GENERATION Y CONSUMERS:
KEY RESTAURANT ATTRIBUTES
AFFECTING POSITIVE
AND NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES
Robert J. Harrington
University of Arkansas
Michael C. Ottenbacher
Heilbronn University
Ann Staggs
F. Allen Powell
University of Arkansas
Using a descriptive approach to identify critical attributes affecting positive and negative dining experiences, this study examined the impact of these attributes for
Generation Y consumers. The findings not only support relationships in earlier studies
using survey methodology but also identify important differences in drivers of positive
and negative dining experiences for Generation Y consumers. Many of the same attributes
were shown as frequent drivers of positive and negative experiences but varied in
impact and order of importance. The top five attributes described as drivers of positive
experiences were quality of food/drink, quality of service, friendliness of staff, atmosphere
of restaurant, and speed of service. The top five attributes described as drivers of negative experiences were quality of service, speed of service, quality of food/drink, friendliness of staff, and cleanliness. Additional tests provide evidence of differences in the
importance of these and other attributes across three segments: quick-service restaurant,
casual dining, and fine dining.
KEYWORDS: restaurant management; consumer experiences; satisfaction; restaurant
segments; Generation Y consumers
Satisfying customers is one of restaurant managers’ and owners’ main goals;
however, there is no clear-cut formula to achieve this. Although numerous studies and methods have been used to test customer satisfaction in foodservice settings, there is no overall consensus on what is the best food quality, atmosphere,
or service quality. As with other service environments, customer satisfaction in the
restaurant industry is of critical importance, as 90% of unsatisfied customers never
return to a dining establishment (Sulek & Hensley, 2004). This finding highlights
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. XX, No. X, Month XXXX, xx-xx
DOI: 10.1177/1096348011400744
© 2011 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
1
2 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
the close connection between customer satisfaction and the longevity and financial success of a restaurant (Crotts & Pan, 2007).
Several fundamental aspects of the dining experience appear likely to determine whether a restaurant experience is perceived as a positive or negative one,
resulting in either customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction. A logical course of
action for researchers and practitioners is to identify dining experiences that
(a) are likely to drive consumers away, (b) produce customer satisfaction, and
(c) failures that are viewed as recoverable by consumers. Chung and Hoffman
(1998) considered critical incidents in service failures that matter most to diners.
In their study, they found the most commonly described service failures involved
poor service delivery; these were the most likely to linger in the customer’s memory
and cost the restaurant customers as a result. Facilities failures (e.g., cleanliness
problems, bad odors, etc.) were perceived as the most memorable and important
type of service failure. Although product errors such as poor food preparation
were most common, food-related problems were an area where diners were more
forgiving of service failures (Chung & Hoffman, 1998).
In addition to identifying critical incidents of service failure or success, a
challenge of satisfying customers in the restaurant industry today is trying to
balance customer needs throughout varying restaurant segments and differences
in consumer demographic groups. Researchers and marketers have long heralded
the importance of demographic attributes and psychographic tendencies affecting
consumer choice and preferences (Cui, Trent, Sullivan, & Matiru, 2003). As such,
the Generation Y age group has long been proclaimed as the next big consumer
spending category. Although researchers have argued about the impact of formative experience differences on generational preferences and beliefs (Paul, 2001),
little research has been completed assessing the differences in this regard for
restaurant experiences for members of the Generation Y demographic (Kueh &
Voon, 2007). Earlier studies have demonstrated that young consumers have different needs and wants based on the type of restaurant segment they are dining
in (Knutson, 2000). For instance, when young diners eat at quick service restaurants (QSR), they appear more interested in speed but when dining in fine-dining
restaurants they appear most interested in food quality. Furthermore, in a recent
study of the fine-dining segment, the demographic characteristics of gender, age, and
dining frequency affected the importance of restaurant factors described as price/
value, quality expectations, the menu variety or innovativeness, and dietary issues
(Harrington, Ottenbacher, & Kendall, in press).
The objective of this study is to test drivers of positive and negative experiences
throughout the restaurant industry, leading to customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction. In particular, the study focuses on the young diner market segment across
three restaurant sectors. For this study, the young diner segment is defined as
consumers that fall in the Generation Y category (aged between 16 and 34 years
at the time of this study). Therefore, the overarching goal of this study is to identify
the greatest determiners of customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction for young
consumers across three restaurant segments.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
Harrington et al. / GENERATION Y CONSUMERS 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Customer satisfaction can be defined in a variety of ways, but in its simplest
terms it is simply something that brings “pleasurable fulfillment” (Oliver, 1997).
This sense of fulfillment is entirely dependent on (a) the perceptions of the consumer, (b) if the consumption of a product has fulfilled some desire or need, and
(c) that the fulfillment brings pleasure (Oliver, 1997). Therefore, it would also be
logical to state that customer dissatisfaction would be something that does not
bring pleasurable fulfillment. It somehow failed to meet a desire or need and in
turn did not leave the customer with a pleasurable experience.
Customer satisfaction is of key importance in the restaurant industry. Many
studies have found that customer satisfaction is directly linked to customer retention and shown that more positive emotions led to satisfaction, whereas emotions
such as anger led to increased customer dissatisfaction (Noone, Kimes, & Mattila,
2007). These positive and negative emotions can come from extrinsic forces such
as customer service and server–guest interactions in the restaurant. These interactions in restaurants are crucial as both server and consumer emotions interact to
affect customer perceptions of satisfaction (Liu & Jang, 2009; Noone et al., 2007).
