A Review of Food Service Selection Factors Important to the Consumer

Food and Public Health 2013, 3(4): 176-190
DOI: 10.5923/j.fph.20130304.02




 A Review of Food Service Selection Factors Important to
                     the Consumer
                                             Caroline Opolski Medeiros* , Elisabete Salay

                           Department of Food and Nutrition, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil



Abstract A literature review was carried out to identify the important factors perceived by consumers when choosing a
food service. The review was carried out in Scopus, Scielo and the Web of Science. The price, at mosphere, food quality and
location were the attributes most investigated by the researchers.The food quality and taste were perceived as essential by
consumers for all types of restaurants. On choosing fast-food restaurants the price and speed of service were the most
important factors.On selecting other types of restaurants, the mostrelevant factors were the food quality and taste, followed by
attributes related toservice. Price was shown to be important for the student population, lo wer-inco me populations and
individuals who eat out less frequently.With respect to gender, wo men perceived the preferences of their families and the
safety of food as more important than men. Differences in the degree of importance given to the selection factors were
observed according to the meal context. This review showed that further research,applyingaccurate methods, is needed to
broadly understand the choices of differing establishments by consumers.
Keywords           Food Service Industry, Restaurant, Consumer



                                                                         2) informationgathering; 3) evaluation of alternatives;
1. Introduction                                                          4)decision making; and 5) post-purchase behavior[14]. In the
                                                                         first step, the consumer identifies a problem or need (for
   Food consumption away-fro m-home is relevant in various               examplefeeling hungry), thenhe or she searches for
countries[1, 2, 3]. In the United States, for examp le, 48.7%            informat ion about the product or servicefro m different
of the food expenses were used away-fro m-ho me in 2011[2].              sources(personal, commercial, public and experiential).Next ,
In Brazil, this proportion is increasing and reached the value           the consumer evaluatesthe alternatives (for example,
of 31 % in 2008 and 2009[4]. In 2009, 48% of lunch meals                 different restaurants). At this stage, the consumer may
were taken in restaurants in Canada, a proportion 4% h igher             consider each service(or product) as a set of attributes (for
than in 2008[5].                                                         example, the attribute price and the safety of the food to
   The increasing relevance o f food consumed away-fro m-h               choose a restaurant), each attribute havingdifferent level of
ome brings new challenges for public health policies.                    importance.In the evaluation of alternatives step the
Although, the impact of consumption away-fro m-ho me in                  consumer defines preferences among the services, and can
the diet and health is still unclear, studies have shown that            form an intention to use the preferred[14].The mon itoringof
consumers can make healthy food choices in restaurants[6,                thepost-purchase behavior can be important because it is
7]. For examp le, in self-service restaurants with a wide                possible to observe the level of consumer satisfaction, and
variety of food offered, individuals can ingest more                     failures can be corrected[14]. Cu ltural, personal, social and
vegetables and low energetic density food[6]. However, the               physiological factors may interfere in the consumer
elevated consumption of high energetic density food has                  decision making process[14].
been associated with the frequency in certain types of                      Previous studies have analyzed the food service
foodservice[8, 9, 10], and in addition, some food borne                  consumerfro m different perspectives. For instance, Dunn et
diseases were shown to originate in the foodservices[11, 12].            al.[15] verified the motives for eating in fast-food restaurants
   Studies invo lv ing consu mer behav io r have loo ked for             using the Theory of Planned Behavior, whereas Pettijohn et
replies to questions such as: what, why, when and where the              al.[16] and Namkung and Jang[17] investigated consumer
peop le d o their shopp ing [13]. The consu mer decis ion                satisfaction on frequenting food services. On the other hand,
making process can involve 5 steps: 1) problem recognition;              Han et al.[18], in addit ion to studying consumer satisfaction,
                                                                         focused their research on the intention to go back to that
* Corresponding author:
caroline.opolski@gmail.com (Caroline Opolski Medeiros)                   particular food service establishment. In parallel, Verma
Published online at http://journal.sapub.org/fph                         [19], on analy zing the hospitality industry, observed that the
Copyright © 2013 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved   clients evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of the
Food and Public Health 2013, 3(4): 176-190                                                    177



