Description
In psychology, the theory of planned behavior is a theory about the link between beliefs and behavior. The concept was proposed by Icek Ajzen to improve on the predictive power of the theory of reasoned action by including perceived behavioural control.[1] It is one of the most predictive persuasion theories. It has been applied to studies of the relations among beliefs, attitudes, behavioral intentions and behaviors in various fields such as advertising, public relations, advertising campaigns and healthcare.
STUDY ON DINESCAPE, EMOTIONS AND
BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS IN UPSCALE
RESTAURANTS
ABSTRACT
The physical environment may be an important determinant of customer satisfaction and
subsequent behavior when services are consumed primarily for hedonic purposes and customers
spend moderate to long periods of time in the physical surroundings. An example of this
phenomenon would be in an upscale restaurant setting.
This study explored the domain of the physical environment in an upscale restaurant
context to develop a DINESCAPE scale. Relevant literature was reviewed on architecture,
environmental psychology, psychology, operations management, and marketing, highlighting
empirical and theoretical contributions. Conceptualization and operationalization of the
DINESCAPE dimensions is presented, and the procedures used in constructing and refining a
multiple-item scale to assess DINESCAPE in an upscale restaurant setting are described.
DINESCAPE is a six-factor scale that was developed to measure facility aesthetics, ambience,
lighting, service product, layout, and social factors. Evidence of the scale's reliability, validity,
and factor structure is presented, along with potential applications of the scale.
The second phase of the study attempted to build a conceptual model of how the
DINESCAPE factors influenced customers' behavioral intentions through their emotions. The
Mehrabian-Russell environmental psychology model was adopted to explore the linkage of the
six dimensions of DINESCAPE to customers' emotional states (pleasure and arousal) and the
linkage between pleasure and arousal with customers' behavioral intentions. Structural equation
modeling was used to test the causal relationships among the hypothesized relationships. Results
revealed that facility aesthetics, ambience, and social factors affected the level of customers'
pleasure and ambience and social factors influenced the amount of arousal. In addition, pleasure
and arousal had significant effects on subsequent behavioral intentions in the context of
upscale restaurant. Finally, implications for restaurateurs and researchers were discussed.
ABSTRACT
The physical environment may be an important determinant of customer satisfaction and
subsequent behavior when services are consumed primarily for hedonic purposes and customers
spend moderate to long periods of time in the physical surroundings. An example of this
phenomenon would be in an upscale restaurant setting.
This study explored the domain of the physical environment in an upscale restaurant
context to develop a DINESCAPE scale. Relevant literature was reviewed on architecture,
environmental psychology, psychology, operations management, and marketing, highlighting
empirical and theoretical contributions. Conceptualization and operationalization of the
DINESCAPE dimensions is presented, and the procedures used in constructing and refining a
multiple-item scale to assess DINESCAPE in an upscale restaurant setting are described.
DINESCAPE is a six-factor scale that was developed to measure facility aesthetics, ambience,
lighting, service product, layout, and social factors. Evidence of the scale's reliability, validity,
and factor structure is presented, along with potential applications of the scale.
The second phase of the study attempted to build a conceptual model of how the
DINESCAPE factors influenced customers' behavioral intentions through their emotions. The
Mehrabian-Russell environmental psychology model was adopted to explore the linkage of the
six dimensions of DINESCAPE to customers' emotional states (pleasure and arousal) and the
linkage between pleasure and arousal with customers' behavioral intentions. Structural equation
modeling was used to test the causal relationships among the hypothesized relationships. Results
revealed that facility aesthetics, ambience, and social factors affected the level of customers'
pleasure and ambience and social factors influenced the amount of arousal. In addition, pleasure
and arousal had significant effects on subsequent behavioral intentions in the context of upscale
restaurant. Finally, implications for restaurateurs and researchers were discussed.
TABLES OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF FIGURES................................ x
LIST OF TABLES............................ xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................... xii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION................................................................
Statement of Problems...........................
Purposes and Objectives .............................................................................
Significance of this Study ..............................................................................
Conceptual Model and Hypotheses ..........................................................
Definition of Terms............................................................................................
Delimitation and Limitation of the Study...................
References....................................................................................................
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE.....................................................
Theoretical Background.......... ...........................................................
Physical Environment..................................................................................... Dimensions
of the Physical Environment...................... Mehrabian-
Russell Model....................................................
The Importance of the Physical Environment in the Service Industry ..........
The Importance of the Physical Environment in the Upscale Restaurant Segment.
Variables Related to the Physical Environment....................................
Facility Aesthetics.................................................................................................
Layout.................................................................................................
Ambience..................................................................................................Service
Product ............................................................................... Social
Factors..................................................................................................
Emotional States ....................................................................
Approach & Avoidance Behaviors....................................................................
References.......................................................................................................
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY...................................................
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
14
15
17
22
25
28
31
31
34
34
39
40
41
44
47
58
Sample and Survey Procedure...................................................... 58 Scale
Development Procedures ................................................................... 59
vii
Step 1: Domain of Constructs...........................................
Step 2: Initial Pool of Items........................................... Step
3: Content Adequacy Assessment........................................................ Step 4:
Questionnaire Administration....................................................... Step 5: Scale
Purification....................................................................
Measurement of Variables ..........................................................................
DINESCAPE ................................................................................ Emotional
States... .......................................................................... Behavioral
Intentions.. .......................................................................
Data Analysis of Study 2..................................................
References.......................................................................................................
CHAPTER IV: DINESCAPE: A SCALE FOR MEASURING CUSTOMER
PERCEPTIONS OF PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT IN UPSCALE
RESTAURANTS
Abstract.............................INTR
ODUCTION.......................... REVIEW
OF LITERATURE.....................
Physical Environment in the Upscale Restaurant
Context.........Domain of the Physical
Environment..................
METHODOLOGY..........................
Step 1: Domain of Constructs..................... Step
2: Initial Pool of Items..................... Step 3:
Content Adequacy Assessment.................Step 4:
Questionnaire Administration................... Step 5:
Scale Purification......................
RESULTS...............................
Sample Characteristics.......................
Descriptive Information...................... Item
Analysis..........................Explorator
y Factor Analysis.....................Confirmatory
Factor Analysis..................... Unidimensionality
and Reliability..................Convergent and
Discriminant Validity.................
DISCUSSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS.................LIMITATIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY.......
REFERENCES...........................
CHAPTER V: THE INFLUENCE OF DINESCAPE ON BEHAVIORAL
INTENTIONS THROUGH EMOTIONAL STATES IN UPSCALE
RESTAURANTS
Abstract.............................
viii
59
60
61
62
62
65
66
67
67
68
70
73
74
78
78
79
83
83
83
84
85
87
90
90
90
91
91
96
96
97
98
100
103
115
INTRODUCTION...........................
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND......................
Mehrabian-Russell Model......................
DINESCAPE Variables.......................
METHODOLOGY..........................
Data Collection.............................
Measurement of Variables........................ Data
Analysis.............................
RESULTS............................
Measurement
Model........................Structural Equation
Model.....................
DISCUSSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS.................LIMITATIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH......
REFERENCES...........................
CHAPTER VI: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.............
Major Findings...........................
Scale Development: DINESCAPE....................
The Influence of DINESCAPE on Pleasure and Arousal and the Impact of
Pleasure and Arousal on Behavioral Intention.................
Limitations.............................
Conclusion and
Implications.....................Suggestions and
Future Research......................
References..............................
APPENDIXES................................
116
118
120
121
125
125
126
127
128
128
131
135
138
141
153
154
154
156
158
158
160
163
164
Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire...................... 164
Appendix B: Cover Letter to the Manager.................. 168
Appendix C: Cover Letter for Questionnaire................. 170
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
CHAPTER I, II, III, & VI: SERVICESCAPE, EMOTIONS AND BEHAVIORAL
INTENTIONS IN UPSCALE RESTAURANTS
Figure 1 Proposed Model of the Relationships between DINESCAPE, Emotional
States, and Behavioral Intentions....................
Figure 2 The Casual Chain Connecting Atmosphere and Purchase
Probability..Figure 3 Mehrabian-Russell
Model...................... Figure 4 Typology of Service
Environments................Figure 5 Scale Development
Procedures......................
CHAPTER IV: DINESCAPE: A SCALE FOR MEASURING CUSTOMER
PERCEPTIONS OF PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT IN UPSCALE
RESTAURANTS
Figure 1 Scale Development Procedures..................
Figure 2 Measurement Model of DINESCAPE.................
7
16
23
30
60
109
110
CHAPTER V: THE INFLUENCE OF DINESCAPE ON EMOTIONAL STATES
AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS IN THE UPSCALE RESTAURANT
INDUSTRY
Figure 1 Mehrabian-Russell Model.................... 148
Figure 2 Causal Relationships Between Latent Variables............. 149
x
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
CHAPTER I, II, III, & IV: SERVICESCAPE, EMOTIONS AND BEHAVIORAL
INTENTIONS IN UPSCALE RESTAURANTS
Table 1 Literature Review of Dimensions Related to the Physical Environment... 18
CHAPTER IV: DINESCAPE: A SCALE FOR MEASURING CUSTOMER
PERCEPTIONS OF PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT IN UPSCALE
RESTAURANTS
Table 1 Literature Review of Dimensions Related to the Physical Environment.. 111
Table 2 Sample Characteristics of Respondents................ 112
Table 3 Exploratory Factor Analysis for DINESCAPE Factors.......... 113
Table 4 Measurement Properties...................... 114
CHAPTER V: THE INFLUENCE OF DINESCAPE ON EMOTIONAL STATES
AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS IN THE UPSCALE RESTAURANT
INDUSTRY
Table 1 Measurement Properties...................... 150
Table 2 Correlations Among the Latent Constructs.............. 151
Table 3 Structural Parameter Estimates..................... 152
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor as well as one of my
co-major professors, Dr. SooCheong (Shawn) Jang, for his consistent support, patience,
encouragement, and friendship throughout my Ph. D. program. His priceless advice was
essential to the completion of this dissertation. In addition, he has taught me innumerable
lessons and inspired me work hard in order not to disappoint him and myself as well. He
also helped me have insights into becoming the excellent scholar as a researcher and a
teacher as well. I will not forget his frequent comment toward junior graduate students:
"Welcome to academic research world." There is no doubt that he will be my true
teacher, mentor, and even friend for the rest of my life. I cannot express how much I was
fortunate to have him as my sincere advisor from the begging of my Ph. D. program.
I was also very lucky to have Dr. Deborah Canter as one of my co-major
professors. More specifically, she consistently showed me trust, respect, and generous
understanding throughout this project. And, her editorial advice was very helpful in
improving the contents of the paper. In addition, the valuable assistance of Dr. Jeffrey
Katz is greatly appreciated. His encouragement and valuable comments for this study was
very helpful. My thanks also go to Dr. Rebecca Gould and Dr. Mark Barnett for serving
on my committee member and outside chairperson, respectively.
Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude to my family, especially my father
and mother, who made this all possible and worthwhile. Their unending support and love
throughout my life is sincerely appreciated.
xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The influence of the environment on behavior has long been acknowledged by
landscapers, architects, interior designers, retailers, and environmental psychologists (Donovan
& Rossiter, 1982; Turley & Milliman, 2000). Theoretical and empirical data from environmental
psychology research suggests that customer reactions to the physical environment (also known as
'atmospherics' or 'SERVICESCAPE') may be more emotional than cognitive, particularly when
hedonic consumption is involved. While consumption of many types of service is driven
primarily by utilitarian (functional) purposes, such as fast food drive-through services,
consumption of leisure services (e.g., dining at an upscale restaurant) is also driven by hedonic
(emotional) motives. Hedonic consumption is more than just perceived quality of the service
being offered (e.g., whether a meal was delivered quickly), influencing whether consumers are
satisfied with the service experience. One of the main reasons customers seek out hedonic
consumption is to experience pleasure and excitement (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1999). Previous
research indicates that the degree of pleasure (e.g., unhappy-happy) and arousal (e.g., excited-
calm) that customers experience during hedonic consumption may be a major determinant of
their satisfaction and subsequent behavior such as repatronage and positive word-of-mouth
(Mano & Oliver, 1993; Russell & Pratt, 1980). The atmosphere or the physical environment is
important because it can either enhance or suppress these emotions (Wakefield & Blodgett,
1999).
1
The physical environment is an important determinant of customer satisfaction and
behavior when the service is consumed primarily for hedonic reasons and customers spend
moderate to long periods in the physical environment (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). For
instance, in the case of upscale restaurants, customers may spend two hours or more, and they
sense the physical surroundings consciously and unconsciously before, during, and after the
meal. While the food and the service must be of acceptable quality, pleasing physical
surroundings (e.g., lighting, décor, layout, employee appearance) may determine to a large extent
the degree of overall satisfaction and subsequent behavior.
The National Restaurant Association (NRA) and CREST (Consumer Reports on Eating
Share Trends), a national marketing research company, both identified the typology of
independent restaurants in four segments: quick service, midscale, casual dining, and upscale.
The upscale segment provides customers with a full menu, full table service, good food made
with fresh ingredients, and personalized service (Goldman, 1993; Gordon & Brezinski, 1999;
Muller & Woods, 1994; Siguaw, Mattila, & Austin, 1999). The average check for the upscale
restaurant segment in 2004 was computed based on the following information: (1) the average
check for upscale restaurant in 1992 ($9.72) (Goldman, 1993) and (2) inflation rate from 1993 to
2004 (InflationData, 2005). The calculation was as follows:
(1) Average of Inflation Rate from 1993 to 2004 = 2.51%
(2) Average check of an upscale restaurant segment in 2004 = (9.72) * (1 + .025)
12
= $13.09
Thus, for the purposes of this study, $13.09 is the average check for an upscale restaurant.
Since menu price varies from location to location, the average check should not be the
only criterion in defining an upscale restaurant. Other important characteristics (choice of menu
items, food quality, level of service, and ambiance) should also be incorporated. For the purpose
2
of this study, upscale restaurants were defined as those in which average per-person check was
more than $13.09 and offered a full menu, full table service, food made from the scratch, and
personalized service.
Statement of Problems
Bitner (1992, p.57) claimed, "Managers continually plan, build, change, and control an
organization's physical surroundings, but frequently the impact of a physical design or design
change on ultimate consumer satisfaction is not fully understood." Despite the importance of the
physical environment, its elements have not been empirically examined to any great extent. This
concept has gained attention in areas such as environmental psychology, retailing, marketing,
organizational behavior, and consumer research texts. Moreover, the empirical research
conducted has primarily focused on individual elements (Areni & Kim, 1993; Mattila & Wirtz,
2001; Milliman, 1986). A concrete conceptual framework for the physical environment has been
developed based on the foundation of environmental psychology and marketing. However, in
hospitality literature there is a surprising lack of empirical or theoretical research addressing the
role of the physical environment, particularly in upscale restaurants, despite the indication that
tangible physical environment plays an important role in enhancing customer satisfaction and
subsequent behavioral intention.
Since dimensions of service quality (SERVQUAL) vary depending upon settings and
target populations (Bojanic & Rosen, 1995; Carmen, 1990; Fu & Parks, 2001), researchers have
suggested that future research on service quality construct should be industry-specific (Babakus
& Boller, 1992; Dabholkar et al., 1996). Moreover, research has shown that customers in various
foodservice settings evaluate their needs and preferences in foodservice differently (Lehtinen &
3
Lehtinen, 1991; O'Hara et al., 1997). By the same token, development of industry-specific
measures of man-made physical surroundings in the service industry is needed. The physical
environment is an important determinant of customer satisfaction and subsequent behavioral
intentions in the upscale restaurant context because the service is consumed primarily for
hedonic (emotional) purposes instead of utilitarian (functional) purposes, and customers spend
several hours observing and evaluating the physical surroundings. Despite its influence on
customer satisfaction and its use in marketing, the physical environment in upscale restaurants
has been the subject of little research. In addition, no instrument is available to specifically
evaluate the physical environment in the upscale restaurant context. Thus, the goal of this
research was to develop and validate an instrument that measures the physical environment
provided in upscale restaurants.
Research on physical environment typically has studied the effect of one or several
particular elements (e.g., lighting, music) of the physical environment on the customer's
purchasing behavior. Little detailed investigation has been conducted on how the physical
environment affects customer behavior within hospitality settings, specifically in upscale
restaurants. Thus, the combined effect of the elements that make up the physical environment of
upscale restaurants needs to be empirically tested to create an overall conceptual model. If the
physical environment can indeed influence customer behavior within the restaurant, then a
framework should be developed to study such effects. Although several researchers have
attempted to explore various aspects of environmental and behavioral relationships, no previous
studies have applied an overall environmental psychology framework to the upscale restaurant
context.
4
Purposes and Objectives
This study aimed to fill these gaps by establishing reliable, valid, generalizable, and
useful measures of the physical environment in the restaurant setting, especially in the upscale
restaurant context, for both restaurateurs and researchers. DINESCAPE was the term coined in
this study and has a similarity to the popular term "SERVICESCAPE" in describing
characteristics of the physical environment, but its emphasis on physical surroundings is
restricted to inside dining areas. DINESCAPE is primarily differentiated from SERVICESCAPE
by the development of a scale to measure the physical environment in the dining area of a
restaurant, especially an upscale restaurant. For this study, the DINESCAPE was defined as the
man-made physical and human surroundings, not the natural environment in the dining area of
upscale restaurants. This study did not focus on external environment (e.g., parking space,
building design) and some internal environmental variables (e.g., restroom and waiting room)
because the intent was to provide a more generalizable and parsimonious instrument for both
practitioners and researchers.
The purposes of this study were to develop a DINESCAPE scale for the upscale
restaurant context and to build a conceptual framework of how the DINESCAPE might influence
customers' emotional states and, in turn, how those emotions affect behavioral intentions. The
first part of this study developed a multiple-item scale to measure the overall conceptual
framework of DINESCAPE in the upscale restaurant setting. The second phase of the study
investigated the causal relationships between DINESCAPE, emotions (e.g., pleasure and arousal)
and behavioral intentions (e.g., repatronage, positive word-of-mouth, likelihood of staying longer
than anticipated, and likelihood of spending more than anticipated) using the Mehrabian-Russell
environmental psychology model.
5
The specific objectives of this study were (1) to establish a reliable, valid, and efficient
measure of the DINESCAPE dimensions in the upscale restaurant context; (2) to adapt the
Mehrabian-Russell model to the upscale restaurant context and test predictions from the model;
(3) to investigate the effect of the DINESCAPE dimensions on customer emotional states; and
(4) to examine the impact of customer emotions on their behavioral intentions.
Significance of This Study
This study is important both theoretically and practically. First, although theory related to
the service environment has been well developed, little customer behavior research has been
performed to test some of the basic relationships between the physical environment and the
Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model. Second, little consumer research has been conducted in the
upscale restaurant area of the hospitality industry. Results of this study may help restaurateurs
determine how customers perceive the quality of the physical environment in their upscale
restaurants. Findings of this study may provide insights into the various elements of the physical
environment so that upscale restaurateurs might understand more fully how to enhance the
perceived quality of their facilities. An understanding of the effect of changes in physical
surroundings on customers' behavior might thus guide management's actions when making
design or renovation decisions.
Upscale restaurateurs who devote resources primarily to maintaining and improving
intangible service quality while allowing the tangible physical environment to deteriorate may
lose customers without recognizing the cause. Thus, managers should accurately monitor
customer perceptions of the physical environment, which may suggest maintenance, renovation,
or relocation needs. In addition, upscale restaurateurs must consider what customers are seeking
6
through the dining experience. The physical environment can be a major tool for communicating
these values. Managers must next identify the major variables of the physical environment that
are available to generate the desired customer awareness and reaction. Sight, sound, scent, and
texture can each contribute to attaining the desired total effect. Management needs to be sure that
details of the physical environment have been implemented in a way that is effective, and
superior to the competition. Finally, as other marketing tools (e.g., food quality, price) become
neutralized in the competitive battle, especially in the restaurant industry, the physical
environment may play a growing role by providing distinctive advantages.
Conceptual Model & Hypotheses
The underlying theoretical framework for the conceptual model of the physical
environment originated with the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model, which posited that emotional
states mediated the relationship between the physical environment and an individual's response
to that environment (see Figure 1). This framework has gained consistent empirical support in
environmental psychology and marketing literature (Baker & Cameron, 1996; Baker, Levy, &
Grewal, 1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Russell & Pratt, 1980).
Pleasure
DINESCAPE Behavioral
Dimensions Intention
Arousal
Figure 1. Proposed Model of the Relationships between
DINESCAPE, Emotional States, and Behavioral Intention
7
To achieve the objectives of the study, the following tentative hypotheses were tested:
H1: Each DINESCAPE dimension will have a positive effect on pleasure.
H2: Each DINESCAPE dimension will have a positive effect on arousal.
H3: Pleasure will have a positive effect on behavioral intention.
H4: Arousal will have a positive effect on behavioral intention.
Definition of Terms
Arousal: The degree to which a person feels excited, stimulated, alert, or active in the
situation (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974).
Atmospherics: The effort to design buying environments to produce specific emotional
effects in the buyer that enhance his/her purchase probability (Kotler, 1973, p. 50).
Behavioral Intentions: Although the definition of behavioral intentions varies depending
on research context, this study considers behavioral intentions as a customer's willingness to
provide positive word of mouth, to visit the restaurant again in the future, to stay longer than
anticipated, and to spend more than anticipated (Zeithaml et al., 1996).
Hedonic consumption: Those facets of consumer behavior that relate to the multi-
sensory and emotive aspects of one's experience (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Multi-sensory
means the receipt of experience through multiple senses including tastes, sound, scents, tactile
impressions and images.
Pleasure: The degree to which the person feels good, joyful, happy, or satisfied in the
situation (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974).
Service encounter: "A period of time during which a consumer directly interacts with a
service" (Shostack, 1985, p. 243).
8
Servicescape: "Built environment" or, more specifically, the "the man-made, physical
surroundings as opposed to natural or social environment" (Bitner, 1992. p. 58).
Utilitarian: Useful and practical rather than being used for decoration or pleasure. For
instance, utilitarian aspects of the shopping experience have often been characterized as task-
related and rational (Batra & Ahtola, 1991) and related closely to whether or not a product
acquisition "mission" was accomplished (Babin, Darden, & Grffin, 1994). While utilitarian
evaluation is mostly functional and cognitive in nature, hedonic evaluation is more affective than
cognitive (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003).
Delimitation and Limitation of the Study
A DINESCAPE scale was developed to assess the physical environment only within
upscale restaurants. Thus, results of the study should not be generalized beyond the upscale
restaurant setting. To evaluate the validity of our findings, the study should be replicated and
conducted in other restaurant settings, such as casual dining restaurants. In addition, data were
collected from three upscale restaurants in two Midwestern states. Thus, results of the study may
not generalize to other upscale restaurants located in other geographic areas. Further studies
should be conducted to determine whether our findings are restricted to certain geographic areas
or types of restaurants. In addition, DINESCAPE items only captured the man-made physical
surroundings inside the dining area of the upscale restaurant. The scale does not consider the
external environment (e.g., ample parking) or some other aspects of the internal environment
(e.g., restrooms).
9
References
Areni, C.S., & Kim, D. (1994). The influence of in-store lighting on consumers' examination of
merchandise in a wine store. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 117-
125.
Arnold, M.J., & Reynolds, K.E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing, 79,
77-95.
Babakus, E., & Boller, G.W. (1992). An empirical assessment of SERVQUAL scale. Journal of
Business Research, 24, 253-268.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., & Griffin, M (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656.
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
the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 338-349.
Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store
environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), 445-460.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O.T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer
attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2, 159-170.
Bitner, M.J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.
Bojanic, D., & Rosen, D.L. (1995). Measuring service quality in restaurants: An application of
the SERVQUAL instrument. Hospitality Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14.
Carman, J.M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the
SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66, 33-55.
10
Dabholkar, P.A., Thorpe, D.I., & Rentz, J.O. (1996). A measure of service quality for retail
stores: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences,
24(Winter), 3-16.
Donovan, R.J., & Rossiter, J.R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology
approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(1), 34-57.
Fu, Y., & Parks, S.C. (2001). The relationship between restaurant service quality and consumer
loyalty among the elderly. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 25(3), 320-336.
Goldman, K. (1993). Concept selection for independent restaurants. Cornell, Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 34(6), 59-72.
Gordon, R.T., & Brezinski, M.H. (1999). The Complete Restaurant Management Guide.
Armonk, New York. Sharpe Professional.
Hirschman, E., & Holbrook, M. (1982). Hedonic consumption emerging concepts, methods and
prepositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92-101.
InflationData.com. Retried January 25, 2005, from
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/CurrentInflation.asp.
Kotler, P. (1974). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48-64.
Lehtinen, U., & Lehtinen, J.R. (1991). Two approaches to service quality dimensions. The
Service Industries Journal, 11, 287-303.
Mano, H., & Oliver, R.L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption
experience: Evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3),
451-466.
Mattila, A.S., & Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 273-289.
11
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Milliman, R.E. (1986). The influence of background music on the behavior of restaurant patrons.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 286-289.
Muller, C.C., & Woods, R.H. (1994). An expanded restaurant typology. Cornell, Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 27-37.
O'Hara, C.B., Harper, D.W., Kangas, M., Dubeau, J., Borsutzky, C., & Lemire, N. (1997). Taste,
temperature, and presentation satisfaction with foodservices in a Canadian continuing-
care hospital. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 97, 401-405.
Russell, J.A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to
environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 311-322.
Shostack, G.L. (1985). Planning the service encounter. in J. Czepiel, M. Solomon & C.
Suprenant. (Eds.). The service encounter. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Siguaw, J.A., Mattila, A., & Austin, J.R. (1999). The brand-personality scale: An application for
restaurants. Cornell, Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 48-55.
Turley, L.W., & Milliman, R.E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of
the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 193-211.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1996). The effects of the servicescape on customers'
behavioral intentions in leisure service setting. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45-
61.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1999). Customer response to intangible and tangible service
factors. Psychology & Marketing, 16(1), 51-68.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service
12
quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.
13
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter provides a brief review of environmental psychology literature with a focus
on physical environment and the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model. The rationale of the physical
environment also an important determinant in the upscale restaurant context is then discussed.
Finally, a more detailed summary of literature on the physical environment followed by emotions
and behavioral intentions is presented.
Theoretical Background
The influence of the physical environment (also referred to as 'atmospherics' or
'SERVICESCAPE') on emotions and behavior has gained attention from architects and
environmental psychologists (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Gilboa &Rafaeli, 2003; Mehrabian &
Russell, 1974; Porteous, 1997). During the past several decades, physical environment has
become an important area in the study of the retail environment, with researchers beginning to
study the influence of the store environment on consumer behavior (Turley & Milliman, 2000).
However, research on the physical environment still lacks a coherent framework for analyzing
such environments (Baker et al., 1994) and has yet to incorporate into a framework the extensive
developments in the analyses of physical environments (Bitner, 1992).
The Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model has received consistent empirical support in
environmental psychology and marketing literature (Baker & Cameron, 1996; Baker, Levy, &
Grewal, 1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Russell & Pratt, 1980). The model can be used to
explore the relationships between the physical environment, emotions, and behavioral intentions.
14
Physical Environment
Research has shown that consumers may respond to more than just the tangible product
or service rendered when making a purchase decision (Kotler, 1973; Milliman, 1986). The
tangible product may be only a small part of the total consumption experience. Instead,
consumers respond to the total product. The place where the product or service is bought or
consumed may be one of the most influential factors. The place, and more specifically the
atmosphere of the place, can be more influential than the product itself (e.g., meal) in purchase
decision-making. In some situations, atmosphere can be the primary influence (Kotler, 1973).
"Atmosphere is the effort to design buying environments to produce specific emotional
effects in the consumer that enhance his/her purchase probability" (Kotler, 1973, p. 50).
Technically, atmosphere refers to "the air surrounding a sphere." It is also used more colloquially
to represent the quality of the surroundings. For example, a restaurant described as having
atmosphere has physical surroundings that evoke pleasant feelings. It is more appropriate to use
a modifier, such as the restaurant has a "good" atmosphere or "busy" atmosphere. Atmosphere is
always described as a quality of the surrounding space (Kotler, 1973). Atmosphere (also called
SERVICESCAPE) can be generated through the senses. The main sensory channels for
atmosphere include sight (e.g., color, brightness, size, shapes), sound (e.g., volume, pitch), scent,
and touch (e.g., softness, smoothness, temperature) (Kotler, 1973). The fifth sense, taste, does
not apply directly to atmosphere.
Kotler (1973) discussed how atmosphere (hereafter physical environment) could
influence behavior. Figure 2 presents the mechanism by which the physical environment of a
place influences purchase behavior based on the causal chain. Figure 2 shows how sensory
15
qualities of space (physical surroundings) have an effect on consumer information and affective
state and subsequent consumer behavior (e.g., purchase probability).
Sensory
qualities of
space
surrounding
purchase
object
Buyer's
perception of
the sensory
qualities of
space
Effect of
perceived
sensory
qualities on
modifying
buyer's
information
and affective
state
Impact of
buyer's
modified
information
and affective
state on
purchase
probability
Source: Adapted from Kotler (1973)
Figure 2. The Casual Chain Connecting Atmosphere and Purchase Probability
The concept of the physical environment has been acknowledged by a number of
industries and companies. For instance, "People no longer buy shoes to keep their feet warm and
dry. They buy them because of the way the shoes make them feel -masculine, feminine, rugged,
different, sophisticated, young, glamorous, "in." Buying shoes has become an emotional
experience. Our business is now selling excitement rather than shoes" (Kotler, 1973 p. 55). The
use of shoes has been moved from a utilitarian (functional) concept to a pleasure (emotional)
concept. In this case, the physical environment is designed to give the buyer the feeling of being
rich, important, and special (Kotler, 1973).
16
Dimensions of the Physical Environment
Considerable research has been conducted to determine what constitutes the physical
environment (Baker, 1987; Baker, Levy, & Grewal; 1992; Berman & Evans, 1995; Bitner, 1992;
Brady & Cronin, 2001; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988; Raajpoot, 2002; Stevens,
Knutson, & Patton, 1995; Turley & Milliman, 2000; Wakefield & Blodgett; 1996, 1999). Table 1
presents a summary of dimensions related to the physical environment from the literature. The
table shows that previous studies have revealed various aspects of physical environment.
However, relatively slow progress has been made on developing a measurement scale for the
physical environment. Only few scales (e.g., SERVQUAL and DINESERV) incorporate tangible
physical environment as a part of the overall service quality measurement scheme. Even though
Raajpoot (2002) developed a scale called TANGSERV, its findings might be not acceptable or
reliable due to unclear methodology.
Baker (1987) classified three fundamental factors that affect the tangible portion of
service quality dimensions: design, social, and ambient factors. Ambience includes background
variables such as lighting, aroma, and temperature. These variables are not part of the primary
service but are important because their absence may make customers feel concerned or
uncomfortable. Design dimension represents the components of the environment that tend to be
visual and more tangible in nature. Design dimension includes color, furnishings, and spatial
layout. The design elements contain both the aesthetic aspects (e.g., beauty, décor) and the
functional aspects (e.g., layout, ease of transaction, and waiting room design) that facilitate high
quality service. The social factors relate to an organization's concern for the people in the
environment, including customers and employees. Baker, Grewal, and Parasuraman (1994) also
17
Table 1
Literature Review of Dimensions Related to the Physical Environment
Authors Dimensions
Baker (1987)
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, &
Berry (1988)
Bitner (1992)
Baker, Grewal, &
Parasuraman (1994)
Berman & Evans (1995)
Stevens, Knutson, &
Patton (1995)
Wakefield & Blodgett
(1996)
Wakefield & Blodgett
(1999)
Turley & Milliman (2000)
Brady & Cronin (2001)
Raajpoot (2002)
Atmospherics
SERVQUAL
SERVICESCAPE
Store atmospherics
Atmospherics
DINESERV
SERVICESCAPE
Tangible service
factors
Atmospherics
Service quality
TANGSERV
18
Ambient factors
Design factors (aesthetics & functional)
Social factors
Reliability
Responsiveness
Empathy
Assurance
Tangibility
Ambient conditions
Spatial layout and functionality
Sign, symbol and artifacts
Ambient factors
Design factors
Social factors
External variables
General interior variables
Layout and design variables
Point of purchase & decoration variables
Reliability
Responsiveness
Empathy
Assurance
Tangibles
Layout accessibility
Facility aesthetics
Seating comfort
Electronic equipment/displays
Facility cleanliness
Building design & décor
Equipment
Ambience
External variables
General interior variables
Layout and design variables
Point of purchase and decoration variables
Human variables
Interaction quality
Outcome quality
Quality of physical environments
Ambient factors
Design factors
Product/service factors
classified store atmospherics into three categories: store functional/aesthetic design factors, store
social factors, and store ambient factors.
Parasuraman et al. (1988) developed SERVQUAL to measure customer perceptions of
service quality in service and retailing organizations. SERVQUAL captures five dimensions:
tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. This scale is similar to
DINESERV (Stevens, Knutson, & Patton, 1995). Like DINESERV, SERVQUAL includes
tangibility as one of the five dimensions that describe overall service quality perceptions. This
tangible dimension comprises four items in SERVQUAL, as opposed to 10 items in DINESERV,
and is related to physical facilities, equipment, and personnel. The conceptualization and
dimensionality of SERVQUAL generally has been accepted. However, Brady and Cronin (2001)
argued in favor of three dimensions (i.e., interaction quality, outcome quality, and quality of
physical environment) in presenting an alternative conceptualization of service quality instead of
the five dimensions presented by SERVQUAL. Tangibility is the only common dimension of the
two major conceptualizations of service quality by Parasuraman et al. (1988) and Brady and
Cronin (2001). The objectives of SERVQUAL and DINESERV were to develop a scale for
assessing the overall construct of service quality, of which tangibility was only one dimension. If
one wished to develop a scale to capture various aspects of tangibility content, then further
examination of the domain of tangibility only is necessary.
Bitner (1992) discussed the effect of tangible physical environment on overall
development of service quality image. She coined the term "SERVICESCAPE" to describe the
combined effect of all physical factors that can be controlled by service organizations to enhance
customer and employee behaviors. SERVICESCAPE refers to the "built environment" or, more
specifically, the "man-made, physical surroundings as opposed to the natural or social
19
environment" (Bitner, 1992, p. 58). She identified three primary dimensions of the
SERVICESCAPE that influence consumers' holistic perceptions of the SERVICESCAPE (i.e.,
perceived quality) and their subsequent internal (i.e., satisfaction with the SERVICESCAPE) and
external responses (e.g., approach/avoidance, staying, repatronage). The three dimensions are (1)
ambient conditions (elements related to aesthetic appeal); (2) spatial layout and functionality;
and (3) signs, symbols, and artifacts. Ambient conditions include temperature, noise, music,
odors, and lighting. Aesthetic appeal refers to physical elements such as the surrounding external
environment, the architectural design, facility upkeep and cleanliness, and other physical
elements that customers can see and use to evaluate the aesthetic quality of the
SERVICESCAPE. Aesthetic factors are important because they influence ambience. Spatial
layout and functionality refer to the ways in which seats, aisles, hallways and walkways,
foodservice lines, restrooms, and the entrance and exits are designed and arranged in service
settings. Layout and functionality factors are important in many leisure services (e.g., theaters,
concerts, upscale restaurants) because they can affect the comfort of the customer. Signs,
symbols, and artifacts include signage and décor used to communicate and enhance a certain
image or mood, or to direct customers to desired destinations. These three dimensions are similar
to those proposed earlier by Baker (1987). However, Bitner's signs, symbols and artifacts
dimension focuses more on explicit and implicit signals than Baker's greater focus on people in
the environment. In addition, Bitner (1992) argued that, based on their perceptions of the
SERVICESCAPE, consumers will have certain thoughts and feelings (emotional and physical)
that ultimately lead them to either approach or avoidance behavior.
Berman and Evans (1995) divided tangible quality clues into four categories: external,
general interior, layout, and point of purchase dimensions. External variables include exterior
20
signs, building size and color, location, and parking. General interior variables include music,
scent, lighting, temperature, and color scheme. The layout and design variables pertain to
workstation placement, waiting facilities, and traffic flow. Finally, the point of purchase and
decoration variables relate to displays, pictures, artwork, and product displays at point of
purchase. The classification used in this study seems very practical in assisting marketing
professionals to easily understand the classification. Based on this classification, managers can
easily identify and adapt different atmospheric variables to improve service performance.
However, the authors failed to mention the social aspect of tangible quality.
Based on Bitner's (1992) SERVICESCAPE framework, Wakefield and Blodgett (1996)
examined the effects of layout accessibility, facility aesthetics, electronic equipment, seating
comfort, and cleanliness on the perceived quality of the SERVICESCAPE. The findings revealed
that perceived quality had a positive effect on customer satisfaction with the SERVICESCAPE,
which in turn affected how long customers desired to stay in the leisure service setting and
whether they intended to repatronize the service provider. However, this study did not focus on
ambient conditions because they could be more difficult to control, particularly in some leisure
field settings, such as amusement parks and other outdoor settings. Ambient conditions can be a
very important factor in the upscale restaurant context and can also be controlled to a large extent
by management.
Wakefield and Blodgett (1999) investigated whether the physical environment of service
delivery settings influenced customer evaluations of service and subsequent behavioral
intentions. Their research integrated environmental psychology into SERVQUAL to enable a
fuller assessment of the role of the tangible aspects of service delivery in leisure service settings.
The results showed that the tangible physical environment played an important role in creating
21
excitement in leisure settings. Excitement, in turn, played a significant role in determining
customer repatronage intentions and willingness to recommend. In the Wakefield and Blodgett
study, tangibility consisted of three factors: design, equipment, and ambient elements. They did
not consider the social factors.
Turley and Miliman (2000) presented a review of the literature that attempted to further
the theoretical and empirical understanding of atmospheric influences on multiple aspects of
consumer behavior. They identified 58 variables in 5 categories: external; general interior; layout
and design; point-of-purchase and decoration; and human. However, their classification lacks a
theoretical frame (Gilboa & Rafaeli, 2003). Raajpoot (2002) developed a scale called
TANGSERV for measuring tangible quality in foodservice industry. TANGSERV comprises
ambient factors (e.g., music, temperature), design factors (e.g., location, seating arrangement),
and product/service factors (e.g., food presentation, food variety). However, unclear
methodology clouds the results of Raajpoot's study.
Mehrabian-Russell Model
Environmental psychologists (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Russell & Pratt, 1980) have
proposed a valuable theoretical model for studying the effects of environment on human
behavior. Using a Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) paradigm, they describe the
relationship between environmental stimuli, intervening variables, and consumer behaviors.
Stimulus, intervening, and response variables should be conceptually clear, comprehensive yet
parsimonious, and operationally measurable (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982).
Mehrabian and Russell (1974) presented a theoretical model for studying the impact of
environment on human behavior. Figure 3 presents the Mehrabian-Russell Model. The
22
application of this model facilitates predicting and understanding the effects of environmental
changes on human behavior. The model has three parts: a stimulus taxonomy, a set of
intervening variables, and a set of responses. The environment creates an emotional response in
individuals, which in turn elicits either approach or avoidance behavior. The model claims that
three basic emotional states mediate approach-avoidance behaviors in environmental situations.
The three emotional responses are pleasure, arousal, and dominance. The model posits that any
environment will generate in an individual an emotional state that can be characterized in terms
of the three emotional states, which are factorially orthogonal. The pleasure-displeasure
dimension refers to the extent to which a person feels happy, pleased, satisfied, or content. High
arousal-low arousal distinguishes between feelings of high arousal (e.g., stimulated, excited, and
aroused) and low arousal (e.g., relaxed, bored, or sleepy). The dominance dimension relates to
the degree to which an individual feels dominance (e.g., influential, in control, important, and
autonomous) or submissiveness (e.g., submissive, passive, and lacking control). Approach
behaviors are seen as positive responses to an environment, such as a desire to stay in a particular
facility and explore. Avoidance behaviors include not wanting to stay in a store to spend time
looking or exploring.
Environmental
Stimuli
Emotional States:
Pleasure
Arousal
Dominance
Approach
or
Avoidance
Response
Source: Adopted from Mehrabian and Russell (1974)
Figure 3. Mehrabian-Russell Model
23
Russell and Pratt (1980) proposed a modification of the Mehrabian-Russell (1974)
environmental psychology model that deleted the dominance factor. Although evidence for the
suitability of the pleasure and arousal dimensions appeared convincing over a broad spectrum of
situations, evidence for the dominance dimension was more tenuous. The two orthogonal
dimensions of pleasure and arousal were adequate to represent people's emotional or affective
responses in any environmental situation. Moreover, Russell, in his later work, indicated that
dominance required a cognitive interpretation by the person and was therefore not purely
applicable in situations calling for affective responses (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Russell &
Barrett, 1999).
Donovan and Rossiter (1982) tested the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) theory by studying
approach-avoidance behavior in retail settings. The findings revealed that store
SERVICESCAPE was represented psychologically by consumers in terms of two major
emotional states—pleasure and arousal—and that these two emotional states were significant
mediators between atmosphere and shopping behaviors within the store. Simple affect, or store-
induced pleasure, was a very powerful determinant of approach-avoidance behaviors within the
store. The influence of emotional affect might be often overlooked in retail store selection
studies where cognitive influences (e.g., price, location, variety, and quality of product) are
mainly emphasized. The study indicated that the emotional responses evoked by the environment
within the store were primary determinants of the extent to which the individual spent beyond
what he/she originally planned. Cognitive elements might largely account for store selection and
for most of the planned purchases within the store. The study also suggested that arousal, or
store-induced feelings of excitement, could increase time spent in the store as well as willingness
24
to interact with sales personnel. In-store stimuli that induced arousal were fairly easy to identify
and included bright lighting and upbeat music.
The Importance of the Physical Environment in the Service Industry
Because delivering high quality service is crucial for success in the service industry,
understanding the nature of service quality has been important (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry,
1985). Service is distinguished from goods because of its characteristics, such as intangibility,
inseparability of production and consumption, heterogeneity, and perishability (Lovelock, 1991;
Parasuraman et al., 1985). However, service could be better understood on a continuum ranging
from tangible to intangible, since it can feature both aspects (Rushton & Carson, 1989). For
instance, foodservice encompasses both tangible (food and physical environment) and intangible
(employee-customer interaction) components. A proper combination of the tangible and
intangible aspects should result in a customer's perception of high service quality.
The importance of intangible and tangible components in the service industry has been
well documented in literature related to service. For instance, SERVQUAL has been widely
accepted and used in many areas such as retailing, marketing, and leisure to assess customer
perceptions of service quality in service organizations. The effect of the physical environment on
consumer behavior related to services such as hotels (Countryman & Jang, 2004; Perran, 1995;
Saleh & Ryan, 1991), restaurants (Millman, 1986; Stevens et al., 1995; Turley & Bolton, 1999),
healthcare (Hutton et al., 1995; McAlexander & Kaldenberg, 1994), and leisure (Chang, 2000;
Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996, 1999; Wakefield, 1994) also has been well documented in the
service literature.
25
The ability of the physical environment to influence behavior and to create an image is
particularly pertinent in the hospitality industry (hotels and restaurants) (Booms & Bitner, 1982).
Because the service is generally produced and consumed simultaneously, the consumer is "in the
factory," experiencing total service within the property's physical facility (Bitner, 1992). Dube
and Renaghan (2000) examined how hotels created visible value, as determined by their
customers, in the lodging industry. The results showed that the physical appearance of the hotel
exterior and public spaces ranked third and the guest-room design ranked fourth, respectively, as
driving attributes in the hotel-purchase decision, following location, brand name, and reputation.
The study also revealed that close to 40% of customers considered the overall quality of a
property's physical attributes and the aesthetic quality of the exteriors and public spaces as
sources of customer value underlying purchase decisions. Interestingly, the types of hotel
attributes that created customer value during the hotel experience were not the same as those that
drove the purchase. For instance, instead of location and brand name, which were attributes that
drove value at purchase, the top two visible sources of value during the hotel experience
pertained to the physical quality attributes of the property: guest-room design and physical
property (exterior and public spaces).
The restaurant is a place where we experience excitement, pleasure and a sense of
personal well-being. Restaurants offer both physical products (e.g., food) and culinary services
(e.g., cooking, serving, and cleaning up). Food quality and price traditionally have been the
decisive factors in restaurant choice. In recent years, however, an increasing number of
"atmosphere" restaurants have opened (Kotler, 1973). Some restaurateurs argue that atmosphere
can be the major determinant in making a successful restaurant. Customers may seek a dining
experience totally different from home, and the atmosphere may do more to attract them than the
26
food itself. The importance of the physical environment in restaurant settings has been addressed
by many researchers (Shostack, 1977, 1987; Ward, Bitner, & Barnes, 1992; Zeithaml,
Parasuraman, & Berry, 1985). Services deliver benefits that are often intangible and difficult to
evaluate prior to purchase and consumption. A restaurant's service and the quality of its food
cannot be judged until those elements have been experienced. Thus, consumers seek tangible
cues (e.g., lighting, table cloths) to predict what the restaurant will provide. In addition,
environmental cues may be especially important in categorizing restaurants, such as quick
service restaurants, fast-casual restaurants, family restaurants, casual restaurants, and upscale
restaurants.
As the restaurant industry has grown and more consumers increasingly expect a more
entertaining atmosphere to enhance the dining experience, restaurateurs are making the effort to
meet that desire with innovative and exciting designs. Innovative restaurant design makes dining
out more exciting for customers. According to the National Restaurant Association's 2001
Restaurant Industry Forecast, restaurant operators are investing more than ever before in
restaurant design and décor as they strive to create a setting that will set them apart from the
competition (Hamaker, 2000). Aesthetics have become an integral part of dining out, and more
operators and marketers place growing importance on the interior design and decor. Sparks,
Bowen, and Klag (2003) explored the influence of restaurant characteristics on customers'
choices of restaurant. Display of the menu was considered the most important determinant by
58.8% of tourists when selecting restaurants while on holiday. Attractive décor or atmosphere
was considered very influential by 55.4%. Ward, Bitner, and Barnes (1992) indicated that much
effort and expense has been devoted to store design in fast food restaurant settings. Auty (1992)
identified three customer segments: students, "well-to-do" middle-aged people, and older people.
27
Image and atmosphere were found to be the most critical factors in the final choice between
similar restaurants among the three customer segments.
Particular physical environmental variables have been discussed in the literature. For
instance, color can enhance or detract from the dining experience and can cause customers to
linger over dinner. Color can be one of the most significant aspects of design. A manager of a
P.F.Chang's restaurant was quoted as saying "Colors can make or break a restaurant."
P.F.Chang's uses color to create a "warm and comfortable feeling." Research has shown that
warm earth tones are more appealing in dining establishments, enhancing the physical
environment, and making customers feel more comfortable and attractive. Cool tones such as
blues, greens and steely earth tones, when used in great quantities, can make a space feel cold
and uninviting (Hamaker, 2000). In addition, music tempo affects pace of shopping, length of
stay, and amount of money spent in restaurant settings (Milliman, 1986). Blackmon (2001) also
discussed the power of music to create an excitement level and ambiance that helped patrons
enjoy food and spirits, while encouraging repeat business.
The importance of the physical environment has been discussed in the scope of the
overall service industry, the hospitality industry, and the restaurant industry. In the next section,
the importance of the physical environment in the upscale restaurant context is discussed.
The Importance of the Physical Environment in the Upscale Restaurant Segment
The level of importance of the physical environment can vary under the combined effects
of the following characteristics: time spent in the facility, consumption purpose, and different
sellers and societies. The extent of the influence of physical environments on customer affective
responses may be especially pronounced if the service is consumed primarily for hedonic
28
motives rather than utilitarian purposes, as is the case in an upscale restaurant. Hedonic
consumption looks for pleasure or emotional fulfillment, as opposed to functional usefulness,
from the service experience (Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994). Because of the hedonic or
emotional context, customers of the upscale restaurant are likely to be more sensitive to the
aesthetic qualities of their surroundings (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994).
The amount of time spent in a facility influences the extent to which the physical
environment influences customer attitudes or satisfaction with service. The physical environment
may have little impact on service encounters of relatively short duration as in fast food
restaurants (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). Here, service encounter refers to "a period of time
during which a consumer directly interacts with a service" (Shostack, 1985, p. 243). This
definition encompasses all aspects of the service with which the consumer may interact including
personnel, physical facilities, and other tangible elements during a given time. In service
encounters of relatively short duration, customers typically spend only a short time inside the
restaurant (Bitner, 1990). In these situations, customers perceive service quality based mainly on
intangible aspects (e.g., reliability, assurance, responsiveness, empathy) and less on the tangible
aspects (physical surroundings) (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). For instance, customers of fast-
food restaurants are likely to put more emphasis on how long it takes to have the meal served
(e.g., reliability and responsiveness) and how courteous the personnel are (e.g., assurance) than
on the aesthetics of the restaurant. However, service in the upscale restaurants generally requires
customers to spend several hours in the physical surroundings of the service provider (Wakefield
& Blodgett, 1996). In such situations, where the customer spends an extended period of time
observing and experiencing the physical environment, the importance of the physical
environment increases with time. For instance, since customers often wait a long time for their
29
food after being seated in an upscale restaurant, it is important that they do not feel bored. The
physical environment might be used to enhance stimulation and prevent boredom.
Figure 4 presents various types of service settings combining the effects of longer stays in
the service environment with consumers' hedonic motives (e.g., as when customer spends all
week at a vacation resort). Typology clearly shows that the physical environment is more critical
in those settings in which consumers patronize service providers more for emotional motives
than for functional purposes, and for which they spend more time in the service facility than for
shorter stays (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1999).
Consumption Purpose
Time Spent
in Facility
Low
(minutes)
Moderate
(hours)
Extended
Importance of the
Physical Environment
Low
High
Utilitarian
Low
Fast food
restaurants
Health clinics
Hospitals
Hedonic
High
Miniature golf
Upscale restaurants
Resorts
(days)
Source: Wakefield & Blodgett (1999)
Figure 4. Typology of Service Environments
Wakefield and Blodgett (1996) argued that the physical environment is an important
determinant of customers' behavioral intentions when the service is primarily for hedonic
purposes and customers spend moderate to long periods in the physical surroundings. In the
context of upscale restaurants, customers may spend several hours or more. The primary
foodservice offering must be of acceptable quality, but pleasing physical environments (e.g.,
30
lighting, décor, layout, employee appearance) may determine, to a large extent, the degree of
overall satisfaction and repatronage.
Finally, the importance of SERVICESCAPE varies among service providers or societies.
Kotler (1973) proposed that SERVICESCAPE can be an important marketing tool in situations
(1) where the product is purchased or consumed and where the seller has design options; (2)
where product and/or price differences within the same industry are small; and (3) when product
entries are aimed at distinct social classes or lifestyle buyer groups. Most of these are true in
upscale restaurants. The first situation is true for upscale restaurants because the meal is
purchased and consumed simultaneously and restaurateurs have considerable control over the
physical surroundings. In this case, the physical environment is part of the total "product."
Second, product or price differences might be minimal within the upscale restaurant industry.
Thus, restaurateurs should have some uniqueness to differentiate themselves from competitors.
Customers need further discriminant criteria, and the physical environment can be an important
one. Finally, upscale restaurants should be designed to attract customers in the intended market
segment (e.g., upper-class patrons). In short, the physical environment can be a crucial part of the
total dining experience.
Variables Related to the Physical Environment
Facility Aesthetics
Facility aesthetics refers to a function of architectural design, along with interior design
and décor, all of which contribute to the attractiveness of the physical environment (Wakefield &
Blodgett, 1994). From an external viewpoint, as customers approach or drive by an upscale
restaurant, they are likely to evaluate the attractiveness of the exterior of the restaurant. Once
31
inside the dining area, customers often spend hours observing (consciously and subconsciously)
the interior of the dining area. These evaluations are likely to affect their attitudes towards the
restaurant (Baker et al., 1988). In addition to the appeal of the dining area's architectural design,
customers may be influenced by the color schemes of the dining area's walls and floor coverings.
Other aspects of interior design, such as pictures/paintings, plants/flowers, ceiling decorations,
and/or wall decorations may also serve to enhance the perceived quality of the physical
environment.
Color
People see and interact with color within both natural and built environments. About 80%
of the information that people assimilate through the senses is visual (Khouw, 2004). However,
color does more than just give people objective information. It actually influences how people
feel. The presence of color becomes even more important in interior environments in generating
positive feelings.
Color is one of the obvious visual cues in the physical surroundings. According to
Eiseman (1998), color is a strong visual component in a physical setting, particularly in an
interior setting. Research has shown that different colors stimulate different personal moods and
emotions. Many researchers assume that environmental cues within the physical environment
directly stimulate emotional response. Hamid and Newport (1989) examined the effect of color
on physical strength and mood in preschool children. The results found that children showed
greater strength and a more positive mood in a pink room than in a blue room. Bellizzi and Hite
(1992) found that consumers react more favorably to a blue environment in retail settings, and
that warm-colored backgrounds seem to elicit attention and attract people to approach a store.
Findings showed that "blue stores" had higher simulated purchase rates. Colors also influenced
32
emotional pleasure more strongly than arousal or dominance. Boyatzis and Varghese (1994)
found that children often related positive emotions with light colors and negative emotions with
dark colors.
Furnishings
Furnishings in a service setting encompass the objects and materials that are used within
the environment (e.g., furniture). The impact of furnishings can be manifested through the
affective response of comfort. For instance, seating comfort has been found to affect pleasure in
football and baseball stadium facilities (Wakefield, Blodgett, & Sloan, 1996). Consumers who
are comfortable should experience more positive affective states (Baker & Cameron, 1996).
Creating dining environments that make customers feel comfortable is a key goal of designers
and operators.
Seating comfort is likely to be a particularly salient issue for customers in the upscale
restaurant context where customers may sit for a number of hours. Seat comfort can be
influenced by the physical seat itself as well as the space between the seats. Some seats may be
uncomfortable because of their design (e.g., hard benches without back support) or condition
(deteriorating or wet). Seats may be also uncomfortable because of their proximity to other seats.
Customers may physically and psychologically uncomfortable (Barker & Pearce, 1990) if they
sit too close to the customers next to them. Previous research related to perceived crowding
suggested that cramped seating quarters were likely to be perceived as displeasing and of poor
quality (Eroglu & Machleit, 1990; Hui & Bateson, 1991). Therefore, comfortable seats with
ample space might reduce the feeling of being crowded.
33
Layout
Spatial layout refers to the way in which objects (e.g., machinery, equipment, and
furnishings) are arranged within the environment. Just as the layout in discount stores facilitates
the fulfillment of functional needs (Baker et al., 1994), an interesting and effective layout may
also facilitate fulfillment of hedonic or pleasure needs (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994). Spatial
layout that makes people feel constricted may have a direct effect on customer quality
perceptions, excitement levels, and indirectly on their desire to return. This implies that service
or retail facilities that are specifically designed to add some level of excitement or arousal to the
service experience such as in an upscale restaurant should provide ample space to facilitate
exploration and stimulation within the physical environment (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994).
