Customer Perceptions of Restaurant Cleanliness: A Cross Cultural Study

By

Seung Ah Yoo

Thesis submitted to the faculty of the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

Master of Science
In
Hospitality and Tourism Management

Suzanne K. Murrmann, Chair
BeomCheol (Peter) Kim
Manisha Singal

July 9, 2012
Blacksburg, Virginia

Keywords: Service Quality, Restaurant Cleanliness, Culture

Customer Perceptions of Restaurant Cleanliness: A Cross Cultural Study
Seung Ah Yoo
(ABSTRACT)
What is a clean restaurant in customers’ viewpoints? Restaurant cleanliness is considered one of the most significant conditions when customers evaluate overall restaurant quality or decide their levels of satisfaction. However, there have been few studies of perceptions of restaurant cleanliness in customers’ eyes. Previous studies were found to use inconsistent concepts of restaurant cleanliness when evaluating restaurant cleanliness. For example, some measurement scale of restaurant quality or customer satisfaction includes only items related to a restaurant’s interior appearance to measure the restaurant cleanliness. Some researchers have also included items related to server’s appearance. In other studies, overall images of a restaurant were used to evaluate its cleanliness.
This study attempts to investigate the customers’ perceptions of restaurant cleanliness.
Understanding what customers consider when they evaluate a restaurant’s cleanliness can be beneficial for hospitality managers who can use the information to increase their restaurant’s quality and to satisfy their customers. In addition, this study was conducted with two different cultural groups of customers:
Westerners and Asians. Understanding how different cultures perceive restaurant cleanliness can help hospitality managers who plan to expand their business in the global market.
The results of this study indicated that the items of restroom personal hygiene, restroom appearance and server’ behavior all have a positive relationship with customers’ restaurant quality evaluations. The level of importance of restaurant cleanliness dimensions was found to be similar between the Western and Asian samples. The server’s behavior, restroom appearance and signage were found to be the most important dimensions for both groups. However, restroom personal hygiene was found to be the only dimension ranked differently by the two groups in the study. Westerners weighed the restroom personal hygiene as more important than did Asian respondents. Asian groups were found to have higher expectations for overall restaurant cleanliness dimensions than Western groups.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
Statement of Problem…….……………………...…………………………………….…….1
Objectives of the Study…..………………………..…………………………………….…..2
Research Questions………..……………………………………………………………...…3
Definition of Terms………………………………….…………………………………........4
Organization of the Study…...………………………...……………………………….........5
Summary……….………………………………………...………………………………….5

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction………………………………………………...…………………..….…….…...6
Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction……………………………………….…......…...6
Service Quality and Satisfaction in the Restaurant ……………………………….……..…..9
Restaurant Cleanliness…………………………………...…………………………….……10
Service Encounter……………………………………………..….……………...…….…...16
Customer-Contact Employees…………………………………….………..………………17
Cultural Differences and Service Quality Evaluation……………………………....….......18
Summary……….…………………..………………………………………………………21

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….......22
Research Questions and Hypotheses……………………………………………………….22
Research Design……………………………………………………………………...…….24
Instrumentation…………………………………………………………..…………………26
Sample and Data Selection…………………………………………..…………………......28
Analysis………………………..............................................................................................28

iii

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..….29
Profile of Respondents………..………………………………………………….………...29
General Perceptions of Restaurant Cleanliness…….………………………………..……..31
Factor Analysis………………………………………………………………………...…...33
Reliability and Validity………..............................................................................................36
The First Hypotheses Testing………………………………………………...…………….38
Importance Levels of Dimensions of Restaurant Cleanliness….………………………......40
Cross-Cultural Comparison….…………………………………………………………......40
Additional Tests on Demographics.……………………………………………………......44
Summary……..…………………………………………………………………..…………46

CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction….………………………………………………………………….……….....48
Discussion of Findings....………………………………………………………………......48
Implications….………………………………………………………………..……………52
Limitations and Future Research………………………………………………….………..54
Conclusion…..…………………………………………………………………….………..55

REFERENCE...........................................................................................................................56
APPENDIX A. Restaurant Cleanliness Survey (English version)……………………........61
APPENDIX B. Restaurant Cleanliness Survey (Chinese version) ………………………...66
IRB APPROVAL LETTER..................................................................................................... 71

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Restaurant Cleanliness Related Items Categorized as Three Clues……………...…..15
Table 3.1 Results of Two Focus Groups on Restaurant Cleanliness Items….………….............25
Table 4.1 Summary of General Demographic Information………………….…………............30
Table 4.2 Summary of General Perceptions of the Restaurant Cleanliness…………................32
Table 4.3 VARIMAX Rotated Components Factor Matrix for Restaurant Cleanliness Items…34
Table 4.4 Summarized Factor Analyses of Restaurant Cleanliness Items……... ……………...35
Table 4.5 Summarized Multiple Regression Results……………………………………...…....39
Table 4.6 Comparison of Importance Levels for Summary Dimension of Restaurant
Cleanliness………………………………………………………………………….............41
Table 4.7 Multivariate Analysis of the Dimensions of Restaurant Cleanliness………………..42
Table 4.8 Multivariate Analysis of the Dimensions of Restaurant Cleanliness by Living Area…………………………………………………………………………......45
Table 4.9 Multivariate Analysis of Restaurant Interior Appearance by Living Area…………...45
Table 4.10 Summary of Hypotheses Testing ………………………………………………......47

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………..…......22

vi

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Restaurant cleanliness has been perceived by researchers to be one of key factors in customers’ restaurant quality evaluations (Becker, Murrmann et al. 1999; Barber and Scarcelli 2009; Jang and Liu
2009)Researchers indicated that customers will select restaurants that meet their standards for quality and value; restaurateurs who ignore this will see customer traffic decline as guests support competing restaurants (Stevens, Knutson et al. 1995). Delivering satisfactory customer service is the most important aspect of managing service quality within hospitality firms as well (Butcher, Sparks et al.
2009). Therefore, researchers have noted that in a competitive service business environment, managers should understand their customers and provide service that increases their ability to attract new customers and to win the loyalty of existing customers, as well as increasing the positive wordof-mouth effect (Boulding, Kalra et al. 1993; Berkman, Lindquist et al. 1997; Joseph, Brady et al.
2000; Walter, Edvardsson et al. 2010). In this manner, understanding customers’ expectations or perceptions of restaurant cleanliness can be essential for successful restaurant management. However, it is found that previous studies used inconsistent concepts of restaurant cleanliness. For example, some studies used only the physical environment such as the interior of the dining area to evaluate restaurant cleanliness(Parasuraman, Zeithaml et al. 1988; Ryu and Jang 2008); others used restroom condition or the appearance of customer’s contact employee (Becker, Murrmann et al. 1999; Barber and Scarcelli 2009; Jang and Liu 2009; Barber and Scarcelli 2010). In a Chinese study, restaurant cleanliness was evaluated as the overall images of the restaurant (Jang and Liu 2009). One scale has been developed to measure restaurant cleanliness, but it deals with physical environment quality only
(Barber and Scarcelli 2010). However, when a customer evaluates the overall quality of a service, diverse dimensions have an influence on his or her rational and emotional perceptions (Berry, Wall et al. 2006). Therefore, it can be considered that restaurant cleanliness evaluation may be affected by diverse factors that customers perceive to be significant.
This study identifies the dimensions affecting customers’ perceptions of restaurant cleanliness and
1

proceeds to modify the previously used restaurant cleanliness scale. Using the modified scale, this study investigates which dimensions have a positive effect on customer service quality evaluation.
In addition, this study compares the perceptions of restaurant cleanliness between two different cultural groups: Westerners and Asians.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The primary objective of this study is to examine customer perceptions of cleanliness in tableservice restaurants by modifying previous restaurant cleanliness measurement scale. The underlying assumption is that restaurant cleanliness is a significant factor in positive or negative determination of customer perceptions of restaurant quality. If this assumption is correct, then what kinds of items or dimensions affect customer’s perceptions of restaurant cleanliness? Is the physical environment the most important consideration for a customer? If so, which items are seen as significant? Do evaluations of employees have more significance in a customer’s decision about the cleanliness of a restaurant than factors in the physical environment? If so, to which items do restaurant guests pay the most attention? This study aims to develop items to evaluate restaurant cleanliness from a customer’s point of view and modify the previous restaurant cleanliness scale(Barber and Scarcelli 2010). This study also compares two different cultures, Western and Asian. This comparison will be helpful to companies seeking opportunities in overseas markets, assisting them in developing appropriate strategies based on the results.
The following research objectives were developed for this research to:
1. Identify which items/dimensions restaurant customers perceive as important when they evaluate a restaurant’s cleanliness.
2. Modify the previous restaurant cleanliness scale using the findings.
3. Identify the importance of cleanliness in restaurant customers’ evaluations of service quality. 4. Identify and analyze whether customers from different cultural backgrounds have different viewpoints about restaurant cleanliness.
2

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Based on these objectives, this study will address the following two main research questions:
1.

Do customers consider cleanliness to be an important factor in restaurant service quality evaluation? 1-a. Are functional cleanliness clues important to customers’ restaurant service quality evaluations? 1-b. Are mechanic cleanliness clues important to customers’ restaurant service quality evaluations? 1-c. Are humanic cleanliness clues important to customers’ restaurant service quality evaluations? 2.

Are there significant differences in restaurant cleanliness evaluations among customers from different cultures?

3

DEFINITION OF TERMS
Service Quality: The differences between customer expectations of a service and their perceptions of the service delivered; also an overall attitude of customer’s encounters with the service provider(Zeithaml, Parasuraman et al. 1990).
Satisfaction: The expectancy confirmation framework, which is a function of the degree to which expectations match, exceed, or fall short of product or service performance (Oliva, Oliver et al. 1992)
Service Encounter: The moment of social interaction between the service customer and the service provider; focuses on the interpersonal element of service firm performance(Bitner, Booms et al. 1990).
Service Behaviors: A wide range of behaviors with important implications for organizational functioning that share the central notion of intent to benefit others through service(Brief and
Motowidlo 1986)
Sub-culture: Also called operating culture, sub-culture is identified through a selected combination of demographic and psychographic variables that signify sub-group identity based upon a set of shared needs, experiences, and activities(Becker and Murrmann 1999).

4

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
This study is organized into five chapters with the specifics as follows.
Chapter I discusses research background, research questions and objectives and definitions of key terms used in this study.
Chapter II provides a review of literature on customer service quality evaluations and cleanliness in the restaurant industry.
Chapter III presents the methodology of the study. It explains steps involved in developing a restaurant cleanliness scale, sampling, data collection procedures and analysis.
Chapter IV provides the results of the statistical analysis.
Chapter V includes findings of the study in relation to the hypotheses, and provides managerial implications. Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are also discussed in this chapter.

SUMMARY
All businesses must find ways to attract new customers and, at the same time, win the loyalty of their current customers. Satisfying customers is the most fundamental factor for maintaining and growing a business. In order to satisfy its customers, a company must provide products and services of consistently good quality to them. However, services have unique characteristics compared to products so managing service quality is considered more complex than product quality management.
Researchers examined various factors affecting customer satisfaction in the restaurant experience and several of them suggested restaurant cleanliness affects customer expectation or perception of restaurant service quality (Becker, Murrmann et al. 1999; Barber and Scarcelli 2009; Barber and
Scarcelli 2010) To obtain better understanding of cleanliness from a customer’s point of view, this study will investigate cleanliness in restaurant service. In addition, this study compares the perceptions of restaurant cleanliness between two different cultures: Western and Asian.

5

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
INTRODUCTION
This study has three aims regarding restaurant cleanliness in service quality from a customer’s point of view. First, this study aims to determine which items or dimensions of restaurant cleanliness are considered in customers’ perceptions. Second, this study assesses the importance of restaurant cleanliness on customer’s restaurant quality evaluation. Lastly, this study will look at whether there is a cultural difference regarding restaurant cleanliness between two cultures, Western and Asian
In order to accomplish these objectives, this chapter reviews the concepts of service quality and customer satisfaction, cleanliness in a restaurant industry, restaurant cleanliness measurement scale, customer-contact employees and cultural differences and service expectations.