different services before making their choices, and their          of the studies were first analy zed by focusing on the factors
decisions could be associated with different factors               of choice, in sequence focusing on the factors according to
simu ltaneously (e.g. price, b rand and quality).                  the characteristics of the population, and finally on the
   Although to the best of our knowledge no recent reviews         factors according to the type of restaurant and occasion
on the relevant factors related to the selection of                investigated.
commercial restaurants by clients were published in the
scientific literature. Ho wever, a general view on scientific
evidence on this subject could contribute to the conception        3. Results and Discussion
of public and private strategies with regard to foodservices.
In addition, the scientific gaps and deficiencies on the           3.1. Characterization of the Studies
subject should be pointed out.                                        Forty-five studies on the selection of food services were
   Thus the objective of the present paper was to investigate      analyzed. Tab le 1 shows the characterization of the type and
and analyze studies concerning the factors perceived as            nature of the survey, as also the data collection method
relevant by consumers in selecting food services, when             emp loyed in the survey.
eating meals away fro m ho me.                                        The articles were published between 1979 and 2011,
                                                                   66.7% of them being concentrated between 2001 and 2011
                                                                   showing the current importance of this subject for the sector.
2. Methodology                                                     With respect to localizat ion, the majo rity of the studies were
                                                                   developed in North America (appro ximately 55.6%), and the
2.1. Mappi ng the Review                                           surveys were carried out amongst adults or adolescents,
   A review o f the factors related to the choice of restaurants   31.1% being undergraduate or postgraduate students (Table
was carried out in the period fro m April 1st 2010 to August       2).
25th 2011 using the Scopus, Scielo and Web of Science
                                                                   Table 1. Characterization of the Studies Analyzed Concerning the Choice
electronic data bases, with no restrictions for the year of        of Food Services, Published in the Period from 1979 to August of 2011
publication. The search was made using the following
                                                                                                                            Frequency
descriptor terms:[{away fro m ho me food}or{eating                   Characterization of the studies
                                                                                                              Number of
                                                                                                                            (% of total
out}or{restaurant}or{food-service}]        and[{attitude}     or                                              studies (n)
                                                                                                                             studies)
{perception} or {choice} or {selection} or {preference} or                                     Type of research
{opinion} or {behavior}] and[{consumer} or {customer}],                        Survey                        41                91.1
with a total of 56 co mbinations. The summaries of the                        Qualitative                     3                 6.7
articles were analy zed, and, when necessary, the whole                      Experimental                     1                 2.2
manuscript, in order to verify the inclusion criteria and select                              Nature of research
the articles.                                                                Exploratory                      8                17.8
   Papers meeting the following criteria were included in the                 Descriptive                    37                82.2
review: (a) the study investigated the factors considered by                                     Types of data
consumers when choosing a food service, except when                             Primary                      43                95.6
exclusively for delivery; (b) the article was published in a                  Secondary                       2                 4.4
scientific journal; (c) the work had to be original and could                              Method of data collection
not be a review; (d) the art icles were published in English,        Self completion questionnaires
Portuguese, Spanish or Italian.                                                  Postal                            3            6.7
   The search in the data bases resulted in a total of 1,298               Self administered                      19           42.2
citations. After a review of the titles and summaries, 150                       Online                            3            6.7
articles were selected by applying the inclusion criteria, and                Interviews
the entire articles obtained. After a detailed reading of the                 Telephone                            1            2.2
whole art icles, it was shown that 126 of the studies did not                Face to face                         15           33.3
satisfy the inclusion criteria and were excluded fro m the                  Focus groups                           1            2.2
analysis, just 24 original art icles remain ing. Thus it was                      *NI                              3            6.7
decided to include other papers cited in the chosen articles,       *NI – not clearly informed in the study
these papers being identified by read ing the articles,
resulting in the addition of a further 21 articles which met the      The valid ity of the instruments used in their studies was
inclusion criteria to the review, giv ing a total of 45 original   only clearly reported in 9 articles (20.0%),[20-28]. In the
articles for analysis.                                             other surveys, pre-tests were carried out before the data
   To characterize the studies investigated, the following         collection[29-35]. The instrument reliability was evaluated
data were analyzed: year published, place where the study          in 15 studies (33.3%) [22-28, 36-43].
was carried out, type of restaurant investigated, study               The use of a theoretical model as a base for the study was
methodology and type of consumer investigated. The results         cited in 24.4% of the papers[20-22, 25, 29, 32, 34, 39, 44-46],
178                 Caroline Opolski M edeiros et al.: A Review of Food Service Selection Factors Important to the Consumer




