International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1167–1177

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Influence of restaurant atmospherics on patron satisfaction and behavioral

intentions
Vincent C.S. Heung ∗ , Tianming Gu
School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The purpose of this research was to investigate empirically the influence of restaurant atmospherics on
Restaurant atmospherics the dining satisfaction and behavioral intentions of restaurant patrons. An extensive literature review
Dining satisfaction first identified five dimensions of restaurant atmospherics, namely: facility aesthetics, ambience, spatial
Behavioral intentions
layout, employee factors, and the view from the window. Data were collected from 10 middle and upscale
full-service restaurants in Hong Kong, and factor analysis and multiple regression analysis were then per-
formed to unveil the relationship between restaurant atmospherics and dining satisfaction and behavioral
intentions. The results reveal restaurant atmospherics to have a significant influence on patrons’ dining
satisfaction and their behavioral intentions, particularly their intentions to return and spread positive
word-of-mouth and their willingness to pay more. Dining satisfaction itself was also found to have a
significant influence on behavioral intentions, particularly the intentions to return and to recommend
the restaurant. The paper concludes with the practical implications of the research.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction is undoubtedly food and beverages that appeal to people’s sense

of taste. The augmented product of a restaurant, however, is a
One of the most important advances in business thinking is, in much broader concept that encompasses the service, the inter-
Kotler’s (1973) words, “the recognition that people, in their pur- action between customers and staff, and the dining atmosphere,
chase decision-making, respond to more than simply the tangible which appeal to some of the other four senses. Restaurant patrons
product or service being offered” (p. 48). This way of thinking today look not only for good food, but also for excellent service
explains why in today’s business world, particularly in the ser- and a pleasant dining environment, reminiscent of Elmer Wheeler’s
vice industries, increased attention is being paid not only to pricing adage that “you sell the ‘sizzle,’ not the steak” (Kotler, 1973).
and the merchandise itself, but also to the provision of a pleasant, Despite the large number of studies on the effects of store atmo-
and possibly exciting, shopping atmosphere (Baker, 1986; Baker sphere on consumer behavior in the retail world, there is limited
et al., 1992; Dawson et al., 1990; Sherman et al., 1997; Sherman empirical research exploring the effects of atmospherics on con-
and Smith, 1986; Tai and Fung, 1997). Such attention may be sumer behavior and satisfaction in the hospitality industry, the
even more essential in the hospitality industry. As its products restaurant business in particular, although the effects of differ-
are highly intangible in nature (Kotler et al., 2006), and customers ent dimensions of atmospherics have been investigated separately.
often experience a service organization’s facilities and infer ser- For example, Milliman (1986), North and Hargreaves (1996, 1998),
vice quality from tangible cues in the physical environment (Bitner, and Wilson (2003) investigated the effects of music on restaurant
1992), spatial aesthetics, or “atmospherics,” are even more impor- patrons’ behavior and purchase intentions, and Gueguen and Petr
tant. Hospitality service providers strive to ensure that every single (2006) examined the relationship between odors and consumer
detail of the physical atmosphere contributes to customers’ overall behavior in a restaurant.
satisfaction. In the research setting of ethnic restaurants in the U.S., Liu
Hospitality industry professionals regularly state that what they and Jang (2009) explored the effects of dining atmospherics,
sell is “experience.” What is sold in a restaurant, in particular, would including interior design, ambience, spatial layout, and the human
then be “sensory experience.” The core product of a restaurant element, on restaurant patrons’ emotional responses and their
subsequent influence on behavioral intention using a modified
Mehrabian–Russell (M–R) model. Their work has provided a com-
prehensive and practical research framework for the current study.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 34002317; fax: +852 23629362.
However, in our setting, it may not be entirely appropriate to
E-mail addresses: hmvheung@polyu.edu.hk (V.C.S. Heung),
tommyko1416@gmail.com (T. Gu). include the human element as part of dining atmospherics; as such

0278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.02.004
1168 V.C.S. Heung, T. Gu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1167–1177

human factors as the professionalism of employees are not as read- areas, the influence of other shoppers and the influence of retail
ily controllable as other, primarily artificial, factors such as the employees on shopping behavior (Turley and Milliman, 2000).
music played in the dining room. In the restaurant setting, Ryu and Jang (2008) proposed the
Because most of the research carried out in both the retail and DINESCAPE as a measurement scale for the physical environment
hospitality settings has adopted a consumer and/or environmental of upscale restaurants. The DINESCAPE consists of six dimensions:
psychology approach, a great deal of weight has been placed on facility aesthetics, ambience, lighting, service product (table set-
behavioral intentions. The customer satisfaction that results from tings in particular), layout, and service staff. Facility aesthetics
atmospherics has been insufficiently explored, although it is a very refers to the function of architectural design along with interior
important element of the service experience. décor. Ambience represents intangible background characteristics,
There is therefore a great need for more empirical research including music, aroma, and temperature. Based on quantitative
that examines the collective effects of atmospherics on restaurant factor analysis, Ryu and Jang (2008) removed lighting from the
patrons’ behavior and satisfaction. The current research, which was ambience dimension and included it as a separate dimension.
carried out to address the aforementioned gap in the literature, had “Table settings” refers to the products or materials used in serving
the four following objectives. customers. The layout dimension focuses on the seating arrange-
ment of restaurants and also measures the psychological properties
(1) To identify the elements of restaurant atmospherics. (e.g., perceived crowdedness) of the spatial layout. Finally, service
(2) To investigate the influences of atmospherics on restaurant staff reflects the social aspect of the service environment and con-
patrons’ satisfaction in the restaurant business arena. tains such items as the attractiveness and number of employees
(3) To investigate the influences of atmospherics on restau- and their grooming. The element of other customers, which has
rant patrons’ behavioral intentions in the restaurant business been discussed in previous studies, was excluded on the basis of
arena. the researchers’ analysis (Ryu and Jang, 2008).
(4) To recommend possible applications of sensory marketing On the basis of our review of the aforementioned literature, four
techniques in the total marketing communication and branding aspects of restaurant atmospherics were identified as relevant to
of restaurants. the current study: (1) facility aesthetics, which includes interior
design and décor; (2) ambience, which includes background music,
aromas in the dining room, lighting, and temperature; (3) spatial
layout, which refers to the way in which furnishings and fixtures
2. Literature review and hypothesis construction are arranged in the dining area; and (4) employee factors, such as
the appearance and number of restaurant employees.
2.1. Restaurant atmospherics The external environment of the restaurant is not considered
here because our exclusive interest was the dining space. We also
Kotler (1973), one of the pioneers in advocating the use of atmo- eliminated such “human variables” as the characteristics of other
spherics as a marketing tool, defined the term as the conscious customers, employee professionalism, and social interaction from
designing of space to produce specific emotional effects in the buyer the atmospheric elements, as these variables render it difficult to
to enhance his or her purchase probability. As noted in the intro- distinguish the effect of service quality from that of atmospher-
duction, atmospherics are apprehended through the senses, and, ics (Liu and Jang, 2009). The main difference between the two is
accordingly, sensory stimuli in the atmosphere can be divided on that the atmospheric effect occurs without a service encounter,
the basis of the five human senses, namely, sight, sound, scent, whereas that of service quality necessitates a service encounter.
touch, and taste. Furthermore, such human variables are not as readily controllable
Bitner (1992) identified three dimensions of atmospherics, or as other elements of the physical atmosphere. Hence, only those
what she called the SERVICESCAPE: ambient conditions, spatial employee factors that are controllable (e.g., the employee uniform)
layout and functionality, and signs, symbols, and artifacts. Accord- were included in this study.
ing to Bitner (1992), ambient conditions refer to the background A fifth element, the view from the restaurant window, was
characteristics of the environment, such as temperature, lighting, added to atmospherics in the current research, even though it is
noise, music, and scent; spatial layout refers to the ways in which rarely mentioned in the literature. Our reasons for doing so are as
machinery, equipment, and furnishings are arranged, the size and follows. First, the view from the window makes a great contribu-
shape of those items, and the spatial relationships among them, tion to customers’ total dining experience. Although not physically
with functionality indicating the ability of those items to facilitate part of the restaurant, the view is an integral part of the atmo-
performance and the accomplishment of goals; and signs, sym- sphere that patrons enjoy. A good view can be a selling point for a
bols, and artifacts include signage, personal artifacts, décor, and restaurant, which is why patrons usually request a window table
other physical elements that serve as explicit or implicit signals when making a booking. Second, similar to the aforementioned
that communicate with users. exterior factors (e.g., the architectural design of the building), the
Some researchers have proposed including the exterior factor view from the window is not subject to the restaurant manage-
in the atmospherics dimension. For example, Berman and Evans ment’s control. However, location is always one of the primary
(1995) divided atmospheric stimuli into four categories, namely, concerns when restaurateurs are planning to open a new establish-
the store exterior, the general interior, layout and design variables, ment. By selecting a particular restaurant location, restaurateurs
and point-of-purchase and decoration variables. In their catego- are actually selecting the view from the restaurant windows,
rization, the exterior dimension comprises such elements as the thus making the view an important component of the dining
storefront, the marquee, the entrance, the display window, and atmospherics. Third, this proposed element of atmospherics is par-
the building architecture. While confirming the aforementioned ticularly significant for restaurants in Hong Kong, the research
research, Turley and Milliman (2000) proposed that the effects of setting for the study reported herein. Hong Kong is a cosmopoli-
human variables on atmospheric perceptions also be considered. tan city known for its beautiful Victoria Harbour skyline. The most
They suggested that the human variable category comprises the sought-after locations on both sides of Victoria Harbour are thus
consumer (customer characteristics, customer crowding, density), those whose windows offer a direct harbor view. Including the
the employee (personnel characteristics, employee uniform), and view from the window was thus considered a reasonable element
privacy. Furthermore, human variables can be classified into two of restaurant atmospherics in this study.
 V.C.S. Heung, T. Gu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1167–1177 1169

