The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0007-070X.htm
BFJ
123,12
3954
Received 22 October 2020
Revised 21 March 2021
Accepted 1 April 2021
British Food Journal
Vol. 123 No. 12, 2021
pp. 3954-3969
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0007-070X
DOI 10.1108/BFJ-10-2020-0901
The impact of hedonic dining
experiences on word of mouth,
switching intentions and
willingness to pay
Anupama Sukhu
University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA, and
Anil Bilgihan
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA
Abstract
Purpose – When customers decide to dine out, they choose a restaurant for both physiological and
psychological reasons. The psychological reasons include the hedonic/enjoyment goal of the consumer. The
purpose of this paper is to investigate whether dining experiences that provide a positive or negative hedonic
value will influence positive word of mouth (PWOM), switching intentions (SI) and willingness to pay (WTP).
Design/methodology/approach – Two survey-based experiments using student (N 5 112) and general
restaurant consumer samples (N 5 270) were conducted to test the proposed theoretical model. The student
sample provided internal validity, whereas the general consumer sample provided external validity for the
study. Two types of manipulations were used to manipulate positive and negative restaurant service
encounters. The second study randomly assigned participants into positive or negative scenarios.
Findings – The results suggest that positive (negative) service encounters lead to higher (lower) hedonic value.
Higher hedonic value leads to PWOM, WTP and reduced SI. The findings of this study would assist restaurant
managers and service scholars by bridging the gap between experiential and relationship marketing.
Originality/value – The current research investigates the dining out experience with a holistic lens.
Keywords Experiential marketing, Relationship marketing, Restaurant industry, Switching intention,
Willingness to pay, Word of mouth
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Marketers have traditionally assumed that marketing is transactional, that consumers are
rational decision-makers who focus on product and service functionality. Recently, however,
marketing research has emphasized the importance of experiential marketing, which assumes
that consumers seek rationally and emotionally pleasurable hedonic consumption
experiences (Schmitt, 1999; Skandalis et al., 2019), and relationship marketing advise firms
to establish long-term customer–provider bonding relationships. This new marketing notion
still supports the view that consumers exhibit rational consumption behaviors, but they also
are influenced by hedonic responses and aesthetics (Bilgihan, 2016).
Decision making of many restaurant consumers including millennials is largely
influenced by their friends. Therefore, WOM marketing is crucial for restaurant success
(“Marketing to your millennial audience”, 2015). Notwithstanding the size and growth, the
restaurant industry is still confronting various challenges of experiential marketing.
Restaurant customers have higher expectations from dining experiences and pay more
attention to multiple components such as ambiance and restaurants’ sustainability practices
Portions of this study were presented at the Research Symposium of Hospitality at Boston University,
Boston, MA, on March 31, 2017. The author thanks the reviewers for their comments on an earlier
version of the manuscript.
(Bilgihan et al., 2018). In other words, customers do not eat out just to satisfy their hunger; The impact of
instead, they select restaurants for various reasons such as seeing others, having memorable hedonic dining
experiences, the atmosphere, service and enjoying the ambience. Therefore, studies related to
dining out should recognize the complex nature of the food experience that is multisensory
experiences
and embodied (Aaltoj€arvi et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2019).
Store managers offer shopping experiences that are sources of entertainment and fun and
no longer chores to be checked off on to-do lists (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). Similarly, to
distinguish themselves from competitors, restaurant managers implement experiential 3955
marketing strategies. Today’s restaurant consumers look for enjoyable experiences
combining aesthetic presentation and ambiance, all qualities of experiential marketing, so
restaurants try to provide hedonic value through enjoyable dining experiences while offering
food choices with “good value.” Consequently, hedonic value has become an unavoidable
aspect of restaurant dining.
The restaurant industry has also shifted to relationship marketing guidelines that focus on
long-term customer relationships, customer retention and customer bonding through loyalty
programs, discounts and reward points for repeat visits. For example, some restaurants offer
free meals or private meals with the chef to customers who have purchased five meals
previously (Lesonsky, 2012). Loyalty is a crucial strategic goal for many restaurants. The
restaurant industry is a high-contact service, and previous research supports the view that
social bonding can cultivate stronger brand–consumer relationships (Mattila, 2001).
Therefore, a relationship marketing strategy that attracts, develops and maintains
customer relationships, combined with an experiential marketing strategy that creates
valuable experiences, may overcome some of the aforementioned issues that the restaurant
industry is currently facing. Nevertheless, the topic is worth exploring because most services
implement some aspects of both experiential and relationship marketing. For example, do
hedonic values generate relationship marketing outcomes such as higher willingness to pay
(WTP), positive word of mouth (PWOM) and fewer switching intentions (SI)? If so, how does
hedonic value influence those outcomes and their relative inter-relationships?
Positive or negative service encounters influence consumers’ hedonic perceptions, which
then influence WTP, PWOM and SI. Toward this end, two studies were conducted
investigating the influence of positive or negative restaurant service encounters on hedonic
values and relative effects on WTP, PWOM and SI, with the objective of investigating the
behavioral outcomes of customer enjoyment.
Research reveals that SI (Anton et al., 2007; Han and Hyun, 2013; Kaur et al., 2012), WTP
(Shermach, 2005) and PWOM (Berger, 2014) play an essential role in relationship marketing
and are critical for a restaurant’s success. The restaurant industry draws one-third of its total
revenue from repeat business. Existing customers tend to spend more than new customers, so
if customers intend to switch to other establishments, they erode the loyal customer base,
damage profitability and cause the restaurant to lose market share (Han et al., 2011).
Additionally, the restaurant must increase its advertising and promotional efforts to acquire
new customers. A 5% increase in repeat business potentially increases revenues by 25–
125%. Further supporting the need to encourage repeated business, 70% of restaurant
customers are unlikely to return to the same restaurant (Thanx Inc, 2015).
WTP is a key factor for business development and market share in the restaurant industry
(Dutta et al., 2014; Sukhu et al., 2017). Customers become less price-sensitive as they become
attitudinally loyal, thus increase business revenue (Umashankar et al., 2017). But, WTP
greatly depends on the dining experience (Pomranz, 2015). For example, the ambience is a
vital component of a dining experience. Spacing, smells, sounds, lighting and interior design
all play a role in a customer’s evaluation of a restaurant. Positive hedonic restaurant service
encounters generate stronger emotional connections leading to higher WTP (Convero, 2016).
With countless restaurants offering various meals and ambiance options, restaurants must
BFJ provide enjoyable service experiences that lead to creditable reputations and increase WTP
123,12 (Afshar, 2015).
PWOM is also an essential component of restaurant marketing as it is one of the most
powerful and trusted forms of marketing for a restaurant. Of the restaurant guests, 78%
choose restaurants based on recommendations from friends and social media (“Marketing to
your millennial audience”, 2015). A pleasant dining experience generates PWOM, and
hedonic restaurant experiences increase customer lifetime value and increase the likelihood
3956 of PWOM. Restaurant atmosphere is an important factor for return customers, and it also
creates PWOM. Referrals and recommendations then increase customers, reduce marketing
and promotion costs and signal customer loyalty and commitment. On the other hand, if
restaurants fail to offer enjoyment, customers tend to spread negative WOM and abandon the
restaurant (7 Reasons Customers Are Not Returning To Your Restaurant, 2016). Therefore,
positive service encounters offering high hedonic value help restaurants retain current
customers and attract new customers.
Previous research explored various concepts of consumer enjoyment and its outcomes.
For example, Franke and Schreier (2010) found that consumers perceived higher value to a
self-designed product if they enjoy the process. Mihic and Kursan Milakovic (2017)
investigated the influence of personal characteristics on shopping enjoyment leading to
WOM. McDougall and Levesque (2000) looked into the impact of service quality on customer
satisfaction leading to future intentions. Ryu et al. (2010) investigated the relative influence of
utilitarian and hedonic values on customer satisfaction and the effect of customer satisfaction
on behavioral intentions. In this research, we focus on three critical success measures of
dining experience, namely, WTP, PWOM and SI, and how they are influenced by customer
enjoyment in positive and negative restaurant encounters. Focusing on the impact of positive
and negative restaurant service encounters on hedonic values leading to PWOM, SI and
WTP, our objectives are to investigate:
(1) The relative influence of positive and negative restaurant service encounters on
hedonic value; and
(2) The influence of hedonic value on PWOM, SI and WTP (Figure 1).

