoreanu, 2014). This tourism is not just about the
food and beverages, however, but also about aesthetic, ethnological, and gastronomical satisfac-
tion (Meler & Cerovic, 2003). Almost half of tourists think that dining options are important
factors in choosing a travel destination (Gyimothy, Rassing, & Wanhill, 2000). Restaurant
ambiance is an important factor for tourists in selecting a restaurant, along with food quality
and service quality (Sparks, Wildman, & Bowen, 2001). These different preferences mean that
dining satisfaction looks different between tourists and local customers. Therefore, we expect
restaurant quality attributes to be differently perceived by local residents and tourists in this
study. (Figure 1).

H3a: Respondents’ living status (resident or tourist) has a significant influence on their
ambiance preference.

H3b: Respondents’ living status (resident or tourist) has a significant influence on their food
quality preference.

H3c: Respondents’ living status (resident or tourist) has a significant influence on their
service quality preference.
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 207

Methodology
Questionnaire development
A self-administered questionnaire was used for data collection. The questionnaire for
this study was developed based on an extensive review of previous restaurant quality
and management studies and includes questions about the respondents’ perceptions of
price and restaurant brand image, attributes relevant to restaurant selection (ambiance,
food quality, and service quality), and demographic information. Restaurant ambiance
was measured with four items: interior, equipment, comfort, and management system
(Han & Ryu, 2009; Hyun, 2010; Sulek & Hensley, 2004). Food quality was measured
with three items: taste, nutrition, and sanitation (Choi & Zhao, 2014; Harrington,
Ottenbacher, & Way, 2013; Hyun, 2010). Service quality was measured with four items:
speed and service efficiency, kindness and concern, communication skills, and profes-
sional service (Abdelhamied, 2011; Harrington et al., 2013; Hyun, 2010; Meng &
Elliott, 2008). Price was measured with a single item adopted from Han and Ryu
(2009). Brand image perception was measured with a single item adopted from
Vranesevic and Stancec (2003). The survey asked participants if their restaurant service
quality expectations were proportional to the suggested menu prices using a 5-point
Likert Scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). For example, “Do
you agree that the higher the price, the higher your expectation for the quality of
service the restaurant will provide?” The survey also asked participants to indicate
demographic information such as age, gender, ethnicity, income level, and education
level. Lastly, before the questionnaire was finalized, a professor of hospitality manage-
ment and two restaurant managers reviewed the questionnaire to ensure content
validity.

Samples and data collection

Prior to the data collection, a pilot study was administered for class credits to 120 students in a
university classroom. The aim was to determine whether the respondents clearly understood
the measurement items, thus ensuring measurement reliability and validity. Modifications
were made based on comments made about the pilot study.
The target population of this study was restaurant customers (i.e., both residents and
tourists) because this study investigated the difference between residents and tourists. The
self-administrated questionnaires were distributed during the day on weekdays and week-
ends near the North and South Beach areas of the city of Miami. Respondents were
selected who had visited a fine-dining restaurant within the previous month. The reason
for choosing fine-dining restaurants is that they provide a variety of quality food and are
decorated with sophisticated interiors, which fast or quick service restaurants do not have
(Bhuyan, 2011). The average guest check totaled at least $30 per person. The survey was
conducted in person by five field researchers over a 1-month period. A total number of
370 questionnaires were distributed to restaurant customers and 363 usable questionnaires
were completed. No incentive was provided. Participants were informed that their parti-
cipation was voluntary and that the results would be kept anonymous.
208 S. YI ET AL.

Data analysis
SPSS 22 for Windows and AMOS 22 were utilized in analyzing the data, which followed the
two-step procedure suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). First, confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was applied to verify whether the measurement constructs met reliability,
validity, and unidimensional requirements, as the three major restaurant factors had multiple
items. After CFA, structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to assess the model fit
of the proposed model and to test the proposed interrelationships between price, brand image,
food quality, service quality, and restaurant ambiance.

Results
Data screening and assumption testing
Prior to the analysis, a data screening process was conducted to see if there were any violations of
the assumption. First, Levene’s test was implemented to check for homogeneity. With regard to
the SPSS exam percentages, the ambiance variances are equal for residents and tourists, F (1,
353) = 1.61, p = .206. The results are also equal for food quality variances, F (1, 353) = 2.175,
p = .100, but for service quality scores the variances are significantly different between the two
groups, F (1, 353), p < .05. All the variable inflationary factor (VIF) values of the independent
variables in the model are less than 3; therefore, no significant multicollinearity problem exists
(range from 1.376 to 2.157). With the use of a p < .001 criterion for Mahalanobis distance, no
serious multivariate outliers were detected.

