Ryu 2010

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction and behavioral

intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry
Kisang Ryu, Heesup Han, Soocheong (Shawn) Jang,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Kisang Ryu, Heesup Han, Soocheong (Shawn) Jang, (2010) "Relationships among hedonic and
utilitarian values, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast‐casual restaurant industry",
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 Issue: 3, pp.416-432, https://
Downloaded by KAROLINSKA INSTITUTET At 01:16 24 January 2019 (PT)
doi.org/10.1108/09596111011035981
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111011035981
Downloaded on: 24 January 2019, At: 01:16 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 59 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 11736 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2009),"Service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in fast-food restaurants",
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 1 Iss 1 pp. 78-95 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/17566690910945886">https://doi.org/10.1108/17566690910945886</a>
(2000),"Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: the role of customer satisfaction and image", International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 12 Iss 6 pp. 346-351 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/09596110010342559">https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110010342559</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:185258 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm
IJCHM
22,3 Relationships among hedonic and
utilitarian values, satisfaction and
behavioral intentions in the
416
fast-casual restaurant industry
Received 8 October 2008
Revised 17 March 2009
Kisang Ryu
23 June 2009 Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Administration, University of New Orleans,
Accepted 1 August 2009 New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Heesup Han
Department of Tourism Management, College of Business Administration,
Dong-A University, Busan, South Korea, and
Soocheong (Shawn) Jang
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to examine the relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values,
customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry.
Design/methodology/approach – The measures were developed based on a thorough review of
the previous literature. Questionnaires were collected in classroom settings at a mid-western
university in the USA. Anderson and Gerbing’s two-step approach was employed to assess the
measurement and structural models.
Findings – The findings indicate that hedonic and utilitarian values significantly influence customer
satisfaction, and customer satisfaction has a significant influence on behavioral intentions. Utilitarian
value shows a greater influence on both customer satisfaction and behavioral intention than does
hedonic value. This study also reveals that customer satisfaction acts as a partial mediator in the link
between hedonic/utilitarian value and behavioral intentions.
Research limitations/implications – Study findings will greatly help hospitality researchers and
practitioners understand the roles of hedonic and utilitarian values in customer satisfaction and
behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry.
Originality/value – The paper is the first to explore the relationships among hedonic and utilitarian
values and their effect on customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant
industry using Babin et al.’s two-dimensional measure of consumer value.
Keywords Utilitarianism, Customer satisfaction, Consumer behaviour, Restaurants, Catering industry,
Fast foods
Paper type Research paper
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Introduction
Management Researchers have long focused on the utilitarian aspects of consumer behavior, which
Vol. 22 No. 3, 2010
pp. 416-432 has often been characterized as task-related and rational (Babin et al., 1994; Batra and
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/09596111011035981 This study was supported by research funds from Dong-A University.
Ahtola, 19901). However, explanations for traditional product acquisition may not fully Hedonic and
reflect the totality of consumer behavior. Some scholars have shown new interest in the utilitarian values
hedonic aspects of consumption behavior, particularly as researchers recognize the
potential importance of its entertainment and emotional worth (Arnold and Reynolds,
2003; Babin et al., 1994; Wakefield and Baker, 1998). Hedonic consumption has been
considered pleasure-oriented consumption that is primarily motivated by the desire for
sensual pleasure, fantasy, and fun (e.g. vacationing in Las Vegas) (Hirschman and 417
Holbrook, 1982), while utilitarian consumption is described as goal-oriented
consumption that is mainly driven by the desire to fill a basic need or to accomplish
a functional task (e.g. the consumption of laundry detergent to wash clothes).
Not all consumption experiences in the restaurant industry evoke the same
emotional states. The feelings associated with goal-oriented or “necessary”
consumption (e.g. ordering healthy food in a restaurant due to weight gain concerns)
may not be the same as the feelings associated with more pleasure-oriented or
“frivolous” consumption (e.g. enjoying the music in a restaurant). Consumers highly
value the utilitarian aspects of necessary consumption, while highly valuing the
hedonic aspects of frivolous consumption. Hedonic value is more subjective and
personal than its utilitarian counterpart because it stems from a need for fun and
playfulness rather than from a need to engage in task completion. On the basis of this
observation, a distinction should be made between two types of consumption that
differ in terms of perceived value. Therefore, measures accounting for both hedonic
and utilitarian service values are needed.
A fast-casual restaurant is a restaurant market niche that is similar to a fast-food
restaurant in that it does not offer most table services, but promises a somewhat higher
quality of foods and atmosphere more consistent with the casual dining segment. As
consumers are increasingly interested in higher-quality food, healthier food choices,
better physical eating conditions, and better customer service, the fast-casual dining
segment, which falls between the “quick service” and “full service” segments, has been
a contemporary trend in the foodservice industry (Anderson, 2003; Sloan, 2002;
Tillotson, 2003). According to the National Restaurant Association’s 2008 industry
outlook, the success of the fast-casual restaurants should continue to grow for at least
the next year. Approximately one-third of operators say their customers are looking for
a wider range of food choices from restaurants, while 19 percent say customers are
seeking healthy alternatives. Three out of four consumers also indicated that they are
trying to eat healthier in restaurants now than they were two years ago. In addition, the
importance of food quality was mentioned by quick-serve operators.
We must emphasize that despite the increasing importance of the fast-casual
restaurant sector in the restaurant industry, particularly in the quick service restaurant
segment, researchers have paid scant attention to gaining a better understanding of
consumers’ behavior in this fast-growing segment. There is little doubt that dining
experiences can indeed produce both utilitarian and hedonic value, and some dining
experiences are more pleasurable than others. However, the role and relative
importance of instrumental characteristics versus hedonic aspects will likely vary
across contexts. Therefore, it is crucial to understand how consumers’ perceived value
varies across different service contexts to aims for a holistic understanding of their
perceptions of the consumer service value and their subsequent internal (i.e.
satisfaction with the consumer service value) and external responses (e.g. repatronage,
IJCHM word-of-mouth). Some of the customers in this restaurant sector might greatly value
22,3 hedonic aspects (e.g. a more upscale physical environment compared to that in fast
food restaurants), whereas others might primarily value the utilitarian aspects of
dining experiences (e.g. healthier menu items compared to those found in fast food
restaurants). Specifically, there has been no investigation of whether customers in this
fast-casual restaurant segment are primarily driven by emotional or practical value.
418 This study aims to fill in these gaps. Our purpose, therefore, was to explore the
relationships among consumer service value (hedonic and utilitarian values), customer
satisfaction and behavioral intention in the fast-casual restaurant segment. The
specific objectives of this study were to:
. investigate the relationships between customer values regarding eating-out and
the importance of fast-casual restaurant attributes;
.
examine the relative importance of hedonic and utilitarian values on customer
satisfaction and subsequent behavioral intention; and
.
investigate the mediating role of customer satisfaction between customers’
perceived value and behavioral intention.
Theoretical background
Utilitarian value and hedonic value
The concept of “value” has proved to be an enduring endeavor for a wide range of
philosophers and researchers (Babin et al., 1994; Zeithaml, 1988). Researchers are
continually seeking a more complete understanding of consumer value. An extensive
literature review has established that perceived value has been conceptualized as what
consumers get for what they give, or the consumer’s overall evaluation of the utility of
a product or service provision based on perceptions of what one receives for what one
gives (Baker et al., 1994; Zeithaml, 1988). Within this perspective, Zeithaml (1988, p. 13)
identified four common uses of the term: “low price”, “whatever I want in a product”,
“the quality I get for the price I pay”, and “what I get for what I give”.
The majority of previous research has focused on shopping’s utilitarian perspective
(Babin et al., 1994). Utilitarian consumer behavior is described as a functional or
task-related standpoint and may be thought of as work (Babin et al., 1994; Batra and
Ahtola, 1990). However, other researchers have argued that shopping value should
account for more than simply functional utility (Babin and Attaway, 2000; Babin et al.,
1994; Eroglu et al., 2005; Homer, 2008; Lim and Ang, 2008; Voss et al., 2003).
Traditional product-acquisition explanations may inadequately reflect the total value
of a consumption experience. If we assume consumption activities are evaluated
exclusively on the benefits of goods or services acquired, we fail to recognize numerous
intangible and emotional costs and benefits that should be examined before we can
understand the consumption experience fully (Babin et al., 1994; Lim and Ang, 2008).
Extant research has established that consumption can take place for hedonic or
utilitarian reasons (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Lim and Ang, 2008). Hirschman
and Holbrook (1982) described consumers as either “problem solvers” or in terms of
consumers seeking “fun, fantasy, arousal, sensory stimulation, and enjoyment.” This
dichotomy has been represented in consumer behavior studies by the themes of
consumption behavior “as work” (Babin et al., 1994; Fischer and Arnold, 1990; Sherry
et al., 1993) versus the more enjoyable aspects of consumption behavior “as fun” (Babin Hedonic and
et al., 1994; Lageat et al., 2003). utilitarian values
Consumer value classifications are represented as the dichotomization of utilitarian
and hedonic values (Babin et al., 1994; Bridges and Florsheim, 2008; Chandon et al.,
2000; Childers et al., 2001; Eroglu et al., 2005; Gursoy et al., 2006; Homer, 2008; Voss
et al., 2003). Babin et al. (1994) introduced two types of shopping values by developing
a scale measuring both hedonic and utilitarian values obtained from the pervasive 419
consumption experience of shopping. The researchers concluded that distinct hedonic
and utilitarian shopping value dimensions exist and are related to a number of
important consumption variables.
Babin et al. (1994) proposed that consumption activities may produce both hedonic
and utilitarian outcomes. They describe utilitarian value (p. 645) as “resulting from
some type of conscious pursuit of an intended consequence”; thus, it is task-oriented