To sum up, the five elements of restaurant atmospherics consid- Over the past three decades, numerous studies have been car-
ered here are facility aesthetics, ambience, spatial layout, employee ried out to investigate the influence of atmospherics on cutomers’
factors, and the view from the window. behavioral intentions in the service context, including retail and
food service settings. Tai and Fung (1997) distinguished two main
2.2. Atmospherics and satisfaction streams of literature on atmospherics in service settings, and recent
studies generally fall into one of these two streams. On the one
Customer satisfaction is a key concept in the marketing hand are studies that take a comprehensive approach, focusing
and management arenas, particularly in the service industry. on the combined effects of various elements of the atmosphere
The literature on restaurant marketing has identified numerous on consumer behavior (Chang, 2000; Donovan and Rossiter, 1982;
determinants of restaurant evaluation (i.e., customer satisfaction) Liu and Jang, 2009; Ryu and Han, 2010; Ryu and Jang, 2007;
(Dube-Rioux, 1990; Iglesias and Guillen, 2004; Kivela et al., 1999a,b, Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996). On the other are studies that focus
2000; Ladhrari et al., 2008). In reviewing the existing literature on specific atmospheric elements, including crowding (Yildirim
on this topic, Ladhrari et al. (2008) suggested that customer sat- and Akalin-Baskaya, 2007), store window type (Yildirim et al.,
isfaction with restaurant service is determined by the quality of 2007), lighting (Areni and Kim, 1994; Summers and Hebert, 2001),
the food (the functional outcome), the cost/value of the meal, and aroma (Gueguen and Petr, 2006; Gulas and Bloch, 1995), and music
the manner in which service is delivered. Atmospherics belongs to (Caldwell and Hibbert, 1999, 2002; Jacob, 2006; Jacob et al., 2010;
the third category. Although all determinants of customer satisfac- Milliman, 1986; North and Hargreaves, 1996; Wilson, 2003), or
tion deserve attention in research and practice, atmospherics may, paired elements (e.g., scent and music) (Mattila and Wirtz, 2001;
to a large extent, determine the overall degree of such satisfac- Morrison et al., 2010). In the present study, a comprehensive
tion in the restaurant industry, taking into account the intangible approach wasadopted to measure the combined effects of restau-
nature of service processes (Ryu and Han, 2010). Unconsciously rant atmospherics on patrons’ behavior.
perceived background music, color schemes, and the like could Of those studies that treat atmospherics as a holistic concept, the
become the prime determinants of post-consumption satisfaction majority have found customer behavior to be influenced by atmo-
in a situation with no disconfirmation (the discrepancy between spherics in an indirect way, i.e., it is usually claimed that the effects
expectation and performance), which is the usual consumption are mediated by other variables. For instance, Liu and Jang (2009)
experience (Wirtz and Bateson, 1999). Research also supports the advanced the notion that the influence of restaurant atmospherics
link between atmospherics and customer satisfaction. For instance, on behavioral intentions is mediated by emotions and perceived
Wakefield and Blodgett (1996) examined the effects of layout value. Chang (2000) and Wakefield and Blodgett (1996) foundthe
accessibility, facility aesthetics, electronic equipment, seating com- physical environment to have no significant direct effect on return
fort, and cleanliness on the perceived quality of the servicescape, intentions; rather, itseffect was found to be mediated through cus-
and found that the perceived quality of the physical environment tomer satisfaction. East (1997), however, proposed that the service
significantly affects customer satisfaction in the leisure service set- environment’s effects on consumer behavior are not necessarily
ting. Moreover, Chang (2000), in an investigation of the impacts of mediated by emotional states or satisfaction level. Dube et al.
the physical environment on customer satisfaction in college sports (1994) and Soriano (2002) suggested that atmosphere/ambience
arenas, confirmed the direct and positive relationship between the has a significant impact on return patronage. It may be that the ser-
two. vice atmosphere directly stimulates behavior. This debate leadsus
Atmospherics is discussed in the first part of this literature to thisstudy’s second hypothesis, which is as follows.
review as an integral part of a restaurant’s offerings. It is reasonable Hypothesis 2. Restaurant atmospherics have a positive influence
to hypothesize that atmospherics can have a significant impact on on restaurant patrons’ behavioral intentions.
perceptions of the overall quality of the service encounter, which,
in turn, affects customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry. In this research, behavioral intentions will be addressed in
the form of return intentions, word-of-mouth (WOM) recommen-
Hypothesis 1. Restaurant atmospherics have a positive influence dations, and willingness to pay more. Hypothesis 2 is therefore
on restaurant patrons’ satisfaction. subdivided into three hypotheses.