Sample profile
Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, are reported. Table 1 presents the
demographic characteristics of the respondents. Out of the 363 respondents, 49.3% were female,
compared to 51.1% in Florida’s population (suburbanstats.org, 2017). Majority of the respon-
dents were between 20 and 39 years old, which is younger than average for Florida. Specifically,
45.7% of the respondents were between 20 and 29 years old, and 22.9% of the respondents were
between 30 and 39 years old. In the wider Florida population in 2015, only about 13% of people
were between 20 and 29 years old and about 17% were between 30 and 39 years old (sub-
urbanstate.org, 2017). In contrast, only 8.6% of respondents were older than 49 years comparing
about 37% in State of Florida (suburbanstats.org, 2017). This result could be explained by the
fact that the survey area was around the North and South Miami Beaches, which are the most
crowded tourist areas in South Florida assuming that younger people visit crowded tourist areas
more often than older people. In terms of ethnicity, the majority (47.4%) of the participants were
White/Caucasian, followed by Hispanic (28.4%) comparing about 75% of White/Caucasian and
22% of Hispanic population of the general Florida population (suburbanstats.org, 2017). The
majority of respondents fell into income brackets between $40,000 and $59,999. The median
income in Florida was $47,507 (U.S Census, 2016). Regarding education levels, our participants
were more educated than the Florida average. For example, 52.9% of the survey respondents had
a bachelor’s degree or higher, but only 27.3% of Floridians have a bachelor’s degree or higher
(United State Census, 2016). The majority of the respondents (69.1%) were single. In terms of
residents, 53.4% of the respondents were residents while 46.6% were tourists.
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 209

Table 1. Profile of the respondents (N = 363).

Characteristics N %
Gender
Male 184 50.7
Female 179 49.3
Age
Less than 20 30 8.3
20–29 166 45.7
30–39 83 22.9
40–49 51 14
50–59 17 4.7
More than 60 14 3.9
Race
Black/African-American 19 5.2
White/Caucasian 172 47.4
Asian 37 10.2
Hispanic 103 28.4
Other 31 8.5
Education
High school degree 38 10.5
Some college/associate degree 131 36.1
Bachelor’s degree 113 31.1
Master’s degree 69 19
Doctorate degree 10 2.8
Household income level
Less than $20,000 80 22
$40,000 - $49,999 87 24
$50,000 - $59,999 101 27.8
$60,000 - $79,999 34 9.4
More than $80,000 57 15.7
Marital status
Married 112 30.9
Single 251 69.1
Living status
Residents 194 53.4
Tourists 169 46.6

Results of confirmatory factor analysis

We implemented CFA to assess the overall fit of the measurement model. All the goodness-of-fit
indices in this study suggest that the measurement model fits the data (χ2 = 84.809, χ2/df = 2.650,
p < .001, NFI = .946, CFI = .966, TLI = .952, RMSEA = .068, and SRMR = .039).
Both Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability were above 0.7, indicating adequate internal
consistency (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). Table 2 shows standardized factor
loading. The standardized path loading value of each item was above .597. All factor loadings
were significant at p < .001. Table 3 demonstrates that the average variance extracted was greater
than 0.5, which met the convergent validity of the construct. Discriminant validity is tested by
comparing the squared multiple correlation with the latent constructs and the average variance
extracted (AVE). All the AVEs were greater than the squared multiple correlation. Therefore,
discriminant validity was met (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Results of structural equation modeling

Hypothesis testing
The structural model was examined to test the hypothesized relationships. Concerning overall
fit, the fit indices indicated that the model was acceptable. The Chi-square statistic was 120.257
210 S. YI ET AL.

Table 2. Result of CFA.

Item Standardized Factor Loading Cronbach’s α
Ambiance .804
Tableware and equipment .759
Comfort .798
Operational system .733
Food quality .801
Taste .820
Nutrition .664
Sanitation .819
Service quality .823
Service efficient .597
Kindness .797
Communication .785
Professionalism .768
Note. All factor loadings are significant at p < .001; (χ2 = 84.809, χ2/df = 2.65
NFI = .946, CFI = .966, TLI = .952, RMSEA = .068, SRMR = .039

Table 3. Convergent and discriminant validity.