Ambience
Ambient elements are intangible background characteristics that tend to affect the
nonvisual senses and may have a subconscious effect. These background conditions include
temperature, lighting, noise, music, and scent (Baker, 1987).
Music
Music has been known for centuries to have a powerful impact on human responses. For
more than 50 years, academicians in diverse disciplines, such as music, psychology, medicine,
management, and sociology have studied the effects of music on various aspects of behavior
(Bruner, 1990). However, in the past two decades, there has been an explosion of research on the
effects of music on consumer perception and behavior (North & Hargreaves, 1998). Particular
emphasis has been given to atmospheric music designed to create commercial environments that
"produce specific emotional effects in the buyer that enhance his purchase intentions" (Kotler,
34
1973, p. 50). Previous research has shown that atmospheric music can (1) increase sales (Areni
& Kim, 1993; Mattila & Wirtz, 2001; Milliman, 1982, 1986; North & Hargreaves, 1998; Yalch
& Spangenberg, 1993); (2) influence purchase intentions (Baker et al., 1992; North &
Hargreaves, 1998); (3) produce significantly enhanced affective response such as satisfaction and
relaxation (Oakes, 2003); (4) increase shopping time and waiting time (Milliman, 1982, 1986;
North & Hargreaves, 1998; Yalch & Spangenberg, 1993, 2000); (4) decrease perceived shopping
time and waiting time (Chebat et al., 1993; Kellaris & Kent, 1992; Yalch & Spangenberg, 2000);
(5) influence dining speed (Roballey et al., 1985; Milliman, 1986); (6) influence customer
perceptions of a store (Hui et al., 1997; Mattila & Wirtz, 2001; North & Hargreaves, 1998; Yalch
& Spangenberg, 1993); and (7) facilitate customer-staff interaction (Chebat et al., 2000; Dube et
al., 1995; Hui et al., 1997).
Milliman (1986) examined the effect of background music on the behavior of restaurant
customers. Findings indicated that music tempo variations could significantly affect number of
bar purchases, length of stay at table, and estimated gross margin of the restaurant. In addition,
music is a more highly controllable physical element than other atmospheric elements. Music
may range from soft to loud, slow to fast, vocal or instrumental, light rock to heavy rock, or
classical to contemporary urban.
Baker, Levy, and Grewal (1992) argued that music has been shown to affect consumers'
responses to retail environments, typically in a positive manner. Hui et al. (1997, p. 90) noted
that, "playing music in the (service) environment is like adding a favorable feature to a product,
and the outcome is a more positive evaluation of the environment." This argument suggests that
the presence of music will result in customers having more favorable evaluations of a store's
environment compared with a store environment without music. In addition, the music must
35
match customers' demographic profiles and the restaurant's image (Areni & Kim, 1993; Grewal
et al., 2003; MacInnis & Park, 1991). For instance, classical music is widely used in the context
of upscale restaurants (Areni, 2003).
Tansik and Routhieaux (1999) investigated the impact of music on people awaiting the
outcomes for surgical patients in a hospital's waiting room, an inherently stressful environment.
In self-reports from persons using the waiting room, the use of music was related to decreased
stress and increased relaxation in comparison to times when no music was played. These
findings support the role of atmospherics or ambience of a service system in customer
quality/satisfaction evaluations.
Sweeney and Wyber (2002) conducted a study that extended the Mehrabian-Russell
(1974) model to include both emotional states and cognitive processing as mediators of the
music approach behaviors. The study found that liking the music had a primary influence on
consumer evaluations (pleasure, arousal, service quality, and merchandise quality), while the
music characteristics (specifically slow pop or fast classical) had an additional effect on pleasure
and service quality. In addition, pleasure, service quality and merchandise quality influenced
music-intended behaviors (e.g., desire to browse in and explore the store, spend more than
anticipated, recommend the store, buy at the store, and enjoy the store). Arousal also contributed
to these behaviors when the store environment was considered pleasant. The overall results
reinforced the importance of understanding the effect of music on both consumer internal
evaluations as well as intended behaviors.
Lighting
Research indicates that there is the relationship between lighting level preferences and
individuals' emotional responses and approach-avoidance behaviors. Baron (1990) showed that
36
subjects had more positive affect in conditions of low levels of lighting compared to high levels
of lighting. The level of comfort was increased at relatively low levels of light, while comfort
decreased with high levels of light (Hopkinson, Petherbridge, & Longmore, 1966). In addition,
higher levels of illumination are associated with increased physiological arousal (Kumari &
Venkatramaiah, 1974).
Gifford (1988) investigated the influence of lighting level and room decor on
interpersonal communication, comfort, and arousal. Results showed that general communication
was more likely to occur in bright environments, whereas more intimate conversation occurred in
softer light. Steffy (1990) suggested that environments in which the lighting is designed to
harmonize with furniture and accessories are perceived as more pleasant than environments in
which lighting does not harmonize with other elements of the room.
Travelers reported that soft lighting made a motel look somewhat lifeless. Another large
motel chain was preferred where the bright lighting of the motel offices seen from the road
indicated a bright, busy, and cheerful place. The type of lighting in an environment could directly
influence an individual's perception of the definition and quality of the space, influencing his/her
awareness of physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual aspects of the space (Kurtich &
Eakin, 1993). Areni and Kim (1994) identified the impact of in-store lighting on various aspects
of shopping behavior (e.g., consumer behavior, amount of time spent, and total sales) in a retail
store setting. The results revealed that brighter lighting influenced shoppers to examine and
handle more products but did not have an impact on sales or time spent in the store.
Aroma
The influence of pleasant scents as a powerful tool in increasing sales has gained much
attention in the retail businesses (Bone & Ellen, 1999; Hirsch, 1991, 1995; Lin, 2004; Mattila &
37
Wirtz, 2001). Retailers know that aroma can have an impact on a consumer's desire to make a
purchase. For example, Knasko (1989) found that ambient aroma influenced how long
consumers remained at a jewelry counter. Hirsch (1991) showed that pleasant scents could
increase a bakery's sales by as much as 300%. Hirsch and Gay (1991) discovered that
consumers were more likely to purchase a well-known brand of athletic shoes displayed in a
perfumed room than identical shoes displayed in an unperfumed room. In addition, Hirsch
(1995) examined the effects of two ambient odors on the amounts of money gambled in slot
machines in a Las Vegas casino. They found that gamblers spent more money by an average of
45.11% in the slot machines when the surrounding areas of those were pleasantly scented than
when there was no odor. The effective odorant apparently enhanced the casino patrons' desire to
gamble. Ambient odors might also simply influence a consumer's mood, emotion or subjective
feelings (Bone & Ellen, 1999; Hirsch, 1995).
Similar to other environmental stimuli (e.g., music), scent should be evaluated with other
environmental cues when examining the impact of the physical surroundings on customer
behavior. Individuals do not evaluate the physical environment based on only one environmental
stimulus. All discrete pieces combine to form a holistic picture. In this case, it is through various
environmental cues that individuals receive input through their sensory systems to form a mental
picture, which then stimulates an emotional response (Lin, 2004).
Temperature
Psychological research suggests that certain temperatures are associated with negative
affect. Bell and Baron (1977) argued that low temperatures (e.g., around 62
o
F) are associated
with negative affective states. Both heat and cold are more intense stimuli than temperatures that
are considered comfortable. A positive association between high effective ambient temperatures
38
and antisocial behavior has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments (Griffitt & Veitch,
1971).
Service Product
Raajpoot (2002) explored the domain of tangible quality construct known as
TANGSERV in foodservice industry. The results found that TANGSERV captured three
dimensions: ambient factors (e.g., music, temperature), design factors (e.g., location, seating
arrangement), and product/service factors (e.g., food presentation, food variety). The findings
proved that product/service were very important aspects of tangible quality. The study also
indicated that elements related to product/service dimensions such as food presentation, serving
size, menu design, and food varieties were part of tangible quality clues.
The service product dimension should be an especially important determinant in the upscale
market. Upscale restaurants should be designed to deliver a prestigious image to attract upper-
class customers, their intended market. Thus, variety of wines, high quality flatware (e.g., knives,
spoons, forks), china (e.g., plate/china, dishes, cups), glassware (e.g., glass), linen (white table
cloths, napkin presentation) as well as attractive food presentation, food variety, and innovative
menu design will affect customer perceptions of quality. The way in which the table is decorated
can also make customers feel prestigious or elegant. For example, an attractive candle on the
table may be appealing, especially to female customers.
39
Social Factors
Social elements are the people (i.e., employees and their customers) in the service setting
(Baker, 1987). The social variables include employee appearance, number of employees, gender
of employees, and dress or physical appearance of other customers.
Employees
The physical appearance of retail employees is critical because it can be used to
communicate to customers a firm's ideals and attributes (Solomon, 1985). For instance, airline
personnel are selected to generate confidence. Bitner (1990) found that a disorganized
environment, featuring an employee in less than professional attire could influence a customer's
attribution and satisfaction when a service failure occurred. The effects of social cues
(number/friendliness of employees) was investigated as a part of a study conducted by Baker,
Levy, and Grewal (1992); they found that the more social cues present in the store environment,
the higher the subject's arousal. A subsequent study conducted by Baker et al. (1994) examined
the effects of sales personnel on consumer inferences about merchandise and service quality and
store image in a retail store setting. A card and gift store with prestige-image social factors (e.g.,
more sales personnel on the floor, sales personnel wearing professional attire, and a salesperson
greeting customers at the entrance to the store) were perceived as providing of higher service
quality than a store with discount-image social factors (e.g., one salesperson on the floor, sales
personnel not wearing professional attire, and no greeting offered at the entrance to the store).
Fischer et al. (1997) explored whether the gender of the service provider should be
regarded as an element of the physical environment that influences perceptions of service quality
in fast food restaurants, hair cutting salons, and dental offices. For each setting, two possibilities
were explored. First, in-group bias might led to men believe that male servers provide higher
40
quality while women might believe females servers did. Second, consumers' server stereotypes
about which gender does a better job of serving could also influence perceived quality. Across
the settings studied, server stereotypes were found to interact with the gender of the server and/or
the gender of the consumer to affect ratings on some dimensions of service quality.
Nguyen and Leblanc (2002) evaluated the impact of contact personnel and physical
environment on the perception of new clients on corporate image. With data collection in two
service industries (a life insurance company and a hotel), the results showed the significant effect
of both contact personnel and physical environment, as well as their interactive effects on
corporate image.
Other Customers
Chebat et al. (1995) proposed a key strategic element: service quality is not evaluated by
consumers only in terms of what they receive at the end of the service delivery process, but also
in terms of the process itself. In an open service encounter site (e.g., banks, restaurants) where
consumers could observe service delivery to other consumers, the way services were delivered
influenced not only the opinions of the consumers who received the service, but also the opinions
of other consumers who observed service delivery.
Emotional States
The effects of the parts of the physical environment that are more aesthetic in nature (e.g.,
décor, colors, music, lighting) have been widely documented in literature. Research in
environmental psychology has shown that properly designed physical environments may create
feelings of excitement, pleasure, or relaxation (Mehrabian-Russel, 1974; Russell & Pratt, 1980).
Wakefield and Blodgett (1999) noted that the physical environment might directly influence
41
consumers' affective responses while service quality perceptions related to reliability, assurance,
responsiveness, and empathy might generate cognitive evaluations.
The Mehrabian-Russel (1974) model, which presented a basic model of human emotion,
has received strong support in environmental psychology, retailing, and marketing. The model
claims that that any environment will generate an emotional state in one of three ways: pleasure,
arousal, and dominance. Those three emotional states mediate approach-avoidance behaviors in a
wide range of environments. Pleasure refers to the extent to which individuals feel good, happy,
pleased, or joyful in a situation, while arousal refers to the degree to which individuals feel
stimulated, excited, or active. The dominance dimension relates to the extent to which a person
feels influential, in control, or important. Studies designed to test the model have found that the
pleasure and arousal dimensions underlie any affective responses to any environments, while
dominance was not found to have a significant effect on approach or avoidance behaviors
(Russell & Pratt, 1980; Ward & Russell, 1981). Thus, the role of dominance in relation to
approach or avoidance behavior has received little attention in more recent studies. More recent
studies have defined two dimensions (pleasure and arousal) rather than three basic dimensions of
the model. For instance, Menon and Kahn (2002) examined the effect of atmospherics and
service on consumer shopping behavior from online retailers. The results showed that
pleasurable initial experiences in a simulated Internet shopping trip had a positive impact on
approach behaviors, and subjects engaged in more arousing activities (e.g., more exploration,
more tendencies to examine novel products and stores, higher response to promotional
incentives).
The Mehrabian-Russel (1974) model claimed that pleasure and arousal were the two
orthogonal dimensions representing individual emotional or affective responses to a wide range
42
of environments. For instance, Prendergast and Man (2002) used eight questions to measure the
psychological attributes of fast-food restaurants. Factor analysis generated two underlying
factors that were clearly identifiable as pleasure (unhappy-happy, unsatisfied-satisfied, annoyed-
pleased, hopeful-despairing) and arousal (excited-calm, overcrowded-uncrowded). However,
several studies suggested caution about the orthogonal independency of pleasure and arousal
dimensions. Donovan and Rossiter (1982) discovered a positive relationship between pleasure
and arousal dimensions and intentions to remain in a retail setting and spend more money.
Donovan et al. (1994) also pointed out a possible failure to construct an unambiguous arousal
factor, possibly because the pleasure and arousal factors are independent, yet correlated factors.
They further argued that failure to measure adequately and distinguish between the two factors
could result in serious measurement and fit errors. In addition, Kenhove and Desrumaux (1997)
examined the relationship between the emotional states (feelings of pleasure and arousal) evoked
in a retail environment and behavioral intentions (approach-avoidance behaviors) in that
environment. The study especially focused on unidimensionality, construct validity, reliability,
and discriminant validity of measures. The results showed that the two independent constructs
(pleasure and arousal) were highly correlated. Confirmatory factor analysis results showed that
many of the original measures of pleasure and arousal were not very good indicators for the
underlying constructs. Unidimensionality of certain measures was problematic. In addition, a
number of marketing studies found that arousal influenced pleasure (Babin & Attaway, 2000;
Chebat & Michon, 2003; Wakefield & Baker, 1998)
The Mehrabian and Russell (1974) model specified a conditional interaction between
pleasure and arousal in determining approach-avoidance behavior. In pleasant environments, an
increase in arousal was argued to increase approach behaviors, whereas, in unpleasant
43
environments, an increase in arousal was suggested to motivate more avoidance behaviors
(Donovan & Rossiter, 1982, p. 39). In addition, Wirtz, Mattila, and Tan (2000) introduced a
moderating variable called "target-arousal level" to advance the understanding of the role of
pleasure and arousal in the satisfaction evaluation process. The results indicated that the
traditional pleasure-arousal interaction effect might be limited to high target arousal situations.
Approach & Avoidance Behaviors
A wealth of literature exists on the effect of the physical environment on consumer
behaviors (Baker et al., 1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Russell &
Pratt, 1980; Turley & Millman, 2000). Mehrabian and Russell (1974) postulate that all consumer
responses to an environment can be considered as either approach or avoidance behaviors. They
argued that approach/avoidance behaviors have four aspects: (1) a desire physically to stay in
(approach) or to get out of (avoid) the environment; (2) a desire or willingness to look around
and to explore the environment (approach) versus a tendency to avoid moving through or
interacting with the environment or a tendency to remain inanimate in the environment
(avoidance); (3) a desire or willingness to communicate with others in the environment
(approach) as opposed to a tendency to avoid interacting with others or to ignore communication
attempts from others (avoidance); and (4) the degree of enhancement (approach) or hindrance
(avoidance) of performance and satisfaction with task performance. All these aspects can be
appropriate for describing behaviors in the upscale restaurant context. First, physical approach
and avoidance can be related to restaurant patronage intentions at a basic level. Second,
exploratory approach and avoidance can be related to the customers' willingness to visually look
around before, during, and after the meal. Third, communication approach and avoidance can be
44
related to interaction with employees. Finally, performance and satisfaction approach and
avoidance can be related to frequency of visiting as well as the amount of time and money spent
in the restaurant (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982).
The Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model proposed that emotions such as pleasantness-
unpleasantness and arousal- nonarousal influenced people's responses to environments. The
model was used to determine the factors which influenced purchasing behavior in retail stores.
The results showed that general feelings of pleasantness increased the time and money shoppers
spent in the stores (Baker et al., 1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Donovan, Rossiter, &
Nesdale, 1994).
Store environment is one of several inputs into the consumer's overall store image, or
overall attitude toward the store (Darden, Erdem, & Darden, 1983; Zimmer & Golden, 1988).
Furthermore, store image is an important determinant of store choice decision (Malhotra, 1983).
Darden, Erdem, and Darden (1983) found that consumer beliefs about the physical attractiveness
of a store had a higher correlation with patronage intentions than did merchandise quality,
general price level, or selection.
A growing recognition that store interiors and exteriors can be designed to generate
specific feelings in shoppers means that design can have an important cuing or reinforcing effect
on consumers' purchase behavior (Kotler, 1973). Environmental psychologists (Donovan &
Rossiter, 1982; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Russell & Pratt, 1980) assume that people's feelings
and emotions ultimately determine what they do and how they do it and, further, that people
respond with different sets of emotions to different environments. This in turn, prompts them to
approach or avoid the environment. Swinyard (1993) proposed that consumer mood,
involvement level, and the quality of the shopping experience had significant effects on shopping
45
intentions. Results revealed that mood interacted with involvement and shopping experience.
Involved subjects were found to magnify their evaluations of the shopping experience. Subjects
in a good mood evaluated good experiences as still better, and a bad shopping experience
appeared to cause mood-protection mechanisms to fail. Finally, consumer mood was shown to be
affected by a bad shopping experience.
Retailers want to design store environments so that they will enhance positive feelings,
assuming this will lead to desired consumer behaviors, such as higher willingness to purchase or
longer stays (Mano, 1999). In the upscale restaurant, longer stays might impact revenues because
customers are more likely to consume more wine and dessert, which provides a high profit
margin. In addition, the retail store atmosphere has been shown to have a positive influence on
customers' patronage intentions (Baker et al., 1992; Darden, Erdem, & Darden, 1983; Donovan
& Rossiter, 1982; Grewal et al., 2003; Hui et al., 1997; Van Kehove & Desumaux, 1997). We
expect to confirm these findings in this study as well.
46
References
Areni, C.S. (2003). Exploring managers' implicit theories of atmospheric music: comparing
academic analysis to industry insight. Journal of Service Marketing, 17(2), 161-184.
Areni, C.S., & Kim, D. (1993). The influence of background music on shopping behavior:
Classical versus top-forty music in a wine store. Advances in Consumer Research, 20,
336-340.
Areni, C.S., & Kim, D. (1994). The influence of in-store lighting on consumers' examination of
merchandise in a wine store. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 117-
125.
Auty, S. (1992). Consumer choice and segmentation in the restaurant industry. The Service
Industries Journal, 12(3), 324-339.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656.
Baker, J. (1987). The role of the environment in marketing services. In: Czepeial, J.A., Congram,
C.A., & Shananhan, J. (Eds.). The Services Challenges: Integrating for Competitive
Advantage. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 79-84.
Baker, J., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1988). The marketing impact of branch facility
design. Journal of Retailing Banking, 10, 33-42.
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
the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 338-349.
Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The influence of the store environment on
47
quality inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22,
328-339.
Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store
environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), 445-460.
Barker, R.T., & Pearce, C.G. (1990). The importance of proxemics at work (space and human
comfort in the work environment). Supervisory Management, 35(July), 10-12.
Baron, R.A. (1990). Lighting as a source of positive affect. Progressive Architecture, 71, 123-
124.
Bell, P.A., & Baron, R.A. (1977). Aggression and ambient temperature: The facilitating and
inhibiting effects of hot and cold environments. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,
9(6), 443-445.
Bellizzi, J.A., & Hite, R.E. (1992). Environmental color, consumer feelings, and purchase
likelihood. Psychology and Marketing, 9(5), 347-363.
Berman, B., & Evans, J.R. (1995). Management: A Strategic Approach. (6
th
ed). Englewood
Cliffs: NJ. Prentice-Hall Inc.
Bitner, M.J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54, 69-82.
Bitner, M.J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.
Blackmon, J. (2001). Expert advice for successful restaurant music. Journal of Restaurant &
Foodservice Marketing, 4(2), 87-93.
Bone, P.F., & Ellen, P.S. (1999). Scents in the marketplace: explaining a fraction of olfaction.
Journal of Retail, 75(2), 243-262.
48
Booms, B.H., & Bitner, M.J. (1982). Marketing services by managing the environment. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 23(May), 35-39.
Boyatzis, C.J., & Varghese, R. (1994). Children's emotional associations with colors. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 155, 77-85.
Brady, M.K., & Cronin, J.J., Jr. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service
quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 34-49.
Bruner, G.C. (1990). Music, mood and marketing. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 94-104.
Chang, K. (2000). The impact of perceived physical environments on customers' satisfaction and
return intentions. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 21(2), 75-85.
Chebat, J., Filatrault, P., Gelinas-Chebat, C., & Vaninsky, A. (1995). Impact of waiting
attribution and consumer's mood on perceived quality. Journal of Business Research, 34,
191-196.
Chebat, J, Gelinas-Chebat, C., & Filiatrault, P. (1993). Interactive effects of musical and visual
cues on time perception: An application to waiting lines in banks. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 77, 995-1020.
Chebat, J., & Michon, R. (2003). Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers' emotions,
cognition, and spending. Journal of Business Research, 56, 529-539.
Chebat, J., Vaillant, D., & Gelinas-Chebat, C. (2000). Does background music in a store enhance
salespersons' persuasiveness? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 405-424.
Countryman, C.C., & Jang, S. (2004). The effect of atmospheric elements on customer
impression: A structural equation analysis of hotel lobbies. Paper presented at the
2004 International CHRIE Annual Conference and Exposition.
Darden, W.R., Erdem, O., & Darden, D.K. (1983). A comparison and test of three causal models
49
of patronage intentions. In Darden, W.R., & Lusch, R.F. (Eds.). Patronage Behavior and
Retail Management. New York: North-Holland, 29-43.
Donovan, R.J., & Rossiter, J.R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology
approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(1), 34-57.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., & Nesdale, A. (1994). Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior.
Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 283-294.
Dube, L., & Renaghan, L.M. (2000). Creating visible customer value. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 62-72.
Dube, L., Chebat, J., & Morin, S. (1995). The effects of background music on consumers' desire
to affiliate in buyer-seller interactions. Psychology and Marketing, 12, 305-319.
Eiseman, L. (1998). Colors For Your Every Mood. Capital Books, Virginia.
Eroglu, S., & Machleit, K.A. (1990). An empirical study of retail crowding: antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Retailing, 66(Summer), 201-221.
Fischer, E., Gainer, B., & Bristor, J. (1997). The sex of the service provider: does it influence
perceptions of service quality? Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 361-382.
Gifford, R. (1988). Light, décor, arousal, comfort, and communication. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 8, 177-189.
Gilboa, S., & Rafaeli, A. (2003). Store environment, emotions and approach behavior: applying
environmental aesthetics to retailing. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research, 13(2), 195-211.
Grewal, D., Baker, J., Levy, M., & Voss, G.B. (2003). The effects of wait expectations and store
atmosphere evaluations on patronage intentions in service-intensive retail stores. Journal
of Retailing, 79, 259-268.
50
Griffitt, W., & Veitch, R. (1971). Hot and crowded: Influence of population density and
temperature on interpersonal affective behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 17, 92-98.
Hamaker, S.S. (2000). Delicious by design: Creating an unforgettable dining experience.
Restaurants USA, December.
Hamid, P.N., & Newport, A.G. (1989). Effect of color on psychological strength and mood in
children. Perceptual Motor Skills, 69, 179-185.
Hirsch, A.R. (1991). Olfaction and psychiatry. Paper presented at the 144
th
Annual Meeting,
American Psychiatric Association, New Orleans, LA.
Hirsch, A.R. (1995). Effect of ambient odors on slot-machine usage in a Las Vegas casino.
Psychology and Marketing, 12(October), 585-594.
Hirsch, A.R., & Gay, S.E. (1991). Effect on ambient olfactory stimuli on the evaluation of a
common consumer product. Chemical Senses, 16, 535.
Hopkinson, R.G., Petherbridge, P., & Longmore, J. (1966). Daylighting. London: Heinemann.
Hui, M., & Bateson, J. (1991). Perceived control and the effects of crowding and consumer
choice on the service experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 174-184.
Hui, M.K., Dube, L., & Chebat, J. (1997). The impact of music on consumer's reaction to
waiting for services. Journal of Retailing, 73, 87-104.
Hutton, J.D., & Richardson, L.D. (1995). Healthscape: The role of the facility and physical
environment on consumer attitudes, satisfaction, quality assessments and behavior.
Health Care Management Review, 20(2), 48-61.
Kellaris, J.J., & Kent, R.J. (1992). The influence of music on consumers' perceptions: Does time
fly when you're having fun? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 365-376.
51
Kenhove, P.V., & Desrumaux, P. (1997). The relationship between emotional states and
approach or avoidance responses in a retail environment. The International Review of
Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 7(4), 351-368.
Khouw, N. (2004). The meaning of color for gender. Retrieved April 10, 2004, from:
http://www.colormatters.com/khouw.html.
Knasko, S.C. (1989). Ambient odor and shopping behavior. Paper presented at AChemS-XI
(Abstract 143) Chemical Senses.
Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48-64.
Kumari, K., & Venkatramaiah, S.R. (1974). Effects of anxiety on closure effect disappearance
threshold. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1, 114-120.
Kurtich, J., & Eakin, G. (1993). Interior Architecture. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Lin, I.Y. (2004). Evaluating a servicescape: the effect of cognition and emotion. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 23, 163-178.
Lovelock, C.H. (1991). Services marketing: Text, cases, and readings. (2
nd
ed). London:
Prentice-Hall.
MacInnis, D.J., && Park, W.C. (1991). The differential role of characteristics of music on high-
and low- involvement consumers' processing of ads. Journal of Consumer Research,
18(2), 161-173.
Malhotra, N.K. (1983). A threshold model of store choice. Journal of Retailing, 59, 3-21.
Mano, H. (1999). The influence of pre-existing negative affects on store purchase intentions.
Journal of Retailing, 75(2), 149-172.
Mattila, A.S., & Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 273-289.
52
McAlexander, J.H., & Kaldenberg, D.O. (1994). Service quality measurement. Journal of Health
Care Marketing, 14(3), 34-39.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Menon, S., & Kahn, B. (2002). Cross-category effects of induced arousal and pleasure on the
internet shopping experience. Journal of Retailing, 78(1), 31(12).
Milliman, R.E. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers.
Journal of Marketing, 46, 86-91.
Milliman, R.E. (1986). The influence of background music on the behavior of restaurant patrons.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 286-289.
Nguyen, N., & Leblanc, G. (2002). Contact personnel, physical environment and the perceived
corporate image of intangible services by new clients. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 13(3), 242-262.
North, A.C., & Hargreaves, D.J. (1998). The effect of music on atmosphere and purchase
intentions in a cafeteria. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 2254-2273.
Oaks, S. (2003). Musical tempo and waiting perceptions. Psychology and Marketing, 20(8), 685-
705.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, A.V., & Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality
and its implication for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, A.V., & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12-40.
Perran, A. (1995). Dimension of service quality: A study in Istanbul. Managing Service Quality,
5(6), 39-43.
53
Porteous, J.D. (1997). Environmental Aesthetics. Ideas, Politics, and Planning. London:
Routledge.
Prendergast, G., & Man, H.W. (2002). The influence of store image on store loyalty in Hong
Kong's quick service restaurant industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Research,
5(1), 45-59.
Raajpoot, N.A. (2002). TANGSERV: A multiple item scale for measuring tangible quality in
foodservice industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 5(2), 2002.
Roballey, T.C., McGreevy, C., Rongo, R.R., Schwantes, M.L., Steger, P.M., Wininger, M.A., &
Gardner, E.G. (1985). The effect of music on eating behavior. Bulletin of the Psychomic
Society, 23, 221-222.
Rushton, A.M., & Carson, D.J. (1989). The marketing of services: Managing the intangibles.
European Journal of Marketing, 23(8), 23-43.
Russell, J.A., & Barrett, F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes and other things
called emotion: dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76(5), 805-819.
Russell, J.A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to
environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 311-322.
Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1991). Analyzing service quality in the hospitality industry using the
SERVQUAL model. Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 324-345.
Shostack, G.L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. Journal of Marketing, 41, 73-80.
Shostack, G.L. (1985). Planning the service encounter. in J. Czepiel, M. Solomon & C.
Suprenant. (Eds.). The service encounter. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Shostack, L. (1987). Service positioning through structural change. Journal of Marketing, 51, 34-
54
43.
Solomon, M.R. (1985). Packaging the service provider. Service Industries Journal, 5, 64-71.
Sparks, B., Bowen, J., & Klag, S. (2003). Restaurants and the tourist market. International
Journal of contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(1), 6-13.
Steffy, G. (1990). Architectural Lighting Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Stevens, P., Knutson, B., & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for measuring service quality
in restaurants. Cornell Hotel and restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 56-60.
Sweeney, J.C., & Wyber, F. (2002). The role of cognitions and emotions in the music-approach-
avoidance behavior relationship. Journal of Service Marketing, 16(1), 51-69.
Swinyard, W.R. (1993). The effects of mood, involvement, and quality of store experience on
shopping intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 271-280.
Tansik, D.A., & Routhieaux, R. (1999). Customer stress-relaxation: the impact of music in a
hospital waiting room. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10(1), 68-
81.
Turley, L.W., & Bolton, D.L. (1999). Measuring the affective evaluations of retail service
environments. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 19(1), 31-44.
Turley, L.W., & Milliman, R.E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of
the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 193-211.
Van Kehove, P., & Desumaux, P. (1997). The relationship between emotional states and
approach or avoidance responses in a retail environment. The international Review of
Retail Distribution and Consumer Research, 7(October), 351-368.
Wakefield, K.L., & Baker, J. (1998). Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects of
shopping response. Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 515-539.
55
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure service
settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), 66-76.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1996). The effects of the servicescape on customers'
behavioral intentions in leisure service setting. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45-
61.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1999). Customer response to intangible and tangible service
factors. Psychology & Marketing, 16(1), 51-68.
Wakefield, K.L., Blodgett, J.G., & Sloan, H.J. (1996). Measurement and management of the
sportscape. Journal of Sport Management, 10(January), 15-31.
Ward, J.C., Bitner, M.J., & Barnes, J. (1992). Measuring the prototypicality and meaning of
retail environments. Journal of Retailing, 68, 194-200.
Ward, L.M., & Russell, J.A. (1981). The psychological representation of molar physical
environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(2), 121-152.
Wirtz, J., Mattila, A.S., & Tan, R.L.P. (2000). The moderating role of target-arousal on the
impact of affect on satisfaction-An examination in the context of service experiences.
Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 347-365.
Yalch, R.F., & Spangenberg, E. (1993). Using store music for retail zoning: A field experiment.
Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 632-636.
Yalch, R.F., & Spangenberg, E. (2000). In a retail setting on real and perceived shopping terms.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7, 55-63.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L.L. (1985). Problems and strategies in services
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49, 33-46.
Zimmer, M.R., & Golden, L.L. (1988). Impressions of Retail Stores: A content analysis of
56
consumer Images. Journal of Retailing, 64(Fall), 265-293.
57
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter consists of four sections: description of the sample and survey procedure,
scale development procedures, measurement of variables, and data analysis.
Sample and Survey Procedure
A field study approach was used in this study for the several reasons. First, subjects were
in a position where they could spend several hours observing and experiencing the physical
surroundings directly. This process offered more valid responses than if they had been surveyed
outside the service encounter (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). Second, Donovan and Rossiter
(1982) discussed reasons that researchers have been unable to document the strong effects of the
physical environment despite some retailers' claims that these effects exist. The physical
environment cause basically emotional states that (1) are difficult to verbalize, (2) are transient
and therefore difficult to recall, and (3) influence behaviors within the store rather than gross
external behaviors such as choosing whether or not to patronize the store. The physical
environment and emotional states in this study are difficult to verbalize, are transient, and
therefore difficult to recall. Thus, a field study was the best methodology for this research to
reduce these difficulties in measuring the physical environment and customer emotions.
The survey approach was used to collect the data. Bitner (1992, p. 68) noted, "It may be
necessary to vary several environmental dimensions simultaneously to achieve an overall
perception of the surroundings that will significantly influence behavior. User surveys are likely
to be most appropriate in assessing basic customer/employee needs and preferences prior to the
58
design of experimental stimulations, and later for postdesign evaluation." Therefore, data was
collected via a self-report questionnaire at three different upscale restaurants. The restaurants for
data collection were selected based on average check, characteristics of menu items, perceived
food quality, level of service, and ambience. Actual customers at selected upscale restaurants
were asked toward the end of their meal if they were willing to complete a questionnaire.
Participation was voluntary. As an incentive, two approaches were made. In two upscale
restaurants, customers at a table would receive a dessert of their choice to share. They would
complete the questionnaire while they were waiting for the dessert. In addition, in one upscale
restaurant, each survey participant received a $10 dining coupon, courtesy of the restaurant
owner.
Scale Development Procedures
This study was based on the accepted paradigm for scale development suggested by
Churchill (1979) and other previous literature (e.g., Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Arnold &
Reynolds, 2003; Bentler & Bonnet, 1980; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Nunnally & Bernstein,
1994; Peter, 1981). Figure 4 summarizes the scale development procedures used. The procedures
are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections.
Step 1: Domain of Constructs
The first step in the development of measures involved specifying the domain of the
constructs (Churchill, 1979). It is imperative that researchers search the literature when
conceptualizing constructs and specifying domains. Based on the review of a large base of
relevant literature, five broad categories of the physical environment (i.e., facility aesthetics,
59
layout, ambience, service product, social factors) emerged. The objective at this stage was to find
commonalities that allowed the most accurate representation of each domain and allowed
development of conceptual definitions of each dimension of the physical environment. In
addition, labels for each dimension were constructed.
Step 1: Domain of Constructs
Step 2: Initial Pool of Items
Step 3: Content Adequacy Assessment
Step 4: Questionnaire Administration
Step 5: Scale Purification
- Review literature
- Find commonalities for each domain
- Define domain
- Review literature and existing instruments
- Conduct a focus group session
- Interview with upscale restaurant managers
- Test conceptual consistency of items
- Assess content validity of the instrument
- Conduct pretest and pilot test
- Modify items and determine the scale for
items
- Collect data from actual customers at three
upscale restaurants
- Test item analysis
- Conduct exploratory factor analysis
- Conduct confirmatory factor analysis -
Assess unidimensionality & reliability
- Assess convergent and discriminant validity
Figure 4. Scale Development Procedures
Step 2: Initial Pool of Items
The second step in the procedure for developing measures was to generate initial items
that could capture the domain of the physical environment. The emphasis at the early stages of
60
item generation was to develop a set of items that elucidated each of the dimensions. The
specification of those items which reflected the dimensionality of the physical environment at an
upscale restaurant context were based on intense review of previous studies, a focus group
session, and interviews with the managers of the upscale restaurants. An extensive literature
review was conducted at this item-generation stage.
A focus group interview was conducted to fully specify the content areas of the physical
environment. The focus group consisted of faculty members and graduate students who were
customers at any local upscale restaurants within the past six months. The use of a focus group
helped construct and refine the questionnaire. The moderator distributed the list of physical
environmental elements (e.g., color, lighting) that had been developed based on the literature
review. The moderator also distributed general color photographs of dining areas in any upscale
restaurants to help focus group members recall their experience with the physical surroundings in
the upscale restaurants. After participants viewed the photographs, they were asked to list
additional physical environmental elements he/she thought important in upscale restaurants. In
addition, interviews with the managers at the upscale restaurants were conducted to generate
additional items that were not captured through the literature review and the focus group session.
Step 3: Content Adequacy Assessment
Based on the initial item-generation process, preliminary scale items were generated.
Several faculty members in Kansas State's Department of Apparel, Textiles & Interior Design
(ATID) and in the Department of Hotel, Restaurant, Institution Management and Dietetics
(HRIMD) who were familiar with the topic area evaluated the measurement items for content
and face validity. This process ensured that the items were representative of the scale's domains.
61
The use of faculty members as judges of a scale's domain has been frequently used in previous
studies (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Babin & Burns, 1998; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001;
Zaichowsky, 1985). The faculty members were given the conceptual definitions of each of the
five DINESCAPE dimensions and asked to evaluate the items based on their representation of
the DINESCAPE domain. They also checked clarity of wording. In addition, a pretest was
performed to refine the survey instrument. In all, approximately 20 faculty members, graduate
students, and actual customers participated in evaluating the instrument. Items were eliminated
that were not clear, not representative of the domain, or that were open to misinterpretation
(Babin et al., 1994).
Additionally, a pilot test of the research instrument was performed as a preliminary
evaluation of the final questionnaire. A total of 41 actual customers at an upscale restaurant
participated in the content adequacy assessment. Coefficient alpha and factor analysis were
performed with responses at this stage. In summary, based on the results of content adequacy
assessment, modifications of items were made. The resulting item pool then was submitted to a
multi-sample scale purification.
Step 4: Questionnaire Administration
The questionnaire administration process is discussed in the Sample and Survey
Procedure section and Measurement of Variables section (see pages 61-62 and 69-71).
Step 5: Scale Purification
Quantitative analyses were conducted to purify the measures and to examine the scale's
psychometric properties as suggested by many previous studies (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003;
62
Chrchill, 1979; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Each item was rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The scale purification processes included item analysis,
exploratory factor analyses, confirmatory factor analyses, unidimensionality and reliability, and
convergent and discriminant validity.
Item Analysis
Corrected item-total correlations were examined for each set of items representing a
dimension within the physical environment. Items not having a corrected item-total correlation
over .50 were candidates for removal (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Tian, Bearden, & Hunter,
2001; Zaichowsky, 1985).
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Following item analysis, the item content for each domain representation was inspected.
Remaining items were subjected to a series of exploratory factor analyses with varimax rotation,
aiming to reduce the set of observed variables to a smaller, more parsimonious set of variables.
Eigenvalues and variance explained were used to identify the number of factors to extract
(Bearden et al., 1989; Hair et al., 1998; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). After the number of factors
in the DINESCAPE model was estimated, items exhibiting low factor loadings (<.40), high
cross-loadings (>.40), or low communalities (<.50) were candidates for deletion (Hair et al.,
1998). The remaining items were submitted to further exploratory factor analysis. In addition,
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test of Sphericity were
conducted to see if the distribution of values were adequate for conducting factor analysis.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to verify the factor structure in the
proposed scale and to improve the measurement properties of the scale (Anderson & Gerbing,
63
1988; Bearden et al., 1989; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). A confirmatory factor model using the
maximum likelihood technique was estimated via LISREL 8.54. Items with low squared multiple
correlations (individual item reliabilities) were deleted. Through CFA, each item tapped into a
unique facet of each DINESCAPE dimension and thus provided good domain representation.
Unidimensionality and Reliability
The evidence that the measures were unidimensional, with a set of indicators sharing only
a single underlying construct, was assessed using CFA (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). The items
should load as predicted and with minimal cross-loading to provide evidence of
unidimensionality. After the unidimensionality of each scale was acceptably established,
reliability was tested through Cronbach's alphas, item reliabilities, composite reliabilities, and
average variance extracted (AVE) to assess the internal consistency of multiple indicators for
each construct in the DINESCAPE model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988;
Hair et al., 1998; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). LISREL 8.54 version provides individual item
reliabilities computed directly and listed as squared multiple correlations for the x and y
variables. However, since LISREL does not compute composite reliability and AVE for each
construct directly, they were calculated using the following formulas:
(E standardized loadings)
2
Composite Reliability =
(E standardized loadings)
2
+ (E indicator measurement error)
(E squared standardized loadings)
AVE =
(E squared standardized loadings) + (E indicator measurement error)
Convergent and Discriminant Validities
Churchill (1979) suggested that convergent validity and discriminant validity should be
assessed in investigations of construct validity. Convergent validity involves the extent to which
64
a measure correlates highly with other measures designed to measure the same construct.
Discriminant validity involves the extent to which a measure is novel and does not simply reflect
other variables.
The evidence of convergent validity was checked in two ways. First, convergent validity
was assessed from the measurement model by determining whether each indicator's estimated
loading on the underlying dimension was significant (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Netemeyer,
Johnston, & Burton, 1990; Peter, 1981). Second, AVE was used to test the convergent validity. It
has been suggested that the AVE value exceed .50 for a construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). To
assess the discriminant validity between constructs, the procedure suggested by Fornell and
Larcker (1981) was used. The test requires that the AVE for each construct be higher than the
squared correlation between the two associated latent variables.
Measurement of Variables
The questionnaire designed for this study was divided into three parts. Part 1 of the
questionnaire consisted of physical DINESCAPE items. Respondents were asked to rate each
statement item using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = extremely disagree, 7 = extremely agree). Part 2
contained emotional states: four pleasure and four arousal items (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974).
All eight items were measured on a 7-point semantic differential scale. Part 3 of the
questionnaire consisted of general approach-avoidance behavior. Specifically, behavioral
intentions were measured using four items. The items were assessed on a 7-point Likert scale.
65
DINESCAPE
Measurement items relevant to facility aesthetics, layout, ambience, service product, and
social factors were included. The list of relevant physical environmental items was generated
from reviews of previous studies, the focus group, and discussions with several managers at
upscale restaurants. This resulted in a list of 34 items related to the physical environment at the
upscale restaurants.
In developing the measurement items, many combined issues were incorporated. The fact
that the physical environment has both affective and cognitive characteristics in nature was
considered. Some researchers (Bitner, 1992; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982) have demonstrated that the
perceived physical environments might elicit cognitive responses, influencing people's beliefs
about a place and their beliefs about the people and products noticed in that place. For example,
particular environmental cues such as the quality of furniture and the type of décor used in the
dining areas may have an effect on customers' beliefs about whether the restaurant is expensive
or not expensive. In contrast, some physical elements capture affective content. For instance,
color does more than just give people objective information. It actually influences how people
feel (Khouw, 2004). Research has shown that different colors stimulate different personal moods
and emotions (e.g., warm, comfortable, inviting, pleasant). Environmental cues within the
physical environment can directly stimulate emotional response (Eiseman, 1998). Mattila and
Wirtz (2001) adapted Fisher's (1974) environmental quality scale and used a seven-item
(pleasant/unpleasant; unattractive/attractive; uninteresting/interesting; bad/good;
depressing/cheerful; dull/bright; and uncomfortable/comfortable) scale to obtain respondents'
evaluation of a store environment. An example: "The slow-tempo music played at the store was
pleasant."
66
Second, both practical and theoretical meanings of each one of the variables was also
taken into consideration to most appropriately capture the importance of that particular item. For
instance, the literature has shown that color is an important element of physical surroundings in
the restaurant facility. Instead of just simply using the statement, "Colors used are appropriate,"
this study used, "Colors used makes me feel warm," which was more affective in nature. The
first statement could just indicate if color was important attribute to customers and how relatively
it is important compared to other elements. The later statement could also provide management
with a more practical understanding of how color influences customers.
Emotional States
Emotions were measured with eight items representing the pleasure and arousal
dimensions derived from the scale suggested by Mehrabian and Russell (1974) and adapted to fit
the upscale restaurant context. Subjects evaluated their feelings, moods, and emotional responses
to the physical environment at the upscale restaurant. All items were rated on a 7-point semantic
differential scale, in which an emotion and its opposite set the two ends of the scale. Pleasure
was measured with the following four items: unhappy—happy; annoyed—pleased; bored—
entertained; disappointed—delighted. The measure of arousal comprised the following four
items: depressed—cheerful; calm—excited; indifferent—surprised; sleepy—awake.
Behavioral Intentions
Behavioral intentions (BI) were measured based on Mehrabian and Russell's (1974) four
aspects of approach-avoidance behaviors and the scale suggested by Zeithaml et al. (1996). The
scales were adapted to fit the upscale restaurant context. Subjects were asked to react to the
67
following three statements: "I would like to come back to this restaurant in the future," "I would
recommend this restaurant to my friends," "I am willing to stay longer than I planned at this
restaurant," and "I am willing to spend more than I planned at this restaurant." Participants
responded to these items on a scale bounded by a 7-ponit Likert scale (1 = extremely disagree, 7
= extremely agree).
Data Analysis of Study 2
In the second phase of the study, data were analyzed using the two-step approach
recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). In the first step, a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) was performed to identify whether the measurement variables reliably reflected the
hypothesized latent variables (DINESCAPE dimensions, pleasure, arousal, behavioral intentions)
using the covariance matrix. All latent variables were allowed to intercorrelate freely without
attribution of a causal order.
In the second step, a structural equation modeling (SEM) with latent variables via
LISREL 8.54 was tested to determine the adequacy of the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model by
representing the constructs of the model and testing the hypotheses. The main advantage of using
SEM over using factor analysis and regression analysis separately to test the model was that it
could simultaneously estimate all path coefficients and test the significance of each causal path
(Bentler, 1980; Chang, 1998; Lee & Green, 1991). The DINESCAPE dimensions were predictor
variables (e.g., exogenous variables) and pleasure, arousal, and behavioral intention were
criterion variables (e.g., endogenous variables) in the analysis. Besides Cronbach's alphas, item
reliabilities, composite reliabilities, and AVE for the measures were also computed to check the
68
reliability of this Mehrabian-Russell model. Furthermore, AVE was used to check the convergent
validity and discriminant validity of the model.
69
References
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Arnold, M.J., & Reynolds, K.E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing, 79,
77-95.
Babin, L.A., & Burns, A.C. (1998). A modified scale for the measurement of communication-
evoked mental imagery. Psychology and Marketing, 15(3), 261-278.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., & Griffin, M (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G., & Teel, J.E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility
to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer research, 19(March), 473-481.
Bentler, P.M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual
Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 588-606.
Bitner, M.J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.
Chang, M. K. (1998). Predicting unethical behavior: A comparison of the theory of reasoned
action and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1825-1834.
Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16(February), 64-73.
Donovan, R.J., & Rossiter, J.R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology
approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(1), 34-57.
70
Eiseman, L. (1998). Colors For Your Every Mood. Capital Books, Virginia.
Fisher, J. (1974). Situation-specific variables as determinants of perceived environmental
esthetic quality and perceived crowdedness. Journal of Research in Personality,
8(August), 177-188.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Gerbing, D.W., & Anderson, J.C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research,
25(May), 186-192.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis
(5
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and Environment. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Khouw, N. (2004). The meaning of color for gender. Retrieved April 10, 2004, from:
http://www.colormatters.com/khouw.html.
Lee, C., & Green, R. (1991). Cross-cultural examination of the Fishbein Behavioral Intentions
Model. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(2), 289-305.
Mattila, A.S., & Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 273-289.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Netemeyer, R.G., Johnston, R.G., & Burton, M.W. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role
ambiguity in structural equations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 148-158.
Nunnaly, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3
rd
ed.). New York, NY:
71
McGraw-Hill.
Peter, J.P. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing practices. Journal
of Marketing Research, 18(May), 133-145.
Sweeney, J.C., & Soutar, G.N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a
multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220.
Tian, K.T., Beardon, W.O., & Hunter, G.L. (2001). Consumers' need for uniqueness: Scale
development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(June), 50-66.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1996). The effects of the servicescape on customers'
behavioral intentions in leisure service setting. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45-
61.
Zaichowsky, J.L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research,
12(December), 341-352.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service
quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.
72
CHAPTER IV:
DINESCAPE: A SCALE FOR MEASURING CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS OF
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT IN UPSCALE RESTAURANTS
Abstract
This study explored the domain of the physical environment in the upscale restaurant
context to develop a DINESCAPE scale. Relevant literature from environmental psychology and
marketing was reviewed, highlighting empirical and theoretical contributions. Conceptualization
and operationalization of the DINESCAPE dimensions is discussed, and the procedures used in
constructing and refining a multiple-item scale to assess the DINESCAPE in the upscale
restaurant setting are described. Based on quantitative analyses, a six-factor scale was developed
consisting of facility aesthetics, ambience, lighting, service product, layout, and social factors.
Evidence of the scale's reliability, factor structure, and validity are presented, along with
potential applications of the scale.
KEYWORDS: DINESCAPE, Aesthetic Design, Lighting, Ambience, Layout, Product, Social
Factors.
73
INTRODUCTION
Kotler (1973) first introduced concepts relating to "physical environments" (also known
as 'atmospherics' or 'SERVICESCAPE') more than three decades ago. Kotler (1973) argued that
consumers might respond to more than just the tangible product (e.g., meal) or service rendered
(e.g., promptness) when making a purchase decision. The tangible product might be only a small
part of the total consumption experience. Indeed, consumers respond to the total product. The
place, and more specifically the atmosphere of the place, where the product or service is
purchased or consumed may be one of the most influential factors in purchase decision-making.
Atmosphere refers to the conscious design of a buying environment, intended to generate
specific emotional effects in the consumer that would enhance his/her purchase probability
(Kotler, 1973). Atmosphere can be produced through the four main sensory channels: sight (e.g.,
color, lighting, décor), sound (e.g., music, noise level), scent (e.g., pleasing aroma), and touch
(e.g., comfortable seating).
Since Kotler (1973) first introduced the significance of the store environment in
stimulating a customer's desire to purchase, retailers, marketers, and environmental
psychologists have acknowledged the role of physical environment as a central element in
understanding consumer responses (Baker, 1987; Bitner, 1992; Kotler, 1973; Mehrabian &
Russell, 1974; Turley & Milliman, 2000). Physical environment affects the degree of customer's
emotions (Bitner, 1990; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Kotler, 1973; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974),
satisfaction (Bitner, 1990; Chang, 2000), the perception of the service quality (Parasuraman et
al., 1988; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1999), and subsequent behavior (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974;
Sayed et al., 2003).
74
The importance of physical surroundings in creating an image and in influencing
customer behavior is particularly pertinent to the restaurant industry (Hui et al., 1997; Millman,
1986; Raajpoot, 2002; Robson, 1999). Because the service is generally produced and consumed
simultaneously, the consumer is "in the factory," often experiencing the total service within the
property's physical facility (Bitner, 1992). Foodservice in the restaurant industry encompasses
both tangible (food and physical environment) and intangible (employee-customer interaction)
components. A proper combination of the tangible and intangible aspects should result in a
customer's perception of high service quality.
Food quality and price traditionally have been the decisive factors in restaurant choice.
However, as the restaurant industry has grown and more consumers increasingly expect a more
entertaining atmosphere to enhance the dining experience, restaurateurs are making efforts to
meet that expectation with innovative and exciting physical surroundings. In recent years, an
increasing number of "atmosphere" restaurants have opened in the marketplace. Some
restaurateurs may argue that atmosphere can be the major determinant in a successful restaurant.
Its importance as a marketing tool has been thoroughly discussed in previous studies (Kotler,
1973). More importantly, customers may seek a dining experience totally different from the
home environment, and the atmosphere may do more to attract them than the food itself.
From a practical standpoint, there was a need for developing an instrument to assess the
physical environment in an upscale restaurant context. Although the concept of atmosphere is
important in most restaurant settings, customers may differentiate the relative importance of
environmental cues based on the categorization of restaurants, such as quick service, fast-casual,
family casual, and upscale restaurants. Atmosphere in the upscale restaurant context is a
relatively influential determinant of customer satisfaction and subsequent behavior because the
75
service is consumed primarily for hedonic (emotional) purposes not utilitarian (functional)
purposes, and customers spend several hours observing and evaluating physical surroundings
(Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). In addition, the overall quality of the physical environment
should be congruent with prestige to meet customer expectations. Despite its importance in
customer satisfaction and in marketing, little research has been done to explain how customers
perceive the physical environment in the upscale restaurant context. In addition, no measurement
instrument is available to specifically evaluate the physical environment in the upscale restaurant
context. Thus, it was necessary to develop and validate an instrument to measure the physical
environment in an upscale restaurant setting. For this study, upscale restaurants were defined as
those in which the average per-person check was more than $13.09 and which offered a full
menu, full table service, food made from the scratch, and personalized service (Goldman, 1993;
Gordon & Brezinski, 1999; Muller & Woods, 1994; Siguaw, Mattila, & Austin, 1999).
From the perspective of research, clearly there was a need for developing a reliable and
valid scale to measure the physical environment in research areas. Although a concrete
conceptual framework for the physical environment has been developed based on environmental
psychology and marketing (Baker, 1987; Baker, Grewal, & Parasuraman, 1994; Berman &
Evans, 1995; Bitner, 1992; Turley & Miliman, 2000; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996), the validity
and reliability of the measures used to assess dimensions of the physical environment have rarely
been examined in previous studies. The selections of measures were based mainly on the
definition of constructs without applying scale development process. Therefore, identifying of
the indicators that best represent those dimensions continues to challenge researchers.
Developing a reliable and valid scale of measurement remains a key issue facing academia.
76
This study aimed to fill these managerial and research gaps by establishing reliable, valid,
generalizable, and useful measures of customers' perceived quality of physical environments in
the restaurant setting, especially in the upscale restaurant context, for both restaurateurs and
researchers. In the first step of developing a scale for the physical environment in the restaurant
industry, this author first coined the term "DINESCAPE." "DINESCAPE" is similar to the
popular term "SERVICESCAPE" in describing characteristics of the physical environment, but
its emphasis is restricted to inside dining areas. DINESCAPE was primarily differentiated from
SERVICESCAPE by developing a scale for measuring the physical environment in the dining
area of a restaurant, especially an upscale restaurant. In this study, DINESCAPE was defined as
the man-made physical and human surroundings, not the natural environment in the dining area
of upscale restaurants. This study did not focus on external environmental variables (e.g.,
parking space, building design) or contain some internal environmental variables (e.g., restroom
and waiting area) in an attempt to provide a more generalizable and parsimonious instrument for
both practitioners and researchers.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a multiple-item scale to measure the
overall conceptual framework of DINESCAPE. In this paper, the existing literature on physical
environment as it related to DINESCAPE is reviewed. Then, the procedures used to empirically
develop DINESCAPE are presented. Finally, the managerial and research implications of the
research are discussed.
77
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Physical Environment in the Upscale Restaurant Context
The level of importance of the physical environment can vary because of the combined
effects of the following characteristics: time spent in the facility and the consumption purpose.
The influence of the physical environment on customers' affective responses may be especially
pronounced if the service is consumed primarily for hedonic rather than utilitarian purposes, as is
the case for patronizing an upscale restaurant. Hedonic consumption seeks pleasure or emotional
fulfillment, as opposed to functional usefulness, from the service experience (Babin, Darden, &
Griffin, 1994). Because of the hedonic context, customers of an upscale restaurant are likely to
be more sensitive to the aesthetic qualities of their surroundings (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994).