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Hedonic value
Consumers seek experiences for hedonic outcomes (Babin et al., 1994). According to human
motivational theories, people attempt to reach self-enhancement by playing different roles
and achieving specific goals (Goffman, 1959). That is, when people shop for products or
services, they seek enjoyment. One of the major objectives of shopping is hedonic in nature: a
search for enjoyment, fun and excitement (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Lim and Ang,
2008). Hedonism focuses on affect, desire for enjoyment, experiential or aesthetic aspects
connected with the pursuit of fun, fantasy and feeling (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982).
In the restaurant context, customers are looking for venues to socialize and relax when
they eat out, perhaps after a busy workday. Restaurants become places for more than just
eating, they serve as gathering places for sharing quality food, being served, enjoying a
unique ambiance and feeling that the experience is worth the cost. Good restaurant
encounters will, thus, include hedonic combinations of nutritiously delicious food,
convenience, atmosphere, value and emotionally satisfying entertainment leading to
positive emotions, WTP, PWOM and reduced SI (Babin et al., 1994). On the other hand,
negative restaurant service encounters can be highly disappointing and then lead to high SI,
negative WOM and less WTP (Pine and Gilmore, 1998; Scherer, 1993).
Hence, the theoretical background of hedonic value is critical for understanding the
underlying processes of consumer judgment and decision-making (Babin et al., 1994;
 Relationship
The impact of
Marketing hedonic dining
Positive
Service
experiences
Customer Service encounter provider
Negative
WIP

3957
Experiential (–)
Marketing Hedonic value PWOM

Figure1.
Objectives of the study
in the context of
SI positive and negative
restaurant service
encounter

Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982) in service experiences. The focus is on the hedonic dimension
of consumption, and it argues that consumers seek enjoyment from service experiences. If
their aims are satisfied, they will form positive behavioral intentions regarding PWOM, WTP
and less SI.