and the model most used was that of mu lti-attributes[29, 34,                 Knutson[59] and Baek et al.[32] showed that the speed of
44].                                                                          service was an important to moderately important item for
  Twenty-three studies used literature reviews to determine                   the consumers who ate meals away fro m ho me. Ho wever, in
the attributes of the choice of restaurants to be analyzed in                 the surveys carried out by Gregory andKim[51], Goyaland
the survey[20, 23-29, 31, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 47-54]. The                 Singh[42] and SanchesandSalay[35], this item was not so
factors that influenced the choice of restaurant varied                       highly valorized when co mpared with the other attributes
according to the sample of indiv iduals investigated. Thus it is              analyzed.
important to determine these factors in the group studied by                     In a study carried out by Sweeney et al.[47], the
way of an exp loratory survey with p re-structured interviews                 consumers perceived the behavior of the employees as the
or focal g roups, a procedure carried out in nine art icles[26,               most important item in the selection of a restaurant. Similar
27, 33, 40, 41, 44, 46, 55, 56].                                              findings were observed in other surveys[ 20, 22, 23, 26, 27,
                                                                              33, 37, 48, 49, 58, 59]. SanchesandSalay[35] found that the
3.2. Food Service Choice Factors                                              most relevant attribute for the consumers was the hygiene of
   The selection factors were categorized into 6 groups: 1)                   the employees. Another important attribute was the
service, 2) installations and ambience of the place, 3) foods,                availability of employees ready to carry out their activities,
4) p rice, 5) localization, and 6) other factors (Table 3).                   this being considered the main item in the loyalty of choice
                                                                              of a food service in the survey carried out by June
3.2.1. Attributes for Service                                                 andSmith[29]. The “friendliness of the employees” in food
   Of these, the speed of service was the attribute most                      services was also strongly related to consumer satisfaction
studied by the researchers (44.4% of the studies) (Table 3).                  on frequenting a food service[49].
Ayala et al.[38], Kara et al.[48, 57], Tucci and Talaga[58],

Table 2. Characteristics of the Population Interviewed, Type of Restaurant and Results for the Principal Factors Considered in the Choice of Restaurant in
the Articles
                                        Type of        Population
   Author, year           Country      restaurant        studied        Age (years)     Principal factors considered in the choice of restaurants
                                        studied         (number)
                                                                                        1) week-day lunch: food flavor, service speed, hygiene and
                                                                                        convenience, price, variety on menu and popular with children; 2)
                                                                                        lunch during visit to shopping: food flavor, hygiene, convenience,
                                                        General                         service speed, price, variety on menu and popular with children; 3)
    Miller et al.          United
                                       Fast-food       population            NI         meal at night when short of time: food flavor, service speed,
     1979[44]              States
                                                        (n=742)                         convenience, hygiene, price, variety on menu and popular with
                                                                                        children; 4) meal with family when time not short: food flavor,
                                                                                        hygiene, price, variety on menu and popular with children, service
                                                                                        speed
                                      Restaurant:                                       Food quality. In the popular restaurant this was followed by the
                                         family/                                        factors of atmosphere, price, variety on the menu and factors of
                                                        General
                           United       popular,                                        convenience. In the atmosphere restaurant, the second attribute was
  Lewis 1981[60]                                       population            NI
                           States     atmosphere,                                       price, followed by the atmosphere and factors of convenience. In the
                                                        (n=110)
                                           and                                          Gourmet restaurant it was the variety on the menu, atmosphere and
                                        gourmet                                         factors of convenience
                                                                                        Liquor license, followed by the availability of attentive employees
                                                        General                         to carry out the services and privacy. In intimate dinners and
June et al. 1987[29]         NI       Restaurants      population            NI         celebrations with friends: liquor license. In family dinners and work
                                                         (n=50)                         lunches: the presence of attentive employees. In intimate dinners:
                                                                                        privacy
                                                                                        Type of food served, followed by the quality of the food, value for
                                       Pubs and         General
                           United                                                       money, image and atmosphere. On social and convenience
  Auty 1992[61]                         ethnic         population           >16
                          Kingdom                                                       occasions: type of food followed by the quality of the food. For
                                      restaurants       (n=115)
                                                                                        celebrations: indication
                                                                                        Behavior of the employees and indication of the restaurant. The
  Sweeney et al.
                          Australia   Restaurants   Students (n=56)          NI         price when the meal was with a group of friends, and the appearance
    1992[47]
                                                                                        of the other consumers when having a special meal with one friend
                                                                                        Frequent consumers – delivery service, variety, service, quality,
                                                        General
                          United                                                        hygiene, and the agreeability of the employees (USA); seating
                                                       population,
                          States                                         < 25 to ≥      capacity, hygiene, nutritional value, agreeability of the employees
Kara et al. 1996[57]                   Fast-food         (n=179
                           and                                               46         (Canada). Less frequent consumers – novelties for children, price
                                                        USA,141
                          Canada                                                        and nutritional value (USA); price, localization and novelties for
                                                        Canada)
                                                                                        children (Canada)
Food and Public Health 2013, 3(4): 176-190                                                          179