The amount of time spent in the facility changes the extent to which the physical
environment influences customers' attitudes or satisfaction with the service. The physical
environment may have little impact on short service encounters, such as those in fast food
restaurants (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). In these types of service encounters, customers
typically spend only a short time inside the restaurant (Bitner, 1990). In these situations,
evaluation of service quality is based primarily on intangible aspects (e.g., reliability, assurance,
responsiveness, empathy) and less on the tangible aspects (the physical environment) (Wakefield
& Blodgett, 1996). Customers of fast-food restaurants are more likely to emphasize the time it
takes to have the meal served (e.g., reliability and responsiveness) and how courteous the
personnel are (e.g., assurance) than the aesthetics of the restaurant. However, upscale restaurants
generally require customers to spend several hours in the physical surroundings of the service
provider. In such situations, where the customer spends an extended period observing and
experiencing physical surroundings, the importance of the physical environment increases with
78
the time spent. For instance, because customers may spend a long time waiting for their food
after they have ordered, it is important that they do not feel bored while waiting. Some
approaches (e.g., jazz music as background music) enhance stimulation and prevent boredom.
Thus, the physical environment can be used to stimulate customers and to prevent boredom.
Domain of the Physical Environment
Considerable progress has been made in determining what constitutes the physical
environment (Baker, 1987; Baker, Levy, & Grewal; 1992; Berman & Evans, 1995; Bitner, 1992;
Brady & Cronin, 2001; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988; Raajpoot, 2002; Turley &
Milliman, 2000; Wakefield & Blodgett; 1996, 1999). Table 1 presents a summary of the
dimensions related to the physical environment in previous research. Baker (1987) classified
three fundamental factors that affect the tangible portion of service quality dimensions: design,
social, and ambient factors. Ambience includes background variables such as lighting, aroma,
and temperature. These variables are not part of the primary service but are important because
their absence may make customers feel concerned or uncomfortable. The design dimension
represents the components of the environment that tend to be visual and more tangible in nature.
This dimension includes color, furnishings, and spatial layout. Design elements contain both
aesthetic aspects (e.g., beauty, décor) and functional aspects (e.g., layout, ease of transaction, and
waiting area design) that facilitate high quality service. The social factor relates to an
organization's concern for the people in the environment, including both customers and
employees. Baker, Grewal, and Parasuraman (1994) also classified store atmospherics into three
categories: store functional/aesthetic design factors, store social factor, and store ambient factor.
79
Bitner (1992) discussed the effect of tangible physical environment on overall
development of service quality image. She coined the term "SERVICESCAPE" to describe the
combined effect of all physical factors that can be controlled by service organizations to enhance
customer and employee behaviors. SERVICESCAPE is defined as the "built environment" or,
more specifically, the "man-made, physical surroundings as opposed to the natural or social
environment" (Bitner, 1992, p. 58). She identified three primary dimensions of the
SERVICESCAPE that influence customer perception of the service provider and subsequent
cognitive, affective, and conative responses of the customer. The three dimensions are (1)
ambient conditions (elements related to aesthetic appeal); (2) spatial layout and functionality;
and (3) signs, symbols, and artifacts. Ambient conditions include temperature, noise, music,
odors, and lighting. Aesthetic appeal refers to physical elements such as the surrounding external
environment, the architectural design, facility upkeep and cleanliness, and other physical
elements by which customers view and evaluate the aesthetic quality of the SERVICESCAPE.
Aesthetic factors are important because they influence ambience. Spatial layout and functionality
refer to the ways in which seats, aisles, hallways and walkways, foodservice lines, restrooms,
and the entrance and exits are designed and arranged in service settings. Signs, symbols, and
artifacts include signage and décor used to communicate and enhance a certain image or mood or
to direct customers to desired destinations.
Berman and Evans (1995) divided tangible quality clues into four categories: external,
general interior, layout, and point of purchase dimensions. External variables relate to exterior
signs, building size and color, location, and parking. General interior variables include music,
scent, lighting, temperature, and color scheme. The layout and design variables pertain to
workstation placement, waiting facilities, and traffic flow. Finally, the point of purchase and
80
decoration variables relate to displays, pictures, artwork, and product displays at point of
purchase. However, the authors failed to mention the social aspect of tangible quality.
Insert Table 1
Wakefield and Blodgett (1996) examined the effects of layout accessibility, facility
aesthetics, electronic equipment, seating comfort, and cleanliness on the perceived quality of the
SERVICESCAPE. This study first introduced the facility aesthetic dimension, which captured a
broad scope of the SERVICESCAPE. Facility aesthetics was defined as a function of
architectural design, along with interior design and décor, all of which contribute to the
attractiveness of the SERVICESCAPE (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994). This study did not focus
on ambient conditions, which are more difficult to control, particularly in such leisure field
settings as amusement parks and other outdoor settings. However, ambient conditions can be a
very important factor in the upscale restaurant context because they can be controlled to a large
extent by management. In their later work, Wakefield and Blodgett (1999) investigated whether
the physical environment of service delivery settings influenced customers' evaluations of the
service experience and subsequent behavioral intentions. In this study, tangibility consisted of
three factors: design, equipment, and ambient elements. They did not consider the social factor.
Turley and Miliman (2000) presented a review of the literature that attempted to further
the theoretical and empirical understanding of atmospheric influences on multiple aspects of
consumer behavior. These researchers identified 58 variables in five categories: external; general
81
interior; layout and design; point-of-purchase and decoration; and human. However, their
classification lacks a theoretical framework (Gilboa & Rafaeli, 2003). Raajpoot (2002)
developed a scale called TANGSERV for measuring the tangible quality in foodservice industry.
TANGSERV comprised ambient factors (e.g., music, temperature), design factors (e.g., location,
seating arrangement), and product/service factors (e.g., food presentation, food variety). The
study first introduced the product/service dimension. Findings suggested that product/service
was a very important aspect of tangible quality in the foodservice industry. The study indicated
that elements related to product/service dimensions such as food presentation, serving size, menu
design, and food varieties were also part of tangible quality clues. However, unclear
methodology calls into question the results of Raajpoot's study.
In conclusion, much of previous research on the physical environment has focused on
identifying the dominant dimensions of the physical environment and clarifying their nature
(Baker, 1987; Berman & Evans, 1995; Bitner, 1992; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988;
Raajpoot, 2002; Turley & Milliman, 2000). However, the reliability and validity of many of
these measures should be questioned. More specifically, relatively little research has been done
on developing a measurement scale of the physical environment. Only few scales (e.g.,
SERVQUAL and DINESERV) incorporate the aspects of the tangible physical environment as a
part of overall service quality measurement scheme. In addition, although Raajpoot (2002)
developed a scale called TANGSERV, its findings might be unacceptable or unreliable because
of the unclear methodology of the study. Therefore, clearly there is a need for reliable and valid
DINESCAPE scale that is also brief and easy to administer.
82
METHODOLOGY
This study was based on the scale development procedures advocated by Churchill
(1979) and techniques described by other previous literature (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Arnold
& Reynolds, 2003; Bentler & Bonnet, 1980; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Nunnally & Bernstein,
1994; Peter, 1981). Figure 1 summarizes the scale development procedures to be used, and the
procedures are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections.
Step 1: Domain of Constructs
The first step in the development of measures involved specifying the domain of the
constructs (Churchill, 1979). Researchers must search the literature when conceptualizing
constructs and specifying domains. Based on a review of relevant literature, five broad categories
of the physical environment (facility aesthetics, layout, ambience, service product, social factors)
emerged. The objective at this stage was to find commonalities that allowed the most accurate
representation of each domain and to develop conceptual definitions of each dimension of the
physical environment. In addition, labels for each dimension were created.
Insert Figure 1
Step 2: Initial Pool of Items
The emphasis in the second step of developing measures was to construct initial items
that represent the five domains of the physical environment. The items that reflected the
83
dimensionality of the physical environment in an upscale restaurant context were based on the
review of literature, a focus group session, and interviews with the managers of the upscale
restaurant used in this study. An extensive literature review was conducted at this item-
generation stage and many items were modified from earlier studies that measured the physical
environment and related constructs.
A focus group interview was then conducted to fully define the content areas of the
physical environment. The focus group consisted faculty members and graduate students who
had been customers at any local upscale restaurants within the past six months. The use of a
focus group helped in constructing and refining the questionnaire. The moderator distributed the
list of physical environmental elements that had been developed from the literature review. The
moderator also distributed color photographs of dining areas in upscale restaurants to help focus
group members recall their experiences with physical surroundings in the upscale restaurants.
After participants viewed the photographs, they were asked to list additional physical
environmental elements he/she thought important in upscale restaurants. In addition, several
managers at upscale restaurants were interviewed to generate additional initial items that were
not captured in the literature review and the focus group session. The initial item-generation
produced 52 items.
Step 3: Content Adequacy Assessment
Based on the initial item-generation process discussed above, preliminary scale items
were defined. Several faculty members in the Department of Apparel, Textiles & Interior Design
(ATID) and the Department of Hotel, Restaurant, Institution Management and Dietetics
(HRIMD) who were familiar with the topic area evaluated the measurement items for content
84
and face validity. This process ensured that the items represented the scale's domains. Faculty
members have often acted as judges of a scale's domain in previous studies (Arnold & Reynolds,
2003; Babin & Burns, 1998; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; Zaichowsky, 1985). Our faculty members
were given the conceptual definitions of each of the five dimensions of the physical environment
and asked to evaluate them based on each item's representation of the physical environment
domain. They also checked clarity of wording. A pretest refined the survey instrument. In all, 20
faculty members, graduate students, and actual customers participated in evaluating the
instrument. A few corrections of the wording of questions were made after the pretest. Finally,
items that were redundant, ambiguous, not representative of the domain, or that were open to
misinterpretation were eliminated (Babin et al., 1994; Richins & Dawson, 1992).
Next, a pilot test of the research instrument was performed on the final questionnaire.
Early data collection for item refinement was undertaken with 41 actual customers at an upscale
restaurant. Reliability assessment (Cronbach alphas) and exploratory factor analysis were
performed with the responses. Based on the results of content adequacy assessment, items were
modified. Results provided a pool of 34 items, with 12 items for aesthetic design, 8 items for
ambience, 4 items for layout, 6 items for service product, and 4 items for social factor. The
resulting item pool then was submitted to a scale purification step through the actual
administration of the questionnaire.
Step 4: Questionnaire Administration
Measurement of Variables
The questionnaire consisted of 34 items relevant to facility aesthetics, layout, ambience,
service product, and social factors. Respondents were asked to rate each statement item using a
85
7-point Likert scale (1 = extremely disagree, 7 = extremely agree). To reduce the potential bias
of forced response, an option marked "N/A" was included for each question (Gunderson, Heide,
& Olsson, 1996).
In developing the measurement items, many combined issues were incorporated. First,
the fact that physical surroundings have both affective and cognitive characteristics was
considered. Some researchers (Bitner, 1992; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982) demonstrated that the
perceived physical environments might elicit cognitive responses, influencing people's beliefs
about a place and their beliefs about the people and products noticed in that place. For example,
particular environmental cues such as the quality of furniture and the type of décor used in the
dining areas may have an effect on customers' beliefs about whether the restaurant is expensive
or not expensive. In contrast, some elements capture affective content. For instance, color does
more than just give objective information. Color actually influences how people feel (Khouw,
2004). Research has shown that different colors stimulate different personal moods and emotions
(e.g., warm, comfortable, inviting, pleasant). In fact, environmental cues within the physical
environment may directly stimulate emotional response (Eiseman, 1998).
Both practical and theoretical meaning of the each variable of the physical environment
was also considered to most appropriately capture the importance of that particular item. For
instance, the literature has shown that color is an important element of the physical environment
in the restaurant facility. Instead of just simply using the statement, "Colors used are
appropriate," this study used, "Colors used make me feel warm," eliciting more affective
response. The first statement indicates that color maybe an important attribute to customers and
how important it is relative to other elements. The later statement provides management with
more practical information for understanding how color influences the customers.
86
Sample and Survey Procedure
A field study approach was used in this study because subjects were actually dining in an
upscale restaurant where they were directly observing and experiencing physical surroundings.
This process offered more valid responses than a survey outside the service encounter
(Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). A total of 319 responses were collected via a self-report
questionnaire at three different upscale restaurants in Midwest and Northwest states. Toward the
end of their meal, customers at these upscale restaurants were asked if they would complete a
questionnaire. Thus, participation was voluntary. Two participation incentives were offered. In
two of the upscale restaurants, customers received a dessert of their choice to share. They
completed the questionnaire while waiting for their dessert. In the third restaurant, each survey
participant received a $10 dining coupon, courtesy of the restaurant owner.
Step 5: Scale Purification
Quantitative analyses were conducted to purify the measures and to examine the scale's
psychometric properties (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Chrchill, 1979; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001).
Item Analysis
Corrected item-total correlations were examined for each set of items representing a
dimension within the physical environment. Items not having a corrected item-total correlation
over .50 were candidates for removal (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Tian, Bearden, & Hunter,
2001; Zaichowsky, 1985).
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Following the item analysis, the item content for each domain representation was
inspected. Remaining items were subjected to a series of exploratory factor analyses with
87
varimax rotation to reduce the set of observed variables to a smaller, more parsimonious set of
variables. Eigenvalues and variance explained were used to identify the number of factors to
extract (Bearden et al., 1989; Hair et al., 1998; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). After the number of
factors in the model was estimated, items exhibiting low factor loadings (<.40), high cross-
loadings (>.40), or low communalities (<.50) were candidates for deletion (Hair et al., 1998).
The remaining items were submitted to further exploratory factor analysis. In addition, Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test of Sphericity were
conducted to ascertain if the distribution of values was adequate for conducting factor analysis.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Gerbing and Anderson (1988) suggested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for
scale development because it affords stricter interpretation of unidimensionality than what is
provided by more traditional approaches, such as coefficient alpha, item-total correlations, and
exploratory factor analysis. CFA could thus provide different conclusions about the acceptability
of a scale. A confirmatory factor model using the maximum likelihood technique was estimated
via LISREL 8.54. Items with low squared multiple correlations (individual item reliabilities)
were deleted. Through CFA, each item tapped into a unique facet of each DINESCAPE
dimension and thus provided good domain representation.
Unidimensionality and Reliability
The evidence that the measures were unidimensional, where a set of indicators shares
only a single underlying construct, was assessed using CFA (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). The
items loaded as predicted with minimal cross-loadings, providing evidence of unidimensionality.
After the unidimensionality of each scale was established, reliability was tested through
Cronbach's alphas, item reliabilities, composite reliabilities, and average variance extracted
88
(AVE) to assess the internal consistency of multiple indicators for each construct in the
DINESCAPE model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Hair et al., 1998;
Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The LISREL 8.54 version provides individual item reliabilities
computed directly and listed as squared multiple correlations for the x and y variables. However,
because LISREL does not compute composite reliability and AVE for each construct directly,
these measures were calculated with the following formulas:
(E standardized loadings)
2
Composite Reliability =
(E standardized loadings)
2
+ (E indicator measurement error)
(E squared standardized loadings)
AVE =
(E squared standardized loadings) + (E indicator measurement error)
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Churchill (1979) suggested that convergent validity and discriminant validity should be
assessed in investigations of construct validity. Convergent validity involves the extent to which
a measure correlates highly with other measures designed to measure an underlying construct.
Discriminant validity involves the extent to which a measure is novel and does not simply reflect
other variables.
The evidence of convergent validity was checked in two ways. First, convergent validity
was assessed from the measurement model by determining whether each indicator's estimated
loading on the underlying dimension was significant (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Netemeyer,
Johnston, & Burton, 1990; Peter, 1981). Second, AVE was used to test the convergent validity.
The AVE value should exceed .50 for a construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). To assess the
discriminant validity between constructs, Fornell and Larcker's (1981) procedure was used. The
89
test requires that AVE for each construct should be higher than the squared correlation between
the two associated latent variables.
RESULTS
Sample Characteristics
Table 1 shows sample characteristics of respondents. They varied in age (s 25 years age
= 28.8%; 26-35 years of age, 17.6%; 36-45 years of age, 17.3%; 46-55 = 21.3%; > 56 years of
age, 15.0%), gender (female = 41.9%; male = 58.1%), household income level (less than $19,999
= 15.4%; $20,000-$59,999 = 35.9%; $60,000-$100,000 = 24.1%; more than $100,000 = 24.6%),
majority of Caucasian (87.8%), past experience (first time visitors = 45.5%; repeat visitors =
54.5%), and home ownership (owners, 60.3%; non-owners, 39.1%).
Descriptive Information
Independent samples t-tests were used to identify the statistical differences in customers'
perceived quality of physical environments between gender (male vs. female) and frequency of
visit (first-time visitors vs. repeat visitors) to upscale restaurants. In terms of gender, five
physical environmental elements (plants/flowers, comfortable lighting, warm lighting, feeling of
being crowded due to seating arrangement, and attractive employees) showed statistically
significant differences between male and female. Interestingly, the higher mean values indicated
that females were more sensitive than males in four significant physical environmental elements.
It was also very interesting to notice that gender influenced perceived quality of human
surroundings ("Attractive employees make me feel good"). More specifically, as expected males
(· = 5.91) rated higher than females (· = 5.53), indicating males were more sensitive than
90
females to the attractiveness of employees. In addition, three physical elements (plants/flowers,
table setting, neat and well dressed employees) showed significant differences between the first
visitors and repeat visitors. Similar to the gender difference, higher mean values indicated that
females were more sensitive than males to all three physical and human surroundings.
Insert Table 2
Item Analysis
This study retained 34 items to capture the five domains of DINESCAPE for scale
purification steps. After careful inspection of item content for domain representation, 9 items
with low corrected item-total correlations were deleted: (1) 4 items representing facility
aesthetics, (2) 1 item representing ambience, (3) 3 items representing service product, and (4) 1
item representing social factors. Thus, the item analysis resulted in a pool of 25 items retained
for further analysis.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Following item analysis, exploratory factor analyses with varimax rotation and additional
reliability assessments were undertaken on the remaining 25 items. Eigenvalue and variance
explained were used to identify the number of factors to extract (Bearden et al., 1989; Hair et al.,
1998). After inspecting item content for domain representation, we eliminated 4 items: (1) two
items for low communalities and two items for high cross-loadings. A total of 21 DINESCAPE
91
items were retained after these analyses. The 21 DINESCAPE items were then subjected to
further exploratory factor analysis. The final scale consisted 21 items representing a six-factor
model that behaved consistently and had adequate reliability.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's test of Sphericity indicated that the
distribution of values was adequate for conducting factor analysis. The KMO measure of
sampling adequacy was .885, indicating a meritorious acceptance (George & Mallery, 2001; Hair
et al., 1998). In addition, a significance value (< .05) of Bartlett's Test of Sphericity indicated
that the data set of distributions was acceptable for factor analysis because the multivariate
normality of the set of distributions was satisfied and the correlation matrix was not an identity
matrix. All communalities, ranging from .52 to .86, were acceptable for all 21 items.
Table 3 presents the results of the six-factor structure delineated by exploratory factor
analysis with varimax rotation. The 21 DINESCAPE items yielded six factors with eigenvalues
more than 1.0, and these factors explained 74.55% of the overall variance. Each factor name was
based on the characteristics of its composite variables. The first DINESCAPE factor contained
five items and was labeled, "Facility Aesthetics." Facility aesthetics represented a function of
architectural design, along with interior design and décor (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994). Its
definition of the construct domain of architectural design and interior design was relatively large
compared to the other five dimensions of DINESCAPE. The five items in facility aesthetics
comprised paintings/pictures, wall décor, plants/flowers, color, and furniture, all of which were
aesthetic elements in the creation of aesthetic image or atmosphere. As expected, it captured the
largest variance of DINESCAPE among the six dimensions, accounting for 16.06% of the total
variance.
92
Insert Table 3
The second factor, "Ambience," included intangible background characteristics that tend
to affect the nonvisual senses (Baker, 1987). It contained four items: background music relaxes
me, background music is pleasing, temperature is comfortable, and aroma is enticing. The third
factor, "Lighting," relates to the perception of lighting and its influence on feelings such as
warmth, welcome (weaker expression than inviting), and comfort. Contrary to the expectation,
lighting, which was a part of original dimension of ambience, was found to be a single
dimension. One reason may be found in Carman's (1990) work. He indicated that when one of
the dimensions of quality was particularly important to customers, they were likely to break that
dimension into subdimensions. The significance of lighting and other ambience elements, such
as music, in restaurants is found in many previous studies (Hui et al., 1997; Kurtich & Eakin,
1993; Mattila & Wirtz, 2001; Milliman, 1982; Robson, 1999). In upscale restaurants, customers
found lighting and ambience to be key and distinct dimensions in their customer's perceptual
map. From a practical standpoint, lighting can influence other dimensions, such as facility
aesthetics, ambience, service product, and social factors. For instance, the lighting level can
congruently interact with color to create a synergy in creating aesthetic atmosphere.
The fourth factor, "Service Product," represented products or materials used to serve
every customer whenever a turnover occurs. In this study, service product featured three
attributes: (1) tableware, such as high quality glass, china, silverware; (2) linens, such as white
table cloths and appealing napkin arrangement; and (3) overall table setting using such elements
93
as an appealing candle. It was worth noticing that service product was delineated separately from
facility aesthetics in the customers' perceptual map of DINESCAPE. This unique construct, as
distinct from general dimensions of physical environment, can probably be attributed to a
specific setting where forms and deliver prestigious image for the customer.
The fifth construct, "Layout," featured the seating arrangement within the environment.
The layout dimension contained three items: (1) seating arrangement gives me enough space, (2)
seating arrangement makes me feel crowded, and (3) layout makes it easy for me to move
around. These items captured both the psychological (e.g., crowded) and the physical (easy to
move around) properties of spatial layout inside the dining area. Some previous studies included
layout in facility aesthetics or even interior design. However, layout was a dimension distinct
from the domain of facility aesthetics in this study.
Finally, the last DINESCAPE factor, "Social Factors," included the characteristics of
employees and other customers in the service setting. It featured three items: attractive
employees, adequate number of employees, and neat and well-dressed employees. Although the
aspect of customers was technically deleted in the purification processes, that aspect should still
be a concern. Toms and McColl-Kennedy (2003) argued that research to date has focused on the
effects of the physical elements, with the social aspects (customers and service providers) of the
environment largely ignored. The results of this study provided evidence that the domain of the
physical environment should capture not only the facility aspects but also the social aspects of
physical surroundings.
Customers rated all the DINESCAPE items highly because of the perceived quality of the
physical environment in upscale restaurants. There were some items that customers especially
saw as relatively positive rating them at equal or higher than 5.80: colors as part of warm
94
atmosphere (5.82), comfortable temperature (5.81), welcoming lighting (5.91), lighting as part of
comfortable atmosphere (5.94), spacious seating arrangement (5.80), attractive employees (5.87),
an adequate number of employees (5.98), and neat and well dressed employees (6.18).
Interestingly, customers rated all three social factor items higher than 5.80, and the third item
(employees are neat and well dressed) was rated the highest among all DINESCAPE items.
These findings indicated that restaurateurs in upscale restaurants considered those eight elements
important and paid relatively great attention to them. Therefore, customers perceived those
elements relatively positive. Finally, grand means indicated that all six dimensions of the
DINESCAPE were consistently highly rated (5.67 to 6.1). The aspects of social factor were
especially focused on by restaurateurs in an upscale restaurant setting, as illustrated by the
highest grand mean of social factor (6.1).
The overall patterns of factor loadings were consistent with the literature on the physical
environment except for the separation of lighting from ambience and service product and layout
from facility aesthetics. Items assigned to each construct had relatively high loadings on only one
of the six dimensions extracted. Factor loadings of all 21 items were fairly high, raging from
0.66 to 0.87, indicating a reasonably high correlation between the delineated dimensions and
their individual items. The Cronbach's alphas, which were designed to check the internal
consistency of items within each dimension, ranged from .80 to .92, indicating good reliability
(Hair et al., 1998). In summary, the reliabilities and factor structures indicated that the final 21-
item scale and its six factors had sound, psychometric properties. Subsequently, 21 items with 6
DINESCAPE dimensions were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
95
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
CFA was performed to verify the factor structure and improve measurement properties in
the proposed scale (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Bearden et al., 1989; Gerbing & Anderson,
1988). A CFA with 21 items representing a six-dimension model was estimated using LISREL
8.54. Several widely used goodness-of-fit statistics were employed: root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA), normed fit index (NFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit
index (CFI), and goodness-of-fit index (GFI). These fit indices consistently indicated the
confirmatory factor model adequately reflected a good fit to the data (RMSEA = 0.074; NFI =
0.95; TLI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; GFI = 0.86). In addition, measurement equations showed all
acceptable levels of item squared multiple correlations for all 21 items, ranging from .52 to .89.
Unidimensionality and Reliability
Given the results of CFA, the measures were unidimensional because a set of indicators
shared only a single underlying construct and the items were loaded as predicted with minimal
cross-loadings (Bollen, 1989; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). As illustrated in Table 4, Cronbach's
alpha estimates, ranging from .80 to .92, were acceptable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). Table 4 also shows the measurement statistics for model variables. The
standardized factor loadings of the observed items on the latent constructs as estimated from
CFA met the minimum criterion of .40; they ranged from 0.72 to 0.94 (Ford et al., 1986). The
item reliabilities, which are the squared multiple correlations of an individual indicator, ranged
from .52 to .88, indicating acceptable levels of reliabilities (Hair et al., 1998). The composite
reliabilities of constructs ranged from .84 to .95. Adequate internal consistency of multiple items
96
for each construct in the six-factor model all exceeded .60, the minimum criterion suggested by
Bagozzi and Yi (1988).
Insert Table 4
Figure 2 shows the estimated measurement model in the form of a structural diagram so
that the relationships between indicators (observed variables) and constructs (unobserved
variables) can be seen in the standardized factor loadings in addition to error variance for
measurement items.
Insert Figure 2
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Convergent validity was first estimated from the measurement model by determining if
each indicator's estimated factor loading on the underlying construct was significant (Anderson
& Gerbing, 1988; Netemeyer, Johnston, & Burton, 1990; Peter, 1981). Convergent validity was
indicated since all lamdas (indicator factor coefficients) on their underlying constructs were
significant. In addition, AVE of all six constructs exceeded the minimum criterion of 0.5 (Fornell
& Larcker, 1981), ranging from 0.56 to 0.86. AVE also was used to test discriminant validity.
Since the lowest AVE (.56) among all the constructs in Table 3 exceeded the highest square of
97
the estimated correlation between the latent variables (the square of the correlation between
facility aesthetic and lighting = 0.50), discriminant validity also was satisfied (Fornell & Larcker,
1981).
DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
This paper shows the development of a multiple-item scale to measure physical and
human surroundings in dining areas of upscale restaurants (DINESCAPE). Results of
DINESCAPE showed reliable, valid, and useful measures of physical and human surroundings in
the upscale restaurant context from the customer point of view. This is one of few exploratory
studies to suggest a reliable and valid scale that can be used to measure customers' perceived
performance level of physical environments in restaurant business settings, particularly under the
upscale restaurant context.
This study has theoretical and managerial implications for both researchers and
practitioners. From a theoretical perspective, above all, the availability of this instrument will
stimulate much-needed empirical research focusing on physical environments and its impacts on
image, mood, emotions, satisfaction, perception of overall service quality, and
approach/avoidance behaviors in a variety of fields. The DINESCAPE scale can be applied to
examine the interrelationships between DINESCAPE, emotional responses, and
approach/avoidance behaviors not only in an upscale restaurant context but also in other
restaurant segments like fast-casual dining restaurants (e.g., Panera Bread). Prior research
indicated that some elements (e.g., music) in DINESCAPE had strong effects on customer
emotional states and approach/avoidance behaviors through both direct and/or indirect links
(Bitner, 1992; Chang, 2000; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974).
98
From a practical standpoint, DINESCAPE is a concise multiple-item scale with
acceptable reliability and validity that restaurateurs can employ to better understand how
customers perceive the quality of physical surroundings inside the dining area. The classification
used in this study can help restaurateurs understand the DINESCAPE dimensions, and based on
the classification, managers can identify and modify different DINESCAPE variables to improve
the perceived quality of the physical environment.
Restaurateurs could also use the instrument to investigate the direction and strength of
DINESCAPE elements and dimensions among their current customers. In addition, restaurateurs
can determine the relative importance of the six dimensions affecting overall customer quality
perceptions or even other outcomes like customer satisfaction. A DINESCAPE profile can be
constructed using a restaurant's current customer base, thereby providing restaurateurs with
additional understanding of their customers' perceptions.
Another application of the scale is its use in categorizing a restaurant's customers into
several segments based on demographics (e.g., gender, age) as well as relative importance of the
six dimensions in influencing customers' overall quality perceptions. For instance, suppose a
manager discovered that older women prefer listening to classical music while young males wish
to listen to top 40 music. When there is a birthday celebration for a man just turning 21, the
management should play top 40 music instead of classical music as background. The restaurateur
could, thus, focus on any of the DINESCAPE elements to investigate how the physical
environment affects customer groups of different age or gender to satisfy the specific needs of
different customer groups.
Using scales developed in this study, restaurateurs can use dimension scores to
benchmark previous scores or even principal competitors. In multiunit operations, restaurateurs
99
can also compare one unit's results with another unit's scores. Then, they can analyze strengths
and weakness and have a sense of what priorities should be set up. Each time the survey is
administered, improvement strategies can be refined. DINESCAPE can be most valuable when
the survey is used periodically to help users track changes in customer perceptions as well as
trends in physical surroundings. In addition, restaurateurs who redesigning their facilities can
assess customer perceptions before making any significant investment. However, DINESCAPE
is a useful starting point, not the final answer in evaluating and improving the quality of the
physical environment. Its standard six-factor structure serves as a meaningful framework for
tracking an upscale restaurant's performance in physical environment over time and comparing
performance against competitors.
In summary, DINESCAPE has a variety of potential applications in helping researchers
and restaurateurs to better understand how customers perceive the physical environment. It is
believed that this pioneering work can make the literature regarding the physical environments
step forward and help restaurateurs assess customer perceptions of the quality of physical
surroundings inside the dining area of upscale restaurants.
LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY
As with any scale development research, practitioners or researchers should use caution
when applying the scale to other restaurant segments. First, this study was intended to tap a
broad range of elements of the physical environment in the restaurant industry. The scale was
specifically developed for the upscale restaurant context, however, caution should be taken in
applying the scale to other restaurant segments. The efficiency of the DINESCAPE instrument
requires modification to better assess the physical environment of a specific setting. For instance,
100
while slow tempo of classical music can be used as background music to relax customers in
upscale restaurants, fast contemporary music might be preferred in the quick service restaurant to
elicit fast turnover increasing the dining speed (Milliman, 1986). Second, this scale was
developed only to address the internal environment, not the external environment because the
latter was considered relatively less important than the former, and one goal of the research was
to establish a parsimonious scale. Therefore, the domain of DINESCAPE is somewhat narrow. It
was not intended to capture all aspects of the physical environment at any restaurants. External
environmental cues might be actually salient issues for customer satisfaction and approach
behaviors. For example, Chili's assigns some parking spaces especially for "To Go" customers.
This may increase the satisfaction of their customers because such a service allows customers to
pick up their food quickly. Clearly, scale development needs more research so that a broader
range in restaurant settings can be included. Finally, with any factor analysis, a certain amount of
subjectivity was necessary in identifying and labeling constructs. Finally, a few confounding
effects (e.g., alcohol, incentives, premood), which could not be controlled during data collection,
could affect the results. For instance, some customers might be pleasant or excited because of
alcohol (e.g., wine), not because of the physical and human surroundings while they were
completing the questionnaire. In addition, some incentives (free dessert or $10 dining coupon)
provided to customers could elicit pleasant feelings from some customers.
We hope this work will spawn more research on DINESCAPE by providing researchers
with a reliable, valid, and parsimonious scale to measure the physical environment. The nature of
the relationships between the DINESCAPE, such antecedents as premood, and such
consequences as customer satisfaction need additional exploration. The relationships between the
DINESCAPE and customer psychology as well as customer behavior could also be investigated
101
using environmental psychology theories. These future studies will enhance our understanding of
the role of the DINESCAPE.
102
REFERENCES
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Arnold, M.J., & Reynolds, K.E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing, 79,
77-95.
Babin, L.A., & Burns, A.C. (1998). A modified scale for the measurement of communication-
evoked mental imagery. Psychology and Marketing, 15(3), 261-278.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.
Baker, J. (1987). The role of the environment in marketing services. In: Czepeial, J.A., Congram,
C.A., & Shananhan, J. (Eds.). The Services Challenges: Integrating for Competitive
Advantage. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 79-84.
Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The influence of the store environment on
quality inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22,
328-339.
Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store
environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), 445-460.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G., & Teel, J.E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility
to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer research, 19(March), 473-481.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 588-606.
103
Berman, B., & Evans, J.R. (1995). Management: A Strategic Approach. (6
th
ed). Englewood
Cliffs: NJ. Prentice-Hall Inc.
Bitner, M.J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54, 69-82.
Bitner, M.J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Brady, M.K., & Cronin, J.J., Jr. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service
quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 34-49.
Carman, J.M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the
SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66, 33-55.
Chang, K. (2000). The impact of perceived physical environments on customers' satisfaction and
return intentions. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 21(2), 75-85.
Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16(February), 64-73.
Donovan, R.J., & Rossiter, J.R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology
approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(1), 34-57.
Eiseman, L. (1998). Colors For Your Every Mood. Capital Books, Virginia.
Ford, J.K., MacCallum, R.C., & Trait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis
in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personal Psychology, 39, 291-314.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Gerbing, D.W., & Anderson, J.C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development
104
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research,
25(May), 186-192.
Gilboa, S., & Rafaeli, A. (2003). Store environment, emotions and approach behavior: applying
environmental aesthetics to retailing. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research, 13(2), 195-211.
Goldman, K. (1993). Concept selection for independent restaurants. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 34(Dec), 72-81.
Gordon, R.T., & Brezinski, M.H. (1999). The Complete Restaurant Management Guide.
Armonk, New York. Sharpe Professional.
Gunderson, M.G., Heide, M., & Olsson, U.H. (1996). Hotel guests satisfaction among business
travelers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37, 72-81.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis
(5
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hui, M.K., Dube, L., & Chebat, J. (1997). The impact of music on consumer's reaction to
waiting for services. Journal of Retailing, 73, 87-104.
Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and Environment. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Khouw, N. (2004). The meaning of color for gender. Retrieved April 10, 2004, from:
http://www.colormatters.com/khouw.html.
Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48-64.
Kumari, K., & Venkatramaiah, S.R. (1974). Effects of anxiety on closure effect disappearance
threshold. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1, 114-120.
Kurtich, J., & Eakin, G. (1993). Interior Architecture. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Mattila, A.S., & Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
105
evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 273-289.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Milliman, R.E. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers.
Journal of Marketing, 46, 86-91.
Milliman, R.E. (1986). The influence of background music on the behavior of restaurant patrons.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 286-289.
Muller, C.C., & Woods, R.H. (1994). An expanded restaurant typology. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35(June), 72-81.
Netemeyer, R.G., Johnston, R.G., & Burton, M.W. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role
ambiguity in structural equations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 148-158.
Nunnaly, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3
rd
ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Oaks, S. (2003). Musical tempo and waiting perceptions. Psychology and Marketing, 20(8), 685-
705.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, A.V., & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12-40.
Peter, J.P. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing practices. Journal
of Marketing Research, 18(May), 133-145.
Raajpoot, N.A. (2002). TANGSERV: A multiple item scale for measuring tangible quality in
foodservice industry.Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 5(2), 2002.
Richins, M.L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its
106
measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research,
19(Dec), 303-316.
Robson, A.K.S. (1999). Turning the tables: the psychology of design for high-volume
restaurants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 56-63.
Sayed, I.M., Farrag, D.A., & Belk, R.W. (2003). The effects of physical surroundings on
Egyptian consumers' emotional states and buying intentions. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 16(1), 5-27.
Siguaw, J.A., Mattila, A., & Austin, J.R. (1999). The brand-personality scale: An application for
restaurants. Cornell, Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 48-55.
Stevens, P., Knutson, B., & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for measuring service quality
in restaurants. Cornell Hotel and restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 56-60.
Sweeney, J.C., & Soutar, G.N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a
multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220.
Tian, K.T., Beardon, W.O., & Hunter, G.L. (2001). Consumers' need for uniqueness: Scale
development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(June), 50-66.
Tombs, A., & McColl-Kennedy, J.R. (2003). Social-servicescape conceptual model. Marketing
Theory, 3(4), 447-475.
Turley, L.W., & Milliman, R.E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of
the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 193-211.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure service
settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), 66-76.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1996). The effects of the servicescape on customers'
107
behavioral intentions in leisure service setting. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45-
61.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1999). Customer response to intangible and tangible service
factors. Psychology & Marketing, 16(1), 51-68.
Zaichowsky, J.L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research,
12(December), 341-352.
108
Step 1: Domain of Constructs
Step 2: Initial Pool of Items
Step 3: Content Adequacy Assessment
Step 4: Questionnaire Administration
Step 5: Scale Purification
- Review literature
- Find commonalities for each domain
- Define domain
- Review literature and existing instruments
- Conduct a focus group session
- Interview with upscale restaurant managers
- Test conceptual consistency of items
- Assess content validity of the instrument
- Conduct pretest and pilot test
- Modify items and
- Determine the scale for items
- Collect data from actual customers at three
upscale restaurants
- Test item analysis
- Conduct exploratory factor analysis
- Conduct confirmatory factor analysis -
Assess unidimensionality & reliability
- Assess convergent & discriminant validity
Figure 1. Scale Development Procedures
109
.37
.40
.47
.39
.33
.48
.41
.39
.48
.14
.17
.12
.36
.26
.24
.24
.11
.37
.15
.42
.20
DI
1
DI
2
DI
3
DI
4
DI
5
DI
6
DI
7
DI
8
DI
9
DI
10
DI
11
DI
12
DI
13
DI
14
DI
15
DI
16
DI
17
DI
18
DI
19
DI
20
DI
21
.79
.78
.73
.78
.82
.72
.77
.78
.72
.93
.91
.94
.80
.86
.87
.87
.94
.80
.92
.76
.89
FA
AM
LI
SP
LA
SF
DINESCAPE
Figure 2. Measurement Model of DINESCAPE
110
Table 1
Literature Review of Dimensions Related to the Physical Environment
Authors Terminology Dimensions
Used
Baker (1987) Atmospherics Ambient factors
Design factors (aesthetics & functional)
Social factors
Bitner (1992) SERVICESCAPE Ambient conditions
Spatial layout and functionality
Sign, symbol and artifacts
Baker, Grewal, &
Parasuraman (1994)
Berman & Evans (1995)
Stevens, Knutson, &
Patton (1995)
Store
atmospherics
Atmospherics
DINESERV
Ambient factors
Design factors
Social factors
External variables
General interior variables
Layout and design variables
Point of purchase & decoration variables
Reliability
Responsiveness
Empathy
Assurance
Tangibles
Wakefield & Blodgett
(1996)
SERVICESCAPE Layout accessibility
Facility aesthetics
Seating comfort
Electronic equipment/displays
Facility cleanliness
Wakefield & Blodgett
(1999)
Turley & Milliman (2000)
Raajpoot (2002)
Tangible service
factors
Atmospherics
TANGSERV
Building design & décor
Equipment
Ambience
External variables
General interior variables
Layout and design variables
Point of purchase and decoration variables
Human variables
Ambient factors
Design factors
Product/service factors
111
Table 2
Sample Characteristics of Respondents
Age
s 25
26-35
36-45
46-55
> 56
Gender
Male
Female
Characteristic
Percentage
28.8
17.6
17.3
21.3
15.0
41.9
58.1
House hold income ($)
< 20,000
20,000-59,999
60,000-99,999
>100,000
Race
Caucasian
Other
Past experience
First time visitors
Repeat visitors
Ownership of house
Owners
Non-owners
15.4
35.9
24.1
24.6
87.8
12.2
45.5
54.5
60.3
39.7
112
Table 3
Exploratory Factor Analysis for DINESCAPE Factors
DINESCAPE Factors (Reliability Alpha) Factor Eigenvalues Variance Item S.D.
Loadings Explained means
F1: Facility Aesthetics (.87) 3.37 16.06
Paintings/pictures are attractive. .83 5.59 1.09
Wall décor is visually appealing. .81 5.69 1.12
Plants/flowers make me feel happy. .76 5.58 1.14
Colors used create a warm atmosphere. .68 5.82 0.90
Furniture (e.g., dining table, chair) is of high quality. .66 5.66 1.08
Grand mean 5.67
F2: Ambience (.83) 2.77 13.18
Background music relaxes me. .87 5.73 1.04
Background music is pleasing. .85 5.63 1.15
Temperature is comfortable. .67 5.81 1.03
Aroma is enticing. .62 5.50 1.07
Grand mean 5.67
F3: Lighting (.92) 2.56 12.19
Lighting creates a warm atmosphere. .85 5.76 1.02
Lighting makes me feel welcome. .83 5.91 0.93
Lighting creates a comfortable atmosphere. .82 5.94 0.92
Grand mean 5.87
F4: Service Product (.85) 2.43 11.55
Tableware (e.g., glass, china, silverware) is of high .83 5.76 1.06
quality.
The linens (e.g., table cloths, napkin) are attractive. .82 5.73 1.04
The table setting is visually attractive. .77 5.71 0.99
Grand mean 5.73
F5: Layout (.86) 2.35 11.20
Seating arrangement gives me enough space. .86 5.80 1.08
Seating arrangement makes me feel crowded.* .83 5.59 1.21
Layout makes it easy for me to move around. .76 5.69 1.10
Grand mean 5.69
F6: Social Factors (.80) 2.18 10.36
Attractive employees make me feel good. .87 5.87 1.05
An adequate number of employees makes me feel .80 5.98 0.94
cared for.
Employees are neat and well dressed. .71 6.18 0.81
Grand mean 6.01
Total Variance 74.55%
Note. *Reverse scored; Only loadings greater than .40 are shown. An asterisk indicates reverse scored items; A
seven-point Likert scale response format was used.
113
Table 4
Measurement Properties
Factors Standardized Item Composite AVE
(Cronbach's Alphas) Factor Loadings Reliabilities Reliabilities
Facility aesthetics (.87) .89 .61
DS
1
.79 .62
DS
2
.78 .61
DS
3
.73 .53
DS
4
.78 .61
DS
5
.82 .67
Ambience (.83) .84 .56
DS
6
.72 .52
DS
7
.77 .59
DS
8
.78 .61
DS
9
.72 .52
Lighting (.92) .95 .86
DS
10
.93 .86
DS
11
.91 .83
DS
12
.94 .88
Service product (.85) .88 .71
DS
13
.80 .64
DS
14
.86 .74
DS
15
.87 .76
Layout (.86) .90 .76
DS
16
.87 .76
DS
17
.94 .88
DS
18
.80 .64
Social factor (.80) .90 .74
DS
19
.92 .85
DS
20
.76 .58
DS
21
.89 .79
114
CHAPTER V:
THE INFLUENCE OF DINESCAPE ON BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS THROUGH
EMOTIONAL STATES IN UPSCALE RESTAURANTS
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to build a conceptual model showing how the
DINESCAPE influences customer behavioral intentions through emotions in an upscale
restaurant setting. Based on the DINESCAPE scale developed in the first phase of this study, the
Mehrabian-Russell environmental psychology framework was adopted to explore the linkage
between the six DINESCAPE dimensions and customer emotional states (pleasure and arousal)
and the linkage between pleasure and arousal and behavioral intentions. Structural equation
modeling was used to test the causal relationships among the hypothesized relationships. Results
revealed that the facility aesthetics, ambience, and social factor affected the level of customer
pleasure while ambience and social factor influenced the amount of arousal. In addition, pleasure
and arousal significantly affected on subsequent behavioral intentions. Finally, implications for
restaurateurs and researchers are discussed.
115
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, growing attention has focused on the influence of perceived physical
environments on human psychology and behavior in diverse areas, such as architecture,
environmental psychology, psychology, retailing, and marketing (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982;
Turley & Milliman, 2000). Theoretical and empirical literature suggests that customer reactions
to the physical environment (also known as 'atmospherics' or 'SERVICESCAPE') may be more
emotional than cognitive, particularly in hedonic consumption. While consumption of many
types of service (e.g., using a McDonald's drive-thru service) is driven primarily by utilitarian
(functional) purposes, consumption of leisure services (e.g., dining at an upscale restaurant) is
also driven by hedonic (emotional) motives. Hedonic consumption involves more than just the
perceived quality of service (e.g., whether a meal was delivered fast), influencing whether
consumers are satisfied with the service experience. One of the main reasons customers seek out
hedonic consumption is to experience specific emotions such as pleasure and excitement
(Wakefield & Blodgett, 1999). Previous research indicates that the degree of pleasure (e.g.,
unhappy-happy) and arousal (e.g., excited-calm) that customers experience in a hedonic service
encounter may, at least in part, determine their satisfaction and subsequent behavior (Mano &
Oliver, 1993; Russell & Pratt, 1980). The physical environment is important because it can either
enhance or suppress these feelings and emotions (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1999).
SERVICESCAPE refers to the "built environment" or, more specifically, "the man-made,
physical surroundings as opposed to the natural or social environment" (Bitner, 1992, p. 58).
SERVICESCAPE is an important determinant of customer psychology (e.g., satisfaction,
emotion) and behavior (e.g., repatronage, positive word-of-mouth) when the service is consumed
primarily for hedonic reasons and customers spend moderate to long periods in
116
SERVICESCAPE (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). For instance, in the case of upscale restaurants,
customers may spend two hours or more in the establishment, sensing physical surroundings
consciously and unconsciously before, during, and after the meal. While the food and the service
must be of acceptable quality, a pleasing SERVICESCAPE (e.g., lighting, décor, layout,
employee appearance) may determine to a large extent the degree of positive emotions and
approach behavior (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Hui & Bateson, 1991; Mehrabian & Russell,
1974).
While there is a significant body of research on the impact of the physical environment
on human psychology and behavior, little research has been conducted on understanding how the
physical environment affects customers within the hospitality industry, particularly in upscale
restaurants. In addition, the physical environment typically has been studied by looking at the
effect of one or several particular physical environmental elements (e.g., lighting, music) on the
customer's purchase behavior. Thus, the combined effect of these elements that make up the
physical environment of an upscale restaurant needs to be empirically tested to create an overall
conceptual model. If the physical environment can indeed influence a customer's psychology
and behavior in an upscale restaurant, then a framework should be developed to study such
effects. Although several researchers have attempted to explore various aspects of environmental
and behavioral relationships, no previous studies have applied an overall environmental
psychology framework to the upscale restaurant context. Thus, this study attempted to fill these
research gaps by assessing the effects of customer perceptions of the physical environment on
their emotions, which is expected to have an impact on their intended behaviors.
The purpose of this study was to build a conceptual framework for how the physical
environment influences customers' behavioral intentions through their emotions. To achieve this
117
purpose, based on the DINESCAPE scale developed in study 1, this study examined the impacts
of DINESCAPE on emotions and in turn, the effects of emotions on behavioral intentions using
the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) environmental psychology framework. Specifically, the effects of
facility aesthetic, lighting, ambience, layout, service product, and social factor on customer
pleasure and arousal and the impact of pleasure and arousal on behavioral intentions were
examined. The specific objectives of this study were (1) to adapt the Mehrabian-Russell (1974)
environmental psychology framework to the upscale restaurant context and test predictions from
the model; (2) to investigate the impact of DINESCAPE on customers' emotional states:
pleasure and arousal; and (3) to determine the relative importance of pleasure and arousal on
customers' behavioral intentions. In the rest of this article, the term "DINESCAPE," rather than
"SERVICESCAPE," is used to distinguish our work from previous studies. In this study,
DINESCAPE is defined as man-made physical and human surroundings in the dining areas of
the upscale restaurants. This study does not focus on external environment (e.g., parking space,
building design) and some internal environmental variables (e.g., restroom and waiting room).
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The Mehrabian-Russell (1974) environmental psychology framework provided the
theoretical framework of this study for examining the effects of the physical environment on
emotions and, in turn, the impact of emotions on behavioral intentions. Mehrabian and Russell
(1974) first introduced a theoretical model for studying the impact of environment on human
behavior. This model is divided into three parts: environmental stimuli, emotional states, and
approach or avoidance responses. In this model, the environment creates an emotional response
in individuals, which in turn elicits either of an approach or avoidance behavior. This model has
118
received consistent empirical support in environmental psychology and marketing literature
(Baker & Cameron, 1996; Baker, Levy, & Grewal, 1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Russell &
Pratt, 1980; Sayed, Farrag, & Belk, 2003).
During the past several decades, the importance of a more aesthetic physical environment
has been studied in a variety of research fields such as the retail environment, with researchers
studying the influence of the physical environment on human psychology and behavior (Bitner,
1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Gilboa & Rafaeli, 2003; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Turley &
Milliman, 2000). More specifically, based on Mehrabian and Russel (1974) model, research in
environmental psychology has shown that properly designed physical environments may create
feelings of excitement, pleasure, or relaxation, which, in turn, may elicit either an approach or
avoidance behavior (Mehrabian-Russel, 1974; Russell & Pratt, 1980). Here it is important to
notice that the physical environment should be considered the same as the first component of the
Mehrabian and Russell (1974) model: environmental stimuli. In addition, the feature of
behavioral intention in this study is congruent with aspects of approach/avoidance behavior,
which is the third component of Mehrabian-Russel (1974) model.
Therefore, the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) environmental psychology model, which
incorporates the concepts of the physical environment, emotions, and approach/avoidance
behaviors, could be used as a theoretical framework for this study to explore the impact of the
physical environment on emotions, and, in turn, the effects of emotions on behavioral intentions.
Based on Mehrabian-Russel (1974) model, it was assumed that the physical environment (also
called DINESCAPE in this study) should influence a customer's approach/avoidance behavior
toward restaurant experience only through his/her emotions in upscale restaurants in this study.
119
Mehrabian-Russell Model
The Mehrabian-Russell (1974) environmental psychology framework has strong support
in many areas, among them environmental psychology, retailing, and marketing. Figure 1
presents the Mehrabian-Russell Model. The application of this principle facilitates predicting and
understanding the effects of environmental changes on human behavior. The model is divided
into three parts: a stimulus taxonomy, a set of intervening variables, and a set of responses. The
model claims that that any environment will generate an emotional state in an individual that can
be characterized as one of three emotional states: pleasure, arousal, and dominance, and those
three emotional states mediate approach-avoidance behaviors in a wide range of environments.
Insert Figure 1
Pleasure refers to the extent to which individuals feel good, happy, pleased, or joyful in a
situation, while arousal refers to the degree to which individuals feel stimulated, excited, or
active. The dominance dimension is the extent to which a person feels influential, in control, or
important. However, studies that tested the model have found that the pleasure and arousal
dimensions underlie any affective responses to any environments, while dominance did not have
a significant effect on approach or avoidance behaviors (Russell & Pratt, 1980; Ward & Russell,
1981). Thus, the role of dominance in relations to approach or avoidance behavior has received
little attention in more recent studies. More recent researchers have defined two (pleasure and
arousal) rather than three (pleasure, arousal, and dominance) basic dimensions of the model.
120
Environmental psychologists (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974;
Russell & Pratt, 1980) assume that people's feelings and emotions ultimately determine what
they do and how they do it. Further, people respond with different sets of emotions to different
environments, and that these, in turn, prompt them to approach or avoid the environment.
Approach behaviors are seen as positive responses: a desire to stay in a particular facility and
explore it. Avoidance behaviors include not wanting to stay in a facility not wanting exploring.
The Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model proposed that emotions such as pleasantness-
unpleasantness and arousal- nonarousal influenced people's responses to environments. The
model was used to determine the factors that influenced purchasing behavior in retail stores. The
results showed that general feelings of pleasantness increased the time shoppers spent in the
stores as well as the amount of money they spent (Baker et al., 1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982;
Donovan, Rossiter, & Nesdale, 1994). Therefore, two of the hypotheses are proposed here for the
purposes of confirmatory testing of Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model.
H1: Pleasure will have a positive effect on behavioral intention.
H2: Arousal will have a positive effect on behavioral intention.
DINESCAPE Variables
In this study DINESCAPE is defined as the man-made physical and human surroundings
in the dining area of upscale restaurants.
Facility Aesthetics
Facility aesthetics refer to a function of architectural design, along with interior design
and décor, all of which contribute to the attractiveness of the DINESCAPE (Wakefield &
Blodgett, 1994). Once customers are inside the dining area, they may spend hours observing
121
(consciously and subconsciously) the interior of the dining area, which is likely to affect their
attitudes towards the restaurant (Baker et al., 1988). In addition to the appeal of the dining area's
architectural design, customers may be influenced by the color schemes of the dining area.
Different colors stimulate different moods, emotions, and feelings (Bellizzi & Hite, 1992; Gorn
et al., 1997; Mikellides, 1990). Other aspects of interior design, such as furniture,
pictures/paintings, plants/flowers, ceiling decorations, or wall decorations may also serve to
enhance the perceived quality of the DINESCAPE, creating emotions (pleasure and arousal) in a
customer. Thus, it is proposed that:
H3a: Facility aesthetics will have a positive effect on pleasure.
H3b: Facility aesthetics will have a positive effect on arousal.
Lighting
Lighting can be one of the most salient physical stimuli in the upscale restaurant.
Restaurateurs know that subdued lighting symbolically conveys full service and relatively high
prices, whereas bright lighting may symbolize quick service and lower prices. Research has
shown the impact of lighting level preferences on individuals' emotional responses and
approach-avoidance behaviors. Baron (1990) showed that subjects had more positive affect
under low lighting levels than high lighting levels. Hopkinson, Petherbridge, and Longmore
(1966) found that the level of comfort was increased at relatively low levels of light, while
comfort decreased with high levels of light. Higher levels of illumination are also associated with
increased physiological arousal (Kumari & Venkatramaiah, 1974). In addition, the type of
lighting could directly influence an individual's perception of the definition and quality of the
space, influencing his/her awareness of physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual aspects
of the space (Kurtich & Eakin, 1993). Thus, it is proposed that:
122
H4a: Lighting will have a positive effect on pleasure.
H4b: Lighting will have a positive effect on arousal.
