Page 1 of 8

ANZMAC 2009

Indian Restaurants and Sydneysiders: A Perceptual Study
Mohammed A Razzaque*, The University of New South Wales; ma.razzaque@unsw.edu.au

Abstract
Multi-culturism of the contemporary Australian society is well reflected in the diversity of ethnic cuisines available here. This study examines how Australian consumers perceive the quality of food and service in Indian restaurants in Sydney. Findings reveal that perceptions of various ethnic groups have similarities as well differences of likings as well as dislikes.
Key words: attitude, behaviour, decision, perception.

ANZMAC 2009

Indian Restaurants and Sydneysiders: A Perceptual Study

Introduction and Literature Review
Love for culinary diversity is perhaps the most globalised phenomenon. Food markets were the first to become globally integrated, linking distant cultures of the world (Nutzenadel and
Trentmann 2008, Sharpless 1999). Restaurants in the West have been serving ethnic foods much before the debut of global fast food chains such as McDonald. Many Westerners seem to have developed a taste for ethnic cuisines as alternatives to their traditional food (Josaim and Monteiro
2004). Chinese and Indian cuisines formed the basis of the first cultural shift in eating for the UK consumers as early as the 1960’s (Mintel Group, 2006). Over the years, Indian cuisine has become the most popular cuisine in the UK (Lloyd and Mitchinson 2006). Ethnic restaurants have also become very popular in the USA (Gabaccia 1998) and in France (Sharpless 1999).
This increased interest in ethnic foods may be a reflection of the changing dining cultures of consumers caused by the continuous contact between people from different cultures (Iqbal 1996).
Large scale migration from Asia during the last couple of decades has brought about many changes in the demographic mosaic of the Western nations including Australia. Since the end of
World War II in 1945, about 6.5 million people - mostly of European origin - have migrated to and settled in Australia. Abolition of the ‘White Australia Policy’ in the 1970s witnessed an increased influx of migrants from Asia and the Middle East. Contribution of these immigrants has been an important factor in shaping modern Australia as a culturally diverse nation. Like their cohorts from Europe, these immigrants have brought with them their cuisines to Australia. With the passage of time, cuisines from Indonesia, China, Thailand, and India gained high popularity among Australians reflecting an increasingly pluralistic composition of the Australian society.
Food habits are “culturally standardized set of behaviours… … interrelated with other standardized behaviors …” (Mead 1943:21). Food preferences, a result of physiological and psychological development and social experiences related to the degree of liking a food, play an important role in food selection because they give an indication of the amount of satisfaction an individual anticipates from eating a food. Other influencers of consumer food choices include cultural and lifestyle factors, and food trends (Asp 1999). However, food habits undergo continuous change as they adapt to travel, immigration, and the socio-economic environment
(Jerome 1982; Lowenberg et al. 1974; Senauer et al. 1991; Kittler and Sucher 1995).
Among all ethnic foods interest of Australian consumers appears to be strongest in Chinese cuisines. However, popularity of Indian food has been fast increasing. It is worth noting that a large number of Indian restaurants in Australia are actually owned by Bangladeshis. The fact that large scale migration of Bangladeshis to Australia started only in the early 1980s, much later than other Asians, may explain the reason for this rather late adaptation of Indian food in Australia.
Despite the increasing interest in the area there is very little research on customer perceptions of food and service in ethnic restaurants and their marketing implications. Increased expectations and changing culinary tastes of consumers make the hospitality industry in general, and the restaurant industry in particular, highly competitive. To attract and retain customers (Gregoire et al. 1995) and to develop and maintain customer satisfaction and loyalty (Sundaram et al. 1997) it is imperative that restaurateurs have a solid understanding of their customers’ perceptions. To

1

Page 2 of 8

Page 3 of 8

ANZMAC 2009

that end, this research aims to provide a broad understanding of the degree of patronage enjoyed by Indian restaurants in Australia’s largest and most cosmopolitan city, Sydney. Its objectives are three-fold: (i) to develop the demographic profile of patrons of Indian restaurants in Sydney; (ii) to identify factors that influence patrons’ decision to dine at these restaurants; and finally, (iii) to determine if there are differences in the perceptions of patrons of different ethnic origins influencing their decisions to dine at these eating places.