Customer satisfaction is usually highly dependent on perceived restaurant
quality. Customers are more likely to be satisfied with a meal if they have
low expectations about the experience and the establishment meets or exceeds
those expectations. Similarly, dissatisfaction occurs when customers have very
high expectations about an establishment and the establishment underperforms
based on those expectations (Namkung & Jang, 2007). In practical terms, this
means that restaurants need to take extra care to understand these expectations
to ensure customer satisfaction is maximized and dissatisfaction is minimized.
Although perceived expectations go hand-in-hand with perceived quality
(e.g., Namkung & Jang, 2007), there are many potential quality factors, and
based on earlier research, these factors or attributes have been broken down into
several categories. A synthesis of the literature provides three general parts of the
restaurant experience as the greatest potential determiners of customer satisfaction. These general categories are food (taste and quality), physical environment
(décor/atmosphere), and service quality. Of these three categories, research has
shown that food is clearly the most frequently mentioned element of overall restaurant experience. It drives satisfaction whether related as a general assessment
of food quality (Namkung & Jang, 2007), food production problems (Chung &
Hoffman, 1998), food safety and appeal (Sulek & Hensley, 2004), dietary considerations (Siguaw & Enz, 1999), or variety and innovativeness (Harrington et al., in
press).
Food Quality
Food quality was previously identified as a crucial component to satisfying
customers. Studies have shown that a restaurant’s food alone has the potential
to lure customers back for repeat visits (Sulek & Hensley, 2004). Food quality
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
4 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
is described as the key attribute of customer satisfaction and repatronage in
full-service restaurants and is a contributing factor in QSRs as well (Gupta,
McLaughlin, & Gomez, 2007). Food quality, however, is a fairly broad term
that can be broken down into distinct segments to further illustrate customers’
specific needs; these food quality segments have been defined as five elements
that lead to customer satisfaction: presentation, healthy options, taste, freshness,
and temperature (Namkung & Jang, 2007).
Presentation is the attractiveness of food—how it is presented and arranged
is a tangible cue for customer perception of quality (Namkung & Jang, 2008).
An earlier study done by Kivela, Inbakaran, and Reece (1999) supported the
importance of food presentation as a key factor in determining dining satisfaction.
The second factor, healthy options, means having nutritious and healthful food
alternatives on a menu. Earlier studies provide support for the value of healthy
options resulting in a higher return patronage to restaurants that offer healthy
food alternatives (Kivela et al., 1999); growing interest in low-fat, low-carbohydrate, and vegetarian and vegan meal options (Sulek & Hensley, 2004); and
varying levels of dietary consideration importance based on gender and age
(Harrington et al., in press).
Additionally, Kivela, Inbakaran, and Reece (1999) identified taste as a key
attribute of food quality in the dining experience. Food taste is arguably the most
important aspect of food quality, although other factors contribute to the taste of
the food. Freshness of food is defined as the physical state of the food and its
properties: crispness, juiciness, and aroma (Péneau, Brockhoff, Escher, & Nuessli,
2007). Temperature is another crucial part of food quality that effects the overall
satisfaction with a meal (Johns & Tyas, 1996; Kivela et al., 1999). In summary,
these five categories under the broad term food quality help determine whether
or not a customer will be satisfied with his or her food and the overall dining
experience.
Atmosphere
The atmosphere of a dining establishment may also affect customer satisfaction and repeat patronage. Atmosphere includes many aspects: cleanliness, odor,
lighting, temperature, color, decor, and music (Sulek & Hensley, 2004). Customers
are more likely to remember the negative parts of atmosphere, such as a very
cool temperature or lack of cleanliness, than the positive aspects of the dining experience (Chung & Hoffman, 1998; Sulek & Hensley, 2004).
Previous studies have shown physical characteristics, such as seating and
comfort, to be particularly important to atmosphere. A study done by Baker and
Cameron (1996) indicated that customers perceive their wait times to be longer
if the seating in the waiting area is uncomfortable. In addition to seating and comfort, Kim and Kim (2004) found those restaurants that scored higher in customer
satisfaction scored highest in atmospheric qualities: sound level, image, and the
cheerfulness of the restaurant. More recently, Liu and Jang (2009) found a relationship among dining atmospherics, positive or negative emotions, perceived
value, and behavioral intentions. The two studies taken together provide evidence
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
Harrington et al. / GENERATION Y CONSUMERS 5
for the direct link of atmosphere with brand image, positive or negative memories,
and customer repatronage (Kim & Kim, 2004; Liu & Jang, 2009).
Service Quality
Service quality varies in dining establishments and relies greatly on employee
behavior. Employee behaviors are any actions or a sequence of actions carried
out within an organization that has an effect on customers. A positive behavior
on the part of the employee leads to a positive and constructive work environment. Contrarily, negative employee behaviors can lead to a negative and destruction work environment. Employee behavior and service quality have a great
effect on the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of a customer (Katarra, Weheba, &
El-Said, 2008).
The overall satisfaction of customers is highly dependent on the level and quality of service that the customers receive. Studies have shown that simple actions
on the part of an employee, for example, smiling, have a positive correlation to
customer satisfaction (Katarra et al., 2008). It has been shown that friendliness
and personal warmth toward customers significantly leads to higher service
quality perceptions and customer satisfaction. Additionally, Katarra et al. (2008)
found no noticeable difference between male and female customers concerning
the relationship between service quality/employee behavior and overall customer
satisfaction.
Young Customers
Although the existing marketing literature indicates that the Generation Y
consumer is an important customer segment for foodservice, empirical studies on
the service expectations of Generation Y consumers in the foodservice industry
are few (Kueh & Voon, 2007). A variety of theories exist to explain potential
differences based on generation. Researchers suggest formative experiences
have a significant impact in forming specific consumer preferences, values, and
beliefs. Specifically, this theory proposes a strong relationship among a generation’s experiences and what generational members have witnessed. This relationship is thought to affect psychographic consumption tendencies (Paul, 2001).