Ambience
Ambient elements are intangible background characteristics that tend to affect the
nonvisual senses and may have a subconscious effect. These background conditions include
temperature, noise, music, and scent (Baker, 1987). For instance, in the past two decades,
research on the effects of music on consumer perception and behavior has expanded greatly
(North & Hargreaves, 1998). Particular emphasis has been given to atmospheric music, designed
to create commercial environments that "produce specific emotional effects in the buyer that
enhance his purchase intentions" (Kotler, 1973, p. 50). Previous research has shown that
atmospheric music can (1) increase sales (Areni & Kim, 1993; Mattila & Wirtz, 2001; Milliman,
1982, 1986; North & Hargreaves, 1998; Yalch & Spangenberg, 1993); (2) influence purchase
intentions (Baker et al., 1992; North & Hargreaves, 1998); (3) produce significantly enhanced
affective response such as satisfaction and relaxation (Oakes, 2003); (4) increase shopping time
and waiting time (Milliman, 1982, 1986; North & Hargreaves, 1998; Yalch & Spangenberg,
1993, 2000); (5) decrease perceived shopping time and waiting time (Chebat et al., 1993;
Kellaris & Kent, 1992; Yalch & Spangenberg, 2000); (6) influence dining speed (Roballey et al.,
1985; Milliman, 1986); and (7) influence customers' perceptions of a store (Hui et al., 1997;
Mattila & Wirtz, 2001; North & Hargreaves, 1998; Yalch & Spangenberg, 1993).
The influence of pleasant scents as a powerful tool to increase sales has gained much
attention in the retail businesses (Bone & Ellen, 1999; Hirsch, 1991, 1995; Hirsch & Gay, 1991;
Lin, 2004; Mattila & Wirtz, 2001). Ambient odors might also influence a consumer's mood,
emotion, or subjective feeling state (Bone & Ellen, 1999; Hirsch, 1995). Psychological research
123
suggests that certain temperatures are associated with a negative emotion. For example, Bell and
Baron (1977) argued that low temperatures (e.g., around 62
o
F) were associated with negative
affective states. Thus, it is proposed that:
H5a: Ambience will have a positive effect on pleasure.
H5b: Ambience will have a positive effect on arousal.
Layout
Spatial layout refers to the way in which objects (e.g., machinery, equipment, and
furnishings) are arranged within the environment. Just as the layout in discount stores facilitates
the fulfillment of functional needs (Baker et al., 1994), an interesting and effective DINESCAPE
layout may also facilitate fulfillment of hedonic or pleasure needs (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994).
A spatial layout that makes people feel constricted may have a direct effect on customers' quality
perceptions, excitement levels, and indirectly on their desire to return. Service or retail facilities
that are specifically designed to add some level of excitement or arousal to the service
experience, such as in upscale restaurants, should take care that ample space is provided to
facilitate exploration and stimulation within the DINESCAPE (Wakefield& Blodgett, 1994).
H6a: Layout will have a positive effect on pleasure.
H6b: Layout will have a positive effect on arousal.
Service Product
Raajpoot (2002) found that product/service was a very important tangible quality. Service
product dimension should be an especially important determinant in the upper-class market.
Upscale restaurants should be designed to deliver a prestigious image to attract upper-class
customers as to their intended market. Thus, high quality flatware, china, glassware, and linen
124
will affect customer perceptions of quality. The way in which the table is decorated (for instance,
with an attractive candle) can also make customers feel prestigious or elegant.
H7a: Service product will have a positive effect on pleasure.
H7b: Service product will have a positive effect on arousal.
Social Factors
Social elements are the people (e.g., employees and customers) in the service setting
(Baker, 1987). The social variables include employee appearance, number of employees, and the
dress or physical appearance of other customers. The effects of social cues (number/friendliness
of employees) was investigated as a part of a study conducted by Baker, Levy, and Grewal
(1992) in which they found that the more social cues present in the store environment, the higher
the subjects' arousal. Tombs and McColl-Kennedy (2003) argued that the social environment
dictated the desired social density, which influenced customers' affective and cognitive
responses as well as repurchase intentions. In addition, other customers played a key role in
affecting the emotions of others, either positively or negatively, and this largely influenced
repatronage.
H8a: Social factors will have a positive effect on pleasure.
H8b: Social factors will have a positive effect on arousal.
METHODOLOGY
Data Collection
Data were collected from upscale restaurants in which average per-person check was
more than $20 and which offered a full menu, full table service, food made from the scratch,
personalized service, and acceptable ambience. Using a convenience sampling approach, 319
125
responses were collected at three upscale restaurants in two Midwest and Northwest states.
Customers were given surveys at the end of their main entrée and asked to participate in the
study. After deleting incomplete responses, 253 questionnaires were used for further analysis.
Measurement of Variables
The questionnaire designed for this study was divided into three parts: DINESCAPE
items, emotional states, and behavior intentions.
DINESCAPE. Respondents were asked to rate each statement item using a 7-point
Likert scale (1 = extremely disagree, 7 = extremely agree). To reduce the potential bias of forced
response, an option marked "N/A" was included for each question (Gunderson, Heide, & Olsson,
1996). The questionnaire included measurement items relevant to six dimensions (facility
aesthetics, lighting, ambience, layout, service product, and social factor) of the DINESCAPE
scale developed in the first study. The list of relevant physical environmental items was
generated from reviews of previous studies, focus group, and discussions with several managers
at upscale restaurants. This resulted in a list of 34 items related to the physical environment.
Emotional States. Emotions were measured using eight items representing the pleasure
and arousal dimensions derived from the scale suggested by Mehrabian and Russell (1974) and
adapted to fit the upscale restaurant context. Subjects evaluated their feelings, moods, and
emotional responses to the physical environment of the upscale restaurant. All items were rated
on a 7-point semantic differential scale, in which an emotion and its opposite constituted the two
ends of the scale. The scale of pleasure consisted of four bipolar measures coded on a seven-
point scale: unhappy—happy; annoyed—pleased; bored—entertained; disappointed—delighted.
126
The measure of arousal was comprised of the following four items: depressed—cheerful; calm—
excited; indifferent—surprised; sleepy—awake.
Behavioral Intentions. To measure general approach-avoidance behavior, specifically,
behavioral intentions were operationalized using four items. The items were assessed on a 7-
point Likert scale. Behavioral intentions (BI) were measured based on Mehrabian and Russell's
(1974) four aspects of approach-avoidance behaviors and the scale suggested by Zeithaml et al.
(1996) and adapted to fit the upscale restaurant context. Subjects were asked to react to the
following four statements: "I would like to come back to this restaurant in the future," "I would
recommend this restaurant to my friends," "I am willing to stay longer than I planned at this
restaurant," and "I am willing to spend more than I planned at this restaurant." Participants
responded to these items using a 7-ponit Likert scale (1 = extremely disagree, 7 = extremely
agree).
Data Analysis
Following the procedure suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), data were analyzed
using the two-stage approach to causal modeling, in which the measurement was first confirmed
and then the structural model was built. In the first step, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was performed to identify whether the measurement variables reliably reflected the hypothesized
latent variables (aesthetic design, lighting, ambience, layout, service product, social factor,
pleasure, arousal, behavioral intention) using the covariance matrix. All latent variables were
allowed to intercorrelate freely without attribution of a causal order. Cronbach's alphas, item
reliabilities, composite reliabilities, and average variance extracted (AVE) for the measures were
also computed to check the reliability of this Mehrabian-Russell model. Furthermore, convergent
127
validity and discriminant validity of the model were tested by using AVE, which reflects the
overall amount of variance captured by the construct. The AVE value should exceed .50 for a
construct to meet convergent validity (Hair et al., 1998). Fornell and Larcker's (1981)
discriminant validity test was also conducted. This test requires that, when taking any pair of
constructs, the AVE for each construct should be higher than the squared correlations between
the two associated constructs.
In the second step, a structural equation modeling (SEM) with latent variables via
LISREL 8.54 was tested to determine the adequacy of the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model by
representing the constructs of the model and testing the hypotheses. The facility aesthetics,
lighting, ambience, layout, service product, and social factors were predictor variables
(exogenous variables) and pleasure, arousal, and behavioral intention were criterion variables
(endogenous variables) in the analysis.
RESULTS
Measurement Model
Following the recommendation of Anderson and Gerbing (1988) the measurement model
was first confirmed. A series of CFA using maximum likelihood estimation on the covariance
matrix were conducted to test the factor structure of the measures used (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988). More specifically, the measurement model allowed assessment of convergent and
discriminant validity of the construct measures. Based on the results of the first CFA, item SF
3
was deleted because of its low squared multiple correlation (R
2
= 0.33). Once this item was
deleted, CFA was conducted again. Table 1 presented the Cronbach's alphas and factor loadings
of the observed items on the latent constructs as estimated by the CFA, in addition to the
128
measurement statistics for the model variables. Cronbach's alphas of latent variables were
satisfactory for all seven constructs (0.70-0.93), indicating acceptable internal consistency
(Nunnally, 1978). Moreover, all standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.67 to 0.99, which
met the minimum criterion of .40 (Ford et al., 1986).
As observed in Table 1, the item reliabilities, the squared multiple correlations of the
individual items, gave the lower bound of the reliability of the measures. These ranged from .45
to .98, indicating an acceptable level of reliability (Hair et al., 1998). The composite reliabilities
of the latent variables were computed by the formula: µ = (E ì
i
)
2
/ (E ì
i
)
2
+ (Eu
i
), where ì
i
refers
to ith standardized loading and u
i
refers to the ith measurement error variance. Although this
coefficient is similar to Cronbach's alpha, it relaxes the assumption that each item is equally
weighted in determining the composite (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001). The composite reliabilities
of constructs ranged from 0.80 to 0.95. These values indicated adequate internal consistency of
multiple indicators for each construct in the model; composite reliabilities should exceed .70
(Hair et al., 1998).
Insert Table 1
Convergent validity was indicated by all lamdas (factor loadings or indicator factor
coefficients) on their underlying constructs; they were significant at .05 (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988). Moreover, AVE in all nine constructs by items was more than the unexplained variance
(AVE > 0.50) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In addition, all factors met the criteria for discriminant
validity because AVE for each construct in Table 1 was more than the variance explained
129
between the associated constructs (r
2
) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In sum, the assessment of the
measurement of the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model showed good evidence of reliability and
validity for the operationalization of the latent constructs.
Table 2 presents the intercorrelations among the latent variables. Most of the correlations
between constructs were in the expected direction, and all were significant
(o = 0.05). The correlations indicated that pleasure (0.64) played a more important role than did
arousal (0.44) in determining behavioral intentions. Pleasure was most highly correlated with
ambience (0.66), followed by facility aesthetic (0.52), layout (0.52), and social factor (0.52).
Similarly, arousal was also most highly associated with ambience (0.56), followed by social
factor (0.49), facility aesthetic (0.48), and layout (0.45). Finally, it was worth noting that the two
independent constructs (pleasure and arousal) were somewhat highly correlated (r = 0.44). Based
on the Mehrabian-Russel (1974) model, pleasure and arousal should emerge as highly distinctive
dimensions that can be meaningfully represented as orthogonal dimensions in factor analytic
studies of emotion, and no causal relationship exists between two independent dimensions.
However, here the significant positive correlation indicated that pleasure and arousal might be
causally related, which has been argued by some researchers. More specifically, the path from
arousal to pleasure was verified in previous studies (Babin & Attaway, 2000; Chebat & Michon,
2003; Donovan et al., 1994; Wakefield & Baker, 1998).
Insert Table 2
130
The overall model fit was evaluated statistically by the chi-square test and heuristically
using a number of goodness-of-fit statistics. The chi-square test of measurement model was
significant (_
2
(396) = 906.96, p = .00); that is, statistically the model did not fit the data.
However, since chi-square statistic is very sensitive to sample size, researchers typically tend to
discount the chi-square test and resort to other methods for evaluating the fit of the model to the
data (Bearden, Sharma, & Teel, 1982; Bentler & Bonett, 1980). Consequently, other widely used
goodness-of-fit indices were evaluated to evaluate the fit of the model. Tucker-Lewis Index
(TLI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) are generally regarded as superior indicators of the
overall fit of the model (Bentler, 1990; Marsh et al., 1988). Good fits are indicated when Normed
Chi-square (_
2
/ d.f.) is less than three (Bearden et al., 1982). In addition, satisfactory fits are
obtained when the TLI and CFI are greater than or equal to .90 and the Root Mean Square Error
of Approximation (RMSEA) is less than or equal to .08 (Bentler, 1990; Marsh et al., 1988).
These fit indices consistently showed that the measurement model fit the data very well (_
2
/ d.f.
= 2.29; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.07).
Structural Equation Model
After confirming the measurement model, the structural model was then examined.
Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggest using two criteria to evaluate the causal model: fit indices
and path significance. Both criteria were advocated because fit indices alone did not assess all
aspects of a model's appropriateness to the data. It is possible to obtain acceptable levels of fit
for models in which all the structural paths hypothesized are found not significant. Thus, causal
parameter estimates should be examined in conjunction with model fit statistics (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988).
131
The results of the standardized parameter estimates and t-values are reported in the upper
portion of Table 3, and those of the model fit estimates of the structural model are shown in the
lower portion of Table 3. For the overall model, the chi-square statistic indicated a not-good fit
(_
2
(403) = 1021.41, p = 0.00). However, as mentioned, the _
2
statistic is very sensitive to sample
size (Bearden et al., 1982; Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hair et al., 1998). To reduce the sensitivity of
the chi-square statistic, a common practice is to divide its value by the degrees of freedom:
Normed Chi-square. The commonly used cut-off point of Normed Chi-square is three (Hair et
al., 1998). By this standard, the value for the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model (_
2
/ d.f. = 2.53)
showed an acceptable model fit. All fit indexes consistently indicated that the estimated model
provided a good fit to the data (RMSEA = 0.078; TLI = 0.96; CFI = 0.96). The amount of
variance explained in pleasure and in arousal by facility aesthetic, lighting, ambience, layout,
product, and social factor was 49% and 39%, respectively. The overall variance explained for
behavioral intention was 44%, indicating the model could predict and explain fairly well
customer behavioral intentions in this study.
Insert Table 3
Figure 2 presents the estimated model in the form of a structural diagram for the
structural equation modeling, showing the direction and magnitude of the direct impact through
the standardized path coefficients in addition to error variance for measurement items. Looking
at specific links in the structural path model, Figure 2 highlights the statistically significant paths
with solid lines and the nonsignificant paths with dashed lines. The primary interest of this study
132
was to examine the relative impact of pleasure and arousal on behavioral intention. As can be
observed in Table 3 and Figure 2, both pleasure and arousal were statistically significant
predictors of customers' behavioral intentions in the upscale restaurant. In terms of the
relationship between pleasure and customers' behavioral intentions, the results showed that
pleasure influenced behavior intentions in a positive way (| = 0.56; t = 9.94), supporting
Hypothesis 1. Moreover, significant regression weight of arousal on behavior intentions (| =
0.20; t = 3.31) in the estimated model suggested that arousal was a good predictor of the
behavior intentions, supporting Hypothesis 2.
The results revealed a pattern of causal relationships that was partly consistent with the
all theoretically hypothesized paths between DINESCAPE and emotional states. First, the causal
relationships from perceived physical environments to pleasure are shown in Figure 2 and Table
3. The estimate of the standardized path coefficient indicated that the linkage between facility
aesthetics and pleasure was significant (| = 0.19; t = 2.23), which supported Hypothesis 3a.
However, the linkage between lighting and pleasure was not significant (| = 0.02; t = 0.27).
Therefore, Hypothesis 4a was not supported. The parameter estimate for the path linking from
ambience to pleasure was significant (| = 0.41; t = 3.69), which supported Hypothesis 5a. This
estimate showed the greatest standardized parameter estimate among all the paths in
DINESCAPE and pleasure and arousal. This indicates that ambience is the dimension that most
influences customers' pleasure and arousal. This provides restaurateurs with practical
information on how important ambience is in creating a pleasant and arousing environment. The
path from layout to pleasure and the path from service product to pleasure were not significant,
so Hypothesis 6a (| = 0.11; t = 1.34) and Hypothesis 7a (| = -0.10; t = -1.14) were not
supported. The path from social factors to pleasure was significant (| = 0.20; t = 2.25), which
133
supported Hypothesis 8a. In short, as the perceived quality of the facility aesthetics, ambience,
and social factors increased, customer pleasure became stronger.
Insert Figure 2
Mixed support was also found for the hypothesized relationships between DINESCAPE
dimensions and arousal in the estimated model. As shown in Figure 2 and Table 3, the four
hypothesized paths from perceived physical environments to arousal revealed as not significant,
which did not support Hypotheses: H3b (standardized coefficient of .15); H4b (standardized
coefficient of .11); H6b (standardized coefficient of .06); and H7b (standardized coefficient of -
.07). In contrast, Hypothesis 5b (ambience to arousal) was supported (| = 0.27; t = 2.22) and
Hypothesis 8b (social factors to arousal) was also supported (| = 0.23; t = 2.29). In short, as the
perceived quality of ambience and social factor increased, the magnitude of arousal was
enhanced.
In examining the relative contribution of each dimension of the DINESCAPE to
emotional states, the structural equation model indicated that the three variables (facility
aesthetic, ambience, social factor) should be a major source of variation in pleasure and/or
arousal. The ambience (| = 0.41) was the primary explanatory variable for pleasure, followed by
social factor (| = 0.20) and facility aesthetic (| = 0.19). Similarly, the ambience (| = 0.27) was
the major explanatory variable for arousal, followed by social factor (| = 0.23). Interestingly,
facility aesthetic was a significant predictor only for pleasure (| = 0.19), not for arousal (| =
134
0.15). Previous research indicated that facility aesthetic like color influenced emotional pleasure
more strongly than arousal (Bellizzi & Hite, 1992). The other three causal paths—lighting,
layout, and service product—were not significant, which indicated these aspects did not
influence customer emotional states.
Indeed, results showed that the betas linking pleasure and arousal to behavior intentions
had significant coefficients, with rather high positive values for the causal path linking pleasure
and behavior intentions (| = 0.56) and relatively much lower positive values (| = 0.20) for the
causal path linking arousal and behavior intentions. That is, pleasure was a more powerful
determinant of behavioral intentions than arousal, which was consistent with some previous
studies (Chebat & Michon, 2003; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982). Because pleasure proved to be a
major contributor to behavioral intentions, marketing strategies should be directed toward
generating pleasurable environment by the means of enhancing perceived quality of facility
aesthetic, ambience, and social factor. That is, to enhance customers' approach behavioral
intentions, it is important for restaurateurs to emphasize their efforts on the quality of facility
aesthetic, ambience, and social factor.
DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
With the respect to the topic of physical environment, this study attempted to explain the
effects of physical cues on consumer responses based on environmental psychology literature.
More specifically, the purpose of this study was to examine the impact of DINESCAPE on
pleasure and arousal and the influences of the pleasure and arousal on behavioral intentions
based on the Mehrabian and Russell (1974) model. A model was proposed and tested in the
upscale restaurant setting. The most important contribution of this research was its empirical
135
demonstration of how customers perceived physical environments and how that perception
directly influenced customers' emotion and indirectly affected their future intentions.
The findings indicated which environmental elements produced pleasure and arousal so
that restaurateurs could have some guidance in planning a pleasant and arousing environment.
Certain attributes were more important than others in enhancing the customer perception of the
physical environment and in turn, their emotions so that the results have implications for
determining how management focuses physical resources. The results showed that the facility
aesthetics, ambience, and social factor had a significant effect on customers' pleasure and/or
arousal and the pleasure and arousal had a significant role in determining their behavioral
intentions. Generally, management should allocate resources primarily for facility aesthetics,
ambience, and social factor at upscale restaurants.
First, this study showed that one of the most significant factors affecting customers'
pleasure and arousal was ambience. It is very important to notice that the physical elements (e.g.,
music, aroma, temperature) of ambience can be controlled to a large extent by management, and
it is probably among one of the least expensive ways to enhance customer perceptions of
physical surroundings. For instance, music can be a more highly controllable physical element
than other physical elements without costing a lot. Restaurateurs can easily control background
music, varying its volume (soft to loud), genre (classical or jazz), tempo (slow to fast) based on
the customers' preferences to help them feel pleased or relaxed. Thus, restaurateurs should
seriously consider physical elements related to ambience as a marketing and operational tool.
In addition to the effect of ambience, the other major DINESCAPE feature directly
influencing customers' pleasure and arousal was social factor. In the eyes of the customer, the
social factor could be an important dimension of an upscale restaurant's image. The employees
136
could maintain this important role until the completion of the service delivery process. Since
there was evidence supporting the strong influence of social factor (employees) on a customer's
pleasure and arousal, a service organization wanting to enhance customers' pleasure and arousal
must choose the right style for its employees. This style can be achieved in two ways:
professional appearance and attractiveness. In any situation, the style of the employees should be
completely congruent with the restaurant image to maximize the effect upon customer
perceptions.
Finally, another element directly influencing customers' pleasure with the DINESCAPE
was facility aesthetics. Therefore, marketing needs to create an environment that enhances
customer attitudes and beliefs about the restaurant, and consequently, their perception of physical
environment, their satisfaction, and their behavioral intentions. Particularly, DINESCAPE
elements of facility aesthetics (e.g., paintings/pictures, plants/flowers, furniture, color, and wall
décor) are likely to differentiate a restaurant from the competition in part because of atmosphere
(Menon & Kahn, 2002). While the more costly aspects of special issues, such as major
renovation or replacement of the architectural design, would be a major decision, restaurateurs
should not overlook some simple uses of aesthetics such as replacing plants/flowers on table.
The overall results reinforced the importance of understanding the impact of emotion on
consumers' intended behaviors. This study revealed that both pleasure and arousal derived from
the DINESCAPE were significant determinants of behavior intentions, and the results have
implications for both practitioners and researchers. Some restaurateurs might overlook emotional
impact when cognitive elements (e.g., quality of food, food variety, price, and location) are
largely emphasized. Our findings indicated that the emotional responses evoked by the
DINESCAPE within an upscale restaurant were determined the extent to which the customers
137
intended: to come back, to recommend the restaurant to friends or others, to stay longer than
anticipated, and to spend more than originally planned expenditure. Thus, restaurateurs should
emphasize DINESCAPE elements to generate positive emotions in customers that can have an
important cuing or reinforcing effect on consumers' positive approach behavior. The results also
have implications for researchers. Most researchers in the hospitality area have gained much
attention to service assessment and management, relying on measurement of satisfaction or
service quality without taking customer emotions into account. As an alternative, future studies
should determine key emotions driving positive approach behaviors and then provide
implications for designing and managing service processes that positively influence those
emotions.
LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Several potential limitations of this study should be noted. The data were collected from
convenience samples of customers in three upscale restaurants located in Midwest and Northwest
states. As such, the study may not generalize results across other upscale restaurants located in
other geographic locations. Nevertheless, our results show promise in modeling the combination
of DINESCAPE and Mehrabian-Russell Model and provide several suggestions for management
of upscale restaurants.
Future research should look beyond the primary objective of this study. The mediating
role of emotions between the DINESCAPE and behavioral intentions was not investigated in this
study because we assumed, based on the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model, that physical
environment affects approach/avoidance behaviors only via emotions. In addition, many
previous studies have shown the direct impact of physical environment on intended behaviors,
138
such as return intentions. Therefore, we did not investigate the mediating role of emotions in this
study. However, some previous studies demonstrated that the path from perceived physical
environment to future intentions was not significant within an environmental psychology model
(Chang, 200). Thus, it might be interesting to test the impact of the DINESCAPE on behavioral
responses as mediated through emotion.
Given the great diversity of service industries, there is a need for research that will
illuminate the effects of physical surroundings across types of service industries in which
physical environment is important. The multidimensional nature of facility aesthetics, ambience,
and social factors may be important determinants of customer pleasure and arousal in other fields
and thus would provide future research. Individual differences (gender and age) could be also
pursued in further research because individual reactions to environment may differ substantially.
For instance, although findings are ambiguous, many investigations have indicated that men and
women prefer different colors (Khouw, 2004). In addition, future studies could assess some
DINESCAPE items (e.g., lighting), emotions, and behavioral intentions through some form of
simulated environment (verbal descriptions, photos/slides, videos) rather than real restaurant
settings. Because of the expense involved in constructing actual environments, those simulated
environment could be used in experimental studies. In addition, the environmental psychology
tradition has shown that simulated environments work well in achieving generalized results
(Bateson & Hui, 1992; Chebat et al., 1995; Gilboa & Rafaeli, 2003). Although some research
progresses have been made in verifying the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model and in exploring
the impacts of physical environments on customer responses, most have been largely conducted
in Western cultures (Chan & Tai, 2001; Tang et al., 2001). As such, further research may
externally validate the Mehrabian-Russell model in conjunction with DINESCAPE in Asian or
139
other cultural settings. Finally, it is also worthwhile to pay attention to longitudinal study. The
fact that there is relatively little empirical research in any field to draw on allows for true
pioneering work to be done. For instance, future researchers can attempt to explore how
customers' perceived quality of physical environmental elements holistically change over time
(e.g., opening time and one or two years later), and how those perceptions can influence
customer responses, such as restaurant image, customer emotions, customer satisfaction, and
finally their approach/avoidance behaviors.
140
REFERENCES
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Areni, C.S., & Kim, D. (1993). The influence of background music on shopping behavior:
Classical versus top-forty music in a wine store. Advances in Consumer Research, 20,
336-340.
Babin, B.J., & Attaway, J.S. (2000). Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining
share of customer. Journal of Business Research, 49, 91-99.
Baker, J. (1987). The role of the environment in marketing services. In: Czepeial, J.A., Congram,
C.A., & Shananhan, J. (Eds.). The Services Challenges: Integrating for Competitive
Advantage. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 79-84.
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
the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 338-349.
Baker, J., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1988). The marketing impact of branch facility
design. Journal of Retailing Banking, 10, 33-42.
Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The influence of the store environment on
quality inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22,
328-339.
Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store
environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), 445-460.
Baron, R.A. (1990). Lighting as a source of positive affect. Progressive Architecture, 71, 123-
124.
141
Bateson, J.E.G., & Hui, M.K. (1992). The ecological validity of photographic slides and
videotapes in simulating the service setting. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 271-
281.
Bearden, W.O., Sharma, S., & Teel, J.E. (1982). Sample size effects on chi-square and other
statistics used in evaluating structural equations. Journal of Marketing Research,
19(Nov), 425-430.
Bell, P.A. & Baron, R.A. (1977). Aggression and ambient temperature: The facilitating and
inhibiting effects of hot and cold environments. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,
9(6), 443-445.
Bellizzi, J.A., & Hite, R.E. (1992). Environmental color, consumer feelings, and purchase
likelihood. Psychology and Marketing, 9(5), 347-363.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 588-606.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychology Bulletin,
107, 238-246.
Bitner, M.J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.
Bone, P.F., & Ellen, P.S. (1999). Scents in the marketplace: explaining a fraction of olfaction.
Journal of Retail, 75(2), 243-262.
Chan, R.Y.K., & Tai, S. (2001). How do in-store environmental cues influence Chinese
shoppers? A study of hypermarket customers in Hong Kong. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 13(4), 73-104.
Chang, K. (2000). The impact of perceived physical environments on customers' satisfaction and
142
return intentions. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 21(2), 75-85.
Chebat, J, & Gelinas-Chebat, C., & Filiatrault, P. (1993). Interactive effects of musical and
visual cues on time perception: An application to waiting lines in banks. Perceptua and
Motor Skills, 77, 995-1020.
Chebat, J., Filatrault, P., Gelinas-Chebat, C., & Vaninsky, A. (1995). Impact of waiting
attribution and consumer's mood on perceived quality. Journal of Business Research, 34,
191-196.
Chebat, J., & Michon, R. (2003). Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers' emotions,
cognition, and spending. Journal of Business Research, 56, 529-539.
Donovan, R.J., & Rossiter, J.R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology
approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(1), 34-57.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., & Nesdale, A. (1994). Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior.
Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 283-294.
Ford, J.K., MacCallum, R.C., & Trait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis
in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personal Psychology, 39, 291-314.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Gilboa, S., & Rafaeli, A. (2003). Store environment, emotions and approach behavior: applying
environmental aesthetics to retailing. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research, 13(2), 195-211.
Gorn, G., Chattopadhyay, A., Yi, T., & Dahl, D.W. (1997). Effects of color as an executional cue
in advertising: They're in the shade. Management Science, 43(10), 1387-1400.
Gunderson, M.G., Heide, M., & Olsson, U.H. (1996). Hotel guests satisfaction among business
143
travelers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37, 72-81.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis
(5
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hirsch, A.R. (1991). Olfaction and psychiatry. Paper presented at the 144
th
Annual Meeting,
American Psychiatric Association, New Orleans, LA.
Hirsch, A.R. (1995). Effect of ambient odors on slot-machine usage in a Las Vegas casino.
Psychology and Marketing, 12(October), 585-594.
Hirsch, A.R., & Gay, S.E. (1991). Effect on ambient olfactory stimuli on the evaluation of a
common consumer product. Chemical Senses, 16, 535.
Hopkinson, R.G., Petherbridge, P., & Longmore, J. (1966). Daylighting. London: Heinemann.
Hui, M., & Bateson, J. (1991). Perceived control and the effects of crowding and consumer
choice on the service experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 174-184.
Hui, M.K., Dube, L., & Chebat, J. (1997). The impact of music on consumer's reaction to
waiting for services. Journal of Retailing, 73, 87-104.
Kellaris, J.J., & Kent, R.J. (1992). The influence of music on consumers' perceptions: Does time
fly when you're having fun? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 365-376.
Khouw, N. (2004). The meaning of color for gender. Retrieved April 10, 2004, from:
http://www.colormatters.com/khouw.html.
Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48-64.
Kumari, K., & Venkatramaiah, S.R. (1974). Effects of anxiety on closure effect disappearance
threshold. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1, 114-120.
Kurtich, J., & Eakin, G. (1993). Interior Architecture. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Lin, I.Y. (2004). Evaluating a servicescape: the effect of cognition and emotion. International
144
Journal of Hospitality Management, 23, 163-178.
Mano, H., & Oliver, R.L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption
experience: Evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3),
451-466.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R., & McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory
factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
Mattila, A.S., & Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 273-289.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Menon, S., & Kahn, B. (2002). Cross-category effects of induced arousal and pleasure on the
internet shopping experience. Journal of Retailing, 78(1), 31(12).
Mikellides, B. (1990). Color and psychological arousal. Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research, 7(1), 13-19.
Milliman, R.E. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers.
Journal of Marketing, 46, 86-91.
Milliman, R.E. (1986). The influence of background music on the behavior of restaurant patrons.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 286-289.
North, A.C., & Hargreaves, D.J. (1998). The effect of music on atmosphere and purchase
intentions in a cafeteria. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 2254-2273.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2
nd
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oaks, S. (2003). Musical tempo and waiting perceptions. Psychology and Marketing, 20(8), 685-
705.
145
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R.P. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-
directed behaviours: Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behavior. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 79-98.
Raajpoot, N.A. (2002). TANGSERV: A multiple item scale for measuring tangible quality in
foodservice industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 5(2), 2002.
Richins, M.L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its
measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research,
19(Dec), 303-316.
Roballey, T.C., McGreevy, C., Rongo, R.R., Schwantes, M.L., Steger, P.M., Wininger, M.A., &
Gardner, E.G. (1985). The effect of music on eating behavior. Bulletin of the Psychomic
Society, 23, 221-222.
Russell, J.A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to
environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 311-322.
Sayed, I.M., Farrag, D.A., & Belk, R.W. (2003). The effects of physical surroundings on
Egyptian consumers' emotional states and buying intentions. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 16(1), 5-27.
Tang, E.P.Y., Chan, R.Y.K., & Tai, S.H.C. (2001). Emotional influence of environmental cues
on Chinese consumers in a leisure service setting. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 14(1), 67-88.
Tombs, A., & McColl-Kennedy, J.R. (2003). Social-servicescape conceptual model. Marketing
Theory, 3(4), 447-475.
Turley, L.W., & Milliman, R.E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of
the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 193-211.
146
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure service
settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), 66-76.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1996). The effects of the servicescape on customers'
behavioral intentions in leisure service setting. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45-
61.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1999). Customer response to intangible and tangible service
factors. Psychology & Marketing, 16(1), 51-68.
Wakefield, K.L., & Baker, J. (1998). Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects of
shopping response. Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 515-539.
Ward, L.M., & Russell, J.A. (1981). The psychological representation of molar physical
environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(2), 121-152.
Yalch, R.F., & Spangenberg, E. (1993). Using store music for retail zoning: A field experiment.
Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 632-636.
Yalch, R.F., & Spangenberg, E. (2000). In a retail setting on real and perceived shopping terms.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7, 55-63.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service
quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.
147
Environmental
Stimuli
Emotional States:
Pleasure
Arousal
Dominance
Approach
or
Avoidance
Response
Source: Adopted from Mehrabian and Russell (1974)
Figure 1. Mehrabian-Russell Model
148
.30
.39
.33
.36
.38
.17
.19
.09
.54
.52
FA
1
FA
2
FA
3
FA
4
FA
5
LI
1
LI
2
LI
3
AM
1
AM
2
.84
.78
.82
.80
.79
.91
.90
.95
.67
.69
FA
LI
.15
-.02
.11
.41**
.19*
PL
.88
.95
.93
.88
PL
1
PL
2
PL
3
PL
4
.23
.09
.13
.22
FA: Facility aesthetics
LI: Lighting
AM: Ambience
LA: Layout
SP: Service Product
SF: Social factors
PL: Pleasure
AR: Arousal
BI: Behavioral intention
.38
.49
.24
.16
.42
.31
.26
.36
.16
.49
AM
3
AM
4
LA
1
LA
2
LA
3
SP
1
SP
2
SP
3
SF
1
SF
2
.79
.71
.87
.91
.76
.83
.86
.80
.91
.71
AM
LA
SP
SF
.27**
.11
.06
-.10
-.07
.20*
.23**
AR
.56**
.20**
.82
.85
.77
AR
1
AR
2
AR
3
BI
.33
.27
.41
.96
.98
.74
.76
BI
1
BI
2
BI
3
BI
4
.08
.04
.46
.42
* p < 0.05
** p < 0.01
________ Hypothesis: Supported -
- - - - - - Hypothesis: Not supported
Figure 2. Causal Relationships Between Latent Variables
149
Table 1
Measurement Properties
Factors Cronbach's Standardized Item Reliabilities Composite AVE
Alphas Factor Loadings Reliabilities
Facility aesthetics .87 .90 .65
FA
1
/FA
2
/FA
3
/FA
4
/FA
5
.84/.78/.82/.80/.79 .71/.61/.67/.64/.62
Lighting .91 .94 .85
LI
1
/LI
2
/LI
3
.91/.90/.95 .83/.81/.90
Ambience .82 .81 .52
AM
1
/AM
2
/AM
3
/AM
4
.67/.69/.79/.71 .45/.48/.62/.50
Layout .85 .89 .73
LA
1
/LA
2
/LA
3
.87/.91/.76 .76/.83/.58
Service product .83 .87 .69
SP
1
/SP
2
/SP
3
.83/.86/.80 .69/.74/.64
Social factor .70 .80 .67
SF
1
/SF
2
.91/.71 .83/.50
Pleasure .93 .95 .83
PL
1
/PL
2
/PL
3
/PL
4
.88/.95/.93/.88 .77/.90/.86/.77
Arousal .81 .85 .66
AR
1
/AR
2
/AR
3
.82/.85/.77 .67/.72/.59
Behavior intention .90 .92 .76
BI
1
/BI
2
/BI
3
/BI
4
.96/.99/.74/.76 .92/.98/.55/.58
Note: AVE = Average variance extracted.
150
Table 2
Correlations Among the Latent Constructs
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Facility aesthetics 1
2 Lighting .68 1
3 Ambience .57 .63 1
4 Layout .51 .48 .63 1
5 Product .58 .52 .50 .56 1
6 Social factors .45 .35 .58 .54 .62 1
7 Pleasure .52 .48 .66 .52 .41 .52 1
8 Arousal .48 .46 .56 .45 .39 .49 .44 19
Behavior intention .38 .35 .48 .38 .30 .39 .64 .44
1
Note: All correlations are significant at p = 0.05.
151
Table 3
Structural Parameter Estimates
Hypothesized Path
H1: Pleasure ÷ Behavior intention
H2: Arousal ÷ Behavior intention
H3a: Facility aesthetic ÷ Pleasure
H4a: Lighting ÷ Pleasure
H5a: Ambience ÷ Pleasure
H6a: Layout ÷ Pleasure
H7a: Product ÷ Pleasure
H8a: Social factors ÷ Pleasure
H3b: Facility aesthetic ÷ Arousal
H4b: Lighting ÷ Arousal
H5b: Ambience ÷ Arousal
H6b: Layout ÷ Arousal
H7b: Product ÷ Arousal
H8b: Social factors ÷ Arousal
R
2
(Pleasure)
R
2
(Arousal)
R
2
(Behavior intention)
Goodness-of-fit statistics:
Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Standardized path
coefficients
.56
.20
.19
.02
.41
.11
-.10
.20
.15
.11
.27
.06
-.07
.23
.50
.39
.44
_
2(376)
= 969.74
(p = 0.00)
_
2
/ d.f. = 2.58
RMSEA = 0.079
TLI = 0.96
CFI = 0.96
t-value
9.94**
3.31**
2.23*
0.27
3.69**
1.34
-1.14
2.25*
1.61
1.08
2.22*
0.71
-0.70
2.29*
Results
Supported
Supported
Supported
Not supported
Supported
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI =
Comparative Fit Index.
152
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to develop a DINESCAPE scale to assess the man-made
physical and human surroundings in the dining area of upscale restaurants and build a conceptual
framework of how the DINESCAPE might influence customers' behavioral intentions through
emotions. To achieve this purpose, the first phase of this study developed a multiple-item scale
to measure the overall conceptual framework of DINESCAPE in the upscale restaurant setting.
Then, based on the DINESCAPE developed, the second phase of the study investigated the
effects of DINESCAPE on emotions (pleasure and arousal) and the impact of these emotions on
behavioral intentions (repatronage, positive word-of-mouth, desire to spend more than
anticipated, desire to spend longer than anticipated) using the Mehrabian-Russell (1974)
environmental psychology model.
The contribution of this paper was to suggest a scale that can be used to measure the
physical environment reliably and validly in the upscale restaurant context and to empirically test
if the theoretical notion of the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) environmental psychology framework
would work in an upscale restaurant setting. From a practical perspective, the results of this
research provide guidance to help managers look at their facility from the viewpoint of the
customer. By focusing on the specific elements of the DINESCAPE, management can determine
how their customers perceive the physical environment and predict their emotional and
behavioral responses. While the qualities of some of these factors could be judged by
management observations, employees (as well as long-time customers) of an establishment
might become so accustomed to their environment that they do not recognize layout and interior
design problems. Thus, research into the perceptions of current customers is recommended.
153
Although several researchers have attempted to explore various specific aspects of the
physical environment and behavior relationships in a variety of fields, no one to our knowledge
has applied environmental psychology to the upscale restaurant setting. In conclusion, this
exploratory study took the beginning steps toward understanding how customers perceive the
physical environment and how physical environment could contribute toward behavioral
intentions through emotions.
Major Findings
Scale Development: DINESCAPE
Study 1 established reliable, valid, and useful measures of the DINESCAPE dimensions
in the upscale restaurant context. Principal components analysis, with a varimax rotation,
identified six factors that explained 74.55% of the total variance. The first DINESCAPE factor
was labeled "Facility aesthetic," which featured a function of architectural design, along with
interior design and décor. The second factor ("Ambience") featured intangible background
characteristics that tend to affect the nonvisual senses, and the third ("Lighting") demonstrated
that lighting could influence feelings. The fourth factor (labeled "Service product") represented
the product or material used to serve every customer whenever a turnover occurred. The fifth
construct, titled "Layout," represented the way in which seats were arranged within the
environment. Finally, the last DINESCAPE factor was titled "Social factor," which highlighted
the characteristics of employees in the service setting. The Cronbach's alphas for six dimensions
ranged from .80 to .92, which indicated good reliability for the scale (Hair et al., 1998).
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with 21 items representing a six-dimension model
was estimated using LISREL 8.54. Several widely used goodness-of-fit statistics indicated the
154
confirmatory factor model adequately reflected a good fit to the data (RMSEA = 0.074; NFI =
0.95; TLI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; GFI = 0.86). In addition, measurement equations showed all
acceptable levels of item squared multiple correlations for 21 items, ranging from .52 to .89.
Unidimensionality was assured because a set of indicators shared only a single
underlying construct and the items loaded as predicted with minimal cross-loading (Bollen,
1989; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). Reliability was further tested through Cronbach's alphas,
item reliabilities, composite reliabilities, and average variance extracted (AVE). Cronbach's
alpha estimates were acceptable (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The item reliabilities ranged
from .52 to .88 and indicated acceptable levels of reliability (Hair et al., 1998). The composite
reliabilities of constructs ranged from .84 to .95. These values indicated adequate internal
consistency of multiple items for each construct in the six-factor model since composite
reliabilities exceeded .70 (Hair et al., 1998).
Convergent validity indicated by all lamdas (indicator factor coefficients) on their
underlying constructs was significant. In addition, the results showed that convergent validity
was satisfied because AVE, ranging from 0.56 to 0.86, of all six constructs exceeded the
minimum criterion of 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Since the lowest AVE (.56) in each latent
variable exceeded the highest square of the estimated correlation (square of the correlation
between facility aesthetic and lighting = 0.50) between the constructs, discriminant validity was
also satisfied (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
155
The Influence of DINESCAPE on Pleasure and Arousal and the Impact of Pleasure and
Arousal on Behavioral Intention
To achieve the objectives in study 2, the following 14 hypotheses were tested using
structural equation modeling. The letter "S" showed the hypothesis was supported and "NS"
indicated the hypothesis was not supported.
H1: Pleasure will have a positive effect on behavioral intention. (S)
H2: Arousal will have a positive effect on behavioral intention. (S)
H3a: Facility aesthetics will have a positive effect on pleasure. (S)
H3b: Facility aesthetics will have a positive effect on arousal. (NS)
H4a: Lighting will have a positive effect on pleasure. (NS)
H4b: Lighting will have a positive effect on arousal. (NS)
H5a: Ambience will have a positive effect on pleasure. (S)
H5b: Ambience will have a positive effect on arousal. (S)
H6a: Layout will have a positive effect on pleasure. (NS)
H6b: Layout will have a positive effect on arousal. (NS)
H7a: Service product will have a positive effect on pleasure. (NS)
H7b: Service product will have a positive effect on arousal. (NS)
H8a: Social factor will have a positive effect on pleasure. (S)
H8b: Social factor will have a positive effect on arousal. (S)
The causal relationships from perceived physical environments to pleasure were first
found. The estimate of the standardized path coefficient indicated that the linkage between
facility aesthetics and pleasure was significant (| = 0.19; t = 2.23), which supported the
hypothesis 3a. However, the linkage between lighting and pleasure was not significant (| = 0.02;
156
t = 0.27). Therefore, the hypothesis 4a was not supported. The parameter estimate for the path
linking from ambience to pleasure was significant (| = 0.41; t = 3.69), which supported the
hypothesis 5a. The path from layout to pleasure and the path from service product to pleasure
was revealed as non significant, which did not support the hypothesis 6a (| = 0.11; t = 1.34) and
hypothesis 7a (| = -0.10; t = -1.14). In sum, as the perceived quality of the facility aesthetics,
ambience, and social factor increased, customers' pleasure was enhanced in the upscale
restaurant context.
Mixed support was also found for the hypothesized relationships between DINESCAPE
dimensions and arousal in the estimated model. The four hypothesized paths from perceived
physical environments to arousal revealed as not significant, so Hypotheses H3b (standardized
coefficient of .15); H4b (standardized coefficient of .11); H6b (standardized coefficient of .06);
and H7b (standardized coefficient of -.07) were not supported. In contrast, the hypothesis 5b
(ambience to arousal) was supported (| = 0.27; t = 2.22), and the hypothesis 8b was also
supported (| = 0.23; t = 2.29). In sum, as the perceived quality of ambience and social factor
increased, the magnitude of arousal became stronger.
In terms of the relationship between pleasure and customer behavior intentions, the
results showed that pleasure influenced behavior intentions positively (| = 0.56; t = 9.94),
supporting the hypothesis 1. Moreover, significant regression weight of arousal on behavior
intentions (| = 0.20; t = 3.31) in the estimated model suggested that arousal was a good predictor
of the behavior intentions, supporting hypothesis 2.
157
Limitations
Several potential limitations of this study should be noticed. First, since a scale was
specifically developed for the upscale restaurant context, applying the scale to different
restaurant segments such as fast-food restaurants and casual dining restaurants should be
approached with cautions. With any factor analysis, a certain amount of subjectivity is necessary
to identify and label constructs. This scale was developed only to address the internal
environment, not the external environment. Nevertheless, our results show promise in modeling
the combination of DINESCAPE and the Mehrabian-Russell Model, and we can provide several
suggestions for management of upscale restaurants.
Conclusion and Implications
This study first reviewed the construct and measurement of the physical environment and
the establishment of reliable, valid, and useful measures of the DINESCAPE dimensions in study
1. Then, based on the DINESCAPE scale, study 2 examined effects of DINESCAPE on
customers' pleasure and arousal and the impact of pleasure and arousal on behavioral intentions.
The findings indicated that facility aesthetics, ambience, and social factor could significantly
affect customers' pleasure or arousal, and the pleasure and arousal could significantly influence
their intended behaviors, such as revisit, positive word-of-mouth, length of stay, and expenditure
at the restaurant.
By adopting, modifying, or applying the questionnaire used in this study, restaurateurs
can use dimension scores, comparing them with previous ones. In multiunit operations,
restaurateurs can also compare the results from one unit to other units. Then, they can analyze
problem scores and develop strategies for improvement. Each time the survey is administered,
158
strategies can be refined (Stevens et al., 1995). It would be helpful if the instrument could be
used in periodic surveys. Users of the DINESCAPE could then track changes in their customers'
perceptions in the quality of facilities or physical surroundings. In addition, restaurateurs who
contemplate changes in their facilities can assess customer perceptions of the facility before
making significant investments. With this in mind, restaurateurs could administer the survey
instrument at their facility and get their customers' perspectives.
With the respect to the physical environment, study 2 attempted to explain the effects of
physical cues on customer responses. More specifically, the purpose of this article was to
examine the impact of the DINESCAPE on pleasure and arousal and the influences of pleasure
and arousal on behavioral intentions using the Mehrabian and Russell (1974) model. A model
was proposed and tested in an upscale restaurant setting. The most important contribution of this
research was its empirical demonstration of how customers perceived physical environments
directly influenced customers' emotion and indirectly affected their intentions by influencing
their emotion level.
In conclusion, the results clearly showed solid support for the linkages between emotions
and behavioral intention. Pleasure and arousal derived from the DINESCAPE was shown to
strongly influence customers' intentions. However, mixed results on DINESCAPE dimensions
and emotions (pleasure and arousal) were found. While facility aesthetics, ambience, and social
factor contributed to one or both emotions, lighting, layout, and service product did not have
significant relationships with either emotion.
Consistent with previous studies (Barsky & Nash, 2002; Chebat & Michon, 2003), this
study found that the level of pleasure and arousal evoked by the DINESCAPE significantly
influenced behavioral intentions. The importance of emotional impact might be often overlooked
159
by some restaurateurs when they focus primarily on cognitive aspects (e.g., quality of food, food
variety, price, and location). The findings indicated that pleasure and arousal evoked by the
DINESCAPE within an upscale restaurant were main determinants of whether customers
intended to (1) come back, (2) recommend the restaurant to friends or others, (3) stay longer than
anticipated, and (4) spend beyond his or her originally planned expenditure. Thus, restaurateurs
should pay attention on the DINESCAPE elements to produce positive emotions that can have an
important cuing or reinforcing effect on consumers' positive approach behaviors.
The findings determined which environmental elements produced pleasure and arousal,
and these results have clear implications for restaurateurs wanting to generate pleasant and
arousing environment through DINESCAPE. The relationships between DINESCAPE
dimensions and customers' pleasure and arousal were not surprising. The results discovered that
the facility aesthetics, ambience, and social factor significantly influenced customer pleasure
and/or arousal and the pleasure and arousal significantly affected their subsequent behavioral
intentions. Because lighting, layout, and service product were not significant, the findings may
indicate that they are not directly associated with the quality of the DINESCAPE. Also, they may
not be a particularly salient issue at an upscale restaurant as in some other service settings (e.g.,
luxurious hotels).
Suggestions and Future Research
Future research could use this instrument across a variety of different DINESCAPE
settings, likely resulting in further refinement of the scale and adding to the validity of the salient
factors. Administrating the scales (with perhaps some slight adaptation) in other restaurant
settings (e.g., fast-food restaurants, casual restaurants) would be useful to determine the
160
generalizability of the model. More needs to be done to determine the effect of lighting, layout,
and service product on customer pleasure or arousal in other settings or even in some other
upscale restaurants.
Future researchers may wish to use the scale to measure the impact of different elements
or dimensions of DINESCAPE on important dining outcomes, such as customer satisfaction,
perception of service quality, approach/avoidance behaviors. Research suggests a direct link
between DINESCAPE and outcomes such as customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions
(Chang, 2000; Chebat & Michon, 2003). For example, are customers who are strongly motivated
by the social factor dimension more likely to be satisfied, repatronize the restaurant, and engage
in behaviors such as talking positively about their experience? Prior research suggests that
perceived physical environment was a direct indicator of a customer's satisfaction, thereby
suggesting that customer satisfaction was directly and positively associated with aspects of
positive approach behaviors (Chang, 2000). Thus, restaurateurs could potentially have another
tool to manage customer satisfaction and positive approach behavior. In addition, future research
work can focus on other emotions. Because measuring emotion is quite complex, there are many
challenging opportunities available for both qualitative and quantitative research. Research might
also focus on exploring how the physical environment helps a firm achieve particular objectives,
and at what cost. Finally, this promising model should be tested not just with customer-stated
intentions but also with actual purchasing behavior.
The research framework offered in this study took a few steps toward by providing a
more complete picture of how perceived physical environments, emotions, and behavioral
intentions were related. However, the mediating role of emotions between DINESCAPE and
behavioral intentions was not investigated in this study since we assumed that physical
161
environment affects approach/avoidance behaviors only via emotions as in the Mehrabian and
Russell environmental psychology model. Many previous studies have shown the direct impacts
of physical environment on behavioral intentions such as return intentions. Therefore, the authors
did not consider the mediating role of emotions. However, some previous studies have
demonstrated that the path from perceived physical environment to future intentions was not
significant in the environmental psychology model (Chang, 200). Thus, future researchers might
carry out studies that test emotion as a mediator of the physical environment on behavioral
responses.
162
References
Barsky, J., & Nash, L. (2002). Evoking emotion. Affective keys to hotel loyalty. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43, 39-46.
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Chang, K. (2000). The impact of perceived physical environments on customers' satisfaction and
return intentions. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 21(2), 75-85.
Chebat, J., & Michon, R. (2003). Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers' emotions,
cognition, and spending. Journal of Business Research, 56, 529-539.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Gerbing, D.W., & Anderson, J.C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research,
25(May), 186-192.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis
(5
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Nunnaly, J.C., Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3
rd
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Stevens, P., Knutson, B., & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for measuring service quality
in restaurants. Cornell Hotel and restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 56-60.
163
APPENDIXES
Appendix A
Survey Questionnaire
164
SECTION I: Your Perception about the Physical Environment,
Emotional States, and Behavioral Intentions
INSTRUCTION: This section asks questions which use rating scales: please circle the number
that best describes your opinion. There are no right or wrong answers. Your opinions
arevaluable to this study.
1. Physical Environment:
In the following statements, we are interested in your feelings about the physical surroundings
in the dining area of this restaurant. For each statement, please use the following scale:
1 = extremely disagree, 2 = strongly disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 =
somewhat agree, 6 = strongly agree, 7 = extremely agree.
Extremely
Disagree
Neutral
Extremely
Agree
N/A
1) Dining areas are thoroughly clean.
2) Carpeting / flooring is of high quality.
3) Carpeting / flooring makes me feel comfortable. 4)
Ceiling decor is attractive.
5) Wall decor is visually appealing.
6) Furniture (e.g., dining table, chair) is of high quality. 7)
Paintings / pictures are attractive.
8) Plants / flowers makes me feel happy.
9) Exposed kitchens/glass wine cellars create a pleasing mood 10)
Colors used create a warm atmosphere.
11) Colors used create a comfortable atmosphere. 12)
Colors used make me feel calm.
13) Lighting creates a comfortable atmosphere. 14)
Lighting creates a warm atmosphere. 15) Lighting
makes me feel welcome. 16) Background music
relaxes me. 17) Background music is pleasing. 18)
Temperature is comfortable. 19) Aroma is enticing.
20) Noise level is unpleasant.
21) Layout makes it easy for me to move around.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
165
22) Seating arrangement gives me enough space.
23) Seating arrangement makes me feel crowded. 24)
Seats are comfortable.
25) Menu design is attractive.
26) Food presentation is visually attractive.
27) The restaurant offers a wide variety of wines. 28)
The table setting is visually attractive.
29) Tableware (e.g., glass, china, silverware) is of high quality 30)
The linens (e.g., table cloths, napkin) are attractive. 31) Employees
are neat and well dressed.
32) Attractive employees make me feel good.
33) An adequate number of employees makes me feel cared for.
34) The appearance of the other customers makes me feel
important.
2. Emotional States:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
In the following statements, we are interested in your feelings, moods and emotional reactions
about the physical environment while you experience the restaurant's service. For each
statement, place a check mark below the number where indicates your emotional reaction.
In this restaurant, I feel
..................................
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
1) unhappy : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : happy
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
2) annoyed : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : pleased
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
3) depressed : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : cheerful
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
4) disappointed : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : delighted
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
5) bored : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : entertained
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
6) calm : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : excited
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
7) indifferent : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : surprised
166
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
8) sleepy : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : awake
3. Behavioral Intentions:
In the following statements, we are interested in your feelings about your behavioral
intentions in relation to this restaurant. For each statement, please circle the number that best
reflects your opinion.
Extremely Neutral Extremely
Disagree Agree
1) I would like to come back to this restaurant in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2) I would recommend this restaurant to my friends or others. 1 2 3 4 5 6
73) I would like to stay longer than
I planned at this restaurant. 1 2 3 4 5 6
74) I am willing to spend more than
I planned at this restaurant. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SECTION II: Information about Yourself
INSTRUCTION: Please place a mark in the category that best describes you or fill in the blank.
Your responses are for research purposes only. They will be kept confidential and reported as
aggregate data only.
1. What is your gender? _______ Male _______ Female
2. What is your age? ________
3. Your highest education is (e.g., college): ____________________________________________
4. Your annual Gross annual household income before taxes is: $ __________________________
5. Your racial/ethnic background is:
_____ Caucasian _____ African-American _____ Native American
_____ Hispanic _____ Asian _____ Multi-Racial _____ Other
6. Do you own your house? _______ Yes _______ No
7. Is this your first time to dine in this restaurant? _______ Yes _______ No
If No, how many times have you visited this restaurant in the past? ____________________
Thank you for your participation in this study.