and rational, and may be thought of as work. Utilitarian evaluation is traditionally
functional, instrumental and cognitive in nature. It primarily involves the fulfillment of
instrumental expectations consumers may have for the product or service and are a
means to an end often equated with rational motives of time, place and possession
needs. In the utilitarian view, consumers are concerned with purchasing products in an
efficient and timely manner to achieve their goals with a minimum of irritation.
While marketers are focusing more on hedonic aspects to meet customers’
increasing desires for entertainment, academic research is lagging in investigating the
hedonic side of consumers’ evaluations of their consumption experience (Arnold and
Reynolds, 2003). Compared to its utilitarian aspects, value’s “festive” side has gained
less attention in previous studies. Recent marketing research is beginning to focus on
the hedonic aspects of the consumption experience, such as the affective response of
excitement (O’Curry and Strahilevitz, 2001; Wakefield and Baker, 1998). Similar to
Hirschman and Holbrook’ (1982) assertions, hedonic value can be defined as being
“more subjective and personal than its utilitarian counterpart and resulting more from
fun and playfulness than from task completion” (Babin et al., 1994, p. 646). Hedonic
evaluation is more affective than cognitive in nature. Hedonic values are
non-instrumental, experiential, and affective and often related to non-tangible
retailer/product attributes. The adventurous nature of hedonic value reflects
shopping’s entertainment and emotional potential resulting from the fun and play of
the experience versus the achievement of any pre-specified goal (Hirschman and
Holbrook, 1982; Babin et al., 1994).
Clearly, utilitarian and hedonic values are considered fundamental to
understanding consumers’ evaluations of the consumption experience because they
maintain a basic underlying presence across consumption phenomena (Babin et al.,
1994; Bridges and Florsheim, 2008; Chandon et al., 2000; Childers et al., 2001; Eroglu
et al., 2005; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Homer, 2008; Jones et al., 2006). Taken
together, these two dimensions indicate an assessment of the overall worth of
consumption activity, representing a more comprehensive picture of the value. Thus, in
this study we adopted this two-dimensional conceptualization of consumer value: The
first dimension is a utilitarian dimension resulting from work aspects, and the second
is a hedonic dimension derived from the fun perspective (Babin et al., 1994; Babin et al.,
1994; Eroglu et al., 2005).
IJCHM Value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions
Numerous researchers have verified the significant relationship among value,
22,3 customer satisfaction and behavioral intention in business and hospitality fields
(Colgate and Lang, 2001; Fornell et al., 1996; Hallowell, 1996; Taylor, 1997). Hunt (1977)
defined customer satisfaction as “an evaluation rendered that the (product) experience
was at least as good as it was supposed to be” (p. 459). Similarly, Oliver (1996)
420 described it as the consumer’s fulfillment response. It is a judgment that a product or
service feature, or the product or service itself, provided (or is providing) a pleasurable
level of consumption-related fulfillment, including levels of under- or over-fulfillment”
(p. 13). Further, Oliver (1996) defined behavioral intentions as an affirmed likelihood to
engage in a certain behavior. Based on this definition, behavioral intention in this
study may be described as a stated likelihood to return to the restaurant and to
recommend it to family, friends, and others in the future.

In recent years, perceived value has gained special attention as an important
construct in predicting consumer buying behavior (Anderson and Srinivasan, 2003).
Many researchers agree that value has a significant influence on customer satisfaction
and behavioral intentions (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998; Chen and Tsai, 2007; Lee
et al., 2007; McDougall and Levesque, 2000; Patterson and Spreng, 1997; Pura, 2005).
Patterson and Spreng (1997) found that customer’s perceptions of value are a positive
and direct antecedent of customer satisfaction in a service context. Andreassen and
Lindestad (1998) found that value has a positive impact on customer satisfaction in
developing a customer loyalty model in complex service contexts. Additionally, in
investigating the relationships among service quality, perceived value, satisfaction,
and behavioral intentions, McDougall and Levesque (2000) found that perceived
service quality and value were the most significant drivers of customer satisfaction
across four service sectors, such as restaurants, auto service, hairstylists, and dental
services. Pura (2005) analyzed the direct effect of customer perceptions of value on
attitudinal and behavioral components of loyalty, such as commitment and behavioral
intentions in a service context. His findings suggested that customer-perceived value
significantly influences behavioral intentions and commitment.
Many researchers have provided empirical evidence for a positive relationship
between customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions, such as repurchase and
word-of-mouth intentions. The obvious reason to satisfy customers is to acquire repeat
business and positive word of mouth, thereby improving a chance of firm profitability
(Barsky, 1992). Anderson and Sullivan (1993) found that a high level of customer
satisfaction decreases the perceived benefits of switching service providers, thereby
increasing customer repurchase intentions. Getty and Thompson (1994) examined the
role of satisfaction in explaining behavioral intention. Their findings indicated that high
levels of satisfaction increase customers’ intentions to repurchase and recommend the
product. In contrast, dissatisfied customers are more likely to switch, complain, or
spread negative word-of-mouth (Oliver, 1996). Further, Kivela et al. (1999) found that
dining satisfaction significantly influences post-dining behavioral intentions. In
assessing the role of intentions as a link between satisfaction and repatronizing behavior
in a restaurant setting, Soderlund and Ohman (2005) also found that customer
satisfaction is significantly related to two specific intention constructs: intentions as
expectations and intentions as wants. In upscale restaurant settings, Han and Ryu (2007)
found that improving customer satisfaction levels is essential to increasing revisit and
recommendation intentions. Likewise, in investigating the importance of food quality in
mid- to upper-scale restaurants, Namkung and Jang (2007) also evidenced the significant Hedonic and
impact of customer satisfaction on behavioral intentions, including revisit, utilitarian values
recommendation, and positive word-of-mouth intentions. These findings all support
the significant link between customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions.
Indeed, Babin et al. (1994) showed that both the hedonic and utilitarian value
obtained from a shopping experience should influence customer satisfaction. They
empirically demonstrated a strong degree of positive correlations of hedonic value 421
(r ¼ 0:51, p , 0.001) and utilitarian value (r ¼ 0:53, p , 0.001) with satisfaction. In
addition, Eroglu et al. (2005) conducted two studies to investigate whether shopping
values are affected by perceived retail crowding, and whether shopping values mediate
the relationship between perceived retail crowding and shopping satisfaction. Results
of the second study revealed that the impact of perceived crowding on shopping value
is mediated by emotions experienced by the shopper, using a sample of college

students. The emotions and shopping value reactions, in turn, mediate the effect of
spatial crowding on shopping satisfaction. Both hedonic value (b ¼ 0:34, p , 0.01)
and utilitarian value (b ¼ 0:14, p , 0.01) significantly influenced customer
satisfaction. It is also worth noting that hedonic value showed a stronger influence
on customer satisfaction than did utilitarian value.
Babin et al. (1994) conducted the research to extend the notions of utilitarian and
hedonic value to account for outcomes of consumer service encounters using a sample of
Korean restaurant consumers at family-style chain restaurants. The study supported the
adequacy of using their scale to account for utilitarian and hedonic value, the role of
functional and affective service environment components in shaping consumer
satisfaction and word-of-mouth intentions (WOM). In particular, structural equation
modeling showed that hedonic and utilitarian value positively affected both customer
satisfaction and WOM. Interestingly, the study found mixed strengths in the relative
importance of hedonic value and utilitarian value on customer satisfaction and WOM.
Hedonic value (b ¼ 0:25) had a stronger impact on customer satisfaction than utilitarian
value (b ¼ 0:18), whereas hedonic value (b ¼ 0:14) had a smaller influence on WOM than
utilitarian value (b ¼ 0:25). Finally, customer satisfaction positively affected WOM.
Based on the issues discussed above, several points are apparent. There is ample
evidence of a significant causal relationship among consumer service value (hedonic
and utilitarian value), customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. With the
perceived hedonic and utilitarian values of dining experience, perceived utilitarian
value is likely to have a stronger impact on both customer satisfaction and behavioral
intentions than hedonic value since consumers in this restaurant sector are still mainly
viewed as a part of the quick service sector by many practitioners. Based on the
previous discussion, the proposed hypotheses can be summarized in the following
hypotheses. This two-factor (utilitarian versus hedonic) approach serves as the basis
for the hypotheses tested here:
H1. Perceived value has a positive impact on customer satisfaction in the
fast-casual restaurant segment.
H1a. Hedonic value of dining experiences has a positive impact on customer
satisfaction.
H1b. Utilitarian value of dining experiences has a positive impact on customer
satisfaction.
IJCHM H2. Perceived value has a positive impact on behavioral intentions in the
22,3 fast-casual restaurant segment.
H2a. Hedonic value of dining experiences has a positive impact on behavioral
intentions.
H2b. Utilitarian value of dining experiences has a positive impact on behavioral
422 intentions.
H3. Customer satisfaction has a positive impact on behavioral intentions in the
fast-casual restaurant segment.
H4. The perceived utilitarian value has a stronger influence on customer
satisfaction than perceived hedonic value in the fast-casual restaurant
segment.
H5. The perceived utilitarian value has a stronger influence on behavioral
intentions than perceived hedonic value in the fast-casual restaurant
segment.
Methodology
Questionnaire items were developed based on those used in previous studies (Babin
et al., 1994; Batra and Ahtola, 1990; Donovan and Rossiter, 1982; Park, 2004) and a
focus group session was conducted by 6 graduate students to assess consumer values
regarding eating-out, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Additionally,
the survey was carefully reviewed by professors familiar with the topic area and a
fast-casual restaurant manager. Before the main study, through a convenience
sampling approach (Babin and Attaway, 2000; Babin et al., 1994; Han and Ryu, 2007;
Titz et al., 1998), a pretest was conducted with 30 actual customers at a fast-casual
restaurant to evaluate whether the instrument could be clearly understood by
respondents and ensure its reliability. A small incentive (e.g. a free drink coupon) was
offered to survey participants. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged higher than 0.70,
indicating an acceptable level of reliability. No modifications were needed on the
survey after the pre-test.
The questionnaire consisted of hedonic and utilitarian values (Babin et al., 1994;
Batra and Ahtola, 1990; Babin and Attaway, 2000), customer satisfaction, and
behavioral intention (Bigne et al., 2004; Donovan and Rossiter, 1982). Multi-item scales
were used to measure the study constructs. Table I displays the questions used in this
study. Respondents were asked to rate 16 items using a seven-point Likert type scale
(1 ¼ extremely disagree; 7 ¼ extremely agree). The measurement of consumer values
regarding eating-out was assessed using five hedonic and four utilitarian items. For
example, one measure of hedonic value was “eating-out at the fast-casual restaurant
was fun and pleasant.” One measure of utilitarian value was “eating-out at a
fast-casual restaurant was pragmatic and economical.” Customer satisfaction was
assessed using four items. For example, “I have really enjoyed myself at the fast-casual
restaurant.” Respondents were asked to provide answers to three statements to assess
behavioral intention. For instance, “I would like to come back to the fast-casual
restaurant in the future.”
Hedonic and
Questions Mean SD
utilitarian values
Hedonic value I ate out at a fast-casual restaurant since I could have
good feelings 4.40 1.22
Eating-out at the fast-casual restaurant was fun and
pleasant 5.40 1.06
The dining experience at the fast-casual restaurant 423
was truly a joy 4.96 1.14
During the dining experience at the fast-casual
restaurant, I felt the excitement of searching food 4.13 1.36
Although the cost was higher than fast-food
restaurants, I liked to eat out at the better place 5.40 1.32
Utilitarian value Eating-out at the fast-casual restaurant was
convenient 5.22 1.07

