User:Alam Raihan/Predicting Customer Satisfaction and Revisit Intention in Restaurants

[[[Predicting customer satisfaction and revisit intention in restaurant]]] ... article content follows. 1. INTRODUCTION: Customers’ satisfaction towards a restaurant is influenced by many factors and restaurant image is one of them (Nguyen and Leblanc, 2001). Customers’ behavior and attitude towards a particular restaurant is very much dependent on that particular restaurant image which results in customer satisfaction (Bloemer and Ruyter, 1998). If customers believe that they are getting high value from the restaurant then that results in customer satisfaction which leaves a positive image toward the restaurant on their minds (Barich and Cotler, 1991). Generally, customer satisfaction is the reaction and judgment of a customer’s fulfillment and fulfilled state (Oliver, 1997). As food is the main component of restaurant experience and there is no doubt that food quality is and will be the leading component to fulfill customer’s basic needs and boost revisit intention. A restaurant will be able to provide the customers with the best service quality when they will provide a great service. But individual customers have different perception and understanding of the price and it varies greatly from person to person.While customers continue to be internal in a restaurant, they are probably to consider consciously and subconsciously the pleasant look over the interior designs regarding a restaurant namely properly namely the multiplication about the materials ancient into construction, artwork, or decoration. (Han and Ryu, 2009) and trust is also one of the keys which create positive interpersonal relationship. Based on all this it is described that this state of mind as a genuinely stable like or aversion of the service or product and which is dynamically affiliated with customer’s intention to revisit (Oliver, 1997) It is expected that this study will provide insights into the relation between the variables in the model which includes customer satisfaction, revisit intention, variety seeking tendency, food quality, service quality, pricing, restaurant reputation, atmosphere and trust. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES 2.1CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: The affective reaction of a customer to a service incident is customer satisfaction where satisfaction is resulted from quality service experience compare to the expectations (Oliver, 1980). It is a post decision of customer’s experience (Bolton & Drew, 1991). Day (1984) defined it as a post choice evaluative judgment after a purchase or service experience. Customer satisfaction is the result of the perception of a customer over the value he/she received where service quality relative to price indicates the value (Hallowel, 1996). Perceived quality is the first determinant of customer satisfaction and perceived value is the second (Fornell et al, 1996). Customer satisfaction is highly associated with value and based on some attributes such as price, service quality (Athanassopoulos, 2000). Generally, customer satisfaction is the reaction and judgment of a customer’s fulfillment and fulfilled state (Oliver, 1997). It has become one of the most critical marketing priorities as it is assume to be an important determinant to occur repurchases positive word of mouth and customer loyalty (Ryu& Han, 2010). It can be resulted from any dimension (Taylor & Baker, 1994). Customers often develop their attitude (satisfaction or dissatisfaction) about a service according to their experiences and this attitude is based on like or dislike of the product or service. This particular attitude of customer strongly related to customer revisit intention and positive word of mouth (Oliver, 1997). There are an overwhelming number of studies and researches on customer satisfaction outcomes, which reveals that both customer satisfaction and revisit intention has a positive relationship in service industry (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Getty & Thompson, 1994; Kivela et al, 1999; Soderlund&Ohman, 2005; Zeithaml et al, 1996). Therefore the following hypotheses are proposed: H○: Customer satisfaction may not have positive impact on customer revisit. Ha: Customer satisfaction has positive impact on customer revisit. 2.2 FOOD QUALITY: Quality is basically viewed as an attribute performance of any product and service (Namkung&Jang, 2007) and one of the most important element which affect the customer satisfaction and revisit intention in any restaurant is the “Food Quality” (Hyun, Jeongdoo, Myung, Kisang, 2013). The degree of acceptance to a customer of any product is determined by the attribute and characteristics of that product and which is basically known as the quality of that product (Armand, 1995). According to Peri (2006) for foodstuffs quality is “fitness for consumption” which is a necessary condition to fulfill the needs and expectations of consumers. Food Quality has two different dimensions, one objective and other is subjective; where objective quality is the physical characteristics built into the product and the quality which is perceived by customer is the subjective one (Klaus, 2005). According the Lancaster’s Approach quality is a bundle of components which determine the product’s performance (Julie & Eliza, 1996). In 2000 a research presented that the several attributes of food quality are testiness of food, menu variety, and nutrition to examine the customer satisfaction and return patronage (Kivela, Inbakaran, Reece, 2000). And according to Mattila (2001) to make loyal customers in restaurants there are three component to focus on are food quality, service, and atmosphere; where food quality has the most significant role in changing behavioral intentions of customers. Later on Sulek and Hensley (2004) had mentioned general three food attributes which are safety, appeal, and acceptability. Namkung and Jang (2007) have mentioned that the general description of food quality to focus on are presentation, variety, healthy option, taste, freshness, and temperature. Sulek and Hensley (2004) stated that in the highly competitive restaurant industry the main agenda is to satisfy customer and increase repeat purchase. As food is the main component of restaurant experience and there is no doubt that food quality is and will be the leading component to fulfill customer’s basic needs and boost revisit intention. (Namkung&Jang, 2007). Sulek and Hensley (2004) had found in their research that compare to other aspects of the restaurant, food quality is the most important one to build customer satisfaction. And the impact of food quality on customer satisfaction had beed tested by Namkung and Jang (2007) and a positive relation between food quality and customer satisfaction had been found which also led to positive revisit intention among the customers. Previous studies has been proven that food quality has a positive impact on customer satisfaction and re-visit intention (Kisand&Heesup, 2012; Jooyeon&SooCheong, 2010; Hyun, Jeongdoo, Myung, Kisang, 2013) H○: Food quality may not have positive impact on customer satisfaction. Ha: Food quality has positive impact on customer satisfaction. 2.3 SERVICE QUALITY: Service quality is conceptualized as a fixed set of static service dimensions such as reliability and responsiveness that reflect consumer expectations and/or perception (Schembri and Sandberg, 2011). The perception of service quality depends on many factors, such as the quality of the food, environment and behavior of the waiters (Wall and Berry, 2011). The combination of these three factors results into a good service quality (Lehtinen and Lehtinen, 1991). A good service quality form a restaurant will result into increase in customer satisfaction (Oh, 1999). The relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction and store loyalty has a positive correlation (Sivadas and Baker-Prewitt, 2000). Customer’s satisfaction with a restaurant’s service leads to a company to be successful in the long run (Hennig-Thurau and Klee, 1997). Moreover, it is suggested that restaurants should invest more in order to improve their service quality so that in future it will result into more customer loyalty and increase the revisit intention (Rust and Zahorik, 1993). Service quality is the main attribute in a restaurant business that will have a positive effect on all the other factors if provided properly to the end consumers, this helps to retain customer and also attract more customers into the business due to a positive word of mouth (Venetis and Ghauri, 2004). A restaurant will be able to provide the customers with the best service quality when they will have highly satisfied employees, they are the one who are directly in contact with the customers; so in order to provide a good service to the customers, the business must make sure that the waiters and the other staffs of the restaurant is totally satisfied with their job (Yee, Yeung and Cheng, 2008). Additionally, a business can do market oriented business (i.e. take the consumer’s perception into consideration) so that they already get to know the current demand trend of the customers in the market and moreover will have a higher chances that the customers will be more satisfied with their service (Chang and Chen, 1988). Finally, several studies also revealed that restaurants service quality has a great impact on customer satisfaction and has a positive relationship between them (Saglik et al, 2014, Taylor and Baker, 1994, Ruyter, Bloemer and Peeters, 1997, Spreng and Mackoy, 1996, Hallowell, 1996). Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed: H○: Service quality may not have positive impact on customer satisfaction. Ha: Service quality has positive impact on customer satisfaction. 