The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm

IJCHM
24,3 Chain restaurant patrons’
well-being perception and dining
intentions
402
The moderating role of involvement
Received 6 December 2010
Revised 16 March 2011
Insin Kim
1 June 2011 Department of Tourism Management, Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea
23 August 2011
Accepted 17 September Sang Mi Jeon
2011 Division of Tourism Studies, Kyungnam University, Gyeongsangnam-do,
South Korea, and
Sunghyup Sean Hyun
Department of Tourism and Convention, Pusan National University, Busan,
South Korea

International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Vol. 24 No. 3, 2012
pp. 402-429
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/09596111211217888
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research was to investigate the structural relationships between chain
restaurant patrons’ brand attitude, utilitarian value, hedonic value, well-being perception, and
behavioral intentions with the moderating role of involvement.
Design/methodology/approach – A review of the current literature in these areas revealed ten
theoretical hypotheses, from which the authors derived a structural model. The model was tested
utilizing data collected from 433 chain restaurant patrons. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural
equation modeling were utilized to test the proposed theoretical relationships.
Findings – Data analysis indicates that brand attitude and hedonic value bear a positive impact on
patrons’ well-being perception. However, it was revealed that utilitarian value does not have
significant impact on patrons’ well-being perception. It was also found that well-being perception is the
most powerful determinant of patrons’ positive behavioral intentions. More importantly, well-being
perception played a full mediating role in the relationship between hedonic value and behavioral
intentions. Lastly, it was revealed that the moderating role of involvement in the relationships between
well-being perception and behavioral intentions is significant.
Research limitations/implications – The findings emphasize the significance of the study
variables in maximizing patrons’ well-being perception and in inducing positive behavioral intentions.
Since there has been little study of consumer well-being (CWB) in the chain restaurant industry, the
model verified here may serve as a guide for future research aimed at understanding the formation of
CWB and its potential impact on other marketing variables in the chain restaurant industry.
Originality/value – The model verified in this study is the first that explains the formation of CWB
and its impact on patrons’ behavioral intentions.
Keywords Well-being perception, Perceived value, Brand attitude, Involvement, Chain restaurant,
Behavioral intentions, Brand awareness, Brands, User involvement, Behaviour
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Consumer well-being (CWB) refers to how much a brand positively contributes to a
quality of life perception (Grzeskowiak and Sirgy, 2007). On a practical level, CWB
indicates how consuming a brand’s product contributes to enhancing a consumer’s Chain restaurant
perception of quality of life (Sirgy et al., 2007). The concept of CWB has been in the patrons’ well-
spotlight for practitioners and scholars in the field of marketing recently as consumers
have begun more and more to consider quality of life as an important goal (Lee and Sirgy, being perception
2004; Samli et al., 1987; Sirgy, 2001; Sirgy et al., 2007). High levels of CWB lead to higher
levels of consumer quality of life, which reflect higher levels of life satisfaction, overall
happiness with life, absence of ill-being, greater social well-being, and other positive 403
attributes (Grzeskowiak and Sirgy, 2007). For these reasons, well-being perception
currently is one of the most important criteria that consumers consider when they make
decisions about purchasing a brand’s products and/or services (Sirgy et al., 2007).
It can be argued that when consumers choose a restaurant, well-being perception
plays an important role in the decision-making process. When consumers consider a
set of restaurants in their minds, they unconsciously consider which restaurants can
have a positive impact on their quality of life. For patrons who place great importance
on dining out, their well-being perceptions have a stronger impact on their
decision-making processes, since involvement plays a moderating role in
decision-making (e.g. Cobb and Hoyer, 1985; Olsen, 2007; Smith and Bristor, 1994;
Tarkiainen and Sundqvist, 2005).
Despite the importance of well-being perception and the moderating role of
involvement in dining out decision-making, no previous research has examined the role
of well-being perception in patron behavior, and little is known about the moderating
role of involvement in patrons’ decisions about which restaurants to visit when dining
out. For this reason, chain restaurant marketers have been under constant pressure to
find more effective marketing tactics that will appeal to patrons’ well-being perception,
but have no practical guidelines to do so. Chain restaurant marketers also lack
marketing tactics that take into account patrons’ dining involvement.
The existing restaurant research heavily focuses on brand, perceived value, and
satisfaction, and the impact of these factors on behavioral intentions (e.g. Ha and Jang,
2010; Hyun, 2009; Kwun and Oh, 2004; Park, 2004; Ryu et al., 2010). It is therefore
highly worthwhile to investigate the causal relationships between patrons’ well-being
perception, brand perception, perceived value, and behavioral intentions with the
moderating role of dining involvement. Findings in these key areas can significantly
expand the current restaurant literature. In addition, this study is the first to examine
the role of patrons’ well-being perception in dining intentions, and the results of this
study are expected to provide the first practical implications for chain restaurant
marketers in creating well-being-focused marketing strategies.
This research was conducted in the chain restaurant setting, which is a set of related
restaurants with the same brand name in many different locations that are managed
either under shared corporate ownership or franchising agreements (Hyun, 2009). As a
result, a chain restaurant’s menu, service, and operation are standardized. For this
reason, significant findings in the chain restaurant context can provide important,
practical implications for a large number of owners/managers.
Based on theoretical backgrounds, this study derives a structural model that shows
the theoretical relationships between brand attitude, perceived value (utilitarian value
and hedonic value), CWB, and behavioral intentions. The moderating role of
involvement based on the review of literature is also incorporated into the study (see
Figure 1). The model was tested using a sample of actual chain restaurant patrons.
IJCHM
24,3

404

Figure 1.
Conceptual model

Literature review
Consumer well-being (CWB)
The concept of consumer well-being, which is also referred to as “quality of life”
(Dagger and Sweeney, 2006; Endres, 1999; Yuan, 2001) is somewhat vague (Samli et al.,
1987) and multi-dimensional in existing marketing literature. Many scholars have
proposed theoretical models that conceptualize CWB (Table I), often stating that CWB
results from consumers’ positive emotional responses from the consumption of a
product or service. For example, the quality model (Sirgy et al., 2007) suggests that
CWB is a consumer’s positive emotional response toward a high-quality good or
service. The consumer/product life cycle model (Lee et al., 2002; Sirgy and Lee, 2003)
describes CWB as consumer satisfaction from the consumption of a high-quality good
or service. Suranyi-Unger (1981) has argued that consumer well-being is the
satisfaction of a consumer’s wants in diverse life aspects (e.g. material, social,
emotional, physical) and not solely in economic terms. The possession satisfaction
model (Nakano et al., 1995) also describes CWB as a consumer’s high level of
satisfaction with goods or services. It can be hypothesized that, as the level of
satisfaction with diverse life aspects increases, the level of CWB also increases (Dagger
and Sweeney, 2006; Jeffers and Dobos, 1995; Lee et al., 2002; MacFadyen, 1999).
The term “consumer well-being” might be considered similar to “satisfaction”.
However, the existing theoretical background shows a distinction between consumer
satisfaction and CWB. Based on Oliver’s (1980) expectancy-disconfirmation theory,
customer satisfaction is largely determined by customer expectations, which become
the powerful driver of repurchase intention, positive word-of-mouth, and customer
loyalty (Fornell, 1992; Fornell et al., 1996; Szymanski and Henard, 2001). CWB also
plays a bridging role between consumer satisfaction and quality of life, but satisfaction
does not always lead to CWB, which is determined by the perception of how the
consumption of a product/service has enhanced patron quality of life in various
domains (e.g. social life, work life, leisure life) (Sirgy et al., 2007).
 Chain restaurant
Model Authors Summary
patrons’ well-
The cost of living model Samli (2003) CWB decreases as prices of goods and services being perception
increase and consumers cannot afford needed
goods and services
The consumer Sirgy et al. (2007) The level of CWB and the level of complaints
complaint model pertaining to a specific brand or company have 405
an inverse relationship
The quality model Sirgy et al. (2007) CWB is positively influenced by high quality of
goods and services
The possession Nakano et al. (1995) CWB is constructed in terms of satisfaction with
satisfaction model one’s ownership of consumer durables and other
material possessions
The consumer/product Lee et al. (2002), Sirgy CWB is constructed in terms of satisfaction with
life cycle model and Lee (2003), acquisition, possession, consumption,
Grzeskowiak et al. maintenance, and disposal of consumer goods or
(2006) services
The perceived value Sirgy et al. (2006) CWB from a particular product is constructed in
model terms of value perception of that product
The marketer’s Lee et al. (1998) CWB is positively affected by marketers’
orientation model orientation toward enhancing the well-being of
their consumers
The materialism model Belk (1984, 1985, CWB is negatively influenced by materialism due
Richins (1987), Dawson to inflated and unrealistic desires and
and Bamossy (1991), expectations that materialistic people have
Richins and Dawson
(1992)
The community model Sirgy et al. (2000), Sirgy CWB is constructed in terms of community
and Cornwell (2001) residents’ satisfaction with various retail and
service establishments in the local area
Table I.
The perceived QOL Sirgy et al. (2007) CWB is constructed in terms of overall Theoretical models
impact model perception of quality-of-life impact of a brand associated with CWB