Ambiance Food Quality Service Quality Composite Reliability
a c
Ambiance .583 .397 .678 .816
b
Food quality .157 .595 .605 .817
Service quality .459 .366 .549 .806
Note. aaverage variance extracted (values on the diagonal); bsquared multiple correlation among latent construct are below
the diagonal; ccorrelations are above the diagonal.

with 56 degrees of freedom (p < .001, χ2/df = 2.147). Multiple indicators showed that the model
had a good enough fit to be used for further interpretation (NFI = .928, CFI = .960, TLI = .944,
RMSEA = .056, and SRMR = .036).
Table 4 and Figure 2 show the results of the hypotheses and provide parameter estimates
and associated t-values. Hypotheses H1, H2, and H3 proposed structural relationships
between ambiance, food quality, and service quality based on price, brand image, and
customer living status (resident or tourist). The study found that perceived price has no
significant impact on ambiance (H1a, β = .026, t-value = .450, p = .653), food quality (H1b,
β = .074, t-value = 1.370, p = .171), or service quality (H1c, β = .106, t-value = 1.916, p = .055).
Thus, H1a, H1b, and H1c are not supported. In contrast, brand image does have a significant
impact on ambiance (H2a, β = .175, t-value = 3.018, p < .05), food quality (H2b, β = .369,
t-value = 6.619, p < .01), and service quality (H2c, β = .235, t-value = 4.203, p < .01). Thus, H2a,
H2b, and H2c are supported. Respondent living status has no significant impact on ambiance
(H3a, β = − .087, t-value = − 1.509, p = .131) or food quality (H3b, β = − .090, t-value = − 1.655,

Table 4. Standardized parameter estimates for structural model.

Path Standardized Path Coefficients t-value Hypothesis
H1a. Perceived Price → Ambiance .026 .450 Not supported
H1b. Perceived Price → Food Quality .074 1.730 Not supported
H1c. Perceived Price → Service Quality .106 1.916 Not supported
H2a. Brand Image → Ambiance .175 3.018*** Supported
H2b. Brand Image → Food Quality .369 6.619*** Supported
H2c. Brand Image → Service Quality .235 4.203*** Supported
H3a. Living Status → Ambiance −.087 −1.509 Not Supported
H3b. Living Status → Food Quality −.090 −1.655 Not supported
H3c. Living Status → Service Quality −.168 −3.032** Supported
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 211

Figure 2. Results of the structural equation model.

Note: χ2 = 120.257, df = 56(χ2/df = 2.147), NFI = .928, CFI = 0.960, TLI = .944, RMSEA = .056,
SRMR = .036, **p < .01 ***p < .001

p = .098). However, respondent living status does have a significant influence on service
quality (H3c, β = − .168, t-value = − 3.032, p < .05). Thus, only H3c is supported.

Conclusion and implications

Theoretical implications
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the impacts of perceived price and brand
image on the quality attributes that customers use in selecting their favorite restaurants. The
study also investigated whether there were any differences regarding restaurant quality
attribute preferences between residents and tourists (i.e., living status). Based on the previous
literature, this research tested the theoretical background for customers’ restaurant attribute
preferences in relation to perceived price and brand image. The results of this study provide
strong support for a causal relationship between customer perceptions and customer prefer-
ences concerning restaurant quality attributes.
Brand image was found to be a significant factor in customers’ restaurant attribute
preferences. Our study findings are consistent in part with those of Kwun and Oh’s study
in 2004, in which they concluded that brand plays an important and positive role in
restaurant customers’ decision-making processes. Although our results are similar to
those of Kwun and Oh (2004), our study included more sophisticated results showing
that brand image affected all restaurant quality attributes including ambiance, food, and
service. That is, brand is not just a logo or marketing tool, but a set of unique values that
arouse a customer’s desire to use the product. Moreover, brand image can eliminate
212 S. YI ET AL.