SERVICE QUALITY & CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Customer satisfaction has been discussed in the number of academic literature in the service field and researchers found that delivering superior service quality is a prerequisite for customer satisfaction (Parasuraman, Zeithaml et al. 1988; Bartikowski and Llosa 2004). Initially, Oliver (1993)
(1993) suggested that service quality was the antecedent of customer satisfaction and many researchers supported his idea that satisfaction and perceived quality are highly interrelated and also that perceived quality is one of the core determinants of overall satisfaction (Churchill Jr and
Surprenant 1982; Oliva, Oliver et al. 1992; Bitner and Hubbert 1994; Dabholkar, Shepherd et al.
2000).
Quality of service, however, is abstract and subjective because of the unique features of service such as intangibility, heterogeneity and inseparability of production and consumption
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml et al. 1985). Thus, researchers considered delivering service or assessing service quality as posing a challenge compared to the problems and solutions of traditional product marketing (Berry 1980).
6

To assess the quality of a firm’s service, researchers used consumers’ perceptions of quality
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml et al. 1988). According to Zeithaml(1988), perceived quality is the consumer’s judgment about an entity’s overall excellence or superiority. It is a form of attitude and results from a comparison of expectations with perceptions of performance(Zeithaml 1988).
Customers compare their perceptions of the firm performance with what they believe the firm should offer to them. In other words, perceived service quality is viewed as the degree and direction of discrepancy between consumers’ perceptions and expectation (Parasuraman, Zeithaml et al. 1985).
More specifically, if a customer perceives performance exceeds expectations, then the customer is satisfied. On the other hand, if perceived performance falls short of his or her expectations, then the customer is dissatisfied (Namkung and Jang 2007) Therefore, from the customer viewpoint, perceived quality is a highly subjective and differs based on those who judge the product or service(Holbrook and Corfman 1985).
Researchers found that customer’s perceived quality of service or products and satisfaction are positively correlated with each other. Therefore, if a customer evaluates a product or service that has high quality then the customer may perceive high satisfaction (Oh 2000). Moreover, researchers suggested that perceived quality and satisfaction can be a good predictor of customer’s intention to revisit. In other words, if customers believe a service is beyond their desired-service level, their favorable behavioral intentions such as revisit will be increased (Zeithaml, Berry et al. 1996).
Researchers examined the relationship between customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions in their studies(Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Oliver 1981; Cronin Jr and Taylor 1992). For example, Oliver (1981) and Cronin &Taylor (1992) found that customer satisfaction may reinforce customer to use of a certain brand of service on a given occasion. Behavioral intention was firstly conceptualized by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), and the term had been specified as a surrogate indicator of actual behavior in marketing studies. Certain behaviors such as saying positive things about the company to others, recommending the company or service to others, and being a loyal to the company can be indicators of favorable post purchase behavioral intentions (LaBarbera and Mazursky 1983;
Frederick and Sasser 1990; Boulding, Kalra et al. 1993; Rust and Zahorik 1993). Conversely,
7

dissatisfied customers will show unfavorable behavioral intentions such as complaining, switching to competitors, and decreasing the number of business interactions with a company (Hirschman 1970;
Fornell and Wernerfelt 1987; Zeithaml, Berry et al. 1996). Therefore, customer satisfaction can be a practical consideration of customers’ post purchase behavioral intention such as a revisit or word of mouth which is essential to the success of business(Namkung and Jang 2007).
Based on these findings, scholars emphasized the importance of quality and they developed measuring instruments to assess quality. For example, SERVQUAL has been used in worldwide to assess customer service quality evaluation. This instrument was developed using banking, credit card, appliance repair or maintenance, long-distance telephone, and securities brokerage sectors for a sample. SERVQUAL was designed to measure the difference between customers’ expectations for service performance prior to the service encounter and their subsequent perceptions of the service received and five dimensions, reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy and responsiveness, were measured (Parasuraman, Zeithaml et al. 1985; Zeithaml, Parasuraman et al. 1990).
Reliability is the ability to perform the promised service consistently. Assurance is the knowledge of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence. Tangibles are appearance of physical facilities, equipment personnel and communication materials. Empathy is the provision of caring, individualized attention to customer. Lastly, responsiveness is the willingness to help customers and to provide prompt service. (Zeithaml, Parasuraman et al. 1990).
Since SERVQUAL was developed, this model has been applied indiscriminately across a wide variety of services, but there were concerns that the model was not appropriate to identify characteristics most critical to successful service delivery in certain business setting such as the hospitality industry (Becker, Murrmann et al. 1999). Researchers argued that the five-sector solution is not relevant across service industries because when a SERVQUAL instrument is applied to specific industry settings, the instrument would foster omission of items which are critical to a proper service quality assessment (Saleh and Ryan 1991; Babakus and Boller 1992).
For example, the hospitality industry sectors are labor intensive, and the face-to-face interaction between service providers and their customers is an essential feature which differs from
8

such organizations as banks, credit card, repair and maintenance, and telephone companies that
Zeithaml et al (1990) used to develop the SERVQUAL model (Becker, Murrmann et al. 1999).
More specifically, in the hospitality industry such as restaurants and hotels, product (meal or bed), behavior of employees, and environment of restaurant or hotel are transferred between the service customer and service provider (Reuland, Choudry et al. 1985). Therefore, these three attributes should be considered by hospitality business owners to satisfy their customers. For these reasons, scholars developed service quality measure instruments for the hospitality industry such as
LODGSERV(Knutson, Stevens et al. 1990), and DINESERV(Stevens, Knutson et al. 1995).

SERVICE QUALITY & CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN THE RESTAURANT
According to the National Restaurant Association, there were about 960,000 restaurants and foodservice outlets all throughout the United States and the association projected sales were $604 billion in 2011 which is equal to 4percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. It is the nation’s secondlargest private sector employer employing 12.8 million individuals (National Restaurant Association
[NRA], 2011). The restaurant industry has largely grown and is substituting home cooked meals for both eat-in and take out paralleling at change in the American way of life which increasingly has longer work hours and heavy family schedules that leave Americans with less time to cook (Andaleeb and Conway 2006). According to the 2011 restaurant industry fact sheet from the NRA, 43% of adults responded that restaurants are an essential part of their lifestyle and 86% of adults said going out to a restaurant is a nice break from the monotony of daily life. Customers have more options in their restaurant selections than before, and customers today are not static as they test a variety of goods and services in order to achieve a different decision (Williams 2000). Therefore the restaurant industry is more highly competitive environment than in the past.
Restaurant managers now need to understand the uniqueness of their customers and what contributes to their value to retain and attract new customers and at the same time remain competitive and profitable (Walter, Edvardsson et al. 2010). Researchers have used SERVQUAL to measure the service quality of a restaurant, however; attempts have been made to develop a new measurement
9

instrument that is more appropriate to the restaurant industry. For example, DINESERV has been used as a reliable, relatively simple tool for determining how customers view a restaurant’s quality: and it measures services in terms of five factors-good quality, service quality, price and value, atmosphere, and convenience (Stevens, Knutson et al. 1995).
Delivering quality, in either products or services, is a significant component of the competitive strategy (Becker, Murrmann et al. 1999). Academic researchers have conducted many studies regarding restaurant service quality and customer satisfaction, and they found that the following variables contribute to restaurant customer satisfaction: food quality, human service, physical environment, cleanliness, convenient location, speedy service, and reasonable price and value (Lee and Hing ; Stevens, Knutson et al. 1995; Pettijohn 1997; Qu 1997; Wall and Berry 2007;
Barber and Scarcelli 2009).
Wall and Berry (2007) suggested three terms: functional, mechanic and humanic clues as three dimensions that transferred from restaurant service provider to the customer. A functional clue is the technical quality of the food itself and the accuracy or efficiency of the service. A mechanic clue indicates nonhuman elements in the service environment consisting of the ambience and other design including equipment, facility layout, lighting, and color. The last clue is a humanic one which covers the performance, behavior, and appearance of the employees. They identified that dining is a multilayered experience so at least these three types of clues affect a customer’s evaluation of a particular establishment (Wall and Berry 2007).

RESTAURANT CLEANLINESS
Cleanliness is an essential aspect of the restaurant industry. As dining-out rate has been increased, the issues of restaurant cleanliness and food safety have become increasingly emphasized from both managerial and customer viewpoint. According to the Center for Science in the Public
Interest (2008), overall half of all food-borne illnesses were contracted from dining on food prepared outside the home and many of the food-borne illnesses happened because restaurants didn’t follow proper food handling steps.
10

As such, providing safe and clean restaurant environment by reducing the burden of disease from food is the responsibility of restaurant owners, employees, country and state health officials. In addition, the restaurant industry is facing a stricter regulatory environment. In 2009, five organizations, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the U.S, the department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Food Safety and Inspection
Service of the U.S. and the U.S. department of Agriculture (USDA) released Food Code 2009. The
Food Code offers guidelines aimed at prevention and reduction of food-borne illness and death from food produced at the retail level. The Food Code itself is not required but has been adopted by 48 of
56 states and territories which representing 79% of the U.S. population (FDA, 2011).
Food Code 2009 consists of eight chapters and each chapter releases information and guidelines for food safety and sanitary restaurant environment. It is found that Food Code 2009 has stricter regulation than the previous 2005 edition. For example, the recent edition suggests restaurants to hire at least one certified food protection manager. Also, “food allergy awareness” was additionally included to food safety training program (Food 2009).
Center for Disease Control [CDC] and academic scholars introduced dangerous problems in restaurant cleanliness.
For example, holding temperatures is one of the most important methods of controlling the growth of bacteria in food. Proper temperature control prevents many types of pathogens from multiplying to the levels that cause food-borne illness(Association 2010).
Second, inappropriate hand washing of a bacteria infected worker can cause food-borne illness and the report estimates this causes 20% of total food-borne illness (Todd, Greig et al. 2007).
Hands are the main conduit spreading viruses and pathogens, and can carry millions of germs. Poor hand washing practices by foodservice workers can have disastrous and far-reaching consequences by contaminating food that is then served to dinners.
Third, FDA estimates that nearly 16 percent of full-service restaurants were not adequately cooking food (Food 2006). Undercooked meat, poultry, and eggs can harbor enough bacteria to sicken diners. Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 are linked to the most harmful bacteria for undercooked
11

meats.
The fourth regards contaminated food contact surfaces. In 2004, FDA found that over 56 percent of full-service restaurants were not following appropriate guidelines for sanitizing equipment and food contact surfaces (Food 2006). Where bacteria exist, so does the prospect of crosscontamination. Counters and other food preparation surfaces that are inadequately cleaned or food preparation areas that are improperly separated, can promote the transfer of bacteria from one food to another, resulting in widespread contamination.
The fifth is food from unsafe sources food safety risks in a restaurant begins with the purchase of raw food from suppliers. Bacteria that exist in raw food can multiply and produce toxins if the food is inadequately refrigerated during shipping and handling, even before it reaches the restaurant. For products that are commonly served without cooking, such as raw oysters, leafy greens and some processed goods, contamination that occurs prior to entering the restaurant can go directly to a consumer at the table.
So far, this chapter looked at restaurant cleanliness from a managerial viewpoint. All aspects discussed above should be significantly considered by restaurant managers and employees for safe food and clean environment. However, it is also important to understand customer’ expectations or perceptions of restaurant cleanliness. If a restaurant business manager or employee fully understands what aspects a customer considers in determining restaurant cleanliness then they can design their products and service to meet customers’ expectations. Several scholars have conducted studies about restaurant cleanliness and they found relationship between customer satisfaction, service quality evaluation and restaurant cleanliness (Stevens, Knutson et al. 1995; Becker, Murrmann et al. 1999;
Barber and Scarcelli 2009; Barber and Scarcelli 2010).
In 2004, Center for Science and Public Interest [CSPI] surveyed 1,200 consumers to identify five additional concerns in restaurant cleanliness from customers’ view points. According to the survey, employee cleanliness and hygiene, especially employee hands (79%), presence of rodents and insects (63%), improper use of dirty wipe cloths (57%), presence of ill restaurant workers (56%), and bare hands coming into contact with food (55%) were considered by survey respondents (Klein, De
12

Waal et al. 2010).
Brewer and Rojas (2008) conducted study to investigate customer attitude toward food safety issues. In the study, they collected 402 data samples and according to their study, nearly half (47%) of the consumers responded that they consider eating safe very significant. Also, 42.6% of the total respondents believed food from a restaurant was the most likely source of food borne illness.
Furthermore, the study indicated that consumers were very concerned about inspections of restaurant cleanliness (59%) (Brewer and Rojas 2008). As researchers introduced, restaurant customers were found to have some doubts for food safety and cleanliness.
As mentioned above, cleanliness is a key consideration in meeting, government and state regulations as well as to meeting restaurant consumer’s standard of restaurant quality. Many studies found that cleanliness is a significant factor in a customers’ evaluation of restaurant quality, which can affect customers’ level of satisfaction (Zeithaml, Parasuraman et al. 1990; Pettijohn 1997; Qu 1997;
Becker, Murrmann et al. 1999; Bienstock, DeMoranville et al. 2003; Threevitaya 2003; Aksoydan
2007; Barber and Scarcelli 2009; Jang and Liu 2009; Barber and Scarcelli 2010).
Bienstock et al.(2003) evaluated food safety and sanitation procedures in relation to customer perceptions of service quality in restaurants using three items; dining room cleanliness, restroom cleanliness and food safety. According to their study, unless food safety and cleanliness were obvious to customers, the link to service quality was not evident (Bienstock, DeMoranville et al. 2003).
Threevitaya(2003) found, in Thailand, that restaurant hygiene and cleanliness were the first factors customers considered when dining out. Zeithaml et al.(1990) and Aksoydan(2007) suggested that food service establishments that failed to meet the standards of food hygiene and cleanliness expected by customers would be assessed as having poor or low quality service. Pettijohn et al.(1997) found quality, cleanliness, and value to be the three most important attributes customers consider in selecting fast-food restaurants. The cleanliness of the restroom was also found to be an important criterion when a customer evaluates the overall quality of a foodservice establishment (Klara 2004; Barber and
Scarcelli 2009).
To date, however, there is no consistent instrument for measuring cleanliness in a restaurant.
13

A majority of the previous studies used items in the physical environmental to test a customer’s perception of cleanliness in a restaurant. In particular, Barber and Scarcelli(2010) have developed a cleanliness measurement scale for restaurants which is the only cleanliness scale available for restaurant settings. Their scale included physical factors such as the exterior or interior of the restaurant, as well as restroom cleanliness. Since services are intangible and usually cannot be experienced prior to a purchase, customers tend to rely on tangible environmental clues to guide their expectations about a given service encounter (Shostack 1977). However, as mentioned earlier, service is a multilayered experience affected by numerous factors. Wall and Berry (2007) suggested these factors fall into three clues: functional, mechanic and humanic. Therefore, it is important to develop a reliable measure for cleanliness in restaurants that includes more than just physical environmental factors. DINESERV, which is a widely-used restaurant service quality measurement scale, also restricts the dimension of ‘cleanliness’ to the facilities and staff members’ appearance (Stevens,
Knutson et al. 1995). In a study of Chinese restaurant service quality, ‘cleanliness’ is used vaguely to indicate customers’ overall perception of a restaurant(Qu 1997). One study examined service staffs’ visible sanitation practices to test customers’ expectations of service quality using four items: neatness of hair style, cleanliness of hair, condition of nails and hands, and behavior in touching the surfaces of eating utensils (Becker, Murrmann et al. 1999).
Table 2.1 presents items related to restaurant cleanliness previously used to measure service quality in the literatures. These items are classified into three categories as functional, mechanic and humanic clues.

