Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 53 (2022) 81–90

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

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

Too much service? The conceptualization and measurement for restaurant

over-service behavior
Lou-Hon Sun a, Guei-Hua Huang b, *, Raksmey Sann c, Yi-Chun Lee , Yi-Ting Peng , Yu-Ming Chiu
a
Graduate Institute of Hospitality Management, National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, Taiwan
b
Department of Marketing and Distribution Management, National Pingtung University, Taiwan
c
Department of Tourism Innovation Management, Faculty of Business Administration and Accountancy, Khon Kaen University, Thailand

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Though prior studies have raised the issue that excellent service that exceeds customer expectations can nega­
Over-service behavior tively impact customer perceptions, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon in the
Foodservice industry foodservice industry. This study aims to conceptualize restaurant over-service behaviors and develop a multi­
Scale development
dimensional instrument for this construct. This study uses focus groups to identify restaurant over-service be­
Expectancy disconfirmation theory
haviors. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factory analysis (CFA) yield a five-dimension, 23-
item instrument. The categorization and descriptions of restaurant over-service behaviors may serve as a
reference for managers to determine whether their high-quality services overwhelm customers and to identify
negative perceptions of excessive services. If the needs of customers can be understood alongside how certain
service actions disturb customers, elements that lead to over-service can be eliminated or corrected, allowing for
time, effort and money to be invested more effectively.

1. Introduction degrades customer satisfaction and evaluations (Estelami & De Maeyer,

2002). Similarly, highly attentive service in settings such as hair salons,
Prior literature has discussed the positive aspects of services that telecommunications, or computer repair service lowers customer satis­
exceed customer expectations, and how positive disconfirmation results faction because customers become suspicious of the motives of the ser­
in cognitive responses (e.g., satisfaction) (Hamer, 2006) and emotional vice providers (Liu et al., 2019).
affectations (e.g., customer delight) (Ludwig et al., 2013). However, In regard to the foodservice industry, researchers have also discov­
another stream of research has raised the concern that an increasing ered that customers might respond unfavorably to the provision of
discrepancy between expectation and performance does not always excessive service. For example, over-service in bars and restaurants can
result in a parallel increase in the level of customer satisfaction and cause a range of problems for young customers, such as heavy con­
loyalty, while still increasing operating costs (Dixon et al., 2010; Saklani sumption of alcohol (Grube et al., 2021). Extreme, over-attentive service
et al., 2000). For example, “going the extra mile for customers”, lowers full-service diners’ satisfaction, and the effect is stronger for in­
compared to “delivering the promise”, “making it personal” and dividuals whose psychological reactance or propensity to suspicion is
“dealing well with problems”, contributes the least to service excellence high (Ku et al., 2013). Culture also plays a role in the perception of
in the context of airline service while service excellence is defined as service attentiveness. Customers from different cultures have different
“the service that exceeds expectations, but requires organisations to do communication styles: American diners prefer explicitly attentive ser­
no more than they promise” (Johnston, 2004). vice while Japanese are in favor of unobtrusive service (Lee, 2015).
Providing excellent service that exceeds customer expectations can American diners (those in a low context culture) perceive the service
raise expectations even higher, give the impression that the service is quality as higher when the servers check back more frequently. In
over-priced, and even generate bad word-of-mouth (Stone, 2012). For contrast, Japanese diners (those in a high context culture) do not
example, overly generous services provided by retail service providers consider highly frequent checking back to be high quality service, based
elicits more negative than positive thoughts from customers, and on the notion that an unexpectedly high level of service can be perceived

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: honsun@mail.nkuht.edu.tw (L.-H. Sun), ghuang@mail.nptu.edu.tw (G.-H. Huang), sann@kku.ac.th (R. Sann), bh.jean@hotmail.com (Y.-C. Lee),
smileting_20@hotmail.com (Y.-T. Peng), tennis77818@hotmail.com (Y.-M. Chiu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.07.020
Received 16 January 2022; Received in revised form 26 July 2022; Accepted 30 July 2022
Available online 20 September 2022
1447-6770/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of CAUTHE - COUNCIL FOR AUSTRALASIAN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY EDUCATION. All
rights reserved.
L.-H. Sun et al. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 53 (2022) 81–90