3. Hypotheses development
3.1 Positive and negative restaurant service encounters and hedonic value
Service encounter is defined as the time of direct interaction between the customer and the
service provider (Shostack, 1985). In restaurant encounters, factors such as ambiance, service
and food quality, and value for money create the quality of a restaurant service encounter
(Jeong and Jang, 2011; Kwon and Jang, 2011; Pantelidis, 2010; Parsa et al., 2011). Consumers
will evaluate those factors at the time of the encounter in forming their judgments and
making their decisions about the experience (Bitner et al., 1990), Lin and Mattila (2010). For
example, Tsai et al. (2014) found that negative service encounters lead to negative customer
emotions. The current study focuses on the comparable effect of positive (negative restaurant
service encounters) on hedonic value.
Food preference depends on more than nutrition or calories; it heavily depends on the
enjoyment (David, 2015). Pleasant customer–service provider interactions can create hedonic
value by providing enjoyable dining experiences (Hwang and Ok, 2013; Ryu et al., 2010),
signaling a quality experience (Bitner, 1990), creating long-lasting impressions and thereby
evoking positive emotions and perceptions of service (Lin et al., 2017; Bitner, 1990; Singh,
2013). Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H1. Positive restaurant service encounters lead to higher hedonic value.
H2. Negative restaurant service encounters lead to lower hedonic value.
3.2 Hedonic value, willingness to pay, positive word of mouth and switching intentions
The WTP of consumers is influenced by the value derived from a dining experience (Lin et al.,
2020; Tait et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2015). Consumers will have favorable perceptions of a meal
from a fine-dining restaurant if the experience meets or exceeds their expectations regarding
food, ambiance and service quality. They are then willing to pay premium prices for their
dining experiences if the restaurant experience is enjoyable and rewarding (Justin, 2015).
BFJ Previous research found that food quality, value and restaurant ambience positively impact
123,12 WTP (Sukhu et al., 2019). Therefore, customers have higher WTP when they receive hedonic
value from their dining experiences, leading us to hypothesize:
H3. Hedonic value is positively related to WTP.
WOM is a major factor influencing restaurant choices, particularly because customers cannot
evaluate intangible service products before consuming them. WOM is especially powerful in
3958 today’s interactive digital world where information is quickly and conveniently accessed and
influences multitudes of potential customers (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Litvin et al., 2008;
Zhang et al., 2010).
Dining experiences can evoke positive emotions that then lead to beneficial brand
outcomes (Arora and Singer, 2006), form positive future intentions (Babin et al., 2005) and
powerfully influence PWOM (Phelps et al., 2004; Ryu et al., 2010), leading to hypothesize:
H4. Hedonic value is positively related to PWOM.
As discussed above, we define SI as the customers’ intent to abandon a product or service in
favor of another (Mack, 2017). In the restaurant context, customers can move to another
restaurant if they encounter a lousy service or do not like the restaurant’s ambiance. SI
threatens frequent businesses such as restaurants and grocery stores because they depend on
repeat sales, current customers and new customers in contrast to infrequent businesses that
heavily depend on attracting new customers for occasional sales, such as mattress companies
(Wells and Foxall, 2013). Hence, poor service and unexciting dining experiences can lead to SI,
which will reduce market share and cause restaurants to fail (Hoyer et al., 2012).
Customer enjoyment at the time of the service encounter leads to customer loyalty, repeat
business (Wong, 2004) and reduced likelihood of switching service providers. Restaurants
recognize the need for retaining customer loyalty and thus try to avoid negative service
encounters (Andaleeb and Conway, 2006) by providing hedonically enjoyable dining
experiences (Kelley and Hoffman, 1997) that increase customer–provider bonding and reduce
SI intentions, leading us to hypothesize:
H5. Hedonic value is negatively related to SI.
Figure 2 represents the proposed research model, and Table 1 summarizes the research
hypotheses.

Study 2
H3 WTP
Study 1
Figure 2.
Valence of H1/H2 (–) H4
Proposed research
model with valence of restaurant service Hedonic value PWOM
encounter
restaurant service
encounter, hedonic H5
value, PWOM, SI SI
and WTP

Hypothesis Relationship Proposed relationship

H1–H2 Service encounter → Hedonic value Positive

H3 Hedonic value → WTP more Positive
Table 1. H4 Hedonic value → WOM Positive
Hypotheses summary H5 Hedonic value → SI Negative
4. Methodology The impact of
Two survey-based experiments using student and general restaurant consumer samples hedonic dining
were conducted to test the proposed hypotheses. The student sample provided internal
validity, whereas the general consumer sample provided external validity for the study.
experiences
In consumer behavior research, where the focus is theory applications, student
sample may provide internal validity (Winer, 1999). Internal validity establishes cause
and effect relationships in a controlled way, like using a student sample. Sequentially
and practically, internal validity takes precedence over external validity (Druckman 3959
et al., 2011). External validity answers whether the cause and effect is equally
obtainable across samples differing in operationalization, places, people, etc. (Druckman
et al., 2011).
Second, two types of manipulations were used to manipulate positive and negative
restaurant service encounters. Study 1 asked participants to write their own positive or
negative restaurant service encounters. This method aimed to catch the subjective evaluation
of the service encounter; however, the self-reporting method can be affected by memory bias
(Swanson and Hsu, 2011). Therefore, Study 2 randomly assigned participants into positive or
negative scenarios. Scenario-based experiments offer ecological validity (Wirtz and Mattila,
2004) and reduce memory bias (Swanson and Hsu, 2011) and noise in the dependent variable
(Creswell, 2013).
Therefore, the combination of self-reporting and scenario-based experiments offers
subjectivity and objectivity in responses and helps to generalize results in two contexts.