For instance, when a patron purchases a hot dog in a shopping mall for two dollars, he
or she does not necessarily expect a high degree of quality. However, if the hot dog is
surprisingly delicious, the patron will be satisfied because the performance was much
higher than the expectation based on the low price, and this satisfaction may lead to
repurchase intention and loyalty. However, the patron is unlikely to feel that
consuming the hot dog enhanced his or her quality of life. In this case, high satisfaction
does not lead to high CWB, because the consumption experience failed to enhance the
patron’s quality of life.
Sirgy et al. (2007) originally proposed the perceived quality of life impact model,
which states that CWB, in relation to a particular brand, is a direct function of
consumers’ perception of the impact of the brand experience on their overall quality of
life. Extending this research, Grzeskowiak and Sirgy (2007) defined CWB as
consumers’ perception of the extent to which a brand positively contributes to a quality
IJCHM of life perception. This definition is relevant to our research since the unit of analysis
24,3 involved is the chain restaurant brand, as opposed to an individual product or service.
According to this definition, in the chain restaurant industry, CWB should be
measured by how a patron’s dining experiences with a particular chain restaurant
brand contribute to his/her perceived quality of life.
For example, if patrons are asked how they feel that the chain restaurant Applebee’s
406 contributes to their overall quality of life, they will respond by considering the extent to
which their experiences in the restaurant (e.g. consuming food, receiving service,
spending social time, enjoying the ambiance, etc) has enhanced their quality of life.
High levels of CWB induced by positive experiences in the chain restaurant reflect
higher levels of dining life satisfaction, overall happiness with dining experiences, the
absence of ill-being due to well-being in dining life, and a greater sense of social
well-being in the restaurant, all of which can contribute to higher levels of patron
quality of life (Grzeskowiak and Sirgy, 2007). For this reason, researchers have
suggested that CWB is a key construct in consumer behavior research (Lee and Sirgy,
2004; Samli et al., 1987; Sirgy et al., 2007), and research efforts have been made to
examine the antecedents and consequences of CWB (Ferriss, 2002; Michalos and
Zumbo, 2001; Sirgy, 2001). One of the key known antecedents of CWB is brand attitude
(e.g. Grzeskowiak and Sirgy, 2007), which will be discussed in the next section.

Brand attitude
Consumers hold certain degrees of positive and negative attitudes toward a particular
brand, and brand attitude refers to the attitude with which consumers behave toward a
particular brand (De Chernatony and Riley, 1998). Mitchell and Olson (1981) further
defined brand attitude as an individual’s internal evaluation of an object such as a
branded product, and suggested that attitudes are often stable and enduring
predispositions to behavior. The concept of brand attitude has been in the spotlight in
marketing research because it is strongly believed that customer loyalty is influenced
by brand attitude, which is formed by indirect experiences such as advertising
promotions (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Fournier and Yao, 1997; Keller, 2003; Suh
and Yi, 2006).
Chain restaurant companies therefore invest tremendous amounts of expenditure in
an effort to create or maintain a positive brand image. For example, Yum! Brands
donates $80 million to the World Food Program (Restaurant News, 2010) and pledged
to donate 20 million hours of hunger relief volunteer services. Community involvement
efforts such as these can greatly improve the brand image of a chain restaurant, thus
creating customer loyalty (Keller, 2003; Suh and Yi, 2006). In branding literature,
another key role of brand attitude is its influence on consumers’ perceived value
(Bagozzi et al., 1999; Derbaix and Vanhamme, 2003; Erevelles, 1998; Hicks et al., 2005;
Zeelenberg and Pieters, 2004). The next section of the literature review discusses the
relationship between brand attitude and perceived value.

The influence of brand attitude on perceived value, CWB, and behavioral

intentions
Perceived value
In recent marketing research, perceived value has been recognized as a key construct
for understanding consumer behavior (Gallarza and Saura, 2006) since consumers
prefer products with higher perceived value in the marketplace. Therefore, in order to Chain restaurant
maintain market competitiveness, a company should try to provide a higher net value patrons’ well-
to customers than its competitors do (Ravald and Grönroos, 1996). A large number of
theoretical studies have been conducted in order to gain a better understanding of being perception
consumers’ perceived value (e.g. Gallarza and Saura, 2006; Holbrook and Hirschman,
1982; Monroe, 1979; Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007; Sirohi et al., 1998;
Sweeny et al., 1999). 407
In these studies, hedonic value and utilitarian value reflect two contrasting
paradigms in perceived value research in consumer behavior theory (Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001). Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) define utilitarian value as the ability
to perform functions in the everyday life of a consumer. In contrast, hedonic vale is
defined as the pleasure potential of a product class. The utilitarian value indicates a
product’s or service’s usefulness in efficient, task-specific, and economical terms
(Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982), while the hedonic value represents an overall
emotional feeling that is induced by the product or service’s uniqueness, symbolic
meaning, or emotional arousal and imagery that it evokes (Holbrook and Hirschman,
1982). In summary, the utilitarian value represents a practical trade-off, in contrast to
the hedonic value, which represents an experiential trade-off between benefits and
sacrifices that are involved in an exchange for an offering.
The existing theoretical background supports that consumers’ brand attitude
induces emotional preferences toward a brand, thus having a positive impact on
consumption experience (Bagozzi et al., 1999; Derbaix and Vanhamme, 2003; Erevelles,
1998; Hicks et al., 2005; Zeelenberg and Pieters, 2004). As a result, consumption
experience can have a positive impact on consumers’ perceived value (Aaker, 1991;
Baldauf et al., 2003; Hyun, 2009; Kim et al., 2008; Kwun and Oh, 2004). Empirical
studies further support this theoretical relationship between brand attitude and
perceived value. For instance, Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) examined the
relationships between hedonic value, utilitarian value, and brand performance
across various industries in 146 product categories. Using data collected from
customers and brand managers of 107 brands, they conducted path analysis and found
that brand-related constructs are significantly and positively related to consumers’
hedonic value and utilitarian value. Based on the theoretical and empirical background,
we can expect the following two hypotheses:
H1. Patrons’ brand attitude positively influences utilitarian value in the chain
restaurant industry.
H2. Patrons’ brand attitude positively influences hedonic value in the chain
restaurant industry.
Existing studies have suggested that customer satisfaction and attitude are crucial
antecedents of customer behavioral intentions (Bearden and Teel, 1983; Hellier et al.,
2003; Innis, 1991; Oliver, 1980, 1981; Roest and Pieters, 1997). Since attitude is the
customer’s positive, neutral, or negative learned disposition toward a company or
brand under consideration (Roest and Pieters, 1997), brand attitude should be an
antecedent of customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions when it is treated as a
pre-purchase construct. Empirical studies also support the impact of brand attitude on
behavioral intentions (e.g. Hellier et al., 2003; Suh and Yi, 2006). For example, Hellier
et al. (2003) examined the causal relationships between brand attitude, customer
IJCHM satisfaction, and behavioral intentions using data collected from 6,923 retail customers.
According to the results of structural equation modeling analysis, it was found that,
24,3 although customer satisfaction does not influence behavioral intentions directly, it
does so indirectly via brand attitude. Suh and Yi’s study (2006) replicated and further
extended this research by examining the relationships between customer satisfaction,
attitude toward advertising, corporate image, brand attitudes, and loyalty in retail
408 industry settings. The study analyzed data collected from 923 consumer panels and
found that brand attitude fully mediates the effects of advertising attitude and
corporate image on loyalty. It was concluded that brand attitude has a positive impact
on customer behavioral intentions. Based on the theoretical and empirical background,
the third hypothesis is derived:
H3. Brand attitude positively influences patrons’ behavioral intentions in the
chain restaurant industry.
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) proposed the brand attitude model, which theorizes that a
consumer’s attitude toward a particular brand can reduce or increase perceived risk in
the product/service selection process. More specifically, according to this model, when
a consumer has a positive attitude toward a brand, he or she subconsciously believes
that the brand’s product will enhance their overall quality of life in various domains
(e.g. material, social, emotional, physical). As a result, the consumer tends to feel more
comfortable with the brand’s product. In other words, positive brand attitude induces
consumer well-being perception. In this regard, the focus of a brand’s marketing
practices (e.g. advertising, sales promotions, etc) induces consumers’ well-being
perception in various life domains (Peterson and Ekici, 2007). As described earlier,
CWB consists of positive emotional responses toward the consumption of a product or
service (Lee et al., 2002; Sirgy et al., 2007; Sirgy and Lee, 2003).
Such emotional responses can originate from positive attitudes toward a brand
(Davidson and Cotter, 1991), and positive brand attitude can be a determinant of CWB.
Empirical research further supports the theoretical relationship between brand attitude
and CWB. For example, Grzeskowiak and Sirgy (2007) analyzed data collected from
275 coffeehouse customers and found that a positive attitude towards a coffee house
brand leads to higher CWB. The following hypothesis is proposed regarding the
relationship between brand attitude and customers’ well-being perception:
H4. Brand attitude positively influences chain restaurant patrons’ CWB.