as unnecessary and even disturbing (Ku et al., 2013). Furthermore, which has been advocated to increase customer loyalty is to increase the
Tsaur and Yen’s (2019) qualitative study conceptualized and identified quality of the service offered to customers. Thus, for customers,
16 types of service redundancy in foodservice settings, such as overly perceived service quality is the difference between their expectations of
frequent provision of services, and the presentation of excessive that service and their perceptions of the actual service (Parasuraman
hospitality. et al., 1985). The larger the positive difference, the higher the service
Foodservice encounters require a high level of interaction with cus­ quality and the greater the customer satisfaction.
tomers, and the level of customer service is a key criterion for deter­ Studies in different service settings have extended the expectation
mining quality and satisfaction. However, based on the discussion disconfirmation paradigm and provided new insights. Weiss et al.
above, one can conclude that the consequences of over-the-top services (2005) examined how the four theme restaurant attributes (i.e., food
might not always benefit the company or its customers. Too much ser­ quality, service quality, atmosphere, and novelty) influence the cus­
vice can backfire when it evokes negative feelings. Thus, this study fo­ tomer’s return intention and found that novelty contributes the least to
cuses on understanding the phenomenon of restaurant over-service and satisfaction. Siu et al. (2022) discovered that museum visitors derive
defines restaurant over-service as the provision of a level of service that, satisfaction from their perceived knowledge experience and entertain­
while exceeding customer expectations, results in unpleasantness in ment experience through the mediating effect of disconfirmation.
restaurant service encounters. Prior studies have provided important Moreover, cognitive engagement weakens the link between the
insights related to over-service in the foodservice industry (Grube et al., perceived entertainment experience on disconfirmation. Hui et al.
2021; Ku et al., 2013; Tsaur & Yen, 2019). Even so, the literature has not (2007) investigated the international tourists’ satisfaction of visiting
identified the specific kinds of behaviors that exceed customer expec­ Singapore and concluded that tourists from different geographical areas
tations but lead to unpleasant feelings. This phenomenon has not yet rely on different attributes. Attraction contributes the most to satisfac­
been conceptualized, and no studies have determined how to identify tion for European and Asian tourists. Culture is considered the most
the factors. To fill this gap, the present study aims to answer the important attributes for Oceania tourists and North Americans are more
following questions: 1) What constitutes restaurant over-service? 2) concerned with accommodation and food.
What kinds of behaviors can be classified as restaurant over-service In the case of new nontraditional credence service of which pre-
behaviors? 3) How can restaurant over service be measured? Accord­ purchase expectation is hard to develop, Prenshaw et al. (2006)
ingly, the objectives of this study are threefold: 1) to conceptualize the revealed that satisfaction assessed via disconfirmation is contingent
idea of restaurant over-service, 2) to qualitatively identify restaurant upon customers’ involvement. Low-involvement customers use discon­
over-service behaviors, and 3) to develop, refine and validate an in­ firmation to assess satisfaction while high-involvement customers rely
strument for measuring restaurant over-service. on performance outcomes. In the context of public services, Van Ryzin
This research is structured as follows. First, we review the literature (2004, 2013) demonstrated that disconfirmation better predicts citizens’
regarding concepts related to restaurant over-service, which include satisfaction toward public services than actual performance. Hossain
expectancy disconfirmation theory, over-attentiveness, over-generosity, (2019) used a four-dimensional library service measurement (i.e., car­
and service redundancy. We then present the methods used to concep­ ing, competence, resources, and library as a place) and a four-level zone
tualize restaurant over-service, followed by the development of the in­ of tolerance (superior, surprising, defective, and satisfied zones) which
strument. First, we conduct focus groups. Content analysis of the data is based on expectancy disconfirmation theory to measure library
reveals 109 incidents involving restaurant over-service behaviors. Based satisfaction. This helps to better identify library users’ satisfaction level.
on these incidents, six categories of restaurant over-service behaviors Expectation disconfirmation theory can be extensively applied in the
are classified. We then perform exploratory factor analysis and confir­ post-consumption stage. The confirmation/disconfirmation evaluation
matory factor analysis with another group of customers to purify and repeatedly occurs when there is a continual activity of purchasing.
establish the reliability and validity of the instrument. Bhattacherjee (2001) pointed out that customers acquire new informa­
Via this procedure, we develop a restaurant over-service instrument tion and use accumulated experiences as a basis for subsequent evalu­
that is precise (i.e., assesses over-service behaviors that are specific to ation when deciding whether to continually use information services.
restaurants). We then discuss this study’s implications and limitations, Similarly, in the B2B context, Briggs et al. (2016) argued that, for
and offer suggestions for future research. As a whole, this study provides continually delivered business services, satisfaction is assessed via cu­
guidance to business and academia in the foodservice sector by mulative disconfirmation.
enhancing our understanding of restaurant over-service and helping to Conventional wisdom in service studies has advocated that profit­
refine management approaches. ability comes from the maximization of the customer experience.
However, recent studies have highlighted that providing excessive ser­
2. Literature review vice can, in some cases, have a negative effect on the customer experi­
ence, resulting in negative consequences.
2.1. Expectancy disconfirmation theory Researchers have identified this phenomenon and discussed it from
different angles and, respectively, proposed the concepts of over-
The expectancy disconfirmation theory is based on the concept that a attentiveness (Ku et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2019), over-generosity (Este­
reference level is applied to assess a transaction. The comparison be­ lami & De Maeyer, 2002), and service redundancy (Tsaur & Yen, 2019).
tween expectation and actual performance is used to form “better-than” In the following, we review the literature regarding these concepts.
or “worse-than” heuristics (Oliver, 1997). A positive disconfirmation
exists when the performance of a product or service exceeds expectation, 2.2. Over-attentiveness
whereas negative disconfirmation occurs when the performance is less
than expected (Oliver, 1980). The expectation criteria which gauge the Over-attentive services are unusual or atypical services that go well
quality of a service are likely to depend on multiple attributes of a ser­ beyond service protocols (Ku et al., 2013). Liu et al. (2019) concluded
vice, such as the consumer’s desired ideal, the consumer’s predications, that high attentiveness is composed of at least one of these three attri­
and what is considered as adequate (Zeithaml et al., 1993). Despite the butes: frequent contact, intensive warmth, and unsolicited information
fact that standards of service are hard to define and vary depending on and care. Customers tend to feel nervous, overwhelmed or disrupted
the type of service industry, the belief that exceeding customer expec­ when the service is overly attentive (Price et al., 1995). In the foodser­
tations can positively affect customers’ perceptions of service quality has vice industry, customers can find over-attentiveness to be more
been widely accepted and applied in practical service management annoying than neglect, as it interrupts the relaxation and enjoyment of
(Parasuraman et al., 1985). In this sense, one type of differentiation dining out (Cliff, 2014). Overly attentive service induces a sense of