4.1 Study 1
4.1.1 Purpose. A student sample was used for Study 1 to test whether positive (negative)
restaurant service encounters lead to higher (lower) hedonic values (H1 and H2) and to
establish internal validity.
4.1.1.1 Survey design and instrument development. After conducting an extensive
literature review, a survey was designed with questions from previous studies to measure
valence, hedonic value, WTP, PWOM and SI in a restaurant service encounter, all measured
on five-point Likert scales (Table 2). The survey included socio-demographics and
manipulation check questions.
4.1.2 Data collection and sample. In total, 112 students from a large Midwestern university
in the USA received extra credit for participating in the survey via Qualtrics. Respondents
were required to have visited a restaurant in the past six months.
4.1.3 Procedure. To manipulate the valence of restaurant service encounters and to
compare restaurant segments fairly, respondents were asked to recall and write about
positive or negative dining experiences they had experienced in middle-scale restaurants
offering US$10–US$15 entrees. Recalling real-life past experiences should validly evoke
valence as customer experiences are theoretically subjective (Lemke et al., 2011; Oh
et al., 2007).
Respondents were randomly assigned to describe either positive or negative restaurant
service encounters. Then, they responded to three items to measure the valence of the
experience as a manipulation check, followed by the measures of hedonic value, WTP,
PWOM and SI.
4.1.4 Results. 4.1.4.1 Manipulation check. A one-factor (service encounters: positive vs
negative) between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to confirm that the manipulation was
successful. The three items for the valence of restaurant service encounter were highly
correlated (α 5 0.98, M 5 3.47, SD 5 1.29). The manipulation check index was averaged to be
used as the dependent variable for the manipulation check.
BFJ Question items References
123,12
Hedonic value Babin et al. (1994)
Eating at this restaurant is fun and pleasant
I really enjoy myself when I eat at this restaurant
WTP Stevens et al. (1995), Athanassopoulos et al.
I would be willing to pay a higher price for dining here over other (2001)
3960 restaurants
I am willing to pay higher prices to eat at this restaurant
I would still eat at this restaurant even if other restaurants
reduced their prices
PWOM
I recommend the restaurant to friends and acquaintances
I encourage friends and acquaintances to eat at this restaurant
I would like to spread positive information about this restaurant
to others
SI Athanassopoulos et al. (2001)
In the near future, I intend to try hard to find a better restaurant
In the last year, I have thought very seriously about switching
restaurants
I will eat at this restaurant less frequently in the future
I will switch to another restaurant that offers a better experience
Table 2.
Research constructs Valence of restaurant service encounter Wu and Liang (2009)
and measurement I had an overall positive experience at the restaurant
items used for This experience was positive
the study I felt that I was having a positive restaurant experience

Participants had more positive ratings for their restaurant service encounters in the
positive condition (M 5 4.53) and more negative ratings in the negative condition
(M 5 2.10). The ANOVA revealed a significant difference in the valence of the restaurant
service encounter in the two conditions (F1, 110 5 317.59, p < 0.000). Thus, the manipulation
was successful.
4.1.4.2 Hypothesis testing. A one-factor (service encounters: positive vs. negative)
between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to test whether positive (negative) restaurant
service encounters led to higher (lower) hedonic values (H1). The two items for the hedonic
value were highly correlated (α 5 0.98, M 5 3.47, SD 5 1.29), so they were averaged to form a
hedonic value index to be used as the dependent variable.
Participant ratings for hedonic value were higher in the positive condition
(M 5 3.84) and lower in the negative condition (M 5 1.84). The ANOVA revealed a
significant difference in hedonic value in the positive and negative restaurant encounter
conditions (F1, 110 5 236.98, p < 0.000). The findings provide statistical support for H1
and H2 that positive (negative) restaurant service encounters led to higher (lower)
hedonic value.

4.2 Study 2
4.2.1 Purpose. The purpose of Study 2 was to establish a measurement model and test all
hypotheses using structural equation modeling (SEM) with a more generalizable consumer
sample collected via Amazon MTurk. Study 2 also used scenarios to manipulate positive and
negative restaurant service encounters rather than asking participants to write about their
own experiences (Appendix).
 4.2.1.1 Data collection and sample. In total, 270 respondents participated in the survey for The impact of
a small monetary compensation through Amazon MTurk, an online survey using Qualtrics, hedonic dining
which functions as a virtual market where surveys are posted and completed by workers
from diverse backgrounds (Goodman et al., 2013).
experiences
The Study 2 question items were the same as those in Study 1 (Table 2), measured on a
five-point Likert-type scale. A screening question ensured that all respondents had visited a
restaurant in the past six months. The survey concluded with sociodemographic questions.
4.2.2 Procedure. Respondents read positive or negative restaurant service encounter 3961
scenarios (see Appendix for scenarios) following the measures of manipulation check
questions, hedonic value, WTP, PWOM and SI.
The restaurant service encounter scenarios included food quality, service quality,
ambiance and dollar value (Jeong and Jang, 2011; Kwon and Jang, 2011; Pantelidis, 2010;
Parsa et al., 2011; Ryu and Han, 2011).
4.2.3 Manipulation check. A one-factor (service encounter: positive and negative) between-
subjects ANOVA tested the effectiveness of manipulations.
The dependent variable for the manipulation check was the average of the three
service encounter valence items, all relatively highly correlated (α 5 0.99, M 5 3.05,
SD 5 1.63). Participants gave more positive ratings for the service encounter in the
positive condition (M 5 4.71) and negative ratings in the negative condition
(M 5 1.23). The ANOVA revealed a significant difference in the valence of service
encounters in the two conditions (F2, 166 5 89.01, p < 0.000). Hence, the manipulations
were successful.
4.2.4 Measurement model. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using
AMOS 20 to verify the statistical properties of the identified constructs. The goodness-of-fit
indices were within the recommended thresholds (X2/df 5 to 2.63, RMSEA 5 0.078,
NFI 5 0.976, CFI 5 0.985, GFI 5 0.911, and RFI 5 0.968) (Anderson et al., 1995). Hence, the
model achieved an acceptable fit.
To establish convergent validity and construct reliability, Cronbach’s alpha and
composite reliability estimates were calculated. For all the constructs, Cronbach’s alphas
were above the recommended threshold of 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994; Bagozzi and
Yi, 1988). The average variance extracted (AVE) of all the constructs was greater than 0.50
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The factor loadings were also significant for all constructs. See
Table 3 for the CFA results.
The square roots of AVE for all constructs were higher than their correlations with other
constructs, and the maximum and average shared variances were less than the AVE (Hair,
2010), providing support for discriminant validity (Table 4).
4.2.5 The structural model for the valence of the restaurant service encounter, hedonic value,
willingness to pay, positive word of mouth and switching intentions. The measurement model
showed an acceptable fit. A structural model was then established to test the proposed
hypotheses. The structural model showed acceptable fit and the goodness-of-fit indices were
within the recommended thresholds (X2/df 5 3.067, RMSEA 5 0.088, NFI 5 0.970,
CFI 5 0.980, GFI 5 0.892 and RFI 5 0.964) (Anderson et al., 1995). Hence, the results of SEM
showed statistical support for an acceptable model fit.
4.2.6 Hypotheses testing. The results showed a statistically significant positive
relationship between valence of the restaurant service encounter and hedonic value
(γ valence to hedonic value 5 0.953, p < 0.001); hedonic value and WTP (γ hedonic value to WTP 5 0.883,
p < 0.001); hedonic value and PWOM (γ hedonic value to PWOM 5 0.973, p < 0.001); and a negative
relationship between hedonic value and SI (γ hedonic value to switch 5 0.746, p < 0.001).
Therefore, H1, H2, H3, H4 and H5 were supported. See Figure 3 for the structural model with
the hypotheses results.
BFJ Construct Standard loading factor Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE
123,12
Valence of restaurant service encounter 0.99 0.993 0.993 0.980
0.99
1.00
Hedonic value 0.95 0.970 0.970 0.942
0.99
3962 PWOM 0.99 0.989 0.985 0.967
0.98
0.98
0.89
Table 3. SI 0.96 0.968 0.969 0.887
Results of CFA for 0.95
valence of restaurant
0.97
service encounter,
hedonic value, PWOM, WTP 0.96 0.984 0.989 0.955
SI and WTP (Study 2): 1.00
reliability coefficients 0.97
and AVE Note(s): X2 5 210.635, df 5 80, CFI: 0.985, NFI: 0.976, IFI: 0.985, GFI: 0.911, RMSEA: 0.078