Eating-out at a fast-casual restaurant was pragmatic
and economical 4.62 1.12
It was a waste of money when eating-out at the fast-
casual restaurant 2.66 1.39
Service at the fast-casual restaurant was quick 5.17 1.07
Customer satisfaction I was pleased to dine in at the fast-casual restaurant 5.41 1.09
The overall feeling I got from the fast-casual
restaurant was satisfied 5.50 1.06
The overall feeling I got from the fast-casual
restaurant put me in a good mood 5.13 1.22
I really enjoyed myself at the fast-casual restaurant 5.21 1.14
Behavioral intentions I would like to come back to the fast-casual
restaurant in the future 5.84 1.17
I would recommend the fast-casual restaurant to my
friends or others 5.86 1.14
I would more frequently visit the fast-casual Table I.
restaurant 5.11 1.27 Descriptive information
for questions used in
Note: SD ¼ Standard deviation the study
A self-administered questionnaire was distributed and collected in classroom settings

at a mid-western university in the US in 2007. Although a student sample is often
viewed with suspicion due to their inexperience as consumers compared with other
adult subjects, they are at least as likely as other adults to have dining experiences in
the fast-casual restaurant segment. In addition, student subjects have been widely
and successfully utilized in previous studies in other academic disciplines (Arnold
and Reynolds, 2003; Babin et al., 1994; Bridges and Florsheim, 2008; Childers et al.,
2001; Eroglu et al., 2005; Lim and Ang, 2008; O’Curry and Strahilevitz, 2001; Voss
et al., 2003). Therefore, college students were asked to participate in this research. To
qualify for participation, a student had to have been a customer at a fast-casual
restaurant within the past month. The procedure began with an explanation of the
fast-casual restaurant segment and the objectives of the study. Participants were then
asked to provide answers to questions. Students who participated in the survey
received an extra course credit for the participation. A total of 400 responses were
collected. After deleting incomplete responses, 395 responses were finally utilized in
data analysis.
IJCHM Data were analyzed using the two-step procedure suggested by Anderson and
22,3 Gerbing (1988). First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to identify
whether the measurement variables reliably reflected the hypothesized latent
variables. Second, a structural equation modeling (SEM) with latent variables via
AMOS 5 was tested to determine the adequacy of the constructs of the model and test
the hypotheses. The hedonic value and utilitarian value were predictor variables and
424 customer satisfaction and behavioral intention were criterion variables in the analysis.
In addition, the Sobel test was used to test the mediating role of customer satisfaction
for the linkage between hedonic and/or utilitarian value and behavioral intentions in a
SEM model.
Results
Sample profile
Descriptive statistics for the sample showed that 47.3 percent of respondents were male
and 52.70 percent were female. While approximately 7.6 percent of participants stated
that they had visited fast-casual restaurants fewer than three times over the past three
months, 92.4 percent had visited them at least three times over the past three months.
In particular, 45.7 percent had visited them more than 12 times, or at least once a week
over the past three months.
Data screening
Before analyzing the data, data screening was conducted using SPSS. With the use of a
p , 0.001 criterion for Mahalanobis distance, five multivariate outliers were detected
(Mahalanobis’s D (19) . 43.82, p , 0.001). These extreme outliers were removed
because they could have inappropriately affected the overall results, threatening the
reliability or validity of a scale. In addition, results of assumption evaluations showed
that some variables were significantly and negatively skewed. Thus, these variables
were transformed using a square root transformation to reduce skewness and improve
normality. As a next step, a reliability test was conducted to assess the consistency of
the measurements. This was used to assess the internal homogeneity existing among
the items scale in this study. Coefficient alphas values for the study constructs ranged
from 0.70 to 0.91. Each construct yielded the following reliabilities: hedonic
value ¼ 0.80, utilitarian value ¼ 0.70, customer satisfaction ¼ 0.91, and behavioral
intention ¼ 0.89. These values were above the 0.70 level suggested by Nunnally (1978),
and thus indicating internal consistency.
Measurement model
Prior to conducting structural equation modeling (SEM), a measurement model was
assessed using AMOS 5. The items were subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) with a four-factor measurement model using maximum likelihood estimation.
The fit statistics showed that the measurement model fit the data reasonably well.
However, the chi-square for this model was significant (x 2 ¼ 256:28, df ¼ 97,
p , 0.001), indicating a poor model. However, “since chi-square is N-1 times the
minimum value of the fit function, the chi-square test tends to be large in large
samples” ( Joreskog, 1993, p. 309). The x 2/df value of 2.64 was within an acceptable
range from 2 to 5 (Marsh and Hocevar, 1988). Additionally, other fit indices were
acceptable (RMSEA ¼ 0:070; CFI ¼ 0:99; NFI ¼ 0:99). However, one item’s
standardized factor loading value for the utilitarian value did not meet the minimum Hedonic and
criterion of 0.40, so this item (i.e. It was a waste of money when eating-out at the utilitarian values
fast-casual restaurant) was removed to increase reliability and decrease measurement
error (Ford et al., 1986; Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Nunnally, 1978). After this item was
excluded, the remaining 15 items were subjected to CFA. Model fit of CFA was
acceptable (x 2 ¼ 210:85, df ¼ 83, p , 0.001; RMSEA ¼ 0:068; CFI ¼ 0:99;
NFI ¼ 0:99). The model was significantly improved because a chi-square difference 425
between the first and second CFA models was significant (Dx 2 ¼ 45:43, Ddf ¼ 14,
p , 0.001). All standardized factor loadings emerged fairly high, exceeding the
minimum criterion of 0.40 (Ford et al., 1986).
Composite reliability for each construct was calculated. As shown in Table II, all
constructs had desirable levels of composite reliability, ranging from 0.69 to 0.91
(Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) index of average variance
extracted (AVE) was assessed. While the AVE value for the utilitarian value was a bit
below 0.50, AVE values for hedonic value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral
intention were above the recommended level of 0.50, generally supporting convergent
validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In addition, the AVE values were generally greater
than the shared variance among pairs of constructs (the square of their correlations),
revealing evidence of discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Structural model
A structural analysis was conducted using the maximum likelihood estimation
method. The results from the structural model are presented in Table III. Overall, the
fit indices indicated an adequate model fit (x 2 ¼ 210:85, df ¼ 83, p , 0.001;
RMSEA ¼ 0:068; CFI ¼ 0:99; NFI ¼ 0:99). The degree of variance explained by
hedonic and utilitarian values for customer satisfaction was 0.68, and the
variance-explained estimate for behavioral intention by three antecedents was 0.79.
The structural diagram for the proposed model is presented in Figure 1. As shown
in Figure 1 and Table III, the relationship between hedonic value and customer
satisfaction was significant (coefficient ¼ 0.30, t ¼ 3:65, p , 0.01), and the linkage
between utilitarian value and customer satisfaction was also significant
(coefficient ¼ 0.59; t ¼ 6:31, p , 0.01), supporting H1a and H1b. These findings
indicate that both hedonic and utilitarian values are significant predictors of customer
satisfaction. The effect of utilitarian value on customer satisfaction was greater than
Hedonic Utilitarian Customer Behavioral Composite

Measure value value satisfaction intention AVE reliability
1. Hedonic value 1.00 0.50 0.82

2. Utilitarian
value 0.67 (0.45) 1.00 0.43 0.69
3. Customer
satisfaction 0.69 (0.48) 0.79 (0.62) 1.00 0.70 0.90
4. Behavioral
intention 0.57 (0.32) 0.78 (0.61) 0.87 (0.76) 1.00 0.77 0.91 Table II.
Measure correlations, the
2
Notes: All correlations were significant at 0.05 level; Model measurement fit: x ¼ 210.85 (df ¼ 83, squared correlations,
p , 0.001), RMSEA ¼ 0.068, CFI ¼ 0.99, NFI ¼ 0.99 and AVE
IJCHM the impact of hedonic value (utilitarian value: coefficient ¼ 0.59, t ¼ 6:31 vs hedonic
22,3 value: coefficient ¼ 0.30, t ¼ 3:65), supporting H4. Hedonic and utilitarian values were
also found to have significant relationships with behavioral intentions, supporting H2a
and H2b. The linkages among hedonic (coefficient ¼ 0.13, t ¼ 2:12, p , 0.05) and
utilitarian values (coefficient ¼ 0.28, t ¼ 3:16, p , 0.01) and behavioral intentions
were both positive as well. Utilitarian value showed a greater influence on behavioral
426 intention than hedonic value (utilitarian value: coefficient ¼ 0.28, t ¼ 3:16 vs hedonic
value: coefficient ¼ 0.13, t ¼ 2:12), supporting H5. Finally, customer satisfaction was
predicted to be positively associated with behavioral intentions, supporting H3
(coefficient ¼ 0.74, t ¼ 9:23, p , 0.01). This finding indicated that increasing
fast-casual restaurant customers’ satisfaction levels is necessary to enhance their
intentions to recommend and revisit the restaurant.
Indirect effects
The indirect effects of hedonic and utilitarian values on behavioral intentions were also
assessed. The Sobel test was used to calculate for mediation in a SEM model. The Sobel
test, which was first proposed by Sobel (1982), is by far the most commonly used when
testing indirect (mediation) effects. The Sobel test assesses whether a mediator variable
(customer satisfaction) significantly carries the effect of an independent variable
Hypothesized path Coefficient t-value Results
H1a. Hedonic value ! Customer satisfaction 0.30 3.65 * * Supported