                                                                   Table 2. Continued

                                      Type of         Population
   Author, year         Country      restaurant         studied        Age (years)    Principal factors considered in the choice of restaurants
                                      studied          (number)
                                                                                      1) Quick-service restaurants – hygiene of the utensils, washroom
                                    Quick-servi
                                                                                      area, food flavor, appearance of the employees, freshness, friendly
                                          ce,
                                                       Students        Mean age of    service; convenient localization; quick service and varied menu; 2)
Hsu et al. 1997[20]      Korea      family-style
                                                       (n=292)            23          Family-style restaurants – food flavor, famous items on menu,
                                    , fine dining
                                                                                      variety, presentation, portion and freshness, and all the aspects of
                                      restaurant
                                                                                      hygiene, service, atmosphere and offer of products
                                                                                      Frequent consumers – delivery service, variety, quick service,
                                                                                      quality, hygiene and agreeability of employees (USA); place to sit,
                        United                         General
                                                                                      hygiene, nutritional value, agreeability of employees (USA); place
                        States                        population
Kara et al. 1997[48]                 Fast-food
180                 Caroline Opolski M edeiros et al.: A Review of Food Service Selection Factors Important to the Consumer




                                                                  Table 2. Continued
                                      Type of        Population
   Author, year           Country    restaurant        studied        Age (years)    Principal factors considered in the choice of restaurants
                                      studied         (number)
                                                       General
   Laroche et al.
                           China     Restaurants     population       25
    2008[46]                                                                         group of family: options offered to distract children and practicality
                                     restaurant
                                                                                     of the local; 4) group of executive clients: client preferences and
                                                                                     availability of tables

                                                      General                        Food flavor, food safety, food freshness, cleanliness of ambient,
                          United      Chinese                         Mean age of
Liu et al. 2009[23]                                  population                      and appropriate temperatures of the food were the five most
                          States     restaurant                          37
                                                      (n=284)                        important attributes

                                                                                     Adaptation to locality, food quality and flavor, services offered by
                                                      General
                                                                                     establishment, pleasure of visiting or being at a restaurant,
Mamalis 2009[24]          Greece      Fast-food      population           NI
                                                                                     promotional programs, quality attributes, high quality delivery
                                                      (n=400)
                                                                                     service and ambience
Food and Public Health 2013, 3(4): 176-190                                                         181