2.4 PRICING: Before making a purchase, customer gathers references of price from various sources or experience. During purchase, if the actual price falls below the reference price then it is considered fair price and a price point above reference is considered unfair. (Heyman, 2008) The reference point can be formed through various sources, Pre-purchase reference point can be formed through previous personal experience, perceived cost of the product, reputation of the brand and perceived profit of the firm. (Bolton, 2003) Perceived fairness of pricing is inspired by the principle of dual entitlement. (Kahneman, 1986) The principle of dual entitlement argues that firms are entitled to a reference profit and customers are entitled to a reference price. Justified increase is welcomed when firms increase price due to an insignificant increase in cost and is deemed unfair when firms increase price due to a surplus in demand. When an exchange occurs, customers compare their expectation against their actual experience. If the product falls short of expectations, customer perceives the price as unfair and if the product exceeds the expectation, customer perceives the price as fair. (Nevin, 1981) It is difficult to figure out the appropriateness of price in the dynamic business environment of a restaurant due to its array of product offerings (Chen, 1994). Individual customers have different perception and understanding of the price and it varies greatly from person to person. And this perception of pricing fairness/unfairness greatly affects the overall satisfaction/dissatisfaction of customers who are visiting the restaurant. (Sirohi, 1998) Based on this theoretical and empirical support, we can assess that the perception of fair pricing is a strong indicator to overall customer satisfaction. H○: Perception of fair pricing may not have positive impact on customer satisfaction Ha: Perception of fair pricing has positive impact on customer satisfaction 2.5 RESTAURANT IMAGE: The all over impression (perception and attitude) about a restaurant that is evaluated by its potential customer is known as restaurant image (Heung, 1995). This indicates that the potential impact of restaurant image is attributed by perception (Walker, 2010). But it is comprised with many other factors; like physical facilities, prestige, service, standard etc which constitute the whole structure of restaurant image (Heung, 1995; Walker, 2010). Though these factors construct the structure of restaurant image but there are some other intangible factors like atmosphere of the restaurant, the restaurant’s tradition and facilities and also the personality, attitude and behavior of the employees contribute to build up the image (Aydin et al, 2005). Consumer’s perception as exciting or fun to have food in a particular restaurant can be very significant factors (Corporate reputation review, 2010). Restaurant image is related with many attributes of the restaurant, such as restaurant name, architecture, variety of foods, quality of service, tradition, ideology and also the standard of communication with the customers (Nguyen and Leblanc, 2001). Restaurant image is an overall evaluation of a restaurant by its potential customers considering both tangible and intangible factors (Nguyen and Leblanc, 2001). Image can be described as the overall impression that left on the mind of consumers (Nguyen and Leblanc, 2001). It has become clear from the marketing of goods literature that restaurant image represents the associations and impressions, also the belief and attitude regard to the restaurant (Chang and Fong, 2010). Customers’ satisfaction towards a restaurant is influenced by many factors and restaurant image is one of them (Nguyen and Leblanc, 2001). Customers’ behavior and attitude towards a particular restaurant is very much dependent on that particular restaurant image which results in customer satisfaction (Bloemer and Ruyter, 1998). If customers believe that they are getting high value from the restaurant then that results in customer satisfaction which leaves a positive image toward the restaurant on their minds (Barich and Cotler, 1991). Moreover, several studies also revealed that restaurant image has a great impact on customer satisfaction and also has a positive relationship between them (Hu et al, 2005; Corrigan, 1996; Chen et al., 2006; Porter and Linde, 1995; Chen, 2008, Chang and Fong, 2010; Hu et al, 2009). Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed: H○: Restaurant image may not have positive impact on customer satisfaction. Ha: Restaurant image has positive impact on customer satisfaction. 2.6 ATMOSPHERE: Atmosphere is perceived as the virtue of the enclosure space (Kim, 2009). Atmosphere is the conscious making of area in accordance with outturn emotional results within customers so enhance their purchase possibility (Kotler, 1973). Atmospheric is taken on concerning a set of elements, certain as music, lighting, coloration then scent. Research on environment psychology has suggested that atmospheric has a strong influence about people’s emotions, attitudes and behavior (Kim, 2009). Decoration and artifacts according to the attractiveness is concerning the atmosphere (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1994). Atmosphere, certain as decoration or pieces, spatial layout, and limit conditions so much are specifically pertinent according to the restaurant industry (Nguyen and Leblanc, 2002; Raajpoot, 2002; Wakefield and Blodgett, 1999). In a restaurant, the shade schemes of the eating area’s walls, ceiling or wall decorations, pictures or paintings, plants or flowers, tableware like glass and silverware, linens like table cloths yet napkin, ground coverings, then exorcism fixtures like dining desk or chair perform whole move a necessary portion between delivering a picture then among creating a universal aesthetic impression (Han and Ryu 2009). The atmosphere like desk then seating arrangements would stand particularly salient to customers into a restaurant the place adequate area is imperative because of shifting around and placing among comfort. These conditions encompass factors like lighting, noise, music, scent, atmosphere quality, and temperature) that are viewed heritage characteristics on the atmosphere (Baker, 1987; Bitner, 1992). Combined effects of more than one atmospheric variables increase customer satisfaction in restaurants (Jang and Ryu 2007). Ambience means music aroma and temperature then employee appearance had the nearly important influence regarding customers warm responses affected customers’ post-dinning behavioral intentions and customer satisfaction. Creative use of atmosphere design in a restaurant process would stay indispensable in bettering advertising targets such so wonderful customer understanding regarding quality, nice comparison about experience, high-quality attitudes and customer satisfaction. (Han and Ryu 2009)The position over the atmosphere within influencing consumer behaviors yet in growing a provider’s picture is pertinent within a service industry such so the restaurant industry (Booms and Bitner, 1982). Undeniably, customers knowingly or unknowingly experience the atmosphere before during or afterward the dinner when dining oversea of a restaurant. Pleasing atmosphere such as decor, artifacts, layout, temperature and tune may also determine, in conformity within a full-size extent, the quality over delight or following customer behavior. (Han and Ryu 2009) The atmosphere over the location execute be namely an important lot essential in purchasing selection making and customer satisfaction (Kotler, 1973). While customers continue to be internal in a restaurant, they are probably to consider consciously and subconsciously the pleasant look over the interior designs regarding a restaurant namely properly namely the multiplication about the materials ancient into construction, artwork, or decoration. (Han and Ryu, 2009) .Customer critiques about the elegance ,normal aesthetic impression and satisfaction are influenced by way of quite a number factors over close schemes as much nicely specifically artifacts (Bitner, 1992). Atmosphere in restaurant service settings inspire customers in imitation of chase the service consumptions then consequently influence their attitudes and effect (Hui, 1997; Nguyen and Leblanc, 2002). Pleasant scent, appealing music, blissful temperature, ample lighting, entire harmonizing along sordid elements among a restaurant, may also result of customers forlorn extra prejudiced perceptions regarding a verb and evaluating their experiences more positively, if atmosphere is not good enough it can impact negatively (Han and Ryu 2009). Moreover, several studies also revealed that restaurant atmosphere has a great impact on customer satisfaction and has a positive relationship between them (Han and Ryu 2009;Babin and Attaway 2000; Liu and Jang, 2009; Hui, 1997; Nguyen and Leblanc, 2002; Bitner, 1992, Kotler, 1973).Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed: H○: Atmosphere may not have positive impact on customer satisfaction. Ha: Atmosphere has positive impact on customer satisfaction. 2.7 TRUST: Trust is to believe on someone or something and think that is not harmful, feel safe about that (Cambridge Dictionary.2017) Trust is one of the keys which create positive interpersonal relationship (D. HARRISON MCKNIGHT NORMAN L. CHERVANY). Confidence of one party on other party’s words. Also can define trust as dependability on the service provider, what they promise to deliver (Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. 2002). Trust is a mental state containing the goal to acknowledge defenselessness in light of inspirational desires of the aims or practices of another (Camnrer, 1998). There are two implications belong to this definition first one is, trust forms based on positive expectations, and the second one is,trust is a psychological state that make customers to accept uncertain situations There are three characteristics of any firm to promote trust. And those are- 1. Efficiency; 2. Kindness; and 3. Purity (Chen. 2008). Trust can be used as most powerful marketing tools by the service firms (such as a restaurants) to build better relationship with customers. Consumers level of trust increases when they get satisfied with firm’s participation. Commitment create positive emotions in consumer’s mind. This positive emotion of the consumers make them (consumers) to trust the firm and their participation and offering. Also this trust helps to strengthen the attachment with the firm and consumers became loyal customers. Loyal customers tend to avoid alternatives and have revisit intention. When customers feel trust in a restaurant this effect positively toward relationship building and revisit intention (Kim, 2009). Interactions probably does not have any value if there is no trust exists between parties. Many interactions (moments of truth) shows the functional quality of a restaurant service. Satisfactory behavior and service by the employees create positive impression and helps to be confident on the service provider and it is important to form trust (Yin, C. Y, & Yang, X. 2009). Confidence of a consumer toward a brand‘s promises, effectiveness to do its stated function (Kang, J. 2011). Consumer can trust a product/service provider when they (provider) are able to fulfill customer’s expectations and can maintain quality what they (provider) were offering. Trust is a component which helps customers and providers to be with each other through out different encounters (Yi, Y., & La, S. 2004). Studies shows trust on restaurants has positive impact on customer satisfaction and revisit intention Customer satisfaction influenced by trust and consumer’s revisit intention rise with this. (Kang, J. 2011; Yin, C. Y, & Yang, X. 2009). Thus hypotheses are proposed: H○: Trust may not have positive impact on customer satisfaction and revisit intention. Ha: Trust has positive impact on customer satisfaction and revisit intention.