82
L.-H. Sun et al. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 53 (2022) 81–90

dissatisfaction and reduces purchase intention because it raises the overpriced, even if this is not the case (Johnston, 2004).
customer’s suspicions regarding the firm’s motives and authenticity, or Following this stream of research, our study aims to fill the gap in the
because the experience causes psychological reactance (Ku et al., 2013; relevant literature by investigating what constitutes restaurant over-
Liu et al., 2019). Cultural differences influence perceptions of overly service behaviors. Therefore, we conduct an exploratory study to
attentive service. The negative effect of high levels of attentiveness is enhance our understanding of restaurant over-service behavior, and
stronger for Japanese than for Americans (Hwang, 2015; Lee, 2015). In then develop an instrument for measuring this construct.
addition, consumers with an interdependent self-construal are more
sensitive to high levels of service attentiveness and react more nega­ 3. Methodology
tively than do those with an independent self-construal (Liu et al.,
2019). The main purpose of this study was to develop an instrument to
assess restaurant over-service behaviors based on customer perceptions.
2.3. Over-generosity The study involved a three-step process. First, a series of focus groups
was conducted and analyzed, following Lewis and Ritchie’s (2003) an­
Over-generosity pertains to giving or sharing freely beyond expec­ alytic hierarchy method for qualitative cross-sectional data analysis. For
tations (Dalgish, 1997; Machan, 1998). It may be regarded as an unusual the data extracted from the focus groups, we performed data triangu­
behavior, outside the norms of profitable business operations. Estelami lation by asking for advice from restaurant managers and from pro­
and De Maeyer (2002) found that over-generosity can be regarded as an fessors specializing in hospitality management. Six categories of
act of inequity, which lowers the recipient’s level of trust and leads to restaurant over-service behaviors were identified. In the second step, a
other cognitive processes that raise doubts regarding the motives of the multidimensional instrument was proposed and refined via an explor­
service provider. In addition, over-generosity is less appreciated when it atory assessment with 354 customers. Their feedback and insights were
is displayed by a staff member from a low level of the organization than solicited to establish the credibility and validity of the results (Decrop,
by someone higher up because generous offers to customers from low 1999). Last, we performed confirmatory factor analysis with 405 sam­
level staff within the company may be perceived as a violation of ples to validate the current factor structure.
company goals. Over-generosity is also not appreciated when customers
have no purchase history with the firm. This implies that over-generosity 3.1. Step 1: qualitative inquiry
may not be effective for newly acquired customers with whom the ser­
vice providers have not yet developed a relationship (Estelami & De Data collected from our focus groups served as the primary basis for
Maeyer, 2002). developing the instrument. We chose the focus group method because
Similar to the concept of over-generosity, over-compensation in the interactive dialogue allows us to generate and critique data effectively.
context of service recovery refers to the offer of additional compensation It enables us to discover commonalties or patterns among the partici­
to the customers above equal compensation (i.e., compensation equiv­ pants and provides the opportunity for reciprocity. Before conducting
alent to the purchase price). Customers may experience feelings of guilt the focus groups, we held a simulation with individuals with food and
and indebtedness toward the service provider (McCollough et al., 2000). beverage-related backgrounds in order to evaluate the clarity of the
However, in the case of severe service failure, over-compensation en­ questions, the fluency of the process, and whether the question items
hances customers’ perceptions of distributive justice and lowers cus­ matched the research purpose.
tomers’ negative word-of-mouth intention (Noone, 2012). In total, six focus groups were conducted. Two were held in a city in
northern Taiwan (Taipei). Another two were held in central Taiwan
2.4. Service redundancy (Taichung), and the last two were performed in southern Taiwan
(Kaohsiung). Each focus group was comprised of five to seven partici­
Redundancy is the replication of work processes that are unnecessary pants (Daume, 1997) and took between 50 and 70 minutes. This study
(Pryor et al., 2011). In the food service setting, Tsaur and Yen (2019) featured 37 participants, of which 7 were men and 30 were women.
define service redundancy as “the provision of excessive or unnecessary Participants’ ages ranged between 20 and 29 years old; 20 were college
service that does not improve customer perception of service quality.” students, and 17 were office workers. During the session, the moderator
They divide service redundancy into 16 categories under three themes: asked participants to recall their past dining experiences and to provide
service behavior, service regulations and environmental factors. For cases of over-service behaviors they have experienced. The questions for
example, performing service at high frequency falls into the theme of facilitating these discussions were based on the research theme and
service behavior. This behavior makes customers feel pressured and purpose, and the extant literature. Open-ended questions were featured
causes negative feelings. Excessive promotion of sales is the server’s in order to motivate participants to provide more in-depth information.
aggressive promotion of meals under the requirements of his/her or­
ganization. This action is perceived as an inconvenience to diners. 3.1.1. Coding procedures
Convoluted spatial layout though enhancing the aesthetics of the The data were transcribed and systematically coded. The researchers
restaurant forces customers to detour and is regarded as unnecessary. analyzed the content of the transcript and selected key phrases that
Noone et al. (2009) further point out that frequent and redundant expressed the participants’ opinions. After coding the transcripts, the
interactions can interrupt customer conversations and disturb the flow researchers extracted incidents related to over-service. This study
in their social interactions, thus lowering their satisfaction with the employed the analytic hierarchy process (Lewis & Ritchie, 2003),
dining experience. Collier and Kimes (2013) declare that providing involving all aspects from data management (indexing to descriptive
excessive hospitality or constantly monitoring and interrupting cus­ accounts, sorting by themes, synthesizing data, and establishing typol­
tomers to make sure their needs are met can increase customer stress and ogies) to explanatory accounts (detecting patterns, developing expla­
lead to the perception that the service providers are invasive and nation, seeking applications to broader theory). We moved up and down
disruptive. Under such circumstance, customers may feel that they have the analytic hierarchy throughout the analysis phase (Spencer et al.,
little control over the environment (Susskind & Curry, 2016). Redun­ 2003). By repeatedly analyzing the primary data, abstracted concepts,
dant services may even trigger customer complaints and reduce and data interpretation, this study inspected each hierarchical layer to
customer loyalty, while simultaneously incurring high production costs generate more refined concepts. After categorizing the coded incidents
and raising prices (Dixon et al., 2010). As with over-quality (i.e., on the basis of similar or related key words, we gave each category a
exceeding the level of quality perceived as necessary by the customer), name and a definition. This study referenced professional suggestions
redundant services may give customers the impression that the service is and invited two restaurant managers to review the collected data. The

83
L.-H. Sun et al. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 53 (2022) 81–90

researchers and professionals discussed the detailed definition of each When service personnel provide excessively detailed dish in­
category until reaching a consensus regarding the naming of the cate­ troductions, specific dining methods, and product promotions that
gories. Table 1 presents the codebook resulting from the categorization exceed a customer’s expectations, the consumer will feel annoyed.
process. However, customers generally do not directly reject a server’s recom­
mendations regarding the dishes but rather make perfunctory responses
3.1.2. Findings from qualitative analysis to the server’s constant talking.
This study extracted key over-service behaviors in restaurants from
※ “[This restaurant’s] chefs are very annoying; they always attempt
the focus groups. To establish distinctions between each category,
to introduce the food that you are currently eating. As it would be
similar types of over-service behaviors were first generalized using the
rude to ignore him, we thus need to respond, though reluctantly.”
highlighted key words extracted from incidents in which the behavior
(S2-A-Z04)
was exhibited. Subsequently, this study integrated similar key words
and verified that each incident was categorized properly. The six cate­ ※ “The chef from [this] restaurant was extremely talkative. He
gories are listed as follows: provided detailed introductions of each dish, discussed the connec­
tions between dishes, asked if the dish was suitable to our taste, or if
A. Offering overly caring services the taste was too sour or sweet. However, we just wished to dine
quietly. When I ordered a steak, he asked, ‘How would you like your
When the server displays overly frequent expressions of concern for steak done today?’ After the dish arrived, the chef introduced the
the customer during the dining experience, the customer may feel dish again. His introduction of the dish was overly detailed and
overwhelmed and pressured. Behaviors in this category include verbal repeated numerous times.” (N2-E-Z04)
questioning and nonverbal staring. Such behaviors give customers the
※ “Servers in some traditional restaurants often ask, ‘Would you like
sense that the service personnel are constantly watching their every
to order this dish? This dish is our restaurant’s specialty.’ Although
action, thereby interrupting the dining experience or resulting in
we had already finished ordering, the server continued to introduce
emotional discomfort for the customers. Of the incidents described by
different types of food they served, asking us if we wanted to order
the focus groups, 54 (49%) fit into this category, indicating that offering
the food, and suggesting that we order more food.” (N2-E-Z10)
overly caring services is the most commonly exhibited over-service
behavior.
※ “When I was dining in [this] restaurant, servers frequently
C. Drawing undesired attention
inquired about the dining experience. After I responded ‘It is alright,’
some servers continued to ask other questions. Further questioning
The drawing undesired attention can be divided into two types. One
made me feel pressured while eating.” (S1-D-Z01)
type consists of service personnel providing services with exaggerated
※ “The server repeatedly approached our table to ask if I need service methods, thereby drawing undesired attention and making
anything else. We were chatting about private affairs, so the in­ customers feel awkward. The other type features service personnel
terruptions were rather troublesome.” (S2–F-Z06) wearing overly attractive outfits, which cause negative reactions.
※ “When I was dining in [this] restaurant, I unconsciously made eye ※ “The server in [this] restaurant introduced the dishes in an
contact with a server, who then came over to our table to ask if we excessively loud voice. During his introduction, all the customers in
required service. As we did not require service, we declined him. the restaurant would look over. When he introduced how to grill
After a while, I accidently made eye contact a second time with the pork belly, the entire restaurant turned to our table, making us feel
same server. He came to our table again and repeated the question.” very uncomfortable. It was very embarrassing because everyone was
(N1-A-Z03) looking.” (S1-A-Z01)
※ “When ordering at the fried chicken restaurant, the clerk called
male guests ‘handsome guys’ and female guests ‘beautiful ladies.’ I
B. Providing excess information and reminders disliked this because whenever the clerk asked me, ‘What do you
want to order today, beautiful lady?’ everyone nearby would turn to
me to see if I am beautiful or not, which made me feel uncomfortable.
After taking my order, the clerk would then ask, ‘Where did you do
Table 1
Examples of categorization.
your hair? Your hair looks great today.’” (N1–B-Z10)