Correlations
Construct CR AVE MSV MaxR (H) F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
Table 4. F1:SI 0.969 0.887 0.539 0.975 0.942
Measures of F2:Valence 0.993 0.980 0.885 0.995 0.724 0.990
discriminant validity
for valence of F3:Hedonic value 0.970 0.942 0.914 0.997 0.734 0.940 0.971
restaurant service F4:WTP 0.985 0.955 0.780 0.998 0.609 0.836 0.866 0.977
encounter, hedonic F5:PWOM 0.989 0.967 0.914 0.998 0.733 0.941 0.956 0.883 0.983
value, WOM, SI and Note(s): Diagonal values in italics in the correlation table are the square root of AVE, and other off-diagonal
WTP (Study 2) values are correlations between variables

PWOM
R2 = 0.95
0.973**

Valence of 0.953** Switching

–0.746**
restaurant Hedonic Value intenon
service
encounter R2 = 0.56

Figure 3. 0.883**
Structural model with
valence of restaurant WTP
service encounter, R2 = 0.78
hedonic value, PWOM,
SI and WTP
Note(s): ** = p value is significant at the 0.001 level

5. Discussions and conclusions

The results from two studies support our proposition that positive restaurant service
encounters lead to higher hedonic value, while negative encounters generate negative
hedonic value. Therefore, to ensure that customers enjoy their dining experiences, The impact of
restauranteurs must create positive service encounters. More importantly, the research hedonic dining
supports the argument that higher hedonic value leads to higher WTP and PWOM and lower
SI. Hedonic value has a stronger influence on PWOM (γ hedonic value to PWOM 5 0.973) than on
experiences
WTP (γ hedonic value to WTP 5 0.883, p < 0.001). Although hedonic value has a negative and
significant influence on SI, the influence is weaker (γ hedonic value to switch 5 0.746, p < 0.001)
than it is on PWOM and WTP. In addition, hedonic value explains 95% of the variance in
PWOM (R2 5 0.95), 56% of the variance in SI (R2 5 0.56) and 78% of the variance in 3963
WTP (R2 5 0.78).

5.1 Managerial implications

Relationship marketing strategies are critical to the restaurant industry as managers seek to
increase their loyal customer base, WTP, WOM and to decrease their SI to gain success and
competitive advantage. The measures are particularly important for restaurant businesses
where WTP and PWOM determine success and where customers have high tendencies to
switch. In such contexts, restaurant managers must implement strategies that reduce
switching intentions, retain current customers and attract new customers.
WOM marketing has emerged as one of the critical aspects of relationship marketing. It
engages, equips and empowers restaurant customers. WOM provides a platform for
customers where they have a reason to talk about and their opinions matter (Bannister, 2017).
According to the National Restaurant Association report, 94% adult consumers solicit
recommendations from friends or family before choosing a restaurant. Through PWOM,
current customers will help bring in new customers and reduce advertising and promotion
expenditures. Also, current loyal customers are willing to pay premium prices: a contribution
to profitability and market share.
From an experiential marketing standpoint, service managers should implement
strategies assuring that their services are distinguished from those of their competitors so
that customers will continue to seek unique, enjoyable experiences. Food is obviously critical
for a restaurant’s success, but other things come into account when diners evaluate a
restaurant.
Consequently, restauranteurs are advised to combine experiential and relationship
marketing strategies to produce hedonic value, with consequences for higher WTP, PWOM
and reduced SI. Although hedonic value positively influences WTP and PWOM, the influence
is most substantial on PWOM: if customers have enjoyable dining experiences, they are
highly likely to recommend the restaurant, but that does not always mean that they are
willing to pay more. Nevertheless, 78% of restaurant guests make dining decisions based on
recommendations (“Marketing to your millennial audience”, 2015), so enjoyable experiences
are critical for increased market share and larger customer bases.
The results also imply that hedonic value reduces SI, although the impact is less powerful
than it is on PWOM and WTP. By reducing SI, restaurants can establish a loyal customer
base, an important advantage because repeat business is responsible for one-third of the
restaurant industry’s total revenue.