2.8 REVISIT INTENTION: Revisit intention has been viewed as an expansion of fulfillment as opposed to an initiator of revisit decision making process. Some other autonomous factors, joined to nature of execution amid on location and post purchase periods and also the goals un-mistakable nature, may add to revisit likelihood (Seoho Um, 2006). Revisit intention has been viewed as an augmentation of fulfillment as opposed to an initiator of revisit decision making process (um, 2006). Return to goal as the aims of visitors to return to in a year and their keenness to go to the place frequently (crompton, 2000). At the point when an organization offers a service or product, it is conceivable that there are numerous comparable products or administrations available gave by contenders. Customers for the most part have numerous choices, in this manner, it is critical for organizations to enhance the benefit of existing purchasers, and find a way to draw in their revisit practices other than drawing in new clients.(Moon, 2009). Though there are many factors of customer revisit intentions, but customer satisfaction is the most determinant factor of any customers revisit intention towards any organization (Alegre, 2006). When any customer visits any restaurant, they firstly have an assumption about the service. After having the meal they will contrast the serving knowledge and their foresight. If the service quality is equivalent or higher than anticipated, the customer will be happy with the restaurant and furthermore likely to visit the restaurant again and again (Oh, 2000). The more consumer loyalty in food and environment, service, cost and value, area and promotion and advertisements, the greater probability of clients returning (Qu, 1997). Clients return intention is just affected by the fulfillment of theme restaurant food quality and the environment (Weiss, 2005). Customers regularly build up an attitude about a supplier in view of their service or product. It is described that this state of mind as a genuinely stable like or aversion of the service or product and which is dynamically affiliated with customer’s intention to revisit (Oliver, 1997). Customers also engross in repeat purchasing or revisit behaviors at the point when there is no mental attachment (Guiltinan, 1989). In researching the relationship among service quality, fulfillment, behavioral intention, recommended that clients’ behavioral intention to suggest and repurchase are appreciative elements of their view of fulfillment and service quality (Getty, 1994). H1: Customer satisfaction may not have positive impact on customer revisit intention. H1a: Customer satisfaction has positive impact on customer revisit intention.