No First stage: registry Second stage: conceptualization ※ “The female servers of some restaurants dress revealingly by, for
1 Constantly being focused Offering overly caring services
example, loosening a few shirt buttons. While their intention was to
2 Excessively fast service be visually appealing, this may trouble some customers. Customers
3 Constantly apologizing may not know where to look when talking to them.” (M1-G-Z07)
4 Misunderstanding
5 Providing detailed introductions Providing excess information and
6 Repeatedly providing information reminders
7 Promoting products D. Making presumptuous decisions
8 Speaking in a loud voice Drawing undesired attention
9 Overly effusive greeting
10 Clothing and appearance Making presumptuous decisions refers to the service personnel’s self-
11 Recommending unsolicited Making presumptuous decisions assertion behaviors that limit the customer’s freedom to choose. When
products met with self-assertion behavior, customers are often forced to accept
12 Providing unsolicited service the choice made by the service personnel to avoid awkwardness.
13 Regulating dining methods
14 Bowing Being overly polite
Furthermore, some restaurants may insist on imposing certain dining
15 Kneeling methods on customers. This limits customers’ ability to exercise their
16 Engaging in small talk Pretending familiarity own dining decisions, thus making customers feel helpless because of
17 Acting overly familiar with the the demands and constrains.
customer

84
L.-H. Sun et al. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 53 (2022) 81–90

※ “During a family gathering, my grandfather ordered a steak. After ※ “I hate service personnel who keep asking personal questions
the dish was presented, the server took the dish back to the kitchen to when I’m ordering. The server seemed to be interested in me and
cut the steak into smaller pieces without asking my grandfather. The constantly continued talking with me. However, I was not interested
server may have assumed that older adults generally need assistance, in discussing my family with the server or engaging in deep con­
but my grandfather is capable of cutting his own steak. My grand­ versation. I only wanted to order a drink. It was troublesome to
father felt confused as to why his steak was taken from him and cut constantly respond to his questions.” (M2-G-Z01)
into smaller pieces.” (S1-A-Z05)
※ “Remember the restaurant that was well-known for its service? It
※ “I once visited a stir-fry restaurant with my friend. Before that, I provided such ‘outstanding service’ that their servers would actively
had been there several times. The servers took me as a frequent attempt to engage in small talk with the customers. For example,
customer. During the meal, my friend was constantly complaining when we took a photo at the restaurant with a Polaroid, the server
that the food was too spicy. After we finished the meal, the restaurant commented on the photos and pointed out that some photos were too
manager came to our table and said, ‘How did you like the spiciness dark. He even provided advice about how to take pictures” (M1-E-
of the meal today? I added two spoons of spice especially for you.’ I Z04)
was baffled at the manager’s actions. The restaurant manager was
※ “When I once dined at a teppanyaki restaurant, the chef kept
very proud that he had added extra spoons of spice to the dishes.”
talking to me as if we had known each other for a long time. How­
(M1-E-Z05)
ever, I just wanted to eat quietly on my own without interruption.”
※ “Some managers of traditional Japanese restaurants insist on (N1-E-Z04)
rituals. They emphasize that if a certain dish is not eaten in a specific
way, the customer will be unable to taste the original flavor of the
3.1.3. Discussion
dish and are therefore wasting food. In some cases, managers de­
Based on the data provided by the 37 interviewees, a total of 109
mand that customers follow their suggested dining methods.” (N2–F-
incidents of restaurant over-service behaviors were identified. On
Z03)
average, each participant experienced two to three incidents. Over-
service behaviors were observed in various types of foodservice busi­
nesses, including gourmet restaurants, fast food restaurants, beverage
E. Being overly polite shops and food stands. This suggests that such phenomena are common
in different foodservice settings. Furthermore, only 14% of participants
Being overly polite entails the service personnel providing services actually complained about over-service to the service providers, and
through courteous actions to emphasize the importance of the customer. 36% stated that their experience with over-service would discourage
This includes physical behaviors that emphasize the idea of “customer them from dining at the restaurant again. The low percentage of
first” and aim to satisfy customer expectations of being respected. customer complaints in this regard makes over-service an insidious
However, being overly polite in a way that degrades the service problem that restaurant owners can find difficult to observe.
personnel can make customers feel uncomfortable.
※ “Servers in [this] restaurant performed 90◦ bows after each ser­ 3.2. Step 2: exploratory assessment and measurement refinement
vice, even if the service was just to replace the tableware or do other
minor service. Every server at that table bowed together, often in Based on the incidents, we developed an initial instrument consisting
twos or threes. If servers bow too frequently, customers might feel of 39 items. To ensure content validity, three hospitality management
pity toward the server and be uncomfortable.” (N1–C-Z03) professors were invited to judge the breadth and appropriateness of the
content. They received the list of the 39 items with a description of the
※ “Two weeks ago, my classmates went to dine at [a certain]
study’s purpose. They were then asked to assess the appropriateness of
restaurant. After paying the bill, my friends stepped out of the
each item and choose one of three options: keep, remove or need
restaurant. The restaurant manager rushed out after my classmates
modification. If their choice was “need modification,” the professor
asking if there were any problems with the service. My classmate
needed to explain the reasoning and make recommendations. Five items
replied, ‘The servers did not serve water right after we sat at the table
which were rated as “remove” or “need modification” by at least one
and made us wait for a while. I think this should be improved.’ To my
professor were reviewed and modified based on the professors’ sug­
classmate’s surprise, the restaurant manager immediately knelt
gestions after discussion among the authors. In the end, 32 items were
before her and said, ‘I am sorry that our services make you feel this
retained. Then a pretest was administered to a convenience sample of 40
way. Please give us another chance to serve you.’” (M2-E-Z05)
university students. The pretest indicated no specific wording or
※ “When I visited [this] restaurant, the servers took my order in a comprehension problems. Thus, face validity was considered to be
posture that showed respect (the respondent demonstrates the acceptable. Table 2 shows the questionnaire items.
posture). At first, I felt that I was being respected, but later on the
server continued to talk to me in that posture. This made me feel very 3.2.1. Exploratory factor analysis
embarrassed. I was not so prestigious as to be served in such a We then targeted respondents who had dined in gourmet restaurants
manner.” (M1-G-Z05). listed by Taiwan’s Department of Commercial Affairs. These restaurants
pursue high quality services and the service personnel of these restau­
rants keep a high level of contact with customers, so we expected their
customers to be more likely to experience over-service. We employed
F. Pretending familiarity
the quota sampling method, and distributed questionnaires in propor­
tion to the number of gourmet restaurants in each representative area:
Service personnel may behave in an overly intimate or friendly
Taipei (northern Taiwan), Taichung (central Taiwan), and Kaohsiung
manner during service to close the social distance with customers and
(southern Taiwan). Based on quota sampling, we chose 11 restaurants in
appear to be more welcoming. However, customers may perceive the
Taipei, 7 restaurants in Taichung, and 5 restaurants in Kaohsiung for a
server’s actions as the objectionable behavior of pretending to be
total of 23 restaurants. Among those, 12 were Chinese cuisine restau­
familiar with the customer, thereby affecting customers’ dining moods
rants, 6 were steakhouses, 4 were European restaurants (Italian/French)
and further violating personal privacy.
and 1 was a Japanese restaurant. A total of 500 questionnaires were