5.2 Theoretical implications

Academics have emphasized experiential and relationship marketing as two critical aspects
that contribute uniquely to the field of marketing. By showing their influences on one another,
our studies advance the theory. On a practical level, this study shows that hedonic value
derived from restaurant dining experiences helps restaurants to create more WTP, PWOM
and reduce SI.
Therefore, this study advances theory in the field of relationship marketing by revealing
that hedonic value has a strong and positive relationship with WTP and PWOM and a
BFJ negative relationship with SI. However, further academic intention is needed to study the
123,12 relative influence of hedonic value on WTP, PWOM and SI. Although this study provides
support that experiential and relationship marketing are interrelated, future research may be
interested in determining to what extent each effect influences the others.

6. Limitations and future research

3964 This research has some limitations that should be addressed. First, this study focused only on
hedonic value as motivation without considering utilitarian motivations. Perhaps, the
findings would change if utilitarian values were included in the relationship marketing
constructs. Consequently, future research should compare utilitarian and hedonic values and
their effects on WTP, PWOM and SI.
Additionally, this study did not conduct field studies, and Study 1 used a student sample;
thus, it lacks actual industry insights. However, in Study 1, students were used for internal
validity, and in Study 2, a restaurant consumer sample from Amazon MTurk was used to
extend theory in the field of experiential and relationship marketing and restaurant
management. Sometimes, consumers may be satisfied with the service provider but still
switch it due to various reasons such as novelty seeking and convenience. The current
research did not consider these as control variables. Future studies may investigate the
precursors of restaurant hedonic value. This study also did not investigate the differences
among restaurant segments and the hedonic value they provide. The scenarios were based on
a middle-scale restaurant; the results may differ for high-end restaurants.
Urban and rural settings may also have varying restaurant options, which would
influence thresholds for switching intentions. Future research can compare urban and rural
settings for varying relationships between hedonic value and WTP, PWOM and SI.