The influence of perceived value on CWB and behavioral intentions

Kotler and Armstrong (2010) stated that delivering superior value to consumers
improves their well-being perception. In psychological terms, the greater the value that
a consumer has experienced from a brand, the more likely that he or she will feel
pleased, thus resulting in a greater level of perceived well-being (Meadow and Sirgy,
2008; Sirgy et al., 2007; Sirgy et al., 2006). Not only such conceptual studies but also
empirical studies have further supported the theoretical argument between perceived
value and CWB (e.g. Meadow and Sirgy, 2008; Sagiv and Schwartz, 2000). For example,
Sagiv and Schwartz’s (2000) empirical study examined the relationships between
consumers’ value perception and their subjective well-being perception. Using the
empirical data collected from 82 student consumers, they found that various types of
value perceptions positively influence consumer social well-being perception.
 Similarly, Meadow and Sirgy (2008) empirically examined the relationship between Chain restaurant
a consumer’s value perception derived from satisfaction and his or her well-being patrons’ well-
perception. They analyzed a sample of 249 elderly consumers in a retail industry and
found that consumer-perceived value derived from consumption experiences being perception
(e.g. purchasing food, housing, household furnishings, clothing, accessories, medical
care, transportation, and education) contributes to the perceived well-being of the
elderly consumer. Although the studies mentioned here do not separate value 409
according to utilitarian value and hedonic value, we expect two types of value to
influence customers’ well-being perception respectively, which leads us to our fifth and
sixth hypotheses:
H5. Utilitarian value positively influences customers’ well-being perception.
H6. Hedonic value positively influences customers’ well-being perception.
The existing theoretical background supports that two different types of perceived
value (utilitarian and hedonic value) directly contribute to consumer behavioral
intentions (Cronin et al., 2000; Sirohi et al., 1998; Sweeny et al., 1999). Specifically, it was
found that consumers who perceived high utilitarian value from their consumption
experiences tended to feel accomplishment, which results in positive behavioral
intentions (Babin et al., 1994; Zeithaml, 1988). For this reason, scholars have postulated
that utilitarian value is directly related to behavioral intentions and loyalty (Babin and
Babin, 2001; Cronin et al., 2000; Dick and Basu, 1994; Swinyard, 1993).
Empirical studies support this theoretical relationship. For instance, Stoel et al.
(2004) examined shopping mall customers’ utilitarian value, hedonic value, and
repatronage intentions. They analyzed data collected from 276 participants at a
shopping mall, and showed that both utilitarian shopping value and hedonic shopping
value influence repatronage intentions. In the restaurant setting, Ha and Jang (2010)
examined the relationships between hedonic/utilitarian value, customer satisfaction,
and behavioral intentions using data collected from 607 restaurant patrons. Based on
their data analysis, it was found that although both hedonic and utilitarian values have
positive and significant impacts on customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions,
the effect of utilitarian value is stronger than that of hedonic value on behavioral
intentions.
It is believed that hedonic value is also related to behavioral intentions since studies
in environmental psychology have shown that affective experiences in the
consumption experience can be important antecedents of approach or avoidance
motivations, such as behavioral intentions (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982; Donovan et al.,
1994). Empirical studies further support this theoretical argument (e.g. Babin et al.,
2005; Jones et al., 2006; Ryu et al., 2010; Stoel et al., 2004; Wakefield and Barnes, 1996).
For example, Ryu et al.’s (2010) study analyzed the behavior of 395 students in a casual
fast food restaurant in order to examine the relationships between hedonic value,
utilitarian value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Structural equation
modeling analysis was conducted, the results of which revealed that hedonic and
utilitarian values are associated with behavioral intentions indirectly via customer
satisfaction.
Similarly, Jones et al. (2006) examined the relationships between utilitarian/hedonic
shopping value, customer satisfaction, loyalty, and repatronage intentions in retail
industries. They analyzed data collected from 245 respondents who participated in a
IJCHM survey, and found that both utilitarian and hedonic shopping value had positive
24,3 impacts on behavioral intentions. In the restaurant segment, Park (2004) examined the
relationships between patrons’ perceived hedonic value and revisit intentions. After
analyzing empirical data collected from 279 restaurant customers, it was found that a
significant relationship existed between the two constructs.
H7. Utilitarian value positively influences patrons’ behavioral intentions in the
410 chain restaurant industry.
H8. Hedonic value positively influences behavioral intentions.
Scholars (e.g. Grzeskowiak and Sirgy, 2007; Jones and Sasser, 1995) have postulated
that perceived well-being reflects the consumer’s positive experience with a brand, and
positively influences revision intentions. In turn, the element of perceived well-being
plays a significant role in a company’s marketing success. Dagger and Sweeney’s
study (2006) demonstrates the close relationships between service quality, service
satisfaction, perceived well-being, and behavioral intentions in an oncology clinic.
They analyzed data collected from 1,118 clients and found that perceived well-being
has a positive impact on consumer behavioral intentions. The findings specifically
indicated that intention to revisit a health clinic is affected by the client’s perception of
well-being perception.
The existing research conducted in the restaurant context further supports this
theoretical argument. According to restaurant patron behavior research, CWB is one of
the important motivations of patrons’ dining out behavior (Carpenter, 2007;
Finkelstein, 1989; Ha and Jang, 2010; Park, 2004; Tse and Peter, 1988). As such,
when patrons experience high levels of CWB from their dining experiences, they tend
to revisit the same restaurant in the future. In other words, when patrons feel that their
quality of life has been improved from their dining experiences, they show higher
revisit intention. Integrating the theoretical and empirical backgrounds, the following
hypothesis can be derived:
H9. Well-being perception positively influences behavioral intentions.

The moderating role of involvement

Involvement is defined as an individual level state variable that measures the amount
of arousal or interest in a stimulus, object, or situation (Mitchell, 1979, p. 194). More
practically, involvement indicates the importance of making the right choice within a
category (e.g. Mittal, 1989). Clarke and Russell (1978) have stated that involvement can
modify the consumer decision-making process. Specifically, if a consumer is highly
involved in the process, he or she tends to pay more attention to details, becoming even
more interested in the particular product or service under consideration. Therefore, a
large number of scholars have postulated that involvement plays a moderating role in
decision-making (e.g. Cobb and Hoyer, 1985; Olsen, 2007; Smith and Bristor, 1994;
Tarkiainen and Sundqvist, 2005).
The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) (Petty et al., 1983) further supports this
theoretical argument. According to the ELM, under high-involvement conditions,
individuals are more motivated to devote the cognitive effort required to evaluate the
true merits of an issue or product. Accordingly, considerations that require extensive
issue- or product-relevant thought should have a greater impact under
high-involvement conditions. In contrast, under low-involvement conditions, the Chain restaurant
attitude of the individual appears to be affected by simple acceptance and rejection patrons’ well-
cues in the persuasion context and is less affected by argument quality.
This argument can be applied to patron behavior in the restaurant industry. Patrons being perception
who place great emphasis on the dining out experience (high involvement) are more
motivated to devote the cognitive effort required to evaluate the true merits of a
restaurant, such as well-being-related menu items, tasty food, their overall sense of 411
well-being, an exotic atmosphere, etc. Therefore, under this type of high-involvement
situation, a patron’s well-being perception has a stronger impact on behavioral
intentions. In contrast, patrons who put little emphasis on the dining out experience
(low involvement) tend to go to a given restaurant out of simple hunger or because of
its convenient location. Under these low-involvement conditions, well-being perception
should have a weaker impact on behavioral intentions. Therefore, based on the
theoretical background, the following hypothesis can be derived:
H10. The greater importance that a patron places on dining out in his or her
everyday life, the stronger the resulting impact of CWB on behavioral
intentions.

Proposed model
Based on the hypothesized relationships, this study proposed a conceptual model
(Figure 1).

Methodology
Sample
In April 2010, an internet survey was randomly distributed to 11,790 chain restaurant
patrons in all 50 states in the United States. An online market research company was
contracted and monetary incentives were provided to each participant. At the
beginning of the questionnaire, participants were provided with a clear definition of the
term “chain restaurant” as follows: “A chain restaurant is a set of related restaurants
with the same brand name in many different locations that are managed either under
shared corporate ownership or franchising agreements”. The respondents reported
that they dined out at a chain restaurant at least once per week. Next, respondents were
asked to name the chain restaurant that they had visited most recently and to answer
all questions based on the chain restaurant brand named. Out of the collected
responses, insincere responses (with missing information or extreme answers) were
eliminated. Through the screening process, 433 usable responses remained (a usable
response rate of 3.7 percent).