Differences based on generational experiences are proposed to include psychographic message tendencies, attitudes toward money (Paul, 2001), cause-related
marketing efforts (Cui et al., 2003), and more general cultural characteristics
held by a particular age group or generation (Kueh & Voon, 2007).
Consumer socialization theory can be defined as “processes by which young
people acquire skills, knowledge, and attitudes relevant to their functioning as consumers in the marketplace” (Ward, 1974, p. 2). Socially derived motivations to consume have been shown to be positively connected with peer communication, family
communication, and exposure to television and other media (Martin & Turley, 2004).
The existing literature indicates that formative experiences and socialization
factors of Generation Y foodservice consumers are likely to create an age group
that dines out more frequently, are more adventurous than older consumers, and
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
6 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
look for environments that make them feel welcome (Kueh & Voon, 2007). A survey done by Knutson (2000) with a sample of adults aged 30 years and younger on
their needs and desires when eating out at QSRs found that the three most important things to them were (a) cleanliness, (b) friendliness (service quality), and
(c) price in the QSR segment. The study found that young adults had a higher
sensitivity to price and price change, with about two thirds of this segment
spending only $4 to $5 when eating out (Knutson, 2000). These discoveries
appear to depart significantly from what mature consumers desire when eating out.
Young people are an ever-growing part of the restaurant industry and a substantial part of the quick service segment. In fact, 50% of the world population
is younger than 30 years, and the Generation Y age bracket currently makes up
the largest age group segment in the United States (Qualman, 2010). Therefore,
understanding specific needs and desires of the young consumer is critical for
restaurant success, improving customer satisfaction, and retaining young consumers as patrons.
Based on the literature review, there is a gap in studies assessing drivers affecting customer satisfaction of young consumers across a variety of restaurant sectors. Specifically, in this study, young consumers are defined as those falling in
the Generation Y age group. To assess the drivers of customer satisfaction in this
age group, the study’s key research question focused on assessing participants’
description of restaurant attributes affecting positive and negative experiences in
the QSR, casual, and fine-dining restaurant segments. Finally, this study examines differences across restaurant types and determines if consumer needs change
based on the particular restaurant segment.
METHOD
To assess restaurant selection factors, the study uses a descriptive survey
methodology. Following the data collection methods used by earlier authors in
this area (e.g., Chung & Hoffman, 1998), respondents were contacted through
a convenience procedure. The participants in this study were asked if they would
be willing to voluntarily complete the survey. If they answered in the affirmative,
an anonymous survey was completed. If not, no survey was completed. The data
collection period resulted in 574 total responses. The data were collected from
one metropolitan area in the southwest United States. Participants were contacted at predetermined locations: shopping malls and local attractions.
Because this study focused on younger diners, responses used in this study
were limited to those that can be defined as “Generation Y” or “Echo Boomers.”
Participants defined as Generation Y are those born between 1976 and 1994.
Therefore, only respondents defined as falling between 16 and 34 years of age at
the time of this study were included, resulting in 459 usable responses. This age
group was used in this study because (a) very little research in foodservice has
been focused specifically on this demographic group, (b) there are 73 million
GenYers representing about one fourth of the overall population in the United
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
Harrington et al. / GENERATION Y CONSUMERS 7
States, (c) they represent a substantial amount of overall spending in the United
States, and (d) the cohort is characterized by its diversity in makeup and behavior
(Barrows & Powers, 2009).
To determine specifics with regard to the restaurant experience, participants
were asked to recall a positive and negative restaurant experience. Then, each
participant was requested to describe key elements of the encounter that positively
or negatively affected his or her experience. Furthermore, respondents were asked
to indicate the type of restaurant for the positive or negative experience in question.
Although a number of terms are possible for differentiating among restaurant segments, this study used restaurant category descriptions used in earlier research
(Hu, Leong, Kim, Ryan, & Warde, 2008; Stevens, Knutson, & Patton, 1995) and
asked respondents to categorize their experience into one of three segments: quick
service, casual dining, or fine dining. Finally, respondents were asked to provide
several demographic items: age, gender, the amount of money spent per month on
restaurant food and beverage, and current household status.
This process created a list of descriptive responses ranging from two to five
items per respondent that were perceived as substantially affecting actual restaurant experiences. Thus, a list of restaurant attributes was created by each
respondent for one positive experience and one negative one. The advantage of
this approach is that respondents were required to reflect on actual experiences
rather than hypothetical scenarios or situations. This approach avoids misleading
proxy measures, which can be far removed from actual service experience outcomes (e.g., Nutt, 2000). This process also provides an underused approach to
evaluating the importance of restaurant attributes and minimizes bias because of
single method research. Although a number of studies have looked at the importance of various restaurant attributes, most have used some type of Likert-type
survey methodology (Harrington, Ottenbacher, & Way, 2010; Hu et al., 2008;
Kueh & Voon, 2007; Moschis, Folkman, & Bellenger, 2003). The exclusive use
of survey methodology may result in a greater potential for mono-method bias.
Furthermore, a weakness in the survey method for restaurant attributes is that
responses are based on theoretical levels of importance, which may vary based
on a variety of validity effects rather than actual experiences. Therefore, a key area
of importance for the current study is the utilization of a different method of
analysis (actual positive and negative experiences) to address convergent
validity issues (e.g., Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) and focus on an underresearched demographic group (Generation Y) to assess any differences with
potential managerial implications.
There were a total of 459 respondents for a positive dining experience and 448
for a negative dining experience. Of these respondents (from both categories), the
largest number of responses was composed of people who indicated a dining
experience in causal restaurants. In positive dining experiences, the next highest
amount of respondents was from casual, fine dining, and quick service restaurants. In
negative dining experiences, the highest number of responses was in the following
order: casual, quick service, and fine-dining restaurants (see Table 1).