References
7 Reasons Customers Are Not Returning To Your Restaurant (2016), “Restaurant engine”, available at:
http://restaurantengine.com/customers-are-not-returning/.
Aaltoj€arvi, I., Kontukoski, M. and Hopia, A. (2018), “Framing the local food experience: a case study of
a Finnish pop-up restaurant”, British Food Journal, Vol. 120 No. 1, pp. 133-145.
Afshar, V. (2015), “50 important customer experience stats for business leaders”, Huffington Post,
available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vala-afshar/50-important-customer-exp_b_
8295772.html.
Andaleeb, S.S. and Conway, C. (2006), “Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: an
examination of the transaction-specific model”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 3-11, doi: 10.1108/08876040610646536.
Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis: With Readings,
Prentice Hall, NJ.
Anton, C., Camarero, C. and Carrero, M. (2007), “The mediating effect of satisfaction on consumers’
switching intention”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 511-538, doi: 10.1002/
mar.20171.
Arora, R. and Singer, J. (2006), “Customer satisfaction and value as drivers of business success for fine
dining restaurants”, Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 89-102.
Athanassopoulos, A., Gounaris, S. and Stathakopoulos, V. (2001), “Behavioural responses to
customer satisfaction: an empirical study”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 5/6,
pp. 687-707.
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 No. 4, pp. 644-656.
Babin, B.J., Lee, Y.-K., Kim, E.-J. and Griffin, M. (2005), “Modeling consumer satisfaction and word-of- The impact of
mouth: restaurant patronage in Korea”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 133-139,
doi: 10.1108/08876040510596803. hedonic dining
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
experiences
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94, doi: 10.1007/BF02723327.
Bannister, C. (2017), Word-of-Mouth Marketing: How to Get People Talking, available at: https://pos.
toasttab.com/blog/on-the-line/word-of-mouth-marketing.
3965
Berger, J. (2014), “Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: a review and directions for future
research”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 586-607.
Bilgihan, A. (2016), “Gen Y customer loyalty in online shopping: an integrated model of trust, user
experience and branding”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 103-113.
Bilgihan, A., Seo, S. and Choi, J. (2018), “Identifying restaurant satisfiers and dissatisfiers: suggestions
from online reviews”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 601-625.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee
responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82, doi: 10.2307/1251871.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), “The service encounter: diagnosing favorable and
unfavorable incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 71-84, doi: 10.2307/1252174.
Chen, Y.C., Tsui, P.L., Chen, H.I., Tseng, H.L. and Lee, C.S. (2019), “A dining table without food: the
floral experience at ethnic fine dining restaurants”, British Food Journal, Vol. 122 No. 6,
pp. 1819-1832.
Convero (2016), “Why your customers will pay more for better service”, Convero, available at: http://
www.converoinc.com/customers-will-pay-better-service/.
Creswell, J.W. (2013), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,
Sage Publications, CA.
David, M. (2015), The Slow Down Diet: Eating for Pleasure, Energy, and Weight Loss, Inner Traditions/
Bear, VT.
Druckman, J.N., Greene, D.P., Kuklinski, J.H. and Lupia, A. (2011), Cambridge Handbook of
Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dutta, K., Parsa, H.G., Parsa, R.A. and Bujisic, M. (2014), “Change in consumer patronage and
willingness to pay at different levels of service attributes in restaurants: a study in India”,
Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 149-174.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, p. 382,
doi: 10.2307/3150980.
Franke, N. and Schreier, M. (2010), “Why customers value self-designed products: the importance of
process effort and enjoyment*”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 1020-1031, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00768.x.
Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Doubleday/An-Chor Books, Garden
City, NY.
Goodman, J.K., Cryder, C.E. and Cheema, A. (2013), “Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and
weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 213-224.
Hair, J.F. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, Pearson Education, Boston, MA.
Han, H. and Hyun, S.S. (2013), “Image congruence and relationship quality in predicting switching
intention: conspicuousness of product use as a moderator variable”, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 303-329, doi: 10.1177/1096348012436381.
Han, H., Kim, W. and Hyun, S.S. (2011), “Switching intention model development: role of service
performances, customer satisfaction, and switching barriers in the hotel industry”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 619-629, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.11.006.
BFJ Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D. (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth via
consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the
123,12 internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52, doi: 10.1002/dir.10073.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantacies, feeling and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-140.
Hoyer, W.D., MacInnis, D.J. and Pieters, R. (2012), Consumer Behavior, 6th ed., South-Western College
Pub, CA.
3966
Hwang, J. and Ok, C. (2013), “The antecedents and consequence of consumer attitudes toward
restaurant brands: a comparative study between casual and fine dining restaurants”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 32, pp. 121-131, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.05.002.
Jeong, E. and Jang, S.S. (2011), “Restaurant experiences triggering positive electronic word-of-mouth
(eWOM) motivations”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 356-366, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.08.005.
Justin, G. (2015), “5 restaurant loyalty program tips to win millenials”, Software Advice, available at:
http://www.softwareadvice.com/resources/5-tips-for-restaurant-loyalty-programs/.
Kaur, G., Sharma, R.D. and Mahajan, N. (2012), “Exploring customer switching intentions through
relationship marketing paradigm”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 30,
pp. 280-302, doi: 10.1108/02652321211236914.
Kelley, S.W. and Hoffman, K.D. (1997), “An investigation of positive affect, prosocial behaviors and
service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 407-427, doi: 10.1016/S0022-4359(97)
90025-7.
Kwon, S. and Jang, S.S. (2011), “Price bundling presentation and consumer’s bundle choice: the role of
quality certainty”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 337-344,
doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.08.001.
Lemke, F., Clark, M. and Wilson, H. (2011), “Customer experience quality: an exploration in business
and consumer contexts using repertory grid technique”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 846-869, doi: 10.1007/s11747-010-0219-0.
Lesonsky, R. (2012), “Bar and restaurant: build customer relationships”, available at: https://www.
score.org/resource/bar-and-restaurant-build-customer-relationships.
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. 225-232, doi: 10.
1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.004.
Lin, I.Y. and Mattila, A.S. (2010), “Restaurant service scape, service encounter, and perceived
congruency on customers’ emotions and satisfaction”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 819-841, doi: 10.1080/19368623.2010.514547.
Lin, J.-S.C., Lin, C.-Y. and Wang, W.-L. (2017), “Modeling customer-employee instant rapport in the
first service encounter”, The Customer is NOT Always Right? Marketing Orientationsin a
Dynamic Business World, Springer, Cham, p. 484, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-50008-9_128.
Lin, M.S., Sharma, A. and Ouyang, Y. (2020), “Role of signals in consumers’ economic valuation of
restaurant choices”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 1080-1100,
doi: 10.1177/1096348020926238.
Litvin, S.W., Goldsmith, R.E. and Pan, B. (2008), “Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism
management”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 458-468, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2007.
05.011.
Mack, S. (2017), “Concept of consumer-switching behavior”, available at: http://smallbusiness.chron.
com/concept-consumerswitching-behavior-65092.html.
Mattila, A.S. (2001), “The impact of relationship type on customer loyalty in a context of service
failures”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 91-101.
“Marketing to your millennial audience” (2015), available at: https://restaurant.org/Articles/ The impact of
Operations/Marketing-to-your-millennial-audience (accessed 21 April 2021).
hedonic dining
McDougall, G.H.G. and Levesque, T. (2000), “Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived
value into the equation”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 392-410, doi: 10.1108/
experiences
08876040010340937.
Mihic, M. and Kursan Milakovic, I. (2017), “Examining shopping enjoyment: personal factors, word of
mouth and moderating effects of demographics”, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1300-1317. 3967
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I. (1994), “The assessment of reliability”, Psychometric Theory, Vol. 3,
pp. 248-292.
Oh, H., Fiore, A.M. and Jeoung, M. (2007), “Measuring experience economy concepts: tourism
applications”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 119-132, doi: 10.1177/
0047287507304039.
Pantelidis, I.S. (2010), “Electronic meal experience: a content analysis of online restaurant comments”,
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 483-491, doi: 10.1177/1938965510378574.
Parsa, H.G., Self, J., Sydnor-Busso, S. and Yoon, H.J. (2011), “Why restaurants fail? Part II - the impact
of affiliation, location, and size on restaurant failures: results from a survival analysis”, Journal
of Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 360-379, doi: 10.1080/15378020.2011.
625824.
Phelps, J.E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D. and Raman, N. (2004), “Viral marketing or electronic word-
of-mouth advertising: examining consumer responses and motivations to pass along email”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 333-348, doi: 10.1017/S0021849904040371.
Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1998), “Welcome to the experience economy”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 76, pp. 97-105.
Pomranz, M. (2015), Michelin Survey Says Diners Are Willing to Pay $203 for an Amazing Dining
Experience, FWx, available at: http://www.foodandwine.com/fwx/food/michelin-survey-says-
diners-are-willing-pay-203-amazing-dining-experience.
Ryu, K. and Han, H. (2011), “New or repeat customers: how does physical environment influence their
restaurant experience?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 599-611, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.11.004.
Ryu, K., Han, H. and Jang, S.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. 416-432, doi: 10.1108/
09596111011035981.
Scherer, K.R. (1993), “Studying the emotion-antecedent appraisal process: an expert system approach”,
Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 7 Nos 3-4, pp. 325-355, doi: 10.1080/02699939308409192.
Schmitt, B. (1999), “Experiential marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 Nos 1-3,
pp. 53-67, doi: 10.1362/026725799784870496.
Shermach, K. (2005), “Customer satisfaction and willingness to pay news CRM buyer”, available at:
http://www.crmbuyer.com/story/46460.html.
Shostack, G.L. (1985), “Planning the service encounter”, The Service Encounter, Vol. 1, pp. 243-254.
Singh, S. (2013), “Positive service encounter: a tool for customer loyalty in retail”, Journal of Business
Theory and Practice, Vol. 1 No. 2, p. 244, doi: 10.22158/jbtp.v1n2p244.
Skandalis, A., Byrom, J. and Banister, E. (2019), “Experiential marketing and the changing nature of
extraordinary experiences in post-postmodern consumer culture”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 97, pp. 43-50.
Sukhu, A., Bilgihan, A. and Seo, S. (2017), “Willingness to pay in negative restaurant service
encounters”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 65, pp. 11-19.
BFJ Sukhu, A., Choi, H., Bujisic, M. and Bilgihan, A. (2019), “Satisfaction and positive emotions: a
comparison of the influence of hotel guests’ beliefs and attitudes on their satisfaction and
123,12 emotions”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 77, pp. 51-63.
Stevens, P., Knutson, B. and Patton, M. (1995), “DINESERV: a tool for measuring service quality in
restaurants”, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 5-60.
Swanson, S.R. and Hsu, M.K. (2011), “The effect of recovery locus attributions and service failure
severity on word-of-mouth and repurchase behaviors in the hospitality industry”, Journal of
3968 Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 511-529, doi: 10.1177/1096348010382237.
Tait, P., Saunders, C., Guenther, M. and Rutherford, P. (2016), “Emerging versus developed economy
consumer willingness to pay for environmentally sustainable food production: a choice
experiment approach comparing Indian, Chinese and United Kingdom lamb consumers”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 124, pp. 65-72, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.088.
Thanx Inc (2015), “Study finds 70% of retail and restaurant customers never make a return visit”,
available at: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/study-finds-70-of-retail-and-restaurant-
customers-never-make-a-return-visit-300027410.html.
Tsai, C.-C., Yang, Y.-K. and Cheng, Y.-C. (2014), “Does relationship matter? – customers’ response to
service failure”, Managing Service Quality: International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 139-159, doi:
10.1108/MSQ-06-2013-0113.
Umashankar, N., Bhagwat, Y. and Kumar, V. (2017), “Do loyal customers really pay more for services?”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 807-826, doi: 10.1007/s11747-016-
0491-8.
Wang, R., Liaukonyte, J. and Kaiser, H.M. (2015), Does Advertising Content Matter? Impacts of Healthy
Eating and Anti-obesity Advertising on Willingness-To-Pay by Consumer Body Mass Index,
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Wells, V. and Foxall, G. (2013), “Handbook of developments in consumer behaviour”, available at:
http://www.e-elgar.com/shop/handbook-of-developments-in-consumer-behaviour?___website
5uk_warehouse.
Winer, R.S. (1999), “Experimentation in the 21st century: the importance of external validity”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, p. 349, doi: 10.1177/0092070399273005.
Wirtz, J. and Mattila, A.S. (2004), “Consumer responses to compensation, speed of recovery and
apology after a service failure”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 150-166, doi: 10.1108/09564230410532484.
Wong, A. (2004), “The role of emotional satisfaction in service encounters”, Managing Service Quality:
International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 365-376, doi: 10.1108/09604520410557976.
Wu, C.H.-J. and Liang, R.-D. (2009), “Effect of experiential value on customer satisfaction with service
encounters in luxury-hotel restaurants”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 586-593, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.03.008.
Zhang, Z., Ye, Q., Law, R. and Li, Y. (2010), “The impact of e-word-of-mouth on the online popularity of
restaurants: a comparison of consumer reviews and editor reviews”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 694-700, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.02.002.

