Culinary science and hospitality research (한국조리학회지)

Culinary Society of Korean Academy (한국조리학회)
권호 표지

Does Tangible Clue influence on Perceived Risk and Overall Satisfaction? : Focused on the Customers at Family Restaurants in South Korea

유형적 근거가 지각된 위험 및 총만족에 미치는 영향 (패밀리레스토랑 고객을 대상으로)

  • 윤태환 (경동대학교 관광학부) ;
  • 이강춘 (경남정보대학교 호텔조리학과) ;
  • 최영준 (경동대학교 관광학부)
  • Received : 2015.08.19
  • Accepted : 2015.10.15
  • Published : 2015.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate tangible clues influence on perceived risk and overall satisfaction of customers at family restaurant in South Korea. In this research overall CFA and SEM were employed to analyze the data. Tangible clues were divided to 3 factors and perceived risk to 6 factors. Tangible clue 1 'physical evidence', had negative(-) influence on financial risk(p<0.01), performance risk(p<0.01) and psychological risk(p<0.001). Tangible clue 2 'employee' affected negatively(-) time risk(p<0.001), performance risk(p<0.001), psychological risk(p<0.01) and social risk(p<0.001). And tangible clue 3 'service process' influenced negatively(-) physical risk(p<0.01), time risk(p<0.05), financial risk (p<0.001) and performance risk(p<0.01). And among customer's perceived risks, 3 factors(time risk~p<0.001, performance risk~p<0.001, social risk~p<0.001) influenced negatively(-) their overall satisfaction. Through these results, it appears that customers perceive various tangible clues and risks at family restaurants. And they are likely to satisfy or dissatisfy according to their perceived risks. As a result, food service companies need to research various customers' perceived risks as important marketing strategy, and reduce them for increase and induction of customers' satisfaction.