14

Table 2.1 Restaurant Cleanliness Related Items Categorized as Three Clues
Types of Service Clues

Items


Functional Clues

Food
-Freshness
-Presentation
-Healthy menu options
-Temperature of food



Mechanic Clues

Exterior of restaurant
-Garden and driveway
-Building exterior
-Parking lot
-Age of building
-Neighborhood of restaurant
 Restroom appearance
-Dirty or soiled sink
-Dirty floor
-Dirty, cracked wall, and ceiling tiles
-Trash in toilets
-Odor in restroom

Interior of restaurant
-Seat cushions
-Carpet and floors
-Windows
-Furniture
-Bar/lounge
-Windowsills

Restroom personal hygiene
-No toilet paper
-No soap
-No hot water
-No paper towels/drying device

Dining room personal health
-Place ware and eating utensils (plates, forks, etc.)
-Glassware
-Table cloth and napkins


Humanic Clues



Server’s appearance
-Hair style
- Uniform
-Hand and Nails
-Accessories
Server’s behavior
-Bare-hand contact with food
-Improper handle glassware and dishes
-Eating/ drinking
-Smoking
-Sickness (coughing, sneezing, runny nose, etc.)
-Multitasking employee

15

Based on the aforementioned discussion, this study will test the effect of restaurant cleanliness on customer service quality evaluation. Moreover, this study will revise current service quality measurement for restaurant cleanliness by including the aspects of all three clues (i.e. functional, mechanic, and humanic).
Hypothesis 1
Customer perceptions of restaurant cleanliness will have a positive effect on customer’s evaluations of service quality.
H1-a. Functional clues will have a positive effect on customer evaluations of service quality.
H1-b. Mechanic clues will have a positive effect on customer evaluations of service quality.
H1-c. Humanic clues will have a positive effect on customer evaluations of service quality.

SERVICE ENCOUNTER
In service management literature, the term “service encounter” is widely established and indicates the contact situation between service customer and service provider(Stauss and Mang 1999).
Zeithaml(1981) explained service encounters using the term “moments of truth.” This term stems from the characteristic of services such as intangibility and customer participation in the service production process. With these unique characteristics, customers evaluate the quality of service based on their perceptions of service situations. In the literature, service encounter is defined either narrowly or broadly(Stauss and Mang 1999).
The narrow understanding limits the service encounter to the personal interaction between the customer and the employees(Surprenant and Solomon 1987). In this narrow definition, Surprenant and Solomon(1987) defined service encounter as “dyadic interaction between a customer and a service provider”, Solomon, Surprenant, Czepiel and Gutman (1985, p.100) defines it as “form of human interaction”. On the other hand, in a broader definition, Shostack (1985, p.243) defines a service encounter as a “period of time during which a consumer directly interacts with a service”. In this broader definition, all aspects of the service which the customer may come in contact with are included. This includes not only interactions with the service staff, but all contacts with different
16

elements that are also part of the service encounter such as physical facilities (building, equipment), service systems and other customers. Both narrow and broad definitions emphasizes that service quality depends on the success of the service encounter.(Stauss and Mang 1999).

CUSTOMER-CONTACT EMPLOYEES
As the literature reviews suggests, quality of service is affected by diverse factors. Among various factors, service staff, especially a customer-contact employee is discussed in many studies because of the interactive nature of the service delivery(Grö nroos 1984). Grö nroos(1984) found that customer contact with an employee’s behavior can positively or negatively affect customer’ perceptions of service performance. Such behaviors usually are associated with what are called
“process” opposed to the “outcome” or “technical” quality(Grö nroos 1984).
Zeithaml and Bitner (2000) described a customer-contact employee as a link between the external customer and the internal operations of the organization. Therefore, the customer-contact employee plays a critical function in understanding, filtering, and interpreting information and resources to and from the organization and its external constituencies (Tsang and Ap 2007). Given that hospitality services are labor intensive and consist of face-to-face encounters between service providers and customer(Becker, Murrmann et al. 1999), it becomes clear that humanic clues should be considered for overall quality management in the hospitality industry including the restaurant business.
In a restaurant setting, customer contacts occur with several different employees during customers’ restaurant experience. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001) classifies food and beverage preparation and service occupations into fifteen types of occupations and among them five occupations are related with the restaurant business: hosts and hostesses, bartenders, waiters and waitresses, dining room and cafeteria attendants and bartender helpers and cooks. The Bureau defined each occupation but in many restaurants specific employee duties vary considerably depending on the establishment. For example, a full service restaurant frequently hires other staff such as hosts and hostesses, cashiers or dining room attendants but in many casual restaurants, wait staff are asked to perform expanded duties than definition of their occupations.
17

For example, it is quite common for a wait staff to greet customers, escort them to their seats and hands them a menu, take food and drink orders, and serve food and beverages. The service provider also answers questions, explains menu items and specials, keeps tables and dining areas clean, and resets for new diners. Wait staff, also called server, is the largest group of restaurant workers and they are in the front line of customer service most expect to have contact with customers
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001).

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND SERVICE QUALITY EVALUATION
In recent years, service has increasingly become a global business. As a result of increasing globalization, service companies are trying to conduct business with customers of different cultures
(Stauss and Mang 1999). Since customer contact and interaction with employees are necessary part of service delivery, researchers emphasized the importance of understanding cultural differences. Many cross-cultural studies suggested that consumers’ expectations and perceptions of what constitutes good service are inevitably culturally bound so that culture affects customers’ service assessments
(Zeithaml, Parasuraman et al. 1990; Becker, Murrmann et al. 1999; Mattila 1999). Therefore, if service managers understand their customers’ cultural characteristics then they can allocate limited resource more effectively (Furrer, Liu et al. 2000).
Hofstede’s definition of culture has been the most widely employed among numerous crosscultural studies. Hofstede (1988, p.6) defined “culture” that “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another.” While identifying four universal dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, and masculinityfemininity (Hofstede 1984).
Power distance is defined as “the extent to which the lesser power members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.”
Uncertainty avoidance is defined as “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations.”
Individualism “pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose.” In
18

contrast, collectivism “pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive groups, which through a lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.” Individualistic people prefer to act as individuals rather than as members of groups. Masculinity and femininity represent “the dominant sex role pattern in the vast majority of both traditional and modern societies.” Masculine societies value male assertiveness, and feminine societies value female nurturing.
Another scholar, Hall (1966) defines culture is deep, common, unstated experiences which members of same culture share. Communication was an important issue in his studies because he believed communication is a direct reflection of a culture. Therefore, understanding communication style (i.e., how one receives, interprets, and responds) would assist to understand the cultural differences(Hall 1977). Two different communication cultures: high-context (HC) and low-context
(LC) were suggested. In the high context culture (HC), individuals tend to communicate with physical context or explicit message. On the other hand, low context culture uses explicit way of communication such as full description with precision and clarity(Hall 1966).
Based on dimensions discussed above, many studies have found distinct cultural differences between the Western and the Asian. Even though in some Asian cultures with degree of
Westernization, some unique Asian cultures such as Confucian philosophy remains vital distinguishing them from their Westerner counterparts (Tan and Farley 1987).
Most Asian countries (i.e., Hong Kong, India, Singapore, Thailand, etc.) are characterized by large power distance. Conversely, the cultures of many Western countries (i.e., Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Scandinavian nations) are less accustomed to status differences, producing low scores on the dimension of power distance (Hofstede 1984). These differences affect service styles. Broadly speaking, service styles in Asia are more people-oriented than in the West, where the efficiency of service delivery is highly valued (Riddle 1992). One study found that Asian customers tend to have higher expectations for the quality of interactions in service encounters. Whereas Western customers are more likely to focus on the outcome rather than the
19

process through which service is delivered(Mattila 2000)
Difference of communication context was also found between the Western and the Asian.
Many Asian cultures are characterized by high-context communication while Western cultures are more low-context communication (Hall 1966).
Cross-cultural studies of Western and Asian restaurant customer service quality evaluations have revealed that customers from different cultures consider different factors when they evaluate the quality of a restaurant’s service (Becker and Murrmann 1999; Mattila 1999). Restaurant cleanliness or sanitation was found to be a factor affecting customers’ service quality evaluations.
Becker et al. (1999) ascertained that customers in American and Hong Kong have different expectations of restaurant service with regard to restaurant sanitation (Becker, Murrmann et al.
1999). According to their studies, sanitation was ranked most important by the respondents in the
U.S. and was of secondary importance to the customers in Hong Kong among six service dimensions: Sanitation, Cordiality, Professionalism, Accommodation, Knowledge and Entertainment.
Although, both groups indicated that sanitation was a significant dimension, there were differences in the way sanitation was assessed. American respondents indicated that they place more weight on the avoidance of contact between servers’ hands and eating utensils, as well as the condition of servers’ hair. However, respondents in Hong Kong place more importance on how well -manicured a server’s hands are. This supports the idea that customers from different cultures have different expectations or perceptions of service quality. Therefore, it is believed that managers should pay attention to cultural differences when they expand

in the global economy (Hofstede 1984).

Therefore, the following hypothesis is
Hypothesis 2
There are significant differences in how different cultures perceive restaurant cleanliness.

20

SUMMARY
This chapter summarized the literature on service quality and satisfaction, service encounters, customer-contact employees, cleanliness in restaurants, and cultural differences in service quality evaluation. The literature review indicated that restaurant customer satisfaction is affected by diverse factors such as products, humanic service, and atmosphere. Furthermore, the literature highlights that cleanliness is a significant factor for customer evaluations of service quality in restaurants. However, previous studies only restricted their investigations to the physical environment of a restaurant, disregarding more dimensions such as food or human service to evaluate restaurant cleanliness. Based on the literature review, the research hypothesis states that all three clues: functional, mechanic and humanic, will affect customers’ evaluation of service quality. This chapter also reviewed the literature regarding cultural differences in service quality evaluation. Based on this review, the research hypothesis states that Western and Asian customers will have different perceptions of restaurant cleanliness. 21

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of this study is to examine customer perceptions of cleanliness in tableservice restaurants by modifying previous restaurant cleanliness measurement scale proposed by
Barber and Scarcelli (2010). To achieve this purpose, this study will investigate the factors or items that most greatly impact customer perceptions of cleanliness in table service restaurants. In addition, this study also seeks to identify cultural differences between the Western and Asian participants in service quality evaluations and restaurant cleanliness perceptions. This chapter discusses the methods employed to carry out the research. It is divided into the following sections: research design, research hypotheses, and sample and data selection.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
To modify the previous restaurant cleanliness scale, this study investigated customers’ perceptions of restaurant cleanliness. This section discusses the research questions and hypotheses guiding this study. The theoretical model for this study is illustrated in Figure 3.1, a demonstration of the series of hypotheses employed.