2.3. Atmospherics and behavioral intentions Hypothesis 2a. Restaurant atmospherics have a positive influence
on restaurant patrons’ return intention.
In the field of environmental psychology, Mehrabian and Russell Hypothesis 2b. Restaurant atmospherics have a positive influence
(1974) presented a well-recognized model that deals with the on restaurant patrons’ intention to spread positive word-of-mouth.
interaction between the environment and individual responses to
environmental stimuli. Although the M–R model was not originally Hypothesis 2c. Restaurant atmospherics have a positive influence
developed for consumer behavior studies, it has been verified as on restaurant patrons’willingness to pay more.
appropriate for explaining the effect of atmospherics on consumer
behavior in different consumption settings (Donovan and Rossiter, 2.4. Satisfaction and behavioral intentions
1982; Liu and Jang, 2009; North and Hargreaves, 1996; Ryu and
Jang, 2007). As previously noted, customer satisfaction plays a vital role in
According to the M–R model, responses to an environment restaurant management and marketing for the reason that such
can generally be categorized as either “approach” or “avoidance” satisfaction can directly affect customer loyalty, organizational
behavior. Favorable environments are claimed to lead to approach profits, return patronage, complaint behavior, and word-of-mouth
behavior, such as the desire/willingness to stay, explore, and com- (WOM) communications (Dube et al., 1994; Ladhrari et al., 2008;
municate with others and the enhancement of satisfaction with Soriano, 2002). Numerous studies have demonstrated the signif-
tasks performed, whereas unfavorable environments are claimed icant relationship between customer satisfaction and behavioral
to lead to avoidance behavior, that is, the opposite of these types intentions. Getty and Thompson (1994), for example, examined the
of behavior. Spending and repeat purchase/patronage are also con- roles played by service quality and customer satisfaction in form-
sidered examples of approach behavior (Chang, 2000; Donovan and ing behavioral intentions in the lodging industry, finding that a
Rossiter, 1982; Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996). high level of customer satisfaction increases customers’ intention
1170 V.C.S. Heung, T. Gu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1167–1177

atmosphere and its impacts on their dining satisfaction and behav-

Dining ioral intentions. To acquire the primary data, self-administered
Satisfaction questionnaires were distributed to restaurant patrons after their
H1 meals in the restaurants selected. Carrying out a survey “on-the-
spot” also ensured that patrons’ responses accurately reflected their
Restaurant evaluation of the dining experience. The questionnaire contained
Atmospherics H3 measures of respondents’ perception of the restaurant atmosphere,
their dining satisfaction, and their behavioral intentions.

Behavioral 3.2. Instrument development

H2
Intentions
As the official languages of the Hong Kong Special Administra-
tive Region (S.A.R.) are English and Chinese, and the majority of the
region’s restaurant customers are able to read and understand one
Fig. 1. The proposed conceptual model.
or the other, English and Chinese versions of the self-administered
questionnaire were made available.
The questionnaire was divided into four sections. The first
to repurchase and to recommend the product. Han et al. (2009)
section measured respondents’ perceptions of the restaurant atmo-
investigated the relationship among consumption emotions, cus-
spherics and contained 17 atmospheric attributes identified on
tomer satisfaction, switching barriers, and the revisit intention in
the basis of an extensive review of the relevant literature. These
the restaurant business. Their findings indicate that guests’ inten-
attributes reflect the five dimensions of restaurant atmospherics
tion to revisit is a positive function of satisfaction. Oh (2000) also
previously mentioned: facility aesthetics, ambience, spatial layout,
found satisfaction to be a powerful predictor of customer repur-
employee factors, and the view from the window (Bitner, 1992;
chase and referral intentions.
Ryu and Jang, 2007; Turley and Milliman, 2000). These 17 attributes
However, some research has suggested that the link between
were translated into 17 statements describing restaurant patrons’
customer satisfaction and future intentions is weak. For example,
perceptions of the atmospherics, and a five-point Likert scale rang-
in comprehensive research on the determinants of dining satisfac-
ing from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was adopted to
tion and return patronage, Kivela et al. (1999a,b, 2000) concluded
measure their responses.
that satisfied customers are not necessarily loyal customers. Return
The second section measured respondents’ dining satisfaction
patronage is instead the result of the interplay among several fac-
level, with satisfaction measured using a five-point Likert scale with
tors. Furthermore, a study carried out by Chow et al. (2007) reported
one unipolar item adopted from Ladhrari et al. (2008): generally,
a non-significant link between satisfaction and repeat patronage.
how satisfied are you with your dining experience (on a scale from
These heterogeneous arguments prompted the development of
“1 = very dissatisfied” to “5 = very satisfied”)?
the third and final hypothesis of this study.
The third section measured respondents’ behavioral intentions
Hypothesis 3. Dining satisfaction has a positive influence on in terms of future return intentions, WOM recommendations, and
behavioral intentions. willingness to pay more. Each behavioral intention was measured
using one item (from 1 = “very unlikely” to 5 = “very likely”): “I
Hypothesis 3 can be further divided into three hypotheses as will certainly visit this restaurant again” (return intention); “I will
follows. recommend this restaurant to friends and acquaintances” (WOM
Hypothesis 3a. Dining satisfaction has a positive influence on recommendation); and “I am willing to pay a higher price than
patrons’ return intention. this restaurant’s competitors charge for the benefits that I have
received” (willingness to pay more).
Hypothesis 3b. Dining satisfaction has a positive influence on The final section elicited relevant personal information, includ-
patrons’ intention to spread positive word-of-mouth. ing respondents’ age, sex, income, and nationality.
Hypothesis 3c. Dining satisfaction has a positive influence on To ensure the questionnaire was clear and understandable, and
patrons’ willingness to pay more. to test the validity and reliability of the measuring instrument,
a pilot test was conducted prior to administration of the actual
Fig. 1 summarizes the study’s three hypotheses. survey. The pilot test was carried out in February 2011 with 15
As shown in the conceptual model depicted in Fig. 1, we hypoth- restaurant patrons at two restaurants in Hong Kong, after which
esized that restaurant atmospherics, which is measured in five modifications were made to eliminate any ambiguity in the ques-
dimensions, namely, facility aesthetics, ambience, spatial layout, tionnaire.
employee factors, and the view from the window, will have a pos-
itive influence on the dining satisfaction of restaurant patrons. 3.3. Sampling and data collection
When perceived to be good, restaurant atmospherics will gener-
ate positive behavioral intentions, such as return intentions and Owing to the difficulties of employing random sampling tech-
positive WOM. This relationship between restaurant atmospherics niques, survey respondents were selected from 10 middle and
and behavioral intentions will be mediated by dining satisfaction, upscale full-service restaurants chosen according to the Hong
and, at the same time, such satisfaction will independently have a Kong’s Best Restaurants guide using a convenience sampling
positive influence on behavioral intentions. approach. Six of these restaurants are located in and operate as
part of a hotel, whereas four are independent restaurants. The aver-
3. Methodology age check for each person dining in these restaurants ranges from
HK$300 (US$38) to HK$500 (US$65). The restaurants serve a range
3.1. Research design of cuisines, including contemporary Japanese cuisine, innovative
Chinese fusion foods, authentic Vietnamese cuisine, and Western-
The present research constitutes a descriptive study aimed style dishes. Questionnaires were distributed to diners while they
at investigating restaurant patrons’ perception of the dining were waiting for their checks or as they were exiting the restaurant
 V.C.S. Heung, T. Gu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1167–1177 1171