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
8 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Responses by Restaurant Type
Restaurant Type
Quick service
Casual
Fine dining
Total
Positive
Negative
76
280
103
459
130
253
65
448
Data Analysis
The qualitative responses in each completed survey (i.e., descriptions of
key elements that affected the restaurant experience) were categorized into
key customer satisfaction issues based on a synthesis of descriptions found in
the relevant literature. This synthesis resulted in the creation of 29 distinct
categories or restaurant attributes (Harrington et al., 2010); these are shown in
Table 2. Once these categories were coded, frequencies were calculated for
quantitative methods to be used to assess study research questions and objectives. These frequencies are shown in percentage form in Tables 2 and 3,
reflecting the percentage of times descriptors fell within each restaurant attribute category across all respondents. A response was coded as 1 (when a
described item was coded as a particular attribute) or 0 (when a respondent
did not include a described item within the particular attribute). Because each
respondent had two or more described items for each experience, this process
resulted in a total of 1,334 responses for positive experiences and 1,064 for
negative experiences.
Nonparametric tests. Nonparametric tests are used to analyze data that do not
meet the assumptions of parametric tests. In this case, the data in this study are
categorical in nature (yes = 1 and no = 0) and, therefore, are not normally distributed. Because the data in this study have two possible outcomes (either yes or
no), tests for differences were run using binomial tests. The binomial test procedure compares observed frequencies of two categories of a dichotomous variable
to the frequencies that are expected under a binomial distribution with a specified
probability parameter (Vogt, 1999). In this case, the study used the overall data
frequency as the test proportion for comparison. Therefore, the binomial tests
compare the proportion of responses overall with the proportion of responses by
restaurant type based on positive or negative experiences.
RESULTS
The following results are compiled from the responses collected through the
aforementioned data collection process. The data results only include respondents aged 16 to 34 years as this study was looking to draw conclusions about
the Generation Y demographic. Table 2 is composed of the percentages of positive
responses overall and then divided across three restaurant segments. Table 3 is
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
Harrington et al. / GENERATION Y CONSUMERS 9
Table 2
Positive Restaurant Experience Attribute Frequencies
by Restaurant Type (Shown as Percentage)
1. Location
2. Convenience of parking/valet
3. Restaurant takes reservations
4. Reputation
5. Recommendation from friends
6. Rating in food guides
7. Reviews in magazines and newspapers
8. Magazine or newspaper ads
9. Happy hour drink specials/coupons
10. Atmosphere of restaurant
11. Interior design
12. Cleanliness
13. Privacy
14. Noise level
15. Quality of food/drink
16. Variety of menu
17. Innovative menu items
18. Food is safe
19. Food is authentic
20. Flexibility for special dining requests
21. Healthy alternatives
22. Quality of service
23. Friendliness of staff
24. Speed of service
25. Daily specials
26. Value of experience
27. Price
28. Portion size/quantity of food and drink
29. Food presentation
30. Other
All Data
QSR
Casual
Fine Dining
1.5
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.9
12
1.8
3.4
0.4
0.4
20.7
2.3
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.5
14.4
12.4
11.2
2.2
2.2
4.5
1.1
0.5
5.5
3.7*
0.5
0
0.9
0.5
0
0
0
0.9
6**
0
6
0
0
20.2
1.4
0
0
0
0.5
2.3**
9.2*
12.8
17.4**
0.9
4.1*
7.3
0.9
0.5
4.1
1.2
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
0
0
1.0
13.7+
2.4
2.4
0.5
0.4
19.7
2.1
0.2
0
0.1
0.2
0+
14.3
12.9
11.8
2.6
1.5
4.4
1.1
0.5
5.8
0.7
0
0.7
0.3
0
0.3
0
0
0.7
11.8
1.4
4.2
0.3
1
23.9
3.8+
0
0
0
0
0.7
18.7*
11.1
4.8***
2.4
2.8
2.1*
1.4
0.7
6.2
Note: QSR = quick service restaurant.
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
+
composed of the percentages of negative responses overall and then these
are broken down into three restaurant segments. Table 4 compares directly all
the responses for both positive and negative experiences and looks at significance
differences between the two. This comparison demonstrates differences in frequency
of specific restaurant attributes driving positive or negative experiences for diners
across all defined restaurant segments. The statistical significance of differences
in the attributes is expressed in Tables 2 to 4 as shown in the footnotes at the
bottom of each table.
Table 2 reflects the percentage of times descriptors fell within each category
across all respondents compared with the individual restaurant segments. In other
words, any significant differences reflect an attribute that was more frequently
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
10 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
Table 3
Negative Restaurant Experience Attribute Frequencies
by Restaurant Type (Shown as Percentage)
1. Location
2. Convenience of parking/valet
3. Restaurant takes reservations
4. Reputation
5. Recommendation from friends
6. Rating in food guides
7. Reviews in magazines and newspapers
8. Magazine or newspaper ads
9. Happy hour drink specials/coupons
10. Atmosphere of restaurant
11. Interior design
12. Cleanliness
13. Privacy
14. Noise level
15. Quality of food/drink
16. Variety of menu
17. Innovative menu items
18. Food is safe
19. Food is authentic
20. Flexibility for special dining requests
21. Healthy alternatives
22. Quality of service
23. Friendliness of staff
24. Speed of service
25. Daily specials
26. Value of experience
27. Price
28. Portion size/quantity of food and drink
29. Food presentation
30. Other
All Data
QSR
Casual
Fine Dining
0.5
1.3
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.1
1.5
5.2
0.8
1.3
16.5
1
0.1
1.8
0
0.5
0.2
24.2
10.9
18.1
0.7
2.2
3.8
2.6
0.5
3.2
0.9
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.2
1.2
8.3*
0+
0.6*
21.3
0.9
0
3.4*
0
0.9
0.6
24.4
12
11.4***
0
1.9
2.2+
1.9
0.3
4
0.5
1.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.1
1.5
3.6+
0.8
1.3
16.5
1.0
0.1
1.8
0
0.5
0.2
26.4
10.9
23.4**
0.7
2.2
3.8
2.6
0.5
3.2
0***
1.6
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.3
2.3
3.9
2.3+
0.8
8.6
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
17.2*
12.5
14.8
1.6
7**
8.6**
4.7
1.6
4.7
Note: QSR = quick service restaurant.