Figure3.1 Theoretical Framework

22

This study addresses the following two research questions; the first research question has three subresearch questions:
1. Do customers consider cleanliness to be an important factor for restaurant quality?
1-a. Are functional cleanliness items important to customers’ restaurant quality evaluations?
1-b. Are mechanic cleanliness items important to customers’ restaurant quality evaluations? 1-c. Are humanic cleanliness items important for customers restaurant quality evaluations? 2. Are there significant differences in restaurant cleanliness evaluations between customers from different cultures?
Based on the research questions for this study, two main hypotheses are developed to investigate the relationship between restaurant cleanliness and customer evaluations of restaurant quality. The hypotheses this study proposes are as follows:
Hypothesis1.
Customer perceptions of restaurant cleanliness will have a positive effect on customer evaluation of restaurant quality.
H1-a.Functional items will have a positive effect on customer evaluations of service quality.
H1-b.Mechanic items will have a positive effect on customer evaluations of service quality.
H1-c.Humanic items will have a positive effect on customer evaluations of service quality.

Hypothesis2.
There are significant differences in how different cultures perceive restaurant cleanliness.

23

RESEARCH DESIGN
This study will be conducted in three stages.
Stage one. A focus group of college students at Virginia Tech University was used to investigate customer’s perceptions of restaurant cleanliness. Also, focus group discussions were conducted to revise earlier service quality measurement instruments for restaurant cleanliness. Because this study incorporates two different cultural viewpoints, two focus groups- Westerners and Asians were conducted. The Western group consisted of three American college students and the Asian group consisted of five international students from an Asian country. During the 90 minute focus group session, participants were asked to identify specific considerations that they take in evaluating cleanliness in table-service restaurants. Also, items organized in Table 2.1 were discussed and participants freely added or disregarded some items. The final items collected from two focus groups are displayed in Table 3.1. There were no big differences between the considerations of focus group participants and restaurant regulation. Most items that focus group participants agreed the importance of restaurant cleanliness were included to food safety and restaurant cleanliness regulatory items.
However, one participant told that he tends to be stricter for popular chain restaurant than local small restaurant when evaluating cleanliness. Since his opinion was not agreed by most participants that this item was not included to the questionnaire.

24

Table3.1 Results of Two Focus Groups on Restaurant Cleanliness Items
Types of Service Clues

Items

-Freshness
-Presentation
-Temperature of food

Food

-Unprotected food (e.g. uncovered condiments on the table)
-Food contact surface (e.g. plates, glassware)



Exterior of restaurant



Interior of restaurant
-Carpet and floors
-Windows& Windowsills
-Tablecloths
-Open kitchen
-Presence or evidence of vermin in food or non-food areas
-Humidity
-Restaurant inspection score posted

Environment


Restroom
-Dirty floor
-Trash in toilets
-Odor in restroom
-No toilet paper
-No soap
-No hot water
-No paper towels/drying device



Server’s appearance
-Hair style
- Uniform
-Hand and Nails
-Accessories

Server



Server’s behavior
-Bare-hand contact with food
-Eating/ drinking
-Smoking
-Sickness (coughing, sneezing, runny nose, etc.)
-Tasking order (e.g. serving food right after wiping table)

25

Stage two. Based on the results of the focus groups, a questionnaire was developed (See appendix A).
The questionnaire included the scale of customers’ general perceptions of restaurant cleanliness, and importance of restaurant cleanliness along demographic information. This study chose Chinese as represent for Asians; therefore the developed questionnaire had to be translated into Chinese before being distributed to Chinese participants. Proper back translation by individuals who are familiar with both languages and culture was required to maintain equivalence(Adler 1983). Therefore, the questionnaire was translated and back-translated from English to Chinese by Chinese professor in
HTM department in Taiwan who are familiar with both English and Chinese language.

Stage three. Developed questionnaire was used to survey for Western participants and translated version of the questionnaire was used for Asian samples. Because this study was conducted with respondents from two different cultures, the Western and the Asian, casual full-service restaurants were selected for the study. The two cultures may have different restaurant concepts and environment so it is important to focus on a single, well-defined type of restaurant. Based on the focus group interviews with Western and Asian students, specific examples of chain operations were selected and provided in the survey questionnaire. All restaurants selected have similar levels of service and price ranges. In addition, casual full-service restaurants were defined as restaurants with an informal atmosphere in which a host escorts patrons to a table, a menu is presented at the table by a wait staff, and the bill is collected either at the table by a wait staff or at the checkout counter by a cashier.

INSTRUMENTATION
The final questionnaire was divided into three sections. The first section consisted of eight questions regarding customers’ general perceptions of restaurant cleanliness. The first part used a fivepoint Likert scale with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. The second part was comprised of twenty nine questions regarding to restaurant cleanliness items; this part measures the importance of each item when evaluating restaurant cleanliness. Restaurant cleanliness items were categorized into four sections: food, environment, rest room and wait staff. A five-point Likert scale with 1=not at all
26

important and 5= extremely important was used. The third part included demographic questions about survey respondents.

General perceptions of restaurant cleanliness
The first section consists of eight questions related to general perceptions of restaurant cleanliness. For example, the survey asked respondents to rate the importance of restaurant cleanliness when evaluating overall restaurant quality. Also, it investigated the importance of restaurant cleanliness when deciding future revisits, and the relationship between restaurant cost and level of expectations of cleanliness. The impact of restaurant cleanliness to the overall level of satisfaction and tendency to complain about cleanliness were included in the first section of the survey. Responses were based on a Five-point Likert scale with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree.

Restaurant cleanliness items
The second section asked the importance of restaurant cleanliness when evaluating restaurant cleanliness. Twenty-nine restaurant cleanliness items were included and these items were categorized into four parts: food, environment, rest room and wait staff. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each item referring to dining experiences at causal restaurants such as TGI Fridays or
Chili’s. Responses were based on a five-point Likert scale with 1=not at all important and
5=extremely important.

Demographic items
The last section was designed to collect demographic characteristics of respondents such as gender, age, ethnic group, household type, living area, dining frequency, and restaurant work experience. Many hospitality studies on customer expectations and perceptions of service found that gender, age and ethnicity.

27

SAMPLE AND DATA SELECTION
The data consists of two samples, Western and Asian. Western population was sampled from
American students enrolled at Virginia Tech while Asian population was sampled from university students in Taiwan. Convenience sampling was employed to obtain a large number of completed questionnaires quickly and economically; a survey was distributed to respondents directly. To distribute questionnaire to American participants, author contacted professor and instructor of hospitality and tourism management department in VT and under their permissions, visited four HTM undergraduate courses to distribute questionnaires. For Asian sample, author contacted a HTM professor in Tunghai University in Taiwan and she distributed Chinese version questionnaire to her students and collected data. Data collected resulted in 153 Western samples and 100 Asian samples.
To reduce for heterogeneity, casual table service restaurants were described as specific chain restaurant operations; T.G.I Fridays and Chili’s were given as examples. These chain operations were defined as a casual table service restaurants where the wait staff takes order, deliver meals and provide services for dining customers(Becker, Murrmann et al. 1999).

ANALYSIS
Version 20 of the Statistical Package for the social sciences (PASW 20) was used to code and analyze the data. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze general perceptions of restaurant cleanliness and demographic information. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to reduce twenty nine restaurant cleanliness items into distinct dimensions. Multiple regression was used to investigate which restaurant cleanliness dimensions have a positive effect on restaurant quality evaluation.
General linear model was used to analyze the Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) across two groups.

28

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of this study was to identify customers perceptions of restaurant cleanliness by modifying previous “Cleanliness Measurement Scale”(Barber and Scarcelli 2010) including more than the environmental dimensions of a restaurant. In addition, using the modified scale, this study investigated the different perceptions of restaurant cleanliness of two distinct cultures, the Western and the Asian.
This chapter presents the results of the data analysis used to achieve the research objectives testing the research hypotheses proposed in the previous chapter. This chapter is divided into the following sections: profile of respondents, general perceptions of restaurant cleanliness, restaurant cleanliness item factor analysis, scale reliability and validity and hypothesis testing.

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
Table 4.1 illustrates the demographic profile of the Western and Asian participants of this study. The Western sample consisted of 153 surveys and the Asian sample consisted of 100 surveys.
In this study, male respondents represented 41.8% and 27% of the Westerners and Asians, respectively.
Of Western respondents, 53.9% were age20 and under, 40.1% were 21 to 23, 2.6% were 24 to 26 and
3.3% were 27 and older. In the Asian sample 46% were age 20 and under and 41% were 21-23 years old. Those in the Western sample were predominantly Caucasians (85.6%) and most respondents in the Asian sample were Asians (95%). Household types for Westerners were single adult (67.3%), family with children (29.4%) and married couples without children (3.3%). However, almost all the
Asian respondents were single adult (98%). The majority of Western respondents reported that they live in a suburban area, while “urban area” was reported the most often by Asian respondents. In the sample of Westerners 47.7% had some restaurant work experience and 84% of the Asian sample had a some work experience in restaurants.

29

Table 4.1 Summary of General Demographic Information

Western
Frequency

Asian

Percent (%)

Frequency

Percent (%)

Male

64

41.8%

27

27.0%

Gender

Female

89

58.2%

73

73.0%

Age

20 and under

82

53.9%

46

46.0%

21-23

61

40.1%

41

41.0%

24-26

4

2.6%

12

12.0%

27-29

3

2.0%

1

1.0%

30 and over

2

1.3%

0

0.0%

131

85.6%

5

5.0%

13

8.5%

95

95.0%

African-American

7

4.6%

0

0.0%

Hispanic

2

1.3%

0

0.0%

Freshman

52

34.0%

2

2.0%

Sophomore

24

15.7%

47

47.0%

Junior

16

10.5%

24

24.0%

Senior

61

39.9%

12

12.0%

Others

0

0.0%

15

15.0%

103

67.3%

98

98.0%

5

3.3%

0

0.0%

Caucasian
Asian
Ethnicity

Academic status

Household

Single adult
Married-couple without children
Family with children

0

0.0%

0.0%

2

2.0%

Urban

13

8.6%

76

76.0%

96

63.2%

14

14.0%

Rural

Restaurant

29.4%

0

Suburban

Living area

45

Others

43

28.3%

10

10.0%

Yes

72

47.7%

84

84.0%

No

79

52.3%

16

16.0%

work experience

30

GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF RESTAURANT CLEANLINESS
The first section of the restaurant cleanliness questionnaire was composed of eight questions regarding general perceptions of restaurant cleanliness. Table 4.2 indicates the results from Western and Asian respondents. About 90% of each sample agreed or strongly agreed that restaurant cleanliness is important to them. In addition, more than 90% of both groups responded that restaurant cleanliness is an important factor when evaluating the overall quality of a particular restaurant.
Moreover, restaurant cleanliness was found to be an important factor in a customer’s decision about whether or not to return to the restaurant in the future. Of the respondents 95.4% of Westerners and 96% of Asians agreed or strongly agreed that restaurant cleanliness is an important factor in their future decision about whether or not to return to a particular restaurant.
Regarding the cost of a restaurant and expectations of restaurant cleanliness, both group demonstrated similar responses. Concerning restaurants that are more expensive, both groups responded that they have higher expectations of cleanliness. On the other hand, regarding low-budget or inexpensive restaurants, 32% of Westerners and 35% of Asians agreed that they have lower expectations of cleanliness. However, 37.4% of Westerners and 28% of Asians answered that they still have high expectations of restaurant cleanliness even for low budget restaurants. Survey results also indicated that a clean restaurant will increase the overall level of satisfaction of its customers. On the other hand, more than 90% of both groups agreed that a dirty restaurant will decrease their overall level of satisfaction.
The last question was about complaints. About 14% of Westerners and 42% of Asians responded that they tend to complain to restaurant employees if they perceive that a restaurant is dirty.
As the overall results indicated, restaurant cleanliness was found to be an important factor in customers’ restaurant quality evaluations, future purchasing decisions and overall level of satisfaction.
However, it was found that even though respondents from two different cultural groups answered that they perceive restaurant cleanliness to be a significant factor for their dining experience, they tend not to complain when they recognize that a restaurant’s level of cleanliness does not meet their standards.