2.9 VARIETY SEEKING TENDENCY: Variety seeking tendency is the attribute of the customer that leads to him/her to switching to a number of different brands. (Kahn, 1986) The motive behind this variety seeking tendency may come from different sources. While the apparent action is of the customer switching brands, the underlying motive might be different for each individual. Switching to another brand might come from a personal choice, sale or even a trail mentality. (Trijp, 1992) Variety seeking may derive from a number of reasons. It may arise due to an internal need of variety. It may arise from an inept need of exploration or even due to some factor in the external environment. The factors of external environment can be stimulated by tweaking the marketing mix. Another reason of variety seeking is the humare characteristics of hedging against uncertainty. Variety seeking leads to customers trying out a portfolio of products and then deciding for himself what is the best fit for him. (Irani, 2011) Customers have a tendency to switch between the ‘inertia’ and ‘variety seeking.’ While inertia will lead to brand loyalty, variety seeking will result in brand switching. (Steenkamp, 1995) If switching cost of brand is low, achieving a state of inertia will be high. Inertia comes into play when individual faces an unfamiliar stimulus. The unfamiliarity will lead to repeat purchase and will in turn maximize attractiveness of the product itself. On the contrary, exposure to high familiarity will lead to customers seeking varieties and trying out different variants of the same product. (Bawa, 1990) Variety seeking tendency and customer revisit is inversely related. Variety seeking tendency leads to customers trying out other restaurants which in turn has a negative impact on revist of restautants. This brings us to our hypothesis

H0: Variety seeking tendency may not have positive relation with customer revisit

Ha: Variety seeking tendency has positive relation with customer revisit

3. METHODOLOGY: For our primary research, we have conducted a survey of a representative sampling of both gender and different age group who have visited restaurants recently. For that end we have designed a questionnaire with different types of questions as to get a range of useful data which helped us to answer the relation between customer relations and revisit intention. For our secondary research, we have used the resources of the NSU library and also consulted few books. We have browsed the internet and use standard search engines like Google. 3.1. SAMPLING: Data were collected using the convenience method from various public places around Dhaka city. A total of 250 respondents participated in the study. The self-administered survey was conducted between November 25 – December 15, 2017, across various age and with both gender. Incomplete questionnaires were discarded, leaving 240 usable surveys. The questionnaire presented the respondents with a set of statements regarding their experience with the restaurant. Seven-point semantic differential scales were used (1 = “strongly disagree”; 7 = “strongly agree”). 3.2. MEASURES: Variables in the model include customer satisfaction, revisit intention, variety seeking tendency, food quality, service quality, pricing, restaurant reputation, atmosphere and trust. A five-item scale was adopted from Andaleeb and Conway 2006 for Customer Satisfaction. Food quality was measured using six –item scale was adapted from Namkung and Jang 2007.To measure service quality six-item scale was adapted from Cronin et al. 2000.Price was measured with five-item scale was adopted from Ryu 2012. A four-item scale was adopted from Rosa, 2005, p.102 to measure the restaurant image. To measure atmosphere a seven-scale item was adopted from Ryu 2012.Trust was measured with a four item scale adapted from DeWitt, 2008.To measure revisit intention a three scale item was adapted from Kim, 2009.Variety Seeking Tendency was measured with a five scale item which was adopted from Kwun and Oh 2004.Table II lists all the items and their corresponding constructs, along with their mean and standard deviation, and Cronbach’s alpha for each variable.