Methodology
Data for this study were collected during February and October, 2007 through interviews of patrons using a survey questionnaire in five middle-of-the-ranges, sit-in Indian restaurants.
Located in five different suburbs of metropolitan Sydney, these restaurants represent a crosssection of Sydneysiders and served similar types of food at the price range of $12 to $16 per person per meal. Prior permission was obtained to conduct the interview on the premises during lunch and dinner times. On an average, 32 patrons were approached in each restaurant.
Before undertaking the actual research, a pilot study was conducted at one of the sampled restaurants to test for consumer acceptance and reliability. The instrument used was based on the works of Reid (1983) and Qu (1997) and informal discussion with restaurateurs. It included a diverse array of variables such as healthfulness (Weinstein and Straus 1994); clean environment
(McDowell 1996, Miller 1989); quality and response time of service (Reiter 1991; Field,
McKnew and Keissler 1997); entree, portion size, takeout options (Castagna 1997; Hall 1996;
Papiernik 1997) and convenience (Lynn 1998) identified as determinants of restaurant popularity.
Results of the pilot study were used to improve the survey instrument. The finalised version of the instrument sought information on the pattern of respondents’ patronage of Indian restaurants in Sydney; factors affecting their decision to dine out and the reasons for choosing an Indian restaurant. Responses were recorded on a 5-pt Likert type scale (1 = unimportant; 2 = neither unimportant nor important; 3 = somewhat important; 4 = quite important; and 5 = extremely important). Patrons’ demographics were also collected. Since the data collection was done through face-to-face interview, some patrons volunteered additional information pertaining to dining at Indian restaurants. Data was analysed using the SPSS software package. No compensation was provided to the patrons. However, they were assured that their individual responses were anonymous and confidential.

Findings and Discussions
Respondents represented an almost equal proportion of male (51.5%) and female (48.5%) patrons with an average age of 29. Eighty percent of them were Australian citizens of whom 59% were
Australian born. Two thirds (66.5%) of them were of European origin: 47.2% being Anglo-Celtic and 19.3% from Greece and Italy. Of the remaining, 23.4% were from Asian countries other than
Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka; 9.2% from the Middle East and a mere 1.3% from other countries. About a fourth (28%) had tertiary education; an almost equal proportion
(26%) reported having no formal education. Almost two fifths (40.9%) of the patrons identified themselves as ‘executives or professionals.’ Patrons’ weekly household incomes were well
2

ANZMAC 2009

distributed averaging about $1800. The statistics in terms of age, gender, citizenship, place of birth, education, and weekly household income are consistent with the demographic profile of the population of the Sydney metropolitan area (http://www.id.com.au/dosydney/Default.aspx?pg=1,
2006). It appears that the patrons of Indian restaurants are the average Sydneysiders. This contrasts with the finding of Josiam and Monteiro (2004) who found that patrons of Indian restaurants in Minneapolis (USA) metropolitan area were better educated and more affluent. The fact that Sydney is more cosmopolitan and more multicultural than Minneapolis may explain this.
To address the second and the third objectives, patrons were requested to assign importance scores, on a Likert scale, to each of the 10 characteristics of the restaurant, five attributes of
Indian food and two sources of word-of-mouth when deciding to dine at an Indian restaurant. To enable meaningful statistical analysis, the respondents were collapsed into two broad categories:
‘European’ (EUR) and ‘Other Ethnic’ (OTH). Table I shows the mean importance scores (MS) of the total sample and the two groups. For the total sample the six most important influencers of patrons’ decision to dine at restaurants, in descending order of MS, were taste of food, reputation of the restaurant, word-of-mouth of other patrons, location of the restaurant, vegetarian food and hygiene and cleanliness. It is worth noting that food quality and cleanliness/hygiene have been consistently rated among the most important factors in selecting restaurants (Reid 1983; Dulen
1999). ‘Price’ appeared to have a low importance score; however, it was a significant factor in decision making while ‘value of money’ was not. ‘Cultural familiarity’ did not also seem to affect patrons’ decision to dine in an Indian restaurant.