31

Table 4.2 Summary of General Perceptions the Restaurant Cleanliness
Western
Frequency
Percent (%)

Asian
Frequency

Percent (%)

(Mean=4.69/ SD=.54)

Strongly disagree

1

0.7%

0

0.0%

Disagree

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Neutral

0

0.0%

4

4.0%

Agree

Restaurant cleanliness is important to me

31

20.3%

36

36.0%

121

79.1%

60

60.0%

Strongly agree
Restaurant cleanliness is important to me

Strongly disagree

1

0.7%

0

0.0%

when evaluating overall restaurant quality

Disagree

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

(Mean=4.53/ SD=.60)

Neutral

3

2.0%

5

5.0%

Agree

51

33.3%

48

48.0%

Strongly agree

98

64.1%

47

47.0%

Strongly disagree

1

0.7%

0

0.0%

Restaurant cleanliness is important to me

Disagree

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

when I decide whether I will return to a

Neutral

6

3.9%

3

3.0%

restaurant or not

Agree

67

43.8%

49

49.0%

(Mean=4.45/SD=.61)

Strongly agree

79

51.6%

47

47.0%

I have high expectations of cleanliness

Strongly disagree

1

0.7%

0

0.0%

for high-budget restaurants

Disagree

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

(Mean=4.74/SD=.57)

Neutral

2

1.3%

8

8.0%

Agree

20

13.2%

22

22.0%

128

84.8%

70

70.0%

Strongly agree
I have low expectations of cleanliness

Strongly disagree

13

8.6%

3

3.0%

for low-budget restaurants

Disagree

44

28.8%

25

25.0%

(Mean=2.99/SD=1.02)

Neutral

47

30.7%

37

37.0%

Agree

41

26.8%

28

28.0%

Strongly agree

8

5.2%

7

7.0%

A clean restaurant will increase my overall

Strongly disagree

1

0.7%

0

0.0%

level of satisfaction

Disagree

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

(Mean=4.42/SD=.62)

Neutral

9

5.9%

2

2.0%

Agree

71

46.4%

49

49.0%

Strongly agree

72

47.1%

48

48.0%

A dirty restaurant will decrease

Strongly disagree

1

0.7%

0

0.0%

my overall level of satisfaction

Disagree

3

2.0%

2

2.0%

(Mean=4.43/SD=.70)

Neutral

6

3.9%

4

4.0%

Agree

65

42.5%

40

40.0%

Strongly agree

78

51.0%

54

54.0%

32

I tend to complain to restaurant employee

Strongly disagree

17

11.1%

0

0.0%

if I perceive that a restaurant is dirty.

Disagree

73

47.7%

13

13.0%

(Mean2.85/SD=1.03)

Neutral

42

27.5%

45

45.0%

Agree

17

11.1%

28

28.0%

4

2.6%

14

14.0%

Strongly agree

FACTOR ANALYSIS
The next step of the data analysis was to factor-analyze the patterns of item responses concerning restaurant cleanliness. Factor analysis is used to define the underlying structure among the variables in the analysis; this technique helps to identify the underlying structure to allow for furthrer examination (Hair, Anderson et al. 1998). Principal components analysis with VARIMAX rotation was used to assess underlying dimensions in the data and to identify items associated with each factor.
Factor analysis narrows down the total 29 restaurant cleanliness items to a set of seven dimensions.
Factor loadings have substantially larger standard errors than typical correlations. Thus, factor loadings should be evaluated at considerably stricter levels (Hair, Anderson et al. 1998). Factor loadings of .50 or greater are considered practically significant to obtain a .05 significance level (p) and a power level of 80%. There is also the assumption of standard errors of factor loadings being larger than typical correlation coefficients (Hair, Anderson et al. 1998). Employing the principal components factor analysis, seven factors with an eigenvalue greater than one explained 62.366% of the variance of restaurant cleanliness items. At the first trial of full factor analysis, four items; exterior, unprotected food, humidity and tasking order, were deleted as they did not have high loading values on any factors. At the second factor analysis, it was found that one item, server’s eating and drinking did not load highly on any factors. After this item was deleted, the third factor analysis was conducted.
All remaining twenty-four items were categorized into the seven dimensions. Table 4-2 shows
VARIMAX rotated components factor matrix for twenty four restaurant cleanliness items.

33

Table 4.3 VARIMAX Rotated Components Factor Matrix for Restaurant Cleanliness Items
Variables

VARIMAX rotated loadings
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Tablecloths

.795

.137

.048

.152

.137

.137

.024

windows or windowsills

.722

.265

.186

.097

.015

-.004

.081

open kitchen

.709

.059

-.074

.075

.074

.138

.085

floor and carpet

.702

.299

.063

.209

.101

.046

.127

food contact surface

.524

.105

.244

.021

.054

.323

.169

Uniform

.187

.782

.081

.153

.085

.175

.004

Accessories

.253

.761

.103

.047

.093

.065

.028

hair style

.117

.724

.092

.075

.173

.077

.277

hands and nails

.299

.560

-.037

.258

.303

.108

.213

no soap

.111

-.059

.841

.160

.047

.045

.035

no hot water

.091

.139

.824

.079

-.051

.130

.183

no paper towels or drying device

.032

.176

.779

.246

.080

.123

.040

Odor

.118

.013

.170

.852

.153

.073

.022

Floors

.258

.235

.085

.726

-.014

.179

.146

Trash

.118

.159

.311

.661

.131

.096

.040

Smoking

.049

.130

.024

.015

.809

-.001

.040

coughing and sneezing

.080

.027

.008

.141

.808

.065

.212

bare hand contact

.170

.258

.053

.103

.742

.186

-.034

Freshness

.129

.039

-.019

.198

.141

.765

.080

Temperature

.160

.092

.137

.187

.101

.707

.086

Presentation

.117

.360

.288

-.134

-.048

.667

-.031

employee hand washing signage

.053

.171

.249

.079

.095

-.053

.748

restaurant inspection score posted

.254

.299

.226

-.086

.099

.114

.575

Vermin

.182

-.063

-.225

.261

.089

.265

.553

34

Table 4.4 Summarized Factor Analyses of Restaurant Cleanliness Items
Percentage of
Factor Loadings

Eigenvalue

variance

Cronbach’s
Alpha

explained
6.97

.828

1.55

6.5

.784

1.31

5.4

.752

1.14

4.8

.670

1.05

4.4

.492

.702

food contact surface

7.1

.709

floor and carpet

.814

.722

open kitchen

9.1

.795

windows or windowsills

.802

1.70

Tablecloths

29.0

2.18

Factor1: Restaurant interior appearance

.524

Factor 2: Server’s appearance
Uniform

.782

Accessories

.761

hair style

.724

hands and nails

.560

Factor3: Restroom personal hygiene no soap

.841

no hot water

.824

no paper towels or drying device

.779

Factor 4: Restroom appearance
Odor

.852

Floors

.726

Trash

.661

Factor 5: Server’s behavior
Smoking

.809

coughing and sneezing

.808

bare hand contact

.742

Factor 6: Food condition
Freshness

.765

Temperature

.707

Presentation

.667

Factor 7: Signage employee hand washing signage

.748

restaurant inspection score posted

.575

Vermin

.553

Total

66.3

35

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
Reliability is used to assess the degree of consistency among multiple measurements of a variable. There are two dimensions: repeatability and intent consistency. All twenty-four restaurant cleanliness items measure the same idea as the importance of restaurant cleanliness. Regarding reliability, Cronbach’s alpha measurement was the most widely used to assess the consistency of the entire scale (Hair, Anderson et al. 1998). Cronbach’s alpha provides the estimate of the degree of the inter-correlations among the items(Churchill and Iacobucci 2009).
The purpose of validity is to determine whether the survey measured what it is intended to measure. In other words, validity analysis is used to assess the accuracy of what researchers intend to measure. Three different types of validity are commonly evaluated: convergent validity, discriminant validity and face validity. Convergent validity is the extent to which a specific construct converge or shares a high proportion of variance in common. Discriminant validity is the ability to measure dissimilar concepts to low correlation(Hair, Anderson et al. 1998). However, measuring validity is difficult to assess, so face validity was confirmed by HTM faculty members and graduate students.

36

Each factor was named based on the common characteristics of included items, and Table 4.3 provides the list of the seven factors and included items with associated factor loadings, eigenvalues, and reliability scores. The factor pattern was found to interpret and account for 66.3% of the total variance. The first factor was composed of five items and explained 29.0% of the total variance. Items on this factor were associated with the interior appearance of the restaurant. This factor had an eigenvalue of 6.97 and a reliability of .802.
The second factor was named server’s appearance and was comprised of four items. This factor had an eigenvalue of 2.18 and explained 9.1% of the total variance; Cronbach’s alpha was assessed at .814.
The third factor, restroom personal hygiene, was made up of three items and explained 7.1% of the total variance. The three items possessed an eigenvalue of 1.70 and presented a reliability of .828.
The fourth factor, restroom appearance consisted of three items. The items resulted in an
Eigenvalue of 1.55, and had total variance explanation of 6.5%, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .784.
The fifth factor dealt with a server’s behaviors. The reliability measured .752 while the percentage of variance explained was 5.4% and the Eigenvalue was 1.31. Items loading on this factor were associated with the servers’ behavior as it affected food safety and the server’s personal hygiene.
The sixth factor related to food appearance included three items. This factor had an
Eigenvalue of 1.14 and accounted for 4.8% in explaining the variance; Cronbach’s alpha was .670.
The last factor was labeled as signage. This factor accounted for 4.4% in explaining the total variance and had an Eigenvalue of 1.05. The reliability for the seventh factor was .492. Research commonly suggests that Cronbach’s alpha be .70 or above, and that those with correlations .3 or below should be deleted from the scale. However some researchers suggested that Cronbach’s alpha from .50 to .90 can be considered as an adequate range (Helms, Henze et al. 2006).
The results of the factor analysis were found to be different from the original three subhypotheses of the first hypothesis. This study assumed that the customers’ perceptions of restaurant
37

cleanliness would consist of three dimensions: functional, mechanic and humanic. However, the factor analysis found that the customers’ perceptions of restaurant cleanliness consist of more complex and specific dimensions than those suggested by the original sub-hypotheses. For example, the mechanic dimension, which relates to the physical environment of the restaurant, was divided into four dimensions: interior appearance of the restaurant, restroom appearance, restroom personal hygiene and signage. Employee related dimensions such as server’s appearance and server’s behavior can be categorized into humanic dimensions. Lastly, food condition is related to functional dimension.

THE FIRST HYPOTHESIS TESTING
This section presents the results of the statistical analysis conducted in order to test the first research hypothesis. The first hypothesis deals with the relationship between the customers’ perceptions of restaurant cleanliness and restaurant quality evaluation. The first hypothesis assumed that three dimensions of restaurant cleanliness would affect customers’ restaurant quality evaluation.
However, as the factor analysis results indicated, the three sub hypotheses of the first hypothesis were found to be different. Therefore, seven dimensions of restaurant cleanliness established by the factor analysis were employed to test the first hypothesis and factor scores of each dimension were used as independent variables. As dependent variables, scores of the second question in the section on general perceptions of restaurant cleanliness, which asked about the importance of restaurant cleanliness in evaluating overall restaurant quality, were employed. Multiple regression analysis was used to analyze the relationship between the dimensions of restaurant cleanliness and the overall restaurant quality evaluation.

38

Table 4.5 Summarized Multiple Regression Results
Sum of Squares

Df

Mean Square

F

Regression

16.000

7

2.286

Residual

74.305

243

90.305

.000b

.306

Total

Sig.

250

Variables

B

(Constant)

SE

Beta

4.530

Restaurant interior appearance

.035

7.475

t

Sig.

129.776

.000

.059

.035

.099

1.694

.092

-.019

.035

-.031

-.532

.595

Restroom personal hygiene

.155

.035

.258

4.442

.000

Restroom appearance

.167

.035

.278

4.786

.000

Server’s behavior

.072

.035

.120

2.057

.041

Food condition

.052

.035

.087

1.497

.136

Signage

.009

.035

.015

.251

.802

Server’s appearance

R2=0.177, adjusted R2=0.153

As displayed in Table 4.5, the results of the analysis of seven dimensions of restaurant cleanliness together accounted for 17.7% of the variance in the importance of cleanliness to respondents. The overall regression is statistically significant (F=7.475, P<.05). The first hypothesis assumed that the perceptions of restaurant cleanliness have an effect on customers’ evaluations of restaurant quality. Among the seven dimensions, three dimensions were found to have a significant influence on the customer’s service quality evaluation. Restroom personal hygiene (B=0.155, P<.05) was found to be statistically significant showing a positive relationship to the restaurant quality evaluation. Restroom appearance (B=0.167, P<.05) had a significance influence on the customers’ restaurant quality evaluation. Finally, the behavior of the server (B=0.072, P<.05) was found to influence the restaurant quality evaluation. Therefore, this study supported hypothesis 1. Also, more specifically mechanic dimension and humanic dimension were found to have positive impact on restaurant quality evaluation.

39

IMPORTANCE LEVELS OF DIMENSIONS OF RESTAURANT CLEANLINESS
To compare the perceptions of restaurant cleanliness between Westerners and Asians, seven restaurant cleanliness dimensions were coded into the summary variables. After that, analysis of each of the seven factors was conducted to see whether the two sample groups prioritize the dimensions of restaurant cleanliness differently. The results showed that Western and Asian samples had similar priorities of restaurant cleanliness dimensions except for one dimension, restroom personal hygiene.

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON
All seven factors were used to compare the importance of restaurant cleanliness between the
Western and Asian samples. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to assess the effect of cultural differences on the importance of restaurant cleanliness variables associated with casual restaurant dining. In addition, this analysis technique was used to compare other demographic information such as gender, age, academic status, ethnicity and restaurant work experience. The General Linear Model procedure allows for the analysis of variance for multiple dependent variables (Norusis 2005).
The MANOVA is an extension analysis of variance (ANOVA) to accommodate more than one dependent variable(Hair, Anderson et al. 1998). The results in Table 4.6 show the multivariate analysis for each factor.