85
L.-H. Sun et al. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 53 (2022) 81–90

issued. Accordingly, 240, 152, and 108 questionnaires were allocated to examined to measure sampling adequacy while Bartlett’s test of sphe­
restaurants in Taipei, Taichung, and Kaohsiung, respectively. Once we ricity was used to ensure that sufficient correlations exist among the
finished collecting the allocated number of questionnaires of one items. The KMO value in this study was 0.891, higher than the recom­
restaurant, we moved to the next restaurant. The questionnaires were mended value of 0.80, which suggested desirable sampling adequacy.
consecutively collected from Monday to Sunday and lasted for twenty Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 = 4975.851, p < .001),
days. We asked diners who had just finished their lunch or dinner and indicating sufficient correlations among the selected variables.
had stepped out of the restaurant to voluntarily fill out the question­ The EFA was conducted using a maximum likelihood approach to
naire. They were asked to indicate the degree to which the listed extract factors, and we used the Promax rotation of oblique method to
restaurant service behaviors (32 items) negatively affected their dining retain the items (Carifio & Perla, 2007; Costello & Osborne, 2005; Ste­
experience from their general past experience, using a five-point Likert vens, 1946). The number of dimensions was identified based on eigen­
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Demographics were values greater than 1.0 (Kaiser, 1974). Items were removed if their
assessed last: age, gender, occupation, residency, and the experience of loadings were trivial (<0.4). Items that did not meet the criteria were
dining in full-service restaurants in the past three months. deleted one at a time to ensure accuracy. After each deletion, individual
A total of 367 questionnaires were returned. We excluded 13 samples KMO and communalities were reexamined in case any item failed to
that had incomplete answers. As a result, 354 valid samples remained for meet the criteria. After six rounds of EFA, a total of 25 items remained.
analysis (a 70.8% response rate). Gorsuch (1983) proposed that there The factorial structure explained 52.111% of the total variance. As a
should be at least five participants for each item, and the total number of result, the original 32-item six-factor model was reduced to a 25-item
participants should be no less than 100. In addition, Nunnally and five-factor model. The final rotated five-factor component matrix is
Berstein (1994) recommended having at least 10 times as many par­ shown in Table 4. All dimensions consist of at least two items (Henson &
ticipants as items when developing an instrument. Our item-participant Roberts, 2006).
ratio was 1:11. The 354 respondents of our survey exceeded the stated After the identification of the five-factor structure, the internal
thresholds. Among all valid samples, the numbers of male and female consistency of each dimension was evaluated by calculating a Cron­
respondents were approximately the same: 51.4% male (n = 182) and bach’s alpha value. The calculated Cronbach’s alpha values for the five
48.6% female (n = 172). The majority of the respondents were in the age dimensions ranged from 0.680 to 0.907, representing good reliability
group of 21–30 (55.6%, n = 197). Of the respondents, 40.7% (n = 144) and internal consistency among the items within each factor. In the next
worked in the service industry, and 52.5% (n = 186) had dined at step, we named each dimension for the selected items.
full-service restaurants 10 or more times in the past three months. The
full details of the respondents’ demographics and characteristics are 3.2.2. Naming the dimensions
provided in Table 3. Dimension 1 contained nine items, and all items represented service
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to uncover the personnel paying a lot of attention to customers and making them feel
underlying structure of the 32-item restaurant over-service instrument pressured during meals. Examples include standing close to customers
using the sample obtained. First, we determined the Kaiser Meyer Olkin when taking food orders, frequently asking customers how they feel
(KMO) value for factor analysis, and applied Bartlett’s test of sphericity about the meal, or constantly asking customers if the restaurant needs
to assess the suitability of the data for factor analysis. The KMO was any improvement. Frequently asking customers questions or paying a lot
of attention to them generates a negative feeling. Therefore, Dimension
1 was named “Offering overly caring services.”
Table 2 Dimension 2 consisted of six items, each of which indicated that
Questionnaire items used in exploratory factor analysis. service personnel provided too many details when promoting the
Label Details cuisine, providing information about different cuisines, or introducing
1 Refilling water frequently the restaurant’s environment and design details. Constantly reminding
2 Singing loudly when celebrating my birthday customers to decide whether to pack leftovers also falls into this cate­
3 Serving too fast gory. Accordingly, Dimension 2 was named “Providing excess
4 Confirming reservation several times
5 Standing close to me when taking the order
6 Asking frequently how I feel about the meal Table 3
7 Paying lot of attention to me during the meal
Demographics and characteristics of respondents.
8 Removing dishes fast
9 Speaking with too much etiquette Variables Item EFA analysis (n = CFA analysis (n =
10 Being too friendly when serving 354) 405)
11 Chatting with me a long time
Frequency % Frequency %
12 Asking frequently if I need anything else
13 Bowing deeply to me Gender Male 182 51.4 243 60.0
14 Asking frequently if the restaurant needs any improvement Female 172 48.6 162 40.0
15 Chatting close to personal privacy Age 20 or below 3 0.8 23 5.7
16 Introducing the restaurant’s environment details 21–30 197 55.7 220 54.3
17 Promoting the meal constantly 31–40 131 37.0 79 19.5
18 Repeatedly introducing the menu and specialties 41–50 22 6.2 64 15.8
19 Using exaggerated words to promote the meals 51 or above 1 0.3 19 4.7
20 Apologizing many times for my complaint Occupation Student 92 26.0 154 38.0
21 Squatting by the table to serve Industry 1 0.3 47 11.6
22 Joking with me inappropriately Business 104 29.4 56 13.8
23 Making the voice of welcoming loud Service 144 40.8 128 31.6
24 Without agreement, taking tableware away when I was not finished yet Homemaker 13 3.7 20 5.0
25 Changing tableware frequently Region Northern 166 46.9 160 39.5
26 Intruding on my conversation with company Central 107 30.2 70 17.3
27 Repeatedly asking if I need to pack leftovers Southern 81 22.9 175 43.2
28 Putting in orders pre-emptively without approval Number of restaurant 1-3 times 1 0.3 7 1.7
29 Repeatedly and frequently asking if I need to order meals in three 4-6 times 24 6.8 191 47.2
30 Introducing meals in a loud voice months 7-9 times 143 40.4 123 30.4
31 Thanking me in a loud voice 10 times or 186 52.5 84 20.7
32 Frequently advising me to fill out the questionnaire more

86
L.-H. Sun et al. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 53 (2022) 81–90

Table 4
Exploratory factor analysis (first dataset, n = 354).
Constructs Factor (Loading) Cronbach’s alpha

1 2 3 4 5

Offering overly caring services 0.870

Item5 0.586
Item6 0.728
Item7 0.566
Item11 0.428
Item12 0.769
Item13 0.470
Item14 0.778
Item15 0.530
Item32 0.410
Providing excess information and reminders 0.788
Item16 0.484
Item17 0.509
Item18 0.504
Item19 0.579
Item27 0.622
Item29 0.454
Delivering undesirable services 0.840
Item1 0.687
Item2 0.668
Item3 0.733
Item4 0.635
Making presumptuous decisions 0.680
Item22 0.474
Item24 0.473
Item26 0.619
Item28 0.510
Being overly polite 0.907
Item9 0.762
Item10 0.952
Total Eigenvalues 9.374 2.223 1.874 1.749 1.456
Total Variance Explained (Cumulative %) 29.293 36.241 42.097 47.562 52.111

Note1: Extraction method: maximum likelihood.