Table 1 of education, and a similar percentage were professionals, students,

Demographic profile of respondents.
service personnel, or management/administration staff. Although a
Characteristic Valid N Percentage number of respondents refused to disclose information about their
Gender (valid N = 118) monthly incomes, the available data suggest that more than 30%
Male 57 48.3 had monthly incomes of HK$30,000 or above. As around a quar-
Female 61 51.7 ter of the respondents were students, a relatively large percentage
Age (valid N = 114) reported incomes of less than HK$5000 per month. The respon-
Under 21 2 1.8
dents came from eight countries, including Australia and countries
21–30 64 56.1
31–40 30 26.3 in Asia, Europe, and North America, with the majority coming from
41–50 12 10.5 China (including Hong Kong).
51–60 4 3.5
61 or above 2 1.8
Educational level (valid N = 118) 4.2. Measurement of constructs
Secondary school or below 4 3.4
Diploma 13 11.0 4.2.1. Factor analysis
University/undergraduate 93 78.8
Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on the
Postgraduate or above 8 6.8
Occupation (valid N = 118) 17 questionnaire items using orthogonal rotation (varimax). The
Management/administration 19 16.1 Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure was used to verify the ade-
Professional 30 25.4 quacy of the sample for analysis. The result was a highly satisfactory
White collar worker 9 7.6 .861 (Field, 2009). Bartlett’s test of sphericity, 2 (136) = 1567.225,
Self employed 2 1.7
Service personnel 21 17.8
p < .001, indicated that the between-item correlations were suf-
Student 29 24.6 ficiently large for PCA, and the extraction communalities for this
Retired 2 1.7 factor solution were acceptable. Initial analysis was run to obtain
Others 6 5.1 eigenvalues for each component of the data, four of which had
Monthly income (HKD) (valid N = 80)
eigenvalues greater than Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and, in combination,
5000 or less 19 23.8
5001–10,000 8 10.0 explained 73.626% of the variance.
10,001–20,000 21 26.3 Table 2 presents the factor loadings following rotation. The
20,001–30,000 6 7.5 items that clustered on Factor 1 were attributes of the spatial lay-
30,001–40,000 4 5.0 out of the restaurant and employee factors. Although the spatial
40,001–50,000 14 17.5
50,001 or above 8 10.0
layout and employee factors were discussed as two separate com-
Nationality (valid N = 118) ponents in the literature review, data analysis showed them to be
American 12 10.2 part of the same construct. The eigenvalue of Factor 1 was 8.28,
Australian 2 1.7 and it explained 24.2% of the total variance. The items that clus-
British 15 12.7
tered on Factor 2 were attributes of restaurant ambience, including
Chinese 73 61.9
Dutch 4 3.4 paintings, flowers/plants, temperature, aroma, and lighting. The
French 7 5.9 eigenvalue of Factor 2, which explained 20.3% of the total variance,
German 2 1.7 was 1.97. The items that clustered on Factor 3 were those describ-
Hispanic 3 2.5 ing the facility’s aesthetics, including interior design, furniture, and
table settings. One item that had originally been categorized as
an attribute of ambience (background music) now fell within this
after their meals. Participation was voluntary. Of the 125 question-
dimension instead. Factor 3 had an eigenvalue of 1.24 and explained
naires collected, 118 were deemed usable for data analysis after
16.5% of the total variance. Finally, the items that clustered on Fac-
excluding seven with a high percentage of incomplete responses.
tor 4 were attributes of the view from the restaurant window. This
factor had an eigenvalue of 1.03 and explained 12.6% of the total
3.4. Data analysis
variance in all variables.
Frequencies were computed in an attempt to describe respon-
dents’ demographic and dining profiles. Despite atmospherics 4.2.2. Reliability analysis
being subjectively categorized into five dimensions, factor anal- Reliability analysis was performed on the dataset to test the
ysis was applied to these atmospheric attributes in an attempt to internal consistency and dependency of the measurement scale,
uncover the underlying factors from the data collected. Cronbach’s with the results summarized in Table 2. It can be seen from this table
alphas were computed to assess measurement reliability. Based on that the Cronbach’s alpha values for the four components ranged
the study’s hypotheses, multiple regression analysis was conducted from .839 to .948, which are all above the minimum requirement of
to examine the effects of two or more independent variables (atmo- .7, thus ensuring adequate internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978).
spheric factors) on the dependent variables (dining satisfaction and
behavioral intentions). 4.2.3. Descriptive statistics of each construct
Descriptive statistics were calculated for all of the restaurant
4. Results and discussion atmospheric items. The means and standard deviations of the 17
items are reported in Table 3, with the items ranked in descending
4.1. Demographic profile of respondents order on the basis of the mean values. Two items in the view from
the Window dimension received the highest scores, more than 4.5,
Descriptive statistics were employed to analyze the demo- thus suggesting that respondents enjoyed the view while dining.
graphic profile of the respondents. They are summarized in Table 1, The items in the Facility Aesthetics dimension also had generally
from which it can be seen that there were slightly more female high mean values (greater than 4.0). A number of items measur-
than male respondents. Around 93% of respondents were between ing Spatial Layout and Ambience, however, were rated relatively
the ages of 21 and 60, with the majority aged between 21 and 30. low, the lowest being “paintings/pictures are visually appealing.”
Around 85% of respondents had received a university or higher level The standard deviations of the items ranged from .633 to 1.036,
1172 V.C.S. Heung, T. Gu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1167–1177

Table 2
Factor analysis results with varimax rotation of factors (N = 118).

Item statement (n = 17) Factor Loading Communality

F1 F2 F3 F4

Factor 1: Spatial layout & employee factor

Seating arrangement gives me enough space. .852 .809
Layout makes it easy to move around. .860 .855
Layout creates adequate dining privacy. .822 .831
Employees are neat and well-dressed. .646 .630
Attractive employees make me feel good. .642 .625
The number of employees is adequate. .693 .763
Factor 2: Ambience
Plants/flowers make me feel happy. .698 .674
Paintings/pictures are visually appealing. .731 .698
Temperature is comfortable. .707 .650
Aroma is enticing. .802 .777
Lighting creates a comfortable atmosphere. .606 .503
Factor 3: Facility aesthetics
Overall interior design is attractive .741 .697
Furniture is of high quality .790 .789
Table setting (including tableware, linens) is visually attractive. .731 .710
Background music is pleasing. .661 .657
Factor 4: View from the window
View from the restaurant window is visually appealing. .941 .934
View from the window makes me feel comfortable. .904 .914

Eigenvalue 8.28 1.97 1.24 1.03

Variance (%) 24.2 20.3 16.5 12.6
Cumulative variance (%) 24.2 44.5 61.0 73.6
Number of items (total = 17) 6 5 4 2
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy .861
Bartlett’s test of sphericity Chi-square = 1567.225, p < .001

Components Cronbach’s Alpha

Spatial layout & employee factor .918
Ambience .862
Facility aesthetics .839
View from the window .948

Total scale reliability (alpha) .931

Table 3
Means and standard deviations of restaurant atmospheric items.