uncertainty and hesitation and help customers make decisions because they can anticipate
correctly what they will get. This means that if a customer perceives any brand positively, the
brand represents the total restaurant quality to the customer.
On the other hand, price did not affect customers’ restaurant quality preferences in this
study. This unexpected result could be explained by considering customer preferences a
subjective matter of human beings’ noncognitive responses as well as being built on previous
experiences or personal perceptions about the product or service. Moreover, as mentioned
earlier, while price is an objective indicator about a restaurant product, it cannot contain all
the various dimensions of the product.
Another possible reason that price does not have a significant impact is the effect of brand
image. Statistically, the results of this study indicate that brand image affects customer
preferences a lot more than perceived price; therefore, the influence of price could be
suppressed in the measurement model. Chiang and Jang (2006) also had a similar result,
that although price significantly influences hotel guests’ purchase intentions, it is a weak
factor in its influence on perceived quality, trust, and perceived value. This indicates that
brand image plays a more significant role than price on hotel guests’ perceptions of quality
and value, and on their purchase intentions. Moreover, trust is the most significant factor of
the decision-making process in a hotel setting, and a positive brand image plays a significant
role in building consumer trust. It can be assumed that brand image has a bigger influence
than perceived price on the decision-making process.
Lastly, it is worth mentioning the descriptive information concerning restaurant quality
perceptions between residents and tourists. According to the results of the proposed structural
model, respondent living status does not have a significant impact on ambiance or food
quality preferences. However, living status does affect preferences concerning restaurant
service quality. In other words, restaurant ambiance and high food quality are mostly stressed
by both residents and tourists. However, residents and tourists have difference preferences
when selecting a restaurant based on perceived service quality. Yüksel and Yüksel (2002)
indicated that tourists consider courteous and friendly service a more important factor in their
restaurant preferences than residents do. The result can be interpreted to say that tourists want
to experience and enjoy more welcoming and warm hospitality for their dining experiences in
unfamiliar regions. Hence, this finding contributes to current research in helping build a
sophisticated conclusion and developing a better understanding of restaurant customers’
dining preferences.

Practical implications
This study also provides some practical implications. The results of this study suggest that a
restaurant manager should develop a total restaurant quality control system to continuously
monitor customer perceptions regarding restaurant quality attributes and brand image.
Specifically, restaurant managers should check whether the dining atmosphere, food quality,
and service quality levels are aligned with the restaurant’s overall concept and target
customers’ expectations to create a positive brand image. In other words, when a customer
sees or hears a brand, it is not just about the restaurant logos, tagline, or advertising, rather it
is the memory of previous experiences, food taste, prices, environment, and service. Hence,
a sophisticated quality control information system is necessary.
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 213

Moreover, the major challenge for a restaurant business is to differentiate themselves

from competitors and to build a restaurant image that is more attractive than those of its
competitors. Therefore, if a restaurant is not an industry leader, the restaurant managers
should develop a benchmarking branding strategy to beat competitors. In doing so, the
restaurant can build its own unique concept and reflect its own brand image. This unique
branding strategy, improving dining atmosphere, food quality, and service quality, can add
premium value to the restaurant service or product, which directly connects to restaurant
profitability over the competition.
Every customer has a different predisposition based on their purpose for visiting a restau-
rant. The results of this study show that service quality is commonly considered by both
residents and tourists as an important factor when selecting a restaurant, because employee
service can greatly affect customers’ overall dining experience and directly affect the overall
image of the restaurant. For example, rude or careless service can spoil an experience because
some customers may even consider such poor service intentional. That is, the customer can
take it as a personal insult. This single factor may not prevent the customer from choosing the
restaurant again; however, it can still cause people to hesitate in returning to the same
restaurant. Moreover, dissatisfied customers negatively affect others. No restaurant needs
this kind of bad advertising. Therefore, restaurants that provide good employee training
programs which can provide a good hospitality service can attract more tourist customers.
Consequently, to maintain a dominant market positon, for an industry leader, and to
improve market position for second movers, restaurateurs should keep maintaining the
restaurant quality attributes that are aligned with the restaurant’s brand concept. This long
term operating strategy can maintain their patronage and encourage new customers to choose
their restaurant over the competition.