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
+
or less frequently described as affecting a positive experience for young diners.
The six attributes were found to be statistically significant in frequency QSR for
Generation Y positive experiences. Four attributes were more frequent determiners of a positive experience in the quick service segment: location (p < .05),
healthy alternatives (p < .01), speed of service (p < .01), and value of experience
(p < .05). Atmosphere (p < .01) and quality of service (p < .05) were significantly less frequent determiners of a positive experience in the quick service
segment than restaurants overall.
In causal restaurants, only atmosphere and healthy alternatives approached
significance with a p value <.10. In fine-dining restaurants, variety of menu
approached significance (p < .10). Quality of service in the fine-dining segment
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
Harrington et al. / GENERATION Y CONSUMERS 11
Table 4
Positive Versus Negative Restaurant Experience
Attribute Importance (Shown as Percentage)
1. Location
2. Convenience of parking/valet
3. Restaurant takes reservations
4. Reputation
5. Recommendation from friends
6. Rating in food guides
7. Reviews in magazines and newspapers
8. Magazine or newspaper ads
9. Happy hour drink specials/coupons
10. Atmosphere of restaurant
11. Interior design
12. Cleanliness
13. Privacy
14. Noise Level
15. Quality of food/drink
16. Variety of menu
17. Innovative menu items
18. Food is safe
19. Food is authentic
20. Flexibility for special dining requests
21. Healthy alternatives
22. Quality of service
23. Friendliness of staff
24. Speed of service
25. Daily specials
26. Value of experience
27. Price
28. Portion size/quantity of food and drink
29. Food presentation
30. Other
Positive
Negative
1.5**
0.5
0.2
0.3*
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.9***
12***
1.8
3.4
0.4
0.4
20.7***
2.3***
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.5
14.4
12.4+
11.2
2.2***
2.2
4.5
1.1
0.5
5.5
0.5
1.3**
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.1
1.5
5.2***
0.8***
1.3***
16.5
1
0.1
1.8***
0
0.5
0.2
24.2***
10.9
18.1***
0.7
2.2
3.8
2.6***
0.5
3.2
p < .10. *p < .05, **p < .01. ***p < .001.
+
was a significant (p < .05) and a more frequent determiner of a positive experience than in other restaurant types. Speed of service (p < .001) and price (p < .05)
were all found to be significantly less important as determiners for a positive dining experience than across all restaurant segments for Generation Y diners.
Table 3 examines the statistical significance of the same 29 attributes used in
a positive dining experience for restaurant segments but reflects the frequency of
these attributes as determiners of a negative dining experience. The 29 attributes
in the negative experiences were coded the same as positive experiences but it is
assumed that in the negative experience each attribute is the reciprocal of a positive
factor (i.e., slow speed of service, poor food quality, etc.). QSRs had the greatest
number of restaurant attribute differences (six attributes) that were statistically
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
12 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
significant in participants’ descriptions of negative experiences compared with the
negative restaurant experience overall. The two attributes that were more frequently described as creating a negative experience in a quick service setting
included cleanliness (p < .05) and food is safe (p < .05). Noise level (p < .05)
and speed of service (p < .001) were less frequently described as drivers of
negative experiences in QSRs. Privacy and price approached significance
with a p value <.10. Speed of service was most significantly different in QSRs
compared with overall (p < .001), whereas speed of service was still an
important driving element for 11.4% of negative quick service experiences;
it was described substantially less frequent than the 18.1% overall.
In causal restaurants, the attributes of quality of service (26.4% vs. 24.2%
overall, nonsignificant) and speed of service (23.4% vs. 18.1% overall, p < .01)
were the most frequently described drivers of negative restaurant experiences.
There were four restaurant attributes that were significantly different in the finedining sector. The attributes of value of experience (p < .01) and price (p < .01)
were significant and more frequently described as drivers of negative experiences in the fine-dining sector. Location (p < .001) and quality of service (p <
.05) were less frequent attributes affecting negative fine-dining experiences
although quality of service was still a key contributor (17.2% of the time vs.
24.2% of the time overall).
Table 4 compares all the data from the positive and negative responses and
looks at whether or not they were significantly different from one another. The
results show that there are several statistically significant differences between
what are frequently described as drivers of a positive or negative restaurant experience overall. Although many of the same attributes are the most frequent drivers of positive and negative experiences, the overall frequency of the descriptions
varies in impact and order of importance. The top five attributes described as
drivers of positive experiences are (a) quality of food/drink (20.7%), (b) quality
of service (14.4%), (c) friendliness of staff (12.4%), (d) atmosphere of restaurant
(12%), and (e) speed of service (11.2%). The top five attributes described as
drivers of negative experiences are (a) quality of service (24.2%), (b) speed of
service (18.1%), (c) quality of food/drink (16.5%), (d) friendliness of staff
(10.9%), and (e) cleanliness (5.2%).