H1b. Utilitarian value ! Customer satisfaction 0.59 6.31 * * Supported
H2a. Hedonic value ! Behavioral intention 0.13 2.12 * Supported
H2b. Utilitarian value ! Behavioral intention 0.28 3.16 * * Supported
H3. Customer satisfaction ! Behavioral intention 0.74 9.23 * * Supported
Table III. Notes: R 2 (Customer satisfaction) ¼ 0.68; R 2 (Behavioral intention) ¼ 0.79; Goodness-of-fit statistics:
Structural parameter x 2 (83) ¼ 210.85, p , 0.001; x 2/df ¼ 2.54; RMSEA ¼ 0.068; CFI ¼ 0.99; NFI ¼ 0.99; *p , 0.05,
estimates * *p , 0.01
Figure 1.
Results of the structural
model
(hedonic/utilitarian value) to a dependent variable (behavioral intention). The results of Hedonic and
the Sobel test revealed that both hedonic and utilitarian values had a significant utilitarian values
indirect effect on behavioral intention via customer satisfaction (coefficient
HV-CS-BI ¼ 0.22; coefficient UV-CS-BI ¼ 0.44) at an alpha level of 0.01. Since the direct
relationships between hedonic value and behavioral intentions (coefficient ¼ 0.13,
t ¼ 2:12, p , 0.05) and between utilitarian value and behavioral intentions
(coefficient ¼ 0.28, t ¼ 3:16, p , 0.01) were significant, customer satisfaction could 427
be regarded as a partial mediator in the hedonic/utilitarian value and behavioral
intention link. The total effect of utilitarian value on behavioral intention (0.72) was
greater than that of hedonic value (0.35), indicating the importance of utilitarian value
in increasing behavioral intention.
Discussion and conclusion

Summary of the study
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among hedonic and
utilitarian values, customer satisfaction and behavioral intention in the fast-casual
restaurant industry. In sum, the SEM analysis revealed that the proposed model could
well predict consumers’ behavioral intentions to revisit the fast-casual restaurant and
talk positively about their dining experience about the restaurant (R 2 ¼ 0:79),
indicating its applicability in the hospitality industries, particularly the restaurant
industries. The dimensions, along with other factors in the model, indicate acceptable
levels of convergent and discriminant validity. Moreover, they were related to the other
latent constructs, customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions, in a theoretically
consistent manner. This serves to extend Babin et al.’s (1994) original scale into a
restaurant context.
Implications
The study results provide both theoretical and practical benefits. First, theoretically,
this study demonstrates the usefulness of two distinct structures of consumer service
value: hedonic and utilitarian. This study is one of a few early studies to use Babin
et al.’s (1994) two-dimensional measure of “customer service value”, the
hedonic/utilitarian value, to explore relationships among hedonic and utilitarian
values, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Similar to previous studies
(Eroglu et al., 2005; Babin et al., 1994), the findings indicated that both hedonic and
utilitarian values significantly influenced customer satisfaction and behavioral
intentions, and customer satisfaction had a significant role in changing behavioral
intentions. Customers’ perceived hedonic and utilitarian values both directly and
indirectly influenced behavioral intentions. Thus, restaurateurs should acknowledge
and seek to improve customers’ perceptions of both hedonic and utilitarian values in
ensuring satisfaction, thereby in turn influencing positive behavior emotions such as
revisiting the restaurant and talking positively about dining experiences in fast casual
restaurants. Hopefully, this work will serve as a useful base for more comprehensive
research. Practically speaking, the results can help marketers better understand
people’s rationale for eating at fast-casual restaurants and respond accordingly,
thereby eventually improving customers’ perceived service value and creating
customer satisfaction, which in turn affects positive behavior.
IJCHM Second, the results of the current research indicate that while the hedonic aspects of
22,3 consumer value are important predictors of customer satisfaction, the more functional,
utilitarian aspects of consumer value play a greater role in customer satisfaction and
positive behavioral intentions in the fast-casual dining sector. That is, the dining
experience in this context might be more aptly described as a strongly goal-oriented,
instrumental behavior than an intrinsically enjoyable activity. Therefore, marketing
428 activities in the fast-casual restaurant context should focus on facilitating efficient
dining experiences (e.g. healthy food options, convenience, quick serving, and
reasonable price). We recommend that restaurateurs focus on means of enhancing the
utilitarian value of fast-casual restaurants so as not to put off those customers who
visit for primarily functional reasons. For instance, given the ability of fast-casual
restaurants to develop, source, and promote more healthy-sounding menu items,
restaurateurs can serve freshly prepared healthy foods that communicate better
positioning among customers for the upscale quick service restaurant sector.
Facilitating functional goals pays for itself in the longer term – satisfied customers are
likely to respond positively to the restaurant sector.
Third, the results of the Sobel test indicate that satisfaction significantly affects
hedonic and utilitarian values and thereby behavioral intentions, acting as a partial
mediator. This finding suggests that restaurateurs should seek to enhance customer
satisfaction. Developing various ways to increase restaurant customers’ satisfaction
levels may ultimately influence customers’ hedonic and utilitarian values as they form
intentions to revisit and recommend.
Fourth, this study also found that although its impact is not greater than the
utilitarian value, the hedonic value of the fast-casual restaurant dining experience still
significantly influences both customers’ satisfaction level and behavioral intentions.
This result implies that the hedonic aspect of value should not be ignored. In other
words, enjoyment is a significant predictor of consumer service value in the fast-casual
restaurant sector. Therefore, restaurateurs should make an effort to produce a more
enjoyable and pleasant environment. This may involve or require the use of a more
entertaining atmosphere, such as lighting, color, music, unique interior design and
décor, professional appearance of employees, and other aspects of dining experiences
that make them enjoyable or exciting to experience.
Limitations and suggestions for future research