Ethnic Differences in Customer Perceptions and Influences
ANOVA was used to measure the differences of perceptions of the EUR and OTH groups. The results (in col. B, C, and D of Table 1) reveal significant differences between their MS in eight of the 17 factors influencing patrons’ decision to dine at an Indian restaurant. All inter-group differences are not significant: reputation of the restaurant, hygiene and cleanliness, quality of service, variety of menu and ambience and decor were the five significant factors on which EUR patrons had a higher expectation than the OTH patrons who seemed to have higher expectations on the factors taste of food, vegetarian food, price of food and cultural familiarity. A post hoc test conducted using the Scheffe’ method did not change the results of the tests of significance.
Emergence of general reputation of the restaurant as a caterer of authentic Indian food as the strongest influencer of patrons’ decision is not surprising. Authenticity, a 'locally constructed folk idea' (Lu and Fine 1995), is an attractive, albeit complicated, attribute used in the foodservice industry (Boyle 2003; Cobe 2004; Germann Molz 2003; Halter 2000; Negra 2002). In choosing an ethnic restaurant, a patron does not only look for a different type of food, he/she expects to have an 'experience' of cultural learning and awareness (Bell and Valentine 1997) and desires authenticity (MacCannell 1976). Evaluation of authenticity is mediated by patrons’ own exposure to culturally related ‘image formation agents' (Germann Molz 2003: 62). This is a socially created and negotiated practice; for some one without much knowledge of any ethnic restaurant, its general reputation and goodwill in the market assumes great importance; for many patrons the
'illusion of authenticity' is often good enough (Ebster and Guist, 2004; Lu and Fine 1995).

3

Page 4 of 8

Page 5 of 8

ANZMAC 2009

Table 1: Mean scores of importance of restaurant characteristics and food attributes
And analysis of variance of restaurant characteristics by ethnic origin (N = 160)

Reputation as an authentic caterer
Location of the restaurant
Hygiene and cleanliness
Quality of service
Variety of menu
Ambience and decor
Friendliness of employees
Seating capacity (size)
Serving size
Value for money
Taste of food (Quality)
Vegetarian food
Price of food
Appearance of the food
Cultural familiarity
Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi etc.
Other patrons (Non-subcontinent)

Mean Score
Patrons of European
Total Sample (A)
Origin (B)
Restaurant Characteristics
4.33
4.41
4.29
4.30
4.08
4.23
3.74
3.81
3.57
3.74
3.42
3.61
3.31
3.32
3.12
3.18
3.10
3.11
3.01
2.99
Food Attributes
4.59
4.48
4.23
4.21
3.81
3.65
3.46
3.41
2.89
2.31
Word-of-Mouth
3.99
3.98
4.3
4.28

Patrons of Other
Ethnic origin (C)

F-value
(D)

4.23
4.26
3.91
3.62
3.26
3.21
3.26
3.09
3.09
3.02

5.432*
1.311
11.732*
5.542*
7.341*
6.431*
1.112
1.483
0.003
0.996

4.69
4.26
3.97
3.48
3.07

4.049*
1.445
7.982*
2.983
11.538*

4.01
4.31

0.998
1.003

EUR patrons appeared to be more concerned about the cleanliness and hygiene of the restaurant than the OTH patrons. This group may have a negative stereotypical perception formed by the way print and visual media depict India that Indian restaurants are lax about standards of hygiene and cleanliness. The EUR patrons also had significantly higher MS on quality of service, but not on friendliness of employees. Perhaps quality of service subsumes employee friendliness. During the interview many of these patrons indicated that they had a much higher expectation for service quality than the OTH patrons because they were operating in a highly competitive market. In fact, it appeared that patrons in general were rather unhappy with the service quality of the Indian restaurants; but the EUR patrons tended to believe that Indian restaurants were unaware that they were in the service industry. The EUR patrons tended to perceive that the items on the menu in the sampled restaurants offer a whole range of choices, the OTH group comprising mainly other
Asian and Middle Eastern patrons were probably aware of other items served by other Indian restaurants. Hence, they tended to seek items that are new and different.
Atmosphere or ambience, i.e., the internal environment, is an important influencer in choosing a restaurant. Internal décor, layout, smell, and general ‘feel’ combine to create the stage setting for the dining experience (Marvin 1992). For many EUR patrons, atmosphere in an Indian restaurant is very important; perhaps they expect to see a glimpse of real India in the restaurant. By contrast, the OTH group may not have any such expectations as they may already be familiar with the
Indian culture. To most patrons, taste of Indian food is spicy and hot; the OTH patrons seemed to have a higher tolerance for such food, since they are accustomed to it (Dulen 1999). Some of them indicated their preference for restaurants offering spicier food; their MS on the importance