Note2: Rotation method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
Note3: Promax rotation of oblique method.
Note4: Rotation converged in 10 iterations.
Note5: Loading <0.40 not shown.
Note6: The above results derived by SPSS software package.

information and reminders.” dimensions: offering overly caring services, providing excess informa­
Dimension 3 contained four items, each of which implied that the tion and reminders, delivering undesirable services, making presump­
servers provided unnecessary services that customers did not appreciate. tuous decisions and being overly polite.
Customers consider refilling water frequently and serving the food too
fast as unessential for high-quality service. Singing out loudly when
celebrating a customer’s birthday and confirming reservation several 3.3. Step 3: dimension validation through confirmatory factory analysis
times can be annoying and disturbing. Therefore, Dimension 3 was
named “Delivering undesirable services.” In order to verify this new over-service scale, a confirmatory factor
Dimension 4 consisted of four items, each of which indicated that analysis was performed on the 25-item scale, using a first-order factor
service personnel took decisions into their own hands. Service personnel structure. Another set of data (n = 405) were collected via an online
decided for the customer without permission. Examples include survey. As before, participants were asked to rate the extent to which the
removing tableware before the customers had finished meals, intruding listed items negatively affected their dining experience. In total, 405
on customers’ conversations, and entering orders preemptively without samples were collected. No responses were removed because the online
approval. Thus, we named Dimension 4 “Making presumptuous survey forced respondents to answer every question. Demographic de­
decisions.” tails are shown in Table 3. The sample size should be sufficient based on
The last dimension consisted of two items that indicated that the Hair et al.’s (2010) suggestion that the minimum sample size for
approach with which service personnel served customers was so polite confirmatory factor analysis should be ten times the number of items to
as to unsettle customers, e.g., speaking with too much etiquette and be analyzed. The results of CFA showed that the Chi-square value was
being too friendly. Negative feelings are induced when service personnel statistically significant (χ2 = 938.978, df = 265, p = .000, χ2/df = 3.543)
have an unnaturally subservient demeanor or an overly polite attitude. with goodness-of-fit (GFI = 0.826, AGFI = 0.787, NFI = 0.734, CFI =
Thus, we called Dimension 5 “Being overly polite.” 0.791, RMSEA = 0.079) indicating a poor fit of the model (Anderson &
During this stage, we removed the third and sixth categories iden­ Gerbing, 1988). We then omitted Items 7 and 16 because their loadings
tified in the content analysis (“drawing undesired attention” and “pre­ were less than 0.4. The new model resulted in the following: χ2 =
tending familiarity”), as their items did not converge to the factors. We 647.074, df = 220, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.941, with goodness-of-fit values
added a new dimension named “delivering undesirable services.” After of GFI = 0.876, AGFI = 0.844, NFI = 0.795, CFI = 0.853, RMSEA =
exploratory factor analysis and dimension naming, we developed a scale 0.069, which indicated an acceptable goodness-of-fit. The convergent
for restaurant over-service behaviors, a set of 25 items with five validity was confirmed because the factor loadings were found to be
above 0.4 in every indicator, and were significant because the t-values of

87
L.-H. Sun et al. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 53 (2022) 81–90

all items were between 5 and 15, i.e., higher than the threshold of 1.96. under five dimensions: offering overly caring services, providing excess
The reliability of the scale is ensured since the composite reliability information and reminders, delivering undesirable services, making
indices of each of the constructs received are greater than 0.5 (Bagozzi & presumptuous decisions, and being overly polite. Last, the confirmatory
Yi, 1988) (see Table 5). Discriminant validity between constructs was factor analysis confirmed the five dimensions and reduced the mea­
assessed following Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) recommendation that surement items to 23.
the square root of AVE for each construct should exceed the bivariate
correlations between that construct and all other constructs. Four of the 4.1. Theoretical implications
square roots of AVE (“offering overly caring services,” “providing excess
information and reminders,” “making presumptuous decisions,” and This research makes several theoretical contributions to service
“being overly polite”) exceeded the correlation coefficients among fac­ research and hospitality studies. First, this study proposes a five-
tors. The square root of AVE of “delivering undesirable services” was dimension instrument for measuring restaurant over-service behaviors
slightly lower than the correlation coefficient of “offering overly caring which negatively affect customers’ perceptions. While mainstream
services” (− 0.017). Thus, the discriminant validity of the scale was studies have promoted the pursuit of high quality based on Parasuraman
acceptable (see Table 6). In summary, the 23-item restaurant et al.’s (1985) notion that customer satisfaction is derived from the
over-service behavior scale exhibited acceptable construct validity and provision of services that exceed expectations (i.e., Getty & Getty, 2003;
reliability. Iglesias & Guillén, 2004), this study highlights how the provision of
service that exceeds expectations can actually lead to the opposite effect.
4. Discussion and implications In addition, this study echoes Cronin’s (2003) proposition that the
relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction might not
This study revealed the real-life scenario in which services that necessarily be linear.
exceed expectations are very likely to turn into affectation. This study Second, this study contributes theoretically to the hospitality
conceptualized the construct of restaurant over-service behaviors. The research stream. Lacking a clear conceptualization, the obscure topic of
focus group approach and content analysis classified 109 incidents. over-service has perplexed hospitality researchers, discouraging further
These incidents accommodate similar attributes proposed by prior examination of this issue. Past studies have proposed ideas explicating
research (e.g., frequent contact, intensive warmth, and unsolicited in­ negative perceptions of beyond-the-expected services from different
formation and care) (Liu et al., 2019), and also include new behaviors aspects, and have proposed such concepts as over-attentiveness (Ku
like making presumptuous decisions and being overly polite. After et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2019), over-generosity (Estelami & De Maeyer,
developing the conceptual model, we attempted to verify whether the 2002) and service redundancy (Tsaur & Yen, 2019). This study goes one
over-service indicators describe the construct of restaurant over-service step further to reveal a fuller picture of over-service and conceptualizes
behavior. We then designed a questionnaire based on these categories. restaurant over-service behavior in the field of hospitality.
In order to refine the instrument, we performed exploratory factor Third, this study develops a reliable and valid multidimensional
analysis. The results generated 25 over-service attributes classified over-service scale, particularly for restaurants, by adopting a qualitative
approach to explore the nature of restaurant over-service. Since there is
little research regarding such an instrument in the extant literature, the
Table 5 current work serves as a foundational attempt to explore the multidi­
Confirmatory factor analysis of 23 measurement items (second dataset, n = mensional nature of this concept. This study suggests that restaurant
405). over-service behavior has five underlying dimensions, and that the in­
Constructs α CR AVE Loading t-value strument developed here can serve as a tool for elucidating causal re­
Offering overly caring 0.792 0.804 0.349 lationships among over-service factors in future studies.
services
Item5 0.434 8.151 4.2. Managerial implications
Item6 0.685 12.840
Item11 0.699 13.096
Item12 0.707 13.247
There is a fine line between over-service and adequate service and
Item13 0.436 8.186 their difference is sometimes hard to identify and measure. The results of
Item14 0.726 this study confirm that the phenomenon of over-service exists in the
Item15 0.469 8.801 foodservice industry. Thus, managers should consider how to avoid
Item32 0.460 8.644
frontline employees’ over-service behaviors (i.e., offering overly caring
Providing excess information 0.739 0.746 0.371
and reminders services, providing excess information and reminders, delivering unde­
Item17 0.673 9.075 sirable services, making presumptuous decisions and being overly
Item18 0.635 8.800 polite). First, the categorization and descriptions of restaurant over-
Item19 0.601 8.520 service behaviors can serve as a reference for managers to help them
Item27 0.522
Item29 0.607 8.573
determine whether their high-quality services overwhelm customers
Delivering undesirable 0.541 0.539 0.227 and to identify negative perceptions of excessive customer service. The
services items for each dimension can be used as a checklist to detect policies or
Item1 0.476 5.994 behaviors that can result in over-service in a foodservice context.
Item2 0.456 5.852
Second, managers could adopt a scenario-based or role-play
Item3 0.445
Item4 0.525 6.294 approach during training. Frontline employees should get a good
Making presumptuous 0.748 0.763 0.448 grasp of how to play their roles such that they create the best experience
decisions for customers. They should keep in mind that customers are not their
Item22 0.720 12.145 close friends or family members, and offering too much caring or
Item24 0.663 11.400
Item26 0.727
excessively providing reminders may irk customers. Third, restaurants
Item28 0.553 9.698 can nurture their employees to enhance their ability to empathize with
Being overly polite 0.832 0.837 0.720 the customers’ feelings and help fulfill their demands. When employees
Item9 0.788 14.100 are able to sense different customer demands, they can modify their
Item10 0.905
services according to whether the service falls short of or exceeds cus­
Note: The above results derived by SPSS and AMOS software package. tomers’ desires. Fourth, empowering employees gives them some