As with any study, there are some limitations to the generalizability of the findings.
This study focused only on the fast-casual restaurant segment. Researchers (Chandon
et al., 2000) have found that the relative appeal of hedonic as compared to utilitarian
value depends on the nature (hedonic or utilitarian) of the product/service, indicating
that the role and relative importance of instrumental characteristics versus hedonic
aspects may vary across contexts. Thus, more research is needed into other contexts
such as upscale casual restaurants. Additionally, the use of a homogeneous student
sample, while it may be desirable in reducing extraneous variance, limited the
generalizability of the study findings. Therefore, future study should include a broad
range of actual customers to test the proposed relationships. A convenience sampling
approach has been widely and successfully used in collecting data in previous studies
(Babin and Attaway, 2000; Babin et al., 1994; Han and Ryu, 2007; Titz et al., 1998).
However, the conclusion should be also interpreted with some caution since the data
collected using the convenience sampling approach might not be representative of the Hedonic and
population. utilitarian values
Future research should address a number of characteristics (e.g. consumption
motivations) and situational factors (e.g. time pressure) that could be related to hedonic
or utilitarian value (Babin et al., 1994). For example, Babin et al. (1994) showed that
time pressure is negatively related to perceived shopping value. As time pressure
increased, consumers’ diminished feelings of freedom led to lower hedonic value. 429
Additionally, future research could examine the potential moderating effect of
consumption orientations. For example, consumers with a more goal/functional
orientation might be affected more by utilitarian value, whereas consumers who tend
towards more pleasure-oriented consumption could be influenced more by hedonic
value. Given the relationship between culture and marketing, another interesting
future research project could involve an examination of the potential role of culture as a
moderator among hedonic and utilitarian values, customer satisfaction and loyalty
links. However, such a study must be both theoretically and practically meaningful in
order to reveal how the relationships between values and satisfaction/loyalty vary in
different cultural settings.
References
Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), “The antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for firms”, Marketing Science, Vol. 12, pp. 125-43.
Anderson, J. (2003), “Quick-casual flavors”, available at: www.flavor-online.com/2003/pdfs/
anderson.pdf (accessed 2 January 2008).
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Anderson, R.E. and Srinivasan, S.S. (2003), “E-satisfaction and e-loyalty: a contingency
framework”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 123-38.
Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998), “Customer loyalty and complex services: the impact
of corporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with
varying degrees of service expertise”, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2003), “Hedonic shopping motivations”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 79, pp. 77-95.
Babin, B.J. and Attaway, J.S. (2000), “Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining
share of customer”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 91-9.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 644-56.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 6, pp. 74-94.
Baker, J., Grewal, D. and Parasuraman, A. (1994), “The influence of the store environment on
quality inferences and store image”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22,
pp. 328-39.
Barsky, J.D. (1992), “Customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: meaning and measurement”,
The Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 51-73.
Batra, R. and Ahtola, O.T. (1990), “Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer
attitudes”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 2, pp. 159-70.
IJCHM Bigne, J.E., Andreu, L. and Gnoth, J. (2004), “The theme park experience: an analysis of pleasure,
arousal and satisfaction”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25, pp. 1-12.
22,3
Bridges, E. and Florsheim, R. (2008), “Hedonic and utilitarian shopping goals: the online
experience”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 309-14.
Chandon, P., Wansink, B. and Laurent, G. (2000), “A benefit congruency framework of sales
promotion and effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 65-81.
430 Chen, C. and Tsai, D.C. (2007), “How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral
intentions?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1115-22.
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2001), “Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for
online retail shopping behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 511-35.
Colgate, M. and Lang, B. (2001), “Switching barriers in consumer markets: an investigation of the
financial services industry”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 332-47.
Donovan, R.J. and Rossiter, J.R. (1982), “Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology
approach”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 34-57.
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K. and Barr, T.F. (2005), “Perceived retail crowding and shopping
satisfaction: the role of shopping values”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 8,
pp. 1146-53.
Fischer, E. and Arnold, S.J. (1990), “More than a labor of love: gender roles and Christmas
shopping”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 333-45.
Ford, J.K., MacCallum, R.C. and Trait, M. (1986), “The application of exploratory factor analysis
in applied psychology: a critical review and analysis”, Personal Psychology, Vol. 39,
pp. 291-314.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. and Bryant, B.E. (1996), “The American
customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60,
pp. 7-18.
Getty, J.M. and Thompson, K.N. (1994), “The relationship between quality, satisfaction, and
recommending behavior in lodging decision”, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 3-22.
Gursoy, D., Spangenberg, E.R. and Rutherford, D.G. (2006), “The hedonic and utilitarian
dimensions of attendees’ attitudes toward festivals”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 279-94.
Hallowell, R. (1996), “The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and
profitability: an empirical study”, International Journal of Service Industry Management,
Vol. 7, pp. 27-42.
Han, H.S. and Ryu, K. (2007), “Moderating role of personal characteristics in forming restaurant
customers’ behavioral intentions: an upscale restaurant setting”, Journal of Hospitality and
Leisure Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 25-54.
Hirschman, E. and Holbrook, M. (1982), “Hedonic consumption emerging concepts, methods and
prepositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, pp. 92-101.
Homer, P.M. (2008), “Perceived quality and image: when all is not rosy”, Journal of Business
Hunt, H.K. (1977), “CS/D-overview and future research directions”, in Hunt, H.K. (Ed.),
Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction,
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp. 455-88.
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E. and Arnold, M.J. (2006), “Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value: Hedonic and
investigating differential effects on retail outcomes”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59,
pp. 974-81. utilitarian values
Joreskog, K.G. (1993), “Testing structural equation models”, in Bollen, K.A. (Ed.), Testing
Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury, CA, pp. 294-316.
Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R. and Reece, J. (1999), “Consumer research in the restaurant environment,
part 1: a conceptual model of dining satisfaction and return patronage”, International 431
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 205-22.
Lageat, T., Czellar, S. and Laurent, G. (2003), “Engineering hedonic attributes to generate
perceptions of luxury: consumer perception of an everyday sound”, Marketing Letters,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 97-109.
Lee, C.K., Yoon, Y.S. and Lee, S.K. (2007), “Investigating the relationships among perceived
value, satisfaction, and recommendations: the case of the Korean DMZ”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 28, pp. 204-14.
Lim, E.A.C. and Ang, S.H. (2008), “Hedonic vs utilitarian consumption: a cross-cultural
perspective based on cultural conditioning”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 3,
pp. 225-32.
McDougall, G.H.G. and Levesque, T. (2000), “Customer satisfaction with services: putting
perceived value into the equation”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14, pp. 392-410.
Marsh, H.W. and Hocevar, D. (1988), “A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod
analyses: application of second-order confirmatory factor analysis”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 107-17.
Namkung, Y. and Jang, S. (2007), “Does food quality really matter in restaurant?: its impact on
customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
O’Curry, S. and Strahilevitz, M. (2001), “Probability and mode of acquisition effects on choices
between hedonic and utilitarian options”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 37-49.
Oliver, R.L. (1996), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, MaGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Park, C. (2004), “Efficient or enjoyable? Consumer values of eating-out and fast food restaurant
consumption in Korea”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 23,
pp. 87-94.
Patterson, P.G. and Spreng, R.A. (1997), “Modeling the relationship between perceived value,
satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a business-to-business, services context: an
empirical examination”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 8
No. 5, pp. 414-34.
Pura, M. (2005), “Linking perceived value and loyalty in location-based mobile services”,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 509-38.
Sherry, J.F., McGrath, M.A. and Levy, S.L. (1993), “The dark side of the gift”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 28, pp. 225-45.
Sloan, E.A. (2002), “Fast and casual: today’s foodservice trends”, Food Technology, Vol. 56 No. 9,
pp. 34-51.
Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models”, in Leinhardt, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology, American Sociological
Association, Washington, DC, pp. 290-312.
IJCHM Soderlund, M. and Ohman, N. (2005), “Assessing behavior before it becomes behavior: an
examination of the role of intentions as a link between satisfaction and repatronizing
22,3 behavior”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 169-85.
Taylor, S.A. (1997), “Assessing regression-based importance weights for quality perceptions and
satisfaction judgments in the presence of higher order and/or interaction effects”, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 135-59.
432 Tillotson, J.E. (2003), “Fast-casual dining our next eating passion?”, Nutrition Today, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 91-5.
Titz, K., Miller, J.L. and Andrus, D.M. (1998), “Hedonic scales used in a logit model to explore
casino game choice”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 129-41.
Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R. and Grohmann, B. (2003), “Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian
dimensions of consumer attitude”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 310-20.
Wakefield, K.L. and Baker, J. (1998), “Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects of
shopping response”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 515-39.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model
and synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 2-22.
Further reading
Day, E. and Crask, M.R. (2000), “Value assessment: the antecedent of customer satisfaction”,
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviour, Vol. 13,
pp. 42-50.
National Restaurant Association (2008), “Restaurant industry outlook”, available at: www.res
taurant.org/research.html (accessed 4 February 2009).
Overby, J.W. and Lee, E.J. (2006), “The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping value on
consumer preference and intentions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59, pp. 1160-6.
Corresponding author
Heesup Han can be contacted at: heesup@donga.ac.kr
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Yeon Ho Shin, Haemi Kim, Kimberly Severt. 2019. Consumer values and service quality perceptions of
food truck experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management 79, 11-20. [Crossref]
2. Shih-Chih Chen, Chieh-Peng Lin. 2019. Understanding the effect of social media marketing activities:
The mediation of social identification, perceived value, and satisfaction. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change 140, 22-32. [Crossref]
3. Girish Prayag, Saman Hassibi, Robin Nunkoo. 2019. A systematic review of consumer satisfaction studies
in hospitality journals: conceptual development, research approaches and future prospects. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management 28:1, 51-80. [Crossref]
4. Tingting Jiang, Qian Guo, Yaping Xu, Shiting Fu. 2019. A diary study of information encountering
triggered by visual stimuli on micro-blogging services. Information Processing & Management 56:1, 29-42.
[Crossref]
5. Aseda Mensah, Kwame Simpe Ofori, George Oppong Appiagye Ampong, John Agyekum Addae, Affoue
Nadia Kouakou, John Tumaku. Exploring Users’ Continuance Intention Towards Mobile SNS: A Mobile
Value Perspective 70-78. [Crossref]
6. Bee-Lia Chua, Sanghyeop Lee, Hyeon-Cheol Kim, Heesup Han. 2019. Investigation of cruise vacationers’
behavioral intention formation in the fast-growing cruise industry: The moderating impact of gender and
age. Journal of Vacation Marketing 25:1, 51-70. [Crossref]
7. MoreoAndrew, Andrew Moreo, WoodsRobert, Robert Woods, SammonsGail, Gail Sammons,
BergmanChristine, Christine Bergman. Connection or competence. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. ThielemannVincent M., Vincent M. Thielemann, OttenbacherMichael C., Michael C. Ottenbacher,
HarringtonRobert James, Robert James Harrington. 2018. Antecedents and consequences of perceived
customer value in the restaurant industry. International Hospitality Review 32:1, 26-45. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
9. Mohd Afaq Khan, Sablu Khan. 2018. Service Convenience and Post-Purchase Behaviour of Online Buyers:
An Empirical Study. Journal of Service Science Research 10:2, 167-188. [Crossref]
10. AmpountolasApostolos, Apostolos Ampountolas. Peer-to-peer marketplaces: a study on consumer
purchase behavior. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Ozge Yalinay, Ian W F Baxter, Elaine Collinson, Ross Curran, Martin Joseph Gannon, Sean Lochrie,
Babak Taheri, Jamie Thompson. 2018. Servicescape and shopping value: the role of negotiation intention,
social orientation, and recreational identity at the Istanbul Grand Bazaar, Turkey. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing 35:9, 1132-1144. [Crossref]
12. Vanasanan Virabhakul, Ching-Hsu Huang. 2018. Effects of Service Experience on Behavioral intentions:
Serial Multiple Mediation Model. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 27:8, 997-1016.
[Crossref]
13. SongJahyun, Jahyun Song, QuHailin, Hailin Qu. How does consumer regulatory focus impact perceived
value and consumption emotions?. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, ahead
of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Iman Naderi, Audhesh K. Paswan, Francisco Guzman. 2018. Beyond the shadow of a doubt: The effect
of consumer knowledge on restaurant evaluation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 45, 221-229.
[Crossref]
15. Vito Tassiello, Giampaolo Viglia, Anna S. Mattila. 2018. How handwriting reduces negative online ratings.
Annals of Tourism Research 73, 171-179. [Crossref]
16. Heesup Han, Hong Ngoc Nguyen, HakJun Song, Sanghyeop Lee, Bee-Lia Chua. 2018. Impact
of functional/cognitive and emotional advertisements on image and repurchase intention. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management 6, 1-26. [Crossref]
17. Izquierdo-YustaAlicia, Alicia Izquierdo-Yusta, Gómez-CantóCarmen M., Carmen M. Gómez-Cantó,
Pelegrin-BorondoJorge, Jorge Pelegrin-Borondo, Martínez-RuizMaría Pilar, María Pilar Martínez-Ruiz.
Consumers’ behaviour in fast-food restaurants: a food value perspective from Spain. British Food Journal,
ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. HanHeesup, Heesup Han, LeeMyong Jae, Myong Jae Lee, KimWansoo, Wansoo Kim. 2018. Role of
shopping quality, hedonic/utilitarian shopping experiences, trust, satisfaction and perceived barriers in