본 연구는 패밀리레스토랑의 유형적 근거가 고객들의 지각된 위험 및 총만족에 미치는 영향을 알아보기 위한 것이었다. 자료 분석을 위하여 CFA와 SEM이 사용되었다. 유형적 근거는 3개의 요인으로, 지각된 위험은 6개의 요인으로 분석되었다. 분석결과, 유형적 근거 1 '물리적 증거'는 금전적 위험(p<0.01), 성과적 위험(p<0.01), 심리적 위험(p<0.001)에 부정적인 영향을 주었다. 유형적 근거 2 '종사원'은 시간적 위험(p<0.001), 성과적 위험(p<0.001), 심리적 위험(p<0.01), 사회적 위험(p<0.001)에 부정적인 영향을 주었다. 한편 유형적 근거 3 '서비스 과정'은 신체적 위험(p<0.01), 시간적 위험(p<0.05), 금전적 위험(p<0.001), 성과적 위험(p<0.01)에 부정적인 영향을 주었다. 그리고 지각된 위험 중에서 시간적 위험(p<0.001), 성과적 위험(p<0.001), 사회적 위험(p<0.001)은 고객의 총만족에 부정적인 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났다. 결국 본 연구의 결과를 통해 유형적 근거는 고객의 위험인지에 유의한 영향을 주었으며 또한 고객은 이에 따라 만족 혹은 불만족을 하는 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 외식기업은 고객의 위험인지를 감소시키는 마케팅 전략으로써 뿐만 아니라 만족을 유도하는 중요한 대안으로써 유형적 근거를 지속적으로 관리할 필요가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Brent Lynn Selby Coker, Nicholas Jeremy Ashill, Beverley Hope (2011). Measuring internet product purchase risk. European Journal of Marketing 45(7/8):253-261.
  2. Bitner MJ (1990). Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing 54(2):69-82. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251871
  3. Bobbitt LL, Dabholkar PA (2001). Integrating attitudinal theories to understand and predict use of technology-based self-service. International Journal of Service Industry Management 12(5):423-450. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006092
  4. Chang ML, Wu WY (2012). Revisiting perceived risk in the context of online shopping : an alternative perspective of decision-making styles. Psychology, Marketing 29(5):35-47.
  5. Christo Boshoff (2002). Service advertising : An exploratory study of risk perceptions. Journal of Service Research 4(4):290-298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670502004004006
  6. Dowling GR, Staelin R (1994). A model of perceived risk and risk handling activities. Journal of Consumer Research 21:119-134. https://doi.org/10.1086/209386
  7. Douglas West, Gerard P Prendergast (2009). Advertising and promotions budgeting and the role of risk. European Journal of Marketing 43(11/12):141-151.
  8. Gary Davies, Rosa Chun (2013). Employee as symbol : stereotypical age effects on corporate brand associations. European Journal of Marketing 46(5): 33-42.
  9. Guan Ru Chen (2010). The risk reduction role of advertising in relation to price rigidity. European Journal of Marketing 44(11/12):123-136.
  10. Jing Yang Zhong, Mitchell VW (2013). When having is not enough: implications of being satisfied. European Journal of Marketing 47(11/12):55-73.
  11. Karl J Mayer, John T Bowen, Margaret T Moulton (2003), A proposed model of the descriptors of service process. The Journal of Services Marketing 17(6/7):621-636. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040310495645
  12. Klerck D, Sweeney JC (2004). The effect of knowledge types on consumer-perceived risk and adoption of genetically modified foods. Psychology, Marketing 24(2):314-325.
  13. Laroche M, Gorcon HG, McDougall, Jasmin Bergeron, Zhiyong Yang (2004). Exploring how intangibility affects perceived risk. Journal of Service Research 6(4):373-389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670503262955
  14. Leclerc France, Schmitt Bernd H, Dube Laurette (1995). Waiting time and decision making: Is time like money? Journal of Consumer Research 22(1): 110-119. https://doi.org/10.1086/209439
  15. Manuela Lopez, Sicilia Maria (2013). How WOM marketing contributes to new product adoption: Testing competitive communication strategies. European Journal of Marketing 47(7):272-284.
  16. Martin SS, Camarero C (2009). How perceived risk affects online buying. On Line Information Review 33(4):223-231.
  17. Mittal B (2002). Services communications: from mindless tangibilization to meaningful messages. Journal of Services Marketing 16(5):421-431.
  18. Mitchell VW, M Greatorex (1993). Risk perception and reduction in the purchase of consumer services. The Service Industries Journal 13:179-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069300000068
  19. Mitchell VW, MK Hogg (1999). Consumer perceived risk: conceptualizations and models. European Journal of Marketing 33(1/2):163-195. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569910249229
  20. Pierre Chandon, Brian Wansink, Gilles Laurent (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing 64(4): 65-81. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.4.65.18071
  21. Pi SM, Sangruang J (2011). The perceived risks of online shopping in Taiwan. Social Behavior and Personality 39(2):87-97.
  22. Rafiq M, PK Ahmed (1995). Using the 7Ps as a generic marketing mix: An exploratory survey of UK and European marketing academics. Marketing Intelligence, Planning 13(9):4-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634509510097793
  23. Shim SI, Lee Y (2011). Consumer's perceived risk reduction by 3D virtual model. International Journal of Retail, Distribution Management 39(12):107-118.
  24. Srivastava K, Sharma NK (2011). Exploring the multidimensional role of involvement and perceived risk in brand extension. International Journal of Commerce, Manmagement 21(4):49-57.
  25. Stone RN, Görnhaug Kjell (1993). Perceived risk : Further considerations for the marketing discipline. European Journal of Marketing 27(3):39-50. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569310026637
  26. Xuemei Bian, Luiz Moutinho (2011). The role of brand image, product involvement, and knowledge in explaining consumer purchase behaviour of counterfeits : Direct and indirect effects. European Journal of Marketing 45(1/2):55-68.
  27. Yan Huang, Harmen Oppewal, Felix Mavondo (2013). The influence of ethnic attributes on ethnic consumer choice of service outlet. European Journal of Marketing 47(5/6):143-160.
  28. Yelkur R (2000). Customer satisfaction and the services marketing mix. Journal of Professional Services Marketing 21(1):105-110. https://doi.org/10.1300/J090v21n01_07
  29. Youjae Yi, Hoseong Jeon, Beomjon Choi (2013). Segregation vs aggregation in the loyalty program: the role of perceived uncertainty. European Journal of Marketing 47(8):203-219.
  30. Zeithaml VA, MJ Bitner, DD Gremler (2006). Services Marketing. McGRAW. HILL 4th. 54-75.