In descending order of frequency, the attributes of quality of food/drink (20.7,
p < .001), atmosphere of restaurant (12%, p < .001), variety of menu (2.3%,
p < .001), daily specials (2.2%, p < .001), location (1.5%, p < .01), happy hour
drink specials (0.9%, p < .001), and reputation (0.3%, p < .05) were described
significantly more often as drivers of a positive experience than a negative
one. Also, in descending order of frequency, the attributes of quality of service
(24.2, p < .001), speed of service (18.1, p < .001), cleanliness (5.2%, p < .001), portion size/quantity of food and drink (2.6%, p < .001), food is safe (1.8%, p < .001),
noise level (1.3%, p < .001), convenience of parking (1.3%, p < .01), and privacy
(0.8%, p < .001) were described significantly more often as drivers of a negative
experience than a positive one.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
Harrington et al. / GENERATION Y CONSUMERS 13
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study provide support for differences in the importance
of various restaurant attributes by Generation Y consumers using a methodology that is based on participants’ descriptions of actual positive and negative
experiences. It is interesting to note that key positive experience drivers (quality of food/drink, quality of service, friendliness of staff, atmosphere of the
restaurant, speed of service) were different compared with the key negative
drivers (quality of service, speed of service, quality of food/drink, friendliness
of staff, cleanliness of the restaurant) for restaurants overall. Although these
attribute findings support earlier research in this area as a whole (e.g., Chung
& Hoffman, 1998; Kattara et al., 2008; Namkung & Jang, 2007; Sulek & Hensley,
2004), the finding points to the differences in Generation Y consumer perceptions of the bundle of restaurant attributes and the relative level of importance
that affect a satisfying restaurant experience versus an unsatisfying one.
For instance, food quality was found to be the most common response
among Generation Y customers in positive dining experiences with 20.7% of all
responses related to food quality issues. This finding strongly supports earlier
studies highlighting the importance of food quality on customer satisfaction
(Namkung & Jang, 2007). Because of the slightly lower frequency of this attribute
and the greater importance of quality of service driving negative experiences, this
study’s findings support earlier work suggesting that quality of service issues are
more important as critical incident failures in the restaurant service environment
(Chung & Hoffman, 1998).
Atmosphere was a common response in the data in all positive dining experiences, although it was not one of the top three as earlier studies have indicated
(Namkung & Jang, 2007). However, it was a close fourth (12% of all responses)
when describing a positive dining experience but was a much less frequent element
of negative experiences. Thus, restaurant atmosphere, in general, is an important
driver of Generation Y consumer satisfaction (positive experiences).
Overall, many of the responses presented in Table 2 (Generation Y consumer
positive experiences in varying restaurant segments) are fairly consistent with
the results in the literature, particularly in the QSR segment. For instance, it is
expected that a QSR have fast service, which was illustrated with the greater
significance of speed of service. Additionally, the importance of healthy alternatives, location, and value of experience in QSRs was consistent with the results
of the earlier studies. For the fine-dining segment, the results were also consistent
with earlier studies on the greater importance placed on quality of service and
menu variety driving positive experiences as well as a reduced importance of
speed of service and price as positive experience drivers.
Differences in attribute importance across the restaurant segments for
Generation Y consumers provide several interesting findings. For instance, it
is interesting to note the differing levels of importance of atmosphere across
the three restaurant segments. Atmosphere was an important driver of positive
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
14 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
experiences in all restaurants but was most frequent as a determiner of a positive
experience in causal restaurants and least important in QSRs. Therefore, operators appear to have an opportunity to enhance positive experiences for Generation
Y customers by creating attractive restaurant atmospheres when compared with
competitors. Similarly, although it was still the most frequently described attribute, it is interesting to note that young consumers described quality of food or
drink in casual dining and QSR environments as a less frequent determiner of
positive experiences when compared with fine-dining restaurants. In looking at
the key drivers of a positive experience in the casual dining segment, it appears
that Generation Y consumers place more equal weight on a bundle of attributes
compared with the QSR or fine-dining sectors. This bundle includes a relatively
equal importance on quality of food/drink, quality of service, friendliness of service,
speed of service, and atmosphere. Therefore, operators in the casual dining segment need to be operating on all “cylinders” to satisfy the young consumers.
The attribute frequencies driving negative experience memories for Generation
Y consumers also provide some important implications. For instance, speed of
service was a less frequent issue in QSR settings than in the other two segments.
Speed of service affecting negative experiences by young consumers in casual
dining segments were the most frequent. Cleanliness ranked third as a driver of
negative experiences in QSR settings and only ranked 5th and 10th in the
other settings (casual dining and fine-dining, respectively). This finding
points to two possible issues: (a) QSRs have more inconsistency with cleanliness and (b) Generation Y consumers have lower cleanliness expectations from
full-service restaurants. In other words, this finding begs the question whether a
QSR firm such as McDonald’s serves as a benchmark for cleanliness expectations for the QSR sector (leading to more situations where young diners perceive
a gap in the cleanliness delivery overall), whether young diners have a different
expectation for full-service restaurants, or whether the execution of cleanliness is
more consistent in full-service restaurants.
When comparing significant differences of restaurant attributes for positive
and negative experiences, the results provide some interesting and valuable
information for operators. Cleanliness, privacy, noise level, quality of service,
and speed of service were all statistically significant as more frequent drivers
in the negative data. This finding indicates that these elements are more important to younger customers when determining their overall satisfaction of their
dining experience. Here again, these relationships follow the research found in
the literature indicating that consumers are more likely to remember the negatives
about a service experience than the positives. On the other hand, there were several
restaurant elements more significant to all the positive data: atmosphere, food
quality, variety of menu, and daily special availability. Food quality is a more
tangible factor for customers to identify and thus categorize as positive or negative.