Limitations and future study

Despite the implications of this study, three limitations should be addressed. The survey in this
study was conducted in one area, South Miami, so the limitation would be geographic.
However, it was worth collecting valid data to compare the different preferences between
residents and tourists. Therefore, this study should be expanded to other popular travel
destinations to compare the different preferences between residents and tourists. Second,
this study only applied to fine-dining restaurant category because this study examined
restaurant customers’ perception of ambiance, food quality, and service quality. Fine dining
restaurant concept could be ideal to cover variety of quality food, refined dining atmosphere,
and dining service which other restaurants are limited to provide. Hence, the result may not
applicable to different restaurant categories. Thus, future research is needed on different
restaurant category such as quick service and casual dining restaurants to identify restaurant
customers’ different service quality expectation. Third, despite the influence of restaurant
customers’ preference to restaurant brand image, brand image, price, and perceived service
quality were studied in general. Future studies need to specify the brand image, price, and
service quality focusing more specifically on expectation and the decision-making process to
verify the internal validity. In conjunction with the results of this research, future researchers
can recognize why a certain restaurant has been chosen by potential customers, what reasons
led to customers choosing this restaurant, and how much the level of satisfaction increased
from the previous experience.
214 S. YI ET AL.

References
Abdelhamied, H. H. (2011). Customers’ perceptions of floating restaurants in Egypt. Anatolia–An
International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 22(1), 1–15.
Aksoydan, E. (2007). Hygiene factors influencing customers’ choice of dining-out inits: findings
from a study of university academic staff. Journal of Food Safety, 27(3), 300–316. doi:10.1111/
j.1745-4565.2007.00081.x
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.103.3.411
Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K. A., & Abratt, R. (2004). Brand equity in the business-to-business market.
Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 371–380. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.10.001
Berry, L. L., & Bendapudi, N. (2003). Clueing in customers. Harvard Business Review, 81(2), 100–
106.
Bhuyan, S. (2011). Do consumers’ attitudes and preferences determine their FAFH behavior? An
application of the theory of planned behavior. Agribusiness, 27(2), 205–220. doi:10.1002/agr.
v27.2
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employ-
ees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71. doi:10.2307/1252042
Chen, I. J., Gupta, A., & Rom, W. (1994). A study of price and quality in service operations.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(2), 23–33. doi:10.1108/
09564239410057663
Chiang, C. F., & Jang, S. S. (2006). The effects of perceived price and brand image on value and
purchase intention: Leisure travelers’ attitudes toward online hotel booking. Journal of Hospitality
& Leisure Marketing, 15(3), 49–69. doi:10.1300/J150v15n03_04
Choi, J., & Zhao, J. (2010). Factors influencing restaurant selection in south florida: Is health issue
one of the factors influencing consumers’ behavior when selecting a restaurant? Journal of
Foodservice Business Research, 13(3), 237–251. doi:10.1080/15378020.2010.500254
Choi, J., & Zhao, J. (2014). Consumers’ behaviors when eating out: does eating out change
consumers’ intention to eat healthily? British Food Journal, 116(3), 494–509. doi:10.1108/BFJ-
06-2012-0136
Chow, I. H. S., Lau, V. P., Lo, T. W. C., Sha, Z., & Yun, H. (2007). Service quality in restaurant
operations in China: decision-and experiential-oriented perspectives. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 26(3), 698–710. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2006.07.001
Cretu, A. E., & Brodie, R. J. (2007). The influence of brand image and company reputation where
manufacturers market to small firms: a customer value perspective. Industrial Marketing
Management, 36(2), 230–240. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.08.013
Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990). In search of brand image: a foundation analysis. NA-Advances
in Consumer Research, 17, 110–119.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on
buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 320–327. doi:10.2307/3172866
Eckel, R. H., Kris-Etherton, P., Lichtenstein, A. H., Wylie-Rosett, J., Groom, A., Stitzel, K. F., & Yin-
Piazza, S. (2009). Americans’ awareness, knowledge, and behaviors regarding fats: 2006-2007.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(2), 288–296. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2008.10.048
Fatimah, U. Z. A. U., Boo, H. C., Sambasivan, M., & Salleh, R. (2011). Foodservice hygiene factors—
The consumer perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), 38–45.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.04.001
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. doi:10.2307/
3151312
Gastronomy. (n.d). In Oxford Dictionary online. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/
definition/gastronomy
Gheorghe, G., Tudorache, P., & Nistoreanu, P. (2014). Gastronomic tourism, new trend for
contemporary tourism? Cactus Tourism Journal, 9(1), 12–21.
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 215