Measures
To measure the theoretical concepts in the proposed model, validated measurement
items from the literature were adapted to the chain restaurant setting, as follows:
.
Brand attitude was measured with six items employed by Brennan and Bahn
(2006), Mitchell and Olson (1981).
.
Utilitarian value was measured with 12 items adapted by Ha and Jang (2010),
Hyun (2009), Park (2004).
IJCHM .
Hedonic value was measured with eight items employed by Ha and Jang (2010),
24,3 Hyun (2009), Park (2004).
.
Consumer well-being perception was measured with four items adapted by
Grzeskowiak and Sirgy (2007).
.
Behavioral intentions were measured with three items employed by Zeithaml
et al. (1996).
412 .
Involvement was measured with four items adapted by Russell-Bennett et al.
(2007).
A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”) was
used to measured all of the items in the proposed model. For the utilitarian/hedonic value
measurement, this study integrated items from three different studies: Park (2004), Ha
and Jang (2010), and Hyun (2009). However, Park’s (2004) scale was developed
specifically for fast-food restaurants and Ha and Jang’s (2010) scale was developed for
Korean restaurants. For these reasons, some of the items are not relevant to the chain
restaurant industry. In order to assure content validity before launching the survey to
actual patrons, a pre-test was conducted with ten graduate/undergraduate students and
one faculty member in hospitality and tourism management. The feedback from the
pre-test respondents included recommendations to delete and/or modify some items to
better fit the context of the restaurant setting. The initial questionnaire was revised
based on these suggestions, and a pilot test was conducted with 43 undergraduate
students in a management class in a major university in southwestern Virginia. To
assess the reliability of the measurement scales, Cronbach’s alpha was used. All of the
Cronbach’s alpha values were greater than 0.7, which ensures the reliability of the scale
(Hair et al., 1998). The final version of the questionnaire was distributed to chain
restaurant patrons by an online market research company in 2010.

Data analysis
Descriptive statistics
Table II shows the demographic profile of the respondents. The sample (n ¼ 433) in
the analysis was 46.7 percent male (n ¼ 202), with a mean age of 54.8 years, ranging
from 23 to 87 years of age. All of the respondents answered that they dined out at least
once per week. Regarding spending, 52.7 percent of respondents reported, on average,
to spend less than $10 per visit per person, while 33 percent reported spending between
$10 and $20; 13.2 percent, $20-$40; and 0.9 percent, more than $40 per visit per person.
The majority of respondents were Caucasian (90.8 percent), and more than half of
the respondents possessed bachelor’s (27.7 percent) or graduate degrees (15.0 percent).
With regard to income, the respondents were evenly distributed. The largest group
(20.6 percent) reported that an income between $25,000 and $39,999. The smallest
group (3.9 percent) reported an income of $150,000 or more. In sum, 54.5 percent of
respondents answered that their income was higher than $40,000.

Confirmatory factor analysis

Using a maximum likelihood estimation method, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was conducted to ensure the uni-dimensionality of the scales measuring each construct
in the proposed model. During the CFA, one of the items measuring CWB was found to
have a negative impact on overall model fit. Following guidelines from existing studies
 Chain restaurant
Sociodemographic variable n Percentage
patrons’ well-
Gender being perception
Male 202 46.7
Female 231 53.3
Income
Under $25,000 54 12.5 413
$25,000-$39,999 89 20.6
$40,000-$54,999 72 16.6
$55,000-$69,999 71 16.4
$70,000-$84,999 48 11.1
$85,000-$99,999 34 7.9
$100,000-$149,999 48 11.1
$150,000 and over 17 3.9
Race
Caucasian/White 393 90.8
African-American 16 3.7
Asian 7 1.6
Hispanic 6 1.4
Other 11 2.5
Education level
Less than high school degree 6 1.4
High school degree 78 18.0
Some college, but no degree 117 27.0
Associate’s degree 47 10.9
Bachelor’s degree 120 27.7
Graduate degree 65 15.0
Table II.
Notes: The various totals indicate the total numbers of respondents with valid responses; Mean Sociodemographic profile
age ¼ 54.8 years old of respondents

(e.g. Sethi and King, 1994), the item “The chain restaurant satisfies my overall dining
needs” was deleted from further data analysis. The CFA results revealed that the
overall fit of the measurement model was satisfactory (x2 ¼ 818.968 [df ¼ 242,
p , 0:001], RMSEA ¼ 0.07, CFI ¼ 0.944, IFI ¼ 0.944, TLI ¼ 0.936) (Byrne, 1998).
Table III provides the specific measurement variables used in this research, together
with their standardized factor loadings.
All of the factor loadings were equal to or higher than 0.621. The average variance
extracted (AVE) of each construct was higher than 0.50 (Table IV), which is the threshold
value (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Based on the high factor loadings of each measurement
variable and the acceptable AVE values, convergent validity for the measurement scale
items was achieved (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the squared correlation (R 2)
between a pair of constructs with the AVE for each construct (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). All of the squared correlations (R 2) between a pair of constructs were lower than
the AVE for each construct except two pairs:
(1) brand attitude and utilitarian value; and
(2) hedonic value and consumer well-being (Table IV).
IJCHM
Standardized
24,3 Construct and scale item loading

Brand attitude
Unfavorable – Favorable 0.849
Negative – Positive 0.918
414 Dislike – Like 0.964
Bad – Good 0.972
Poor quality – High quality 0.947
Utilitarian value
I liked the restaurant’s healthy food options (such as a low-fat menu) 0.822
The food I had was tasty and I enjoyed it 0.761
The food is served at the right temperature 0.755
I like the variety of menu choices in the restaurant 0.681
The food presentation is attractive 0.669
The service makes me feel special and valued 0.641
The food portion was enough to satisfy my hunger 0.621
Hedonic value
The interior design of the chain restaurant was pleasing to me 0.634
The music played in the chain restaurant entertained me 0.873
The restaurant’s mood felt exotic 0.817
The restaurant’s layout and “look” were fun and unique to me 0.799
I prefer eating out at this chain restaurant, because it’s a wonderful place that gives
me a good feeling 0.704
Eating out at this restaurant is fun and pleasant 0.695
Consumer well-being perception
This restaurant plays a very important role in my social well-being 0.921
This restaurant plays an important role in my dining well-being 0.916
This restaurant plays an important role in enhancing my quality of life 0.883
Behavioral intentions
I would like to dine out at this chain restaurant again 0.984
I would recommend the restaurant to my friends or others 0.965
I would say positive things about this chain restaurant to others 0.940
Involvement
How would you describe your dining out habits in your life?
Unimportant – Important
Irrelevant – Relevant
Table III. Means nothing to me – Means a lot to me
Confirmatory factor Valuable – Worthless
analysis: items and
loadings Notes: All factors loadings are significant at p , 0.001

In a case such as this, discriminant validity between the pairs should be re-examined
by combining them into a single construct and then performing a x2 difference test on
the values obtained from the combined and uncombined models, according to Bagozzi
and Yi (1988).
With regard to the brand attitude and utilitarian value pair, the resulting x2
difference was 604.856 (df ¼ 4), which was significant at p , 0.001, and discriminant
validity between brand attitude and utilitarian value was confirmed. The resulting x2
difference for the hedonic value and consumer well-being pair was 471.995 (df ¼ 4),
which was significant at p , 0.001, confirming the discriminant validity.
 No. of Std Brand Utilitarian Hedonic Consumer well- Behavioral
items Mean dev. AVE attitude value value being intentions

Brand attitude 5 4.34 0.71 0.867 0.982 a 0.725b * 0.478 * 0.440 * 0.589 *
Utilitarian value 7 3.88 0.65 0.504 0.526c 0.899 0.658 * 0.489 * 0.623 *
Hedonic value 6 3.29 0.77 0.575 0.228 0.433 0.894 0.759 * 0.653 *
Consumer well-being 3 3.09 1.03 0.928 0.194 0.239 0.576 0.967 0.739 *
Behavioral intentions 3 3.85 1.12 0.822 0.347 0.388 0.426 0.546 0.809
Notes: AVE: average variance extracted estimate, CFI: comparative fit index, IFI: Incremental fit index, TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index, RMSEA: root mean
square error of approximation; aComposite reliabilities are along the diagonal; bcorrelations are above the diagonal, and csquared correlations are below
the diagonal; Significance of correlations: *p , 0.05; Goodness-of-fit statistics: X 2 (242) ¼ 818.968; p , 0.001; X2/df ¼ 3.384; CFI ¼ 0.944; IFI ¼ 0.944;
TLI ¼ 0.936; GFI ¼ 0.922; AGFI ¼ 0.911; RMSEA ¼ 0.07
being perception
Chain restaurant

associated measures
Descriptive statistics and
415
patrons’ well-

Table IV.
IJCHM In summary, based on the CFA results, all of the theoretical concepts’ discriminant
24,3 validities were strongly supported. Lastly, using composite reliabilities, the internal
consistency of the measurement scales was verified. All of the composite reliabilities
were greater than 0.7, which is the threshold value suggested by Hair et al. (1998).
Therefore, adequate internal consistency was achieved (Table IV).