Rank Description Meana Std. deviation

1 View from the restaurant window is visually appealing (F4) 4.55 0.812
2 View from the window makes me feel comfortable (F4) 4.51 0.782
3 Overall interior design is attractive (F3) 4.42 0.633
4 Lighting creates a comfortable atmosphere (F2) 4.34 0.719
5 Furniture is of high quality (F3) 4.23 0.709
6 Employees are neat and well-dressed (F1) 4.18 0.662
7 Table setting (including tableware, linens) is visually attractive (F3) 4.16 0.827
8 Attractive employees make me feel good (F1) 4.11 0.913
9 The number of employees is adequate (F1) 4.08 0.735
10 Background music is pleasing (F3) 4.06 0.936
11 Temperature is comfortable (F2) 3.95 0.804
12 Aroma is enticing (F2) 3.75 0.773
13 Seating arrangement gives me enough space (F1) 3.69 0.983
14 Plants/flowers make me feel happy (F2) 3.63 0.941
15 Layout makes it easy to move around (F1) 3.57 1.025
16 Layout creates adequate dining privacy (F1) 3.52 1.036
17 Paintings/pictures are visually appealing (F2) 3.44 0.832
a
Scale: 1 = “strongly disagree”, 5 = “strongly agree”.

which indicated a relatively consistent level of rating by different where S, F1, F2, F3, and F4 stand for dining satisfaction, spatial layout
customers. and employee factors, ambience, facility aesthetics, and the view
from the window, respectively.
4.3. Regression analysis The regression analysis revealed quite a good fit (R2 = .488) of
the variance explained by Model I. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
To investigate the influence of restaurant atmospherics on cus- showed the overall model to be significant (F = 26.951, p < .001).
tomers’ dining satisfaction and behavioral intentions, four multiple The adjusted R2 , which indicates the portion of variance in the out-
regression and three simple regression analyses were carried out, come that could be explained if the model were derived from the
with the seven following regression models constructed. population at large rather than the sample (Field, 2009), was .470.
The adjusted R2 was close to the R2 , with shrinkage of .018 sug-
Regression Model I : S = a + b1 (F1) + b2 (F2) + b3 (F3) + b4 (F4), gesting a loss of predictive power were the model to have been
 V.C.S. Heung, T. Gu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1167–1177 1173

Table 4 Table 6
Regression results of the influence of restaurant atmospherics on dining Regression results of the influence of restaurant atmospherics on intention to spread
satisfaction.a positive word-of-mouth.a

Variable B SE B Beta T Sig. Variable B SE B Beta T Sig.

Constant 4.381 .040 109.336 .000 Constant 4.297 .053 81.638 .000
F1: Spatial layout & employee factor .138 .040 .230 3.420 .001 F1: Spatial layout & employee factor .282 .053 .398 5.334 .000
F2: Ambience .289 .040 .482 7.170 .000 F2: Ambience .200 .053 .283 3.788 .000
F3: Facility aesthetics .242 .040 .406 6.026 .000 F3: Facility aesthetics .183 .053 .258 3.461 .001
F4: View from the window .117 .040 .195 2.898 .005 F4: View from the window .180 .053 .254 3.400 .001

R2 .488 R2 .370
Adjusted R2 .470 Adjusted R2 .348
Durbin–Watson 2.284 Durbin–Watson 1.629
F 26.951, p < .001 F 16.586, p < .001
a a
Dependent variable: My overall satisfaction with the dining experience. Dependent variable: I will recommend this restaurant to friends and acquain-
tances.

derived from the entire population. In terms of the Durbin–Watson

statistic, as a conservative rule of thumb, Field (2009) suggests that The regression analysis showed a good fit (R2 = .370) of the vari-
values less than 1 or greater than 3 are definitely cause for concern. ance explained by Model III, and ANOVA demonstrated the overall
The Durbin–Watson value for Model I was 2.284, which indicates model to be significant (F = 16.586, p < .001). The adjusted R2 was
acceptable correlation between adjacent residuals. Table 4 presents .348, which is close to the R2 , with the shrinkage of .022 suggest-
the results of the Model I regression analysis. It can be seen that ing a loss of predictive power should the model have been derived
all four independent variables are significant predictors of the from the entire population. The Durbin–Watson value for Model III
dependent variable, which is dining satisfaction. The standardized was 1.629, which suggests acceptable correlation between adjacent
regression equation can thus be expressed as follows. residuals. Table 6 summarizes the results of the regression analysis
for this model. It can be seen that all four independent variables are
S = 4.381 + 0.138(F1) + 0.289(F2) + 0.242(F3) + 0.117(F4) significant predictors of the dependent variable, which is the inten-
tion to spread positive WOM. The standardized regression equation
Regression Model II : RI = a + b1 (F1) + b2 (F2) + b3 (F3) + b4 (F4), can thus be expressed in the following manner.

where RI, F1, F2, F3, and F4 stand for return intentions, spatial layout WOM = 4.297 + 0.282(F1) + 0.2(F2) + 0.183(F3) + 0.18(F4).
and employee factors, ambience, facility aesthetics, and the view
from the window, respectively. Regression Model IV : PM = a + b1 (F1)+b2 (F2)+b3 (F3) + b4 (F4),
The regression analysis showed a good fit (R2 = .464) of the vari-
ance explained by Model II. ANOVA revealed the overall model where PM, F1, F2, F3, and F4 stand for willingness to pay more,
to be significant (F = 24.476, p < .001). The adjusted R2 was .445, spatial layout and employee factors, ambience, facility aesthetics,
which is close to the R2 with shrinkage of .019, thus suggesting and the view from the window, respectively.
a loss of predictive power should the model have been derived The regression analysis showed 18.1% (R2 = .181) of the variance
from the population at large. The Durbin–Watson value for Model to be explained by Model IV, with ANOVA demonstrating the signif-
II was 2.045, which means that the correlation between adjacent icance of the overall model (F = 6.256, p < .001). The Durbin–Watson
residuals was acceptable. Table 5 summarizes the results of this value for Model IV was 1.662, which indicates an acceptable degree
regression analysis, demonstrating that all four independent vari- of correlation between adjacent residuals. However, regression
ables are significant predictors of the dependent variable, which is analysis of this model suggested that the independent variable
return intention. Therefore, the standardized regression equation Ambience was not a significant predictor of the dependent variable
can be expressed as follows. Willingness to Pay More. Accordingly, backward stepwise multi-
ple regression analysis was carried out for Model IV, the results of
RI = 4.381 + 0.252(F1) + 0.249(F2) + 0.291(F3) + 0.165(F4). which are presented in Table 7.
After Ambience was removed from the model, the resulting
Regression Model III : WOM = a + b1 (F1) + b2 (F2) + b3 (F3) model in Step 2 explained 18.0% of the variance of willingness to pay
more. The adjusted R2 of the resulting model was .159. As a result
+ b4 (F4), of this regression analysis, the standardized regression equation of
where WOM, F1, F2, F3, and F4 stand for the intention to spread pos- the model in Step 2 can be expressed as follows.
itive WOM, spatial layout and employee factors, ambience, facility PM = 3.703 + 0.169(F1) + 0.202(F3) + 0.327(F4).
aesthetics, and the view from the window, respectively.

Regression Model V : RI = a + b(S),

Table 5
Regression results of the influence of restaurant atmospherics on return intention.a where RI and S stand for future return intentions and dining satis-
Variable B SE B Beta T Sig. faction, respectively.
Examination of Table 8 shows a very good fit (R2 = .513) of the
Constant 4.381 .049 89.352 .000
F1: Spatial layout & employee factor .252 .049 .352 5.115 .000
variance explained by Model V. ANOVA shows the p-value to be less
F2: Ambience .249 .049 .348 5.053 .000 than .001, and hence the overall model is significant, meaning that
F3: Facility aesthetics .291 .049 .407 5.915 .000 dining satisfaction is a significant predictor of customers’ future
F4: View from the window .165 .049 .231 3.349 .001 return intentions. The standardized regression equation can thus
R2 .464 be expressed as follows.
Adjusted R2 .445
Durbin–Watson 2.045 RI = 0.628 + 0.857(S)
F 24.476, p < .001
a
Dependent variable: If possible, I will certainly visit this restaurant again. Regression Model VI : WOM = a + b(S),
1174 V.C.S. Heung, T. Gu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1167–1177

Table 7
Regression results of the influence of restaurant atmospherics on willingness to pay more.a

Variable B SE B Beta T Sig.