                                                            Table 2. (Continued)
                                   Type of        Population
   Author, year        Country    restaurant        studied       Age (years)   Principal factors considered in the choice of restaurants
                                   studied         (number)
                                                    General
                       United                                     < 20 to ≥     Factors related to ambient and service, followed by concern with
Choiet al. 2010[43]              Restaurants      population
                       States                                         50        health and economic values
                                                    (n=307)
                                                    General
                       United      Korean                         Mean age of
Ha et al. 2010[25]                                population                    Cost, taste and menu options
                       States     restaurant                        37.7
                                                    (n=607)
                                                                                Fine dining: food and beverage taste, food and beverage quality and
                                 Fine dining,
                                                                                friendliness of service. Buffet: variety of menu items, food and
                       United     Buffet and    Senior citizens
Kim et al. 2010[26]                                                  ≥ 50       beverage taste, parking and food and beverage quality.
                       States    Family/casu        (n=76)
                                                                                Family/casual dining: food and beverage taste, food and beverage
                                   al dining
                                                                                quality and friendliness of service
                                                                                Fine dining: taste of food, consistency of food quality, servers’
                                                                                knowledge about menu, friendliness of employees and consistency
                                 Fine dining,
                                                                                of service quality. Buffet: taste of food, variety of menu choice,
                       United     Buffet and    Senior citizens
Kim et al. 2010[27]                                                  ≥ 50       adequate parking space, consistency of food quality and
                       States    Family/casu       (n=393)
                                                                                comfortable seating. Family/casual dining: taste of food,
                                   al dining
                                                                                consistency of food quality, friendliness of employees, consistency
                                                                                of service quality and servers’ knowledge about menu
                                                   Married        Middle-age
 Kozak 2010[54]        T urkey   Restaurants      population           d        Obligations
                                                   (n=226)        individuals
                       United       Green       Y generation                    Value and reliability of service, food quality and reputation of
Jang et al. 2011[28]                                               17 to 30
                       States     restaurant      (n=322)                       restaurant
                                                   General
   Sancheset al.                                                                Hygiene of employees followed by hygiene of establishment, food
                       Brazil    Restaurants      population         ≥ 18
     2011[35]                                                                   quality, taste and appearance
                                                   (n=250)
NI: not informed

   On the other hand, “service reliab ility” was the most               choosing a food service.
relevant attribute studied by VermaandThompson[55] and
Jang et al.[28]. Liu andJang[23] and Kim et al.[26, 27] also            3.2.2. Installation and A mbient Attributes
found that a reliable and consistent service was important.                The “atmosphere” of an establishment was shown to be a
However, in the United States, TucciandTalaga[58] and                   relevant factor in 33.3% o f the studies analyzed[20, 22, 24,
Moschis et al.[31] observed that the guarantee to the client            26, 27, 35-37, 42, 49, 51, 56, 60-62]. Ho wever June and
that the service would be offered as expected was not an                Smith[29] and Jang et al.[28] on ly found moderate
important factor at the mo ment of choosing a restaurant.               importance for this attribute.
   In some studies a “delivery service” was the factor that                In a study carried out by Stewart et al.[56] the importance
most contributed to the choice of an establishment[48, 57].             of the amb ience was positively related to fine-d ining
On the other hand this element was only perceived as                    establishments, and negatively related to fast-food
moderately important in the survey carried out by Hsu et                restaurants. Similar findings were encountered by Hsu et
al.[20]. The “efficiency” and “high quality of the delivery             al.[20], who observed that this attribute was highly perceived
service” were shown to be relevant by Azanza[30] and                    by consumers in selecting family and fine-d ining type
Mamalis[24].                                                            restaurants, but not in the choice of quick service ones. Kim
   In a study by Kara et al.[57] in Canada, the seating                 et al.[26, 27] also found that this factor was more important
capacity was valorized by consumers who most constantly                 in the choice of fine-dining and casual-dining restaurants
frequented food services. The possibility of remain ing in the          than in those of the buffet type.
place after the meal and the parking facilities were attributes            Another factor valorized in the selection of food services
perceived as moderately important to important[20].                     was hygiene[20, 22, 23, 30, 32, 35, 37, 42-44, 59, 63]. The
   “Offers of promotional p rograms” were also analyzed by              general appearance of the restaurant and the hygiene of the
some researchers, and were cited as very important by                   kitchen, chinaware, din ing area and restrooms stood out as
consumer in the studies of Jang et al.[52], Mamalis[24] and             elements perceived by the consumers as inferring the level of
Kim et al.[26]. Jang et al.[52] analyzed the influence of the           food safety of the restaurant[33]. The consumer perception
cost of jo ining membership programs in restaurants, and                of food safety can influence the choice o f restaurant[33].
showed a consumer preference for the cheapest ones.                     However, the ind ividuals’ knowledge about food safety
   As shown in table 3, other attributes were also analyzed,            practices in restaurants is limited, and consumer education
but were perceived as less relevant by consumers when                   action in this area is necessary[64].
182            Caroline Opolski M edeiros et al.: A Review of Food Service Selection Factors Important to the Consumer