167
Appendix B
Cover Letter to the Manager
168
Appendix C
Cover Letter for Questionnaire
170
171
doc_737050903.docx
In psychology, the theory of planned behavior is a theory about the link between beliefs and behavior. The concept was proposed by Icek Ajzen to improve on the predictive power of the theory of reasoned action by including perceived behavioural control.[1] It is one of the most predictive persuasion theories. It has been applied to studies of the relations among beliefs, attitudes, behavioral intentions and behaviors in various fields such as advertising, public relations, advertising campaigns and healthcare.
STUDY ON DINESCAPE, EMOTIONS AND
BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS IN UPSCALE
RESTAURANTS
ABSTRACT
The physical environment may be an important determinant of customer satisfaction and
subsequent behavior when services are consumed primarily for hedonic purposes and customers
spend moderate to long periods of time in the physical surroundings. An example of this
phenomenon would be in an upscale restaurant setting.
This study explored the domain of the physical environment in an upscale restaurant
context to develop a DINESCAPE scale. Relevant literature was reviewed on architecture,
environmental psychology, psychology, operations management, and marketing, highlighting
empirical and theoretical contributions. Conceptualization and operationalization of the
DINESCAPE dimensions is presented, and the procedures used in constructing and refining a
multiple-item scale to assess DINESCAPE in an upscale restaurant setting are described.
DINESCAPE is a six-factor scale that was developed to measure facility aesthetics, ambience,
lighting, service product, layout, and social factors. Evidence of the scale's reliability, validity,
and factor structure is presented, along with potential applications of the scale.
The second phase of the study attempted to build a conceptual model of how the
DINESCAPE factors influenced customers' behavioral intentions through their emotions. The
Mehrabian-Russell environmental psychology model was adopted to explore the linkage of the
six dimensions of DINESCAPE to customers' emotional states (pleasure and arousal) and the
linkage between pleasure and arousal with customers' behavioral intentions. Structural equation
modeling was used to test the causal relationships among the hypothesized relationships. Results
revealed that facility aesthetics, ambience, and social factors affected the level of customers'
pleasure and ambience and social factors influenced the amount of arousal. In addition, pleasure
and arousal had significant effects on subsequent behavioral intentions in the context of
upscale restaurant. Finally, implications for restaurateurs and researchers were discussed.
ABSTRACT
The physical environment may be an important determinant of customer satisfaction and
subsequent behavior when services are consumed primarily for hedonic purposes and customers
spend moderate to long periods of time in the physical surroundings. An example of this
phenomenon would be in an upscale restaurant setting.
This study explored the domain of the physical environment in an upscale restaurant
context to develop a DINESCAPE scale. Relevant literature was reviewed on architecture,
environmental psychology, psychology, operations management, and marketing, highlighting
empirical and theoretical contributions. Conceptualization and operationalization of the
DINESCAPE dimensions is presented, and the procedures used in constructing and refining a
multiple-item scale to assess DINESCAPE in an upscale restaurant setting are described.
DINESCAPE is a six-factor scale that was developed to measure facility aesthetics, ambience,
lighting, service product, layout, and social factors. Evidence of the scale's reliability, validity,
and factor structure is presented, along with potential applications of the scale.
The second phase of the study attempted to build a conceptual model of how the
DINESCAPE factors influenced customers' behavioral intentions through their emotions. The
Mehrabian-Russell environmental psychology model was adopted to explore the linkage of the
six dimensions of DINESCAPE to customers' emotional states (pleasure and arousal) and the
linkage between pleasure and arousal with customers' behavioral intentions. Structural equation
modeling was used to test the causal relationships among the hypothesized relationships. Results
revealed that facility aesthetics, ambience, and social factors affected the level of customers'
pleasure and ambience and social factors influenced the amount of arousal. In addition, pleasure
and arousal had significant effects on subsequent behavioral intentions in the context of upscale
restaurant. Finally, implications for restaurateurs and researchers were discussed.
TABLES OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF FIGURES................................ x
LIST OF TABLES............................ xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................... xii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION................................................................
Statement of Problems...........................
Purposes and Objectives .............................................................................
Significance of this Study ..............................................................................
Conceptual Model and Hypotheses ..........................................................
Definition of Terms............................................................................................
Delimitation and Limitation of the Study...................
References....................................................................................................
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE.....................................................
Theoretical Background.......... ...........................................................
Physical Environment..................................................................................... Dimensions
of the Physical Environment...................... Mehrabian-
Russell Model....................................................
The Importance of the Physical Environment in the Service Industry ..........
The Importance of the Physical Environment in the Upscale Restaurant Segment.
Variables Related to the Physical Environment....................................
Facility Aesthetics.................................................................................................
Layout.................................................................................................
Ambience..................................................................................................Service
Product ............................................................................... Social
Factors..................................................................................................
Emotional States ....................................................................
Approach & Avoidance Behaviors....................................................................
References.......................................................................................................
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY...................................................
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
14
15
17
22
25
28
31
31
34
34
39
40
41
44
47
58
Sample and Survey Procedure...................................................... 58 Scale
Development Procedures ................................................................... 59
vii
Step 1: Domain of Constructs...........................................
Step 2: Initial Pool of Items........................................... Step
3: Content Adequacy Assessment........................................................ Step 4:
Questionnaire Administration....................................................... Step 5: Scale
Purification....................................................................
Measurement of Variables ..........................................................................
DINESCAPE ................................................................................ Emotional
States... .......................................................................... Behavioral
Intentions.. .......................................................................
Data Analysis of Study 2..................................................
References.......................................................................................................
CHAPTER IV: DINESCAPE: A SCALE FOR MEASURING CUSTOMER
PERCEPTIONS OF PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT IN UPSCALE
RESTAURANTS
Abstract.............................INTR
ODUCTION.......................... REVIEW
OF LITERATURE.....................
Physical Environment in the Upscale Restaurant
Context.........Domain of the Physical
Environment..................
METHODOLOGY..........................
Step 1: Domain of Constructs..................... Step
2: Initial Pool of Items..................... Step 3:
Content Adequacy Assessment.................Step 4:
Questionnaire Administration................... Step 5:
Scale Purification......................
RESULTS...............................
Sample Characteristics.......................
Descriptive Information...................... Item
Analysis..........................Explorator
y Factor Analysis.....................Confirmatory
Factor Analysis..................... Unidimensionality
and Reliability..................Convergent and
Discriminant Validity.................
DISCUSSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS.................LIMITATIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY.......
REFERENCES...........................
CHAPTER V: THE INFLUENCE OF DINESCAPE ON BEHAVIORAL
INTENTIONS THROUGH EMOTIONAL STATES IN UPSCALE
RESTAURANTS
Abstract.............................
viii
59
60
61
62
62
65
66
67
67
68
70
73
74
78
78
79
83
83
83
84
85
87
90
90
90
91
91
96
96
97
98
100
103
115
INTRODUCTION...........................
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND......................
Mehrabian-Russell Model......................
DINESCAPE Variables.......................
METHODOLOGY..........................
Data Collection.............................
Measurement of Variables........................ Data
Analysis.............................
RESULTS............................
Measurement
Model........................Structural Equation
Model.....................
DISCUSSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS.................LIMITATIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH......
REFERENCES...........................
CHAPTER VI: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.............
Major Findings...........................
Scale Development: DINESCAPE....................
The Influence of DINESCAPE on Pleasure and Arousal and the Impact of
Pleasure and Arousal on Behavioral Intention.................
Limitations.............................
Conclusion and
Implications.....................Suggestions and
Future Research......................
References..............................
APPENDIXES................................
116
118
120
121
125
125
126
127
128
128
131
135
138
141
153
154
154
156
158
158
160
163
164
Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire...................... 164
Appendix B: Cover Letter to the Manager.................. 168
Appendix C: Cover Letter for Questionnaire................. 170
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
CHAPTER I, II, III, & VI: SERVICESCAPE, EMOTIONS AND BEHAVIORAL
INTENTIONS IN UPSCALE RESTAURANTS
Figure 1 Proposed Model of the Relationships between DINESCAPE, Emotional
States, and Behavioral Intentions....................
Figure 2 The Casual Chain Connecting Atmosphere and Purchase
Probability..Figure 3 Mehrabian-Russell
Model...................... Figure 4 Typology of Service
Environments................Figure 5 Scale Development
Procedures......................
CHAPTER IV: DINESCAPE: A SCALE FOR MEASURING CUSTOMER
PERCEPTIONS OF PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT IN UPSCALE
RESTAURANTS
Figure 1 Scale Development Procedures..................
Figure 2 Measurement Model of DINESCAPE.................
7
16
23
30
60
109
110
CHAPTER V: THE INFLUENCE OF DINESCAPE ON EMOTIONAL STATES
AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS IN THE UPSCALE RESTAURANT
INDUSTRY
Figure 1 Mehrabian-Russell Model.................... 148
Figure 2 Causal Relationships Between Latent Variables............. 149
x
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
CHAPTER I, II, III, & IV: SERVICESCAPE, EMOTIONS AND BEHAVIORAL
INTENTIONS IN UPSCALE RESTAURANTS
Table 1 Literature Review of Dimensions Related to the Physical Environment... 18
CHAPTER IV: DINESCAPE: A SCALE FOR MEASURING CUSTOMER
PERCEPTIONS OF PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT IN UPSCALE
RESTAURANTS
Table 1 Literature Review of Dimensions Related to the Physical Environment.. 111
Table 2 Sample Characteristics of Respondents................ 112
Table 3 Exploratory Factor Analysis for DINESCAPE Factors.......... 113
Table 4 Measurement Properties...................... 114
CHAPTER V: THE INFLUENCE OF DINESCAPE ON EMOTIONAL STATES
AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS IN THE UPSCALE RESTAURANT
INDUSTRY
Table 1 Measurement Properties...................... 150
Table 2 Correlations Among the Latent Constructs.............. 151
Table 3 Structural Parameter Estimates..................... 152
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor as well as one of my
co-major professors, Dr. SooCheong (Shawn) Jang, for his consistent support, patience,
encouragement, and friendship throughout my Ph. D. program. His priceless advice was
essential to the completion of this dissertation. In addition, he has taught me innumerable
lessons and inspired me work hard in order not to disappoint him and myself as well. He
also helped me have insights into becoming the excellent scholar as a researcher and a
teacher as well. I will not forget his frequent comment toward junior graduate students:
"Welcome to academic research world." There is no doubt that he will be my true
teacher, mentor, and even friend for the rest of my life. I cannot express how much I was
fortunate to have him as my sincere advisor from the begging of my Ph. D. program.
I was also very lucky to have Dr. Deborah Canter as one of my co-major
professors. More specifically, she consistently showed me trust, respect, and generous
understanding throughout this project. And, her editorial advice was very helpful in
improving the contents of the paper. In addition, the valuable assistance of Dr. Jeffrey
Katz is greatly appreciated. His encouragement and valuable comments for this study was
very helpful. My thanks also go to Dr. Rebecca Gould and Dr. Mark Barnett for serving
on my committee member and outside chairperson, respectively.
Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude to my family, especially my father
and mother, who made this all possible and worthwhile. Their unending support and love
throughout my life is sincerely appreciated.
xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The influence of the environment on behavior has long been acknowledged by
landscapers, architects, interior designers, retailers, and environmental psychologists (Donovan
& Rossiter, 1982; Turley & Milliman, 2000). Theoretical and empirical data from environmental
psychology research suggests that customer reactions to the physical environment (also known as
'atmospherics' or 'SERVICESCAPE') may be more emotional than cognitive, particularly when
hedonic consumption is involved. While consumption of many types of service is driven
primarily by utilitarian (functional) purposes, such as fast food drive-through services,
consumption of leisure services (e.g., dining at an upscale restaurant) is also driven by hedonic
(emotional) motives. Hedonic consumption is more than just perceived quality of the service
being offered (e.g., whether a meal was delivered quickly), influencing whether consumers are
satisfied with the service experience. One of the main reasons customers seek out hedonic
consumption is to experience pleasure and excitement (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1999). Previous
research indicates that the degree of pleasure (e.g., unhappy-happy) and arousal (e.g., excited-
calm) that customers experience during hedonic consumption may be a major determinant of
their satisfaction and subsequent behavior such as repatronage and positive word-of-mouth
(Mano & Oliver, 1993; Russell & Pratt, 1980). The atmosphere or the physical environment is
important because it can either enhance or suppress these emotions (Wakefield & Blodgett,
1999).
1
The physical environment is an important determinant of customer satisfaction and
behavior when the service is consumed primarily for hedonic reasons and customers spend
moderate to long periods in the physical environment (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). For
instance, in the case of upscale restaurants, customers may spend two hours or more, and they
sense the physical surroundings consciously and unconsciously before, during, and after the
meal. While the food and the service must be of acceptable quality, pleasing physical
surroundings (e.g., lighting, décor, layout, employee appearance) may determine to a large extent
the degree of overall satisfaction and subsequent behavior.
The National Restaurant Association (NRA) and CREST (Consumer Reports on Eating
Share Trends), a national marketing research company, both identified the typology of
independent restaurants in four segments: quick service, midscale, casual dining, and upscale.
The upscale segment provides customers with a full menu, full table service, good food made
with fresh ingredients, and personalized service (Goldman, 1993; Gordon & Brezinski, 1999;
Muller & Woods, 1994; Siguaw, Mattila, & Austin, 1999). The average check for the upscale
restaurant segment in 2004 was computed based on the following information: (1) the average
check for upscale restaurant in 1992 ($9.72) (Goldman, 1993) and (2) inflation rate from 1993 to
2004 (InflationData, 2005). The calculation was as follows:
(1) Average of Inflation Rate from 1993 to 2004 = 2.51%
(2) Average check of an upscale restaurant segment in 2004 = (9.72) * (1 + .025)
12
= $13.09
Thus, for the purposes of this study, $13.09 is the average check for an upscale restaurant.
Since menu price varies from location to location, the average check should not be the
only criterion in defining an upscale restaurant. Other important characteristics (choice of menu
items, food quality, level of service, and ambiance) should also be incorporated. For the purpose
2
of this study, upscale restaurants were defined as those in which average per-person check was
more than $13.09 and offered a full menu, full table service, food made from the scratch, and
personalized service.
Statement of Problems
Bitner (1992, p.57) claimed, "Managers continually plan, build, change, and control an
organization's physical surroundings, but frequently the impact of a physical design or design
change on ultimate consumer satisfaction is not fully understood." Despite the importance of the
physical environment, its elements have not been empirically examined to any great extent. This
concept has gained attention in areas such as environmental psychology, retailing, marketing,
organizational behavior, and consumer research texts. Moreover, the empirical research
conducted has primarily focused on individual elements (Areni & Kim, 1993; Mattila & Wirtz,
2001; Milliman, 1986). A concrete conceptual framework for the physical environment has been
developed based on the foundation of environmental psychology and marketing. However, in
hospitality literature there is a surprising lack of empirical or theoretical research addressing the
role of the physical environment, particularly in upscale restaurants, despite the indication that
tangible physical environment plays an important role in enhancing customer satisfaction and
subsequent behavioral intention.
Since dimensions of service quality (SERVQUAL) vary depending upon settings and
target populations (Bojanic & Rosen, 1995; Carmen, 1990; Fu & Parks, 2001), researchers have
suggested that future research on service quality construct should be industry-specific (Babakus
& Boller, 1992; Dabholkar et al., 1996). Moreover, research has shown that customers in various
foodservice settings evaluate their needs and preferences in foodservice differently (Lehtinen &
3
Lehtinen, 1991; O'Hara et al., 1997). By the same token, development of industry-specific
measures of man-made physical surroundings in the service industry is needed. The physical
environment is an important determinant of customer satisfaction and subsequent behavioral
intentions in the upscale restaurant context because the service is consumed primarily for
hedonic (emotional) purposes instead of utilitarian (functional) purposes, and customers spend
several hours observing and evaluating the physical surroundings. Despite its influence on
customer satisfaction and its use in marketing, the physical environment in upscale restaurants
has been the subject of little research. In addition, no instrument is available to specifically
evaluate the physical environment in the upscale restaurant context. Thus, the goal of this
research was to develop and validate an instrument that measures the physical environment
provided in upscale restaurants.
Research on physical environment typically has studied the effect of one or several
particular elements (e.g., lighting, music) of the physical environment on the customer's
purchasing behavior. Little detailed investigation has been conducted on how the physical
environment affects customer behavior within hospitality settings, specifically in upscale
restaurants. Thus, the combined effect of the elements that make up the physical environment of
upscale restaurants needs to be empirically tested to create an overall conceptual model. If the
physical environment can indeed influence customer behavior within the restaurant, then a
framework should be developed to study such effects. Although several researchers have
attempted to explore various aspects of environmental and behavioral relationships, no previous
studies have applied an overall environmental psychology framework to the upscale restaurant
context.
4
Purposes and Objectives
This study aimed to fill these gaps by establishing reliable, valid, generalizable, and
useful measures of the physical environment in the restaurant setting, especially in the upscale
restaurant context, for both restaurateurs and researchers. DINESCAPE was the term coined in
this study and has a similarity to the popular term "SERVICESCAPE" in describing
characteristics of the physical environment, but its emphasis on physical surroundings is
restricted to inside dining areas. DINESCAPE is primarily differentiated from SERVICESCAPE
by the development of a scale to measure the physical environment in the dining area of a
restaurant, especially an upscale restaurant. For this study, the DINESCAPE was defined as the
man-made physical and human surroundings, not the natural environment in the dining area of
upscale restaurants. This study did not focus on external environment (e.g., parking space,
building design) and some internal environmental variables (e.g., restroom and waiting room)
because the intent was to provide a more generalizable and parsimonious instrument for both
practitioners and researchers.
The purposes of this study were to develop a DINESCAPE scale for the upscale
restaurant context and to build a conceptual framework of how the DINESCAPE might influence
customers' emotional states and, in turn, how those emotions affect behavioral intentions. The
first part of this study developed a multiple-item scale to measure the overall conceptual
framework of DINESCAPE in the upscale restaurant setting. The second phase of the study
investigated the causal relationships between DINESCAPE, emotions (e.g., pleasure and arousal)
and behavioral intentions (e.g., repatronage, positive word-of-mouth, likelihood of staying longer
than anticipated, and likelihood of spending more than anticipated) using the Mehrabian-Russell
environmental psychology model.
5
The specific objectives of this study were (1) to establish a reliable, valid, and efficient
measure of the DINESCAPE dimensions in the upscale restaurant context; (2) to adapt the
Mehrabian-Russell model to the upscale restaurant context and test predictions from the model;
(3) to investigate the effect of the DINESCAPE dimensions on customer emotional states; and
(4) to examine the impact of customer emotions on their behavioral intentions.
Significance of This Study
This study is important both theoretically and practically. First, although theory related to
the service environment has been well developed, little customer behavior research has been
performed to test some of the basic relationships between the physical environment and the
Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model. Second, little consumer research has been conducted in the
upscale restaurant area of the hospitality industry. Results of this study may help restaurateurs
determine how customers perceive the quality of the physical environment in their upscale
restaurants. Findings of this study may provide insights into the various elements of the physical
environment so that upscale restaurateurs might understand more fully how to enhance the
perceived quality of their facilities. An understanding of the effect of changes in physical
surroundings on customers' behavior might thus guide management's actions when making
design or renovation decisions.
Upscale restaurateurs who devote resources primarily to maintaining and improving
intangible service quality while allowing the tangible physical environment to deteriorate may
lose customers without recognizing the cause. Thus, managers should accurately monitor
customer perceptions of the physical environment, which may suggest maintenance, renovation,
or relocation needs. In addition, upscale restaurateurs must consider what customers are seeking
6
through the dining experience. The physical environment can be a major tool for communicating
these values. Managers must next identify the major variables of the physical environment that
are available to generate the desired customer awareness and reaction. Sight, sound, scent, and
texture can each contribute to attaining the desired total effect. Management needs to be sure that
details of the physical environment have been implemented in a way that is effective, and
superior to the competition. Finally, as other marketing tools (e.g., food quality, price) become
neutralized in the competitive battle, especially in the restaurant industry, the physical
environment may play a growing role by providing distinctive advantages.
Conceptual Model & Hypotheses
The underlying theoretical framework for the conceptual model of the physical
environment originated with the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model, which posited that emotional
states mediated the relationship between the physical environment and an individual's response
to that environment (see Figure 1). This framework has gained consistent empirical support in
environmental psychology and marketing literature (Baker & Cameron, 1996; Baker, Levy, &
Grewal, 1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Russell & Pratt, 1980).
Pleasure
DINESCAPE Behavioral
Dimensions Intention
Arousal
Figure 1. Proposed Model of the Relationships between
DINESCAPE, Emotional States, and Behavioral Intention
7
To achieve the objectives of the study, the following tentative hypotheses were tested:
H1: Each DINESCAPE dimension will have a positive effect on pleasure.
H2: Each DINESCAPE dimension will have a positive effect on arousal.
H3: Pleasure will have a positive effect on behavioral intention.
H4: Arousal will have a positive effect on behavioral intention.
Definition of Terms
Arousal: The degree to which a person feels excited, stimulated, alert, or active in the
situation (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974).
Atmospherics: The effort to design buying environments to produce specific emotional
effects in the buyer that enhance his/her purchase probability (Kotler, 1973, p. 50).
Behavioral Intentions: Although the definition of behavioral intentions varies depending
on research context, this study considers behavioral intentions as a customer's willingness to
provide positive word of mouth, to visit the restaurant again in the future, to stay longer than
anticipated, and to spend more than anticipated (Zeithaml et al., 1996).
Hedonic consumption: Those facets of consumer behavior that relate to the multi-
sensory and emotive aspects of one's experience (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Multi-sensory
means the receipt of experience through multiple senses including tastes, sound, scents, tactile
impressions and images.
Pleasure: The degree to which the person feels good, joyful, happy, or satisfied in the
situation (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974).
Service encounter: "A period of time during which a consumer directly interacts with a
service" (Shostack, 1985, p. 243).
8
Servicescape: "Built environment" or, more specifically, the "the man-made, physical
surroundings as opposed to natural or social environment" (Bitner, 1992. p. 58).
Utilitarian: Useful and practical rather than being used for decoration or pleasure. For
instance, utilitarian aspects of the shopping experience have often been characterized as task-
related and rational (Batra & Ahtola, 1991) and related closely to whether or not a product
acquisition "mission" was accomplished (Babin, Darden, & Grffin, 1994). While utilitarian
evaluation is mostly functional and cognitive in nature, hedonic evaluation is more affective than
cognitive (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003).
Delimitation and Limitation of the Study
A DINESCAPE scale was developed to assess the physical environment only within
upscale restaurants. Thus, results of the study should not be generalized beyond the upscale
restaurant setting. To evaluate the validity of our findings, the study should be replicated and
conducted in other restaurant settings, such as casual dining restaurants. In addition, data were
collected from three upscale restaurants in two Midwestern states. Thus, results of the study may
not generalize to other upscale restaurants located in other geographic areas. Further studies
should be conducted to determine whether our findings are restricted to certain geographic areas
or types of restaurants. In addition, DINESCAPE items only captured the man-made physical
surroundings inside the dining area of the upscale restaurant. The scale does not consider the
external environment (e.g., ample parking) or some other aspects of the internal environment
(e.g., restrooms).
9
References
Areni, C.S., & Kim, D. (1994). The influence of in-store lighting on consumers' examination of
merchandise in a wine store. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 117-
125.
Arnold, M.J., & Reynolds, K.E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing, 79,
77-95.
Babakus, E., & Boller, G.W. (1992). An empirical assessment of SERVQUAL scale. Journal of
Business Research, 24, 253-268.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., & Griffin, M (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656.
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
the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 338-349.
Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store
environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), 445-460.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O.T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer
attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2, 159-170.
Bitner, M.J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.
Bojanic, D., & Rosen, D.L. (1995). Measuring service quality in restaurants: An application of
the SERVQUAL instrument. Hospitality Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14.
Carman, J.M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the
SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66, 33-55.
10
Dabholkar, P.A., Thorpe, D.I., & Rentz, J.O. (1996). A measure of service quality for retail
stores: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences,
24(Winter), 3-16.
Donovan, R.J., & Rossiter, J.R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology
approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(1), 34-57.
Fu, Y., & Parks, S.C. (2001). The relationship between restaurant service quality and consumer
loyalty among the elderly. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 25(3), 320-336.
Goldman, K. (1993). Concept selection for independent restaurants. Cornell, Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 34(6), 59-72.
Gordon, R.T., & Brezinski, M.H. (1999). The Complete Restaurant Management Guide.
Armonk, New York. Sharpe Professional.
Hirschman, E., & Holbrook, M. (1982). Hedonic consumption emerging concepts, methods and
prepositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92-101.
InflationData.com. Retried January 25, 2005, from
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/CurrentInflation.asp.
Kotler, P. (1974). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48-64.
Lehtinen, U., & Lehtinen, J.R. (1991). Two approaches to service quality dimensions. The
Service Industries Journal, 11, 287-303.
Mano, H., & Oliver, R.L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption
experience: Evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3),
451-466.
Mattila, A.S., & Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 273-289.
11
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Milliman, R.E. (1986). The influence of background music on the behavior of restaurant patrons.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 286-289.
Muller, C.C., & Woods, R.H. (1994). An expanded restaurant typology. Cornell, Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 27-37.
O'Hara, C.B., Harper, D.W., Kangas, M., Dubeau, J., Borsutzky, C., & Lemire, N. (1997). Taste,
temperature, and presentation satisfaction with foodservices in a Canadian continuing-
care hospital. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 97, 401-405.
Russell, J.A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to
environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 311-322.
Shostack, G.L. (1985). Planning the service encounter. in J. Czepiel, M. Solomon & C.
Suprenant. (Eds.). The service encounter. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Siguaw, J.A., Mattila, A., & Austin, J.R. (1999). The brand-personality scale: An application for
restaurants. Cornell, Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 48-55.
Turley, L.W., & Milliman, R.E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of
the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 193-211.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1996). The effects of the servicescape on customers'
behavioral intentions in leisure service setting. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45-
61.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1999). Customer response to intangible and tangible service
factors. Psychology & Marketing, 16(1), 51-68.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service
12
quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.
13
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter provides a brief review of environmental psychology literature with a focus
on physical environment and the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model. The rationale of the physical
environment also an important determinant in the upscale restaurant context is then discussed.
Finally, a more detailed summary of literature on the physical environment followed by emotions
and behavioral intentions is presented.
Theoretical Background
The influence of the physical environment (also referred to as 'atmospherics' or
'SERVICESCAPE') on emotions and behavior has gained attention from architects and
environmental psychologists (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Gilboa &Rafaeli, 2003; Mehrabian &
Russell, 1974; Porteous, 1997). During the past several decades, physical environment has
become an important area in the study of the retail environment, with researchers beginning to
study the influence of the store environment on consumer behavior (Turley & Milliman, 2000).
However, research on the physical environment still lacks a coherent framework for analyzing
such environments (Baker et al., 1994) and has yet to incorporate into a framework the extensive
developments in the analyses of physical environments (Bitner, 1992).
The Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model has received consistent empirical support in
environmental psychology and marketing literature (Baker & Cameron, 1996; Baker, Levy, &
Grewal, 1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Russell & Pratt, 1980). The model can be used to
explore the relationships between the physical environment, emotions, and behavioral intentions.
14
Physical Environment
Research has shown that consumers may respond to more than just the tangible product
or service rendered when making a purchase decision (Kotler, 1973; Milliman, 1986). The
tangible product may be only a small part of the total consumption experience. Instead,
consumers respond to the total product. The place where the product or service is bought or
consumed may be one of the most influential factors. The place, and more specifically the
atmosphere of the place, can be more influential than the product itself (e.g., meal) in purchase
decision-making. In some situations, atmosphere can be the primary influence (Kotler, 1973).
"Atmosphere is the effort to design buying environments to produce specific emotional
effects in the consumer that enhance his/her purchase probability" (Kotler, 1973, p. 50).
Technically, atmosphere refers to "the air surrounding a sphere." It is also used more colloquially
to represent the quality of the surroundings. For example, a restaurant described as having
atmosphere has physical surroundings that evoke pleasant feelings. It is more appropriate to use
a modifier, such as the restaurant has a "good" atmosphere or "busy" atmosphere. Atmosphere is
always described as a quality of the surrounding space (Kotler, 1973). Atmosphere (also called
SERVICESCAPE) can be generated through the senses. The main sensory channels for
atmosphere include sight (e.g., color, brightness, size, shapes), sound (e.g., volume, pitch), scent,
and touch (e.g., softness, smoothness, temperature) (Kotler, 1973). The fifth sense, taste, does
not apply directly to atmosphere.
Kotler (1973) discussed how atmosphere (hereafter physical environment) could
influence behavior. Figure 2 presents the mechanism by which the physical environment of a
place influences purchase behavior based on the causal chain. Figure 2 shows how sensory
15
qualities of space (physical surroundings) have an effect on consumer information and affective
state and subsequent consumer behavior (e.g., purchase probability).
Sensory
qualities of
space
surrounding
purchase
object
Buyer's
perception of
the sensory
qualities of
space
Effect of
perceived
sensory
qualities on
modifying
buyer's
information
and affective
state
Impact of
buyer's
modified
information
and affective
state on
purchase
probability
Source: Adapted from Kotler (1973)
Figure 2. The Casual Chain Connecting Atmosphere and Purchase Probability
The concept of the physical environment has been acknowledged by a number of
industries and companies. For instance, "People no longer buy shoes to keep their feet warm and
dry. They buy them because of the way the shoes make them feel -masculine, feminine, rugged,
different, sophisticated, young, glamorous, "in." Buying shoes has become an emotional
experience. Our business is now selling excitement rather than shoes" (Kotler, 1973 p. 55). The
use of shoes has been moved from a utilitarian (functional) concept to a pleasure (emotional)
concept. In this case, the physical environment is designed to give the buyer the feeling of being
rich, important, and special (Kotler, 1973).
16
Dimensions of the Physical Environment
Considerable research has been conducted to determine what constitutes the physical
environment (Baker, 1987; Baker, Levy, & Grewal; 1992; Berman & Evans, 1995; Bitner, 1992;
Brady & Cronin, 2001; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988; Raajpoot, 2002; Stevens,
Knutson, & Patton, 1995; Turley & Milliman, 2000; Wakefield & Blodgett; 1996, 1999). Table 1
presents a summary of dimensions related to the physical environment from the literature. The
table shows that previous studies have revealed various aspects of physical environment.
However, relatively slow progress has been made on developing a measurement scale for the
physical environment. Only few scales (e.g., SERVQUAL and DINESERV) incorporate tangible
physical environment as a part of the overall service quality measurement scheme. Even though
Raajpoot (2002) developed a scale called TANGSERV, its findings might be not acceptable or
reliable due to unclear methodology.
Baker (1987) classified three fundamental factors that affect the tangible portion of
service quality dimensions: design, social, and ambient factors. Ambience includes background
variables such as lighting, aroma, and temperature. These variables are not part of the primary
service but are important because their absence may make customers feel concerned or
uncomfortable. Design dimension represents the components of the environment that tend to be
visual and more tangible in nature. Design dimension includes color, furnishings, and spatial
layout. The design elements contain both the aesthetic aspects (e.g., beauty, décor) and the
functional aspects (e.g., layout, ease of transaction, and waiting room design) that facilitate high
quality service. The social factors relate to an organization's concern for the people in the
environment, including customers and employees. Baker, Grewal, and Parasuraman (1994) also
17
Table 1
Literature Review of Dimensions Related to the Physical Environment
Authors Dimensions
Baker (1987)
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, &
Berry (1988)
Bitner (1992)
Baker, Grewal, &
Parasuraman (1994)
Berman & Evans (1995)
Stevens, Knutson, &
Patton (1995)
Wakefield & Blodgett
(1996)
Wakefield & Blodgett
(1999)
Turley & Milliman (2000)
Brady & Cronin (2001)
Raajpoot (2002)
Atmospherics
SERVQUAL
SERVICESCAPE
Store atmospherics
Atmospherics
DINESERV
SERVICESCAPE
Tangible service
factors
Atmospherics
Service quality
TANGSERV
18
Ambient factors
Design factors (aesthetics & functional)
Social factors
Reliability
Responsiveness
Empathy
Assurance
Tangibility
Ambient conditions
Spatial layout and functionality
Sign, symbol and artifacts
Ambient factors
Design factors
Social factors
External variables
General interior variables
Layout and design variables
Point of purchase & decoration variables
Reliability
Responsiveness
Empathy
Assurance
Tangibles
Layout accessibility
Facility aesthetics
Seating comfort
Electronic equipment/displays
Facility cleanliness
Building design & décor
Equipment
Ambience
External variables
General interior variables
Layout and design variables
Point of purchase and decoration variables
Human variables
Interaction quality
Outcome quality
Quality of physical environments
Ambient factors
Design factors
Product/service factors
classified store atmospherics into three categories: store functional/aesthetic design factors, store
social factors, and store ambient factors.
Parasuraman et al. (1988) developed SERVQUAL to measure customer perceptions of
service quality in service and retailing organizations. SERVQUAL captures five dimensions:
tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. This scale is similar to
DINESERV (Stevens, Knutson, & Patton, 1995). Like DINESERV, SERVQUAL includes
tangibility as one of the five dimensions that describe overall service quality perceptions. This
tangible dimension comprises four items in SERVQUAL, as opposed to 10 items in DINESERV,
and is related to physical facilities, equipment, and personnel. The conceptualization and
dimensionality of SERVQUAL generally has been accepted. However, Brady and Cronin (2001)
argued in favor of three dimensions (i.e., interaction quality, outcome quality, and quality of
physical environment) in presenting an alternative conceptualization of service quality instead of
the five dimensions presented by SERVQUAL. Tangibility is the only common dimension of the
two major conceptualizations of service quality by Parasuraman et al. (1988) and Brady and
Cronin (2001). The objectives of SERVQUAL and DINESERV were to develop a scale for
assessing the overall construct of service quality, of which tangibility was only one dimension. If
one wished to develop a scale to capture various aspects of tangibility content, then further
examination of the domain of tangibility only is necessary.
Bitner (1992) discussed the effect of tangible physical environment on overall
development of service quality image. She coined the term "SERVICESCAPE" to describe the
combined effect of all physical factors that can be controlled by service organizations to enhance
customer and employee behaviors. SERVICESCAPE refers to the "built environment" or, more
specifically, the "man-made, physical surroundings as opposed to the natural or social
19
environment" (Bitner, 1992, p. 58). She identified three primary dimensions of the
SERVICESCAPE that influence consumers' holistic perceptions of the SERVICESCAPE (i.e.,
perceived quality) and their subsequent internal (i.e., satisfaction with the SERVICESCAPE) and
external responses (e.g., approach/avoidance, staying, repatronage). The three dimensions are (1)
ambient conditions (elements related to aesthetic appeal); (2) spatial layout and functionality;
and (3) signs, symbols, and artifacts. Ambient conditions include temperature, noise, music,
odors, and lighting. Aesthetic appeal refers to physical elements such as the surrounding external
environment, the architectural design, facility upkeep and cleanliness, and other physical
elements that customers can see and use to evaluate the aesthetic quality of the
SERVICESCAPE. Aesthetic factors are important because they influence ambience. Spatial
layout and functionality refer to the ways in which seats, aisles, hallways and walkways,
foodservice lines, restrooms, and the entrance and exits are designed and arranged in service
settings. Layout and functionality factors are important in many leisure services (e.g., theaters,
concerts, upscale restaurants) because they can affect the comfort of the customer. Signs,
symbols, and artifacts include signage and décor used to communicate and enhance a certain
image or mood, or to direct customers to desired destinations. These three dimensions are similar
to those proposed earlier by Baker (1987). However, Bitner's signs, symbols and artifacts
dimension focuses more on explicit and implicit signals than Baker's greater focus on people in
the environment. In addition, Bitner (1992) argued that, based on their perceptions of the
SERVICESCAPE, consumers will have certain thoughts and feelings (emotional and physical)
that ultimately lead them to either approach or avoidance behavior.
Berman and Evans (1995) divided tangible quality clues into four categories: external,
general interior, layout, and point of purchase dimensions. External variables include exterior
20
signs, building size and color, location, and parking. General interior variables include music,
scent, lighting, temperature, and color scheme. The layout and design variables pertain to
workstation placement, waiting facilities, and traffic flow. Finally, the point of purchase and
decoration variables relate to displays, pictures, artwork, and product displays at point of
purchase. The classification used in this study seems very practical in assisting marketing
professionals to easily understand the classification. Based on this classification, managers can
easily identify and adapt different atmospheric variables to improve service performance.
However, the authors failed to mention the social aspect of tangible quality.
Based on Bitner's (1992) SERVICESCAPE framework, Wakefield and Blodgett (1996)
examined the effects of layout accessibility, facility aesthetics, electronic equipment, seating
comfort, and cleanliness on the perceived quality of the SERVICESCAPE. The findings revealed
that perceived quality had a positive effect on customer satisfaction with the SERVICESCAPE,
which in turn affected how long customers desired to stay in the leisure service setting and
whether they intended to repatronize the service provider. However, this study did not focus on
ambient conditions because they could be more difficult to control, particularly in some leisure
field settings, such as amusement parks and other outdoor settings. Ambient conditions can be a
very important factor in the upscale restaurant context and can also be controlled to a large extent
by management.
Wakefield and Blodgett (1999) investigated whether the physical environment of service
delivery settings influenced customer evaluations of service and subsequent behavioral
intentions. Their research integrated environmental psychology into SERVQUAL to enable a
fuller assessment of the role of the tangible aspects of service delivery in leisure service settings.
The results showed that the tangible physical environment played an important role in creating
21
excitement in leisure settings. Excitement, in turn, played a significant role in determining
customer repatronage intentions and willingness to recommend. In the Wakefield and Blodgett
study, tangibility consisted of three factors: design, equipment, and ambient elements. They did
not consider the social factors.
Turley and Miliman (2000) presented a review of the literature that attempted to further
the theoretical and empirical understanding of atmospheric influences on multiple aspects of
consumer behavior. They identified 58 variables in 5 categories: external; general interior; layout
and design; point-of-purchase and decoration; and human. However, their classification lacks a
theoretical frame (Gilboa & Rafaeli, 2003). Raajpoot (2002) developed a scale called
TANGSERV for measuring tangible quality in foodservice industry. TANGSERV comprises
ambient factors (e.g., music, temperature), design factors (e.g., location, seating arrangement),
and product/service factors (e.g., food presentation, food variety). However, unclear
methodology clouds the results of Raajpoot's study.
Mehrabian-Russell Model
Environmental psychologists (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Russell & Pratt, 1980) have
proposed a valuable theoretical model for studying the effects of environment on human
behavior. Using a Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) paradigm, they describe the
relationship between environmental stimuli, intervening variables, and consumer behaviors.
Stimulus, intervening, and response variables should be conceptually clear, comprehensive yet
parsimonious, and operationally measurable (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982).
Mehrabian and Russell (1974) presented a theoretical model for studying the impact of
environment on human behavior. Figure 3 presents the Mehrabian-Russell Model. The
22
application of this model facilitates predicting and understanding the effects of environmental
changes on human behavior. The model has three parts: a stimulus taxonomy, a set of
intervening variables, and a set of responses. The environment creates an emotional response in
individuals, which in turn elicits either approach or avoidance behavior. The model claims that
three basic emotional states mediate approach-avoidance behaviors in environmental situations.
The three emotional responses are pleasure, arousal, and dominance. The model posits that any
environment will generate in an individual an emotional state that can be characterized in terms
of the three emotional states, which are factorially orthogonal. The pleasure-displeasure
dimension refers to the extent to which a person feels happy, pleased, satisfied, or content. High
arousal-low arousal distinguishes between feelings of high arousal (e.g., stimulated, excited, and
aroused) and low arousal (e.g., relaxed, bored, or sleepy). The dominance dimension relates to
the degree to which an individual feels dominance (e.g., influential, in control, important, and
autonomous) or submissiveness (e.g., submissive, passive, and lacking control). Approach
behaviors are seen as positive responses to an environment, such as a desire to stay in a particular
facility and explore. Avoidance behaviors include not wanting to stay in a store to spend time
looking or exploring.
Environmental
Stimuli
Emotional States:
Pleasure
Arousal
Dominance
Approach
or
Avoidance
Response
Source: Adopted from Mehrabian and Russell (1974)
Figure 3. Mehrabian-Russell Model
23
Russell and Pratt (1980) proposed a modification of the Mehrabian-Russell (1974)
environmental psychology model that deleted the dominance factor. Although evidence for the
suitability of the pleasure and arousal dimensions appeared convincing over a broad spectrum of
situations, evidence for the dominance dimension was more tenuous. The two orthogonal
dimensions of pleasure and arousal were adequate to represent people's emotional or affective
responses in any environmental situation. Moreover, Russell, in his later work, indicated that
dominance required a cognitive interpretation by the person and was therefore not purely
applicable in situations calling for affective responses (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Russell &
Barrett, 1999).
Donovan and Rossiter (1982) tested the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) theory by studying
approach-avoidance behavior in retail settings. The findings revealed that store
SERVICESCAPE was represented psychologically by consumers in terms of two major
emotional states—pleasure and arousal—and that these two emotional states were significant
mediators between atmosphere and shopping behaviors within the store. Simple affect, or store-
induced pleasure, was a very powerful determinant of approach-avoidance behaviors within the
store. The influence of emotional affect might be often overlooked in retail store selection
studies where cognitive influences (e.g., price, location, variety, and quality of product) are
mainly emphasized. The study indicated that the emotional responses evoked by the environment
within the store were primary determinants of the extent to which the individual spent beyond
what he/she originally planned. Cognitive elements might largely account for store selection and
for most of the planned purchases within the store. The study also suggested that arousal, or
store-induced feelings of excitement, could increase time spent in the store as well as willingness
24
to interact with sales personnel. In-store stimuli that induced arousal were fairly easy to identify
and included bright lighting and upbeat music.
The Importance of the Physical Environment in the Service Industry
Because delivering high quality service is crucial for success in the service industry,
understanding the nature of service quality has been important (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry,
1985). Service is distinguished from goods because of its characteristics, such as intangibility,
inseparability of production and consumption, heterogeneity, and perishability (Lovelock, 1991;
Parasuraman et al., 1985). However, service could be better understood on a continuum ranging
from tangible to intangible, since it can feature both aspects (Rushton & Carson, 1989). For
instance, foodservice encompasses both tangible (food and physical environment) and intangible
(employee-customer interaction) components. A proper combination of the tangible and
intangible aspects should result in a customer's perception of high service quality.
The importance of intangible and tangible components in the service industry has been
well documented in literature related to service. For instance, SERVQUAL has been widely
accepted and used in many areas such as retailing, marketing, and leisure to assess customer
perceptions of service quality in service organizations. The effect of the physical environment on
consumer behavior related to services such as hotels (Countryman & Jang, 2004; Perran, 1995;
Saleh & Ryan, 1991), restaurants (Millman, 1986; Stevens et al., 1995; Turley & Bolton, 1999),
healthcare (Hutton et al., 1995; McAlexander & Kaldenberg, 1994), and leisure (Chang, 2000;
Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996, 1999; Wakefield, 1994) also has been well documented in the
service literature.
25
The ability of the physical environment to influence behavior and to create an image is
particularly pertinent in the hospitality industry (hotels and restaurants) (Booms & Bitner, 1982).
Because the service is generally produced and consumed simultaneously, the consumer is "in the
factory," experiencing total service within the property's physical facility (Bitner, 1992). Dube
and Renaghan (2000) examined how hotels created visible value, as determined by their
customers, in the lodging industry. The results showed that the physical appearance of the hotel
exterior and public spaces ranked third and the guest-room design ranked fourth, respectively, as
driving attributes in the hotel-purchase decision, following location, brand name, and reputation.
The study also revealed that close to 40% of customers considered the overall quality of a
property's physical attributes and the aesthetic quality of the exteriors and public spaces as
sources of customer value underlying purchase decisions. Interestingly, the types of hotel
attributes that created customer value during the hotel experience were not the same as those that
drove the purchase. For instance, instead of location and brand name, which were attributes that
drove value at purchase, the top two visible sources of value during the hotel experience
pertained to the physical quality attributes of the property: guest-room design and physical
property (exterior and public spaces).
The restaurant is a place where we experience excitement, pleasure and a sense of
personal well-being. Restaurants offer both physical products (e.g., food) and culinary services
(e.g., cooking, serving, and cleaning up). Food quality and price traditionally have been the
decisive factors in restaurant choice. In recent years, however, an increasing number of
"atmosphere" restaurants have opened (Kotler, 1973). Some restaurateurs argue that atmosphere
can be the major determinant in making a successful restaurant. Customers may seek a dining
experience totally different from home, and the atmosphere may do more to attract them than the
26
food itself. The importance of the physical environment in restaurant settings has been addressed
by many researchers (Shostack, 1977, 1987; Ward, Bitner, & Barnes, 1992; Zeithaml,
Parasuraman, & Berry, 1985). Services deliver benefits that are often intangible and difficult to
evaluate prior to purchase and consumption. A restaurant's service and the quality of its food
cannot be judged until those elements have been experienced. Thus, consumers seek tangible
cues (e.g., lighting, table cloths) to predict what the restaurant will provide. In addition,
environmental cues may be especially important in categorizing restaurants, such as quick
service restaurants, fast-casual restaurants, family restaurants, casual restaurants, and upscale
restaurants.
As the restaurant industry has grown and more consumers increasingly expect a more
entertaining atmosphere to enhance the dining experience, restaurateurs are making the effort to
meet that desire with innovative and exciting designs. Innovative restaurant design makes dining
out more exciting for customers. According to the National Restaurant Association's 2001
Restaurant Industry Forecast, restaurant operators are investing more than ever before in
restaurant design and décor as they strive to create a setting that will set them apart from the
competition (Hamaker, 2000). Aesthetics have become an integral part of dining out, and more
operators and marketers place growing importance on the interior design and decor. Sparks,
Bowen, and Klag (2003) explored the influence of restaurant characteristics on customers'
choices of restaurant. Display of the menu was considered the most important determinant by
58.8% of tourists when selecting restaurants while on holiday. Attractive décor or atmosphere
was considered very influential by 55.4%. Ward, Bitner, and Barnes (1992) indicated that much
effort and expense has been devoted to store design in fast food restaurant settings. Auty (1992)
identified three customer segments: students, "well-to-do" middle-aged people, and older people.
27
Image and atmosphere were found to be the most critical factors in the final choice between
similar restaurants among the three customer segments.
Particular physical environmental variables have been discussed in the literature. For
instance, color can enhance or detract from the dining experience and can cause customers to
linger over dinner. Color can be one of the most significant aspects of design. A manager of a
P.F.Chang's restaurant was quoted as saying "Colors can make or break a restaurant."
P.F.Chang's uses color to create a "warm and comfortable feeling." Research has shown that
warm earth tones are more appealing in dining establishments, enhancing the physical
environment, and making customers feel more comfortable and attractive. Cool tones such as
blues, greens and steely earth tones, when used in great quantities, can make a space feel cold
and uninviting (Hamaker, 2000). In addition, music tempo affects pace of shopping, length of
stay, and amount of money spent in restaurant settings (Milliman, 1986). Blackmon (2001) also
discussed the power of music to create an excitement level and ambiance that helped patrons
enjoy food and spirits, while encouraging repeat business.
The importance of the physical environment has been discussed in the scope of the
overall service industry, the hospitality industry, and the restaurant industry. In the next section,
the importance of the physical environment in the upscale restaurant context is discussed.
The Importance of the Physical Environment in the Upscale Restaurant Segment
The level of importance of the physical environment can vary under the combined effects
of the following characteristics: time spent in the facility, consumption purpose, and different
sellers and societies. The extent of the influence of physical environments on customer affective
responses may be especially pronounced if the service is consumed primarily for hedonic
28
motives rather than utilitarian purposes, as is the case in an upscale restaurant. Hedonic
consumption looks for pleasure or emotional fulfillment, as opposed to functional usefulness,
from the service experience (Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994). Because of the hedonic or
emotional context, customers of the upscale restaurant are likely to be more sensitive to the
aesthetic qualities of their surroundings (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994).
The amount of time spent in a facility influences the extent to which the physical
environment influences customer attitudes or satisfaction with service. The physical environment
may have little impact on service encounters of relatively short duration as in fast food
restaurants (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). Here, service encounter refers to "a period of time
during which a consumer directly interacts with a service" (Shostack, 1985, p. 243). This
definition encompasses all aspects of the service with which the consumer may interact including
personnel, physical facilities, and other tangible elements during a given time. In service
encounters of relatively short duration, customers typically spend only a short time inside the
restaurant (Bitner, 1990). In these situations, customers perceive service quality based mainly on
intangible aspects (e.g., reliability, assurance, responsiveness, empathy) and less on the tangible
aspects (physical surroundings) (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). For instance, customers of fast-
food restaurants are likely to put more emphasis on how long it takes to have the meal served
(e.g., reliability and responsiveness) and how courteous the personnel are (e.g., assurance) than
on the aesthetics of the restaurant. However, service in the upscale restaurants generally requires
customers to spend several hours in the physical surroundings of the service provider (Wakefield
& Blodgett, 1996). In such situations, where the customer spends an extended period of time
observing and experiencing the physical environment, the importance of the physical
environment increases with time. For instance, since customers often wait a long time for their
29
food after being seated in an upscale restaurant, it is important that they do not feel bored. The
physical environment might be used to enhance stimulation and prevent boredom.
Figure 4 presents various types of service settings combining the effects of longer stays in
the service environment with consumers' hedonic motives (e.g., as when customer spends all
week at a vacation resort). Typology clearly shows that the physical environment is more critical
in those settings in which consumers patronize service providers more for emotional motives
than for functional purposes, and for which they spend more time in the service facility than for
shorter stays (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1999).
Consumption Purpose
Time Spent
in Facility
Low
(minutes)
Moderate
(hours)
Extended
Importance of the
Physical Environment
Low
High
Utilitarian
Low
Fast food
restaurants
Health clinics
Hospitals
Hedonic
High
Miniature golf
Upscale restaurants
Resorts
(days)
Source: Wakefield & Blodgett (1999)
Figure 4. Typology of Service Environments
Wakefield and Blodgett (1996) argued that the physical environment is an important
determinant of customers' behavioral intentions when the service is primarily for hedonic
purposes and customers spend moderate to long periods in the physical surroundings. In the
context of upscale restaurants, customers may spend several hours or more. The primary
foodservice offering must be of acceptable quality, but pleasing physical environments (e.g.,
30
lighting, décor, layout, employee appearance) may determine, to a large extent, the degree of
overall satisfaction and repatronage.
Finally, the importance of SERVICESCAPE varies among service providers or societies.
Kotler (1973) proposed that SERVICESCAPE can be an important marketing tool in situations
(1) where the product is purchased or consumed and where the seller has design options; (2)
where product and/or price differences within the same industry are small; and (3) when product
entries are aimed at distinct social classes or lifestyle buyer groups. Most of these are true in
upscale restaurants. The first situation is true for upscale restaurants because the meal is
purchased and consumed simultaneously and restaurateurs have considerable control over the
physical surroundings. In this case, the physical environment is part of the total "product."
Second, product or price differences might be minimal within the upscale restaurant industry.
Thus, restaurateurs should have some uniqueness to differentiate themselves from competitors.
Customers need further discriminant criteria, and the physical environment can be an important
one. Finally, upscale restaurants should be designed to attract customers in the intended market
segment (e.g., upper-class patrons). In short, the physical environment can be a crucial part of the
total dining experience.
Variables Related to the Physical Environment
Facility Aesthetics
Facility aesthetics refers to a function of architectural design, along with interior design
and décor, all of which contribute to the attractiveness of the physical environment (Wakefield &
Blodgett, 1994). From an external viewpoint, as customers approach or drive by an upscale
restaurant, they are likely to evaluate the attractiveness of the exterior of the restaurant. Once
31
inside the dining area, customers often spend hours observing (consciously and subconsciously)
the interior of the dining area. These evaluations are likely to affect their attitudes towards the
restaurant (Baker et al., 1988). In addition to the appeal of the dining area's architectural design,
customers may be influenced by the color schemes of the dining area's walls and floor coverings.
Other aspects of interior design, such as pictures/paintings, plants/flowers, ceiling decorations,
and/or wall decorations may also serve to enhance the perceived quality of the physical
environment.
Color
People see and interact with color within both natural and built environments. About 80%
of the information that people assimilate through the senses is visual (Khouw, 2004). However,
color does more than just give people objective information. It actually influences how people
feel. The presence of color becomes even more important in interior environments in generating
positive feelings.
Color is one of the obvious visual cues in the physical surroundings. According to
Eiseman (1998), color is a strong visual component in a physical setting, particularly in an
interior setting. Research has shown that different colors stimulate different personal moods and
emotions. Many researchers assume that environmental cues within the physical environment
directly stimulate emotional response. Hamid and Newport (1989) examined the effect of color
on physical strength and mood in preschool children. The results found that children showed
greater strength and a more positive mood in a pink room than in a blue room. Bellizzi and Hite
(1992) found that consumers react more favorably to a blue environment in retail settings, and
that warm-colored backgrounds seem to elicit attention and attract people to approach a store.
Findings showed that "blue stores" had higher simulated purchase rates. Colors also influenced
32
emotional pleasure more strongly than arousal or dominance. Boyatzis and Varghese (1994)
found that children often related positive emotions with light colors and negative emotions with
dark colors.
Furnishings
Furnishings in a service setting encompass the objects and materials that are used within
the environment (e.g., furniture). The impact of furnishings can be manifested through the
affective response of comfort. For instance, seating comfort has been found to affect pleasure in
football and baseball stadium facilities (Wakefield, Blodgett, & Sloan, 1996). Consumers who
are comfortable should experience more positive affective states (Baker & Cameron, 1996).
Creating dining environments that make customers feel comfortable is a key goal of designers
and operators.
Seating comfort is likely to be a particularly salient issue for customers in the upscale
restaurant context where customers may sit for a number of hours. Seat comfort can be
influenced by the physical seat itself as well as the space between the seats. Some seats may be
uncomfortable because of their design (e.g., hard benches without back support) or condition
(deteriorating or wet). Seats may be also uncomfortable because of their proximity to other seats.
Customers may physically and psychologically uncomfortable (Barker & Pearce, 1990) if they
sit too close to the customers next to them. Previous research related to perceived crowding
suggested that cramped seating quarters were likely to be perceived as displeasing and of poor
quality (Eroglu & Machleit, 1990; Hui & Bateson, 1991). Therefore, comfortable seats with
ample space might reduce the feeling of being crowded.
33
Layout
Spatial layout refers to the way in which objects (e.g., machinery, equipment, and
furnishings) are arranged within the environment. Just as the layout in discount stores facilitates
the fulfillment of functional needs (Baker et al., 1994), an interesting and effective layout may
also facilitate fulfillment of hedonic or pleasure needs (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994). Spatial
layout that makes people feel constricted may have a direct effect on customer quality
perceptions, excitement levels, and indirectly on their desire to return. This implies that service
or retail facilities that are specifically designed to add some level of excitement or arousal to the
service experience such as in an upscale restaurant should provide ample space to facilitate
exploration and stimulation within the physical environment (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994).