416 Structural model

A structural model was estimated and fit indices provided by AMOS indicated that the
proposed model adequately fit the data (x2 ¼ 902.809 [df ¼ 243, p , 0.001],
RMSEA ¼ 0.07, CFI ¼ 0.936, IFI ¼ 0.936, TLI ¼ 0.927) (Byrne, 1998; Turner and
Reisinger, 2001).
Based on the data analysis, standardized path coefficient and t-values were
provided (Figure 2). H1, which predicted a positive relationship between brand attitude
and utilitarian value, was supported by a positive standardized coefficient of 0.727
(t ¼ 12.058, p , 0.001). H2, which proposed a positive relationship between brand
attitude and hedonic value, was supported by a positive standardized coefficient of
0.486 (t ¼ 8.765, p , 0.001) (Table V). H3, which proposed that brand attitude
positively influences behavioral intentions, was supported by a positive standardized
coefficient of 0.197 (t ¼ 3.795, p , 0.001). H4, which suggested that brand attitude
directly influences consumer well-being, was supported by a positive standardized
coefficient of 0.135 (t ¼ 2.263, p , 0.05).
In contrast, H5, which suggested that utilitarian value has a positive impact on
consumer well-being, was not supported (t ¼ 1.103, p ¼ 0.270). H6 proposed a positive
relationship between hedonic value and consumer well-being and was supported by a
positive standardized coefficient of 0.724 (t ¼ 11.762, p , 0.001). H7, which proposed
that utilitarian value has a positive effect on behavioral intentions, was supported by a
positive standardized coefficient of 0.199 (t ¼ 3.795, p , 0.001). H8, which predicted a

Figure 2.
Standardized theoretical
path coefficients
 Chain restaurant
Standardized
Paths estimate t-value Hypothesis patrons’ well-
H1 Brand attitude ! Utilitarian value 0.727 12.058 Supported
being perception
H2 Brand attitude ! Hedonic value 0.486 8.765 Supported
H3 Brand attitude ! Behavioral intentions 0.197 3.795 Supported
H4 Brand attitude ! Consumer well-being 0.135 2.263 Supported 417
H5 Utilitarian value ! Consumer well-being 0.064 1.103 Not supported
H6 Hedonic value ! Consumer well-being 0.724 11.762 Supported
H7 Utilitarian value ! Behavioral intentions 0.199 3.795 Supported
H8 Hedonic value ! Behavioral intentions 0.034 0.588 Not supported
H9 Consumer Well-being ! Behavioral intentions 0.553 9.794 Supported Table V.
H10 Involvement’s moderating function in the Standardized parameter
relationship between consumer well-being and estimates for structural
behavioral intentions Supported model

positive relationship between hedonic value and behavioral intentions, was not
supported (t ¼ 0.588, p ¼ 0.557). Lastly, H9, which proposed a positive relationship
between consumer well-being and behavioral intentions, was supported by a positive
standardized coefficient of 0.553 (t ¼ 9.794, p , 0.001).

The moderating effect of involvement

To examine the moderating effect of involvement (H10), a multiple group analysis
methodology was used (Byrne, 2001). Respondents were divided into two groups: a
low-involvement group and a high-involvement group. The division was made by
using the moderator score, which was calculated as the sum of the four involvement
scale items. Multiple group analyses were then conducted using a hierarchical
approach that compared two sample groups that were selected based on the mean split
of the involvement value (Chandrashekaran and Grewal, 2003). In order to test the
differential effects of involvement between high- and low-involvement groups, the
Chi-square difference between constrained and unconstrained models was investigated
with regard to the difference in degrees of freedom (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).
The moderating function of involvement in the relationship between consumer
well-being and behavioral intentions was assessed (H10). The coefficient for the path
between consumer well-being and behavioral intentions was compared between the
high- and low-involvement groups. The Chi-square difference between the constrained
model and the unconstrained model was significant at the 0.05 level (x2 ¼ 20.594 . x2
0.5(1) ¼ 3.84, df ¼ 1). This result indicates that the effect of consumer well-being on
behavioral intentions is significantly different across involvement levels, which supports
H10. With regard to the high-involvement group, the path coefficient between consumer
well-being and behavioral intentions was 0.643 ( p , 0.001). In contrast, for the
low-involvement group, the path coefficient was 0.365 ( p , 0.001). In summary,
consumer well-being was significantly more effective in enhancing patrons’ behavioral
intentions in the high-involvement group than in the low-involvement group.

Mediation testing
When the path from consumer well-being perception to revisit intentions was
constrained to zero, the effect of hedonic value on revisit intentions (H5) was
IJCHM significant at p , 0.001 (b ¼ 0.494, t ¼ 9.778). Thus, it was found that consumer
24,3 well-being perception fully meditated the path between hedonic value and revisit
intentions in the model.

Amounts of variance explained

According to the squared multiple correlation (SMC; i.e. R2), brand attitude and
418 hedonic value together accounted for 59.7 percent of the total variance in CWB.
Therefore, the R2s demonstrated that hedonic value and brand attitude account for
fairly large amounts of CWB. It can be interpreted that creating favorable brand
attitude in patrons’ minds and providing high-level perceived hedonic value are crucial
in enhancing patrons’ well-being perception. With regard to patrons’ behavioral
intentions, 64.2 percent of the total variance in behavioral intention is explained by the
four antecedents proposed in the research (brand attitude, utilitarian value, hedonic
value, and CWB). More importantly, 30.6 percent of the variance in behavioral
intention can be attributed to CWB. It can be interpreted that a significant degree of
patrons’ revisit intention is influenced by CWB. Therefore, CWB is a key antecedent of
behavioral intentions.

Discussion of results
The purpose of this research was to investigate the structural relationships between
chain restaurant patrons’ brand attitude, utilitarian value, hedonic value, well-being
perception, and behavioral intentions with the moderating role of involvement. A
review of the current literature resulted in ten theoretical hypotheses, from which a
structural model was derived. The model was tested utilizing data collected from 433
chain restaurant patrons.
Based on the results of data analysis, a strong positive relationship between brand
attitude and utilitarian value was found (0.727, p , 0.001), indicating that patrons’
positive attitude toward a brand is a key determinant of perceived utilitarian value in
the chain restaurant industry. It has been strongly believed that consumers with a
positive attitude toward a brand tend to evaluate the brand’s objective product quality
positively (Derbaix and Vanhamme, 2003; Hicks et al., 2005; Zeelenberg and Pieters,
2004). Marketing literature further supports that brand attitude results from subjective
evaluation of a brand (Hyun, 2010), such that a positive brand attitude positively
influences consumers’ perceptions of product quality and loyalty to the brand
(Martenson, 2007). This research tested this theory with empirical data collected from
chain restaurant patrons, thus extending the existing literature.
Data analysis also indicates that brand attitude bears a strong impact on patrons’
hedonic value (0.486, p , 0.001). According to the existing literature, a consumer’s
brand attitude creates emotional preferences toward a brand (Bagozzi et al., 1999;
Derbaix and Vanhamme, 2003; Erevelles, 1998). Theoretically, brand attitude should
thus influence how a consumer emotionally responds to a product or service’s
uniqueness, symbolic meaning, and/or the emotional arousal and imagery it evokes.
This research empirically tested this theoretical argument in the chain restaurant
setting, thereby extending the existing literature. After the testing results of the two
hypotheses were integrated, the model proposed in this study revealed that customers’
affective brand attitude induces high evaluations of both utilitarian and hedonic value
of chain restaurants.
 Moreover, it was found that brand attitude plays an important role in creating Chain restaurant
patrons’ positive behavioral intentions (0.197, p , 0.001). This finding is in accordance patrons’ well-
with the findings in Thomson et al.’s (2005) study on emotional attachment, which
showed that customer’s favorable feelings toward a specific brand lead to proximity being perception
maintenance and brand loyalty. In summary, it can be interpreted that creating
favorable brand attitude in patrons’ minds provides a solid foundation for inducing
higher levels of perceived utilitarian value and hedonic value, and for inducing positive 419
behavioral intentions. Therefore, chain restaurant managers and owners should
integrate the data analysis results derived from this research into their practices and
invest in expenditures to develop positive patron attitudes toward their brands.
This study found that, among three theoretical antecedents of consumer well-being,
hedonic value bears a stronger effect on CWB than any other antecedents (0.724, p ,
0.001). Data analysis revealed that brand attitude influences CWB, but is partially
mediated by hedonic value. Therefore, the direct impact of brand attitude on CWB is
relatively weak (0.135, p , 0.05). Moreover, it was found that the impact of utilitarian
value on CWB is not significant (t ¼ 1.103, p ¼ 0.270). This finding has key
managerial implications for chain restaurant managers and marketers. For many
years, practitioners anecdotally believed that enhancing utilitarian value (e.g. the
development of healthy and/or tasty menu items) could enhance patrons’ perceived
well-being, and thus invested expenditures into relevant areas to this end (Kivela et al.,
1999; Koo et al., 1999; Law et al., 2008; Longart, 2010; Ottenbacher and Harrington,
2009). However, according to data analysis in this research, it was found that such
investments do not significantly enhance CWB. On the other hand, it was found that
the most powerful factor in enhancing CWB is hedonic value.
One possible interpretation of this finding could be derived from patrons’ dining out
motivations. Nowadays, patrons go to restaurants not solely because they are hungry.
Today, the restaurant is often a place where customers experience excitement and
pleasure (Finkelstein, 1989), and in recent years, a growing number of patrons that visit
chain restaurants place increasing importance on hedonic motivation (e.g. social
interaction and fun) than on utilitarian motivation (e.g. efficiently eating meals). The
data analysis of this study further supported this argument.
This study showed that CWB is the most powerful determinant of patrons’ positive
behavioral intentions (0.553, p , 0.001). CWB was also found to play a full mediating
role in the relationship between hedonic value and behavioral intentions. For many
years, researchers (e.g. Grzeskowiak and Sirgy, 2007; Jones and Sasser, 1995) have
postulated that perceived well-being reflects a consumer’s positive experience with a
brand, and positively influences customer loyalty and revisit intentions. This study
replicated and further extended CWB literature with two key findings:
(1) CWB plays a full mediating role in the relationship between hedonic value and
behavioral intentions; and
(2) CWB has a stronger effect on patrons’ behavioral intentions than any other
marketing variable proposed in this study (such as brand attitude, utilitarian
value, and hedonic value).