triggering customer post-purchase intentions at airports. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 30:10, 3059-3082. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Chuan Huat Ong, Heng Wei Lee, T. Ramayah. 2018. Impact of brand experience on loyalty. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management 27:7, 755-774. [Crossref]
20. El-AdlyMohammed Ismail, Mohammed Ismail El-Adly, Abu ELSamenAmjad, Amjad Abu ELSamen.
2018. Guest-based hotel equity: scale development and validation. Journal of Product & Brand Management
27:6, 615-633. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Hoai Nam Dang Vu, Martin Reinhardt Nielsen. 2018. Understanding utilitarian and hedonic values
determining the demand for rhino horn in Vietnam. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 23:5, 417-432.
[Crossref]
22. James R. Brown. 2018. The competitive structure of restaurant retailing: the impact of hedonic-utilitarian
patronage motives. Journal of Business Research . [Crossref]
23. Heesup Han, Jin-Soo Lee, Ho Le Thu Trang, Wansoo Kim. 2018. Water conservation and waste
reduction management for increasing guest loyalty and green hotel practices. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 75, 58-66. [Crossref]
24. Pramod Iyer, Arezoo Davari, Amaradri Mukherjee. 2018. Investigating the effectiveness of retailers’ mobile
applications in determining customer satisfaction and repatronage intentions? A congruency perspective.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44, 235-243. [Crossref]
25. LuLu, Lu Lu, ChiChristina Geng-qing, Christina Geng-qing Chi. 2018. An examination of the perceived
value of organic dining. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30:8, 2826-2844.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Scott Taylor, Robin B. DiPietro, Kevin Kam Fung So. 2018. Increasing experiential value and relationship
quality: An investigation of pop-up dining experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management
74, 45-56. [Crossref]
27. Bee-Lia Chua, Hyeon-Cheol Kim, Sanghyeop Lee, Heesup Han. 2018. The role of brand personality,
self-congruity, and sensory experience in elucidating sky lounge users’ behavior. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing 8, 1-14. [Crossref]
28. Naehyun (Paul) Jin, Sang-Mook Lee, Susan L. Slocum, Jerusalem Merkebu. 2018. Examining the healthy
food consumption in full-service restaurants: quality or non-quality cues?. Journal of Foodservice Business
Research 21:4, 394-419. [Crossref]
29. Eileen Bridges. 2018. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping goals: a decade later. Journal of Global Scholars
of Marketing Science 28:3, 282-290. [Crossref]
30. Mohammed Ismail El-Adly. 2018. Modelling the relationship between hotel perceived value, customer
satisfaction, and customer loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services . [Crossref]
31. ClemesMichael Daniel, Michael Daniel Clemes, MohiZurinawati, Zurinawati Mohi, LiXuedong,
Xuedong Li, HuBaiding, Baiding Hu. 2018. Synthesizing moderate upscale restaurant patrons’ dining
experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 30:3, 627-651. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. Babajide Osatuyi, Hong Qin. 2018. How vital is the role of affect on post-adoption behaviors? An
examination of social commerce users. International Journal of Information Management 40, 175-185.
[Crossref]
33. Bekir Bora Dedeoglu, Anil Bilgihan, Ben Haobin Ye, Piera Buonincontri, Fevzi Okumus. 2018. The
impact of servicescape on hedonic value and behavioral intentions: The importance of previous experience.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 72, 10-20. [Crossref]
34. Hyeyoon Choi, Hwansuk Chris Choi. 2018. Investigating Tourists’ Fun-Eliciting Process toward Tourism
Destination Sites: An Application of Cognitive Appraisal Theory. Journal of Travel Research 43,
004728751877680. [Crossref]
35. AkhgariMehdi, Mehdi Akhgari, BruningEdward R., Edward R. Bruning, FinlayJesse, Jesse Finlay,
BruningNealia S., Nealia S. Bruning. 2018. Image, performance, attitudes, trust, and loyalty in financial
services. International Journal of Bank Marketing 36:4, 744-763. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Xinyi Liu, Dan Huang, Zhiyong Li. 2018. Examining relationships among perceived benefit, tourist
experience and satisfaction: the context of intelligent sharing bicycle. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research 23:5, 437-449. [Crossref]
37. Fernando de Oliveira Santini, Wagner Junior Ladeira, Claudio Hoffmann Sampaio. 2018. Tourists'
perceived value and destination revisit intentions: The moderating effect of domain-specific
innovativeness. International Journal of Tourism Research 20:3, 277-285. [Crossref]
38. Xiuyuan Gong, Matthew K. O. Lee, Zhiying Liu, Xiabing Zheng. 2018. Examining the Role of Tie
Strength in Users’ Continuance Intention of Second-Generation Mobile Instant Messaging Services.
Information Systems Frontiers 2. . [Crossref]
39. You-De Dai, Ying-Chan Liu, Wen-Long Zhuang, Ching-Hua Wang. 2018. Using social exchange
perspective to explain customer voluntary performance behavior. The Service Industries Journal 12, 1-21.
[Crossref]
40. JiMingjie, Mingjie Ji, WongIpKin Anthony, IpKin Anthony Wong, EvesAnita, Anita Eves, LeongAliana
Man Wai, Aliana Man Wai Leong. 2018. A multilevel investigation of China’s regional economic
conditions on co-creation of dining experience and outcomes. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 30:4, 2132-2152. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. WuBen, Ben Wu, YangWan, Wan Yang. 2018. What do Chinese consumers want? A value framework for
luxury hotels in China. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30:4, 2037-2055.
42. Chun-Fang Chiang. 2018. Influences of price, service convenience, and social servicescape on post-
purchase process of capsule hotels. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 23:4, 373-384. [Crossref]
43. Alessandra Castellini, Antonella Samoggia. 2018. Customers’ Perception of Fish Fast-Casual Restaurants.
Journal of Food Products Marketing 24:3, 348-371. [Crossref]
44. Annie Chen, Norman Peng. 2018. Examining consumers’ intentions to dine at luxury restaurants while
traveling. International Journal of Hospitality Management 71, 59-67. [Crossref]
45. LeeSeunghwan, Seunghwan Lee, KimDae-Young, Dae-Young Kim. 2018. The effect of hedonic and
utilitarian values on satisfaction and loyalty of Airbnb users. International Journal of Contemporary
46. Borham Yoon, Yeasun Chung. 2018. Consumer Attitude and Visit Intention toward Food-Trucks:
Targeting Millennials. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 21:2, 187-199. [Crossref]
47. LiuHongbo, Hongbo Liu, LiHengyun, Hengyun Li, DiPietroRobin B., Robin B. DiPietro, LevittJamie
Alexander, Jamie Alexander Levitt. 2018. The role of authenticity in mainstream ethnic restaurants.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30:2, 1035-1053. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
48. Margaret Meiling Luo. E-service Adoption: The Three Q Model 259-265. [Crossref]
49. Hyewon Youn, Jong-Hyeong Kim. 2018. Is unfamiliarity a double-edged sword for ethnic restaurants?.
50. Lilian Consuelo Mustelier-Puig, Amna Anjum, Xu Ming. 2018. Interaction quality and satisfaction: An
empirical study of international tourists when buying Shanghai tourist attraction services. Cogent Business
& Management 5:1, 1-20. [Crossref]
51. Sangeeta Arora, Harpreet Kaur. The Driving Forces Behind Customer Retention in a Digitized World:
Evidence from India (A Partial Least Squares Approach) 1-31. [Crossref]
52. Joonhyeong Joseph Kim, Minjung Nam, Insin Kim. 2018. The effect of trust on value on travel websites:
enhancing well-being and word-of-mouth among the elderly. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing
1. [Crossref]
53. Jinha Lee, Jeremy E. Whaley. 2018. Determinants of dining satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality Marketing
& Management 1. [Crossref]
54. ZhangXin, Xin Zhang, MaLiang, Liang Ma, WangGao Shan, Gao Shan Wang. 2017. Factors influencing
users’ subjective well-being: an empirical study based on shared bicycles in China. Information Discovery
and Delivery 45:4, 202-211. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
55. KimJoonhyeong Joseph, Joonhyeong Joseph Kim, AhnYoung-joo, Young-joo Ahn, KimInsin, Insin Kim.
2017. The effect of older adults’ age identity on attitude toward online travel websites and e-loyalty.
[PDF]
56. ChangWei-Lun, Wei-Lun Chang, ChangChiao-Jung, Chiao-Jung Chang. 2017. Hedonic experience of
customer re-patronizing intention: a system dynamics viewpoint. Kybernetes 46:10, 1674-1691. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
57. Diego Bufquin, Robin DiPietro, Charles Partlow. 2017. The influence of the DinEX service quality
dimensions on casual-dining restaurant customers’ satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Journal of
Foodservice Business Research 20:5, 542-556. [Crossref]
58. Song-Ee Hahn, Beverley Sparks, Hugh Wilkins, Xin Jin. 2017. E-service Quality Management of a Hotel
Website: A Scale and Implications for Management. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 26:7,
694-716. [Crossref]
59. Heesup Han, Kiattipoom Kiatkawsin, Wansoo Kim, Sanghyeop Lee. 2017. Investigating customer loyalty
formation for wellness spa: Individualism vs. collectivism. International Journal of Hospitality Management
67, 11-23. [Crossref]
60. DongHee Kim, SooCheong (Shawn) Jang. 2017. Therapeutic benefits of dining out, traveling, and
drinking: Coping strategies for lonely consumers to improve their mood. International Journal of
61. Jahyun Song, Hailin Qu. 2017. The mediating role of consumption emotions. International Journal of
62. OzturkAhmet Bulent, Ahmet Bulent Ozturk, BilgihanAnil, Anil Bilgihan, Salehi-EsfahaniSaba, Saba
Salehi-Esfahani, HuaNan, Nan Hua. 2017. Understanding the mobile payment technology acceptance
based on valence theory. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29:8, 2027-2049.
63. AhmadAsad, Asad Ahmad, RahmanObaidur, Obaidur Rahman, KhanMohammed Naved, Mohammed
Naved Khan. 2017. Exploring the role of website quality and hedonism in the formation of e-satisfaction
and e-loyalty. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 11:3, 246-267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. JinNaehyun (Paul), Naehyun (Paul) Jin, LineNathaniel Discepoli, Nathaniel Discepoli Line, LeeSang-
Mook, Sang-Mook Lee. 2017. The health conscious restaurant consumer. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 29:8, 2103-2120. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Sungsik Yoon, Jungsun (Sunny) Kim, Daniel J. Connolly. 2017. Understanding Motivations and
Acceptance of Location-Based Services. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 29,
1-23. [Crossref]
66. Asta Tarute, Shahrokh Nikou, Rimantas Gatautis. 2017. Mobile application driven consumer engagement.
Telematics and Informatics 34:4, 145-156. [Crossref]
67. ChuaBee-Lia, Bee-Lia Chua, LeeSanghyeop, Sanghyeop Lee, HanHeesup, Heesup Han. 2017.
Consequences of cruise line involvement: a comparison of first-time and repeat passengers. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29:6, 1658-1683. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. ZhangMin, Min Zhang, ZhuMingxing, Mingxing Zhu, LiuXiaotong, Xiaotong Liu, YangJun, Jun Yang.
2017. Why should I pay for e-books?. The Electronic Library 35:3, 472-493. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
69. Heesup Han, Sunghyup Sean Hyun. 2017. Cruise travel motivations and repeat cruising behaviour: impact
of relationship investment. Current Issues in Tourism 10, 1-20. [Crossref]
70. DiPietroRobin, Robin DiPietro. 2017. Restaurant and foodservice research. International Journal of
71. Jinsoo Hwang, Sunghyup Sean Hyun. 2017. First-class airline travellers' perception of luxury goods and
its effect on loyalty formation. Current Issues in Tourism 20:5, 497-520. [Crossref]
72. Hyeongjin Jeon, Jichul Jang, Elizabeth B. Barrett. 2017. Linking Website Interactivity to Consumer
Behavioral Intention in an Online Travel Community: The Mediating Role of Utilitarian Value and Online
Trust. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 18:2, 125-148. [Crossref]
73. LeeWoojin, Woojin Lee, SungHeeKyung, HeeKyung Sung, SuhEunju, Eunju Suh, ZhaoJinlin, Jinlin
Zhao. 2017. The effects of festival attendees’ experiential values and satisfaction on re-visit intention to the
destination. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29:3, 1005-1027. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
74. Heidarzadeh HanzaeeKambiz, Kambiz Heidarzadeh Hanzaee, EsmaeilpourFariba, Fariba Esmaeilpour.
2017. Effect of restaurant reward programs on customers’ loyalty: evidence from Iran. Journal of Islamic
Marketing 8:1, 140-155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Chen-Tsang (Simon) Tsai, Yao-Chin Wang. 2017. Experiential value in branding food tourism. Journal
of Destination Marketing & Management 6:1, 56-65. [Crossref]
76. 이이이, 이이이, Yong-Ki Lee. 2017. 이이이 이이이이 이이 이이이이 이이이 이이이이이 이이이이이이이이이이 이이이 이이이이 이이이 이이. FoodService
Industry Journal 13:1, 123-140. [Crossref]
77. Sunkyoung Lee, 이이이. 2017. Impact of Famous Restaurant Information Source on Perceived Value and
Revisit Intention. FoodService Industry Journal 13:1, 141-157. [Crossref]
78. Kuo-Chien Chang. 2017. Feeling leads to believing: a Kansei-based approach to explore website users’
purchase intention in the travel agency sector. Information Systems and e-Business Management 15:1, 21-50.
[Crossref]
79. Sanghyeop Lee, Bee-Lia Chua, Heesup Han. 2017. Role of service encounter and physical environment
performances, novelty, satisfaction, and affective commitment in generating cruise passenger loyalty. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 22:2, 131-146. [Crossref]
80. Asad Ahmad, Mohammed Naved Khan. 2017. Developing a Website Service Quality Scale: A
Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. Journal of Internet Commerce 16:1, 104-126. [Crossref]
81. Fiona X. Yang. 2017. Effects of Restaurant Satisfaction and Knowledge Sharing Motivation on eWOM
Intentions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 41:1, 93-127. [Crossref]
82. Manuela Vega-Vázquez, Mario Castellanos-Verdugo, Mª Ángeles Oviedo-García. 2017. Shopping value,
tourist satisfaction and positive word of mouth: the mediating role of souvenir shopping satisfaction.
Current Issues in Tourism 20:13, 1413. [Crossref]
83. Lan Jiang, Michael Dalbor. 2017. Factors Impacting Capital Expenditures in the Quick Service Restaurant
Industry. The Journal of Hospitality Financial Management 25:2, 90. [Crossref]
84. N. L. Jamaludin, D. L. Sam, G. M. Sandal, A. A. Adam. 2016. Personal values, subjective well-being
and destination-loyalty intention of international students. SpringerPlus 5:1. . [Crossref]
85. Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore, Elaine Chiao Ling Yang, Mun Yee Lai. 2016. Comparing the Meanings of
Food in Different Chinese Societies: The Cases of Taiwan and Malaysia. Journal of Hospitality Marketing
86. Wagner Junior Ladeira, Walter Meucci Nique, Diego Costa Pinto, Adilson Borges. 2016. Running for
pleasure or performance? How store attributes and hedonic product value influence consumer satisfaction.
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 26:5, 502-520. [Crossref]
87. YangWan, Wan Yang, MattilaAnna S., Anna S. Mattila. 2016. Why do we buy luxury experiences?.
[PDF]
88. HanSung Ho, Sung Ho Han, NguyenBang, Bang Nguyen, SimkinLyndon, Lyndon Simkin. 2016. The
dynamic models of consumers’ symbolic needs: in the context of restaurant brands. European Journal of
Marketing 50:7/8, 1348-1376. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
89. KooChulmo, Chulmo Koo, JounYouhee, Youhee Joun, HanHeejeong, Heejeong Han, ChungNamho,
Namho Chung. 2016. A structural model for destination travel intention as a media exposure. International
90. ChuangYi-Fei, Yi-Fei Chuang, TaiYang-Fei, Yang-Fei Tai. 2016. Membership-based consumer switching
intentions and benefit exchange theory. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
91. Sabine Benoit (née Moeller), Tobias Schaefers, Raphael Heider. 2016. Understanding on-the-go
consumption: Identifying and quantifying its determinants. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
31, 32-42. [Crossref]
92. Jui-Chang Cheng, She-Juang Luo, Chang-Hua Yen, Ya-Fang Yang. 2016. Brand attachment and customer
citizenship behaviors. The Service Industries Journal 36:7-8, 263-277. [Crossref]
93. Bee-Lia Chua, Ben Goh, Lynn Huffman, Catherine Jai, Shahrim Karim. 2016. Cruise Passengers’
Perception of Key Quality Attributes of Cruise Lines in North America. Journal of Hospitality Marketing
94. Tahir Albayrak, Meltem Caber, Nesli Çömen. 2016. Tourist shopping: The relationships among shopping
attributes, shopping value, and behavioral intention. Tourism Management Perspectives 18, 98-106.
[Crossref]
95. Zixiu Guo, Lin Xiao, Christine Van Toorn, Yihong Lai, Chanyoung Seo. 2016. Promoting online
learners’ continuance intention: An integrated flow framework. Information & Management 53:2, 279-295.
[Crossref]
96. PrebensenNina K., Nina K. Prebensen, RosengrenSara, Sara Rosengren. 2016. Experience value as a
function of hedonic and utilitarian dominant services. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