Additionally, the presence of daily specials would be beneficial to a customer,
but the lack of daily specials would not necessarily be a reason for the dining
experience to be negative.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
Harrington et al. / GENERATION Y CONSUMERS 15
CONCLUSION
Maintaining customer satisfaction and gaining repeat business is crucial to
the success of a restaurant (Sulek & Hensley, 2004). As described by theories of
consumption motivation, formative experiences and other socialization methods
create differences in customer needs and expectations. This study’s aim was to
determine what satisfied and dissatisfied Generation Y restaurant patrons when
dining out. Overall, the results of this study have provided some useful information that can be applied to the restaurant industry for younger customers that fall
within the Generation Y demographic. Managers should already understand the
importance of food quality and service quality when it comes to satisfying customers, but this study points to the differing role and extent these factors play
in customer dissatisfaction for this demographic group. Service quality had a far
greater effect on customers in a negative dining experience than it did in a positive
one. Therefore, it appears that younger restaurant patrons are more sensitive to
poor service quality than they are to good service quality. This relationship indicates that managers should pay close attention to server’s interactions with customers and how they handle service failures, as this most likely will determine
if the customer was satisfied with his or her experience.
Although the results were fairly consistent with what was found in the existing literature, the frequency and relative importance of these needs are dependent on the restaurant segment a firm operates in and its targeted demographic
group. Overall, young customers want the same things that more mature customers
want: fast service, friendly service, good quality food, and an overall positive
dining experience. But the value placed on these attributes varies as key drivers
for positive and negative experiences. Furthermore, these perceptions and the
importance of a variety of attributes varied based on restaurant segment. Thus,
although there will never be a clear-cut formula to satisfy all age demographics
and restaurant segments, operators that focus efforts on elements of the experience that are key drivers of positive and negative restaurant experiences for
their restaurant segment are sure to better satisfy Generation Y consumers as a
target market.
Managerial Implications
The most common elements driving negative experiences of Generation Y
consumers are within operators’ control. The attraction and retention of this demographic group requires an assurance that a bundle of activities are effectively
executed and that ongoing communication with customers is facilitated to recover
from any failures that may occur. Overall, the key bundle of activities driving
negative experiences for this age group include quality of service, speed of
service, quality of food or drink, friendliness of staff, and cleanliness of the
restaurant. Follow-up with staff and patrons on these key issues during the service encounter will likely have substantial benefits in the form of young consumer satisfaction and retention.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
16 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
To ensure a positive experience for young consumers, this bundle of experience drivers also includes the important role of atmosphere. Although the concept of restaurant atmosphere generally refers to the physical environment where
the restaurant service process takes place, Booms and Bitner’s (1982) more comprehensive servicescape concept includes the collective environment where the
service is created, combining provider and customer interactions with tangible
elements that facilitate the execution and communication of the service offering
(Bitner, 1992).
The value of this broader conceptualization of atmosphere by the operator is that
design elements usually thought of as atmosphere are decisions that are longer term
in nature. But the concept of servicescape can be thought of and communicated
to staff as a “landscape.” This landscape or servicescape in a restaurant setting
includes a facility’s exterior (landscape, exterior design, signage, parking, cleanliness, and other elements of the surrounding environment) and a facility’s interior
(interior design and decor, cleanliness, equipment, signage, layout, air quality,
temperature, and ambiance). Many of the factors affecting consumer perceptions of quality are within the direct control of operators and staff on an ongoing
basis. For instance, restaurant servicescape tangible elements such as business
cards, stationary, employee dress, uniforms, brochures, webpages, table settings,
and menus are prime examples. Additionally, virtual servicescape forms such as
the growing variety of social media outlets (Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, Twitter,
etc.) provide “physical evidence” for communicating a sense of atmosphere in
the marketing of restaurant services.
Therefore, for operators to beat the competition and enhance the likelihood of
young consumer satisfaction, managers should assess the quality and communicate the importance of the bundle of elements making up the servicescape prior
to guest arrival (e.g., exterior physical indicators, interior physical indicators, and
virtual indicators of the servicescape). Operators should evaluate and improve
processes likely to affect key elements of the food, drink, and service experience. And finally, operators should facilitate interactions that promote a friendly
environment, an appropriate speed of service for the service type, and provide
opportunities for service failure recovery—before, during, and after the guest
experience. These interactions include not only those between service providers
and guests but also those with fellow employees, other departments, and suppliers
of all types.
To effectively address issues related to the restaurant servicescape, processes,
and interactions, operators need to create a work environment that provides an
opportunity to identity common complaints of internal or external customers and
localize potential sources of errors without fear of placing blame on the individual
staff member. Instead, firms should use collective creative thinking to find innovative solution that address the critical factors negatively affecting elements of
the servicescape, organizational processes, and interactions. Role playing and
simulating a variety of service situations with staff can assist in this training
process and move the focus from one of blaming the individual to a climate of
learning and problem solving.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
Harrington et al. / GENERATION Y CONSUMERS 17
Study Limitations and Future Research
Although this study represents a good sample of all the restaurant segments,
the age demographic was limited to the 16- to 34 year age group and the sample
was limited to those living in one urban area of the United States. Therefore, the
findings can only be generalized to the Western United States, urban diners, and
those younger than the age of 35 years. Future studies should be completed
to examine other demographic characteristics to determine how needs differ
across groups.
The use of a more descriptive methodology proved useful in extracting differences in positive and negative experiences based on actual experiences rather than
typical survey methods. But this study’s retrospective data collection method is not
without limitations. In the current study, the duration of recall was not defined for
the participants. This approach may cause some bias due to the possibility that
some participants recollected the most recent restaurant experience but some others recollected the most memorable one. Therefore, future research should include
this definition for participants as well as consider other alternative methods to
tap into actual consumer experiences for further elaboration of customer needs.