   Other attributes understood as moderately important to          second factor in the selection of a family/popular restaurant
important were: an attractive external design, an area for         or an atmosphere restaurant[60]. This item was also the third
non-smokers, a tranquil din ing area, music, a spacious dining     most valorized factor in the selection of ethnic restaurants
area and attractive presentation[20], privacy[20, 22] and the      and pubs[61], as also for fast-food restaurants[59]. Price was
comfo rt of the place[26, 27, 31].                                 also shown to be important in the selection of restaurants by
                                                                   Ru more et al.[63], Gregory and Kim[51], Ayala et al.[38],
3.2.3. Food Attributes
                                                                   Goyal and Singh[42], Njite et al.[34] and Kim et al.[26].
   The quality of the food was observed to be the most                However, in other studies the price was considered to be
important factor in choosing to go to a restaurant by              an attribute of little importance when compared to other
Lewis[60], Ru more et al.[63], Susskind and Chan[62],              factors[20, 23, 29, 33, 35-37].
Gregory and Kim[51] and Goyal and Singh[42]. This
attribute also showed considerable relevance in other              3.2.5. Localizat ion
studies[22, 24-28, 32, 35, 36, 38, 49, 55, 58, 61]. “Food
                                                                      The attribute of localization was investigated in 44.4% of
quality” also affected consumer satisfaction, as shown by
                                                                   the studies (Table 3). A “convenient localizat ion” and
Clark and Wood[49].
                                                                   “localizat ion” were attributes understood as important in the
   In the survey carried out by Auty[61], the type of food
                                                                   selection of food services according to Hsu et al.[20],
offered at the establishment was the most valorized item in
                                                                   Ru more et al.[63], Gregory and Kim[51], Ayala et al.[38],
the selection of a restaurant. Gregory and Kim[51] and
                                                                   Stewart et al.[56] and Goyal and Singh[42]. When close to
Tinoco and Ribeiro[46] also observed that this element
                                                                   the residence or place of work, the “localizat ion of the
influenced the choice made by the consumers interviewed.
                                                                   establishment” appears to be an important factor in selecting
   On the other hand, the attribute that most contributed to
                                                                   a restaurant[31]. According to Azan za[30], the pro ximity of
the choice of a restaurant according to Miller and Ginter[44],
                                                                   the establishments to their residences was of g reater
Park[37], Ayala et al.[38], Goyal and Singh[42], Ha and
                                                                   importance for students than to be near their schools and/or
Jang[25] and Kim et al.[26, 27] was the taste of the food.
                                                                   work.
This aspect was also shown to be important in studies carried
                                                                      For individuals with a s maller degree of co mmit ment to
out by Hsu et al.[20], Anderson and He[50], Clark and
                                                                   restaurant loyalty programs, the localization had greater
Wood[49], A zanza[30], Rydell et al.[65], Liu and Jang[23],
                                                                   importance than for ind ividuals with a greater degree of
Mamalis[24] and Sanches and Salay[35].
                                                                   commit ment[36]. According to Gregory andKim[51], the
   The “variety of the menu” was another relevant factor in
                                                                   localization was a significantly more impo rtant attribute for
the selection of food services (Table 2), although in some
                                                                   indiv iduals with no in format ion concerning the establishme
studies this attribute was relatively less important in the
                                                                   nt, than for individuals who had such information.
choice of restaurant [22, 23, 35, 37]. The “variety of the
                                                                      Stewart et al.[56] observed that consumers tended to
menu” seems to affect consumer loyalty and satisfaction
                                                                   choose establishments that offered more nutritive options, if
with respect to a specific food service [49, 25; respectively].
                                                                   they were also more conveniently located and had an
It should be mentioned that Choi and Zhao [43] observed the
                                                                   agreeable ambience.
importance of offering a variety of healthy options to the
                                                                      Mamalis[24] observed the importance of adapting the
consumers.
                                                                   restaurant according to the characteristics of the locality
   Other attributes related to the food that were also relevant
                                                                   (country, region or city). Thus when imp lanting an
in the selection of restaurants were: the nutritional value[43,
                                                                   establishment in a new locality one should consider the
48, 57], the appearance[35], the coherence of the items on
                                                                   particularities of the region, and, when necessary, always
the menu, size of the portion, temperature of the food when
                                                                   attend the likes of the local population.
served, freshness, offer of foods requested by the client and
the offer of healthy foods (Tables 2 and 3). So me other items     3.2.6. Other Factors
presented moderate value: authenticity, aro ma and presentat
ion of the food served[23]. The rest of the items were                The “indicat ion of a restaurant” was the type of informat i
categorized as of little importance.                               on most used by consumers for celebrat ions[61], and other
                                                                   authors made similar findings[31, 50, 47]. According to
3.2.4. Price                                                       Moschiset al.[31], when the reco mmendation was made by
   The “price” was the attribute most researched in the            individuals in the same age bracket, it could be more
studies analyzed (64.4%) (Table 3). This item was shown to         effective.
be important in the selection of a food service in the majority       Gregory and Kim[51] showed that the information that
of the studies that investigated it. Baek et al.[32] showed that   most influenced the choice of restaurant was that passed on
Korean and Filipino consumers perceived price to be the            by friends and relatives (94.5%), this informat ion being mo re
most relevant factor in the choice of a restaurant. On the         used than that obtained from the media. Such results were
other hand, for A merican consumers the price was the              also observed in other studies[20, 43, 47, 63].
Factors*
                     Food
                    Music
                   Privacy
                    Service