88
L.-H. Sun et al. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 53 (2022) 81–90

Table 6
Correlation matrix of the factors of the restaurant over-service scale (second dataset, n = 405).
Constructs Mean Std. 1 2 3 4 5

(1) Offering overly caring services 3.563 0.604 .590 .564** .493** .334** .493**
(2) Providing excess information and reminders 3.994 0.599 .610 .294** .582** .144**
(3) Delivering undesirable services 3.242 0.712 .476 .157** .444**
(4) Making presumptuous decisions 4.469 0.572 .670 − .025
(5) Being overly polite 2.364 0.902 .850

Note1: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Note2: Diagonal elements in bold are the square root of average variance extracted (AVE).

flexibility in serving customers, allowing them to respond quickly to service behaviors and used a focus group with 37 customers to iden­
special demands in the face of unpredictable incidents. When a partic­ tify these behaviors. The exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory
ular service is perceived as unnecessary, empowered employees are able factor analysis classified the 23-item instrument into five dimensions:
to make immediate and discreet adjustments and not implement that offering overly caring services, providing excess information and re­
service. minders, delivering undesirable services, making presumptuous de­
In summary, for avoiding over-service that could diminish organi­ cisions, and being overly polite. Theoretically, this instrument enables
zational performance, it is necessary for managers to understand the researchers to continue to investigate the nomological network of the
perceptions of customers and to know which services are dispensable or restaurant over-service phenomenon. Practically, the categorization and
cause unpleasant experiences. If the needs of customers can be under­ descriptions of restaurant over-service behaviors may serve as a refer­
stood alongside how certain service actions can be disturbing, the focus ence to help managers determine whether their high-quality services
of service practices can be changed. This study helps managers to un­ overwhelm customers and to identify negative perceptions of excessive
derstand the backfire effect of over-service. The scale can be used to customer services. If the needs of customers can be understood alongside
identify over-service behavior and be taken as a guideline to train their how certain service actions disturb customers, elements that lead to
employees. over-service can be eliminated or corrected, allowing for time, effort and
money to be invested more effectively.

4.3. Limitations and future research

Funding

The current study has some limitations. First, we initially concluded

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency,
that over-service can be common in various types of restaurants from
commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
focus group analysis, but in the EFA stage, we targeted respondents who
had been to gourmet restaurants that provide high quality services. This
CRediT authorship contribution statement
was based on the assumption that customers who visit gourmet restau­
rants are more likely to experience over-service. However, it is not
Lou-Hon Sun: Conceptualization, Supervision, Methodology. Guei-
known whether the servers in the gourmet restaurants are well-trained
Hua Huang: Original draft preparation, Reviewing and Editing, Meth­
to avoid over-service behaviors or whether the customers are nitpicky
odology, Data collection, Project Administration Raksmey Sann:
when they dine in such places. The results may not reflect over-service
Formal analysis, Reviewing and Editing Yi-Chun Lee: Data collection,
behaviors in all types of restaurants. Therefore, we suggest that future
Formal analysis Yi-Ting Peng: Data collection, Formal analysis. Yu-
studies ask participants to identify the kinds of restaurants in which they
Ming Chiu: Data collection, Formal analysis.
have experienced the particular over-service behavior. More insights
may be gained by analyzing the types of restaurants. Second, this study
used the focus group and survey approaches to develop the instrument. Declaration of competing interest
Future research could further this research stream using mixed methods
such as in-depth interviews or experiments to test the instrument. Third, The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding
service quality might be evaluated differently depending on cultural the publication of this paper.
norms and expectations (Hwang, 2015; Lee, 2015). Liu et al. (2019)
suggested that customers from interdependent-oriented cultures are
References
more suspicious of high-quality service than are their counterparts from
independent-oriented cultures. Our findings may not apply to foodser­ Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
vice industries in countries with a different cultural background. Fourth, and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
the perception of over-service may vary depending on customers’ per­ Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
sonal traits and cultural background. Future studies can explore further Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An
by taking personal characteristics and cultural differences into consid­ expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.
eration. Fifth, we define restaurant over-service as the behaviors in a Briggs, E., Landry, T. D., & Daugherty, P. J. (2016). A framework of satisfaction for
continually delivered business services. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31
restaurant setting that exceed customer expectations but leads to un­ (1), 112–122.
pleasantness. The behaviors may be further interpreted by customers as Carifio, J., & Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions,
uncalled for, abnormal or unexpected. Future studies can sub-categorize persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats
and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106–116.
restaurant over-service into different dimensions. Cliff, M. (2014). Over-attentive staff are the most annoying restaurant phenomenon.
December 11 Mail Online https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-
2869851/The-waiter-coming-look-busy-attentive-staff-annoying-thing-restaura
5. Conclusion
nts-according-Brits.html.
Collier, J. E., & Kimes, S. E. (2013). Only if it is convenient: Understanding how
Though prior studies have raised the issue that excellent service that convenience influences self-service technology evaluation. Journal of Service
exceeds customer expectations can negatively impact customer per­ Research, 16(1), 39–51.
Costello, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four
ceptions, a comprehensive understanding of over-service in the food­ recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment,
service industry was still missing. This study defined restaurant over- Research and Evaluation, 10(1), 7.