Ambience
Ambient elements are intangible background characteristics that tend to affect the
nonvisual senses and may have a subconscious effect. These background conditions include
temperature, lighting, noise, music, and scent (Baker, 1987).
Music
Music has been known for centuries to have a powerful impact on human responses. For
more than 50 years, academicians in diverse disciplines, such as music, psychology, medicine,
management, and sociology have studied the effects of music on various aspects of behavior
(Bruner, 1990). However, in the past two decades, there has been an explosion of research on the
effects of music on consumer perception and behavior (North & Hargreaves, 1998). Particular
emphasis has been given to atmospheric music designed to create commercial environments that
"produce specific emotional effects in the buyer that enhance his purchase intentions" (Kotler,
34
1973, p. 50). Previous research has shown that atmospheric music can (1) increase sales (Areni
& Kim, 1993; Mattila & Wirtz, 2001; Milliman, 1982, 1986; North & Hargreaves, 1998; Yalch
& Spangenberg, 1993); (2) influence purchase intentions (Baker et al., 1992; North &
Hargreaves, 1998); (3) produce significantly enhanced affective response such as satisfaction and
relaxation (Oakes, 2003); (4) increase shopping time and waiting time (Milliman, 1982, 1986;
North & Hargreaves, 1998; Yalch & Spangenberg, 1993, 2000); (4) decrease perceived shopping
time and waiting time (Chebat et al., 1993; Kellaris & Kent, 1992; Yalch & Spangenberg, 2000);
(5) influence dining speed (Roballey et al., 1985; Milliman, 1986); (6) influence customer
perceptions of a store (Hui et al., 1997; Mattila & Wirtz, 2001; North & Hargreaves, 1998; Yalch
& Spangenberg, 1993); and (7) facilitate customer-staff interaction (Chebat et al., 2000; Dube et
al., 1995; Hui et al., 1997).
Milliman (1986) examined the effect of background music on the behavior of restaurant
customers. Findings indicated that music tempo variations could significantly affect number of
bar purchases, length of stay at table, and estimated gross margin of the restaurant. In addition,
music is a more highly controllable physical element than other atmospheric elements. Music
may range from soft to loud, slow to fast, vocal or instrumental, light rock to heavy rock, or
classical to contemporary urban.
Baker, Levy, and Grewal (1992) argued that music has been shown to affect consumers'
responses to retail environments, typically in a positive manner. Hui et al. (1997, p. 90) noted
that, "playing music in the (service) environment is like adding a favorable feature to a product,
and the outcome is a more positive evaluation of the environment." This argument suggests that
the presence of music will result in customers having more favorable evaluations of a store's
environment compared with a store environment without music. In addition, the music must
35
match customers' demographic profiles and the restaurant's image (Areni & Kim, 1993; Grewal
et al., 2003; MacInnis & Park, 1991). For instance, classical music is widely used in the context
of upscale restaurants (Areni, 2003).
Tansik and Routhieaux (1999) investigated the impact of music on people awaiting the
outcomes for surgical patients in a hospital's waiting room, an inherently stressful environment.
In self-reports from persons using the waiting room, the use of music was related to decreased
stress and increased relaxation in comparison to times when no music was played. These
findings support the role of atmospherics or ambience of a service system in customer
quality/satisfaction evaluations.
Sweeney and Wyber (2002) conducted a study that extended the Mehrabian-Russell
(1974) model to include both emotional states and cognitive processing as mediators of the
music approach behaviors. The study found that liking the music had a primary influence on
consumer evaluations (pleasure, arousal, service quality, and merchandise quality), while the
music characteristics (specifically slow pop or fast classical) had an additional effect on pleasure
and service quality. In addition, pleasure, service quality and merchandise quality influenced
music-intended behaviors (e.g., desire to browse in and explore the store, spend more than
anticipated, recommend the store, buy at the store, and enjoy the store). Arousal also contributed
to these behaviors when the store environment was considered pleasant. The overall results
reinforced the importance of understanding the effect of music on both consumer internal
evaluations as well as intended behaviors.
Lighting
Research indicates that there is the relationship between lighting level preferences and
individuals' emotional responses and approach-avoidance behaviors. Baron (1990) showed that
36
subjects had more positive affect in conditions of low levels of lighting compared to high levels
of lighting. The level of comfort was increased at relatively low levels of light, while comfort
decreased with high levels of light (Hopkinson, Petherbridge, & Longmore, 1966). In addition,
higher levels of illumination are associated with increased physiological arousal (Kumari &
Venkatramaiah, 1974).
Gifford (1988) investigated the influence of lighting level and room decor on
interpersonal communication, comfort, and arousal. Results showed that general communication
was more likely to occur in bright environments, whereas more intimate conversation occurred in
softer light. Steffy (1990) suggested that environments in which the lighting is designed to
harmonize with furniture and accessories are perceived as more pleasant than environments in
which lighting does not harmonize with other elements of the room.
Travelers reported that soft lighting made a motel look somewhat lifeless. Another large
motel chain was preferred where the bright lighting of the motel offices seen from the road
indicated a bright, busy, and cheerful place. The type of lighting in an environment could directly
influence an individual's perception of the definition and quality of the space, influencing his/her
awareness of physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual aspects of the space (Kurtich &
Eakin, 1993). Areni and Kim (1994) identified the impact of in-store lighting on various aspects
of shopping behavior (e.g., consumer behavior, amount of time spent, and total sales) in a retail
store setting. The results revealed that brighter lighting influenced shoppers to examine and
handle more products but did not have an impact on sales or time spent in the store.
Aroma
The influence of pleasant scents as a powerful tool in increasing sales has gained much
attention in the retail businesses (Bone & Ellen, 1999; Hirsch, 1991, 1995; Lin, 2004; Mattila &
37
Wirtz, 2001). Retailers know that aroma can have an impact on a consumer's desire to make a
purchase. For example, Knasko (1989) found that ambient aroma influenced how long
consumers remained at a jewelry counter. Hirsch (1991) showed that pleasant scents could
increase a bakery's sales by as much as 300%. Hirsch and Gay (1991) discovered that
consumers were more likely to purchase a well-known brand of athletic shoes displayed in a
perfumed room than identical shoes displayed in an unperfumed room. In addition, Hirsch
(1995) examined the effects of two ambient odors on the amounts of money gambled in slot
machines in a Las Vegas casino. They found that gamblers spent more money by an average of
45.11% in the slot machines when the surrounding areas of those were pleasantly scented than
when there was no odor. The effective odorant apparently enhanced the casino patrons' desire to
gamble. Ambient odors might also simply influence a consumer's mood, emotion or subjective
feelings (Bone & Ellen, 1999; Hirsch, 1995).
Similar to other environmental stimuli (e.g., music), scent should be evaluated with other
environmental cues when examining the impact of the physical surroundings on customer
behavior. Individuals do not evaluate the physical environment based on only one environmental
stimulus. All discrete pieces combine to form a holistic picture. In this case, it is through various
environmental cues that individuals receive input through their sensory systems to form a mental
picture, which then stimulates an emotional response (Lin, 2004).
Temperature
Psychological research suggests that certain temperatures are associated with negative
affect. Bell and Baron (1977) argued that low temperatures (e.g., around 62
o
F) are associated
with negative affective states. Both heat and cold are more intense stimuli than temperatures that
are considered comfortable. A positive association between high effective ambient temperatures
38
and antisocial behavior has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments (Griffitt & Veitch,
1971).
Service Product
Raajpoot (2002) explored the domain of tangible quality construct known as
TANGSERV in foodservice industry. The results found that TANGSERV captured three
dimensions: ambient factors (e.g., music, temperature), design factors (e.g., location, seating
arrangement), and product/service factors (e.g., food presentation, food variety). The findings
proved that product/service were very important aspects of tangible quality. The study also
indicated that elements related to product/service dimensions such as food presentation, serving
size, menu design, and food varieties were part of tangible quality clues.
The service product dimension should be an especially important determinant in the upscale
market. Upscale restaurants should be designed to deliver a prestigious image to attract upper-
class customers, their intended market. Thus, variety of wines, high quality flatware (e.g., knives,
spoons, forks), china (e.g., plate/china, dishes, cups), glassware (e.g., glass), linen (white table
cloths, napkin presentation) as well as attractive food presentation, food variety, and innovative
menu design will affect customer perceptions of quality. The way in which the table is decorated
can also make customers feel prestigious or elegant. For example, an attractive candle on the
table may be appealing, especially to female customers.
39
Social Factors
Social elements are the people (i.e., employees and their customers) in the service setting
(Baker, 1987). The social variables include employee appearance, number of employees, gender
of employees, and dress or physical appearance of other customers.
Employees
The physical appearance of retail employees is critical because it can be used to
communicate to customers a firm's ideals and attributes (Solomon, 1985). For instance, airline
personnel are selected to generate confidence. Bitner (1990) found that a disorganized
environment, featuring an employee in less than professional attire could influence a customer's
attribution and satisfaction when a service failure occurred. The effects of social cues
(number/friendliness of employees) was investigated as a part of a study conducted by Baker,
Levy, and Grewal (1992); they found that the more social cues present in the store environment,
the higher the subject's arousal. A subsequent study conducted by Baker et al. (1994) examined
the effects of sales personnel on consumer inferences about merchandise and service quality and
store image in a retail store setting. A card and gift store with prestige-image social factors (e.g.,
more sales personnel on the floor, sales personnel wearing professional attire, and a salesperson
greeting customers at the entrance to the store) were perceived as providing of higher service
quality than a store with discount-image social factors (e.g., one salesperson on the floor, sales
personnel not wearing professional attire, and no greeting offered at the entrance to the store).
Fischer et al. (1997) explored whether the gender of the service provider should be
regarded as an element of the physical environment that influences perceptions of service quality
in fast food restaurants, hair cutting salons, and dental offices. For each setting, two possibilities
were explored. First, in-group bias might led to men believe that male servers provide higher
40
quality while women might believe females servers did. Second, consumers' server stereotypes
about which gender does a better job of serving could also influence perceived quality. Across
the settings studied, server stereotypes were found to interact with the gender of the server and/or
the gender of the consumer to affect ratings on some dimensions of service quality.
Nguyen and Leblanc (2002) evaluated the impact of contact personnel and physical
environment on the perception of new clients on corporate image. With data collection in two
service industries (a life insurance company and a hotel), the results showed the significant effect
of both contact personnel and physical environment, as well as their interactive effects on
corporate image.
Other Customers
Chebat et al. (1995) proposed a key strategic element: service quality is not evaluated by
consumers only in terms of what they receive at the end of the service delivery process, but also
in terms of the process itself. In an open service encounter site (e.g., banks, restaurants) where
consumers could observe service delivery to other consumers, the way services were delivered
influenced not only the opinions of the consumers who received the service, but also the opinions
of other consumers who observed service delivery.
Emotional States
The effects of the parts of the physical environment that are more aesthetic in nature (e.g.,
décor, colors, music, lighting) have been widely documented in literature. Research in
environmental psychology has shown that properly designed physical environments may create
feelings of excitement, pleasure, or relaxation (Mehrabian-Russel, 1974; Russell & Pratt, 1980).
Wakefield and Blodgett (1999) noted that the physical environment might directly influence
41
consumers' affective responses while service quality perceptions related to reliability, assurance,
responsiveness, and empathy might generate cognitive evaluations.
The Mehrabian-Russel (1974) model, which presented a basic model of human emotion,
has received strong support in environmental psychology, retailing, and marketing. The model
claims that that any environment will generate an emotional state in one of three ways: pleasure,
arousal, and dominance. Those three emotional states mediate approach-avoidance behaviors in a
wide range of environments. Pleasure refers to the extent to which individuals feel good, happy,
pleased, or joyful in a situation, while arousal refers to the degree to which individuals feel
stimulated, excited, or active. The dominance dimension relates to the extent to which a person
feels influential, in control, or important. Studies designed to test the model have found that the
pleasure and arousal dimensions underlie any affective responses to any environments, while
dominance was not found to have a significant effect on approach or avoidance behaviors
(Russell & Pratt, 1980; Ward & Russell, 1981). Thus, the role of dominance in relation to
approach or avoidance behavior has received little attention in more recent studies. More recent
studies have defined two dimensions (pleasure and arousal) rather than three basic dimensions of
the model. For instance, Menon and Kahn (2002) examined the effect of atmospherics and
service on consumer shopping behavior from online retailers. The results showed that
pleasurable initial experiences in a simulated Internet shopping trip had a positive impact on
approach behaviors, and subjects engaged in more arousing activities (e.g., more exploration,
more tendencies to examine novel products and stores, higher response to promotional
incentives).
The Mehrabian-Russel (1974) model claimed that pleasure and arousal were the two
orthogonal dimensions representing individual emotional or affective responses to a wide range
42
of environments. For instance, Prendergast and Man (2002) used eight questions to measure the
psychological attributes of fast-food restaurants. Factor analysis generated two underlying
factors that were clearly identifiable as pleasure (unhappy-happy, unsatisfied-satisfied, annoyed-
pleased, hopeful-despairing) and arousal (excited-calm, overcrowded-uncrowded). However,
several studies suggested caution about the orthogonal independency of pleasure and arousal
dimensions. Donovan and Rossiter (1982) discovered a positive relationship between pleasure
and arousal dimensions and intentions to remain in a retail setting and spend more money.
Donovan et al. (1994) also pointed out a possible failure to construct an unambiguous arousal
factor, possibly because the pleasure and arousal factors are independent, yet correlated factors.
They further argued that failure to measure adequately and distinguish between the two factors
could result in serious measurement and fit errors. In addition, Kenhove and Desrumaux (1997)
examined the relationship between the emotional states (feelings of pleasure and arousal) evoked
in a retail environment and behavioral intentions (approach-avoidance behaviors) in that
environment. The study especially focused on unidimensionality, construct validity, reliability,
and discriminant validity of measures. The results showed that the two independent constructs
(pleasure and arousal) were highly correlated. Confirmatory factor analysis results showed that
many of the original measures of pleasure and arousal were not very good indicators for the
underlying constructs. Unidimensionality of certain measures was problematic. In addition, a
number of marketing studies found that arousal influenced pleasure (Babin & Attaway, 2000;
Chebat & Michon, 2003; Wakefield & Baker, 1998)
The Mehrabian and Russell (1974) model specified a conditional interaction between
pleasure and arousal in determining approach-avoidance behavior. In pleasant environments, an
increase in arousal was argued to increase approach behaviors, whereas, in unpleasant
43
environments, an increase in arousal was suggested to motivate more avoidance behaviors
(Donovan & Rossiter, 1982, p. 39). In addition, Wirtz, Mattila, and Tan (2000) introduced a
moderating variable called "target-arousal level" to advance the understanding of the role of
pleasure and arousal in the satisfaction evaluation process. The results indicated that the
traditional pleasure-arousal interaction effect might be limited to high target arousal situations.
Approach & Avoidance Behaviors
A wealth of literature exists on the effect of the physical environment on consumer
behaviors (Baker et al., 1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Russell &
Pratt, 1980; Turley & Millman, 2000). Mehrabian and Russell (1974) postulate that all consumer
responses to an environment can be considered as either approach or avoidance behaviors. They
argued that approach/avoidance behaviors have four aspects: (1) a desire physically to stay in
(approach) or to get out of (avoid) the environment; (2) a desire or willingness to look around
and to explore the environment (approach) versus a tendency to avoid moving through or
interacting with the environment or a tendency to remain inanimate in the environment
(avoidance); (3) a desire or willingness to communicate with others in the environment
(approach) as opposed to a tendency to avoid interacting with others or to ignore communication
attempts from others (avoidance); and (4) the degree of enhancement (approach) or hindrance
(avoidance) of performance and satisfaction with task performance. All these aspects can be
appropriate for describing behaviors in the upscale restaurant context. First, physical approach
and avoidance can be related to restaurant patronage intentions at a basic level. Second,
exploratory approach and avoidance can be related to the customers' willingness to visually look
around before, during, and after the meal. Third, communication approach and avoidance can be
44
related to interaction with employees. Finally, performance and satisfaction approach and
avoidance can be related to frequency of visiting as well as the amount of time and money spent
in the restaurant (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982).
The Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model proposed that emotions such as pleasantness-
unpleasantness and arousal- nonarousal influenced people's responses to environments. The
model was used to determine the factors which influenced purchasing behavior in retail stores.
The results showed that general feelings of pleasantness increased the time and money shoppers
spent in the stores (Baker et al., 1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Donovan, Rossiter, &
Nesdale, 1994).
Store environment is one of several inputs into the consumer's overall store image, or
overall attitude toward the store (Darden, Erdem, & Darden, 1983; Zimmer & Golden, 1988).
Furthermore, store image is an important determinant of store choice decision (Malhotra, 1983).
Darden, Erdem, and Darden (1983) found that consumer beliefs about the physical attractiveness
of a store had a higher correlation with patronage intentions than did merchandise quality,
general price level, or selection.
A growing recognition that store interiors and exteriors can be designed to generate
specific feelings in shoppers means that design can have an important cuing or reinforcing effect
on consumers' purchase behavior (Kotler, 1973). Environmental psychologists (Donovan &
Rossiter, 1982; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Russell & Pratt, 1980) assume that people's feelings
and emotions ultimately determine what they do and how they do it and, further, that people
respond with different sets of emotions to different environments. This in turn, prompts them to
approach or avoid the environment. Swinyard (1993) proposed that consumer mood,
involvement level, and the quality of the shopping experience had significant effects on shopping
45
intentions. Results revealed that mood interacted with involvement and shopping experience.
Involved subjects were found to magnify their evaluations of the shopping experience. Subjects
in a good mood evaluated good experiences as still better, and a bad shopping experience
appeared to cause mood-protection mechanisms to fail. Finally, consumer mood was shown to be
affected by a bad shopping experience.
Retailers want to design store environments so that they will enhance positive feelings,
assuming this will lead to desired consumer behaviors, such as higher willingness to purchase or
longer stays (Mano, 1999). In the upscale restaurant, longer stays might impact revenues because
customers are more likely to consume more wine and dessert, which provides a high profit
margin. In addition, the retail store atmosphere has been shown to have a positive influence on
customers' patronage intentions (Baker et al., 1992; Darden, Erdem, & Darden, 1983; Donovan
& Rossiter, 1982; Grewal et al., 2003; Hui et al., 1997; Van Kehove & Desumaux, 1997). We
expect to confirm these findings in this study as well.
46
References
Areni, C.S. (2003). Exploring managers' implicit theories of atmospheric music: comparing
academic analysis to industry insight. Journal of Service Marketing, 17(2), 161-184.
Areni, C.S., & Kim, D. (1993). The influence of background music on shopping behavior:
Classical versus top-forty music in a wine store. Advances in Consumer Research, 20,
336-340.
Areni, C.S., & Kim, D. (1994). The influence of in-store lighting on consumers' examination of
merchandise in a wine store. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 117-
125.
Auty, S. (1992). Consumer choice and segmentation in the restaurant industry. The Service
Industries Journal, 12(3), 324-339.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656.
Baker, J. (1987). The role of the environment in marketing services. In: Czepeial, J.A., Congram,
C.A., & Shananhan, J. (Eds.). The Services Challenges: Integrating for Competitive
Advantage. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 79-84.
Baker, J., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1988). The marketing impact of branch facility
design. Journal of Retailing Banking, 10, 33-42.
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
the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 338-349.
Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The influence of the store environment on
47
quality inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22,
328-339.
Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store
environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), 445-460.
Barker, R.T., & Pearce, C.G. (1990). The importance of proxemics at work (space and human
comfort in the work environment). Supervisory Management, 35(July), 10-12.
Baron, R.A. (1990). Lighting as a source of positive affect. Progressive Architecture, 71, 123-
124.
Bell, P.A., & Baron, R.A. (1977). Aggression and ambient temperature: The facilitating and
inhibiting effects of hot and cold environments. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,
9(6), 443-445.
Bellizzi, J.A., & Hite, R.E. (1992). Environmental color, consumer feelings, and purchase
likelihood. Psychology and Marketing, 9(5), 347-363.
Berman, B., & Evans, J.R. (1995). Management: A Strategic Approach. (6
th
ed). Englewood
Cliffs: NJ. Prentice-Hall Inc.
Bitner, M.J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54, 69-82.
Bitner, M.J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.
Blackmon, J. (2001). Expert advice for successful restaurant music. Journal of Restaurant &
Foodservice Marketing, 4(2), 87-93.
Bone, P.F., & Ellen, P.S. (1999). Scents in the marketplace: explaining a fraction of olfaction.
Journal of Retail, 75(2), 243-262.
48
Booms, B.H., & Bitner, M.J. (1982). Marketing services by managing the environment. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 23(May), 35-39.
Boyatzis, C.J., & Varghese, R. (1994). Children's emotional associations with colors. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 155, 77-85.
Brady, M.K., & Cronin, J.J., Jr. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service
quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 34-49.
Bruner, G.C. (1990). Music, mood and marketing. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 94-104.
Chang, K. (2000). The impact of perceived physical environments on customers' satisfaction and
return intentions. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 21(2), 75-85.
Chebat, J., Filatrault, P., Gelinas-Chebat, C., & Vaninsky, A. (1995). Impact of waiting
attribution and consumer's mood on perceived quality. Journal of Business Research, 34,
191-196.
Chebat, J, Gelinas-Chebat, C., & Filiatrault, P. (1993). Interactive effects of musical and visual
cues on time perception: An application to waiting lines in banks. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 77, 995-1020.
Chebat, J., & Michon, R. (2003). Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers' emotions,
cognition, and spending. Journal of Business Research, 56, 529-539.
Chebat, J., Vaillant, D., & Gelinas-Chebat, C. (2000). Does background music in a store enhance
salespersons' persuasiveness? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 405-424.
Countryman, C.C., & Jang, S. (2004). The effect of atmospheric elements on customer
impression: A structural equation analysis of hotel lobbies. Paper presented at the
2004 International CHRIE Annual Conference and Exposition.
Darden, W.R., Erdem, O., & Darden, D.K. (1983). A comparison and test of three causal models
49
of patronage intentions. In Darden, W.R., & Lusch, R.F. (Eds.). Patronage Behavior and
Retail Management. New York: North-Holland, 29-43.
Donovan, R.J., & Rossiter, J.R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology
approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(1), 34-57.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., & Nesdale, A. (1994). Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior.
Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 283-294.
Dube, L., & Renaghan, L.M. (2000). Creating visible customer value. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 62-72.
Dube, L., Chebat, J., & Morin, S. (1995). The effects of background music on consumers' desire
to affiliate in buyer-seller interactions. Psychology and Marketing, 12, 305-319.
Eiseman, L. (1998). Colors For Your Every Mood. Capital Books, Virginia.
Eroglu, S., & Machleit, K.A. (1990). An empirical study of retail crowding: antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Retailing, 66(Summer), 201-221.
Fischer, E., Gainer, B., & Bristor, J. (1997). The sex of the service provider: does it influence
perceptions of service quality? Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 361-382.
Gifford, R. (1988). Light, décor, arousal, comfort, and communication. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 8, 177-189.
Gilboa, S., & Rafaeli, A. (2003). Store environment, emotions and approach behavior: applying
environmental aesthetics to retailing. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research, 13(2), 195-211.
Grewal, D., Baker, J., Levy, M., & Voss, G.B. (2003). The effects of wait expectations and store
atmosphere evaluations on patronage intentions in service-intensive retail stores. Journal
of Retailing, 79, 259-268.
50
Griffitt, W., & Veitch, R. (1971). Hot and crowded: Influence of population density and
temperature on interpersonal affective behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 17, 92-98.
Hamaker, S.S. (2000). Delicious by design: Creating an unforgettable dining experience.
Restaurants USA, December.
Hamid, P.N., & Newport, A.G. (1989). Effect of color on psychological strength and mood in
children. Perceptual Motor Skills, 69, 179-185.
Hirsch, A.R. (1991). Olfaction and psychiatry. Paper presented at the 144
th
Annual Meeting,
American Psychiatric Association, New Orleans, LA.
Hirsch, A.R. (1995). Effect of ambient odors on slot-machine usage in a Las Vegas casino.
Psychology and Marketing, 12(October), 585-594.
Hirsch, A.R., & Gay, S.E. (1991). Effect on ambient olfactory stimuli on the evaluation of a
common consumer product. Chemical Senses, 16, 535.
Hopkinson, R.G., Petherbridge, P., & Longmore, J. (1966). Daylighting. London: Heinemann.
Hui, M., & Bateson, J. (1991). Perceived control and the effects of crowding and consumer
choice on the service experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 174-184.
Hui, M.K., Dube, L., & Chebat, J. (1997). The impact of music on consumer's reaction to
waiting for services. Journal of Retailing, 73, 87-104.
Hutton, J.D., & Richardson, L.D. (1995). Healthscape: The role of the facility and physical
environment on consumer attitudes, satisfaction, quality assessments and behavior.
Health Care Management Review, 20(2), 48-61.
Kellaris, J.J., & Kent, R.J. (1992). The influence of music on consumers' perceptions: Does time
fly when you're having fun? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 365-376.
51
Kenhove, P.V., & Desrumaux, P. (1997). The relationship between emotional states and
approach or avoidance responses in a retail environment. The International Review of
Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 7(4), 351-368.
Khouw, N. (2004). The meaning of color for gender. Retrieved April 10, 2004, from:
http://www.colormatters.com/khouw.html.
Knasko, S.C. (1989). Ambient odor and shopping behavior. Paper presented at AChemS-XI
(Abstract 143) Chemical Senses.
Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48-64.
Kumari, K., & Venkatramaiah, S.R. (1974). Effects of anxiety on closure effect disappearance
threshold. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1, 114-120.
Kurtich, J., & Eakin, G. (1993). Interior Architecture. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Lin, I.Y. (2004). Evaluating a servicescape: the effect of cognition and emotion. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 23, 163-178.
Lovelock, C.H. (1991). Services marketing: Text, cases, and readings. (2
nd
ed). London:
Prentice-Hall.
MacInnis, D.J., && Park, W.C. (1991). The differential role of characteristics of music on high-
and low- involvement consumers' processing of ads. Journal of Consumer Research,
18(2), 161-173.
Malhotra, N.K. (1983). A threshold model of store choice. Journal of Retailing, 59, 3-21.
Mano, H. (1999). The influence of pre-existing negative affects on store purchase intentions.
Journal of Retailing, 75(2), 149-172.
Mattila, A.S., & Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 273-289.
52
McAlexander, J.H., & Kaldenberg, D.O. (1994). Service quality measurement. Journal of Health
Care Marketing, 14(3), 34-39.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Menon, S., & Kahn, B. (2002). Cross-category effects of induced arousal and pleasure on the
internet shopping experience. Journal of Retailing, 78(1), 31(12).
Milliman, R.E. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers.
Journal of Marketing, 46, 86-91.
Milliman, R.E. (1986). The influence of background music on the behavior of restaurant patrons.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 286-289.
Nguyen, N., & Leblanc, G. (2002). Contact personnel, physical environment and the perceived
corporate image of intangible services by new clients. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 13(3), 242-262.
North, A.C., & Hargreaves, D.J. (1998). The effect of music on atmosphere and purchase
intentions in a cafeteria. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 2254-2273.
Oaks, S. (2003). Musical tempo and waiting perceptions. Psychology and Marketing, 20(8), 685-
705.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, A.V., & Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality
and its implication for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, A.V., & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12-40.
Perran, A. (1995). Dimension of service quality: A study in Istanbul. Managing Service Quality,
5(6), 39-43.
53
Porteous, J.D. (1997). Environmental Aesthetics. Ideas, Politics, and Planning. London:
Routledge.
Prendergast, G., & Man, H.W. (2002). The influence of store image on store loyalty in Hong
Kong's quick service restaurant industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Research,
5(1), 45-59.
Raajpoot, N.A. (2002). TANGSERV: A multiple item scale for measuring tangible quality in
foodservice industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 5(2), 2002.
Roballey, T.C., McGreevy, C., Rongo, R.R., Schwantes, M.L., Steger, P.M., Wininger, M.A., &
Gardner, E.G. (1985). The effect of music on eating behavior. Bulletin of the Psychomic
Society, 23, 221-222.
Rushton, A.M., & Carson, D.J. (1989). The marketing of services: Managing the intangibles.
European Journal of Marketing, 23(8), 23-43.
Russell, J.A., & Barrett, F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes and other things
called emotion: dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76(5), 805-819.
Russell, J.A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to
environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 311-322.
Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1991). Analyzing service quality in the hospitality industry using the
SERVQUAL model. Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 324-345.
Shostack, G.L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. Journal of Marketing, 41, 73-80.
Shostack, G.L. (1985). Planning the service encounter. in J. Czepiel, M. Solomon & C.
Suprenant. (Eds.). The service encounter. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Shostack, L. (1987). Service positioning through structural change. Journal of Marketing, 51, 34-
54
43.
Solomon, M.R. (1985). Packaging the service provider. Service Industries Journal, 5, 64-71.
Sparks, B., Bowen, J., & Klag, S. (2003). Restaurants and the tourist market. International
Journal of contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(1), 6-13.
Steffy, G. (1990). Architectural Lighting Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Stevens, P., Knutson, B., & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for measuring service quality
in restaurants. Cornell Hotel and restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 56-60.
Sweeney, J.C., & Wyber, F. (2002). The role of cognitions and emotions in the music-approach-
avoidance behavior relationship. Journal of Service Marketing, 16(1), 51-69.
Swinyard, W.R. (1993). The effects of mood, involvement, and quality of store experience on
shopping intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 271-280.
Tansik, D.A., & Routhieaux, R. (1999). Customer stress-relaxation: the impact of music in a
hospital waiting room. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10(1), 68-
81.
Turley, L.W., & Bolton, D.L. (1999). Measuring the affective evaluations of retail service
environments. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 19(1), 31-44.
Turley, L.W., & Milliman, R.E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of
the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 193-211.
Van Kehove, P., & Desumaux, P. (1997). The relationship between emotional states and
approach or avoidance responses in a retail environment. The international Review of
Retail Distribution and Consumer Research, 7(October), 351-368.
Wakefield, K.L., & Baker, J. (1998). Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects of
shopping response. Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 515-539.
55
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure service
settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), 66-76.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1996). The effects of the servicescape on customers'
behavioral intentions in leisure service setting. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45-
61.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1999). Customer response to intangible and tangible service
factors. Psychology & Marketing, 16(1), 51-68.
Wakefield, K.L., Blodgett, J.G., & Sloan, H.J. (1996). Measurement and management of the
sportscape. Journal of Sport Management, 10(January), 15-31.
Ward, J.C., Bitner, M.J., & Barnes, J. (1992). Measuring the prototypicality and meaning of
retail environments. Journal of Retailing, 68, 194-200.
Ward, L.M., & Russell, J.A. (1981). The psychological representation of molar physical
environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(2), 121-152.
Wirtz, J., Mattila, A.S., & Tan, R.L.P. (2000). The moderating role of target-arousal on the
impact of affect on satisfaction-An examination in the context of service experiences.
Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 347-365.
Yalch, R.F., & Spangenberg, E. (1993). Using store music for retail zoning: A field experiment.
Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 632-636.
Yalch, R.F., & Spangenberg, E. (2000). In a retail setting on real and perceived shopping terms.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7, 55-63.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L.L. (1985). Problems and strategies in services
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49, 33-46.
Zimmer, M.R., & Golden, L.L. (1988). Impressions of Retail Stores: A content analysis of
56
consumer Images. Journal of Retailing, 64(Fall), 265-293.
57
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter consists of four sections: description of the sample and survey procedure,
scale development procedures, measurement of variables, and data analysis.
Sample and Survey Procedure
A field study approach was used in this study for the several reasons. First, subjects were
in a position where they could spend several hours observing and experiencing the physical
surroundings directly. This process offered more valid responses than if they had been surveyed
outside the service encounter (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). Second, Donovan and Rossiter
(1982) discussed reasons that researchers have been unable to document the strong effects of the
physical environment despite some retailers' claims that these effects exist. The physical
environment cause basically emotional states that (1) are difficult to verbalize, (2) are transient
and therefore difficult to recall, and (3) influence behaviors within the store rather than gross
external behaviors such as choosing whether or not to patronize the store. The physical
environment and emotional states in this study are difficult to verbalize, are transient, and
therefore difficult to recall. Thus, a field study was the best methodology for this research to
reduce these difficulties in measuring the physical environment and customer emotions.
The survey approach was used to collect the data. Bitner (1992, p. 68) noted, "It may be
necessary to vary several environmental dimensions simultaneously to achieve an overall
perception of the surroundings that will significantly influence behavior. User surveys are likely
to be most appropriate in assessing basic customer/employee needs and preferences prior to the
58
design of experimental stimulations, and later for postdesign evaluation." Therefore, data was
collected via a self-report questionnaire at three different upscale restaurants. The restaurants for
data collection were selected based on average check, characteristics of menu items, perceived
food quality, level of service, and ambience. Actual customers at selected upscale restaurants
were asked toward the end of their meal if they were willing to complete a questionnaire.
Participation was voluntary. As an incentive, two approaches were made. In two upscale
restaurants, customers at a table would receive a dessert of their choice to share. They would
complete the questionnaire while they were waiting for the dessert. In addition, in one upscale
restaurant, each survey participant received a $10 dining coupon, courtesy of the restaurant
owner.
Scale Development Procedures
This study was based on the accepted paradigm for scale development suggested by
Churchill (1979) and other previous literature (e.g., Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Arnold &
Reynolds, 2003; Bentler & Bonnet, 1980; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Nunnally & Bernstein,
1994; Peter, 1981). Figure 4 summarizes the scale development procedures used. The procedures
are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections.
Step 1: Domain of Constructs
The first step in the development of measures involved specifying the domain of the
constructs (Churchill, 1979). It is imperative that researchers search the literature when
conceptualizing constructs and specifying domains. Based on the review of a large base of
relevant literature, five broad categories of the physical environment (i.e., facility aesthetics,
59
layout, ambience, service product, social factors) emerged. The objective at this stage was to find
commonalities that allowed the most accurate representation of each domain and allowed
development of conceptual definitions of each dimension of the physical environment. In
addition, labels for each dimension were constructed.
Step 1: Domain of Constructs
Step 2: Initial Pool of Items
Step 3: Content Adequacy Assessment
Step 4: Questionnaire Administration
Step 5: Scale Purification
- Review literature
- Find commonalities for each domain
- Define domain
- Review literature and existing instruments
- Conduct a focus group session
- Interview with upscale restaurant managers
- Test conceptual consistency of items
- Assess content validity of the instrument
- Conduct pretest and pilot test
- Modify items and determine the scale for
items
- Collect data from actual customers at three
upscale restaurants
- Test item analysis
- Conduct exploratory factor analysis
- Conduct confirmatory factor analysis -
Assess unidimensionality & reliability
- Assess convergent and discriminant validity
Figure 4. Scale Development Procedures
Step 2: Initial Pool of Items
The second step in the procedure for developing measures was to generate initial items
that could capture the domain of the physical environment. The emphasis at the early stages of
60
item generation was to develop a set of items that elucidated each of the dimensions. The
specification of those items which reflected the dimensionality of the physical environment at an
upscale restaurant context were based on intense review of previous studies, a focus group
session, and interviews with the managers of the upscale restaurants. An extensive literature
review was conducted at this item-generation stage.
A focus group interview was conducted to fully specify the content areas of the physical
environment. The focus group consisted of faculty members and graduate students who were
customers at any local upscale restaurants within the past six months. The use of a focus group
helped construct and refine the questionnaire. The moderator distributed the list of physical
environmental elements (e.g., color, lighting) that had been developed based on the literature
review. The moderator also distributed general color photographs of dining areas in any upscale
restaurants to help focus group members recall their experience with the physical surroundings in
the upscale restaurants. After participants viewed the photographs, they were asked to list
additional physical environmental elements he/she thought important in upscale restaurants. In
addition, interviews with the managers at the upscale restaurants were conducted to generate
additional items that were not captured through the literature review and the focus group session.
Step 3: Content Adequacy Assessment
Based on the initial item-generation process, preliminary scale items were generated.
Several faculty members in Kansas State's Department of Apparel, Textiles & Interior Design
(ATID) and in the Department of Hotel, Restaurant, Institution Management and Dietetics
(HRIMD) who were familiar with the topic area evaluated the measurement items for content
and face validity. This process ensured that the items were representative of the scale's domains.
61
The use of faculty members as judges of a scale's domain has been frequently used in previous
studies (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Babin & Burns, 1998; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001;
Zaichowsky, 1985). The faculty members were given the conceptual definitions of each of the
five DINESCAPE dimensions and asked to evaluate the items based on their representation of
the DINESCAPE domain. They also checked clarity of wording. In addition, a pretest was
performed to refine the survey instrument. In all, approximately 20 faculty members, graduate
students, and actual customers participated in evaluating the instrument. Items were eliminated
that were not clear, not representative of the domain, or that were open to misinterpretation
(Babin et al., 1994).
Additionally, a pilot test of the research instrument was performed as a preliminary
evaluation of the final questionnaire. A total of 41 actual customers at an upscale restaurant
participated in the content adequacy assessment. Coefficient alpha and factor analysis were
performed with responses at this stage. In summary, based on the results of content adequacy
assessment, modifications of items were made. The resulting item pool then was submitted to a
multi-sample scale purification.
Step 4: Questionnaire Administration
The questionnaire administration process is discussed in the Sample and Survey
Procedure section and Measurement of Variables section (see pages 61-62 and 69-71).
Step 5: Scale Purification
Quantitative analyses were conducted to purify the measures and to examine the scale's
psychometric properties as suggested by many previous studies (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003;
62
Chrchill, 1979; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Each item was rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The scale purification processes included item analysis,
exploratory factor analyses, confirmatory factor analyses, unidimensionality and reliability, and
convergent and discriminant validity.
Item Analysis
Corrected item-total correlations were examined for each set of items representing a
dimension within the physical environment. Items not having a corrected item-total correlation
over .50 were candidates for removal (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Tian, Bearden, & Hunter,
2001; Zaichowsky, 1985).
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Following item analysis, the item content for each domain representation was inspected.
Remaining items were subjected to a series of exploratory factor analyses with varimax rotation,
aiming to reduce the set of observed variables to a smaller, more parsimonious set of variables.
Eigenvalues and variance explained were used to identify the number of factors to extract
(Bearden et al., 1989; Hair et al., 1998; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). After the number of factors
in the DINESCAPE model was estimated, items exhibiting low factor loadings (<.40), high
cross-loadings (>.40), or low communalities (<.50) were candidates for deletion (Hair et al.,
1998). The remaining items were submitted to further exploratory factor analysis. In addition,
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test of Sphericity were
conducted to see if the distribution of values were adequate for conducting factor analysis.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to verify the factor structure in the
proposed scale and to improve the measurement properties of the scale (Anderson & Gerbing,
63
1988; Bearden et al., 1989; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). A confirmatory factor model using the
maximum likelihood technique was estimated via LISREL 8.54. Items with low squared multiple
correlations (individual item reliabilities) were deleted. Through CFA, each item tapped into a
unique facet of each DINESCAPE dimension and thus provided good domain representation.
Unidimensionality and Reliability
The evidence that the measures were unidimensional, with a set of indicators sharing only
a single underlying construct, was assessed using CFA (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). The items
should load as predicted and with minimal cross-loading to provide evidence of
unidimensionality. After the unidimensionality of each scale was acceptably established,
reliability was tested through Cronbach's alphas, item reliabilities, composite reliabilities, and
average variance extracted (AVE) to assess the internal consistency of multiple indicators for
each construct in the DINESCAPE model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988;
Hair et al., 1998; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). LISREL 8.54 version provides individual item
reliabilities computed directly and listed as squared multiple correlations for the x and y
variables. However, since LISREL does not compute composite reliability and AVE for each
construct directly, they were calculated using the following formulas:
(E standardized loadings)
2
Composite Reliability =
(E standardized loadings)
2
+ (E indicator measurement error)
(E squared standardized loadings)
AVE =
(E squared standardized loadings) + (E indicator measurement error)
Convergent and Discriminant Validities
Churchill (1979) suggested that convergent validity and discriminant validity should be
assessed in investigations of construct validity. Convergent validity involves the extent to which
64
a measure correlates highly with other measures designed to measure the same construct.
Discriminant validity involves the extent to which a measure is novel and does not simply reflect
other variables.
The evidence of convergent validity was checked in two ways. First, convergent validity
was assessed from the measurement model by determining whether each indicator's estimated
loading on the underlying dimension was significant (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Netemeyer,
Johnston, & Burton, 1990; Peter, 1981). Second, AVE was used to test the convergent validity. It
has been suggested that the AVE value exceed .50 for a construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). To
assess the discriminant validity between constructs, the procedure suggested by Fornell and
Larcker (1981) was used. The test requires that the AVE for each construct be higher than the
squared correlation between the two associated latent variables.
Measurement of Variables
The questionnaire designed for this study was divided into three parts. Part 1 of the
questionnaire consisted of physical DINESCAPE items. Respondents were asked to rate each
statement item using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = extremely disagree, 7 = extremely agree). Part 2
contained emotional states: four pleasure and four arousal items (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974).
All eight items were measured on a 7-point semantic differential scale. Part 3 of the
questionnaire consisted of general approach-avoidance behavior. Specifically, behavioral
intentions were measured using four items. The items were assessed on a 7-point Likert scale.
65
DINESCAPE
Measurement items relevant to facility aesthetics, layout, ambience, service product, and
social factors were included. The list of relevant physical environmental items was generated
from reviews of previous studies, the focus group, and discussions with several managers at
upscale restaurants. This resulted in a list of 34 items related to the physical environment at the
upscale restaurants.
In developing the measurement items, many combined issues were incorporated. The fact
that the physical environment has both affective and cognitive characteristics in nature was
considered. Some researchers (Bitner, 1992; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982) have demonstrated that the
perceived physical environments might elicit cognitive responses, influencing people's beliefs
about a place and their beliefs about the people and products noticed in that place. For example,
particular environmental cues such as the quality of furniture and the type of décor used in the
dining areas may have an effect on customers' beliefs about whether the restaurant is expensive
or not expensive. In contrast, some physical elements capture affective content. For instance,
color does more than just give people objective information. It actually influences how people
feel (Khouw, 2004). Research has shown that different colors stimulate different personal moods
and emotions (e.g., warm, comfortable, inviting, pleasant). Environmental cues within the
physical environment can directly stimulate emotional response (Eiseman, 1998). Mattila and
Wirtz (2001) adapted Fisher's (1974) environmental quality scale and used a seven-item
(pleasant/unpleasant; unattractive/attractive; uninteresting/interesting; bad/good;
depressing/cheerful; dull/bright; and uncomfortable/comfortable) scale to obtain respondents'
evaluation of a store environment. An example: "The slow-tempo music played at the store was
pleasant."
66
Second, both practical and theoretical meanings of each one of the variables was also
taken into consideration to most appropriately capture the importance of that particular item. For
instance, the literature has shown that color is an important element of physical surroundings in
the restaurant facility. Instead of just simply using the statement, "Colors used are appropriate,"
this study used, "Colors used makes me feel warm," which was more affective in nature. The
first statement could just indicate if color was important attribute to customers and how relatively
it is important compared to other elements. The later statement could also provide management
with a more practical understanding of how color influences customers.
Emotional States
Emotions were measured with eight items representing the pleasure and arousal
dimensions derived from the scale suggested by Mehrabian and Russell (1974) and adapted to fit
the upscale restaurant context. Subjects evaluated their feelings, moods, and emotional responses
to the physical environment at the upscale restaurant. All items were rated on a 7-point semantic
differential scale, in which an emotion and its opposite set the two ends of the scale. Pleasure
was measured with the following four items: unhappy—happy; annoyed—pleased; bored—
entertained; disappointed—delighted. The measure of arousal comprised the following four
items: depressed—cheerful; calm—excited; indifferent—surprised; sleepy—awake.
Behavioral Intentions
Behavioral intentions (BI) were measured based on Mehrabian and Russell's (1974) four
aspects of approach-avoidance behaviors and the scale suggested by Zeithaml et al. (1996). The
scales were adapted to fit the upscale restaurant context. Subjects were asked to react to the
67
following three statements: "I would like to come back to this restaurant in the future," "I would
recommend this restaurant to my friends," "I am willing to stay longer than I planned at this
restaurant," and "I am willing to spend more than I planned at this restaurant." Participants
responded to these items on a scale bounded by a 7-ponit Likert scale (1 = extremely disagree, 7
= extremely agree).
Data Analysis of Study 2
In the second phase of the study, data were analyzed using the two-step approach
recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). In the first step, a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) was performed to identify whether the measurement variables reliably reflected the
hypothesized latent variables (DINESCAPE dimensions, pleasure, arousal, behavioral intentions)
using the covariance matrix. All latent variables were allowed to intercorrelate freely without
attribution of a causal order.
In the second step, a structural equation modeling (SEM) with latent variables via
LISREL 8.54 was tested to determine the adequacy of the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model by
representing the constructs of the model and testing the hypotheses. The main advantage of using
SEM over using factor analysis and regression analysis separately to test the model was that it
could simultaneously estimate all path coefficients and test the significance of each causal path
(Bentler, 1980; Chang, 1998; Lee & Green, 1991). The DINESCAPE dimensions were predictor
variables (e.g., exogenous variables) and pleasure, arousal, and behavioral intention were
criterion variables (e.g., endogenous variables) in the analysis. Besides Cronbach's alphas, item
reliabilities, composite reliabilities, and AVE for the measures were also computed to check the
68
reliability of this Mehrabian-Russell model. Furthermore, AVE was used to check the convergent
validity and discriminant validity of the model.
69
References
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Arnold, M.J., & Reynolds, K.E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing, 79,
77-95.
Babin, L.A., & Burns, A.C. (1998). A modified scale for the measurement of communication-
evoked mental imagery. Psychology and Marketing, 15(3), 261-278.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., & Griffin, M (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G., & Teel, J.E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility
to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer research, 19(March), 473-481.
Bentler, P.M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual
Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 588-606.
Bitner, M.J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.
Chang, M. K. (1998). Predicting unethical behavior: A comparison of the theory of reasoned
action and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1825-1834.
Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16(February), 64-73.
Donovan, R.J., & Rossiter, J.R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology
approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(1), 34-57.
70
Eiseman, L. (1998). Colors For Your Every Mood. Capital Books, Virginia.
Fisher, J. (1974). Situation-specific variables as determinants of perceived environmental
esthetic quality and perceived crowdedness. Journal of Research in Personality,
8(August), 177-188.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Gerbing, D.W., & Anderson, J.C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research,
25(May), 186-192.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis
(5
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and Environment. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Khouw, N. (2004). The meaning of color for gender. Retrieved April 10, 2004, from:
http://www.colormatters.com/khouw.html.
Lee, C., & Green, R. (1991). Cross-cultural examination of the Fishbein Behavioral Intentions
Model. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(2), 289-305.
Mattila, A.S., & Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 273-289.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Netemeyer, R.G., Johnston, R.G., & Burton, M.W. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role
ambiguity in structural equations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 148-158.
Nunnaly, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3
rd
ed.). New York, NY:
71
McGraw-Hill.
Peter, J.P. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing practices. Journal
of Marketing Research, 18(May), 133-145.
Sweeney, J.C., & Soutar, G.N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a
multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220.
Tian, K.T., Beardon, W.O., & Hunter, G.L. (2001). Consumers' need for uniqueness: Scale
development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(June), 50-66.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1996). The effects of the servicescape on customers'
behavioral intentions in leisure service setting. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45-
61.
Zaichowsky, J.L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research,
12(December), 341-352.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service
quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.
72
CHAPTER IV:
DINESCAPE: A SCALE FOR MEASURING CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS OF
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT IN UPSCALE RESTAURANTS
Abstract
This study explored the domain of the physical environment in the upscale restaurant
context to develop a DINESCAPE scale. Relevant literature from environmental psychology and
marketing was reviewed, highlighting empirical and theoretical contributions. Conceptualization
and operationalization of the DINESCAPE dimensions is discussed, and the procedures used in
constructing and refining a multiple-item scale to assess the DINESCAPE in the upscale
restaurant setting are described. Based on quantitative analyses, a six-factor scale was developed
consisting of facility aesthetics, ambience, lighting, service product, layout, and social factors.
Evidence of the scale's reliability, factor structure, and validity are presented, along with
potential applications of the scale.
KEYWORDS: DINESCAPE, Aesthetic Design, Lighting, Ambience, Layout, Product, Social
Factors.
73
INTRODUCTION
Kotler (1973) first introduced concepts relating to "physical environments" (also known
as 'atmospherics' or 'SERVICESCAPE') more than three decades ago. Kotler (1973) argued that
consumers might respond to more than just the tangible product (e.g., meal) or service rendered
(e.g., promptness) when making a purchase decision. The tangible product might be only a small
part of the total consumption experience. Indeed, consumers respond to the total product. The
place, and more specifically the atmosphere of the place, where the product or service is
purchased or consumed may be one of the most influential factors in purchase decision-making.
Atmosphere refers to the conscious design of a buying environment, intended to generate
specific emotional effects in the consumer that would enhance his/her purchase probability
(Kotler, 1973). Atmosphere can be produced through the four main sensory channels: sight (e.g.,
color, lighting, décor), sound (e.g., music, noise level), scent (e.g., pleasing aroma), and touch
(e.g., comfortable seating).
Since Kotler (1973) first introduced the significance of the store environment in
stimulating a customer's desire to purchase, retailers, marketers, and environmental
psychologists have acknowledged the role of physical environment as a central element in
understanding consumer responses (Baker, 1987; Bitner, 1992; Kotler, 1973; Mehrabian &
Russell, 1974; Turley & Milliman, 2000). Physical environment affects the degree of customer's
emotions (Bitner, 1990; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Kotler, 1973; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974),
satisfaction (Bitner, 1990; Chang, 2000), the perception of the service quality (Parasuraman et
al., 1988; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1999), and subsequent behavior (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974;
Sayed et al., 2003).
74
The importance of physical surroundings in creating an image and in influencing
customer behavior is particularly pertinent to the restaurant industry (Hui et al., 1997; Millman,
1986; Raajpoot, 2002; Robson, 1999). Because the service is generally produced and consumed
simultaneously, the consumer is "in the factory," often experiencing the total service within the
property's physical facility (Bitner, 1992). Foodservice in the restaurant industry encompasses
both tangible (food and physical environment) and intangible (employee-customer interaction)
components. A proper combination of the tangible and intangible aspects should result in a
customer's perception of high service quality.
Food quality and price traditionally have been the decisive factors in restaurant choice.
However, as the restaurant industry has grown and more consumers increasingly expect a more
entertaining atmosphere to enhance the dining experience, restaurateurs are making efforts to
meet that expectation with innovative and exciting physical surroundings. In recent years, an
increasing number of "atmosphere" restaurants have opened in the marketplace. Some
restaurateurs may argue that atmosphere can be the major determinant in a successful restaurant.
Its importance as a marketing tool has been thoroughly discussed in previous studies (Kotler,
1973). More importantly, customers may seek a dining experience totally different from the
home environment, and the atmosphere may do more to attract them than the food itself.
From a practical standpoint, there was a need for developing an instrument to assess the
physical environment in an upscale restaurant context. Although the concept of atmosphere is
important in most restaurant settings, customers may differentiate the relative importance of
environmental cues based on the categorization of restaurants, such as quick service, fast-casual,
family casual, and upscale restaurants. Atmosphere in the upscale restaurant context is a
relatively influential determinant of customer satisfaction and subsequent behavior because the
75
service is consumed primarily for hedonic (emotional) purposes not utilitarian (functional)
purposes, and customers spend several hours observing and evaluating physical surroundings
(Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). In addition, the overall quality of the physical environment
should be congruent with prestige to meet customer expectations. Despite its importance in
customer satisfaction and in marketing, little research has been done to explain how customers
perceive the physical environment in the upscale restaurant context. In addition, no measurement
instrument is available to specifically evaluate the physical environment in the upscale restaurant
context. Thus, it was necessary to develop and validate an instrument to measure the physical
environment in an upscale restaurant setting. For this study, upscale restaurants were defined as
those in which the average per-person check was more than $13.09 and which offered a full
menu, full table service, food made from the scratch, and personalized service (Goldman, 1993;
Gordon & Brezinski, 1999; Muller & Woods, 1994; Siguaw, Mattila, & Austin, 1999).
From the perspective of research, clearly there was a need for developing a reliable and
valid scale to measure the physical environment in research areas. Although a concrete
conceptual framework for the physical environment has been developed based on environmental
psychology and marketing (Baker, 1987; Baker, Grewal, & Parasuraman, 1994; Berman &
Evans, 1995; Bitner, 1992; Turley & Miliman, 2000; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996), the validity
and reliability of the measures used to assess dimensions of the physical environment have rarely
been examined in previous studies. The selections of measures were based mainly on the
definition of constructs without applying scale development process. Therefore, identifying of
the indicators that best represent those dimensions continues to challenge researchers.
Developing a reliable and valid scale of measurement remains a key issue facing academia.
76
This study aimed to fill these managerial and research gaps by establishing reliable, valid,
generalizable, and useful measures of customers' perceived quality of physical environments in
the restaurant setting, especially in the upscale restaurant context, for both restaurateurs and
researchers. In the first step of developing a scale for the physical environment in the restaurant
industry, this author first coined the term "DINESCAPE." "DINESCAPE" is similar to the
popular term "SERVICESCAPE" in describing characteristics of the physical environment, but
its emphasis is restricted to inside dining areas. DINESCAPE was primarily differentiated from
SERVICESCAPE by developing a scale for measuring the physical environment in the dining
area of a restaurant, especially an upscale restaurant. In this study, DINESCAPE was defined as
the man-made physical and human surroundings, not the natural environment in the dining area
of upscale restaurants. This study did not focus on external environmental variables (e.g.,
parking space, building design) or contain some internal environmental variables (e.g., restroom
and waiting area) in an attempt to provide a more generalizable and parsimonious instrument for
both practitioners and researchers.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a multiple-item scale to measure the
overall conceptual framework of DINESCAPE. In this paper, the existing literature on physical
environment as it related to DINESCAPE is reviewed. Then, the procedures used to empirically
develop DINESCAPE are presented. Finally, the managerial and research implications of the
research are discussed.
77
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Physical Environment in the Upscale Restaurant Context
The level of importance of the physical environment can vary because of the combined
effects of the following characteristics: time spent in the facility and the consumption purpose.
The influence of the physical environment on customers' affective responses may be especially
pronounced if the service is consumed primarily for hedonic rather than utilitarian purposes, as is
the case for patronizing an upscale restaurant. Hedonic consumption seeks pleasure or emotional
fulfillment, as opposed to functional usefulness, from the service experience (Babin, Darden, &
Griffin, 1994). Because of the hedonic context, customers of an upscale restaurant are likely to
be more sensitive to the aesthetic qualities of their surroundings (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994).