These findings indicate that nowadays CWB is a strong psychological motivator for
patrons to revisit and remain loyal to a particular chain restaurant brand.
IJCHM Lastly, data analysis revealed that the moderating role of involvement in the
24,3 relationship between CWB and behavioral intentions is significant. According to the
elaboration likelihood model (ELM), under high-involvement conditions, people are
more motivated to devote the cognitive effort required to evaluate the true merits of an
issue or product (Petty et al., 1983). This theoretical background was replicated in the
chain restaurant setting. As data analysis indicated, consumer well-being was more
420 effective in enhancing patrons’ behavioral intentions in the high-involvement group
than in the low-involvement group. Therefore, for patrons who place great importance
on dining out, their well-being perception has a stronger impact on behavioral
intentions. In contrast, patrons who place little emphasis on dining out are less
motivated by well-being perception when they choose a restaurant.
This study provides guidelines for enhancing CWB and shows its practical use in
the chain restaurant industry. There has been little study of CWB in this area and the
model verified here may serve as a guide for future research aimed at understanding
the formation of CWB and its potential impact on other marketing variables in the
chain restaurant industry. Since a thorough understanding of CWB is critical to
achieving chain restaurant marketing competency, and since CWB is a critical factor
that bears a positive impact on the financial performance of a company, the model
developed in this study may help restaurant firms to maximize patrons’ well-being
perception as well as the financial performance of their brands.

Practical implications for practitioners

In addition to the statistical findings and theoretical implications discussed above,
this research has key practical implications for practitioners. First, as the results of
data analysis showed, it is critical to form positive brand attitude in patrons’ minds,
and chain restaurant managers and owners should invest in expenditures to develop
positive patron attitudes toward their brands. To this end, many chain restaurants
have made charitable donations, developed environmental-friendly management
initiatives, and carried out other socially conscious activities. Yum! Brands’ recent
$80 million donation to the World Food Program is a good example of such efforts
(Restaurant News, 2010). These brand-associated, socially conscious activities help
to create a positive brand attitude toward the chain restaurant in potential patrons’
minds. Consequently, when patrons dine out at the chain restaurant, they are
pleased that a portion of their spending contributes to enhancing overall quality of
life on a larger scale (e.g. environmental-friendly initiatives). In addition, patrons
who hold a positive brand attitude toward a chain restaurant brand tend to visit the
restaurant again and to generate positive word-of-mouth, consequently enhancing
the shareholder value of the brand (Hyun, 2009; Kim and Kim, 2004; Muller and
Woods, 1994).
Another key finding of this study is that hedonic value is the most powerful factor
in enhancing CWB among the proposed variables in this study. Therefore, in order to
maximize CWB, chain restaurant companies should invest in improvements to the
interiors and exteriors of their dining facilities (Bitner, 1992; Foster, 1997; Jang et al.,
2011; Namkung and Jang, 2008; Soriano, 2002) to create a pleasant, unique ambiance
for patrons and enhance their sense of well-being (Meadow and Sirgy, 2008; Sirgy et al.,
2007; Sirgy et al., 2006). In addition, pleasant music should be chosen to ensure that
patrons feel entertained, thus experiencing higher levels of well-being perception.
 Providing surprise events, such as birthday celebrations and wedding anniversary Chain restaurant
events, is another possible strategy for enhancing CWB in the chain restaurant industry. patrons’ well-
According to previous studies (e.g. Ha and Jang, 2010; Park, 2004), providing
entertaining and pleasant experiences is an important element of hedonic value. When being perception
patrons dine in a cozy and comfortable interior, they feel that their quality of life is high.
In addition, when servers please patrons with surprise events, patrons experience greater
happiness and a higher quality of life. Consequently, these hedonic value-focused 421
strategies are an efficient way of maximizing CWB in the chain restaurant industry and
influencing patrons’ well-being perception towards the chain restaurant brand.
It is also important for practitioners to pragmatically employ the findings regarding
the moderating role of involvement. For patrons who place great importance on dining
out, their well-being perception has a stronger impact on behavioral intentions. In
contrast, patrons who place little emphasis on dining out are less motivated by
well-being perception when they choose a restaurant. In order to efficiently manage
and maximize continued patronage, chain restaurant managers should conduct market
research to determine patrons’ dining out involvement levels, and then segment
patrons based on their levels.
Data about patrons can be gathered at the point of purchase or by placing customer
comment cards on tables in the restaurant (Kotler et al., 1998). Comment cards can
solicit information about patrons’ dining out involvement level (e.g. “How important
are dining out habits in your life?”; “How frequently do you eat at a restaurant?”).
Marketers can then statistically analyze the collected data in order to group patrons
based on involvement level and develop specific marketing promotion strategies for
each group of patrons. In particular, hedonic value- and CWB-focused marketing
promotions should be developed in an effort to attract high-involvement patrons. To
attract low-involvement patrons, additional research should be conducted to determine
the key factors influencing these patrons.
This study offers practical implications based on the relationships between the
various marketing constructs proposed in the model. The results of the theoretical model
as a whole provide even more meaningful implications for practitioners, particularly the
significant route of the formation of behavioral intentions: brand attitude !
utilitarian/hedonic value ! CWB ! behavioral intentions. From a larger perspective,
this study shows that when patrons have a positive attitude toward a restaurant brand,
it is critical to maintain and further increase positive brand attitude using effective
advertising strategies (Hyun et al., 2011). Then, when patrons visit the chain restaurant,
efforts should be made to connect the brand attitude to utilitarian/hedonic value.
This process should be initiated as soon as customers arrive at the restaurant
parking lot. During peak dining times, patrons often have trouble finding good parking
spots and can feel irritation, which can negatively influence brand attitude and, in the
worst-case scenario, can make patrons go to another restaurant. One solution would be
to provide valet parking service to all patrons during peak dining times. Another
method to maintain positive brand attitude is to provide television, free video games,
and/or other entertainment for patrons in the waiting area to eliminate boredom and
discourage a devaluing attitude toward the brand. Such strategies can maintain
positive brand attitude, thus helping to induce positive value perceptions and
well-being perceptions. Lastly, it is critical to remind patrons of their positive memories
in the chain restaurant in order to stimulate patrons’ well-being perception, thus
IJCHM inducing positive behavioral intentions. One way to achieve this is to have servers take
24,3 photos during the dining experience and mail or e-mail them to patrons. The strategies
described in this paragraph can revitalize the route to the formation of positive
behavioral intentions (brand attitude ! utilitarian/hedonic value ! CWB !
behavioral intentions route) and lead to its maximization.