Step 1 Constant 3.703 .084 44.146 .000

F1: Spatial layout & employee factor .169 .084 .171 2.005 .047
F2: Ambience −.031 .084 −.031 −.362 .718
F3: Facility aesthetics .202 .084 .205 2.403 .018
F4: View from the window .327 .084 .331 3.886 .000
R2 .181
Adjusted R2 .152
Durbin–Watson 1.662
F 6.256, p < .001

Step 2 Constant 3.703 .084 44.315 .000

F1: Spatial layout & employee factor .169 .084 .171 2.013 .047
F3: Facility aesthetics .202 .084 .205 2.412 .017
F4: View from the window .327 .084 .331 3.901 .000
R2 .180
Adjusted R2 .159
Durbin–Watson 1.662
F 8.362, p < .001
a
Dependent variable: I am willing to pay a higher price than the competitors charge for the benefit that I received from this restaurant.

Table 8
Regression results of the influence of dining satisfaction on behavioral intentions.

Variable R2 Adjusted R2 B SE B Beta T Sig. F

RI .513 .509 122.210*

Constant .628 .343 1.834 .069
S .857 .077 .716 11.055 .000
WOM .409 .403 80.114*
Constant .982 .374 2.628 .010
S .757 .085 .639 8.951 .000
PM .070 .062 8.758**
Constant 1.782 .655 2.720 .008
S .439 .148 .265 2.959 .004
*
p < .001
**
p < .01

where WOM and S indicate the intention to spread positive WOM 4.4. Testing of hypothesis
and dining satisfaction, respectively.
Table 8 also demonstrates a very good fit (R2 = .409) of the vari- As noted, four multiple regression and three simple regression
ance explained by Model VI. ANOVA produced a p-value of less than analyses were carried out to test the proposed regression mod-
.001, and thus the overall model is significant, suggesting that din- els and, consequently, unveil the direct relationships between the
ing satisfaction is a significant predictor of customers’ future return research constructs. The results of the testing of Hypotheses 1–3
intentions. Therefore, the standardized regression equation can be are summarized in Table 9.
expressed in the following way. It can be seen from this table that all four dimensions of restau-
rant atmospherics had a significant influence on customers’ dining
WOM = 0.982 + 0.757(S) satisfaction, thus providing support for Hypothesis 1. Of the four
dimensions, ambience (ˇ = .482, t = 7.17) and facility aesthetics
Regression Model VII : PM = a + b(S), (ˇ = .406, t = 6.026) had the greatest effect on such satisfaction. In
other words, customers’ perceptions of restaurant ambience and
where PM and S stand for willingness to pay more and dining sat- facility aesthetics appear to be the best predictors of dining satis-
isfaction, respectively. faction.
Finally, Table 8 shows a very poor fit (R2 = .070) of the variance Hypothesis 2 posits that restaurant atmospherics have a direct
to be explained by Model VII. The p-value of less than .01 in ANOVA influence on customers’ return intention, intention to spread posi-
indicates the significance of the overall model, with the results thus tive WOM, and willingness to pay more, respectively. H2a and H2b
suggesting that dining satisfaction is a significant predictor of cus- are both supported, as all of the beta coefficients between these
tomers’ willingness to pay more. However, many customers, even two sets of relationships were found to be positive and signifi-
if satisfied with the dining experience, indicated that they would cant. The dimension of Facility Aesthetics had the greatest effect
not be willing to pay more. This result may be due to the substan- on customers’ return intension (ˇ = .407, t = 5.915), whereas Spa-
tial percentage of students (24.6%) among the respondents, who tial Layout and Employee Factors had the greatest effect on their
would be unable to afford to pay more. Another reason could be intention to spread positive WOM (ˇ = .398, t = 5.334). Hypothesis
the high prices of the restaurants under study relative to their 3c, which states that restaurant atmospherics have a positive
value. Even if customers were satisfied, they may have consid- influence on customers’ willingness to pay more for the benefits
ered what they had already paid to be sufficient for what was on received from a restaurant, is only partly supported. The relation-
offer. ship between restaurant ambience and willingness to pay more
Regression results of the influence of dining satisfaction on was not significant (ˇ = −.031, t = −.362). Because spatial layout and
behavioral intentions are summarized in Table 8. employee factors, the facility itself, and the view from the window
 V.C.S. Heung, T. Gu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1167–1177 1175

Table 9
Results of hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis ˇ t-Value Result

H1: Restaurant atmospherics have a positive influence on dining satisfaction. Supported

H1a1 : Spatial layout & employee factor → satisfaction .230 3.420** Supported
H1a2 : Ambience → satisfaction .482 7.170*** Supported
H1a3 : Facility aesthetics → satisfaction .406 6.026*** Supported
H1a4 : View from window → satisfaction .195 2.898** Supported
H2a: Restaurant atmospherics have a positive influence on restaurant patrons’ return intention. Supported
H2a1 : Spatial layout & employee factor → return intention .352 5.115*** Supported
H2a2 : Ambience → return intention .348 5.053*** Supported
H2a3 : Facility aesthetics → return intention .407 5.915*** Supported
H2a4 : View from window → return intention .231 3.349** Supported
H2b: Restaurant atmospherics have a positive influence on restaurant patrons’ intention to spread Supported
positive word-of-mouth.
H2b1 : Spatial layout & employee factor → word-of-mouth .398 5.334*** Supported
H2b2 : Ambience → word-of-mouth .283 3.788*** Supported
H2b3 : Facility aesthetics → word-of-mouth .258 3.461** Supported
H2b4 : View from window → word-of-mouth .254 3.400** Supported
H2c: Restaurant atmospherics have a positive influence on restaurant patrons’ willingness to pay Partly Supported
more.
H2c1 : Spatial layout & employee factor → willingness to pay more .171 2.005* Supported
H2c2 : Ambience → willingness to pay more −.031 −.362 Not Supported
H2c3 : Facility aesthetics → willingness to pay more .205 2.403* Supported
H2c4 : View from window → willingness to pay more .331 3.886*** Supported
H3a: Dining satisfaction has a positive influence on patrons’ return intention .716 11.055*** Supported
H3b: Dining satisfaction has a positive influence on patrons’ intention to spread positive .639 8.951*** Supported
word-of-mouth.
H3c: Dining satisfaction has a positive influence on patrons’ willingness to pay more. .265 2.959** Supported
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