Table II: Measures of Variables Variable Item Description Mean SD Customer satisfaction CS1 Overall, I was satisfied with my dining experience 5.111 .549 Cronbach’s α.943 CS2 I would return to this restaurant 5.14 1.712 CS3 I would recommend this restaurant to others 5.07 1.754 CS4 Considering the type of restaurant, the quality of the service was excellent. 5.05 1.575 CS5 Overall, this restaurant puts me in a good mood .5.14 1.569 Food Quality FQ1 Food presentation is visually attractive at this restaurant 4.99 1.517 Cronbach’s α .890 FQ2 This restaurant offers a variety of menu item 4.98 1.574 FQ3 This restaurant offers healthy options. 4.67 1.681 FQ4 This restaurant serves tasty food. 5.19 1.668 FQ5 This restaurant offers fresh food. 5.21 1.586 FQ6 Food is served at the appropriate temperature. 5.27 1.50 Service Quality SQ1 Employees served me food exactly as I ordered it. 5.49 1.582 Cronbach’s α .908 SQ2 Employees provided prompt and quick service. 4.95 1.557 Variable Item Description Mean SD SQ3 Employees made me feel comfortable in dealing with them. 5.13 1.478 SQ4 Employees provide service reliably, consistently, and dependably. 5.02 1.396 SQ5 Employees are knowledgeable and skillful. 5.00 1.404 SQ6 Employees are courteous, polite, and respectful. 5.25 1.385 Price P1 This restaurant offered good value for the price. 4.87 1.567 Cronbach’s α .908 P2 This restaurant experience was worth the money 4.99 1.529 P3 This restaurant provides me great value as compared to others. 4.96 1.534 P4 I paid what I had planned. 5.15 1.500 P5 This restaurant was reasonably priced. 4.91 1.631 Restaurant image RI1 I have a good feeling about this restaurant. 5.10 1.584 Cronbach’s α .873 RI2 I have an upstanding experience with this restaurant. 5.02 1.537 RI3 This restaurant is very well known to me and my friends. 5.15 1.532 RI4 This restaurant maintains a high standard the way it treats customers. 4.99 1.506 Atmosphere A1 This restaurant had attractive interior design and decor. 4.99 1.626 Cronbach's α .889 A2 The background music is pleasing. 4.54 1.815 Variable Item Description Mean SD A3 Employees are neat and well dressed. 5.16 1.489 A4 Adequate parking was available. 4.13 2.000 A5 This restaurant was clean. 5.23 1.550 A6 Aroma was good in this restaurant. 5.07 1.482 A7 Room temperature was appropriate in this restaurant. 5.08 1.476 Trust T1 Restaurants employees can be trusted at all times. 4.90 1.331 Cronbach's α.882 T2 Employees have a high level of integrity. 4.90 1.376 T3 Room temperature was appropriate in this restaurant. 5.08 1.476 T4 Employees made every effort to fulfill the promises made to it’s customers. 4.93 1.482 Revisit intention R1 I consider this restaurant as my first choice compared to others. 4.44 1.723 Cronbach's α .904 R2 I have a strong intention to visit this restaurant again. 4.91 1.686 R3 I want to come back in this restaurant again and again. 4.76 1.774 Variety seeking tendency VST1 I usually tend to eat in this different restaurant. 5.65 1.400 Cronbach's α .876 VST2 I like to experience different restaurants. 5.91 1.332 VST3 It is a good idea to eat in different restaurants whenever possible. 5.90 1.350 VST4 I like to experience various kinds of foods. 5.98 1.389

4. HYPOTHESES TESTING: 4.1 1st Regression (1st Dependent Variable) Our first dependent variable is 'Customer Satisfaction". We want to test whether the independent variables such as Food Quality, Service Quality, Price, RestaurantImage, Atmosphere. Our proposed hypothesis is, H0: None of the independent variables explain any significant variability in customer satisfaction. H1: At least one of the independent variables explain variability in customer satisfaction. ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 10215.726 5 2043.145 172.891 .000b Residual 2741.668 232 11.818 Total 12957.395 237 b. Predictors: (Constant), Atmosphere, Price, Food Quality, Service Quality, Restaurant Image.

Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) -2.794 1.045 -2.675 .008 Food Quality .417 .053 .433 7.903 .000 Service Quality .188 .058 .186 3.258 .001 Price .044 .054 .040 .814 .416 Restaurant Image .463 .081 .328 5.694 .000 Atmosphere -.017 .035 -.021 -.480 .632 a. Dependent Variable: Customer Satisfaction

Proposed Regression Model Y= a+b1x1+b2x2+b3x3+b4x4+b5x5 Here, Y= Customer satisfaction X1= Food Quality X2= Service Quality X3= Pricing X4= Restaurant Image X5= Atmosphere A= -2.794 B1= .433 B4= .328 B2= .186 B3= .040 B5= -.021 An Analysis of the Questions tells us Food Quality explains the most variability in customer satisfaction; followed by Restaurant Image, Service Quality, Pricing, and Atmosphere. Since P value is less than .05. 4.2 2nd Regression (2nd Dependent Variable) Ho: Customer Satisfaction do not explain significant variability in Trust. H1: Customer Satisfaction Explains significant variability in Trust Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 Customer Satisfactionb . Enter a. Dependent Variable: Trust b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .692a .479 .477 3.560 .479 218.816 1 238 .000 a. Predictors: (Constant), Customer Satisfaction

ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 2773.904 1 2773.904 218.816 .000b Residual 3017.096 238 12.677 Total 5791.000 239 a. Dependent Variable: Trust b. Predictors: (Constant), Customer Satisfaction Interpretation y= a + bx Trust= 7.968+.692(Customer satisfaction) In the ANOVA table, p-value=.000<.05 so we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. This means, Customer Satisfaction explains significant variability in trust. R square= .479 The variability in trust has a 47.9% chance of being due to customer satisfaction.