40

Table 4.6 Comparison of Importance Levels for Summary Dimension of Restaurant Cleanliness
Western (n=151)
Mean

Asian (n=100)
SD

Mean

SD

P level

2.439

Multivariate test

F ratio

.000

Univariate tests
Factor1

Restroom personal hygiene
Factor4
Restroom appearance
Factor5
Server’s behavior
Factor6
Food condition
Factor7
Signage

.72

2.46

.118

.90

3.42

.80

1.72

.191

4.08

.84

3.32

1.01

4.21

.041

4.06

.77

4.28

.66

3.12

.079

.68

4.63

.55

6.36

.012

.69

3.84

.65

.026

.872

3.90

Factor3

3.46

3.89

Server’s appearance

.82

4.46

Factor2

3.34

3.05

Restaurant interior appearance

.74

3.85

.70

.015

.903

The two dimensions of server’s behavior and restroom personal hygiene were found to be significant at the p=.05 level. In addition, restroom appearance was found to be partially significant at the p=.10 level.
The next table, Table 4.7 represents the analysis of individual items of each of the seven dimensions. According to the results, there were significant differences in the preference level for multiple restaurant cleanliness related items.

41

Table 4.7 Multivariate Analysis of the Dimensions of Restaurant Cleanliness
Western
M

Asian
SD

M

SD

F value

P level

Factor1: Restaurant interior appearance
Table cloths

3.60

1.16

3.75

.90

10.52

.001

Windows and windowsills

3.02

.98

3.21

.91

.21

.646

Open kitchen

2.86

1.30

3.31

1.17

.93

.336

Floor and carpet

3.25

.96

3.48

.92

.00

.959

Food contact surface

3.88

1.08

3.54

.94

1.48

.226

Uniform

2.99

1.06

3.43

1.04

.87

.353

Accessories

2.55

1.10

2.91

1.16

.03

.858

Hair style

3.06

1.18

3.22

.99

3.07

.081

Hands and nails

3.59

1.12

4.12

.90

14.97

.000

No soap

4.33

.81

3.43

1.11

17.38

.000

No hot water

3.68

1.27

2.73

1.34

.59

.443

No paper towels or drying device

4.22

.89

3.80

1.06

4.20

.041

Factor2: Server’s appearance

Factor3: Restroom personal hygiene

Factor4: Restroom appearance
Odor

4.31

.88

4.50

.73

4.01

.046

Floors

3.72

1.02

4.15

.82

8.72

.003

Trash

4.10

.89

4.18

.81

2.38

.124

Smoking

4.49

.90

4.59

.75

3.04

.083

Coughing and sneezing

4.60

.69

4.69

.65

1.64

.202

Bare hand contact

4.31

.87

4.61

.67

13.29

.000

Freshness

4.33

.78

4.43

.78

.88

.350

Temperature

4.11

.87

4.03

.83

.24

.628

Presentation

3.23

.99

3.06

.89

3.96

.048

Employee hand washing signage

3.94

1.11

3.74

1.09

.01

.930

Restaurant inspection score posted

3.18

1.17

3.23

1.12

.30

.584

Vermin

4.55

.83

4.58

.73

.53

.466

Factor5: Server’s behavior

Factor6: Food condition

Factor7: Signage

42

The server’s behavior was found to be the most important dimension by both Western and
Asian samples. This dimension was found to be statistically significant overall with .012. Additionally, among the three items in this dimension, the server’s bare hands making contact with food was found to have a statistical significance at .000. This analysis indicated that the Western sample had a statistically significant difference in the importance of the servers’ bare-hand contact with food. The
Asian sample had higher mean expectations in the dimension for restaurant server’s behavior than the
Western samples did.
Restroom appearance was ranked the second most important factor for the Asian sample and the third most important factor for the Western sample. In this factor, the Asian sample was also found to have higher expectations of all included items than the Western sample. Odor in the restroom was found to be the most important item when both samples evaluated restaurant cleanliness. Trash and floors were rated accordingly by both groups. Of the individual items in this scale, odor and floors were found to have statistical significance at .046 and .003.
Signage was ranked the third most important dimension by Asian groups and the fourth most important by the Western sample. Among three items in the signage factor, the Asian sample had higher means of restaurant inspection signage and vermin. On the other hand, the Western sample had higher mean of employee hand washing signage. None of the individual items was found to differ statistically significantly between the two groups.
Food condition was the fourth most important factor for the Asian sample and the fifth most important factor for the Western sample. Although the food condition factor was not significant overall, one single item, food presentation, was found to be statistically significant at a level of .048.
The appearance of the restaurant interior was the fifth most important factor for the Asian sample and the sixth most important factor for the Western sample. Although this factor was found to be not statistically significant overall, table cloths were found to be one item that was statistically significant with .001. In this factor, except for the food contact surface, the Asian sample had higher means in the other four restaurant interior items.

43

The appearance of server was the sixth most important factor for Asian groups and the least significant factor for Western groups. While this dimension was not found to be statistically significant in overall, the condition of server’s hands and nails was found to be statistically significant with .000. The Asian group rated all items of a server’s appearance as of higher importance than
Western groups did.
As mentioned above, two groups, Western and Asian, were found to have similar ranking orders for the dimensions of restaurant cleanliness. However, the importance of the dimension of restroom personal hygiene was ranked differently between these groups. The Western sample ranked restroom personal hygiene as the second most important factor but the Asian sample considered this dimension as the least important factor in their restaurant cleanliness evaluations. In addition, the factor for overall restroom personal hygiene was found to be statistically significant at .041. Among all the individual items, having no soap and no paper towels or other drying device were found to be statistically significant. In this dimension, Western groups were found to have higher means regarding the all three items than Asian groups.

ADDITIONAL TESTS ON DEMOGRAPHICS
The MANOVA results also indicated that demographic variables such as living area have a significant impact on the ratings of the importance of restaurant cleanliness dimensions. On the other hand, gender and restaurant work experience were not found to have a statistically significant difference for the seven dimensions of restaurant cleanliness. Ethnicity and household were not applicable to MANOVA test. To conduct the MANOVA, cases in each cell should exceed at least the number of dependent variables(Pallant 2007). However, the variables Hispanic (n=2) in ethnicity and married-couple without children in household (n=5) didn’t meet this assumption of sample size, so the
MANOVA could not be conducted for ethnicity and household variables.
Table 4.8 displays the multivariate analysis of the importance of restaurant cleanliness items by living area.

44

Table 4.8 Multivariate Analysis of the Dimensions of Restaurant Cleanliness by Living Area
Urban (n=89)

Suburban (n=109)

Rural (n=52)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

F

Restaurant interior appearance

3.46

.69

3.34

.85

3.35

.80

3.280

.039

Server’s appearance

3.40

.86

3.01

.87

3.24

.86

.108

.897

Restroom personal hygiene

3.58

1.02

3.84

.90

3.99

1.05

1.283

.279

Restroom appearance

4.29

.65

4.00

.75

4.17

.77

1.871

.156

Server’s behavior

4.63

.58

4.48

.65

4.44

.69

1.343

.263

Food condition

3.89

.66

3.83

.69

3.91

.66

.012

.988

Signage

3.80

.74

3.88

.76

4.03

.56

2.985

.052

Sig

The interior appearance of the restaurant (F=3.28, p=.039) was found to be significantly different. Three groups showed the similar priorities for restaurant cleanliness dimensions. The server’s behavior was the most important dimension for all three groups when evaluating cleanliness of a restaurant. On the other hand, the server’s appearance was the least important dimension for all groups. For the further analysis, MANOVA was conducted on restaurant interior appearance items.
As Table 4.9 indicates tablecloths (p=.007) and food contact surface (p=.001) were found to be individually significant.

Table 4.9 Multivariate Analysis of Restaurant Interior Appearance by Living Area
Urban (n=89)

Suburban (n=109)

Rural (n=52)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

F

Sig

Tablecloths

3.70

.88

3.61

1.15

3.68

1.16

5.032

.007

Windows or Windowsills

3.28

.80

2.97

1.00

3.04

1.01

1.834

.162

Open kitchen

3.18

1.18

3.01

1.13

2.83

1.30

1.758

.740

Floor and carpet

3.49

.88

3.25

.91

3.26

1.10

7.228

.175

Food contact surface

3.63

.95

3.80

1.16

3.83

.89

.302

.001

45

SUMMARY
This chapter provided the study respondents’ general demographics and general perceptions of restaurant cleanliness. In addition, it presented the seven dimensions of restaurant cleanliness with the associated factor loading, percentage of variance explained, and Cronbach’s alpha. Subsequently, factor scores of seven dimensions were used in multiple regression analysis to investigate the relationship between restaurant cleanliness and overall restaurant quality evaluation. And finally, this study used multivariate analysis of variance to compare the perceptions of restaurant cleanliness of two cultural groups: Westerners and Asians.
Multiple regression results indicated that overall restaurant cleanliness dimensions were statistically significant to restaurant quality evaluation. More specifically, three dimensions of restaurant cleanliness- server’s behavior, restroom appearance and restroom personal hygiene- were found to have a positive impact on customers’ overall restaurant quality evaluations. Therefore, hypothesis 1was supported and this study partially supported the second sub hypothesis and the third sub hypothesis.
The MANOVA results showed significant differences between Westerners and Asians in their perceptions of restaurant cleanliness. Therefore, hypothesis 2 was supported. Both groups had similar priority of restaurant cleanliness dimensions. The server’s behavior was the most important dimensions for both Westerners and Asians. Restroom personal hygiene was the only dimension that the group scored differently. Westerners scored restroom personal hygiene as the second most important factor for restaurant cleanliness. However, Asians considered it to be the least important dimension. 46

Table 4.10 Summary of Hypotheses Testing
Hypotheses

Results

H1: Customer perceptions of restaurant cleanliness will have a positive effect on customer evaluation

Supported

of restaurant quality.
H1-a. Functional items will have a positive effect on customer evaluations of service quality.

Not supported

H1-b. Mechanic items will have a positive effect on customer evaluations of service quality.

Partially supported

H1-c. Humanic items will have a positive effect on customer evaluations of service quality.

Partially supported

H2: There are significant differences in how different cultures perceive restaurant cleanliness.

47

Supported

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The main purpose of this study is to investigate restaurant cleanliness by expanding the previous restaurant cleanliness measurement scale including more diverse dimensions affecting customers’ restaurant quality evaluations. Also, this study compared perceptions of restaurant cleanliness of two different cultural groups- Westerners and Asians- using the modified restaurant cleanliness scale. Focus groups, factor analysis, multiple regression, and MANOVA were used and the results were discussed in the previous chapters. Chapter V will discuss the findings, implications, limitations of the research, recommendations for future research, and conclusion.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Findings of this study according to the research objectives and hypotheses suggested in
Chapter 1 will be discussed in the following section.
Research Objectives
1. Identify which items/dimensions restaurant customers perceive as important when they evaluate a restaurant’s cleanliness.
2. Modify the previous restaurant cleanliness scale using the findings.
3. Identify the importance of cleanliness in restaurant customers’ evaluations of restaurant quality. 4. Identify and analyze whether customers from different cultural backgrounds have different viewpoints about restaurant cleanliness.

First, two focus groups - one consisting of Western participants and the other composed of
Asian participants- were conducted to identify restaurant cleanliness items considered importantly by customers when evaluating restaurant cleanliness. During the focus groups, participants freely discussed restaurant cleanliness items and added or deleted entries on the list of the restaurant
48

cleanliness items collected from the restaurant cleanliness measurement scale and literature review.
With the results of the focus groups, a restaurant cleanliness survey questionnaire including twentynine restaurant cleanliness items for this study was developed and tested on two different samples:
Westerners and Asians.
After data collection, this study conducted factor analysis to create dimensions of the restaurant cleanliness items. Factor analysis results indicated seven dimensions for restaurant cleanliness items: restaurant interior appearance, server’s appearance, restroom personal hygiene, restroom appearance, servers’ behavior, food condition and signage. The results of factor analysis were different from those of the sub-hypotheses of hypotheses1which was proposed in Chapter1. This study assumed that restaurant cleanliness items might be categorized into the three dimensions: functional, mechanic and humanic dimensions. However, factor analysis results suggested that restaurant cleanliness items be categorized into more than three dimensions. Therefore, three subhypotheses of hypotheses1 were not applicable to test.
Instead of the three dimensions, seven dimensions were employed to test hypothesis1.
According to the multiple regression analysis, overall dimensions of restaurant cleanliness had a positive effect on restaurant quality evaluations; this result supported hypothesis 1. Among seven dimensions, server’s behavior and restroom personal hygiene were found to have a positive impact on restaurant customers’ overall quality evaluations.
Another finding of this study is that there is a significant difference in the perceptions of
Westerners and Asians regarding a restaurant’s cleanliness. Among seven dimensions, server’s behavior and restroom personal hygiene were found to be statistically significant. In addition, restroom appearance was found to be partially significant. Both groups showed mostly similar priorities for the seven restaurant cleanliness dimensions. Only one dimension, restroom personal hygiene, was ranked exceptionally differently by the two groups.
The server’s behaviors such as contact with food with bare hands, smoking or sneezing were ranked as the most important dimension by both Westerners and Asians when evaluating restaurant cleanliness. All the behaviors included in this dimension are regulated by food code 2009 and
49