are the more visible atmospheric elements of a restaurant, the find- satisfaction, thus suggesting that these atmospherics, which
ings of this research suggest that customers’ willingness to spend comprise the restaurant’s spatial layout and employee factors,
more money may be more dependent on the tangible aspects of ambience, facility aesthetics, and the view from the restaurant
atmospherics. window, have a significant and direct influence on dining satisfac-
Hypothesis 3 posits that dining satisfaction has a positive influ- tion. Furthermore, this study constitutes one of the first attempts
ence on customers’ behavioral intentions. H3 is also divided into to examine the direct link between restaurant atmospherics and
three hypotheses based on the three aspects of behavioral inten- customers’ behavioral intentions, not only in terms of their re-
tions, with the resulting regression analyses showing a significant patronage intentions, but also in terms of recommendations and
relationship between satisfaction and both patrons’ return inten- willingness to pay more. Although the direct relationship between
tion (ˇ = .716, t = 11.055) and intention to spread positive WOM customers’ perception of atmospherics and their willingness to pay
(ˇ = .639, t = 8.951). Its influence on their willingness to pay more more for the services rendered was found to be insignificant in this
was also found to be significant, albeit to a lesser extent (ˇ = .265, study, the results still provide insights for future research into why
t = 2.959). These findings suggest that dining satisfaction predicts a this linkage is weak. Another theoretical implication of this study
patron’s intentions to dine in a restaurant again and spread positive is its identification of four dimensions of restaurant atmospherics
WOM better than his or her willingness to pay more. and their respective influences on customer satisfaction and behav-
ioral intentions. Moreover, the view from the restaurant window
5. Implications and conclusion was included for the first time as a dimension of restaurant atmo-
spherics on the basis of the unique features of upscale restaurants
The research presented in this paper was designed to explore in Hong Kong, and it proved to be a significant predictor of both
the role played by restaurant atmospherics in determining cus- dining satisfaction and behavioral intentions. The inclusion of this
tomers’ dining satisfaction and behavioral intentions in terms of dimension allowed the study to take one step further toward under-
their return intention, intention to spread positive WOM, and will- standing the distinct effects of each environmental dimension on
ingness to pay more in a restaurant setting. The study’s findings customer satisfaction and post-purchase behavior.
suggest that such atmospherics have significant effects on cus-
tomers’ dining satisfaction and behavioral intentions in terms of 5.2. Managerial implications
their intentions to return to the restaurant and spread positive
WOM. Moreover, satisfaction itself appears to have a significant From the practical standpoint, the results of this study will help
influence on behavioral intentions in all three aspects. The results restaurant managers to better understand the important role that
of this study have both theoretical and managerial implications, restaurant atmospherics play in retaining customers. Mills stated
which are elaborated upon in greater detail in the following sec- that today’s customers desire a good overall restaurant experience
tions. (as cited in Liu and Jang (2009, p. 501)). Yet, due to the great pres-
sure exerted by the availability and cost of space and other physical
5.1. Theoretical implications limitations, many restaurants in Hong Kong have paid insufficient
attention to creating an attractive dining environment. Good food,
From the theoretical perspective, one of the most impor- attentive service, and a comfortable atmosphere are all as critical
tant contributions of this study is its demonstration of a direct to the success of an upscale restaurant as they are to that of any
link between restaurant atmospherics and customers’ dining other food service establishment.
1176 V.C.S. Heung, T. Gu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1167–1177

The results of the present research offer a number of insights to out in this area to eliminate the possible influence of other fac-
restaurant managers. They suggest, for example, that an attractive tors, or to investigate the role of dining atmospherics among all
atmosphere can be an additional marketing tool, as it was shown the determinants of dining satisfaction and behavioral intentions
here to be effective in satisfying customers’ needs for an overall in order to build a more comprehensive model that better explains
favorable dining experience, creating loyal customers, and gener- the relationships.
ating positive WOM. To be more exact, the more tangible aspects of Second, although the study’s results confirm the significant
the dining atmosphere, such as the facility aesthetics and employee relationship between restaurant atmospherics and customers’ will-
factors, have been shown here to have a relatively strong influence ingness to pay more for the service rendered, it is worthwhile
on customers’ satisfaction and behavioral intentions, whereas the noting that the Model IV regression explained only 18.1% of the
more intangible aspects of that atmosphere, such as the aroma and variance in the “willingness to pay more” dependent variable. The
temperature in the restaurant, are less effective in influencing the same applies to the relationship between dining satisfaction and
latter, especially customers’ willingness to pay more for the ser- willingness to pay more, with Model VII explaining only a minor
vices rendered. If their budget permits, then restaurant managers portion (7.0%) of the variance. Other factors, such as the quality of
should consider making a reasonable investment in interior design the food and the quality of the service, may also have affected cus-
and restaurant decorations, as well as in employee grooming and tomers’ behavioral intention in terms of their willingness to pay
training, which could bring added benefits. more. Furthermore, of the atmospheric dimensions, ambience was
It is worth mentioning that the customers surveyed for this found to be insignificant in terms of predicting customers’ willing-
study gave relatively low ratings to the spatial layout attributes ness to pay more. Further research is required to determine the
of the restaurants involved. This may be due to the extremely high reason for this phenomenon.
cost of space in Hong Kong. It would be beneficial for restaurants Moreover, Oliver (1996) stated that two types of behavioral
to endeavor to reduce the number of seats to a reasonable degree intentions follow evaluation of the consumption of a service,
to create a more private and comfortable dining space. A favorable namely, short- and long-term intentions. Short-term intentions
dining environment could give restaurants a competitive advan- include WOM communications and complaining or compliment-
tage, helping them to stand out from the crowd in Hong Kong’s ing, whereas long-term intentions refer to attitude changes and
fiercely competitive restaurant arena. loyalty. Longitudinal research is recommended to investigate the
Although the view from the window was found to be a sig- long-term behavioral intentions of restaurant patrons.
nificant predictor of dining satisfaction and behavioral intentions; Last but not least, because the convenience sampling method
such a view is obviously heavily dependent on the physical loca- was used to collect the research data, the generalizability of the
tion of the restaurant in question. In Hong Kong, those located on results is limited. To ensure external validity, a more comprehen-
Victoria Harbour, especially those situated in high-rise buildings; sive sample in a wider range of restaurants is needed in future
enjoy a much better view of the city’s magnificent skyline. Although research. To deepen understanding of the relationship between
various resource limitations mean restaurant managers may have atmospherics and consumer behavior, other factors such as demo-
few options concerning the location of their restaurants, the view graphic information, customer nationality, and different restaurant
from the window should be one of restaurant owners’ site selection types could also be incorporated in future research models.
criteria when opening new restaurants in Hong Kong.
Iglesias and Guillen (2004) claimed that if food service firms are References
to succeed as well as survive in today’s highly competitive mar-
ketplace, then they must analyze the factors that affect customer Areni, C.S., Kim, D., 1994. The influence of in-store lighting on consumers’ exam-
ination of merchandise in a wine store. International Journal of Research in
satisfaction and subsequent post-purchase behavior. This study has Marketing 11 (2), 117–125.
identified a positive and significant relationship between such sat- Baker, J., 1986. The role of the environment in marketing services: the consumer
isfaction and customers’ return and recommendation intentions. In perspective. In: Czepiel, J.A., Congram, C.A., Shanahan, J. (Eds.), The Services Chal-
lenge: Integrating For Competitive Advantage. American Marketing Association,
service industries such as the restaurant business, loyal customers
Chicago, pp. 79–84.
who spread positive WOM are critical to success. By boosting Baker, J., Levy, M., Grewal, D., 1992. An experimental approach to making retail store
customers’ satisfaction level, restaurant managers can gain more environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing 68 (4), 445–461.
Berman, B., Evans, J.R., 1995. Retail Management: A Strategic Approach. Prentice
business through repeat purchases and the new customers brought
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
by positive WOM. The results of this study also show satisfaction Bitner, M.J., 1992. Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers
to be a significant predictor of customers’ willingness to pay more. and employees. Journal of Marketing 56 (2), 57–71.
Therefore, restaurants that are able to increase customer satis- Caldwell, C., Hibbert, S.A., 1999. Play that one aga the effect of music tempo on
consumer behavior in a restaurant. In: Dubois, B., Lowrey, T.M., Shrum, L.J.,
faction through good service, tasty food, and a favorable dining Vanhuele, M. (Eds.), European Advances in Consumer Research. Association for
environment can ask higher prices and generate higher profits. Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 58–62.
Caldwell, C., Hibbert, S.A., 2002. The influence of music tempo and musical pref-
erence on restaurant patrons’ behavior. Psychology and Marketing 19 (11),
5.3. Limitations and future research 895–917.
Chang, K., 2000. The impact of perceived physical environments on customers’ sat-
As expected in all research, this study suffers from several limi- isfaction and return intentions. Journal of Professional Services Marketing 21
(2), 75–85.
tations, which are addressed in this section. First of all, although Chow, I.H.-S., Lau, V.P., Lo, T.W.-C., Sha, Z., Yun, H., 2007. Service quality in restaurant
food and service were important factors in determining dining operations in China: decision- and experiential-oriented perspectives. Interna-
satisfaction and behavioral intentions, they were not specifically tional Journal of Hospitality Management 26 (3), 698–710.
Dawson, S., Bloch, P., Ridgway, N., 1990. Shopping motives, emotional states, and
examined in the current study. The effects of food and service
retail outcomes. Journal of Retailing 66 (4), 408–428.
quality on dining satisfaction and behavioral intentions have been Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., 1982. Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology
studied extensively. The current study focuses on the impact of approach. Journal of Retailing 58 (1), 34–47.
Dube, L., Renaghan, L.M., Miller, J.M., 1994. Measuring customer satisfaction for
restaurant atmospherics on customer’s dining satisfaction and
strategic management. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly
behavioral intentions. The respondents of the survey were made 35 (1), 39–47.
aware and understood that the evaluation of the dining satisfaction Dube-Rioux, L., 1990. The power of affective reports in predicting satisfaction judg-
and behavioral intentions were based on restaurant atmospher- ments. Advances in Consumer Research 17 (1), 571–576.
East, R., 1997. Consumer Behaviour: Advances & Applications in Marketing. Hert-
ics and, and other factors such as quality of food and service were fordshire, Prentice Hall.
isolated and held as constants. Future research could be carried Field, A., 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. SAGE Publications, London.
 V.C.S. Heung, T. Gu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 1167–1177 1177