H0: Revisit Intention do not explain significant variability in Customer Satisfaction. H1: Revisit Intention Explains significant variability in Customer Satisfaction.

Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 Customer Satisfactionb . Enter a. Dependent Variable: Revisit Intention b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .716a .513 .511 3.319 .513 250.994 1 238 .000 a. Predictors: (Constant), Customer Satisfaction ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 2764.543 1 2764.543 250.994 .000b Residual 2621.419 238 11.014 Total 5385.963 239 a. Dependent Variable: Revisit Intention b. Predictors: (Constant), Customer Satisfaction Coefficients Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 (Constant) 2.351 .773 3.042 .003 .828 3.873 Customer Satisfaction .461 .029 .716 15.843 .000 .404 .519 a. Dependent Variable: Revisit Intention Interpretation y=a+bx Revisit intention= 2.351+.716 (customer satisfaction) In the ANOVA table, p-value=.000<.05 so we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. This means, revisit intention explains significant variability in Customer Satisfaction. R- Square=.513 The variability in revisit intention has a 51.3% chance of being due to customer satisfaction. H0: Trust does not explain significant variability in revisit intention. H1: Trust explains significant variability in Revisit Intention.

Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 Customer Satisfactionb . Enter a. Dependent Variable: Trust b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .692a .479 .477 3.560 .479 218.816 1 238 .000 a. Predictors: (Constant), Customer Satisfaction

ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 2773.904 1 2773.904 218.816 .000b Residual 3017.096 238 12.677 Total 5791.000 239 a. Dependent Variable: Trust b. Predictors: (Constant), Customer Satisfaction

Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 (Constant) 7.968 .829 9.612 .000 6.335 9.601 Customer Satisfaction .462 .031 .692 14.792 .000 .401 .524 a. Dependent Variable: Trust

ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 2614.045 1 2614.045 224.445 .000b Residual 2771.917 238 11.647 Total 5385.963 239 a. Dependent Variable: Revisit Intention b. Predictors: (Constant), Trust

Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 (Constant) .843 .913 .924 .356 -.955 2.641 Trust .672 .045 .697 14.981 .000 .584 .760 a. Dependent Variable: Revisit Intention y=a+bx Revisit intention= .843+.697 (trust) In the ANOVA table, p-value=.000<.05 so we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. This means, trust explains significant variability in Revisit Intention. R- Square=.485 The variability in revisit intention has a 48.5% chance of being due to trust. H0: variety seeking do not explain significant variability in revisit intention. H1: variety seeking explains significant variability in Revisit Intention.

Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 Trustb . Enter a. Dependent Variable: Revisit Intention b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .697a .485 .483 3.413 .485 224.445 1 238 .000 a. Predictors: (Constant), Trust ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 2614.045 1 2614.045 224.445 .000b Residual 2771.917 238 11.647 Total 5385.963 239 a. Dependent Variable: Revisit Intention b. Predictors: (Constant), Trust

Coefficients Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 (Constant) .843 .913 .924 .356 -.955 2.641 Trust .672 .045 .697 14.981 .000 .584 .760 a. Dependent Variable: Revisit Intention

y=a+bx Revisit Intention= .843+.697 (Variety Seeking) In the ANOVA table, p-value=.000<.05 so we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. This means, variety Seeking explains significant variability in Revisit Intention. R- Square=.057 The variability in revisit intention has a 5.7% chance of being due to Variety Seeking. Our first dependent variable is 'Customer Satisfaction". We want to test whether the independent variables such as Food Quality, Service Quality, Price, RestaurantImage, Atmosphere. Our proposed hypothesis is, 4.3 T-Test Based on Gender H0: Customer satisfaction is same for male and female H1: Customer satisfaction is significantly difference between male and female.

Group Statistics Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Customer Satisfaction Male 132 26.02 6.356 .553 Female 108 24.85 8.436 .812

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Customer Satisfaction Equal variances assumed 11.492 .001 1.225 238 .222 1.171 .956 -.712 3.053 Equal variances not assumed 1.192 195.101 .235 1.171 .982 -.767 3.108

Male =132, Female=108, Mean difference is from 26.02 to 24.85. Degrees of freedom t (238,195.101) =1.192 P value is less than .05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.

Univariate Analysis of Variance

Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Age Group 1 Below 20 35 2 20-30 132 3 30-40 38 4 Above 40 35

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Customer Satisfaction Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 144.407a 3 48.136 .884 .450 Intercept 112127.555 1 112127.555 2060.015 .000 Age 144.407 3 48.136 .884 .450 Error 12845.588 236 54.430 Total 168999.000 240 Corrected Total 12989.996 239 a. R Squared = .011 (Adjusted R Squared = -.001) Since a horizontal line cannot be drown through all the middle bars so ANOVA is possible. Outliers are less than 25% few outliers in age group 20-30, 30-40 and above 40: which is not too much. Normality Test Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. Standardized Residual for CS .128 240 .000 .908 240 .000

Since P value in Shapiro Wilk is less than .05; so, normality test has been passed. Ho: All the four groups result in same average customer satisfaction. H1: At least one of the four groups results are different customer satisfaction.

Q-Q Plot 80% of the sample is going through the liner line. So, ANOVA test is passed.

Histogram A line is going through all the bar charts. So, ANOVA Test is passed.

Homogeneity Test

Since P value is greater than .05, So, Homogeneity test is passed. Effective Age group ANOVA Customer Satisfaction Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 144.407 3 48.136 .884 .450 Within Groups 12845.588 236 54.430 Total 12989.996 239 From multiple comparison age group bellow 20, 20-30, they are different in analyzed customer satisfaction.

Robust Tests of Equality of Means Customer Satisfaction Statistica df1 df2 Sig. Welch .809 3 79.247 .493 Brown-Forsythe .874 3 131.094 .457 a. Asymptotically F distributed.