Appendix
Positive service encounter scenario
You are dining in a middle-scale restaurant (US$10–US$15 entrees). On arrival, you notice that the
parking and location are convenient for families with children. As you enter the restaurant, you notice
that the dining room is appealing and comfortable, looks sanitary and has a clean smell. As you are
seated, you notice that the menu lists extensive food items, more than listed in other area restaurants.
You also notice that the staff and managers are professional, efficient, knowledgeable, attentive,
interactive and friendly. They are professionally dressed and provide good service. Once you receive
your order, you notice that the food has good overall quality in terms of taste, freshness and visual
appeal. When you receive your bill, you judge that the restaurant offers good value for the price: portion
sizes and prices are in line with industry standards. You conclude that you have received a positive The impact of
overall dining experience.
hedonic dining
Negative service encounter scenario experiences
You are dining in a middle-scale restaurant (US$10–US$15 entrees). On arrival, you notice that the
parking and location are inconvenient and unsuitable for families with children. As you enter the
restaurant, you notice that the dining room is unappealing, appears to be unclean, the seating is
uncomfortable and you detect the odor of spoiled food. The menu indicates that the restaurant has 3969
limited food items, fewer than available at other restaurants in the area. As you place your order, you
find that the staff and managers are inefficient and lack knowledge about the menu or food preparation.
They are also inattentive to your needs, avoid interaction and are even unfriendly. They are dressed
unprofessionally and provide poor service. Once you receive your order, the food is stale and lacks visual
appeal. When the bill comes, you compare portion sizes and prices relative to industry standards and
conclude that you have received poor value for the price and a very negative overall dining experience.

Corresponding author
Anil Bilgihan can be contacted at: abilgihan@fau.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com