Because this study’s sample was drawn from one region in the United States, future
research should consider other regions and countries to assess cultural differences
within the Generation Y demographic. Also, future research should assess potential differences from an intragenerational point of view. In other words, future
research should assess if the Generation Y demographic represents one or multiple
distinct age groups because of differing formative experiences that affect specific
consumption preferences.
REFERENCES
Baker, J., & Cameron, M. (1996). The effects of the service environment on affect and
consumer perception of waiting time: An integrative review and research propositions.
Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 338-349.
Barrows, C. W., & Powers, T. (2009). Introduction to management in the hospitality
industry (9th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers
and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.
Booms, B. H., & Bitner, M. J. (1982, May). Marketing services by managing the environment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 23, 35-39.
Chung, B., & Hoffman, K. D. (1998). Critical incidents: Service failures that matter
most. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 66-71.
Crotts, J. C., & Pan, B. (2008). A survey method for identifying key drivers of guest
delight. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20, 462-470.
Cui, Y., Trent, E. S., Sullivan, P. M., & Matiru, G. N. (2003). Cause-related marketing:
How generation Y responds. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
31, 310-320.
Gupta, S., McLaughlin, E., & Gomez, M. (2007). Guest satisfaction and restaurant performance. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 48, 284-298.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
18 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
Harrington, R. J., Ottenbacher, M. C., & Way, K. (2010, July). QSR choice: Key restaurant
attributes and the role of gender, age and dining frequency. Paper presented at the 2010
ICHRIE Annual Summer Conference & Marketplace, Denver, CO.
Harrington, R. J., Ottenbacher, M. C., & Kendall, K. W. (in press). Fine-dining restaurant
selection: Direct and moderating effects of customer attributes. Journal of Foodservice
Business Research.
Hu, S.-M., Leong, J. K., Kim, W. G., Ryan, B., & Warde, W. D. (2008). Senior citizens’
perceived service levels in three restaurant sectors. Journal of Foodservice Business
Research, 11, 202-219.
Johns, N., & Tyas, P. (1996). Investigating of the perceived components of the meal
experience, using perceptual gap methodology. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 1, 15-26.
Katarra, H. S., Weheba, D., & El-Said, O. A. (2008). The impact of employee behaviors on
customers’ service quality perceptions and overall satisfaction. Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 8, 309-323.
Kim, W. G., & Kim, H.-B. (2004). Measuring customer based restaurant equity. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45, 115-131.
Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R., & Reece, J. (1999). Consumer research in the restaurant environment, Part 1: A conceptual model of dining satisfaction and return patronage.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 5, 205-222.
Knutson, B. J. (2000). College students and fast food: How students perceive restaurant
brands. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41, 68-74.
Kueh, K., & Voon, B. H. (2007). Culture and service quality expectations: Evidence from
generation Y consumers in Malaysia. Managing Service Quality, 17, 656-680.
Liu, Y., & Jang, S. (2009). The effects of dining atmospherics: An extended MehrabianRussell model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 494-503.
Martin, C. A., & Turley, L. W. (2004). Malls and consumption motivation: An exploratory examination of older Generation Y consumers. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 32, 464-475.
Moschis, G., Folkman, C. C., & Bellenger, D. (2003). Restaurant-selection preferences
of mature consumers. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 44(4), 51-60.
Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. (2007). Does food quality really matter in restaurants? Its
impact on customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 31, 387-410.
Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. (2008). Are highly satisfied restaurant customers really different?
A quality perception perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 20, 142-155.
Noone, B. M., Kimes, S. E., & Mattila, A. S. (2007). The effect of meal pace on customer
satisfaction. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 48, 231-245.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Nutt, P. (2000). Context, tactics, and the examination of alternatives during strategic
decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 124, 159-186.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Paul, P. (2001). Getting inside Gen Y. American Demographics, 23(9), 42-49.
Péneau, S., Brockhoff, P. B., Escher, F., & Nuessli, J. A. (2007). A comprehensive
approach to evaluate the freshness of strawberries and carrots. Postharvest Biology
and Technology, 45, 20-29.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016
Harrington et al. / GENERATION Y CONSUMERS 19
Qualman, E. (2010). Socialnomics. Retrieved from http://socialnomics.net
Siguaw, J. A. & Enz, C. A. (1999). Best practice in food and beverage management.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 40(5), 50-57.
Stevens, P., Knutson, B., & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for measuring service
quality in restaurants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly, 36(2), 56-60.
Sulek, J. M., & Hensley, R. L. (2004). The relative importance of food, atmosphere, and
fairness of wait: The case of a full-service restaurant. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 45, 235-247.
Vogt, W. P. (1999). Dictionary of statistics and methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Ward, S. (1974). Consumer socialization. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 1-14.
Submitted August 3, 2010
Accepted November 7, 2010
Refereed Anonymously
Robert J. Harrington, PhD (e-mail: [email protected]), is a professor and endowed
chair in Hospitality Management at the University of Arkansas, HOEC 118, Fayetteville,
AR, 72701 USA. Michael C. Ottenbacher, PhD (e-mail: Ottenbacher@hs-heilbronn.
de), is a professor in Hospitality Management at Heilbronn University, Max-PlanckStrasse 39, 74081 Heilbronn, Germany. Ann Staggs, BS (e-mail: [email protected]),
is an alumnus of the University of Arkansas, HOEC 118, Fayetteville, AR, 72701 USA.
F. Allen Powell, MS (e-mail: [email protected]), is an instructor in Hospitality
Management at the University of Arkansas, HOEC 118, Fayetteville, AR, 72701 USA.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 13, 2016