97. Elaine Chiao Ling Yang, Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore. 2015. Food and the Perception of Eating: The Case
of Young Taiwanese Consumers. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 20:sup1, 1545-1564. [Crossref]
98. Kamile Asli Basoglu, Joanne Jung-Eun Yoo. 2015. Soon or Later? The Effect of Temporal Distance on
Travel Decisions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 32:sup1, S62-S75. [Crossref]
99. 이이이, 이이이. 2015. Understanding the Effects of Hedonic and Utilitarian Values on Consumption Emotions
and Customer Satisfaction. Culinary Science & Hospitality Research 21:5, 180-191. [Crossref]
100. Jaemun Byun, SooCheong (Shawn) Jang. 2015. Effective destination advertising: Matching effect between
advertising language and destination type. Tourism Management 50, 31-40. [Crossref]
101. 이이이, 이이이. 2015. Understanding the Effects of Hedonic and Utilitarian Values on Consumption Emotions
and Customer Satisfaction. Culinary Science & Hospitality Research 21:5, 180-191. [Crossref]
102. Ercan Sirakaya-Turk, Yuksel Ekinci, Drew Martin. 2015. The efficacy of shopping value in predicting
destination loyalty. Journal of Business Research 68:9, 1878-1885. [Crossref]
103. Anil Bilgihan, Khaldoon Nusair, Fevzi Okumus, Cihan Cobanoglu. 2015. Applying flow theory to booking
experiences: An integrated model in an online service context. Information & Management 52:6, 668-678.
[Crossref]
104. Pei-Jou Kuo, Lu Zhang, David A. Cranage. 2015. What you get is not what you saw: exploring the impacts
of misleading hotel website photos. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27:6,
1301-1319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
105. Xiangbin Yan, Jing Wang, Michael Chau. 2015. Customer revisit intention to restaurants: Evidence from
online reviews. Information Systems Frontiers 17:3, 645-657. [Crossref]
106. Sayyed Mohsen Allameh, Javad Khazaei Pool, Akbar Jaberi, Reza Salehzadeh, Hassan Asadi. 2015. Factors
influencing sport tourists’ revisit intentions. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 27:2, 191-207.
107. Jay Kandampully, Tingting (Christina) Zhang, Anil Bilgihan. 2015. Customer loyalty: a review and future
directions with a special focus on the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
108. Annie Chen, Norman Peng, Kuang-peng Hung. 2015. The effects of luxury restaurant environments on
diners’ emotions and loyalty. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27:2, 236-260.
109. EunHa Jeong, SooCheong (Shawn) Jang. 2015. Healthy menu promotions: A match between dining
value and temporal distance. International Journal of Hospitality Management 45, 1-13. [Crossref]
110. Cheng Peng, Anil Bilgihan, Jay Kandampully. 2015. How Do Diners Make Decisions Among Casual
Dining Restaurants? An Exploratory Study of College Students. International Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Administration 16:1, 1-15. [Crossref]
111. Bee-Lia Chua, Sanghyeop Lee, Ben Goh, Heesup Han. 2015. Impacts of cruise service quality and price
on vacationers’ cruise experience: Moderating role of price sensitivity. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 44, 131-145. [Crossref]
112. 이이이, Lee,Ae Joo. 2015. The effect of service convenience on perceived service value, customer satisfaction
and reuse intention with eating out in mobile commerce. FoodService Industry Journal 11:4, 7. [Crossref]
113. Kim, Seungbeom, Youn Sung Kim. 2014. Analysis of Critical Success Factors of Fast Casual Restaurant
by Incorporating Service Design and Operations Management: Blaze Pizza Case. Journal of Korea Service
Management Society 15:4, 63-84. [Crossref]
114. Weng Marc Lim. 2014. The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Hedonism in Hospitality
Services. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 23:6, 626-651. [Crossref]
115. Dev Jani, Heesup Han. 2014. Testing the Moderation Effect of Hotel Ambience on the Relationships
Among Social Comparison, Affect, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing 31:6, 731-746. [Crossref]
116. Osman M. Karatepe. 2014. Hope, Work Engagement, and Organizationally Valued Performance
Outcomes: An Empirical Study in the Hotel Industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management
23:6, 678-698. [Crossref]
117. Inwon Kang, Eunsun Cho. 2014. A Study on User's Voluntary Behavior in Company Social
Networks(CSN). Journal of the Korea society of IT services 13:2, 35-53. [Crossref]
118. V. Aslihan Nasir, Fahri Karakaya. 2014. Consumer segments in organic foods market. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 31:4, 263-277. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
119. V. Aslihan Nasir, Fahri Karakaya. 2014. Underlying Motivations of Organic Food Purchase Intentions.
Agribusiness 30:3, 290-308. [Crossref]
120. Sunghyup Sean Hyun, Juhee Kang. 2014. A better investment in luxury restaurants: Environmental or
non-environmental cues?. International Journal of Hospitality Management 39, 57-70. [Crossref]
121. Sunghyup Sean Hyun, Insin Kim. 2014. Identifying Optimal Rapport-Building Behaviors In Inducing
Patrons’ Emotional Attachment In Luxury Restaurants. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 38:2,
162-198. [Crossref]
122. Veljko Marinkovic, Vladimir Senic, Danijela Ivkov, Darko Dimitrovski, Marija Bjelic. 2014. The
antecedents of satisfaction and revisit intentions for full-service restaurants. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning 32:3, 311-327. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
123. Edward Shih-Tse Wang. 2014. Do Farmers' Market and Specialty Food Store Customers Differ in the
Effects of Perceived Utilitarian and Hedonic Shopping Values?. Journal of Marketing Channels 21:2, 77-86.
[Crossref]
124. Bee-Lia Chua, Naehyun (Paul) Jin, Sangmook Lee, Ben Goh. 2014. Influence of Mechanic, Functional,
and Humanic Clues on Customers’ Experiential Values and Behavioral Intentions in Full-Service
Restaurants. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 17:2, 67-84. [Crossref]
125. S. C. Chen, C. Raab. 2014. Construction and Validation of the Customer Participation Scale. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research . [Crossref]
126. Irina Matijošaitienė, Inga Stankevičė, Jaime Ribeiro. 2014. Road landscape as a product: does it satisfy
consumers’ aesthetic needs?. THE BALTIC JOURNAL OF ROAD AND BRIDGE ENGINEERING
9:4, 297-305. [Crossref]
127. Chao-Min Chiu, Eric T. G. Wang, Yu-Hui Fang, Hsin-Yi Huang. 2014. Understanding customers' repeat
purchase intentions in B2C e-commerce: the roles of utilitarian value, hedonic value and perceived risk.
Information Systems Journal 24:1, 85-114. [Crossref]
128. Stephen J. Calver, Stephen J. Page. 2013. Enlightened hedonism: Exploring the relationship of service
value, visitor knowledge and interest, to visitor enjoyment at heritage attractions. Tourism Management
39, 23-36. [Crossref]
129. Mehran Nejati, Parnia Parakhodi Moghaddam. 2013. The effect of hedonic and utilitarian values on
satisfaction and behavioural intentions for dining in fast-casual restaurants in Iran. British Food Journal
130. David Jiménez-Castillo, Raquel Sánchez-Fernández, M. Ángeles Iniesta-Bonillo. 2013. Segmenting
university graduates on the basis of perceived value, image and identification. International Review on
Public and Nonprofit Marketing 10:3, 235-252. [Crossref]
131. Dev Jani, Heesup Han. 2013. Personality, social comparison, consumption emotions, satisfaction, and
behavioral intentions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25:7, 970-993.
132. Ana Isabel Polo Peña, Dolores María Frías Jamilena, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Molina. 2013. Antecedents
of loyalty toward rural hospitality enterprises: The moderating effect of the customer's previous experience.
133. Sonia Bharwani, Vinnie Jauhari. 2013. An exploratory study of competencies required to co‐create
memorable customer experiences in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary
134. Jinsoo Hwang, Sunghyup Sean Hyun. 2013. The impact of nostalgia triggers on emotional responses and
revisit intentions in luxury restaurants: The moderating role of hiatus. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 33, 250-262. [Crossref]
135. Adilson Borges, Barry J. Babin, Nathalie Spielmann. 2013. Gender orientation and retail atmosphere:
effects on value perception. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 41:7, 498-511.
136. Osman M. Karatepe. 2013. The effects of work overload and work‐family conflict on job embeddedness
and job performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25:4, 614-634.
137. Kuo‐Chien Chang. 2013. How reputation creates loyalty in the restaurant sector. International Journal of
138. Biyan Wen, Christina Geng‐qing Chi. 2013. Examine the cognitive and affective antecedents to service
recovery satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25:3, 306-327.
139. Raquel Sánchez Fernández, Gilbert Swinnen, M. Ángeles Iniesta Bonillo. 2013. La creación de valor en
servicios: una aproximación a las dimensiones utilitarista y hedonista en el ámbito de la restauración.
Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa 16:2, 83-94. [Crossref]
140. Seolmin Yoon, Tae-Hee Lee. 2013. The Effect of the Perceived Lovemark Constructs of Travel Agency
on Repurchase/Recommendation Intention and Consumer Support toward the Extension of Discounted
Travel Products. Journal of Korea Service Management Society 14:1, 49-72. [Crossref]
141. Mehran Nejati, Parnia Parakhodi Moghaddam. 2012. Gender differences in hedonic values, utilitarian
values and behavioural intentions of young consumers: insights from Iran. Young Consumers 13:4, 337-344.
142. Naehyun (Paul) Jin, Sangmook Lee, Lynn Huffman. 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. [Crossref]
143. Marina Dias de Faria, Jorge Ferreira da Silva, Jorge Brantes Ferreira. 2012. The visually impaired and
consumption in restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 24:5, 721-734.
144. Nathaniel D. Line, Rodney C. Runyan. 2012. Hospitality marketing research: Recent trends and future
directions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31:2, 477-488. [Crossref]

