Hotel restaurant dining: The relationship between perceived value and intention to purchase

Presenter: Anne ChenInstructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa HsuDate: November 26, 2012

1

Citation

Ashton, A., Scott, N., Solnet, D., & Breakey, N. (2010). Hotel restaurant dining: The relationship between perceived value and intention to purchase. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(3), 206-218.

2

Contents

3

Introduction

Literature Review

Methodology

Result & Conclusion

Limitation

Reflection

Ⅰ

Ⅱ

Ⅲ

Ⅳ

Ⅴ

Ⅵ

Introduction

It is necessary for hotel managers to understand consumer expectations to ensure that they provide a product and service mix, which meets customer needs.

4

Purpose

To seek understand how perceived value in a hotel restaurant dining context relates to intention to purchase (ITP)

5

Research Question

What is the relationship between perceived value and ITP in hotel restaurant dining？

6

Literature Review

7

The evaluation of a brand alliance relies on a consumer’s experience with a brand and opinions formed on the basis of several factors including the level of service experience, price paid, and word of moth.

(Rust et al., 2005; Paswan et al., 2007)

8

Literature Review

The relationship between quality and value depends on overall service quality and improvement in core quality.

(McDougall, 2000)

9

Literature Review

Perceived sacrifice includes both a monetary(perceived price) component, and a non-monetary one such as time or energy spent.

(Monroe, 1990; Dodds et al., 1991)

10

Literature Review

Hypotheses

H1: If perceived brand image is high then intention to purchase is high.

H2: If perceived quality is high then intention to purchase is high.

11

12

H3: If perceived sacrifice on monetary price is low then intention to purchase is high.

H4: If perceived sacrifice on non-monetary price is low then intention to purchase is high.

Hypotheses

Methodology

13

Perceived value research instrument construct

14

Research Instrument of Perceived Value

Perceived Brand Image

Perceived Quality

Perceived Sacrifice

Perceived Value Construct

Consumer Attitude

Product & Service

Performance

Monetary Price Non-monetary

Price

Measurement Items

Intention to Purchase

15

• Five star hotel – Henry J. Bean Bar and Grill restaurant

• Bangkok, Thailand• A total of 88 questionnaires

Pilot test

• Five star hotel – Amari OrchildResort & Tower

• Pattaya, Thailand• A total of 377 respondents

Main study

Methodology

Result

16

17

H1: If perceived brand image is high then intention to purchase is high.

Model

Unstandardizedcoefficients

Standardizedcoefficients

t Sig. F

B Std. error Beta (β)

(Constant) -2.278 1.683 ─── -1.354 0.17764.670(1271)***

Perceived brand image

0.628 0.078 0.439 8.042 0.000 ───

Dependent variable: Intention to purchase,R2=0.193.***P<0.001.

Table 1: Perceived brand image regression results

18

H2: If perceived quality is high then intention to purchase is high.

Model

Unstandardizedcoefficients

Standardizedcoefficients T Sig. F

B Std. error Beta (β)

(Constant) -1.713 1.903 ─── -0.888 0.37644.667(1279)***

Perceived quality 0.992 0.148 0.371 6.683 0.000 ───

Dependent variable: Intention to purchase,R2=0.138.***P<0.001.

Table 2: Perceived quality regression results

19

H3: If perceived sacrifice on monetary price is low then intention to purchase is high.

Model

Unstandardizedcoefficients

Standardizedcoefficients

t Sig. F

B Std. error Beta (β)

(Constant) 2.900 1.264 ─── 2.294 0.02343.318(1287)***

Perceived sacrifice onmonetary price

1.032 0.157 0.362 6.582 0.000 ───

Dependent variable: Intention to purchase,R2=0.131.***P<0.001.

Table 3: Monetary price regression results

20

H4: If perceived sacrifice on non-monetary price is low then intention to purchase is high.

Model

Unstandardizedcoefficients

Standardizedcoefficients t Sig. F

B Std. error Beta (β)

(Constant) -5.566 1.889 ─── -2.947 0.00378.831(1284)***

Perceived sacrifice onnon-monetary price

1.302 0.147 0.466 8.879 0.000 ───

Dependent variable: Intention to purchase,R2=0.217.***P<0.001.

Table 4: Non-monetary price regression results

Conclusion

21

Perceived brand image, perceived quality and perceived sacrifice combine to explain over two-thirds of the variance in ITP.

Four key factors (both monetary and non-monetary price) are the decision making of consumers regarding ITP in the hotel restaurant dining context.

22

Conclusion

23

Limitation

24

The limitations for this study revolve include its necessary selection of one particular study context; essentially, only one hotel chain locatedin Thailand.

Most of the participants in this study were leisure travelers.

Limitation

Reflection

25

26

Perceived value always influences customer intention to purchase.

On the hotel party who look forward to achieving the customers’ requirements increase intention to purchase.

Reflection

Thank you for listening. 27