4

ANZMAC 2009

of spicy food was higher than the MS of the EUR patrons. The more familiar a particular food looks, smells and tastes, the better is its assimilation and acceptance (Bell and Valentine 1997).
Patrons from both groups indicated that prices in the Indian restaurants were higher than those in other ethnic restaurants; but price seemed to be a more important decision variable for the OTH group. Although value for money is related to price, this was not reflected in its MS or in the MS of serving sizes. This may suggest that OTH group patrons are more price-sensitive. However, since eating in a restaurant is not a ‘regular’ activity; patrons may not factor in the perception of value or the serving size in choosing a restaurant.
While cultural familiarity is not an influencer as such, its MS for the two groups significantly differed. While some EUR patrons stated that they go to an Indian restaurant to experience Indian culture; patrons of the OTH group seem to find elements of cultural familiarity not only in the food and its preparation, but also in the atmosphere of the restaurant.
Results in Table 1 identified location of the restaurant, vegetarian options and word-of-mouth as important factors influencing the decision to dine in an Indian restaurant. This is not surprising.
Good location and easy parking facilities offer convenience to patrons. Vegetarianism is a part of
Indian philosophy and tradition. Since a large proportion of Hindus and all Buddhists and Jains avoid meat altogether (Moy and Witzel 1998) most Indian restaurants tend to offer vegetarian food. Because of general dietary and health consciousness, many patrons today prefer vegetarian dishes. These might explain why all patrons view vegetarian option as an important factor in making the decision to dine in an Indian restaurant. The MS also indicates that all patrons were significantly influenced by the recommendation of other people including other patrons and people from the Indian subcontinent countries. While the scores are different for each of the groups, the differences were not statistically significant.

Managerial Implications
The abundance of ethnic restaurants in Sydney, the unbelievable choice of foods and variety of tastes and flavours are testimony to the richness of the cuisines that Sydneysiders can enjoy. This has important implications for ethnic restaurateurs who are operating in a highly competitive industry. Since the popularity of Indian food is gradually increasing, restaurants offering them must ensure that they meet the culinary needs and wants of their multicultural patrons. This study identifies some important issues relevant to the smooth running of Indian restaurants and provides some food for thought which should facilitate a better understanding of the perceptions of their customers. The study may be extended in its scope by including other Australian cities and using larger samples which would improve the generizability of its findings.