422 Limitations and future research

In spite of its significant theoretical and managerial implications, three limitations of
this study should be noted. First, as shown in the socio-demographic profile of
respondents, 90.8 percent of respondents were Caucasian. Therefore, the extent to
which the data analysis results are cross-culturally generalizable is somewhat limited
and future studies are needed to verify or extend the proposed model with samples
from other cultural areas. For example, Asian culture can be described as collectivist,
while Western culture is more individualistic. In contrast to collectivists, individualists
are more interested in the well-being of the self than the group (Bochner, 1994; LaRoche
et al., 2005; Wagner, 1995; Wagner and Mock, 1986). It could therefore be hypothesized
that US patrons tend to have higher well-being perception than Asian patrons. Testing
this hypothesis could provide marketing guidance for chain restaurant brands that
penetrate to Asian markets.
Another limitation of this research is a measurement issue. In this study, CWB was
measured with four items adapted from Grzeskowiak and Sirgy (2007). While the
existing literature supports the validity of this measure, multi-dimensional scales are
preferable for measuring CWB and this constitutes a key limitation of the current
well-being research. In future studies, it would be advantageous to develop a
comprehensive scale that can measure patrons’ CWB and to conduct focus-group
discussions with chain restaurant patrons and managers. A focus group discussion is
“an unstructured, free-flowing interview with a small group of people” (Zikmund, 2003,
p. 117) that is not a rigidly constructed question-and-answer session, but a flexible
format that encourages the discussion of new concepts, issues, research, or subjects.
This format enables participants to discuss their true feelings, anxieties, and
frustrations, and to express their opinions in their own words. For this reason, focus
group discussion is a commonly used method in the scale development process.
Lastly, this study derived theoretical hypotheses based on theoretical/empirical
backgrounds in various industries. As Bacharach (1989) stated, all of the theories and
hypotheses should be falsifiable. Even though this study replicated and further
expanded the existing well-being literature, the proposed model is falsifiable and it
would be beneficial to test the proposed model using data collected from different
industry settings. This way, the proposed theoretical hypotheses and model can
achieve stronger persuasive power.