Green, L. R., Selman, C., Scallan, E., Jones, T. F., & Marcus, R.; EHS-Net Population Survey
Working Group. (2005). Beliefs about meals eaten outside the home as sources of gastrointestinal
illness. Journal of Food Protection®, 68(10), 2184–2189. doi:10.4315/0362-028X-68.10.2184
Gundlach, G. T., & Murphy, P. E. (1993). Ethical and legal foundations of relational marketing
exchanges. The Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 35–46. doi:10.2307/1252217
Gyimothy, S., Rassing, C., & Wanhill, S. (2000). Marketing works: a study of the restaurants on
Bronholm, Denmark. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(6),
371–379. doi:10.1108/09596110010343648
Ha, J., & Jang, S. S. (2010). Effects of service quality and food quality: the moderating role of
atmospherics in an ethnic restaurant segment. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
29(3), 520–529. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.12.005
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (8th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
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(4), 487–510. doi:10.1177/1096348009344212
Harrington, R. J., Ottenbacher, M. C., & Way, K. A. (2013). QSR choice: key restaurant attributes
and the roles of gender, age and dining frequency. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality &
Tourism, 14(1), 81–100. doi:10.1080/1528008X.2013.749380
Hartline, M. D., & Jones, K. C. (1996). Employee performance cues in a hotel service environment:
influence on perceived service quality, value, and word-of-mouth intentions. Journal of Business
Research, 35(3), 207–215. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(95)00126-3
Henson, S., Majowicz, S., Masakure, O., Sockett, P., Jones, A., Hart, R., & Knowles, L. (2006). Consumer
assessment of the safety of restaurants: the role of inspection notices and other information cues.
Journal of Food Safety, 26(4), 275–301. doi:10.1111/j.1745-4565.2006.00049.x
Hutton, J. G. (1997). A study of brand equity in an organizational-buying context. Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 6(6), 428–439. doi:10.1108/10610429710190478
Hwang, J., & Ok, C. (2013). The antecedents and consequence of consumer attitudes toward
restaurant brands: a comparative study between casual and fine dining restaurants.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 121–131. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.05.002
Hyun, S. S. (2010). Predictors of relationship quality and loyalty in the chain restaurant industry.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51(2), 251–267. doi:10.1177/1938965510363264
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(6), 532–551. doi:10.1080/10548408.2012.701552
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. The
Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. doi:10.2307/1252054
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(5), 205–222. doi:10.1108/09596119910272739
Knight, A. J., Worosz, M. R., & Todd, E. C. D. (2007). Serving food safety: consumer perceptions of
food safety at restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(6),
476–484. doi:10.1108/09596110710775138
Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing too. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48–64.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J. T., Makens, J. C., Xie, Y., & Liang, C. (1996). Marketing for hospitality and
tourism (Vol. 893). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.
Kwun, J. W., & Oh, H. (2004). Effects of brand, price, and risk on customers’ value perceptions and
behavioral intentions in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 11
(1), 31–49. doi:10.1300/J150v11n01_03
Lau, G. T., & Lee, S. H. (1999). Consumers’ trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. Journal of
Market-Focused Management, 4(4), 341–370. doi:10.1023/A:1009886520142
Lee, Y. K., Back, K. J., & Kim, J. Y. (2009). Family restaurant brand personality and its impact on
customer’s emotion, satisfaction, and brand loyalty. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
33(3), 305–328. doi:10.1177/1096348009338511
216 S. YI ET AL.