The amount of time spent in the facility changes the extent to which the physical
environment influences customers' attitudes or satisfaction with the service. The physical
environment may have little impact on short service encounters, such as those in fast food
restaurants (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). In these types of service encounters, customers
typically spend only a short time inside the restaurant (Bitner, 1990). In these situations,
evaluation of service quality is based primarily on intangible aspects (e.g., reliability, assurance,
responsiveness, empathy) and less on the tangible aspects (the physical environment) (Wakefield
& Blodgett, 1996). Customers of fast-food restaurants are more likely to emphasize the time it
takes to have the meal served (e.g., reliability and responsiveness) and how courteous the
personnel are (e.g., assurance) than the aesthetics of the restaurant. However, upscale restaurants
generally require customers to spend several hours in the physical surroundings of the service
provider. In such situations, where the customer spends an extended period observing and
experiencing physical surroundings, the importance of the physical environment increases with
78
the time spent. For instance, because customers may spend a long time waiting for their food
after they have ordered, it is important that they do not feel bored while waiting. Some
approaches (e.g., jazz music as background music) enhance stimulation and prevent boredom.
Thus, the physical environment can be used to stimulate customers and to prevent boredom.
Domain of the Physical Environment
Considerable progress has been made in determining what constitutes the physical
environment (Baker, 1987; Baker, Levy, & Grewal; 1992; Berman & Evans, 1995; Bitner, 1992;
Brady & Cronin, 2001; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988; Raajpoot, 2002; Turley &
Milliman, 2000; Wakefield & Blodgett; 1996, 1999). Table 1 presents a summary of the
dimensions related to the physical environment in previous research. Baker (1987) classified
three fundamental factors that affect the tangible portion of service quality dimensions: design,
social, and ambient factors. Ambience includes background variables such as lighting, aroma,
and temperature. These variables are not part of the primary service but are important because
their absence may make customers feel concerned or uncomfortable. The design dimension
represents the components of the environment that tend to be visual and more tangible in nature.
This dimension includes color, furnishings, and spatial layout. Design elements contain both
aesthetic aspects (e.g., beauty, décor) and functional aspects (e.g., layout, ease of transaction, and
waiting area design) that facilitate high quality service. The social factor relates to an
organization's concern for the people in the environment, including both customers and
employees. Baker, Grewal, and Parasuraman (1994) also classified store atmospherics into three
categories: store functional/aesthetic design factors, store social factor, and store ambient factor.
79
Bitner (1992) discussed the effect of tangible physical environment on overall
development of service quality image. She coined the term "SERVICESCAPE" to describe the
combined effect of all physical factors that can be controlled by service organizations to enhance
customer and employee behaviors. SERVICESCAPE is defined as the "built environment" or,
more specifically, the "man-made, physical surroundings as opposed to the natural or social
environment" (Bitner, 1992, p. 58). She identified three primary dimensions of the
SERVICESCAPE that influence customer perception of the service provider and subsequent
cognitive, affective, and conative responses of the customer. The three dimensions are (1)
ambient conditions (elements related to aesthetic appeal); (2) spatial layout and functionality;
and (3) signs, symbols, and artifacts. Ambient conditions include temperature, noise, music,
odors, and lighting. Aesthetic appeal refers to physical elements such as the surrounding external
environment, the architectural design, facility upkeep and cleanliness, and other physical
elements by which customers view and evaluate the aesthetic quality of the SERVICESCAPE.
Aesthetic factors are important because they influence ambience. Spatial layout and functionality
refer to the ways in which seats, aisles, hallways and walkways, foodservice lines, restrooms,
and the entrance and exits are designed and arranged in service settings. Signs, symbols, and
artifacts include signage and décor used to communicate and enhance a certain image or mood or
to direct customers to desired destinations.
Berman and Evans (1995) divided tangible quality clues into four categories: external,
general interior, layout, and point of purchase dimensions. External variables relate to exterior
signs, building size and color, location, and parking. General interior variables include music,
scent, lighting, temperature, and color scheme. The layout and design variables pertain to
workstation placement, waiting facilities, and traffic flow. Finally, the point of purchase and
80
decoration variables relate to displays, pictures, artwork, and product displays at point of
purchase. However, the authors failed to mention the social aspect of tangible quality.
Insert Table 1
Wakefield and Blodgett (1996) examined the effects of layout accessibility, facility
aesthetics, electronic equipment, seating comfort, and cleanliness on the perceived quality of the
SERVICESCAPE. This study first introduced the facility aesthetic dimension, which captured a
broad scope of the SERVICESCAPE. Facility aesthetics was defined as a function of
architectural design, along with interior design and décor, all of which contribute to the
attractiveness of the SERVICESCAPE (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994). This study did not focus
on ambient conditions, which are more difficult to control, particularly in such leisure field
settings as amusement parks and other outdoor settings. However, ambient conditions can be a
very important factor in the upscale restaurant context because they can be controlled to a large
extent by management. In their later work, Wakefield and Blodgett (1999) investigated whether
the physical environment of service delivery settings influenced customers' evaluations of the
service experience and subsequent behavioral intentions. In this study, tangibility consisted of
three factors: design, equipment, and ambient elements. They did not consider the social factor.
Turley and Miliman (2000) presented a review of the literature that attempted to further
the theoretical and empirical understanding of atmospheric influences on multiple aspects of
consumer behavior. These researchers identified 58 variables in five categories: external; general
81
interior; layout and design; point-of-purchase and decoration; and human. However, their
classification lacks a theoretical framework (Gilboa & Rafaeli, 2003). Raajpoot (2002)
developed a scale called TANGSERV for measuring the tangible quality in foodservice industry.
TANGSERV comprised ambient factors (e.g., music, temperature), design factors (e.g., location,
seating arrangement), and product/service factors (e.g., food presentation, food variety). The
study first introduced the product/service dimension. Findings suggested that product/service
was a very important aspect of tangible quality in the foodservice industry. The study indicated
that elements related to product/service dimensions such as food presentation, serving size, menu
design, and food varieties were also part of tangible quality clues. However, unclear
methodology calls into question the results of Raajpoot's study.
In conclusion, much of previous research on the physical environment has focused on
identifying the dominant dimensions of the physical environment and clarifying their nature
(Baker, 1987; Berman & Evans, 1995; Bitner, 1992; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988;
Raajpoot, 2002; Turley & Milliman, 2000). However, the reliability and validity of many of
these measures should be questioned. More specifically, relatively little research has been done
on developing a measurement scale of the physical environment. Only few scales (e.g.,
SERVQUAL and DINESERV) incorporate the aspects of the tangible physical environment as a
part of overall service quality measurement scheme. In addition, although Raajpoot (2002)
developed a scale called TANGSERV, its findings might be unacceptable or unreliable because
of the unclear methodology of the study. Therefore, clearly there is a need for reliable and valid
DINESCAPE scale that is also brief and easy to administer.
82
METHODOLOGY
This study was based on the scale development procedures advocated by Churchill
(1979) and techniques described by other previous literature (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Arnold
& Reynolds, 2003; Bentler & Bonnet, 1980; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Nunnally & Bernstein,
1994; Peter, 1981). Figure 1 summarizes the scale development procedures to be used, and the
procedures are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections.
Step 1: Domain of Constructs
The first step in the development of measures involved specifying the domain of the
constructs (Churchill, 1979). Researchers must search the literature when conceptualizing
constructs and specifying domains. Based on a review of relevant literature, five broad categories
of the physical environment (facility aesthetics, layout, ambience, service product, social factors)
emerged. The objective at this stage was to find commonalities that allowed the most accurate
representation of each domain and to develop conceptual definitions of each dimension of the
physical environment. In addition, labels for each dimension were created.
Insert Figure 1
Step 2: Initial Pool of Items
The emphasis in the second step of developing measures was to construct initial items
that represent the five domains of the physical environment. The items that reflected the
83
dimensionality of the physical environment in an upscale restaurant context were based on the
review of literature, a focus group session, and interviews with the managers of the upscale
restaurant used in this study. An extensive literature review was conducted at this item-
generation stage and many items were modified from earlier studies that measured the physical
environment and related constructs.
A focus group interview was then conducted to fully define the content areas of the
physical environment. The focus group consisted faculty members and graduate students who
had been customers at any local upscale restaurants within the past six months. The use of a
focus group helped in constructing and refining the questionnaire. The moderator distributed the
list of physical environmental elements that had been developed from the literature review. The
moderator also distributed color photographs of dining areas in upscale restaurants to help focus
group members recall their experiences with physical surroundings in the upscale restaurants.
After participants viewed the photographs, they were asked to list additional physical
environmental elements he/she thought important in upscale restaurants. In addition, several
managers at upscale restaurants were interviewed to generate additional initial items that were
not captured in the literature review and the focus group session. The initial item-generation
produced 52 items.
Step 3: Content Adequacy Assessment
Based on the initial item-generation process discussed above, preliminary scale items
were defined. Several faculty members in the Department of Apparel, Textiles & Interior Design
(ATID) and the Department of Hotel, Restaurant, Institution Management and Dietetics
(HRIMD) who were familiar with the topic area evaluated the measurement items for content
84
and face validity. This process ensured that the items represented the scale's domains. Faculty
members have often acted as judges of a scale's domain in previous studies (Arnold & Reynolds,
2003; Babin & Burns, 1998; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; Zaichowsky, 1985). Our faculty members
were given the conceptual definitions of each of the five dimensions of the physical environment
and asked to evaluate them based on each item's representation of the physical environment
domain. They also checked clarity of wording. A pretest refined the survey instrument. In all, 20
faculty members, graduate students, and actual customers participated in evaluating the
instrument. A few corrections of the wording of questions were made after the pretest. Finally,
items that were redundant, ambiguous, not representative of the domain, or that were open to
misinterpretation were eliminated (Babin et al., 1994; Richins & Dawson, 1992).
Next, a pilot test of the research instrument was performed on the final questionnaire.
Early data collection for item refinement was undertaken with 41 actual customers at an upscale
restaurant. Reliability assessment (Cronbach alphas) and exploratory factor analysis were
performed with the responses. Based on the results of content adequacy assessment, items were
modified. Results provided a pool of 34 items, with 12 items for aesthetic design, 8 items for
ambience, 4 items for layout, 6 items for service product, and 4 items for social factor. The
resulting item pool then was submitted to a scale purification step through the actual
administration of the questionnaire.
Step 4: Questionnaire Administration
Measurement of Variables
The questionnaire consisted of 34 items relevant to facility aesthetics, layout, ambience,
service product, and social factors. Respondents were asked to rate each statement item using a
85
7-point Likert scale (1 = extremely disagree, 7 = extremely agree). To reduce the potential bias
of forced response, an option marked "N/A" was included for each question (Gunderson, Heide,
& Olsson, 1996).
In developing the measurement items, many combined issues were incorporated. First,
the fact that physical surroundings have both affective and cognitive characteristics was
considered. Some researchers (Bitner, 1992; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982) demonstrated that the
perceived physical environments might elicit cognitive responses, influencing people's beliefs
about a place and their beliefs about the people and products noticed in that place. For example,
particular environmental cues such as the quality of furniture and the type of décor used in the
dining areas may have an effect on customers' beliefs about whether the restaurant is expensive
or not expensive. In contrast, some elements capture affective content. For instance, color does
more than just give objective information. Color actually influences how people feel (Khouw,
2004). Research has shown that different colors stimulate different personal moods and emotions
(e.g., warm, comfortable, inviting, pleasant). In fact, environmental cues within the physical
environment may directly stimulate emotional response (Eiseman, 1998).
Both practical and theoretical meaning of the each variable of the physical environment
was also considered to most appropriately capture the importance of that particular item. For
instance, the literature has shown that color is an important element of the physical environment
in the restaurant facility. Instead of just simply using the statement, "Colors used are
appropriate," this study used, "Colors used make me feel warm," eliciting more affective
response. The first statement indicates that color maybe an important attribute to customers and
how important it is relative to other elements. The later statement provides management with
more practical information for understanding how color influences the customers.
86
Sample and Survey Procedure
A field study approach was used in this study because subjects were actually dining in an
upscale restaurant where they were directly observing and experiencing physical surroundings.
This process offered more valid responses than a survey outside the service encounter
(Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). A total of 319 responses were collected via a self-report
questionnaire at three different upscale restaurants in Midwest and Northwest states. Toward the
end of their meal, customers at these upscale restaurants were asked if they would complete a
questionnaire. Thus, participation was voluntary. Two participation incentives were offered. In
two of the upscale restaurants, customers received a dessert of their choice to share. They
completed the questionnaire while waiting for their dessert. In the third restaurant, each survey
participant received a $10 dining coupon, courtesy of the restaurant owner.
Step 5: Scale Purification
Quantitative analyses were conducted to purify the measures and to examine the scale's
psychometric properties (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Chrchill, 1979; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001).
Item Analysis
Corrected item-total correlations were examined for each set of items representing a
dimension within the physical environment. Items not having a corrected item-total correlation
over .50 were candidates for removal (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Tian, Bearden, & Hunter,
2001; Zaichowsky, 1985).
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Following the item analysis, the item content for each domain representation was
inspected. Remaining items were subjected to a series of exploratory factor analyses with
87
varimax rotation to reduce the set of observed variables to a smaller, more parsimonious set of
variables. Eigenvalues and variance explained were used to identify the number of factors to
extract (Bearden et al., 1989; Hair et al., 1998; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). After the number of
factors in the model was estimated, items exhibiting low factor loadings (<.40), high cross-
loadings (>.40), or low communalities (<.50) were candidates for deletion (Hair et al., 1998).
The remaining items were submitted to further exploratory factor analysis. In addition, Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test of Sphericity were
conducted to ascertain if the distribution of values was adequate for conducting factor analysis.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Gerbing and Anderson (1988) suggested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for
scale development because it affords stricter interpretation of unidimensionality than what is
provided by more traditional approaches, such as coefficient alpha, item-total correlations, and
exploratory factor analysis. CFA could thus provide different conclusions about the acceptability
of a scale. A confirmatory factor model using the maximum likelihood technique was estimated
via LISREL 8.54. Items with low squared multiple correlations (individual item reliabilities)
were deleted. Through CFA, each item tapped into a unique facet of each DINESCAPE
dimension and thus provided good domain representation.
Unidimensionality and Reliability
The evidence that the measures were unidimensional, where a set of indicators shares
only a single underlying construct, was assessed using CFA (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). The
items loaded as predicted with minimal cross-loadings, providing evidence of unidimensionality.
After the unidimensionality of each scale was established, reliability was tested through
Cronbach's alphas, item reliabilities, composite reliabilities, and average variance extracted
88
(AVE) to assess the internal consistency of multiple indicators for each construct in the
DINESCAPE model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Hair et al., 1998;
Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The LISREL 8.54 version provides individual item reliabilities
computed directly and listed as squared multiple correlations for the x and y variables. However,
because LISREL does not compute composite reliability and AVE for each construct directly,
these measures were calculated with the following formulas:
(E standardized loadings)
2
Composite Reliability =
(E standardized loadings)
2
+ (E indicator measurement error)
(E squared standardized loadings)
AVE =
(E squared standardized loadings) + (E indicator measurement error)
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Churchill (1979) suggested that convergent validity and discriminant validity should be
assessed in investigations of construct validity. Convergent validity involves the extent to which
a measure correlates highly with other measures designed to measure an underlying construct.
Discriminant validity involves the extent to which a measure is novel and does not simply reflect
other variables.
The evidence of convergent validity was checked in two ways. First, convergent validity
was assessed from the measurement model by determining whether each indicator's estimated
loading on the underlying dimension was significant (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Netemeyer,
Johnston, & Burton, 1990; Peter, 1981). Second, AVE was used to test the convergent validity.
The AVE value should exceed .50 for a construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). To assess the
discriminant validity between constructs, Fornell and Larcker's (1981) procedure was used. The
89
test requires that AVE for each construct should be higher than the squared correlation between
the two associated latent variables.
RESULTS
Sample Characteristics
Table 1 shows sample characteristics of respondents. They varied in age (s 25 years age
= 28.8%; 26-35 years of age, 17.6%; 36-45 years of age, 17.3%; 46-55 = 21.3%; > 56 years of
age, 15.0%), gender (female = 41.9%; male = 58.1%), household income level (less than $19,999
= 15.4%; $20,000-$59,999 = 35.9%; $60,000-$100,000 = 24.1%; more than $100,000 = 24.6%),
majority of Caucasian (87.8%), past experience (first time visitors = 45.5%; repeat visitors =
54.5%), and home ownership (owners, 60.3%; non-owners, 39.1%).
Descriptive Information
Independent samples t-tests were used to identify the statistical differences in customers'
perceived quality of physical environments between gender (male vs. female) and frequency of
visit (first-time visitors vs. repeat visitors) to upscale restaurants. In terms of gender, five
physical environmental elements (plants/flowers, comfortable lighting, warm lighting, feeling of
being crowded due to seating arrangement, and attractive employees) showed statistically
significant differences between male and female. Interestingly, the higher mean values indicated
that females were more sensitive than males in four significant physical environmental elements.
It was also very interesting to notice that gender influenced perceived quality of human
surroundings ("Attractive employees make me feel good"). More specifically, as expected males
(· = 5.91) rated higher than females (· = 5.53), indicating males were more sensitive than
90
females to the attractiveness of employees. In addition, three physical elements (plants/flowers,
table setting, neat and well dressed employees) showed significant differences between the first
visitors and repeat visitors. Similar to the gender difference, higher mean values indicated that
females were more sensitive than males to all three physical and human surroundings.
Insert Table 2
Item Analysis
This study retained 34 items to capture the five domains of DINESCAPE for scale
purification steps. After careful inspection of item content for domain representation, 9 items
with low corrected item-total correlations were deleted: (1) 4 items representing facility
aesthetics, (2) 1 item representing ambience, (3) 3 items representing service product, and (4) 1
item representing social factors. Thus, the item analysis resulted in a pool of 25 items retained
for further analysis.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Following item analysis, exploratory factor analyses with varimax rotation and additional
reliability assessments were undertaken on the remaining 25 items. Eigenvalue and variance
explained were used to identify the number of factors to extract (Bearden et al., 1989; Hair et al.,
1998). After inspecting item content for domain representation, we eliminated 4 items: (1) two
items for low communalities and two items for high cross-loadings. A total of 21 DINESCAPE
91
items were retained after these analyses. The 21 DINESCAPE items were then subjected to
further exploratory factor analysis. The final scale consisted 21 items representing a six-factor
model that behaved consistently and had adequate reliability.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's test of Sphericity indicated that the
distribution of values was adequate for conducting factor analysis. The KMO measure of
sampling adequacy was .885, indicating a meritorious acceptance (George & Mallery, 2001; Hair
et al., 1998). In addition, a significance value (< .05) of Bartlett's Test of Sphericity indicated
that the data set of distributions was acceptable for factor analysis because the multivariate
normality of the set of distributions was satisfied and the correlation matrix was not an identity
matrix. All communalities, ranging from .52 to .86, were acceptable for all 21 items.
Table 3 presents the results of the six-factor structure delineated by exploratory factor
analysis with varimax rotation. The 21 DINESCAPE items yielded six factors with eigenvalues
more than 1.0, and these factors explained 74.55% of the overall variance. Each factor name was
based on the characteristics of its composite variables. The first DINESCAPE factor contained
five items and was labeled, "Facility Aesthetics." Facility aesthetics represented a function of
architectural design, along with interior design and décor (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994). Its
definition of the construct domain of architectural design and interior design was relatively large
compared to the other five dimensions of DINESCAPE. The five items in facility aesthetics
comprised paintings/pictures, wall décor, plants/flowers, color, and furniture, all of which were
aesthetic elements in the creation of aesthetic image or atmosphere. As expected, it captured the
largest variance of DINESCAPE among the six dimensions, accounting for 16.06% of the total
variance.
92
Insert Table 3
The second factor, "Ambience," included intangible background characteristics that tend
to affect the nonvisual senses (Baker, 1987). It contained four items: background music relaxes
me, background music is pleasing, temperature is comfortable, and aroma is enticing. The third
factor, "Lighting," relates to the perception of lighting and its influence on feelings such as
warmth, welcome (weaker expression than inviting), and comfort. Contrary to the expectation,
lighting, which was a part of original dimension of ambience, was found to be a single
dimension. One reason may be found in Carman's (1990) work. He indicated that when one of
the dimensions of quality was particularly important to customers, they were likely to break that
dimension into subdimensions. The significance of lighting and other ambience elements, such
as music, in restaurants is found in many previous studies (Hui et al., 1997; Kurtich & Eakin,
1993; Mattila & Wirtz, 2001; Milliman, 1982; Robson, 1999). In upscale restaurants, customers
found lighting and ambience to be key and distinct dimensions in their customer's perceptual
map. From a practical standpoint, lighting can influence other dimensions, such as facility
aesthetics, ambience, service product, and social factors. For instance, the lighting level can
congruently interact with color to create a synergy in creating aesthetic atmosphere.
The fourth factor, "Service Product," represented products or materials used to serve
every customer whenever a turnover occurs. In this study, service product featured three
attributes: (1) tableware, such as high quality glass, china, silverware; (2) linens, such as white
table cloths and appealing napkin arrangement; and (3) overall table setting using such elements
93
as an appealing candle. It was worth noticing that service product was delineated separately from
facility aesthetics in the customers' perceptual map of DINESCAPE. This unique construct, as
distinct from general dimensions of physical environment, can probably be attributed to a
specific setting where forms and deliver prestigious image for the customer.
The fifth construct, "Layout," featured the seating arrangement within the environment.
The layout dimension contained three items: (1) seating arrangement gives me enough space, (2)
seating arrangement makes me feel crowded, and (3) layout makes it easy for me to move
around. These items captured both the psychological (e.g., crowded) and the physical (easy to
move around) properties of spatial layout inside the dining area. Some previous studies included
layout in facility aesthetics or even interior design. However, layout was a dimension distinct
from the domain of facility aesthetics in this study.
Finally, the last DINESCAPE factor, "Social Factors," included the characteristics of
employees and other customers in the service setting. It featured three items: attractive
employees, adequate number of employees, and neat and well-dressed employees. Although the
aspect of customers was technically deleted in the purification processes, that aspect should still
be a concern. Toms and McColl-Kennedy (2003) argued that research to date has focused on the
effects of the physical elements, with the social aspects (customers and service providers) of the
environment largely ignored. The results of this study provided evidence that the domain of the
physical environment should capture not only the facility aspects but also the social aspects of
physical surroundings.
Customers rated all the DINESCAPE items highly because of the perceived quality of the
physical environment in upscale restaurants. There were some items that customers especially
saw as relatively positive rating them at equal or higher than 5.80: colors as part of warm
94
atmosphere (5.82), comfortable temperature (5.81), welcoming lighting (5.91), lighting as part of
comfortable atmosphere (5.94), spacious seating arrangement (5.80), attractive employees (5.87),
an adequate number of employees (5.98), and neat and well dressed employees (6.18).
Interestingly, customers rated all three social factor items higher than 5.80, and the third item
(employees are neat and well dressed) was rated the highest among all DINESCAPE items.
These findings indicated that restaurateurs in upscale restaurants considered those eight elements
important and paid relatively great attention to them. Therefore, customers perceived those
elements relatively positive. Finally, grand means indicated that all six dimensions of the
DINESCAPE were consistently highly rated (5.67 to 6.1). The aspects of social factor were
especially focused on by restaurateurs in an upscale restaurant setting, as illustrated by the
highest grand mean of social factor (6.1).
The overall patterns of factor loadings were consistent with the literature on the physical
environment except for the separation of lighting from ambience and service product and layout
from facility aesthetics. Items assigned to each construct had relatively high loadings on only one
of the six dimensions extracted. Factor loadings of all 21 items were fairly high, raging from
0.66 to 0.87, indicating a reasonably high correlation between the delineated dimensions and
their individual items. The Cronbach's alphas, which were designed to check the internal
consistency of items within each dimension, ranged from .80 to .92, indicating good reliability
(Hair et al., 1998). In summary, the reliabilities and factor structures indicated that the final 21-
item scale and its six factors had sound, psychometric properties. Subsequently, 21 items with 6
DINESCAPE dimensions were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
95
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
CFA was performed to verify the factor structure and improve measurement properties in
the proposed scale (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Bearden et al., 1989; Gerbing & Anderson,
1988). A CFA with 21 items representing a six-dimension model was estimated using LISREL
8.54. Several widely used goodness-of-fit statistics were employed: root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA), normed fit index (NFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit
index (CFI), and goodness-of-fit index (GFI). These fit indices consistently indicated the
confirmatory factor model adequately reflected a good fit to the data (RMSEA = 0.074; NFI =
0.95; TLI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; GFI = 0.86). In addition, measurement equations showed all
acceptable levels of item squared multiple correlations for all 21 items, ranging from .52 to .89.
Unidimensionality and Reliability
Given the results of CFA, the measures were unidimensional because a set of indicators
shared only a single underlying construct and the items were loaded as predicted with minimal
cross-loadings (Bollen, 1989; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). As illustrated in Table 4, Cronbach's
alpha estimates, ranging from .80 to .92, were acceptable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). Table 4 also shows the measurement statistics for model variables. The
standardized factor loadings of the observed items on the latent constructs as estimated from
CFA met the minimum criterion of .40; they ranged from 0.72 to 0.94 (Ford et al., 1986). The
item reliabilities, which are the squared multiple correlations of an individual indicator, ranged
from .52 to .88, indicating acceptable levels of reliabilities (Hair et al., 1998). The composite
reliabilities of constructs ranged from .84 to .95. Adequate internal consistency of multiple items
96
for each construct in the six-factor model all exceeded .60, the minimum criterion suggested by
Bagozzi and Yi (1988).
Insert Table 4
Figure 2 shows the estimated measurement model in the form of a structural diagram so
that the relationships between indicators (observed variables) and constructs (unobserved
variables) can be seen in the standardized factor loadings in addition to error variance for
measurement items.
Insert Figure 2
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Convergent validity was first estimated from the measurement model by determining if
each indicator's estimated factor loading on the underlying construct was significant (Anderson
& Gerbing, 1988; Netemeyer, Johnston, & Burton, 1990; Peter, 1981). Convergent validity was
indicated since all lamdas (indicator factor coefficients) on their underlying constructs were
significant. In addition, AVE of all six constructs exceeded the minimum criterion of 0.5 (Fornell
& Larcker, 1981), ranging from 0.56 to 0.86. AVE also was used to test discriminant validity.
Since the lowest AVE (.56) among all the constructs in Table 3 exceeded the highest square of
97
the estimated correlation between the latent variables (the square of the correlation between
facility aesthetic and lighting = 0.50), discriminant validity also was satisfied (Fornell & Larcker,
1981).
DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
This paper shows the development of a multiple-item scale to measure physical and
human surroundings in dining areas of upscale restaurants (DINESCAPE). Results of
DINESCAPE showed reliable, valid, and useful measures of physical and human surroundings in
the upscale restaurant context from the customer point of view. This is one of few exploratory
studies to suggest a reliable and valid scale that can be used to measure customers' perceived
performance level of physical environments in restaurant business settings, particularly under the
upscale restaurant context.
This study has theoretical and managerial implications for both researchers and
practitioners. From a theoretical perspective, above all, the availability of this instrument will
stimulate much-needed empirical research focusing on physical environments and its impacts on
image, mood, emotions, satisfaction, perception of overall service quality, and
approach/avoidance behaviors in a variety of fields. The DINESCAPE scale can be applied to
examine the interrelationships between DINESCAPE, emotional responses, and
approach/avoidance behaviors not only in an upscale restaurant context but also in other
restaurant segments like fast-casual dining restaurants (e.g., Panera Bread). Prior research
indicated that some elements (e.g., music) in DINESCAPE had strong effects on customer
emotional states and approach/avoidance behaviors through both direct and/or indirect links
(Bitner, 1992; Chang, 2000; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974).
98
From a practical standpoint, DINESCAPE is a concise multiple-item scale with
acceptable reliability and validity that restaurateurs can employ to better understand how
customers perceive the quality of physical surroundings inside the dining area. The classification
used in this study can help restaurateurs understand the DINESCAPE dimensions, and based on
the classification, managers can identify and modify different DINESCAPE variables to improve
the perceived quality of the physical environment.
Restaurateurs could also use the instrument to investigate the direction and strength of
DINESCAPE elements and dimensions among their current customers. In addition, restaurateurs
can determine the relative importance of the six dimensions affecting overall customer quality
perceptions or even other outcomes like customer satisfaction. A DINESCAPE profile can be
constructed using a restaurant's current customer base, thereby providing restaurateurs with
additional understanding of their customers' perceptions.
Another application of the scale is its use in categorizing a restaurant's customers into
several segments based on demographics (e.g., gender, age) as well as relative importance of the
six dimensions in influencing customers' overall quality perceptions. For instance, suppose a
manager discovered that older women prefer listening to classical music while young males wish
to listen to top 40 music. When there is a birthday celebration for a man just turning 21, the
management should play top 40 music instead of classical music as background. The restaurateur
could, thus, focus on any of the DINESCAPE elements to investigate how the physical
environment affects customer groups of different age or gender to satisfy the specific needs of
different customer groups.
Using scales developed in this study, restaurateurs can use dimension scores to
benchmark previous scores or even principal competitors. In multiunit operations, restaurateurs
99
can also compare one unit's results with another unit's scores. Then, they can analyze strengths
and weakness and have a sense of what priorities should be set up. Each time the survey is
administered, improvement strategies can be refined. DINESCAPE can be most valuable when
the survey is used periodically to help users track changes in customer perceptions as well as
trends in physical surroundings. In addition, restaurateurs who redesigning their facilities can
assess customer perceptions before making any significant investment. However, DINESCAPE
is a useful starting point, not the final answer in evaluating and improving the quality of the
physical environment. Its standard six-factor structure serves as a meaningful framework for
tracking an upscale restaurant's performance in physical environment over time and comparing
performance against competitors.
In summary, DINESCAPE has a variety of potential applications in helping researchers
and restaurateurs to better understand how customers perceive the physical environment. It is
believed that this pioneering work can make the literature regarding the physical environments
step forward and help restaurateurs assess customer perceptions of the quality of physical
surroundings inside the dining area of upscale restaurants.
LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY
As with any scale development research, practitioners or researchers should use caution
when applying the scale to other restaurant segments. First, this study was intended to tap a
broad range of elements of the physical environment in the restaurant industry. The scale was
specifically developed for the upscale restaurant context, however, caution should be taken in
applying the scale to other restaurant segments. The efficiency of the DINESCAPE instrument
requires modification to better assess the physical environment of a specific setting. For instance,
100
while slow tempo of classical music can be used as background music to relax customers in
upscale restaurants, fast contemporary music might be preferred in the quick service restaurant to
elicit fast turnover increasing the dining speed (Milliman, 1986). Second, this scale was
developed only to address the internal environment, not the external environment because the
latter was considered relatively less important than the former, and one goal of the research was
to establish a parsimonious scale. Therefore, the domain of DINESCAPE is somewhat narrow. It
was not intended to capture all aspects of the physical environment at any restaurants. External
environmental cues might be actually salient issues for customer satisfaction and approach
behaviors. For example, Chili's assigns some parking spaces especially for "To Go" customers.
This may increase the satisfaction of their customers because such a service allows customers to
pick up their food quickly. Clearly, scale development needs more research so that a broader
range in restaurant settings can be included. Finally, with any factor analysis, a certain amount of
subjectivity was necessary in identifying and labeling constructs. Finally, a few confounding
effects (e.g., alcohol, incentives, premood), which could not be controlled during data collection,
could affect the results. For instance, some customers might be pleasant or excited because of
alcohol (e.g., wine), not because of the physical and human surroundings while they were
completing the questionnaire. In addition, some incentives (free dessert or $10 dining coupon)
provided to customers could elicit pleasant feelings from some customers.
We hope this work will spawn more research on DINESCAPE by providing researchers
with a reliable, valid, and parsimonious scale to measure the physical environment. The nature of
the relationships between the DINESCAPE, such antecedents as premood, and such
consequences as customer satisfaction need additional exploration. The relationships between the
DINESCAPE and customer psychology as well as customer behavior could also be investigated
101
using environmental psychology theories. These future studies will enhance our understanding of
the role of the DINESCAPE.
102
REFERENCES
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Arnold, M.J., & Reynolds, K.E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing, 79,
77-95.
Babin, L.A., & Burns, A.C. (1998). A modified scale for the measurement of communication-
evoked mental imagery. Psychology and Marketing, 15(3), 261-278.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.
Baker, J. (1987). The role of the environment in marketing services. In: Czepeial, J.A., Congram,
C.A., & Shananhan, J. (Eds.). The Services Challenges: Integrating for Competitive
Advantage. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 79-84.
Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The influence of the store environment on
quality inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22,
328-339.
Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store
environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), 445-460.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G., & Teel, J.E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility
to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer research, 19(March), 473-481.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 588-606.
103
Berman, B., & Evans, J.R. (1995). Management: A Strategic Approach. (6
th
ed). Englewood
Cliffs: NJ. Prentice-Hall Inc.
Bitner, M.J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54, 69-82.
Bitner, M.J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Brady, M.K., & Cronin, J.J., Jr. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service
quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 34-49.
Carman, J.M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the
SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66, 33-55.
Chang, K. (2000). The impact of perceived physical environments on customers' satisfaction and
return intentions. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 21(2), 75-85.
Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16(February), 64-73.
Donovan, R.J., & Rossiter, J.R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology
approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(1), 34-57.
Eiseman, L. (1998). Colors For Your Every Mood. Capital Books, Virginia.
Ford, J.K., MacCallum, R.C., & Trait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis
in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personal Psychology, 39, 291-314.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Gerbing, D.W., & Anderson, J.C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development
104
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research,
25(May), 186-192.
Gilboa, S., & Rafaeli, A. (2003). Store environment, emotions and approach behavior: applying
environmental aesthetics to retailing. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research, 13(2), 195-211.
Goldman, K. (1993). Concept selection for independent restaurants. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 34(Dec), 72-81.
Gordon, R.T., & Brezinski, M.H. (1999). The Complete Restaurant Management Guide.
Armonk, New York. Sharpe Professional.
Gunderson, M.G., Heide, M., & Olsson, U.H. (1996). Hotel guests satisfaction among business
travelers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37, 72-81.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis
(5
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hui, M.K., Dube, L., & Chebat, J. (1997). The impact of music on consumer's reaction to
waiting for services. Journal of Retailing, 73, 87-104.
Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and Environment. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Khouw, N. (2004). The meaning of color for gender. Retrieved April 10, 2004, from:
http://www.colormatters.com/khouw.html.
Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48-64.
Kumari, K., & Venkatramaiah, S.R. (1974). Effects of anxiety on closure effect disappearance
threshold. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1, 114-120.
Kurtich, J., & Eakin, G. (1993). Interior Architecture. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Mattila, A.S., & Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
105
evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 273-289.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Milliman, R.E. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers.
Journal of Marketing, 46, 86-91.
Milliman, R.E. (1986). The influence of background music on the behavior of restaurant patrons.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 286-289.
Muller, C.C., & Woods, R.H. (1994). An expanded restaurant typology. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35(June), 72-81.
Netemeyer, R.G., Johnston, R.G., & Burton, M.W. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role
ambiguity in structural equations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 148-158.
Nunnaly, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3
rd
ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Oaks, S. (2003). Musical tempo and waiting perceptions. Psychology and Marketing, 20(8), 685-
705.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, A.V., & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12-40.
Peter, J.P. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing practices. Journal
of Marketing Research, 18(May), 133-145.
Raajpoot, N.A. (2002). TANGSERV: A multiple item scale for measuring tangible quality in
foodservice industry.Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 5(2), 2002.
Richins, M.L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its
106
measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research,
19(Dec), 303-316.
Robson, A.K.S. (1999). Turning the tables: the psychology of design for high-volume
restaurants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 56-63.
Sayed, I.M., Farrag, D.A., & Belk, R.W. (2003). The effects of physical surroundings on
Egyptian consumers' emotional states and buying intentions. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 16(1), 5-27.
Siguaw, J.A., Mattila, A., & Austin, J.R. (1999). The brand-personality scale: An application for
restaurants. Cornell, Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 48-55.
Stevens, P., Knutson, B., & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for measuring service quality
in restaurants. Cornell Hotel and restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 56-60.
Sweeney, J.C., & Soutar, G.N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a
multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220.
Tian, K.T., Beardon, W.O., & Hunter, G.L. (2001). Consumers' need for uniqueness: Scale
development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(June), 50-66.
Tombs, A., & McColl-Kennedy, J.R. (2003). Social-servicescape conceptual model. Marketing
Theory, 3(4), 447-475.
Turley, L.W., & Milliman, R.E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of
the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 193-211.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure service
settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), 66-76.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1996). The effects of the servicescape on customers'
107
behavioral intentions in leisure service setting. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45-
61.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1999). Customer response to intangible and tangible service
factors. Psychology & Marketing, 16(1), 51-68.
Zaichowsky, J.L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research,
12(December), 341-352.
108
Step 1: Domain of Constructs
Step 2: Initial Pool of Items
Step 3: Content Adequacy Assessment
Step 4: Questionnaire Administration
Step 5: Scale Purification
- Review literature
- Find commonalities for each domain
- Define domain
- Review literature and existing instruments
- Conduct a focus group session
- Interview with upscale restaurant managers
- Test conceptual consistency of items
- Assess content validity of the instrument
- Conduct pretest and pilot test
- Modify items and
- Determine the scale for items
- Collect data from actual customers at three
upscale restaurants
- Test item analysis
- Conduct exploratory factor analysis
- Conduct confirmatory factor analysis -
Assess unidimensionality & reliability
- Assess convergent & discriminant validity
Figure 1. Scale Development Procedures
109
.37
.40
.47
.39
.33
.48
.41
.39
.48
.14
.17
.12
.36
.26
.24
.24
.11
.37
.15
.42
.20
DI
1
DI
2
DI
3
DI
4
DI
5
DI
6
DI
7
DI
8
DI
9
DI
10
DI
11
DI
12
DI
13
DI
14
DI
15
DI
16
DI
17
DI
18
DI
19
DI
20
DI
21
.79
.78
.73
.78
.82
.72
.77
.78
.72
.93
.91
.94
.80
.86
.87
.87
.94
.80
.92
.76
.89
FA
AM
LI
SP
LA
SF
DINESCAPE
Figure 2. Measurement Model of DINESCAPE
110
Table 1
Literature Review of Dimensions Related to the Physical Environment
Authors Terminology Dimensions
Used
Baker (1987) Atmospherics Ambient factors
Design factors (aesthetics & functional)
Social factors
Bitner (1992) SERVICESCAPE Ambient conditions
Spatial layout and functionality
Sign, symbol and artifacts
Baker, Grewal, &
Parasuraman (1994)
Berman & Evans (1995)
Stevens, Knutson, &
Patton (1995)
Store
atmospherics
Atmospherics
DINESERV
Ambient factors
Design factors
Social factors
External variables
General interior variables
Layout and design variables
Point of purchase & decoration variables
Reliability
Responsiveness
Empathy
Assurance
Tangibles
Wakefield & Blodgett
(1996)
SERVICESCAPE Layout accessibility
Facility aesthetics
Seating comfort
Electronic equipment/displays
Facility cleanliness
Wakefield & Blodgett
(1999)
Turley & Milliman (2000)
Raajpoot (2002)
Tangible service
factors
Atmospherics
TANGSERV
Building design & décor
Equipment
Ambience
External variables
General interior variables
Layout and design variables
Point of purchase and decoration variables
Human variables
Ambient factors
Design factors
Product/service factors
111
Table 2
Sample Characteristics of Respondents
Age
s 25
26-35
36-45
46-55
> 56
Gender
Male
Female
Characteristic
Percentage
28.8
17.6
17.3
21.3
15.0
41.9
58.1
House hold income ($)
< 20,000
20,000-59,999
60,000-99,999
>100,000
Race
Caucasian
Other
Past experience
First time visitors
Repeat visitors
Ownership of house
Owners
Non-owners
15.4
35.9
24.1
24.6
87.8
12.2
45.5
54.5
60.3
39.7
112
Table 3
Exploratory Factor Analysis for DINESCAPE Factors
DINESCAPE Factors (Reliability Alpha) Factor Eigenvalues Variance Item S.D.
Loadings Explained means
F1: Facility Aesthetics (.87) 3.37 16.06
Paintings/pictures are attractive. .83 5.59 1.09
Wall décor is visually appealing. .81 5.69 1.12
Plants/flowers make me feel happy. .76 5.58 1.14
Colors used create a warm atmosphere. .68 5.82 0.90
Furniture (e.g., dining table, chair) is of high quality. .66 5.66 1.08
Grand mean 5.67
F2: Ambience (.83) 2.77 13.18
Background music relaxes me. .87 5.73 1.04
Background music is pleasing. .85 5.63 1.15
Temperature is comfortable. .67 5.81 1.03
Aroma is enticing. .62 5.50 1.07
Grand mean 5.67
F3: Lighting (.92) 2.56 12.19
Lighting creates a warm atmosphere. .85 5.76 1.02
Lighting makes me feel welcome. .83 5.91 0.93
Lighting creates a comfortable atmosphere. .82 5.94 0.92
Grand mean 5.87
F4: Service Product (.85) 2.43 11.55
Tableware (e.g., glass, china, silverware) is of high .83 5.76 1.06
quality.
The linens (e.g., table cloths, napkin) are attractive. .82 5.73 1.04
The table setting is visually attractive. .77 5.71 0.99
Grand mean 5.73
F5: Layout (.86) 2.35 11.20
Seating arrangement gives me enough space. .86 5.80 1.08
Seating arrangement makes me feel crowded.* .83 5.59 1.21
Layout makes it easy for me to move around. .76 5.69 1.10
Grand mean 5.69
F6: Social Factors (.80) 2.18 10.36
Attractive employees make me feel good. .87 5.87 1.05
An adequate number of employees makes me feel .80 5.98 0.94
cared for.
Employees are neat and well dressed. .71 6.18 0.81
Grand mean 6.01
Total Variance 74.55%
Note. *Reverse scored; Only loadings greater than .40 are shown. An asterisk indicates reverse scored items; A
seven-point Likert scale response format was used.
113
Table 4
Measurement Properties
Factors Standardized Item Composite AVE
(Cronbach's Alphas) Factor Loadings Reliabilities Reliabilities
Facility aesthetics (.87) .89 .61
DS
1
.79 .62
DS
2
.78 .61
DS
3
.73 .53
DS
4
.78 .61
DS
5
.82 .67
Ambience (.83) .84 .56
DS
6
.72 .52
DS
7
.77 .59
DS
8
.78 .61
DS
9
.72 .52
Lighting (.92) .95 .86
DS
10
.93 .86
DS
11
.91 .83
DS
12
.94 .88
Service product (.85) .88 .71
DS
13
.80 .64
DS
14
.86 .74
DS
15
.87 .76
Layout (.86) .90 .76
DS
16
.87 .76
DS
17
.94 .88
DS
18
.80 .64
Social factor (.80) .90 .74
DS
19
.92 .85
DS
20
.76 .58
DS
21
.89 .79
114
CHAPTER V:
THE INFLUENCE OF DINESCAPE ON BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS THROUGH
EMOTIONAL STATES IN UPSCALE RESTAURANTS
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to build a conceptual model showing how the
DINESCAPE influences customer behavioral intentions through emotions in an upscale
restaurant setting. Based on the DINESCAPE scale developed in the first phase of this study, the
Mehrabian-Russell environmental psychology framework was adopted to explore the linkage
between the six DINESCAPE dimensions and customer emotional states (pleasure and arousal)
and the linkage between pleasure and arousal and behavioral intentions. Structural equation
modeling was used to test the causal relationships among the hypothesized relationships. Results
revealed that the facility aesthetics, ambience, and social factor affected the level of customer
pleasure while ambience and social factor influenced the amount of arousal. In addition, pleasure
and arousal significantly affected on subsequent behavioral intentions. Finally, implications for
restaurateurs and researchers are discussed.
115
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, growing attention has focused on the influence of perceived physical
environments on human psychology and behavior in diverse areas, such as architecture,
environmental psychology, psychology, retailing, and marketing (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982;
Turley & Milliman, 2000). Theoretical and empirical literature suggests that customer reactions
to the physical environment (also known as 'atmospherics' or 'SERVICESCAPE') may be more
emotional than cognitive, particularly in hedonic consumption. While consumption of many
types of service (e.g., using a McDonald's drive-thru service) is driven primarily by utilitarian
(functional) purposes, consumption of leisure services (e.g., dining at an upscale restaurant) is
also driven by hedonic (emotional) motives. Hedonic consumption involves more than just the
perceived quality of service (e.g., whether a meal was delivered fast), influencing whether
consumers are satisfied with the service experience. One of the main reasons customers seek out
hedonic consumption is to experience specific emotions such as pleasure and excitement
(Wakefield & Blodgett, 1999). Previous research indicates that the degree of pleasure (e.g.,
unhappy-happy) and arousal (e.g., excited-calm) that customers experience in a hedonic service
encounter may, at least in part, determine their satisfaction and subsequent behavior (Mano &
Oliver, 1993; Russell & Pratt, 1980). The physical environment is important because it can either
enhance or suppress these feelings and emotions (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1999).
SERVICESCAPE refers to the "built environment" or, more specifically, "the man-made,
physical surroundings as opposed to the natural or social environment" (Bitner, 1992, p. 58).
SERVICESCAPE is an important determinant of customer psychology (e.g., satisfaction,
emotion) and behavior (e.g., repatronage, positive word-of-mouth) when the service is consumed
primarily for hedonic reasons and customers spend moderate to long periods in
116
SERVICESCAPE (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996). For instance, in the case of upscale restaurants,
customers may spend two hours or more in the establishment, sensing physical surroundings
consciously and unconsciously before, during, and after the meal. While the food and the service
must be of acceptable quality, a pleasing SERVICESCAPE (e.g., lighting, décor, layout,
employee appearance) may determine to a large extent the degree of positive emotions and
approach behavior (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Hui & Bateson, 1991; Mehrabian & Russell,
1974).
While there is a significant body of research on the impact of the physical environment
on human psychology and behavior, little research has been conducted on understanding how the
physical environment affects customers within the hospitality industry, particularly in upscale
restaurants. In addition, the physical environment typically has been studied by looking at the
effect of one or several particular physical environmental elements (e.g., lighting, music) on the
customer's purchase behavior. Thus, the combined effect of these elements that make up the
physical environment of an upscale restaurant needs to be empirically tested to create an overall
conceptual model. If the physical environment can indeed influence a customer's psychology
and behavior in an upscale restaurant, then a framework should be developed to study such
effects. Although several researchers have attempted to explore various aspects of environmental
and behavioral relationships, no previous studies have applied an overall environmental
psychology framework to the upscale restaurant context. Thus, this study attempted to fill these
research gaps by assessing the effects of customer perceptions of the physical environment on
their emotions, which is expected to have an impact on their intended behaviors.
The purpose of this study was to build a conceptual framework for how the physical
environment influences customers' behavioral intentions through their emotions. To achieve this
117
purpose, based on the DINESCAPE scale developed in study 1, this study examined the impacts
of DINESCAPE on emotions and in turn, the effects of emotions on behavioral intentions using
the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) environmental psychology framework. Specifically, the effects of
facility aesthetic, lighting, ambience, layout, service product, and social factor on customer
pleasure and arousal and the impact of pleasure and arousal on behavioral intentions were
examined. The specific objectives of this study were (1) to adapt the Mehrabian-Russell (1974)
environmental psychology framework to the upscale restaurant context and test predictions from
the model; (2) to investigate the impact of DINESCAPE on customers' emotional states:
pleasure and arousal; and (3) to determine the relative importance of pleasure and arousal on
customers' behavioral intentions. In the rest of this article, the term "DINESCAPE," rather than
"SERVICESCAPE," is used to distinguish our work from previous studies. In this study,
DINESCAPE is defined as man-made physical and human surroundings in the dining areas of
the upscale restaurants. This study does not focus on external environment (e.g., parking space,
building design) and some internal environmental variables (e.g., restroom and waiting room).
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The Mehrabian-Russell (1974) environmental psychology framework provided the
theoretical framework of this study for examining the effects of the physical environment on
emotions and, in turn, the impact of emotions on behavioral intentions. Mehrabian and Russell
(1974) first introduced a theoretical model for studying the impact of environment on human
behavior. This model is divided into three parts: environmental stimuli, emotional states, and
approach or avoidance responses. In this model, the environment creates an emotional response
in individuals, which in turn elicits either of an approach or avoidance behavior. This model has
118
received consistent empirical support in environmental psychology and marketing literature
(Baker & Cameron, 1996; Baker, Levy, & Grewal, 1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Russell &
Pratt, 1980; Sayed, Farrag, & Belk, 2003).
During the past several decades, the importance of a more aesthetic physical environment
has been studied in a variety of research fields such as the retail environment, with researchers
studying the influence of the physical environment on human psychology and behavior (Bitner,
1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Gilboa & Rafaeli, 2003; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Turley &
Milliman, 2000). More specifically, based on Mehrabian and Russel (1974) model, research in
environmental psychology has shown that properly designed physical environments may create
feelings of excitement, pleasure, or relaxation, which, in turn, may elicit either an approach or
avoidance behavior (Mehrabian-Russel, 1974; Russell & Pratt, 1980). Here it is important to
notice that the physical environment should be considered the same as the first component of the
Mehrabian and Russell (1974) model: environmental stimuli. In addition, the feature of
behavioral intention in this study is congruent with aspects of approach/avoidance behavior,
which is the third component of Mehrabian-Russel (1974) model.
Therefore, the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) environmental psychology model, which
incorporates the concepts of the physical environment, emotions, and approach/avoidance
behaviors, could be used as a theoretical framework for this study to explore the impact of the
physical environment on emotions, and, in turn, the effects of emotions on behavioral intentions.
Based on Mehrabian-Russel (1974) model, it was assumed that the physical environment (also
called DINESCAPE in this study) should influence a customer's approach/avoidance behavior
toward restaurant experience only through his/her emotions in upscale restaurants in this study.
119
Mehrabian-Russell Model
The Mehrabian-Russell (1974) environmental psychology framework has strong support
in many areas, among them environmental psychology, retailing, and marketing. Figure 1
presents the Mehrabian-Russell Model. The application of this principle facilitates predicting and
understanding the effects of environmental changes on human behavior. The model is divided
into three parts: a stimulus taxonomy, a set of intervening variables, and a set of responses. The
model claims that that any environment will generate an emotional state in an individual that can
be characterized as one of three emotional states: pleasure, arousal, and dominance, and those
three emotional states mediate approach-avoidance behaviors in a wide range of environments.
Insert Figure 1
Pleasure refers to the extent to which individuals feel good, happy, pleased, or joyful in a
situation, while arousal refers to the degree to which individuals feel stimulated, excited, or
active. The dominance dimension is the extent to which a person feels influential, in control, or
important. However, studies that tested the model have found that the pleasure and arousal
dimensions underlie any affective responses to any environments, while dominance did not have
a significant effect on approach or avoidance behaviors (Russell & Pratt, 1980; Ward & Russell,
1981). Thus, the role of dominance in relations to approach or avoidance behavior has received
little attention in more recent studies. More recent researchers have defined two (pleasure and
arousal) rather than three (pleasure, arousal, and dominance) basic dimensions of the model.
120
Environmental psychologists (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974;
Russell & Pratt, 1980) assume that people's feelings and emotions ultimately determine what
they do and how they do it. Further, people respond with different sets of emotions to different
environments, and that these, in turn, prompt them to approach or avoid the environment.
Approach behaviors are seen as positive responses: a desire to stay in a particular facility and
explore it. Avoidance behaviors include not wanting to stay in a facility not wanting exploring.
The Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model proposed that emotions such as pleasantness-
unpleasantness and arousal- nonarousal influenced people's responses to environments. The
model was used to determine the factors that influenced purchasing behavior in retail stores. The
results showed that general feelings of pleasantness increased the time shoppers spent in the
stores as well as the amount of money they spent (Baker et al., 1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982;
Donovan, Rossiter, & Nesdale, 1994). Therefore, two of the hypotheses are proposed here for the
purposes of confirmatory testing of Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model.
H1: Pleasure will have a positive effect on behavioral intention.
H2: Arousal will have a positive effect on behavioral intention.
DINESCAPE Variables
In this study DINESCAPE is defined as the man-made physical and human surroundings
in the dining area of upscale restaurants.
Facility Aesthetics
Facility aesthetics refer to a function of architectural design, along with interior design
and décor, all of which contribute to the attractiveness of the DINESCAPE (Wakefield &
Blodgett, 1994). Once customers are inside the dining area, they may spend hours observing
121
(consciously and subconsciously) the interior of the dining area, which is likely to affect their
attitudes towards the restaurant (Baker et al., 1988). In addition to the appeal of the dining area's
architectural design, customers may be influenced by the color schemes of the dining area.
Different colors stimulate different moods, emotions, and feelings (Bellizzi & Hite, 1992; Gorn
et al., 1997; Mikellides, 1990). Other aspects of interior design, such as furniture,
pictures/paintings, plants/flowers, ceiling decorations, or wall decorations may also serve to
enhance the perceived quality of the DINESCAPE, creating emotions (pleasure and arousal) in a
customer. Thus, it is proposed that:
H3a: Facility aesthetics will have a positive effect on pleasure.
H3b: Facility aesthetics will have a positive effect on arousal.
Lighting
Lighting can be one of the most salient physical stimuli in the upscale restaurant.
Restaurateurs know that subdued lighting symbolically conveys full service and relatively high
prices, whereas bright lighting may symbolize quick service and lower prices. Research has
shown the impact of lighting level preferences on individuals' emotional responses and
approach-avoidance behaviors. Baron (1990) showed that subjects had more positive affect
under low lighting levels than high lighting levels. Hopkinson, Petherbridge, and Longmore
(1966) found that the level of comfort was increased at relatively low levels of light, while
comfort decreased with high levels of light. Higher levels of illumination are also associated with
increased physiological arousal (Kumari & Venkatramaiah, 1974). In addition, the type of
lighting could directly influence an individual's perception of the definition and quality of the
space, influencing his/her awareness of physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual aspects
of the space (Kurtich & Eakin, 1993). Thus, it is proposed that:
122
H4a: Lighting will have a positive effect on pleasure.
H4b: Lighting will have a positive effect on arousal.