ANOVA Customer Satisfaction Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 144.407 3 48.136 .884 .450 Within Groups 12845.588 236 54.430 Total 12989.996 239

Robust Tests of Equality of Means Customer Satisfaction Statistica df1 df2 Sig. Welch .809 3 79.247 .493 Brown-Forsythe .874 3 131.094 .457 a. Asymptotically F distributed.

Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Customer Satisfaction (I) Age Group (J) Age Group Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Tukey HSD Below 20 20-30 -1.970 1.403 .498 -5.60 1.66 30-40 -1.062 1.728 .927 -5.53 3.41 Above 40 -2.457 1.764 .505 -7.02 2.11 20-30 Below 20 1.970 1.403 .498 -1.66 5.60 30-40 .909 1.358 .909 -2.61 4.42 Above 40 -.487 1.403 .986 -4.12 3.14 30-40 Below 20 1.062 1.728 .927 -3.41 5.53 20-30 -.909 1.358 .909 -4.42 2.61 Above 40 -1.395 1.728 .851 -5.87 3.08 Above 40 Below 20 2.457 1.764 .505 -2.11 7.02 20-30 .487 1.403 .986 -3.14 4.12 30-40 1.395 1.728 .851 -3.08 5.87 LSD Below 20 20-30 -1.970 1.403 .161 -4.73 .79 30-40 -1.062 1.728 .540 -4.47 2.34 Above 40 -2.457 1.764 .165 -5.93 1.02 20-30 Below 20 1.970 1.403 .161 -.79 4.73 30-40 .909 1.358 .504 -1.77 3.58 Above 40 -.487 1.403 .729 -3.25 2.28 30-40 Below 20 1.062 1.728 .540 -2.34 4.47 20-30 -.909 1.358 .504 -3.58 1.77 Above 40 -1.395 1.728 .420 -4.80 2.01 Above 40 Below 20 2.457 1.764 .165 -1.02 5.93 20-30 .487 1.403 .729 -2.28 3.25 30-40 1.395 1.728 .420 -2.01 4.80

Effective Age group From multiple comparison age group bellow 20, 20-30, they are different in analyzed customer satisfaction.

Customer Satisfaction Age Group N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 Tukey HSDa,b Below 20 35 23.89 30-40 38 24.95 20-30 132 25.86 Above 40 35 26.34 Sig. .403 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 43.939. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

5. DISCUSSION: 5.1 Theoretical Implications Customer satisfaction is contingent upon what customers “think” about the product/service they are provided with. This study confirmed that customers’ overall satisfaction in terms of customers’ revisit intention mainly based on food quality, service quality, pricing, restaurant reputation, atmosphere variety seeking tendency, and trust. This is in line with many previous studies conducted on restaurant around the world (Kang, J. 2011; Yin, C. Y, & Yang, X. 2009; Han and Ryu 2009; Babin and Attaway 2000; Liu and Jang, 2009; Hui, 1997; Nguyen and Leblanc, 2002; Bitner, 1992, Kotler, 1973; Chen et al., 2006; Porter and Linde, 1995). This study found that customers satisfaction of restaurant experience and revisit intention of the customers highly related to each other o another when customers are satisfied with the service, food, price and atmosphere. Similar kinds of studies were conducted on the basis of customers’ satisfaction and revisit intention in terms of service, food, price and atmosphere of restaurants. (Sirohi, 1998; Saglik et al, 2014; Taylor, B. 1994; Ruyter et al, 1997, Spreng and Mackoy, 1996; Hallowell, 1996; Kisand and Heesup, 2012; Jooyeon and SooCheong, 2010; Hyun, Jeongdoo, Myung, Kisang, 2013). Restaurant reputation is another important think to consider. Restaurant reputation is another important think to consider. Several studies also revealed that restaurant image has a great impact on customer satisfaction and also has a positive relationship between them (Hu et al, 2005; Corrigan, 1996; Chen et al., 2006; Porter and Linde, 1995; Chen, 2008, Chang and Fong, 2010; Hu et al, 2009). Trust is a component which helps customers and providers to be with each other through out different encounters (Yi, Y., & La, S. 2004). Studies shows trust on restaurants has positive impact on customer satisfaction and revisit intention Customer satisfaction influenced by trust and consumer’s revisit intention rise with this. (Kang, J. 2011; Yin, C. Y, & Yang, X. 2009). ). One explanation why perceived satisfaction has a significant direct effect on revisit intentions in restaurant may be that other variables, such as food quality, service quality, pricing, restaurant reputation, atmosphere variety seeking tendency, and trust have overall impact on customer revisit and customer satisfaction. 5.2 Managerial Implications Restaurant managers in Bangladesh should put emphasis on customer satisfaction, along withrevisit intention, variety seeking tendency, food quality, service quality, pricing, restaurant reputation, atmosphere and trust. In order to enhance customer satisfaction, manager of restaurant in Bangladesh should focus on food quality intensively. Besides that they need to emphasis on service quality to satisfy customers. To enhance favorable perceptions of customers they may reduce their prices or offer much greater service and food quality at the same price. If this is not possible, they must communicate their service benefits to customers by conveying the message that the services they are getting are worth the price. To improve customers’ perceptions of restaurant aspects in the short run, operators should convey a positive image about restaurant service, food and atmosphere improvement.In the long run, managers can invest more in employee service improvement equipment so that perceived satisfaction of the customers increase. Restaurant reputation is another important think to consider. As a manager of any restaurant he/she should provide with a good PR activities or promotion to improve their restaurant image. A good restaurant image can increase a higher amount of satisfaction among the customers. People like to enjoy varieties of food so it is important to have varieties of food in a restaurant. So the managers should emphasis on that to have varieties of food with good quality and service. Atmosphere also plays a vital role in terms of satisfaction, different age group and customers are now a day’s more into the atmosphere. They like to go in different places which have good atmosphere. Managers should maintain the restaurant atmosphere very specifically and maintain them in terms of customer satisfaction. A manager of a restaurant should emphasis on building trust among their customers cause without trust it is impossible to make customer satisfied so it is also very important. So we can say that all these things are really important for manager for customer satisfaction to enhance their revisit intention.