Low, G. S., & Lamb, Jr, C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(6), 350–370. doi:10.1108/10610420010356966
Mak, A. H., Lumbers, M., Eves, A., & Chang, R. C. (2012). Factors influencing tourist food
consumption. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 928–936. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhm.2011.10.012
Meler, M., & Cerovic, Z. (2003). Food marketing in the function of tourist product development.
British Food Journal, 105(3), 175–192. doi:10.1108/00070700310477121
Meng, J. G., & Elliott, K. M. (2008). Predictors of relationship quality for luxury restaurants. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15(6), 509–515. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2008.02.002
Monroe, K. B. (1979). Pricing: making profitable decisions. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1985). The effect of price on subjective product evaluations, perceived
quality: how consumers view stores and merchandise. Lexington, MA: DC Heath.
Namasivayam, K., & Mattila, A. S. (2007). Accounting for the joint effects of the servicescape and
service exchange on consumers’ satisfaction evaluations. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 31(1), 3–18. doi:10.1177/1096348006292996
Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. (2008). Are highly satisfied restaurant customers really different? A quality
perception perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(2),
142–155. doi:10.1108/09596110810852131
Nguyen, N., & Leblanc, G. (2002). Contact personnel, physical environment and the perceived
corporate image of intangible services by new clients. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 13(3), 242–262. doi:10.1108/09564230210431965
Nikolich, M. A., & Sparks, B. A. (1995). The hospitality service encounter: the role of communica-
tion. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 19(2), 43–56.
Oh, H. (2000). Diners’ perceptions of quality, value, and satisfaction: a practical viewpoint. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly, 41(3), 58. doi:10.1177/001088040004100317
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Persson, N. (2010). An exploratory investigation of the elements of B2B brand image and its
relationship to price premium. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8), 1269–1277.
doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.02.024
Quan, S., & Wang, N. (2004). Towards a structural model of the tourist experience: an illustration
from food experience in tourism. Tourism Management, 25(3), 297–305. doi:10.1016/S0261-5177
(03)00130-4
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. doi:10.1300/
J369v05n02_08
Ryu, K. (2005). Dinescape, emotions and behavioral intentions in upscale restaurants (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Ryu, K., & Han, H. (2010). Influence of the quality of food, service, and physical environment on
customer satisfaction and behavioral intention in quick-casual restaurants: moderating role of
perceived price. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 34(3), 310–329. doi:10.1177/
1096348009350624
Shoemaker, S., Mary, D., & Wade, J. (2005). How to increase menu prices without alienating your
consumers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(6–7), 553–568.
doi:10.1108/09596110510620636
Siguaw, J. A., Mattila, A., & Austin, J. R. (1999). The brand-personality scale. Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, 40(3), 48.
Spangenberg, E. R., Crowley, A. E., & Henderson, P. W. (1996). Improving the store environment:
do olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviors? The Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 67–80.
doi:10.2307/1251931
Sparks, B. A., Wildman, K. L., & Bowen, J. T. (2001). Restaurants as a contributor to tourist
destination attractiveness. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 8(2), 17–30.
Stewart, K. J. (2003). Trust transfer on the world wide web. Organization Science, 14(1), 5–17.
doi:10.1287/orsc.14.1.5.12810
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 217

Storm, S. (2016, February 2). Chipotle Food-safety issues Drag Down profit. Retrieved from https://
www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/business/chipotle-food-safety-illness-investigation-earnings.html?
_r=0
SuburbanState.org. (2017). Population Demographics for Florida 2017 and 2016. Retrieved from
https://suburbanstats.org/population/how-many-people-live-in-florida
Sulek, J. M., & Hensley, R. L. (2004). The relative importance of food, atmosphere, and fairness of
wait the case of a full-service restaurant. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
45(3), 235–247. doi:10.1177/0010880404265345
Taylor, S. A., Celuch, K., & Goodwin, S. (2004). The importance of brand equity to customer
loyalty. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13(4), 217–227. doi:10.1108/
10610420410546934
Taylor, V. A., & Bearden, W. O. (2003). Ad spending on brand extensions: does similarity matter?
Journal of Brand Management, 11(1), 63–74. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540148
Tepeci, M. (1999). Increasing brand loyalty in the hospitality industry. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(5), 223–230. doi:10.1108/09596119910272757
Tikkanen, I. (2007). Maslow’s hierarchy and food tourism in Finland: five cases. British Food
Journal, 109(9), 721–734. doi:10.1108/00070700710780698
United State Census. (2016). United State Census QuickFacts. Retrieved from https://www.census.
gov/quickfacts/fact/table/FL#viewtop
Varki, S., & Colgate, M. (2001). The role of price perceptions in an integrated model of behavioral
intentions. Journal of Service Research, 3(3), 232–240. doi:10.1177/109467050133004
Vranesevic, T., & Stancec, R. (2003). The effect of the brand on perceived quality of food products.
British Food Journal, 105(11), 811–825. doi:10.1108/00070700310511609
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. doi:10.1177/0010880406297246
Walley, K., Custance, P., Taylor, S., Lindgreen, A., & Hingley, M. K. (2007). The importance of
brand in the industrial purchase decision: a case study of United Kingdom tractor market.
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 22(6), 383–393. doi:10.1108/08858620710780145
White, R. (2011, February 24). The truth about restaurant failure rates. Retrieved from https://www.
whitehutchinson.com/blog/2011/02/the-truth-about-restaurant-failure-rates/
Yüksel, A., & Yüksel, F. (2002). Measurement of tourist satisfaction with restaurant services: a
segment-based approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(1), 52–68. doi:10.1177/
135676670200900104
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence. The Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22. doi:10.2307/1251446