145. Qi Yan, Hanqin Zhang, Mimi Li. 2012. Programming quality of festivals: conceptualization,
measurement, and relation to consequences. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
146. Insin Kim, Sang Mi Jeon, Sunghyup Sean Hyun. 2012. Chain restaurant patrons' well‐being perception
and dining intentions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 24:3, 402-429.
147. Kisang Ryu, Hye‐Rin Lee, Woo Gon Kim. 2012. The influence of the quality of the physical environment,
food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral
intentions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 24:2, 200-223. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
148. Tae-Hee Lee, 이이이, 이이이. 2012. The impact of customer experience on willingness to support toward new
contents development in theme park : Focused on the experience(4Es) factors of Pine and Gilmore. Journal
of Korea Service Management Society 13:1, 57-81. [Crossref]
149. Daniele Scarpi. 2012. Work and Fun on the Internet: The Effects of Utilitarianism and Hedonism Online.
Journal of Interactive Marketing 26:1, 53-67. [Crossref]
150. Rong‐Da Liang, Jun‐Shu Zhang. 2012. The effect of service interaction orientation on customer
satisfaction and behavioral intention. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 24:1, 153-170.
151. Chao Wen, G Qin, Victor R. Prybutok, Charles Blankson. 2012. The Role of National Culture on
Relationships Between Customers' Perception of Quality, Values, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions.
Quality Management Journal 19:4, 7-23. [Crossref]
152. Dev Jani, Heesup Han. 2011. Investigating the key factors affecting behavioral intentions. International
153. Ching-Fu Chen, Odonchimeg Myagmarsuren. 2011. Brand equity, relationship quality, relationship
value, and customer loyalty: Evidence from the telecommunications services. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence 22:9, 957-974. [Crossref]
154. Elbeyi Pelit, Yüksel Öztürk, Yalçın Arslantürk. 2011. The effects of employee empowerment on employee
job satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 23:6, 784-802. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
155. Bilge Altuntaş, Ayşen Akyüz. Attitude and Purchase Intention Towards Smartwatches 41-57. [Crossref]

Ryu 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ryu 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction and behavioral

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

some type of conscious pursuit of an intended consequence”; thus, it is task-oriented

recommend it to family, friends, and others in the future.

is mediated by emotions experienced by the shopper, using a sample of college

convenient 5.22 1.07

A self-administered questionnaire was distributed and collected in classroom settings

Hedonic Utilitarian Customer Behavioral Composite

1. Hedonic value 1.00 0.50 0.82

Hypothesized path Coefficient t-value Results

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

Discussion and conclusion

Limitations and suggestions for future research

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Management 28:1, 113-135. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

directions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31:2, 477-488. [Crossref]

You might also like