6. LIMITATION OF THE STUDY: Although this research was carefully prepared, we are still aware of its limitations and shortcomings. First of all, the research was conducted within a semester which has lasted for around twelve weeks. Twelve weeks is not enough for us to go outside of our territory and collect random samples for our research so that we can get the genuine and location unbiased sample data. It would be better if it was done in a longer time. Second, the population of the experimental group is small, only 240 surveys this amount of people which might not represent the majority of the population regarding restaurant experience. Third, since the questionnaire designed to measure the customers’ satisfaction and revisit intention regarding customers’ experience; it was necessary to get the quality information from the customers/ sample group but people were not very much agar to do so. Some of them did those surveys very carelessly. These were the most noticeable limitation in the time of doing our research study regarding our topic.

References

{{1. Alegre, J. &. (2006). Repeat visitation in mature and sun and sand holiday destinations. Journal of travel research. 2. Attaway, J.S. and Babin, B.J.2000. Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining share of customer. Journal of Business research, 49(2), pp.91-99. 3. Aydin, S., Ozer, G., &Arasil, O. ( 2005). Customer loyalty and the effect of switching costs as a moderator variable: A case in the Turkish mobile phone market. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23, 89-103. 4. Baker, J., 1987. The role of the environment in marketing services: The consumer perspective: Chicago: American Marketing Association. 5. Bitner, M.J. and Booms, B.H.,1982. Marketing services by managing the environment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 23(1), pp.35-40. 6. Blodgett J. G. and Wakefield, K. L. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), 66-76. 7. Bloemer, J. and De Ruyter, K., 1998. On the relationship between store image, store satisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of marketing, 32(5/6), pp.499-513. 8. Bolton, L.E., Warlop, L. and Alba, J.W., 2003. Consumer perceptions of price (un) fairness. Journal of consumer research, 29(4), pp.474-491. 9. Cardello, A.V., 1995. Food quality: relativity, context and consumer expectations. Food quality and preference, 6(3), pp.163-170. 10. Caruana, A., 2002. Service loyalty: The effects of service quality and the mediating role of customer satisfaction. European journal of marketing, 36(7/8), pp.811-828. 11. Caswell, J.A. and Mojduszka, E.M., 1996. Using informational labeling to influence the market for quality in food products. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78(5), pp.1248-1253. 12. Chang, N.J. and Fong, C.M., 2010. Green product quality, green corporate image, green customer satisfaction, and green customer loyalty. African Journal of Business Management, 4(13), p.2836. 13. Chebat, J.C., Dube, L. and Hul, M.K., 1997. The impact of music on consumers' reactions to waiting for services. Journal of Retailing, 73(1), pp.87-104. 14. Chen, I.J., Gupta, A. and Rom, W., 1994. A study of price and quality in service operations. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(2), pp.23-33. 15. crompton, b. a. (2000). Behavioral intention and quality satisfaction. quality satisfaction and behavioral intention. 16. Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M., 2000. Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of retailing, 76(2), pp.193-218. 17. Getty, J. T. (1994). The relationship between quality,satisfaction, and recommending behaviour in lodging decision. journal of hospitality and leisure marketing, 3-22. 18. Gotsi, M. and Wilson, A.M., 2001. Corporate reputation: seeking a definition. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(1), pp.24-30. 19. Grunert, K.G., 2005. Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand. European review of agricultural economics, 32(3), pp.369-391. 20. Guiltinan, J. (1989). A classification o relationshipmarketing.f switching cost withimplications for. A classification o relationshipmarketing.f switching cost withimplications for, 216-220. 21. Ha, J. and Jang, S.S., 2010. Effects of service quality and food quality: The moderating role of atmospherics in an ethnic restaurant segment. International journal of hospitality management, 29(3), pp.520-529. 22. Han, H. and Ryu, K., 2009. The roles of the physical environment, price perception, and customer satisfaction in determining customer loyalty in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 33(4), pp.487-510. 23. Heyman, J.E. and Mellers, B.A., 2008. Perceptions of fair pricing. Handbook of consumer psychology, pp.683-697. 24. Hu, H.H., Kandampully, J. and Juwaheer, T.D., 2009. Relationships and impacts of service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and image: an empirical study. The service industries journal, 29(2), pp.111-125. 25. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Thaler, R., 1986. Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. The American economic review, pp.728-741. 26. Kim, H.J., Park, J., Kim, M.J. and Ryu, K., 2013. Does perceived restaurant food healthiness matter? Its influence on value, satisfaction and revisit intentions in restaurant operations in South Korea. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, pp.397-405. 27. Kim, W.G., Ng, C.Y.N. and Kim, Y.S., 2009. Influence of institutional DINESERV on customer satisfaction, return intention, and word-of-mouth. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), pp.10-17. 28. Kotler, P., 1973. Atmospheric as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing 49 (4), 48–64. Brun, I., Ladhari, R., Morales, M., 2008. Determinants of dining satisfaction and post dining behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (4), 563–573 29. Leblanc, G. and Nguyen, N. 2002. Contact personnel, physical environment and the perceived corporate image of intangible services by new clients. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13(3), pp.242-262. 30. Liao, C., Chen, J.L. and Yen, D.C., 2007. Theory of planning behavior (TPB) and customer satisfaction in the continued use of e-service: An integrated model. Computers in human behavior, 23(6), pp.2804-2822. 31. Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A., 1974. An approach to environmental psychology. the MIT Press.}}

Other websites

• example.com