Getty, J.M., Thompson, K.N., 1994. The relationship between quality, satisfaction, and North, A.C., Hargreaves, D.J., 1998. The effect of music on atmosphere and pur-
recommending behavior in lodging decisions. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure chase intentions in a cafeteria. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28 (24),
Marketing 2 (3), 3–22. 2254–2273.
Gueguen, N., Petr, C., 2006. Odors and consumer behavior in a restaurant. Interna- Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.
tional Journal of Hospitality Management 25 (2), 335–339. Oh, H., 2000. Diners’ perceptions of quality, value, and satisfaction: a practical view-
Gulas, C.S., Bloch, P.H., 1995. Right under our noses: ambient scent and consumer point. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 41 (3), 58–66.
responses. Journal of Business and Psychology 10 (1), 87–98. Oliver, R.L., 1996. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. McGraw-
Han, H., Back, K.-J., Barrett, B., 2009. Influencing factors on restaurant customers’ Hill, New York.
revisit intentions: the role of emotions and switching barriers. International Ryu, K., Han, H., 2010. Influence of the quality of food, service, and physical envi-
Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 563–572. ronment on customer satisfaction and behavioral intention in quick-casual
Iglesias, M.P., Guillen, M.J., 2004. Perceived quality and price: their impacts on restaurants: moderating role of perceived price. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
the satisfaction of restaurant customers. International Journal of Contemporary Research 34 (3), 310–329.
Hospitality Management 16 (6), 373–379. Ryu, K., Jang, S., 2007. The effect of environmental perceptions on behavioral inten-
Jacob, C., 2006. Styles of background music and consumption in a bar: an empirical tions through emotions: the case of upscale restaurants. Journal of Hospitality
evaluation. International Journal of Hospitality Management 25 (4), 716–720. & Tourism Research 31 (1), 56–72.
Jacob, C., Gueguen, N., Boulbry, G., 2010. Effects of songs with prosocial lyrics on tip- Ryu, K., Jang, S., 2008. DINESCAPE: a scale for customers’ perception of dining envi-
ping behavior in a restaurant. International Journal of Hospitality Management ronments. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 11 (1), 2–22.
29 (4), 761–763. Sherman, E., Smith, R., 1986. Mood states of shoppers and store image: promising
Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R., Reece, J., 1999a. Consumer research in the restaurant interactions and possible behavioral effects. Advances in Consumer Research 13,
environment. Part 1: A conceptual model of dining satisfaction and return 251–254.
patronage. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 11 Sherman, E., Mathus, A., Smith, R., 1997. Store environment and consumer purchase
(5), 205–222. behavior: mediating role of consumer emotions. Psychology and Marketing 14
Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R., Reece, J., 1999b. Consumer research in the restaurant envi- (4), 361–379.
ronment. Part 2: Research design and analytical methods. International Journal Soriano, D.R., 2002. Customers’ expectations factors in restaurants. International
of Contemporary Hospitality Management 11 (6), 269–286. Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 19 (8/9), 1055–1067.
Kivela, J., Reece, J., Inbakaran, R., 2000. Consumer research in the restaurant envi- Summers, T.A., Hebert, P.R., 2001. Shedding some light on store atmospherics: influ-
ronment. Part 3: Analysis, findings and conclusions. International Journal of ence of illumination on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research 54 (2),
Contemporary Hospitality Management 12 (1), 13–30. 145–150.
Kotler, P., 1973. Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing 49 (4), 48–64. Tai, S., Fung, A., 1997. Application of an environmental psychology model to in-
Kotler, P., Bowen, J.T., Makens, J.C., 2006. Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism, 4th store buying behavior. International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer
ed. Pearson Education International, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Research 7 (4), 311–337.
Ladhrari, R., Brun, I., Morales, M., 2008. Determinants of dining satisfaction and post- Turley, L.W., Milliman, R.E., 2000. Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a
dining behavrioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management review of the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research 49 (2),
27 (4), 563–573. 193–211.
Liu, Y., Jang, S., 2009. The effects of dining atmospherics: an extended Wakefield, K.L., Blodgett, J.G., 1996. The effect of the servicescape on customers’
Mehrabian–Russell model. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. The Journal of Services Market-
(4), 494–503. ing 10 (6), 45–61.
Mattila, A.S., Wirtz, J., 2001. Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store Wilson, S., 2003. The effect of music on perceived atmosphere and purchase inten-
evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing 77 (2), 273–289. tions in a restaurant. Psychology of Music 31 (1), 93–112.
Mehrabian, A., Russell, J.A., 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MIT Wirtz, J., Bateson, J.E., 1999. Consumer satisfaction with services: integrating the
Press, Cambridge. environment perspective in services marketing into the traditional disconfir-
Milliman, R., 1986. The influence of background music on the behavior of restaurant mation paradigm. Journal of Business Research 44 (1), 55–66.
patrons. Journal of Consumer Research 13 (2), 286–290. Yildirim, K., Akalin-Baskaya, A., 2007. Perceived crowding in a café-restaurant
Morrison, M., Gan, S., Dubelaar, C., Oppewal, H., 2010. In-store music and aroma with different seating densities. Building and Environment 42 (9),
influences on shopper behavior and satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 3410–3417.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.06.006. Yildirim, K., Akalin-Baskaya, A., Hidayetoglu, M.L., 2007. The effects of the store win-
North, A.C., Hargreaves, D.J., 1996. The effects of music on responses to a dining area. dow type on consumers’ perception and shopping attitudes through the use of
Journal of Environmental Psychology 16 (1), 55–64. digital pictures. G.U. Journal of Science 20 (2), 33–40.