References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.G. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Babin, B.J., Lee, Y.K., Kim, E.J. and Griffin, M. (2005), “Modeling consumer satisfaction and
word-of-mouth: restaurant patronage in Korea”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 133-9.
Babin, B.J. and Babin, L. (2001), “Seeking something different? A model of schema typicality, Chain restaurant
consumer affect, purchase intentions and perceived shopping value”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 89-96.
patrons’ well-
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and being perception
utilitarian shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-56.
Bacharach, S.B. (1989), “Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 496-515. 423
Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M. and Nyer, P.U. (1999), “The role of emotions in marketing”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 184-206.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Baldauf, A., Cravens, K.S. and Binder, G. (2003), “Performance consequences of brand equity
management: evidence from organizations in the value chain”, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 220-36.
Bearden, W.O. and Teel, J.E. (1983), “Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and
complaint reports”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20, pp. 21-8.
Belk, R.W. (1984), “Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism: reliability, validity,
and relationship to measure of happiness”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12,
pp. 265-80.
Belk, R.W. (1985), “Materialism: trait aspects of living in the material world”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 265-80.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 57-71.
Bochner, S. (1994), “Cross-cultural differences in self concept: a test of Hofstede’s
individualism/collectivism distinction”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 273-83.
Brennan, I. and Bahn, K.D. (2006), “Literal versus extended symbolic messages and advertising
effectiveness: the moderating role of need for cognition”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 273-95.
Byrne, B.M. (1998), Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS. Basic
Concepts, Applications and Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Carpenter, J.M. (2007), “Consumer shopping value, satisfaction, and loyalty in discount retailing”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Service, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 358-63.
Chandrashekaran, R. and Grewal, D. (2003), “Assimilation of advertised reference prices:
the moderating role of involvement”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 53-62.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to
brand performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, pp. 1-93.
Clarke, K. and Russell, W. (1978), “The effects of product involvement and task definition on
anticipated consumer effort”, in Hunt, K. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research,
Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI.
Cobb, C.J. and Hoyer, W.D. (1985), “Direct observation of search behavior in the purchase of two
nondurable products”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 2, pp. 161-79.
IJCHM Cronin, J.J. Jr, Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), “Assessing the effects of quality, value, and
customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments”, Journal
24,3 of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218.
Dagger, T.S. and Sweeney, J.C. (2006), “The effect of service evaluations on behavioral intentions
and quality of life”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 3-18.
Davidson, W.B. and Cotter, P.R. (1991), “The relationship between sense of community and
424 subjective well-being: a first look”, Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 246-53.
Dawson, S. and Bamossy, G. (1991), “If we are what we have, what are we when we don’t have?”,
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 363-84.
De Chernatony, L. and Riley, F.D. (1998), “Defining a ‘brand’: beyond the literature with experts’
interpretations”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 417-43.
Derbaix, C. and Vanhamme, J. (2003), “Inducing word-of-mouth by eliciting surprise – a pilot
investigation”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 99-116.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Donovan, R.J. and Rossiter, J.R. (1982), “Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology
approach”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 58, pp. 34-57.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., Marcoolyn, G. and Nesdale, A. (1994), “Store atmosphere and
purchasing behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 283-94.
Endres, A,M. (1999), “Utility theory”, in Earl, P.E. and Kemp, S. (Eds), The Elgar Companion to
Consumer Research and Economic Psychology, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 599-604.
Erevelles, S. (1998), “The role of affect in marketing”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 199-215.
Ferriss, A.L. (2002), “Does material well-being affect non-material well-being”, Social Indicators
Research, Vol. 60, pp. 275-80.
Finkelstein, J. (1989), Dining Out: A Sociology of Modern Manners, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Beliefs, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley Publishing, Reading, MA.
Fornell, C. (1992), “A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 6-21.
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.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Foster, F.J. (1997), “Under pressure: clean your foodservice equipment with care”, Nation’s
Restaurant News, Vol. 31 No. 32, pp. 98-9.
Fournier, S. and Yao, J.L. (1997), “Reviving brand loyalty: a reconceptualization within the
framework of consumer-brand relationships”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 14, pp. 451-72.
Gallarza, M.G. and Saura, I.G. (2006), “Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and
loyalty: an investigation of university students’ travel behavior”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 437-52.
Grzeskowiak, S. and Sirgy, M.J. (2007), “Consumer well-being (CWB): the effects of self-image Chain restaurant
congruence, brand-community belongingness, brand loyalty, and consumption recency”,
Applied Research Quality Life, Vol. 2, pp. 289-304. patrons’ well-
Grzeskowiak, S., Sirgy, M.J., Lee, D.J. and Claiborne, C.B. (2006), “Housing well-being: developing being perception
and validating a measure”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 79, pp. 503-41.
Ha, J. and Jang, S. (2010), “Perceived values, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: the role of
familiarity in Korean restaurants”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 425
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 2-13.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hellier, P.K., Geursen, G.M. and Rickard, J.A. (2003), “Customer repurchase intention: a general
structural equation model”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 11/12,
pp. 1762-800.
Hicks, J.M., Page, T.J., Behe, B.K., Dennis, J.H. and Fernandez, R.T. (2005), “Delighted consumers
buy again”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior,
Vol. 18, pp. 94-104.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 132-40.
Hyun, S. (2009), “Creating a model of customer equity for chain restaurant brand formation”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 529-39.
Hyun, S. (2010), “Predictors of relationship quality and loyalty in the chain restaurant industry”,
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 251-67.
Hyun, S., Kim, W. and Lee, M. (2011), “The impact of advertising on patrons’ emotional
responses, perceived value, and behavioral intentions in the chain restaurant industry:
the moderating role of advertising-induced arousal”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 689-700.
Innis, D.E. (1991), “Customer service, repurchase intentions, market orientation and firm
performance in the channel”, unpublished doctoral thesis, Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH.
Jang, S.C., Liu, Y. and Namkung, Y. (2011), “Effects of authentic atmospherics in ethnic
restaurants: investigating Chinese restaurants”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 662-80.
Jeffers, L.W. and Dobos, J. (1995), “Communication and public perceptions of the quality of life”,
in Sirgy, M.J. and Samli, A.S. (Eds), New Dimensions on Marketing/Quality-of-Life
Research, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 227-52.
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E. and Arnold, M.J. (2006), “Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value:
investigating differential effects on retail outcomes”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59,
pp. 974-81.
Jones, T.O. and Sasser, W.E. (1995), “Why satisfied customers defect”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 88-91.
Keller, K. (2003), Strategic Brand Management, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kim, W., Jin-Sun, B. and Kim, J.H. (2008), “Multidimensional customer-based brand equity and its
consequences in mid-priced hotels”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 235-54.
Kim, W.G. and Kim, H. (2004), “Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity”, Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 115-31.
IJCHM 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
24,3 Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 205-22.
Koo, L.C., Tao, K.C. and Yeung, J.H.C. (1999), “Preferential segmentation of restaurant attributes
through conjoint analysis”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 242-50.
426 Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2010), Principles of Marketing, 13th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J. and Makens, J. (1998), Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism, 2nd ed.,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kwun, J. and Oh, H. (2004), “Effects of brand, price, and risk on customers’ value perceptions and
behavioral intentions in the restaurant industry”, Journal of Hospitality Leisure and
Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 31-49.
LaRoche, M., Kalamas, M. and Cleveland, M. (2005), “‘I’ versus ‘we’: how individualists and
collectivists use information sources to formulate their service expectations”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 279-308.
Law, R., To, T. and Goh, C. (2008), “How do Mainland Chinese travelers choose restaurants in
Hong Kong? An exploratory study of individual visit scheme travelers and packaged
travelers”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 346-54.
Lee, D.J., Sirgy, M.J. and Su, C. (1998), “International quality-of-life orientation: the construct, its
antecedents, and consequences”, Research in Marketing, Vol. 14, pp. 151-84.
Lee, D.J., Sirgy, M.J., Larsen, V. and Wright, N.D. (2002), “Developing a subjective measure of
consumer well-being”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 158-69.
Lee, D.J. and Sirgy, M.J. (2004), “Quality-of-life (QOL) marketing: proposed antecedents and
consequences”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 24, pp. 44-58.
Longart, P. (2010), “What drives word-of-mouth in restaurants?”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 121-8.
Martenson, R. (2007), “Corporate brand image, satisfaction and store loyalty: a study of the store
as a brand, store brands, and manufacturer brands”, International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 544-55.
MacFadyen, A.J. (1999), “Well-being”, in Earl, P.E. and Kemp, S. (Eds), The Elgar Companion to
Consumer Research and Economic Psychology, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 615-9.
Meadow, H.L. and Sirgy, M.J. (2008), “Developing a measure that captures elderly’s well-being in
local marketplace transactions”, Applied Research Quality Life, Vol. 3, pp. 63-80.
Michalos, A.C. and Zumbo, B.D. (2001), “Ethnicity, modern prejudice and the quality of life”,
Social Indicators Research, Vol. 53, pp. 189-222.
Mitchell, A. and Olson, J. (1981), “Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising
effects on brand attitude?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 318-32.
Mitchell, A.A. (1979), “Involvement: a potentially important mediator of consumer behavior”,
in Wilkie, W.L. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, Association for Consumer
Research, Provo, UT, pp. 191-5.
Mittal, B. (1989), “Measuring purchase-decision involvement”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 6,
pp. 147-63.
Monroe, K.B. (1979), Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Muller, C.C. and Woods, R.H. (1994), “An expected restaurant typology”, Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 27-37.
Nakano, N., MacDonald, M. and Douthitt, R. (1995), “Toward consumer wellbeing: consumer Chain restaurant
socialization effects of work experience”, in Sirgy, M.J., Meadow, H.L., Rahtz, D. and
Samli, A.C. (Eds), Developments in Quality-of-life Studies in Marketing, Academy of patrons’ well-
Marketing Science, Dekalb, IL, pp. 107-11. being perception
Namkung, Y. and Jang, S.C. (2008), “Are highly satisfied restaurant customers really different?
A quality perception perspective”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 142-55. 427
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17, pp. 460-9.
Oliver, R.L. (1981), “Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 25-48.
Olsen, S.O. (2007), “Repurchase loyalty: the role of involvement and satisfaction”, Psychology
& Marketing, Vol. 24, pp. 315-41.
Ottenbacher, M.C. and Harrington, R.J. (2009), “The product innovation process of quick-service
restaurant chains”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 21
No. 5, pp. 523-41.
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.
Peterson, M. and Ekici, A. (2007), “Consumer attitude toward marketing and subjective quality of
life in the context of a developing country”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 350-9.
Petty, R., Cacioppo, J. and Schumann, D. (1983), “Central and peripheral routes to advertising
effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10,
pp. 135-46.
Ravald, A. and Grönroos, C. (1996), “The value concept and relationship marketing”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 19-30.
Restaurant News (2010), “PR Week Announced Yum! Brands’ World Hunger Relief Initiative to
Raise Awareness, Volunteerism and Funds Wins Top Honor as Cause-Related Campaign
of the Year 2010”, available at: www.restaurantnews.com/pr-week-announced-yum-
brands-world-hunger-relief-initiative-to-raise-awareness-volunteerism-and-funds-wins-
top-honor-as-cause-related-campaign-of-the-year-2010/ (accessed August 5, 2010).
Richins, M.L. (1987), “Media, materialism, and human happiness”, in Wallendorf, M. and
Anderson, O. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research,
Provo, UT, pp. 352-6.
Richins, M.L. and Dawson, S. (1992), “A consumer value orientation for materialism and its
measurement: scale development and validation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19,
pp. 303-16.
Roest, H. and Pieters, R. (1997), “The nomological net of perceived service quality”, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 336-51.
Russell-Bennett, R., McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Coote, L.V. (2007), “Involvement, satisfaction, and
brand loyalty in a small business services setting”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60,
pp. 1253-60.
Ryu, K., Han, H. and Jang, S. (2010), “Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values,
satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 416-32.
IJCHM Sagiv, L. and Schwartz, S.H. (2000), “Value priorities and subjective well-being: direct relations
and confruity effects”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 30, pp. 177-98.
24,3
Samli, A.C. (2003), “The Consumer Price Index and consumer wellbeing: developing a fair
measure”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 105-11.
Samli, A.C., Sirgy, M.J. and Meadow, H.L. (1987), “Measuring marketing contribution to quality
of life”, in Samli, A.C. (Ed.), Marketing and the Quality-of-Life Interface, Quorum Books,
428 Westport, CT, pp. 3-14.
Sánchez-Fernández, R. and Iniesta-Bonillo, M.Á. (2007), “The concept of perceived value:
a systematic review of the research”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 427-51.
Sethi, V. and King, W. (1994), “Development of measures to assess the extent to which an
information technology application provides competitive advantage”, Management
Science, Vol. 40 No. 12, pp. 1601-24.
Sirgy, M.J., Rahtz, D., Cicic, M. and Underwood, R. (2000), “A method for assessing residents’
satisfaction with community-based services: a quality-of-life perspective”, Social
Indicators Research, Vol. 49, pp. 279-316.
Sirgy, M.J. (2001), Handbook of Quality-of-Life Research: An Ethical Marketing Perspective,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Sirgy, M.J. and Cornwell, T. (2001), “Further validation of the Sirgy et al.’s measure of community
quality of life”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 56, pp. 125-43.
Sirgy, M.J. and Lee, D.J. (2003), “Developing a measure of consumer well being in relation to
personal transportation”, Yonsei Business Review, Vol. 40, pp. 73-101.
Sirgy, M.J., Lee, D.J. and Rahtz, D. (2007), “Research in consumer well-being (CWB): overview of
the field and introduction to the Special Issue”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 341-9.
Sirgy, M.J., Lee, D.J. and Bae, J. (2006), “Developing a measure of internet well-being: nomological
(predictive) validation”, Social Indicator Research, Vol. 78, pp. 205-49.
Sirohi, N., McLaughlin, E.W. and Wittink, D.R. (1998), “A model of consumer perceptions and
store loyalty intentions for a supermarket retailer”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 2,
pp. 223-45.
Smith, J.B. and Bristor, J.M. (1994), “Uncertainty orientation: explaining differences in purchase
involvement and external search”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 11, pp. 587-607.
Soriano, D.R. (2002), “Customers’ expectations factors in restaurants: the situation in Spain”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 19 Nos 8/9, pp. 1055-68.
Stoel, L., Wickliffe, V. and Lee, K.H. (2004), “Attribute beliefs and spending as antecedents to
shopping value”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, pp. 1067-73.
Suh, J.C. and Yi, Y.J. (2006), “When brand attitudes affect the customer satisfaction-loyalty
relation: the moderating role of product involvement”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 145-55.
Suranyi-Unger, T. Jr (1981), “Consumer behavior and consumer well-being: an economist’s
digest”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, pp. 132-43.
Swinyard, W.R. (1993), “The effects of mood, involvement, and quality of store experience on
shopping intentions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 271-80.
Sweeny, J.C., Soutar, G.N. and Johnson, L.W. (1999), “The role of perceived risk in the
quality-value relationship: a study in a retail environment”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75
No. 1, pp. 77-105.
Szymanski, D.M. and Henard, D.H. (2001), “Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the Chain restaurant
empirical evidence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 16-35.
Tarkiainen, A. and Sundqvist, S. (2005), “Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish
patrons’ well-
consumers in buying organic food”, British Food Journal, Vol. 107, pp. 808-22. being perception
Thomson, M., MacInns, D.J. and Park, W. (2005), “The ties that bind: measuring the strength of
consumers’ emotional attachments to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 77-91. 429
Tse, D.K. and Peter, C.W. (1988), “Models of consumer satisfaction formation: an extension”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, pp. 204-12.
Turner, W.L. and Reisinger, Y. (2001), “Shopping satisfaction for domestic tourists”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 15-27.
Wagner, J. III (1995), “Studies of individualism-collectivism: effects on cooperation in groups”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 152-72.
Wagner, J. III and Mock, M. (1986), “Individualism-collectivism: concept and measure”, Group
and Organization Studies, Vol. 11, pp. 280-303.
Wakefield, K.L. and Barnes, J.H. (1996), “Retailing hedonic consumption: a model of sales
promotion of a leisure service”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 409-27.
Yuan, L.L. (2001), “Quality of life case studies for university teaching in sustainable
development”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 127-38.
Zeelenberg, M. and Pieters, R. (2004), “Beyond valence in customer dissatisfaction: a review and
new findings on behavioral responses to regret and disappointment in failed services”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 445-55.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model
and synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Zikmund, W. (2003), Business Research Method, Thomson South-Western, Mason, OH.

Corresponding author
Sunghyup Sean Hyun can be contacted at: shyun@pusan.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