SERVSAFE qualification because they can have negative impacts on food safety causing crosscontamination. In this dimension, Asians presented as having higher expectations than Westerners for all three items.
Restroom appearance was viewed as the second most important dimension for Asian groups and the third most important dimension for Westerner groups. Asians were found to have higher expectations for all three items in this dimension, as well.
Signage such as employee hand-washing notices and restaurant inspection score posts were ranked the third most important factor for Asians and the fourth most important for Westerners. Asians were found to place more importance on restaurant inspection score and the evidence of vermin when they evaluate restaurant cleanliness. On the other hand, Westerners were found to have higher expectations for employee hand washing signage than did Asians.
Food conditions such as freshness of ingredients, temperature of food and presentation of dishes were considered the fourth most important dimension factor for Asians and the fifth most important dimension for Westerners.
Restaurant interior appearance was ranked as the fifth most important dimension by Asians and the sixth most important dimension by Westerners. Despite not showing higher expectations for the food contact surface, Asians were found to have higher expectations for the other four items.
The server’s appearance was viewed as the sixth most important dimension for Asians and least important factor for Westerners when they evaluate restaurant cleanliness. Asians had higher expectations for all four items than Westerners. Both groups ranked server’s hands and nails as the most important items in this dimension but server’s accessories were considered to be the least important item.
The last dimension, restroom personal hygiene was the only one ranked differently by the two groups. The Westerner group ranked this dimension as the second most important factor on a restaurant cleanliness evaluation while the Asian group considered this dimension as the least important among seven dimensions. This is the only dimension that Westerner samples ranked higher for all items than did Asian samples.
50

The findings of this study show what constitutes customers’ perceptions of restaurant cleanliness. Previous researchers emphasized physical environment such as restaurant interior or wait staff’s appearance, for example hair style or neatness of uniforms to determine restaurant cleanliness
(Lee and Hing ; Stevens, Knutson et al. 1995; Chow, Lau et al. 2007). However, as this study indicated the restaurant’s interior and server’s appearance were found to be less important dimensions when customers evaluate restaurant cleanliness. Rather server’s behavior, restroom appearance, signage and restroom personal hygiene were found to be considered important when customers evaluate restaurant cleanliness.
Another finding of this study is the impact of culture on customers’ perceptions of restaurant cleanliness. Even though both groups showed similar preferences among the restaurant cleanliness dimensions, several differences were found.
First, Westerners were found to be especially concerned with cleanliness of hands.
Westerners placed significant importance on the restroom personal hygiene dimension also they ranked high scores for individual items such as employee hand washing signage and server’s hands and nails. Asians also placed significant importance on employee hand washing signage and wait staff’s hands and nails but Asians were found to be less concerned with restroom personal hygiene items which may affect cleanliness of their hands. From the results, it can be assumed that Westerners focus on cleanliness of hands whether the wait staff’s hands or their own. However, Asians consider cleanliness of hands but their main concern is on the cleanliness of the staff’s hands.
Another cultural finding is that Asians were more rigorous about restaurant cleanliness.
Asian samples were found to consider almost all dimensions for restaurant cleanliness evaluations.
Also, in most items, Asians held higher expectations than did Westerners.

51

IMPLICATIONS
This section indicates both managerial and theoretical implications drawn from the results of this study. This restaurant cleanliness research presents theoretical implications for not only the restaurant industry but also the overall service industry by expanding the current level of knowledge in hospitality literature.
The importance of restaurant cleanliness has been emphasized pervasively in many restaurant studies but few studies have been conducted regarding what constitutes customers’ consideration of restaurant cleanliness. The purpose of this study was to investigate customers’ perceptions of restaurant cleanliness by modifying the restaurant cleanliness measurement scale(Barber and Scarcelli 2010) including various details affecting restaurant cleanliness and these details which were collected from customers’ viewpoints. It was found that evaluation of service is affected by diverse factors. Therefore, it is believed that evaluations of restaurant cleanliness also should be affected by diverse dimensions in service encounter. This is the first research to include various dimensions in the restaurant cleanliness measurement scale. Although, some researchers have proposed scales for restaurant cleanliness measurement, they were focused on limited dimensions.
This study expanded those scales including diverse dimensions and also examined the modified scale empirically. In addition, this study compared perceptions of restaurant cleanliness of two different cultural groups: Westerners and Asians. Despite the restaurant industry increasingly become global business, few studies investigating the different cultural background of customers’ perceptions of restaurant cleanliness.
Generally, Western and Asian cultures are believed to have different characteristics so
Westerners and Asians will have different perceptions for the same service. For example, Asian cultures are generally characterized by large power distance (Hofstede 1980) and high-context culture(Hall 1977), while Western cultures are characterized by lower power distance and low-context culture. Some cultural studies found that Western consumers tend to turn to the physical environment for making judgments on service quality because concrete cues are more direct than those provided by
52

encounters with service employees and so are easier for Westerners to evaluate.(Mattila 1999). Also,
Western customers are likely to focus on the outcome rather than the process component of the service delivery (Mattila 1999). Conversely, Asian customers tend to have higher expectations for the interaction quality in service encounters.
Cultural difference was also found in this restaurant cleanliness research. Both the Western and Asian sample agreed on the importance of restaurant cleanliness and mostly they had similar priorities for the seven dimensions. However, the Asian sample had higher expectations in many items than the Western sample; in particular, Asians were found to have more rigorous standards for wait staff than Westerners.
The results of the study indicate that cleanliness is a key consideration for meeting regulations as well as restaurant customers’ standard of quality so restaurant operators and employees should recognize the importance of restaurant cleanliness. There were no big differences between what study participants consider important when they evaluate restaurant cleanliness and what FDA regulates. However, from the focus group, one participant announced that he had stricter standard of cleanliness for popular chain restaurants than local restaurant. While this opinion was not shared by most focus group participants, it can be imperative for chain restaurant operators to keep a level of cleanliness at least equal with other restaurants in the same branch. Since customers are familiar with popular chain restaurant setting and service, it is possible that if some items don’t meet customers’ standard of cleanliness than customers can easily notice the point even they visit the branch for the first time.
Also, they should be informed that restaurant cleanliness is perceived by customers through integral dimensions rather than by evaluating specific items. Therefore, restaurant operators should pay attention to diverse items to ensure the highest level of restaurant cleanliness.
It is imperative for restaurant operators to understand what matters most to patrons in evaluating restaurant cleanliness, so operators can effectively manage their limited resources and put them to the best use. Also, study results indicated that restaurant cleanliness is important for customer’ satisfaction level and future revisit decisions. In addition, study respondents agreed that whether they
53

go to high or low cost restaurants, they consider cleanliness important. Finally, the study found that respondents tend not to complain even when they perceive the restaurant is not clean. Therefore, methods of communication for relaying complaints should be developed in order to give customers a way to express dissatisfaction with any aspect of restaurant cleanliness.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This research has some limitations. The first limitation concerns the sampling frame used.
Since this study used convenience sampling, it can’t represent an entire population. In addition, this study chose Americans as representatives of Western culture and Taiwanese as representatives of
Asian culture. However, it is hard to generalize Americans and Taiwanese to represent all Westerners and all Asians. Also, this study used student sample; but students may not be a main target market for table service restaurants. Therefore, for future research, this study should be replicated within a broad setting. The second limitation concerns the use of focus groups to identify restaurant cleanliness items. A major issue with focus group is the small group size. Because of this small size, there is a possibility that some variables may be missed. Also, the focus group participants were all students, so it is hard to say their opinions represents all customers. For future study, restaurant cleanliness items should be collected from target customers.
The last limitation is the use of a Likert-scale when rating importance. It is possible that customers are being subjective when they state something is important. Therefore, to minimize this problem, other methods such as experimental design and choice modeling may be useful.
Future research should continue to identify what attributes are important when customers evaluate restaurant cleanliness. In particular, future study should test among diverse demographic groups such as age and income levels.
Regarding the restaurant cleanliness dimension, server’s behavior was found most important for restaurant cleanliness evaluations. Therefore future research should investigate this dimension more thoroughly.
54

Also, future research should test this modified scale across more sample groups to confirm whether there is a cultural difference in perceptions of restaurant cleanliness.

CONCLUSION
This thesis examined customers’ perceptions of table-service restaurant cleanliness.
Customer’s perceptions of restaurant cleanliness were found to constitute seven dimensions: interior appearance of restaurant, server’s appearance, restroom appearance, server’s behavior, restroom personal hygiene, server’s appearance, food condition and signage. It is revealed that customer’s perception of restaurant cleanliness is affected by diverse factors and customer’s evaluation of restaurant cleanliness is more integral process rather than one determined by specific items.
This study compared two different cultural groups: Westerners and Asians. Both groups agreed on the importance of restaurant cleanliness. Also, both reported that restaurant cleanliness is an important factor in deciding restaurant quality and their satisfaction levels. Regarding the restaurant cleanliness dimensions, they showed mostly similar priorities in seven dimensions. However, some differences were found between the groups. Westerners placed more weight on the restroom personal hygiene dimension than Asians. Asians were found to have higher expectations for overall restaurant cleanliness items than Westerners.
Results of this study inform restaurant operators and employees that to increase the level of restaurant cleanliness, they should manage diverse dimensions. Moreover, this study can provide valuable information to restaurant operators who seek to expand their business in the global market.
Although this research used a student sample and only twenty nine restaurant-cleanliness items to investigate the research hypotheses, it provide a better understanding of how customers perceive restaurant cleanliness and also how customers of different cultural back ground perceive restaurant cleanliness differently.

55

REFERENCE
Adler, N. J. (1983). A typology of management studies involving culture. Journal of International
Business Studies: 29-47.
Aksoydan, E. (2007). Hygiene factors influencing customers' choice of dining-out units: findings from a study of university academic staff. Journal of Food Safety 27(3): 300-316.
Andaleeb, S. S. and C. Conway (2006). Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: an examination of the transaction-specific model. Journal of Services Marketing 20(1): 3-11.
Association, N. R. (2010). ServSafe course book, Chicago, National Restaurant Association
Educational Foundation.
Babakus, E. and G. W. Boller (1992). "An empirical-assessment of the Servqual scale." Journal of
Business Research 24(3): 253-268.
Barber, N. and J. M. Scarcelli (2009). "Clean restrooms: how important are they to restaurant consumers?" Journal of Foodservice 20(6): 309-320.
Barber, N. and J. M. Scarcelli (2010). "Enhancing the assessment of tangible service quality through the creation of a cleanliness measurement scale." Managing Service Quality 20(1): 70-88.
Bartikowski, B. and S. Llosa (2004). "Customer satisfaction measurement: comparing four methods of attribute categorisations." Service Industries Journal 24(4): 67-82.
Becker, C. and S. K. Murrmann (1999). The effect of cultural orientation on the service timing preferences of customers in casual dining operations: An exploratory study. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 18(1): 59-65.
Becker, C., S. K. Murrmann, et al. (1999). A pancultural Study of Restaurant Service Expectations in the United States and Hong Kong. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 23(3): 235-255.
Berkman, H. W., J. D. Lindquist, et al. (1997). Consumer behavior, NTC Business Books
Lincolnwood, IL.
Berry, L. L. (1980). Services marketing is different. Business 30(3): 24-29.
Berry, L. L., E. A. Wall, et al. (2006). Service clues and customer assessment of the service experience: lessons from marketing. The Academy of Management Perspectives Archives 20(2): 43-57.
Bienstock, C. C., C. W. DeMoranville, et al. (2003). Organizational citizenship behavior and service quality. Journal of Services Marketing 17(4): 357-378.
Bitner, M. J., B. H. Booms, et al. (1990). The service encounter: diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. The Journal of Marketing 54(1): 71-84.
Bitner, M. J. and A. R. Hubbert (1994). Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality. Service quality: New directions in theory and practice: 72-94.
Boulding, W., A. Kalra, et al. (1993). A dynamic process model of service quality: from expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of marketing research 30(1): 7-27.
56

Brewer, M. S. and M. Rojas (2008). Consumer attitudes toward issues in food safety. Journal of Food
Safety 28(1): 1-22.
Brief, A. P. and S. J. Motowidlo (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors.
Management Review: 710-725.