Ambience
Ambient elements are intangible background characteristics that tend to affect the
nonvisual senses and may have a subconscious effect. These background conditions include
temperature, noise, music, and scent (Baker, 1987). For instance, in the past two decades,
research on the effects of music on consumer perception and behavior has expanded greatly
(North & Hargreaves, 1998). Particular emphasis has been given to atmospheric music, designed
to create commercial environments that "produce specific emotional effects in the buyer that
enhance his purchase intentions" (Kotler, 1973, p. 50). Previous research has shown that
atmospheric music can (1) increase sales (Areni & Kim, 1993; Mattila & Wirtz, 2001; Milliman,
1982, 1986; North & Hargreaves, 1998; Yalch & Spangenberg, 1993); (2) influence purchase
intentions (Baker et al., 1992; North & Hargreaves, 1998); (3) produce significantly enhanced
affective response such as satisfaction and relaxation (Oakes, 2003); (4) increase shopping time
and waiting time (Milliman, 1982, 1986; North & Hargreaves, 1998; Yalch & Spangenberg,
1993, 2000); (5) decrease perceived shopping time and waiting time (Chebat et al., 1993;
Kellaris & Kent, 1992; Yalch & Spangenberg, 2000); (6) influence dining speed (Roballey et al.,
1985; Milliman, 1986); and (7) influence customers' perceptions of a store (Hui et al., 1997;
Mattila & Wirtz, 2001; North & Hargreaves, 1998; Yalch & Spangenberg, 1993).
The influence of pleasant scents as a powerful tool to increase sales has gained much
attention in the retail businesses (Bone & Ellen, 1999; Hirsch, 1991, 1995; Hirsch & Gay, 1991;
Lin, 2004; Mattila & Wirtz, 2001). Ambient odors might also influence a consumer's mood,
emotion, or subjective feeling state (Bone & Ellen, 1999; Hirsch, 1995). Psychological research
123
suggests that certain temperatures are associated with a negative emotion. For example, Bell and
Baron (1977) argued that low temperatures (e.g., around 62
o
F) were associated with negative
affective states. Thus, it is proposed that:
H5a: Ambience will have a positive effect on pleasure.
H5b: Ambience will have a positive effect on arousal.
Layout
Spatial layout refers to the way in which objects (e.g., machinery, equipment, and
furnishings) are arranged within the environment. Just as the layout in discount stores facilitates
the fulfillment of functional needs (Baker et al., 1994), an interesting and effective DINESCAPE
layout may also facilitate fulfillment of hedonic or pleasure needs (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994).
A spatial layout that makes people feel constricted may have a direct effect on customers' quality
perceptions, excitement levels, and indirectly on their desire to return. Service or retail facilities
that are specifically designed to add some level of excitement or arousal to the service
experience, such as in upscale restaurants, should take care that ample space is provided to
facilitate exploration and stimulation within the DINESCAPE (Wakefield& Blodgett, 1994).
H6a: Layout will have a positive effect on pleasure.
H6b: Layout will have a positive effect on arousal.
Service Product
Raajpoot (2002) found that product/service was a very important tangible quality. Service
product dimension should be an especially important determinant in the upper-class market.
Upscale restaurants should be designed to deliver a prestigious image to attract upper-class
customers as to their intended market. Thus, high quality flatware, china, glassware, and linen
124
will affect customer perceptions of quality. The way in which the table is decorated (for instance,
with an attractive candle) can also make customers feel prestigious or elegant.
H7a: Service product will have a positive effect on pleasure.
H7b: Service product will have a positive effect on arousal.
Social Factors
Social elements are the people (e.g., employees and customers) in the service setting
(Baker, 1987). The social variables include employee appearance, number of employees, and the
dress or physical appearance of other customers. The effects of social cues (number/friendliness
of employees) was investigated as a part of a study conducted by Baker, Levy, and Grewal
(1992) in which they found that the more social cues present in the store environment, the higher
the subjects' arousal. Tombs and McColl-Kennedy (2003) argued that the social environment
dictated the desired social density, which influenced customers' affective and cognitive
responses as well as repurchase intentions. In addition, other customers played a key role in
affecting the emotions of others, either positively or negatively, and this largely influenced
repatronage.
H8a: Social factors will have a positive effect on pleasure.
H8b: Social factors will have a positive effect on arousal.
METHODOLOGY
Data Collection
Data were collected from upscale restaurants in which average per-person check was
more than $20 and which offered a full menu, full table service, food made from the scratch,
personalized service, and acceptable ambience. Using a convenience sampling approach, 319
125
responses were collected at three upscale restaurants in two Midwest and Northwest states.
Customers were given surveys at the end of their main entrée and asked to participate in the
study. After deleting incomplete responses, 253 questionnaires were used for further analysis.
Measurement of Variables
The questionnaire designed for this study was divided into three parts: DINESCAPE
items, emotional states, and behavior intentions.
DINESCAPE. Respondents were asked to rate each statement item using a 7-point
Likert scale (1 = extremely disagree, 7 = extremely agree). To reduce the potential bias of forced
response, an option marked "N/A" was included for each question (Gunderson, Heide, & Olsson,
1996). The questionnaire included measurement items relevant to six dimensions (facility
aesthetics, lighting, ambience, layout, service product, and social factor) of the DINESCAPE
scale developed in the first study. The list of relevant physical environmental items was
generated from reviews of previous studies, focus group, and discussions with several managers
at upscale restaurants. This resulted in a list of 34 items related to the physical environment.
Emotional States. Emotions were measured using eight items representing the pleasure
and arousal dimensions derived from the scale suggested by Mehrabian and Russell (1974) and
adapted to fit the upscale restaurant context. Subjects evaluated their feelings, moods, and
emotional responses to the physical environment of the upscale restaurant. All items were rated
on a 7-point semantic differential scale, in which an emotion and its opposite constituted the two
ends of the scale. The scale of pleasure consisted of four bipolar measures coded on a seven-
point scale: unhappy—happy; annoyed—pleased; bored—entertained; disappointed—delighted.
126
The measure of arousal was comprised of the following four items: depressed—cheerful; calm—
excited; indifferent—surprised; sleepy—awake.
Behavioral Intentions. To measure general approach-avoidance behavior, specifically,
behavioral intentions were operationalized using four items. The items were assessed on a 7-
point Likert scale. Behavioral intentions (BI) were measured based on Mehrabian and Russell's
(1974) four aspects of approach-avoidance behaviors and the scale suggested by Zeithaml et al.
(1996) and adapted to fit the upscale restaurant context. Subjects were asked to react to the
following four statements: "I would like to come back to this restaurant in the future," "I would
recommend this restaurant to my friends," "I am willing to stay longer than I planned at this
restaurant," and "I am willing to spend more than I planned at this restaurant." Participants
responded to these items using a 7-ponit Likert scale (1 = extremely disagree, 7 = extremely
agree).
Data Analysis
Following the procedure suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), data were analyzed
using the two-stage approach to causal modeling, in which the measurement was first confirmed
and then the structural model was built. In the first step, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was performed to identify whether the measurement variables reliably reflected the hypothesized
latent variables (aesthetic design, lighting, ambience, layout, service product, social factor,
pleasure, arousal, behavioral intention) using the covariance matrix. All latent variables were
allowed to intercorrelate freely without attribution of a causal order. Cronbach's alphas, item
reliabilities, composite reliabilities, and average variance extracted (AVE) for the measures were
also computed to check the reliability of this Mehrabian-Russell model. Furthermore, convergent
127
validity and discriminant validity of the model were tested by using AVE, which reflects the
overall amount of variance captured by the construct. The AVE value should exceed .50 for a
construct to meet convergent validity (Hair et al., 1998). Fornell and Larcker's (1981)
discriminant validity test was also conducted. This test requires that, when taking any pair of
constructs, the AVE for each construct should be higher than the squared correlations between
the two associated constructs.
In the second step, a structural equation modeling (SEM) with latent variables via
LISREL 8.54 was tested to determine the adequacy of the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model by
representing the constructs of the model and testing the hypotheses. The facility aesthetics,
lighting, ambience, layout, service product, and social factors were predictor variables
(exogenous variables) and pleasure, arousal, and behavioral intention were criterion variables
(endogenous variables) in the analysis.
RESULTS
Measurement Model
Following the recommendation of Anderson and Gerbing (1988) the measurement model
was first confirmed. A series of CFA using maximum likelihood estimation on the covariance
matrix were conducted to test the factor structure of the measures used (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988). More specifically, the measurement model allowed assessment of convergent and
discriminant validity of the construct measures. Based on the results of the first CFA, item SF
3
was deleted because of its low squared multiple correlation (R
2
= 0.33). Once this item was
deleted, CFA was conducted again. Table 1 presented the Cronbach's alphas and factor loadings
of the observed items on the latent constructs as estimated by the CFA, in addition to the
128
measurement statistics for the model variables. Cronbach's alphas of latent variables were
satisfactory for all seven constructs (0.70-0.93), indicating acceptable internal consistency
(Nunnally, 1978). Moreover, all standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.67 to 0.99, which
met the minimum criterion of .40 (Ford et al., 1986).
As observed in Table 1, the item reliabilities, the squared multiple correlations of the
individual items, gave the lower bound of the reliability of the measures. These ranged from .45
to .98, indicating an acceptable level of reliability (Hair et al., 1998). The composite reliabilities
of the latent variables were computed by the formula: µ = (E ì
i
)
2
/ (E ì
i
)
2
+ (Eu
i
), where ì
i
refers
to ith standardized loading and u
i
refers to the ith measurement error variance. Although this
coefficient is similar to Cronbach's alpha, it relaxes the assumption that each item is equally
weighted in determining the composite (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001). The composite reliabilities
of constructs ranged from 0.80 to 0.95. These values indicated adequate internal consistency of
multiple indicators for each construct in the model; composite reliabilities should exceed .70
(Hair et al., 1998).
Insert Table 1
Convergent validity was indicated by all lamdas (factor loadings or indicator factor
coefficients) on their underlying constructs; they were significant at .05 (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988). Moreover, AVE in all nine constructs by items was more than the unexplained variance
(AVE > 0.50) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In addition, all factors met the criteria for discriminant
validity because AVE for each construct in Table 1 was more than the variance explained
129
between the associated constructs (r
2
) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In sum, the assessment of the
measurement of the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model showed good evidence of reliability and
validity for the operationalization of the latent constructs.
Table 2 presents the intercorrelations among the latent variables. Most of the correlations
between constructs were in the expected direction, and all were significant
(o = 0.05). The correlations indicated that pleasure (0.64) played a more important role than did
arousal (0.44) in determining behavioral intentions. Pleasure was most highly correlated with
ambience (0.66), followed by facility aesthetic (0.52), layout (0.52), and social factor (0.52).
Similarly, arousal was also most highly associated with ambience (0.56), followed by social
factor (0.49), facility aesthetic (0.48), and layout (0.45). Finally, it was worth noting that the two
independent constructs (pleasure and arousal) were somewhat highly correlated (r = 0.44). Based
on the Mehrabian-Russel (1974) model, pleasure and arousal should emerge as highly distinctive
dimensions that can be meaningfully represented as orthogonal dimensions in factor analytic
studies of emotion, and no causal relationship exists between two independent dimensions.
However, here the significant positive correlation indicated that pleasure and arousal might be
causally related, which has been argued by some researchers. More specifically, the path from
arousal to pleasure was verified in previous studies (Babin & Attaway, 2000; Chebat & Michon,
2003; Donovan et al., 1994; Wakefield & Baker, 1998).
Insert Table 2
130
The overall model fit was evaluated statistically by the chi-square test and heuristically
using a number of goodness-of-fit statistics. The chi-square test of measurement model was
significant (_
2
(396) = 906.96, p = .00); that is, statistically the model did not fit the data.
However, since chi-square statistic is very sensitive to sample size, researchers typically tend to
discount the chi-square test and resort to other methods for evaluating the fit of the model to the
data (Bearden, Sharma, & Teel, 1982; Bentler & Bonett, 1980). Consequently, other widely used
goodness-of-fit indices were evaluated to evaluate the fit of the model. Tucker-Lewis Index
(TLI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) are generally regarded as superior indicators of the
overall fit of the model (Bentler, 1990; Marsh et al., 1988). Good fits are indicated when Normed
Chi-square (_
2
/ d.f.) is less than three (Bearden et al., 1982). In addition, satisfactory fits are
obtained when the TLI and CFI are greater than or equal to .90 and the Root Mean Square Error
of Approximation (RMSEA) is less than or equal to .08 (Bentler, 1990; Marsh et al., 1988).
These fit indices consistently showed that the measurement model fit the data very well (_
2
/ d.f.
= 2.29; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.07).
Structural Equation Model
After confirming the measurement model, the structural model was then examined.
Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggest using two criteria to evaluate the causal model: fit indices
and path significance. Both criteria were advocated because fit indices alone did not assess all
aspects of a model's appropriateness to the data. It is possible to obtain acceptable levels of fit
for models in which all the structural paths hypothesized are found not significant. Thus, causal
parameter estimates should be examined in conjunction with model fit statistics (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988).
131
The results of the standardized parameter estimates and t-values are reported in the upper
portion of Table 3, and those of the model fit estimates of the structural model are shown in the
lower portion of Table 3. For the overall model, the chi-square statistic indicated a not-good fit
(_
2
(403) = 1021.41, p = 0.00). However, as mentioned, the _
2
statistic is very sensitive to sample
size (Bearden et al., 1982; Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hair et al., 1998). To reduce the sensitivity of
the chi-square statistic, a common practice is to divide its value by the degrees of freedom:
Normed Chi-square. The commonly used cut-off point of Normed Chi-square is three (Hair et
al., 1998). By this standard, the value for the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model (_
2
/ d.f. = 2.53)
showed an acceptable model fit. All fit indexes consistently indicated that the estimated model
provided a good fit to the data (RMSEA = 0.078; TLI = 0.96; CFI = 0.96). The amount of
variance explained in pleasure and in arousal by facility aesthetic, lighting, ambience, layout,
product, and social factor was 49% and 39%, respectively. The overall variance explained for
behavioral intention was 44%, indicating the model could predict and explain fairly well
customer behavioral intentions in this study.
Insert Table 3
Figure 2 presents the estimated model in the form of a structural diagram for the
structural equation modeling, showing the direction and magnitude of the direct impact through
the standardized path coefficients in addition to error variance for measurement items. Looking
at specific links in the structural path model, Figure 2 highlights the statistically significant paths
with solid lines and the nonsignificant paths with dashed lines. The primary interest of this study
132
was to examine the relative impact of pleasure and arousal on behavioral intention. As can be
observed in Table 3 and Figure 2, both pleasure and arousal were statistically significant
predictors of customers' behavioral intentions in the upscale restaurant. In terms of the
relationship between pleasure and customers' behavioral intentions, the results showed that
pleasure influenced behavior intentions in a positive way (| = 0.56; t = 9.94), supporting
Hypothesis 1. Moreover, significant regression weight of arousal on behavior intentions (| =
0.20; t = 3.31) in the estimated model suggested that arousal was a good predictor of the
behavior intentions, supporting Hypothesis 2.
The results revealed a pattern of causal relationships that was partly consistent with the
all theoretically hypothesized paths between DINESCAPE and emotional states. First, the causal
relationships from perceived physical environments to pleasure are shown in Figure 2 and Table
3. The estimate of the standardized path coefficient indicated that the linkage between facility
aesthetics and pleasure was significant (| = 0.19; t = 2.23), which supported Hypothesis 3a.
However, the linkage between lighting and pleasure was not significant (| = 0.02; t = 0.27).
Therefore, Hypothesis 4a was not supported. The parameter estimate for the path linking from
ambience to pleasure was significant (| = 0.41; t = 3.69), which supported Hypothesis 5a. This
estimate showed the greatest standardized parameter estimate among all the paths in
DINESCAPE and pleasure and arousal. This indicates that ambience is the dimension that most
influences customers' pleasure and arousal. This provides restaurateurs with practical
information on how important ambience is in creating a pleasant and arousing environment. The
path from layout to pleasure and the path from service product to pleasure were not significant,
so Hypothesis 6a (| = 0.11; t = 1.34) and Hypothesis 7a (| = -0.10; t = -1.14) were not
supported. The path from social factors to pleasure was significant (| = 0.20; t = 2.25), which
133
supported Hypothesis 8a. In short, as the perceived quality of the facility aesthetics, ambience,
and social factors increased, customer pleasure became stronger.
Insert Figure 2
Mixed support was also found for the hypothesized relationships between DINESCAPE
dimensions and arousal in the estimated model. As shown in Figure 2 and Table 3, the four
hypothesized paths from perceived physical environments to arousal revealed as not significant,
which did not support Hypotheses: H3b (standardized coefficient of .15); H4b (standardized
coefficient of .11); H6b (standardized coefficient of .06); and H7b (standardized coefficient of -
.07). In contrast, Hypothesis 5b (ambience to arousal) was supported (| = 0.27; t = 2.22) and
Hypothesis 8b (social factors to arousal) was also supported (| = 0.23; t = 2.29). In short, as the
perceived quality of ambience and social factor increased, the magnitude of arousal was
enhanced.
In examining the relative contribution of each dimension of the DINESCAPE to
emotional states, the structural equation model indicated that the three variables (facility
aesthetic, ambience, social factor) should be a major source of variation in pleasure and/or
arousal. The ambience (| = 0.41) was the primary explanatory variable for pleasure, followed by
social factor (| = 0.20) and facility aesthetic (| = 0.19). Similarly, the ambience (| = 0.27) was
the major explanatory variable for arousal, followed by social factor (| = 0.23). Interestingly,
facility aesthetic was a significant predictor only for pleasure (| = 0.19), not for arousal (| =
134
0.15). Previous research indicated that facility aesthetic like color influenced emotional pleasure
more strongly than arousal (Bellizzi & Hite, 1992). The other three causal paths—lighting,
layout, and service product—were not significant, which indicated these aspects did not
influence customer emotional states.
Indeed, results showed that the betas linking pleasure and arousal to behavior intentions
had significant coefficients, with rather high positive values for the causal path linking pleasure
and behavior intentions (| = 0.56) and relatively much lower positive values (| = 0.20) for the
causal path linking arousal and behavior intentions. That is, pleasure was a more powerful
determinant of behavioral intentions than arousal, which was consistent with some previous
studies (Chebat & Michon, 2003; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982). Because pleasure proved to be a
major contributor to behavioral intentions, marketing strategies should be directed toward
generating pleasurable environment by the means of enhancing perceived quality of facility
aesthetic, ambience, and social factor. That is, to enhance customers' approach behavioral
intentions, it is important for restaurateurs to emphasize their efforts on the quality of facility
aesthetic, ambience, and social factor.
DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
With the respect to the topic of physical environment, this study attempted to explain the
effects of physical cues on consumer responses based on environmental psychology literature.
More specifically, the purpose of this study was to examine the impact of DINESCAPE on
pleasure and arousal and the influences of the pleasure and arousal on behavioral intentions
based on the Mehrabian and Russell (1974) model. A model was proposed and tested in the
upscale restaurant setting. The most important contribution of this research was its empirical
135
demonstration of how customers perceived physical environments and how that perception
directly influenced customers' emotion and indirectly affected their future intentions.
The findings indicated which environmental elements produced pleasure and arousal so
that restaurateurs could have some guidance in planning a pleasant and arousing environment.
Certain attributes were more important than others in enhancing the customer perception of the
physical environment and in turn, their emotions so that the results have implications for
determining how management focuses physical resources. The results showed that the facility
aesthetics, ambience, and social factor had a significant effect on customers' pleasure and/or
arousal and the pleasure and arousal had a significant role in determining their behavioral
intentions. Generally, management should allocate resources primarily for facility aesthetics,
ambience, and social factor at upscale restaurants.
First, this study showed that one of the most significant factors affecting customers'
pleasure and arousal was ambience. It is very important to notice that the physical elements (e.g.,
music, aroma, temperature) of ambience can be controlled to a large extent by management, and
it is probably among one of the least expensive ways to enhance customer perceptions of
physical surroundings. For instance, music can be a more highly controllable physical element
than other physical elements without costing a lot. Restaurateurs can easily control background
music, varying its volume (soft to loud), genre (classical or jazz), tempo (slow to fast) based on
the customers' preferences to help them feel pleased or relaxed. Thus, restaurateurs should
seriously consider physical elements related to ambience as a marketing and operational tool.
In addition to the effect of ambience, the other major DINESCAPE feature directly
influencing customers' pleasure and arousal was social factor. In the eyes of the customer, the
social factor could be an important dimension of an upscale restaurant's image. The employees
136
could maintain this important role until the completion of the service delivery process. Since
there was evidence supporting the strong influence of social factor (employees) on a customer's
pleasure and arousal, a service organization wanting to enhance customers' pleasure and arousal
must choose the right style for its employees. This style can be achieved in two ways:
professional appearance and attractiveness. In any situation, the style of the employees should be
completely congruent with the restaurant image to maximize the effect upon customer
perceptions.
Finally, another element directly influencing customers' pleasure with the DINESCAPE
was facility aesthetics. Therefore, marketing needs to create an environment that enhances
customer attitudes and beliefs about the restaurant, and consequently, their perception of physical
environment, their satisfaction, and their behavioral intentions. Particularly, DINESCAPE
elements of facility aesthetics (e.g., paintings/pictures, plants/flowers, furniture, color, and wall
décor) are likely to differentiate a restaurant from the competition in part because of atmosphere
(Menon & Kahn, 2002). While the more costly aspects of special issues, such as major
renovation or replacement of the architectural design, would be a major decision, restaurateurs
should not overlook some simple uses of aesthetics such as replacing plants/flowers on table.
The overall results reinforced the importance of understanding the impact of emotion on
consumers' intended behaviors. This study revealed that both pleasure and arousal derived from
the DINESCAPE were significant determinants of behavior intentions, and the results have
implications for both practitioners and researchers. Some restaurateurs might overlook emotional
impact when cognitive elements (e.g., quality of food, food variety, price, and location) are
largely emphasized. Our findings indicated that the emotional responses evoked by the
DINESCAPE within an upscale restaurant were determined the extent to which the customers
137
intended: to come back, to recommend the restaurant to friends or others, to stay longer than
anticipated, and to spend more than originally planned expenditure. Thus, restaurateurs should
emphasize DINESCAPE elements to generate positive emotions in customers that can have an
important cuing or reinforcing effect on consumers' positive approach behavior. The results also
have implications for researchers. Most researchers in the hospitality area have gained much
attention to service assessment and management, relying on measurement of satisfaction or
service quality without taking customer emotions into account. As an alternative, future studies
should determine key emotions driving positive approach behaviors and then provide
implications for designing and managing service processes that positively influence those
emotions.
LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Several potential limitations of this study should be noted. The data were collected from
convenience samples of customers in three upscale restaurants located in Midwest and Northwest
states. As such, the study may not generalize results across other upscale restaurants located in
other geographic locations. Nevertheless, our results show promise in modeling the combination
of DINESCAPE and Mehrabian-Russell Model and provide several suggestions for management
of upscale restaurants.
Future research should look beyond the primary objective of this study. The mediating
role of emotions between the DINESCAPE and behavioral intentions was not investigated in this
study because we assumed, based on the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model, that physical
environment affects approach/avoidance behaviors only via emotions. In addition, many
previous studies have shown the direct impact of physical environment on intended behaviors,
138
such as return intentions. Therefore, we did not investigate the mediating role of emotions in this
study. However, some previous studies demonstrated that the path from perceived physical
environment to future intentions was not significant within an environmental psychology model
(Chang, 200). Thus, it might be interesting to test the impact of the DINESCAPE on behavioral
responses as mediated through emotion.
Given the great diversity of service industries, there is a need for research that will
illuminate the effects of physical surroundings across types of service industries in which
physical environment is important. The multidimensional nature of facility aesthetics, ambience,
and social factors may be important determinants of customer pleasure and arousal in other fields
and thus would provide future research. Individual differences (gender and age) could be also
pursued in further research because individual reactions to environment may differ substantially.
For instance, although findings are ambiguous, many investigations have indicated that men and
women prefer different colors (Khouw, 2004). In addition, future studies could assess some
DINESCAPE items (e.g., lighting), emotions, and behavioral intentions through some form of
simulated environment (verbal descriptions, photos/slides, videos) rather than real restaurant
settings. Because of the expense involved in constructing actual environments, those simulated
environment could be used in experimental studies. In addition, the environmental psychology
tradition has shown that simulated environments work well in achieving generalized results
(Bateson & Hui, 1992; Chebat et al., 1995; Gilboa & Rafaeli, 2003). Although some research
progresses have been made in verifying the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model and in exploring
the impacts of physical environments on customer responses, most have been largely conducted
in Western cultures (Chan & Tai, 2001; Tang et al., 2001). As such, further research may
externally validate the Mehrabian-Russell model in conjunction with DINESCAPE in Asian or
139
other cultural settings. Finally, it is also worthwhile to pay attention to longitudinal study. The
fact that there is relatively little empirical research in any field to draw on allows for true
pioneering work to be done. For instance, future researchers can attempt to explore how
customers' perceived quality of physical environmental elements holistically change over time
(e.g., opening time and one or two years later), and how those perceptions can influence
customer responses, such as restaurant image, customer emotions, customer satisfaction, and
finally their approach/avoidance behaviors.
140
REFERENCES
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Areni, C.S., & Kim, D. (1993). The influence of background music on shopping behavior:
Classical versus top-forty music in a wine store. Advances in Consumer Research, 20,
336-340.
Babin, B.J., & Attaway, J.S. (2000). Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining
share of customer. Journal of Business Research, 49, 91-99.
Baker, J. (1987). The role of the environment in marketing services. In: Czepeial, J.A., Congram,
C.A., & Shananhan, J. (Eds.). The Services Challenges: Integrating for Competitive
Advantage. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 79-84.
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
the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 338-349.
Baker, J., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1988). The marketing impact of branch facility
design. Journal of Retailing Banking, 10, 33-42.
Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The influence of the store environment on
quality inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22,
328-339.
Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store
environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), 445-460.
Baron, R.A. (1990). Lighting as a source of positive affect. Progressive Architecture, 71, 123-
124.
141
Bateson, J.E.G., & Hui, M.K. (1992). The ecological validity of photographic slides and
videotapes in simulating the service setting. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 271-
281.
Bearden, W.O., Sharma, S., & Teel, J.E. (1982). Sample size effects on chi-square and other
statistics used in evaluating structural equations. Journal of Marketing Research,
19(Nov), 425-430.
Bell, P.A. & Baron, R.A. (1977). Aggression and ambient temperature: The facilitating and
inhibiting effects of hot and cold environments. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,
9(6), 443-445.
Bellizzi, J.A., & Hite, R.E. (1992). Environmental color, consumer feelings, and purchase
likelihood. Psychology and Marketing, 9(5), 347-363.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 588-606.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychology Bulletin,
107, 238-246.
Bitner, M.J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.
Bone, P.F., & Ellen, P.S. (1999). Scents in the marketplace: explaining a fraction of olfaction.
Journal of Retail, 75(2), 243-262.
Chan, R.Y.K., & Tai, S. (2001). How do in-store environmental cues influence Chinese
shoppers? A study of hypermarket customers in Hong Kong. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 13(4), 73-104.
Chang, K. (2000). The impact of perceived physical environments on customers' satisfaction and
142
return intentions. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 21(2), 75-85.
Chebat, J, & Gelinas-Chebat, C., & Filiatrault, P. (1993). Interactive effects of musical and
visual cues on time perception: An application to waiting lines in banks. Perceptua and
Motor Skills, 77, 995-1020.
Chebat, J., Filatrault, P., Gelinas-Chebat, C., & Vaninsky, A. (1995). Impact of waiting
attribution and consumer's mood on perceived quality. Journal of Business Research, 34,
191-196.
Chebat, J., & Michon, R. (2003). Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers' emotions,
cognition, and spending. Journal of Business Research, 56, 529-539.
Donovan, R.J., & Rossiter, J.R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology
approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(1), 34-57.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., & Nesdale, A. (1994). Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior.
Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 283-294.
Ford, J.K., MacCallum, R.C., & Trait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis
in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personal Psychology, 39, 291-314.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Gilboa, S., & Rafaeli, A. (2003). Store environment, emotions and approach behavior: applying
environmental aesthetics to retailing. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research, 13(2), 195-211.
Gorn, G., Chattopadhyay, A., Yi, T., & Dahl, D.W. (1997). Effects of color as an executional cue
in advertising: They're in the shade. Management Science, 43(10), 1387-1400.
Gunderson, M.G., Heide, M., & Olsson, U.H. (1996). Hotel guests satisfaction among business
143
travelers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37, 72-81.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis
(5
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hirsch, A.R. (1991). Olfaction and psychiatry. Paper presented at the 144
th
Annual Meeting,
American Psychiatric Association, New Orleans, LA.
Hirsch, A.R. (1995). Effect of ambient odors on slot-machine usage in a Las Vegas casino.
Psychology and Marketing, 12(October), 585-594.
Hirsch, A.R., & Gay, S.E. (1991). Effect on ambient olfactory stimuli on the evaluation of a
common consumer product. Chemical Senses, 16, 535.
Hopkinson, R.G., Petherbridge, P., & Longmore, J. (1966). Daylighting. London: Heinemann.
Hui, M., & Bateson, J. (1991). Perceived control and the effects of crowding and consumer
choice on the service experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 174-184.
Hui, M.K., Dube, L., & Chebat, J. (1997). The impact of music on consumer's reaction to
waiting for services. Journal of Retailing, 73, 87-104.
Kellaris, J.J., & Kent, R.J. (1992). The influence of music on consumers' perceptions: Does time
fly when you're having fun? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 365-376.
Khouw, N. (2004). The meaning of color for gender. Retrieved April 10, 2004, from:
http://www.colormatters.com/khouw.html.
Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48-64.
Kumari, K., & Venkatramaiah, S.R. (1974). Effects of anxiety on closure effect disappearance
threshold. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1, 114-120.
Kurtich, J., & Eakin, G. (1993). Interior Architecture. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Lin, I.Y. (2004). Evaluating a servicescape: the effect of cognition and emotion. International
144
Journal of Hospitality Management, 23, 163-178.
Mano, H., & Oliver, R.L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption
experience: Evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3),
451-466.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R., & McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory
factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
Mattila, A.S., & Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 273-289.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Menon, S., & Kahn, B. (2002). Cross-category effects of induced arousal and pleasure on the
internet shopping experience. Journal of Retailing, 78(1), 31(12).
Mikellides, B. (1990). Color and psychological arousal. Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research, 7(1), 13-19.
Milliman, R.E. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers.
Journal of Marketing, 46, 86-91.
Milliman, R.E. (1986). The influence of background music on the behavior of restaurant patrons.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 286-289.
North, A.C., & Hargreaves, D.J. (1998). The effect of music on atmosphere and purchase
intentions in a cafeteria. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 2254-2273.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2
nd
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oaks, S. (2003). Musical tempo and waiting perceptions. Psychology and Marketing, 20(8), 685-
705.
145
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R.P. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-
directed behaviours: Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behavior. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 79-98.
Raajpoot, N.A. (2002). TANGSERV: A multiple item scale for measuring tangible quality in
foodservice industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 5(2), 2002.
Richins, M.L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its
measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research,
19(Dec), 303-316.
Roballey, T.C., McGreevy, C., Rongo, R.R., Schwantes, M.L., Steger, P.M., Wininger, M.A., &
Gardner, E.G. (1985). The effect of music on eating behavior. Bulletin of the Psychomic
Society, 23, 221-222.
Russell, J.A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to
environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 311-322.
Sayed, I.M., Farrag, D.A., & Belk, R.W. (2003). The effects of physical surroundings on
Egyptian consumers' emotional states and buying intentions. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 16(1), 5-27.
Tang, E.P.Y., Chan, R.Y.K., & Tai, S.H.C. (2001). Emotional influence of environmental cues
on Chinese consumers in a leisure service setting. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 14(1), 67-88.
Tombs, A., & McColl-Kennedy, J.R. (2003). Social-servicescape conceptual model. Marketing
Theory, 3(4), 447-475.
Turley, L.W., & Milliman, R.E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of
the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 193-211.
146
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure service
settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), 66-76.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1996). The effects of the servicescape on customers'
behavioral intentions in leisure service setting. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45-
61.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1999). Customer response to intangible and tangible service
factors. Psychology & Marketing, 16(1), 51-68.
Wakefield, K.L., & Baker, J. (1998). Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects of
shopping response. Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 515-539.
Ward, L.M., & Russell, J.A. (1981). The psychological representation of molar physical
environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(2), 121-152.
Yalch, R.F., & Spangenberg, E. (1993). Using store music for retail zoning: A field experiment.
Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 632-636.
Yalch, R.F., & Spangenberg, E. (2000). In a retail setting on real and perceived shopping terms.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7, 55-63.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service
quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.
147
Environmental
Stimuli
Emotional States:
Pleasure
Arousal
Dominance
Approach
or
Avoidance
Response
Source: Adopted from Mehrabian and Russell (1974)
Figure 1. Mehrabian-Russell Model
148
.30
.39
.33
.36
.38
.17
.19
.09
.54
.52
FA
1
FA
2
FA
3
FA
4
FA
5
LI
1
LI
2
LI
3
AM
1
AM
2
.84
.78
.82
.80
.79
.91
.90
.95
.67
.69
FA
LI
.15
-.02
.11
.41**
.19*
PL
.88
.95
.93
.88
PL
1
PL
2
PL
3
PL
4
.23
.09
.13
.22
FA: Facility aesthetics
LI: Lighting
AM: Ambience
LA: Layout
SP: Service Product
SF: Social factors
PL: Pleasure
AR: Arousal
BI: Behavioral intention
.38
.49
.24
.16
.42
.31
.26
.36
.16
.49
AM
3
AM
4
LA
1
LA
2
LA
3
SP
1
SP
2
SP
3
SF
1
SF
2
.79
.71
.87
.91
.76
.83
.86
.80
.91
.71
AM
LA
SP
SF
.27**
.11
.06
-.10
-.07
.20*
.23**
AR
.56**
.20**
.82
.85
.77
AR
1
AR
2
AR
3
BI
.33
.27
.41
.96
.98
.74
.76
BI
1
BI
2
BI
3
BI
4
.08
.04
.46
.42
* p < 0.05
** p < 0.01
________ Hypothesis: Supported -
- - - - - - Hypothesis: Not supported
Figure 2. Causal Relationships Between Latent Variables
149
Table 1
Measurement Properties
Factors Cronbach's Standardized Item Reliabilities Composite AVE
Alphas Factor Loadings Reliabilities
Facility aesthetics .87 .90 .65
FA
1
/FA
2
/FA
3
/FA
4
/FA
5
.84/.78/.82/.80/.79 .71/.61/.67/.64/.62
Lighting .91 .94 .85
LI
1
/LI
2
/LI
3
.91/.90/.95 .83/.81/.90
Ambience .82 .81 .52
AM
1
/AM
2
/AM
3
/AM
4
.67/.69/.79/.71 .45/.48/.62/.50
Layout .85 .89 .73
LA
1
/LA
2
/LA
3
.87/.91/.76 .76/.83/.58
Service product .83 .87 .69
SP
1
/SP
2
/SP
3
.83/.86/.80 .69/.74/.64
Social factor .70 .80 .67
SF
1
/SF
2
.91/.71 .83/.50
Pleasure .93 .95 .83
PL
1
/PL
2
/PL
3
/PL
4
.88/.95/.93/.88 .77/.90/.86/.77
Arousal .81 .85 .66
AR
1
/AR
2
/AR
3
.82/.85/.77 .67/.72/.59
Behavior intention .90 .92 .76
BI
1
/BI
2
/BI
3
/BI
4
.96/.99/.74/.76 .92/.98/.55/.58
Note: AVE = Average variance extracted.
150
Table 2
Correlations Among the Latent Constructs
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Facility aesthetics 1
2 Lighting .68 1
3 Ambience .57 .63 1
4 Layout .51 .48 .63 1
5 Product .58 .52 .50 .56 1
6 Social factors .45 .35 .58 .54 .62 1
7 Pleasure .52 .48 .66 .52 .41 .52 1
8 Arousal .48 .46 .56 .45 .39 .49 .44 19
Behavior intention .38 .35 .48 .38 .30 .39 .64 .44
1
Note: All correlations are significant at p = 0.05.
151
Table 3
Structural Parameter Estimates
Hypothesized Path
H1: Pleasure ÷ Behavior intention
H2: Arousal ÷ Behavior intention
H3a: Facility aesthetic ÷ Pleasure
H4a: Lighting ÷ Pleasure
H5a: Ambience ÷ Pleasure
H6a: Layout ÷ Pleasure
H7a: Product ÷ Pleasure
H8a: Social factors ÷ Pleasure
H3b: Facility aesthetic ÷ Arousal
H4b: Lighting ÷ Arousal
H5b: Ambience ÷ Arousal
H6b: Layout ÷ Arousal
H7b: Product ÷ Arousal
H8b: Social factors ÷ Arousal
R
2
(Pleasure)
R
2
(Arousal)
R
2
(Behavior intention)
Goodness-of-fit statistics:
Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Standardized path
coefficients
.56
.20
.19
.02
.41
.11
-.10
.20
.15
.11
.27
.06
-.07
.23
.50
.39
.44
_
2(376)
= 969.74
(p = 0.00)
_
2
/ d.f. = 2.58
RMSEA = 0.079
TLI = 0.96
CFI = 0.96
t-value
9.94**
3.31**
2.23*
0.27
3.69**
1.34
-1.14
2.25*
1.61
1.08
2.22*
0.71
-0.70
2.29*
Results
Supported
Supported
Supported
Not supported
Supported
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI =
Comparative Fit Index.
152
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to develop a DINESCAPE scale to assess the man-made
physical and human surroundings in the dining area of upscale restaurants and build a conceptual
framework of how the DINESCAPE might influence customers' behavioral intentions through
emotions. To achieve this purpose, the first phase of this study developed a multiple-item scale
to measure the overall conceptual framework of DINESCAPE in the upscale restaurant setting.
Then, based on the DINESCAPE developed, the second phase of the study investigated the
effects of DINESCAPE on emotions (pleasure and arousal) and the impact of these emotions on
behavioral intentions (repatronage, positive word-of-mouth, desire to spend more than
anticipated, desire to spend longer than anticipated) using the Mehrabian-Russell (1974)
environmental psychology model.
The contribution of this paper was to suggest a scale that can be used to measure the
physical environment reliably and validly in the upscale restaurant context and to empirically test
if the theoretical notion of the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) environmental psychology framework
would work in an upscale restaurant setting. From a practical perspective, the results of this
research provide guidance to help managers look at their facility from the viewpoint of the
customer. By focusing on the specific elements of the DINESCAPE, management can determine
how their customers perceive the physical environment and predict their emotional and
behavioral responses. While the qualities of some of these factors could be judged by
management observations, employees (as well as long-time customers) of an establishment
might become so accustomed to their environment that they do not recognize layout and interior
design problems. Thus, research into the perceptions of current customers is recommended.
153
Although several researchers have attempted to explore various specific aspects of the
physical environment and behavior relationships in a variety of fields, no one to our knowledge
has applied environmental psychology to the upscale restaurant setting. In conclusion, this
exploratory study took the beginning steps toward understanding how customers perceive the
physical environment and how physical environment could contribute toward behavioral
intentions through emotions.
Major Findings
Scale Development: DINESCAPE
Study 1 established reliable, valid, and useful measures of the DINESCAPE dimensions
in the upscale restaurant context. Principal components analysis, with a varimax rotation,
identified six factors that explained 74.55% of the total variance. The first DINESCAPE factor
was labeled "Facility aesthetic," which featured a function of architectural design, along with
interior design and décor. The second factor ("Ambience") featured intangible background
characteristics that tend to affect the nonvisual senses, and the third ("Lighting") demonstrated
that lighting could influence feelings. The fourth factor (labeled "Service product") represented
the product or material used to serve every customer whenever a turnover occurred. The fifth
construct, titled "Layout," represented the way in which seats were arranged within the
environment. Finally, the last DINESCAPE factor was titled "Social factor," which highlighted
the characteristics of employees in the service setting. The Cronbach's alphas for six dimensions
ranged from .80 to .92, which indicated good reliability for the scale (Hair et al., 1998).
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with 21 items representing a six-dimension model
was estimated using LISREL 8.54. Several widely used goodness-of-fit statistics indicated the
154
confirmatory factor model adequately reflected a good fit to the data (RMSEA = 0.074; NFI =
0.95; TLI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; GFI = 0.86). In addition, measurement equations showed all
acceptable levels of item squared multiple correlations for 21 items, ranging from .52 to .89.
Unidimensionality was assured because a set of indicators shared only a single
underlying construct and the items loaded as predicted with minimal cross-loading (Bollen,
1989; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). Reliability was further tested through Cronbach's alphas,
item reliabilities, composite reliabilities, and average variance extracted (AVE). Cronbach's
alpha estimates were acceptable (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The item reliabilities ranged
from .52 to .88 and indicated acceptable levels of reliability (Hair et al., 1998). The composite
reliabilities of constructs ranged from .84 to .95. These values indicated adequate internal
consistency of multiple items for each construct in the six-factor model since composite
reliabilities exceeded .70 (Hair et al., 1998).
Convergent validity indicated by all lamdas (indicator factor coefficients) on their
underlying constructs was significant. In addition, the results showed that convergent validity
was satisfied because AVE, ranging from 0.56 to 0.86, of all six constructs exceeded the
minimum criterion of 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Since the lowest AVE (.56) in each latent
variable exceeded the highest square of the estimated correlation (square of the correlation
between facility aesthetic and lighting = 0.50) between the constructs, discriminant validity was
also satisfied (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
155
The Influence of DINESCAPE on Pleasure and Arousal and the Impact of Pleasure and
Arousal on Behavioral Intention
To achieve the objectives in study 2, the following 14 hypotheses were tested using
structural equation modeling. The letter "S" showed the hypothesis was supported and "NS"
indicated the hypothesis was not supported.
H1: Pleasure will have a positive effect on behavioral intention. (S)
H2: Arousal will have a positive effect on behavioral intention. (S)
H3a: Facility aesthetics will have a positive effect on pleasure. (S)
H3b: Facility aesthetics will have a positive effect on arousal. (NS)
H4a: Lighting will have a positive effect on pleasure. (NS)
H4b: Lighting will have a positive effect on arousal. (NS)
H5a: Ambience will have a positive effect on pleasure. (S)
H5b: Ambience will have a positive effect on arousal. (S)
H6a: Layout will have a positive effect on pleasure. (NS)
H6b: Layout will have a positive effect on arousal. (NS)
H7a: Service product will have a positive effect on pleasure. (NS)
H7b: Service product will have a positive effect on arousal. (NS)
H8a: Social factor will have a positive effect on pleasure. (S)
H8b: Social factor will have a positive effect on arousal. (S)
The causal relationships from perceived physical environments to pleasure were first
found. The estimate of the standardized path coefficient indicated that the linkage between
facility aesthetics and pleasure was significant (| = 0.19; t = 2.23), which supported the
hypothesis 3a. However, the linkage between lighting and pleasure was not significant (| = 0.02;
156
t = 0.27). Therefore, the hypothesis 4a was not supported. The parameter estimate for the path
linking from ambience to pleasure was significant (| = 0.41; t = 3.69), which supported the
hypothesis 5a. The path from layout to pleasure and the path from service product to pleasure
was revealed as non significant, which did not support the hypothesis 6a (| = 0.11; t = 1.34) and
hypothesis 7a (| = -0.10; t = -1.14). In sum, as the perceived quality of the facility aesthetics,
ambience, and social factor increased, customers' pleasure was enhanced in the upscale
restaurant context.
Mixed support was also found for the hypothesized relationships between DINESCAPE
dimensions and arousal in the estimated model. The four hypothesized paths from perceived
physical environments to arousal revealed as not significant, so Hypotheses H3b (standardized
coefficient of .15); H4b (standardized coefficient of .11); H6b (standardized coefficient of .06);
and H7b (standardized coefficient of -.07) were not supported. In contrast, the hypothesis 5b
(ambience to arousal) was supported (| = 0.27; t = 2.22), and the hypothesis 8b was also
supported (| = 0.23; t = 2.29). In sum, as the perceived quality of ambience and social factor
increased, the magnitude of arousal became stronger.
In terms of the relationship between pleasure and customer behavior intentions, the
results showed that pleasure influenced behavior intentions positively (| = 0.56; t = 9.94),
supporting the hypothesis 1. Moreover, significant regression weight of arousal on behavior
intentions (| = 0.20; t = 3.31) in the estimated model suggested that arousal was a good predictor
of the behavior intentions, supporting hypothesis 2.
157
Limitations
Several potential limitations of this study should be noticed. First, since a scale was
specifically developed for the upscale restaurant context, applying the scale to different
restaurant segments such as fast-food restaurants and casual dining restaurants should be
approached with cautions. With any factor analysis, a certain amount of subjectivity is necessary
to identify and label constructs. This scale was developed only to address the internal
environment, not the external environment. Nevertheless, our results show promise in modeling
the combination of DINESCAPE and the Mehrabian-Russell Model, and we can provide several
suggestions for management of upscale restaurants.
Conclusion and Implications
This study first reviewed the construct and measurement of the physical environment and
the establishment of reliable, valid, and useful measures of the DINESCAPE dimensions in study
1. Then, based on the DINESCAPE scale, study 2 examined effects of DINESCAPE on
customers' pleasure and arousal and the impact of pleasure and arousal on behavioral intentions.
The findings indicated that facility aesthetics, ambience, and social factor could significantly
affect customers' pleasure or arousal, and the pleasure and arousal could significantly influence
their intended behaviors, such as revisit, positive word-of-mouth, length of stay, and expenditure
at the restaurant.
By adopting, modifying, or applying the questionnaire used in this study, restaurateurs
can use dimension scores, comparing them with previous ones. In multiunit operations,
restaurateurs can also compare the results from one unit to other units. Then, they can analyze
problem scores and develop strategies for improvement. Each time the survey is administered,
158
strategies can be refined (Stevens et al., 1995). It would be helpful if the instrument could be
used in periodic surveys. Users of the DINESCAPE could then track changes in their customers'
perceptions in the quality of facilities or physical surroundings. In addition, restaurateurs who
contemplate changes in their facilities can assess customer perceptions of the facility before
making significant investments. With this in mind, restaurateurs could administer the survey
instrument at their facility and get their customers' perspectives.
With the respect to the physical environment, study 2 attempted to explain the effects of
physical cues on customer responses. More specifically, the purpose of this article was to
examine the impact of the DINESCAPE on pleasure and arousal and the influences of pleasure
and arousal on behavioral intentions using the Mehrabian and Russell (1974) model. A model
was proposed and tested in an upscale restaurant setting. The most important contribution of this
research was its empirical demonstration of how customers perceived physical environments
directly influenced customers' emotion and indirectly affected their intentions by influencing
their emotion level.
In conclusion, the results clearly showed solid support for the linkages between emotions
and behavioral intention. Pleasure and arousal derived from the DINESCAPE was shown to
strongly influence customers' intentions. However, mixed results on DINESCAPE dimensions
and emotions (pleasure and arousal) were found. While facility aesthetics, ambience, and social
factor contributed to one or both emotions, lighting, layout, and service product did not have
significant relationships with either emotion.
Consistent with previous studies (Barsky & Nash, 2002; Chebat & Michon, 2003), this
study found that the level of pleasure and arousal evoked by the DINESCAPE significantly
influenced behavioral intentions. The importance of emotional impact might be often overlooked
159
by some restaurateurs when they focus primarily on cognitive aspects (e.g., quality of food, food
variety, price, and location). The findings indicated that pleasure and arousal evoked by the
DINESCAPE within an upscale restaurant were main determinants of whether customers
intended to (1) come back, (2) recommend the restaurant to friends or others, (3) stay longer than
anticipated, and (4) spend beyond his or her originally planned expenditure. Thus, restaurateurs
should pay attention on the DINESCAPE elements to produce positive emotions that can have an
important cuing or reinforcing effect on consumers' positive approach behaviors.
The findings determined which environmental elements produced pleasure and arousal,
and these results have clear implications for restaurateurs wanting to generate pleasant and
arousing environment through DINESCAPE. The relationships between DINESCAPE
dimensions and customers' pleasure and arousal were not surprising. The results discovered that
the facility aesthetics, ambience, and social factor significantly influenced customer pleasure
and/or arousal and the pleasure and arousal significantly affected their subsequent behavioral
intentions. Because lighting, layout, and service product were not significant, the findings may
indicate that they are not directly associated with the quality of the DINESCAPE. Also, they may
not be a particularly salient issue at an upscale restaurant as in some other service settings (e.g.,
luxurious hotels).
Suggestions and Future Research
Future research could use this instrument across a variety of different DINESCAPE
settings, likely resulting in further refinement of the scale and adding to the validity of the salient
factors. Administrating the scales (with perhaps some slight adaptation) in other restaurant
settings (e.g., fast-food restaurants, casual restaurants) would be useful to determine the
160
generalizability of the model. More needs to be done to determine the effect of lighting, layout,
and service product on customer pleasure or arousal in other settings or even in some other
upscale restaurants.
Future researchers may wish to use the scale to measure the impact of different elements
or dimensions of DINESCAPE on important dining outcomes, such as customer satisfaction,
perception of service quality, approach/avoidance behaviors. Research suggests a direct link
between DINESCAPE and outcomes such as customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions
(Chang, 2000; Chebat & Michon, 2003). For example, are customers who are strongly motivated
by the social factor dimension more likely to be satisfied, repatronize the restaurant, and engage
in behaviors such as talking positively about their experience? Prior research suggests that
perceived physical environment was a direct indicator of a customer's satisfaction, thereby
suggesting that customer satisfaction was directly and positively associated with aspects of
positive approach behaviors (Chang, 2000). Thus, restaurateurs could potentially have another
tool to manage customer satisfaction and positive approach behavior. In addition, future research
work can focus on other emotions. Because measuring emotion is quite complex, there are many
challenging opportunities available for both qualitative and quantitative research. Research might
also focus on exploring how the physical environment helps a firm achieve particular objectives,
and at what cost. Finally, this promising model should be tested not just with customer-stated
intentions but also with actual purchasing behavior.
The research framework offered in this study took a few steps toward by providing a
more complete picture of how perceived physical environments, emotions, and behavioral
intentions were related. However, the mediating role of emotions between DINESCAPE and
behavioral intentions was not investigated in this study since we assumed that physical
161
environment affects approach/avoidance behaviors only via emotions as in the Mehrabian and
Russell environmental psychology model. Many previous studies have shown the direct impacts
of physical environment on behavioral intentions such as return intentions. Therefore, the authors
did not consider the mediating role of emotions. However, some previous studies have
demonstrated that the path from perceived physical environment to future intentions was not
significant in the environmental psychology model (Chang, 200). Thus, future researchers might
carry out studies that test emotion as a mediator of the physical environment on behavioral
responses.
162
References
Barsky, J., & Nash, L. (2002). Evoking emotion. Affective keys to hotel loyalty. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43, 39-46.
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Chang, K. (2000). The impact of perceived physical environments on customers' satisfaction and
return intentions. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 21(2), 75-85.
Chebat, J., & Michon, R. (2003). Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers' emotions,
cognition, and spending. Journal of Business Research, 56, 529-539.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Gerbing, D.W., & Anderson, J.C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research,
25(May), 186-192.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis
(5
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J.A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Nunnaly, J.C., Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3
rd
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Stevens, P., Knutson, B., & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for measuring service quality
in restaurants. Cornell Hotel and restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 56-60.
163
APPENDIXES
Appendix A
Survey Questionnaire
164
SECTION I: Your Perception about the Physical Environment,
Emotional States, and Behavioral Intentions
INSTRUCTION: This section asks questions which use rating scales: please circle the number
that best describes your opinion. There are no right or wrong answers. Your opinions
arevaluable to this study.
1. Physical Environment:
In the following statements, we are interested in your feelings about the physical surroundings
in the dining area of this restaurant. For each statement, please use the following scale:
1 = extremely disagree, 2 = strongly disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 =
somewhat agree, 6 = strongly agree, 7 = extremely agree.
Extremely
Disagree
Neutral
Extremely
Agree
N/A
1) Dining areas are thoroughly clean.
2) Carpeting / flooring is of high quality.
3) Carpeting / flooring makes me feel comfortable. 4)
Ceiling decor is attractive.
5) Wall decor is visually appealing.
6) Furniture (e.g., dining table, chair) is of high quality. 7)
Paintings / pictures are attractive.
8) Plants / flowers makes me feel happy.
9) Exposed kitchens/glass wine cellars create a pleasing mood 10)
Colors used create a warm atmosphere.
11) Colors used create a comfortable atmosphere. 12)
Colors used make me feel calm.
13) Lighting creates a comfortable atmosphere. 14)
Lighting creates a warm atmosphere. 15) Lighting
makes me feel welcome. 16) Background music
relaxes me. 17) Background music is pleasing. 18)
Temperature is comfortable. 19) Aroma is enticing.
20) Noise level is unpleasant.
21) Layout makes it easy for me to move around.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
165
22) Seating arrangement gives me enough space.
23) Seating arrangement makes me feel crowded. 24)
Seats are comfortable.
25) Menu design is attractive.
26) Food presentation is visually attractive.
27) The restaurant offers a wide variety of wines. 28)
The table setting is visually attractive.
29) Tableware (e.g., glass, china, silverware) is of high quality 30)
The linens (e.g., table cloths, napkin) are attractive. 31) Employees
are neat and well dressed.
32) Attractive employees make me feel good.
33) An adequate number of employees makes me feel cared for.
34) The appearance of the other customers makes me feel
important.
2. Emotional States:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
In the following statements, we are interested in your feelings, moods and emotional reactions
about the physical environment while you experience the restaurant's service. For each
statement, place a check mark below the number where indicates your emotional reaction.
In this restaurant, I feel
..................................
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
1) unhappy : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : happy
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
2) annoyed : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : pleased
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
3) depressed : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : cheerful
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
4) disappointed : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : delighted
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
5) bored : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : entertained
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
6) calm : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : excited
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
7) indifferent : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : surprised
166
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
8) sleepy : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : ____ : awake
3. Behavioral Intentions:
In the following statements, we are interested in your feelings about your behavioral
intentions in relation to this restaurant. For each statement, please circle the number that best
reflects your opinion.
Extremely Neutral Extremely
Disagree Agree
1) I would like to come back to this restaurant in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2) I would recommend this restaurant to my friends or others. 1 2 3 4 5 6
73) I would like to stay longer than
I planned at this restaurant. 1 2 3 4 5 6
74) I am willing to spend more than
I planned at this restaurant. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SECTION II: Information about Yourself
INSTRUCTION: Please place a mark in the category that best describes you or fill in the blank.
Your responses are for research purposes only. They will be kept confidential and reported as
aggregate data only.
1. What is your gender? _______ Male _______ Female
2. What is your age? ________
3. Your highest education is (e.g., college): ____________________________________________
4. Your annual Gross annual household income before taxes is: $ __________________________
5. Your racial/ethnic background is:
_____ Caucasian _____ African-American _____ Native American
_____ Hispanic _____ Asian _____ Multi-Racial _____ Other
6. Do you own your house? _______ Yes _______ No
7. Is this your first time to dine in this restaurant? _______ Yes _______ No
If No, how many times have you visited this restaurant in the past? ____________________
Thank you for your participation in this study.
167
Appendix B
Cover Letter to the Manager
168
Appendix C
Cover Letter for Questionnaire
170
171
doc_737050903.docx