89
L.-H. Sun et al. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 53 (2022) 81–90

Cronin, J. J. (2003). Looking back to see forward in services marketing: Some ideas to Ludwig, S., de Ruyter, K., Friedman, M., Brüggen, E. C., Wetzels, M., & Pfann, G. (2013).
consider. Managing Service Quality: International Journal, 13(5), 332–337. More than words: The influence of affective content and linguistic style matches in
Dalgish, G. M. (1997). Dictionary of American language. Random House. online reviews on conversion rates. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 87–103.
Daume, H. (1997). Making qualitative research work in the Pacific Rim. Marketing News, Machan, T. R. (1998). Generosity. Cato: Virtue in Civil Society.
31(10), 13–13. McCollough, M. A., Berry, L. L., & Yadav, M. S. (2000). An empirical investigation of
Decrop, A. (1999). Triangulation in qualitative tourism research. Tourism Management, customer satisfaction after service failure and recovery. Journal of Service Research, 3
20(1), 157–161. (2), 121–137.
Dixon, M., Freeman, K., & Toman, N. (2010). Stop trying to delight your customers. Noone, B. M. (2012). Overcompensating for severe service failure: Perceived fairness and
Harvard Business Review, 88(7), 116–122. effect on negative word-of-mouth intent. Journal of Services Marketing, 26(5),
Estelami, H., & De Maeyer, P. (2002). Customer reactions to service provider 342–351.
overgenerosity. Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 205–216. Noone, B. M., Kimes, S. E., Mattila, A. S., & Wirtz, J. (2009). Perceived service encounter
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with pace and customer satisfaction: An empirical study of restaurant experiences. Journal
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), of Service Management, 20(4), 380–403.
39–50. Nunnally, J. C., & Berstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
Getty, J. M., & Getty, R. L. (2003). Lodging quality index (LQI): Assessing customers’ Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of
perceptions of quality delivery. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.
Management, 15(2), 94–104. Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. McGraw-Hill.
Grube, J. W., Krevor, B. S., & DeJong, W. (2021). A group randomized trial of the stop Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service
service to obviously-impaired patrons (S-STOP) program to prevent overservice in quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.
bars and restaurants in college communities. Substance Use & Misuse, 56(8), Prenshaw, P. J., Kovar, S. E., & Burke, K. G. (2006). The impact of involvement on
1216–1223. satisfaction for new, nontraditional, credence-based service offerings. Journal of
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis Services Marketing, 20(7), 439–452.
(7th ed.). Printice Hall. Price, L. L., Arnould, E. J., & Deibler, S. L. (1995). Consumers’ emotional responses to
Hamer, L. O. (2006). A confirmation perspective on perceived service quality. Journal of service encounters: The influence of the service provider. International Journal of
Services Marketing, 20(4), 219–232. Service Industry Management, 6(3), 34–63.
Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published Pryor, M. G., Toombs, L. A., Cooke, J., & Humphreys, J. H. (2011). Strategic quality
research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and management: The role of process ownership, management and improvement.
Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. International Journal of Business Excellence, 4(4), 420–439.
Hossain, M. J. (2019). Redefining expectancy disconfirmation theory using LIS Saklani, A., Purohit, H. C., & Badoni, D. C. (2000). Positive disconfirmation as a
SERVQUAL+: An integrated framework for evaluating library service quality and threshold to high satisfaction. Journal of Management Research, 1(1), 31–37.
user satisfaction. The International Information & Library Review, 51(3), 203–216. Siu, N. Y. M., Zhang, T. J., & Kwan, H. Y. (2022). Reference effects and customer
Hui, T. K., Wan, D., & Ho, A. (2007). Tourists’ satisfaction, recommendation and engagement in a museum visit. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
revisiting Singapore. Tourism Management, 28(4), 965–975. Management, 34(2), 482–508.
Hwang, J. H. (2015). Is frequent service check-back really a good service? An Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Analysis: Practice, principles and
experimental study of culture and service quality in restaurants. Journal of processes. In J. Ritchie, & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for
Foodservice Business Research, 18(1), 34–47. social science students and researchers (pp. 199–218). Sage.
Iglesias, M. P., & Guillén, M. J. Y. (2004). Perceived quality and price: Their impact on Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103(2684),
the satisfaction of restaurant customers. International Journal of Contemporary 677–680.
Hospitality Management, 16(6), 373–379. Stone, M. (2012). The death of personal service: Will financial services customers who
Johnston, R. (2004). Towards a better understanding of service excellence. Managing serve themselves do better than if they are served? The Journal of Database Marketing
Service Quality: International Journal, 14(2/3), 129–133. & Customer Strategy Management, 19(2), 107–119.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. Susskind, A. M., & Curry, B. (2016). An examination of customers’ attitudes about
Ku, H., Kuo, C., & Chen, M. (2013). Is maximum customer service always a good thing? tabletop technology in full-service restaurants. Service Science, 8(2), 203–217.
Customer satisfaction in response to over-attentive service. Managing Service Quality: Tsaur, S.-H., & Yen, C.-H. (2019). Service redundancy in fine dining: Evidence from
International Journal, 23(5), 437–452. Taiwan. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(2),
Lee, H. E. (2015). Does a server’s attentiveness matter? Understanding intercultural 830–854.
service encounters in restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 50, Van Ryzin, G. G. (2004). Expectations, performance, and citizen satisfaction with urban
134–144. services. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(3), 433–448.
Lewis, J., & Ritchie, J. (2003). Generalising from qualitative research. In J. Ritchie, & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2013). An experimental test of the expectancy-disconfirmation theory
J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and of citizen satisfaction. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(3), 597–614.
researchers (pp. 347–362). Sage. Weiss, R., Feinstein, A. H., & Dalbor, M. (2005). Customer satisfaction of theme
Liu, M. W., Zhang, L., & Keh, H. T. (2019). Consumer responses to high service restaurant attributes and their influence on return intent. Journal of Foodservice
attentiveness: A cross-cultural examination. Journal of International Marketing, 27(1), Business Research, 7(1), 23–41.
56–73. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature and determinants of
customer expectations of service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1),
1–12.

90