Academy of

Butcher, K., B. Sparks, et al. (2009). Predictors of customer service training in hospitality firms.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 28(3): 389-396.
Chow, H., V. P. Lau, et al. (2007). Service quality in restaurant operations in China: Decision-and experiential-oriented perspectives. International Journal of Hospitality Management 26(3): 698-710.
Churchill, G. A. and D. Iacobucci (2009). Marketing research: methodological foundations, SouthWestern Pub.
Churchill Jr, G. A. and C. Surprenant (1982). An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research: 491-504.
Cronin Jr, J. J. and S. A. Taylor (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension.
The Journal of Marketing: 55-68.
Dabholkar, P. A., C. D. Shepherd, et al. (2000). "A comprehensive framework for service quality: an investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues through a longitudinal study." Journal of
Retailing 76(2): 139-173.
Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research, Addison-Wesley.
Food, U. (2006). Drug Administration. 2004. FDA report on the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors in selected institutional foodservice, restaurant, and retail food store facility types (2004).
Food, U. (2010). Drug Administration. 2009. Food Code 2009.
Fornell, C. and B. Wernerfelt (1987). Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint management: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research: 337-346.
Frederick, F. R. and W. Sasser (1990). Zero defections: quality comes to services. Harvard Business
Review 68(5): 105-111.
Furrer, O., B. S. C. Liu, et al. (2000). The relationships between culture and service quality perceptions. Journal of Service Research 2(4): 355-371.
Grö
nroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of
Marketing 18(4): 36-44.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, et al. (1998).Multivariate data analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension, Garden City, N.Y. Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1977). Beyond culture, Garden City, N.Y. Anchor Press.
Helms, J. E., K. T. Henze, et al. (2006). Treating Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients as data in
57

counseling research. The Counseling Psychologist 34(5): 630-660.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard Univ Pr.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization
10(4): 15-41.
Hofstede, G. (1984). The Cultural Relativity of the Quality of Life Concept. Academy of Management
Review 9(3): 389-398.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Hofstede Culture Dimensions - an Independent Validation Using Rokeach Value
Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 15(4): 417-433.
Holbrook, M. B. and K. P. Corfman (1985). Quality and value in the consumption experience:
Phaedrus rides again. Perceived Quality 31: 31-57.
Jang, S. and Y. H. Liu (2009). Perceptions of Chinese restaurants in the US: What affects customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions? International Journal of Hospitality Management 28(3): 338348.
Joseph, C. J. J., M. K. Brady, et al. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of retailing 76(2):
193-218.
Klara, R. (2004). Consumer insights. Restaurant Business 103(13): 20-21.
Klein, S., C. De Waal, et al. (2010). Dirty dining report. Center for Science in the Public Interest
(CSPI), http://www. cspinet. org/dirtydining/DirtyDiningReport. pdf, accessed 5.
Knutson, B., P. Stevens, et al. (1990). LODGSERV: A service quality index for the lodging industry.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 14(2): 277.
LaBarbera, P. A. and D. Mazursky (1983). A longitudinal assessment of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction: the dynamic aspect of the cognitive process. Journal of Marketing
Research: 393-404.
Lee, Y. L. and N. Hing (1995). Measuring quality in restaurant operations: an application of the
SERVQUAL instrument. International Journal of Hospitality Management 14(3-4): 293-310.
Mattila, A. S. (1999). The role of culture in the service evaluation process. Journal of service research
1(3): 250-261.
Mattila, A. S. (2000). The Impact of Culture and Gender on Customer Evaluations of Service
Encounters. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 24(2): 263-273.
Namkung, Y. and S. C. Jang (2007). Does food quality really matter in restaurants? Its impact on customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 31(3):
387-409.
Norusis, M. (2005). SPSS for Windows, V12. 0, Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
Oh, H. (2000). Diners' perceptions of quality, value, and satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
58

Administration Quarterly 41(3): 58-66.
Oliva, T. A., R. L. Oliver, et al. (1992). A catastrophe model for developing service satisfaction strategies. The Journal of Marketing: 83-95.
Oliver, R. L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of Retailing.
Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of
Consumer Research: 418-430.
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual. Berkshire. U.K. ; New York, NY : Open University Press
Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml, et al. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. The Journal of Marketing 49(4): 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml, et al. (1988). "Servqual." Journal of Retailing 64(1): 12-37.
Pettijohn, L. S. (1997). An evaluation of fast food restaurant satisfaction determinants, competitive comparisons and impact on future patronage. Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing 2(3): 320.
Qu, H. (1997). Determinant factors and choice intention for Chinese restaurant dining. Journal of
Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing 2(2): 35-49.
Reuland, R., J. Choudry, et al. (1985). Research in the field of hospitality. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 4(4): 141-146.
Riddle, D. I. (1992). Leveraging cultural factors in international service delivery. Advances in
Services Marketing and Management 1(1): 297-322.
Rust, R. T. and A. J. Zahorik (1993). Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share.
Journal of Retailing 69(2): 193-215.
Ryu, K. and S. Jang (2008). DINESCAPE: A scale for customers' perception of dining environments.
Journal of Foodservice Business Research 11(1): 2-22.
Saleh, F. and C. Ryan (1991). Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry using the
SERVQUAL model. Service Industries Journal 11(3): 324-345.
Shostack, G. L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. The Journal of Marketing: 73-80.
Stauss, B. and P. Mang (1999). “Culture shocks” in inter-cultural service encounters? Journal of
Services Marketing 13(4/5): 329-346.
Stevens, P., B. Knutson, et al. (1995). Dineserv: a tool for measuring service quality in restaurants.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 36(2): 56-60.
Surprenant, C. F. and M. R. Solomon (1987). Predictability and personalization in the service encounter. The Journal of Marketing: 86-96.
Tan, C. T. and J. U. Farley (1987). The impact of cultural patterns on cognition and intention in
Singapore. Journal of Consumer Research: 540-544.
59

Threevitaya, S. (2003). Factors that influenced the decisions of customers to dine at selected restaurants in Bangkok, Thailand, University of Wisconsin.
Todd, E. C. D., J. D. Greig, et al. (2007). Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 3. Factors contributing to outbreaks and description of outbreak categories." Journal of Food Protection; 70(9): 2199-2217.
Tsang, N. K. F. and J. Ap (2007). Tourists’ perceptions of relational quality service attributes: A crosscultural study. Journal of Travel Research 45(3): 355-363.
Wall, E. A. and L. L. Berry (2007). The combined effects of the physical environment and employee
Behavior on customer perception of restaurant service quality. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly 48(1): 59-69.
Walter, U., B. Edvardsson, et al. (2010). Drivers of customers' service experiences: a study in the restaurant industry. Managing Service Quality 20(3): 236-258.
Williams, A. (2000). Consuming hospitality: learning from post-modernism. In Search of Hospitality:
Theoretical Perspectives and Debates, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford: 217-232.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of Marketing: 2-22.
Zeithaml, V. A., L. L. Berry, et al. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. The Journal of Marketing: 31-46.
Zeithaml, V. A., A. Parasuraman, et al. (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing customer perceptions and expectations, Free Pr.

60

APPENDIX A. RESTAURANT CLEANLINESS SURVEY (English version)
This survey is designed to investigate your perceptions of cleanliness in casual table service restaurants. This type of restaurant is one where a wait staff takes your order, delivers your meals and provides services to you while you are dining. Please answer the following questions referring to your dining experiences at restaurants such as T.G.I. Friday’s or Chili’s.

General Perceptions of Restaurant Cleanliness
Please indicate how you feel about with the following issues (please check only one box).
Strongly
Disagree
Restaurant cleanliness is important to me.
Restaurant cleanliness is important to me when evaluating overall restaurant quality.
Restaurant cleanliness is important to me when I decide whether I will return to a restaurant or not.
I have high expectations of cleanliness for highbudget restaurants.
I have low expectations of cleanliness for low-budget restaurants. A clean restaurant will increase my overall level of satisfaction. A dirty restaurant will decrease my overall level of satisfaction. I tend to complain to restaurant employees if I perceive that a restaurant is dirty.

61

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly
Agree

Restaurant Cleanliness Items
The following questions are about items that might affect restaurant cleanliness. Please indicate how important you consider these items to be when you evaluate restaurant cleanliness. This session consists of four parts: Food/ Environment/ Restroom/ Wait Staff

Food
Not at all important Somewhat important Important

Very important Not at all important Somewhat important Important

Very important Extremely important Freshness
Presentation
Temperature
Food contact surface (e.g., plates, glassware)
Unprotected food (e.g., uncovered condiments on the table) Environment
Exterior of restaurant
Restaurant floor and carpet
Windows or windowsills
Tablecloths
Open kitchen
Presence or evidence of vermin in food or non-food areas
Humidity
Restaurant inspection score posted 62

Extremely important Restroom
Not at all important Somewhat important Important

Very important Extremely important Not at all important Somewhat important Important

Very important Extremely important Floors
Odor
Trash in toilets
No soap
No hot water
No paper towels/ drying device
Employee hand washing signage

Wait staff
Hair style (e.g., hair pulled back, hairnet used)
Uniform
Hands and nails
Accessories (e.g., earrings, piercings) Bare hand contact with food
Coughing and sneezing
Smoking
Eating and drinking while working Tasking order (e.g., serving food right after wiping table)

63

Demographic Information
The following demographic information will be used to classify the survey data. Please indicate an appropriate response in each category.
1. What is your gender?

___ Male ___Female

2. What is your age? __________
3. What is your ethnic group?
___ Caucasian
___ Asian
___ African-American
___ Hispanic
___ Other (please specify)_______________
4. What is your current academic status?
___ Freshman
___ Sophomore
___ Junior
___ Senior
___ Other (please specify)_______________
5. Which of the following best describe your household?
___ Single adult
___ Married couple without children
___ Family with children
___ Other (please specify)_______________
6. Which of the following best describes the area you live in?
___Urban

___Suburban

___Rural

___Other (please specify)_______________

7. How long have you been living there?
___ Less than 5years

___ 5-9 years

___ 10-19 years ___20-29 years ___ More than 30

years
8. During the past six months, approximately how many times have you dined out at a casual table service restaurant? ______________
64

9. Approximately how much do you spend when dining at a casual table service restaurant?
$___________
10. What is an important aspect when you evaluate a casual table service restaurant quality?

(Check all that apply.)
___ Taste of food ___ Cleanliness ___ Price ___ Ambience ___Service employee
___ Other (please specify)_______________
11. Have you ever worked as a server or food staff in a restaurant? ___Yes ___No

65

Appendix B. RESTAURANT CLEANLINESS SURVEY (Chinese version)

餐廳衛生問卷調查

此調查旨在探討您對用餐餐廳衛生之看法，此次調查類型為具服務員為您點餐、上菜
並提供用餐服務之餐廳，請以您於 T.G.I Friday’s 或 Chili’s 用餐之體驗回答下列問題。

餐廳衛生之一般觀感
請選擇對以下議題之感覺（單選）。
非常
不同
意
餐廳衛生對我非常重要
餐廳衛生對我評估餐廳整體品質相當重要
餐廳衛生對我決定是否再度光臨相當重要
對高消費餐廳之衛生具高期待.
對低消費餐廳之衛生僅具低期待
餐廳乾淨層度將增加我的整體滿意度
餐廳髒亂將降低我的整體滿意度
若感覺餐廳過於髒亂，我將告知服務人員

66

不同意

中立

同意

非常
同意

餐廳衛生項目
以下項目可能影響餐廳衛生，請選擇當你評估餐廳衛生時感覺重要的項目，此處由四個部分：
食物/環境/洗手間/服務人員所組成。

食物
完全
不重要

有點重要

重要

很重要

非常重要

完全
不重要

有點重要

重要

很重要

非常重要

新鮮度
擺盤
溫度
食物裝盛器皿
（如盤子及玻璃器皿）
未加蓋之食物
（如桌上無蓋之佐料）

環境

餐廳外觀
餐廳地面及地毯
窗戶或窗台
桌巾
開放式廚房
害蟲出沒於食品或非食品區
濕度
餐廳檢查評分記錄

67

洗手間
完全
不重要

有點重要

重要

很重要

非常重要

完全
不重要

有點重要

重要

很重要

非常重要

地板
氣味
內部垃圾
無肥皂
無熱水
無紙巾/擦手巾
員工手部清潔方案

服務人員

髮型（如紮頭髮或使用髮
網）
制服
手部與指甲
附件（如耳環及穿環）
直接以手接觸食物
咳嗽及打噴嚏
抽煙
工作時吃或喝東西
複雜的工作順序（如擦完桌
子後立即送餐）

68

統計資料
以下個人信息將用來分類調查問題，請於以下類別選擇適當答案。
1. 性別

___ 男 ___女

2. 年齡__________
3. 族群
___ 白人
___ 亞洲人
___非裔美國人
___ 西班牙裔
___ 其他 __________
4. 就讀年級?
___ 一年級
___ 二年級
___ 三年級
___ 四年級
___ 其他______________________
5. 家庭背景
___ 單身之成人
___ 已婚無子女
___ 已婚有子女
___ 其他__________
6. 居住地區
___市區___郊區 ___鄉下___其他 __________
7. 居住時間
___ 5 年以下

___ 5-9 年___ 10-19 年___20-29 年___ 超過 30 年

8. 過去半年內，至餐廳消費之次數_________
69

9. 於餐廳用餐之大約消費金額$___________
10. 評估餐廳品質之要點（可複選）
___ 食物味道 ___ 衛生___價格___ 氣氛___服務人員
___ 其他請具體敘述__________
11. 有否具餐廳服務經驗？___是 ___否

70

71