5

Page 6 of 8

Page 7 of 8

ANZMAC 2009

References
Asp, E. H. 1999. “Factors affecting food decisions made by individual consumers”. Food Policy.
24 (2-3): 287-294
Bell, D. and Valentine, 1997. Consumer Geographies: We are where we eat. New York:
Routledge Press.
Boyle, D. 2003. Authenticity: Brands, fakes, spin and lust for real life. Flamingo, London.
Castagna, N. 1997. “Pack mentality”. Restaurant and Institutions, 107:60–62.
Cobe, P. 2004. “Get It Together”. Restaurant Business, March 15. 103(5). 39-44.
Dulen, J. 1999. “Quality control”. Restaurants and Institutions. 109(5): 38-41.
Ebster, C. and Guist, I. 2004. “The Role of Authenticity in Ethnic Theme Restaurants”. Journal of Foodservice Business Research. 7(2): 41-52.
Field, A., McKnew, M. and Kiessler, P. 1997. “A simulation comparison of buffet restaurants.
Cornell Hotel Restaurant Administration Quarterly. 6:68–79.
Gabaccia, D.R. 1998. We Are What We Eat: Ethnic Food and the Making of Americans. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Germann Molz, J. G. 2003. “Tasting an Imagined Thailand: Authenticity and culinary tourism in
Thai restaurants”. In Long, L. (ed), Culinary Tourism, Lexington: University of Kentucky: 53-75.
Gregoire, M.B., Shanklin, C.W., Greathouse, K.R. and Tripp, C. 1995. “Factors influencing restaurant selection by travelers who stop at visitor information centers”. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing. 4(2): 41-49.
Hall, S. 1996. “Double duty”. Restaurant and Institutions, 106: 64–66.
Halter, M. 2000. Shopping for Identity: The marketing of ethnicity, Schocken, New York. http://www.id.com.au/dosydney/Default.aspx?pg=1, 2006; accessed on November 28, 2008.
Iqbal, S. 1996. “Ethnic foods - the allure for the consumer”. Foodinfo, IFIS Newsletter, p. 7.
Jerome, N.W., 1982. Dietary patterning and change: a continuous process. Contemporary
Nutrition Newsletter 7 (6). General Mills, Inc.
Josiam, B. and Monteiro, P. 2004. “Tandoori Tastes: Perceptions of Indian restaurants in
America”. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 16(1): 18-26.
Kittler, P.G., Sucher, K.P., 1995. Food and Culture in America, 2nd ed. West/Wadsworth,
Belmont, CA.
Lowenberg, M.E., Todhunter, E.N., Wilson, E.D., Savage, J.R., Lubawski, J.L. 1974. Food and
Man, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Lyrm, M., Le, J.-M. and Sherwyn, D. 1998. “Reach out and touch your customers”. Cornell
Hotel Restaurant Administration Quarterly. 39(3): 60–65.
Marvin, B. 1992. Restaurant Basics: Why Guests Don’t Come Back ... and What You Can Do about It. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

6

ANZMAC 2009

Mead, M., 1943. The problem of changing food habits. In The Problem of Changing Food
Habits, Report of the Committee on Food Habits 1941–1943. Bulletin No. 108, National
Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
Mintel International Group Ltd. 2006. Ethnic Restaurants and Takeaways – UK June 2006, http://www.just-food.com/store/product.aspx?id=43688&lk=ss accessed on November 23, 2008.
Moy, Al. and Witzel, M. 1998. Influences in Modern Indian Cooking, available at: http://2028.harvard.net/ people/alycem/work/icooking.html (accessed 6 June 2000).
Negra, D. 2002. “Ethnic Food Fetishism, Whiteness and Nostalgia in Recent Film and
Television”. The Velvet Light Trap, 50: 62-76.
Qu, H. 1997. “Determinant factors and choice intention for Chinese restaurant dining: a multivariate approach”. Journal of Restaurant and Food Service Marketing. 2 (2): 35-49.
Reid, R.D. 1983. Foodservice and Restaurant Marketing. CBI Publishing Company, Inc.,
Boston, MA
Senauer, B., Asp, E., Kinsey, J., 1991. Food Trends and the Changing Consumer. Eagan Press,
St. Paul, MN.
Sharpless, M. 1999. Ethnic Foods Boom in France, http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/agexporter/
1999/articles/ethnic.html, accessed on November 13, 2008
Lloyd, J. and Mitchinson, J. 2006. The Book of General Ignorance. Faber & Faber.
Lu, S. and Fine, G. 1995. “The Presentation of Authenticity: Chinese food as a social accomplishment”. Sociological Quarterly. 36(3): 535-553.
MacCannell, D. 1976. “The Tourist: A new theory of the leisure class”. Schocken, New York.
McDowell, B. 1996. The people's choice. Restaurant and Institutions, 106: 42–65.
Miller, D. 1983. Starting a Small Restaurant, Harvard Common Press, Boston, Mass.
Nützenadel, A. and Trentmann, F. 2008. Food and Globalization: Consumption, Markets and
Politics in the Modern World. Berg Publishers.
Papiernik, R. 1997. “Home meal battle heats up”. Nation's Rest News. 31: 46–48.
Reiter. E. 1991. Making Fast Food, McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Sundaram, D.S., Jurowski, C. and Webster, C. 1997. “Service failure recovery efforts in restaurant dining: the role of criticality of service consumption”. Hospitality Research Journal.
20(3):137-49.
Weinstein J and Straus, K. 1994. “Tastes of America”. Restaurant and Institutions, 102: 48–72.

7

Page 8 of 8