                   Comfort
                   Hygiene




                 Food safety
                 Atmosphere




                 Food quality


                Varied menu
                Type of food
                Taste of food
                Service speed




               Opening hours
               Service quality
              Delivery service
             Employee service



             Service guarantee




            Appearance of food
           Employee appearance




           Promotional programs




          Installations for children
         Installations and ambience
       Reliable & consistent service




      Information on nutritional value
      Discounts, coupons & incentives
      Employee behavior& friendliness




            x
                                      x
                                                                         x




                                                                                  Miller et al. 1979[44]
            x x
                   x x
                                         x




                                                                                     Lewis 1981[60]
                                                                        x




                                                                                   June et al. 1987[29]
                  x
                x x
                                   x
                                         x x
                                                 x
                                                                         x




                                                                                     Auty 1992[61]
                                                                x
                                                                x




                                                                                 Sweeney et al. 1992[47]
          x
                                                 x




                                                                                  Kara et al. 1996[57]
            x
                              x
                              x
                                        x
                                                  x
                                                  x
                                                                 x




                                                                                   Hsu et al. 1997[20]
              x
          x x x
                                      x x x
                                                 x
                                                               x x x
                                                               x x x
                                                                         x x x




                                                                                   Kara et al. 1997[48]
                                                            x




                                                                                   Tucci et al. 1997[58]
            x
            x
                   x x
                                         x
                                                 x
                                                                x x
                                                                         x x




                                                                                   Clark et al. 1998[49]
                                                                                 Anderson et al. 1998[50]
             x
                                      x
                                                         x




                                                                                  Rumore et al. 1999[63]
                                                  x
                                                        x
                                                            x
                                                                        x x
                                                                        x x




                                                                                   Vermaet al. 1999[55]
                   x x x
                                         x x




                                                                                 Susskind et al. 2000[62]
            x
                                                                x
                                                                         x




                                                                                   Knutson 2000[59]
             x
                                      x x
                                                  x x




                                                                                    Azanza 2001[30]
                   x
                                      x x x
                                                                        x




                                                                                   Mattila 2001[36]
                           x
                                                  x
                                                            x




                x x                                                              Moschis et al. 2003[31]
                  x
                                   x
                                                 x




                                                                                 Gregory et al. 2004[51]



            x
            x
                                     x
                                   x x
                                                  x
                                                                x
                                                                         x x x




                                                                                     Park 2004[37]
                                                                                 Laroche et al. 2005[21]
                                                  x




                                                                                 Laroche et al. 2005[39]
                                                                                 Schroder et al. 2005[40]
                                                                                                            Studies




                                         x
                                                         x




                                                                                  Stewart et al. 2005[56]




             x x
                                   x
                                                                        x




                                                                                   Ayala et al. 2005[38]




            x
                   x x
                                      x
                                      x
                                                                        x x




                                                                                  Baek et al. 2006[32]




      x
                x
                x
                                      x
                                      x
                                                 x
                                                                x




                                                                                 Henson et al. 2006[33]




            x
                                                  x
                                                                x x
                                                                         x




                                                                                 Knutson et al. 2006[41]
                                                                                                                      Table 3. Factors Referring to the Choice of Food Services Analyzed in the Studies




                   x
                                                     x
                                                                                   Jang et al. 2007[52]




                                         x
                                                                                     Akbay 2007[53]
                                                                                    Oyewole 2007[45]




            x
            x
                   x
                                      x
                                      x
                                                                         x


                                                                                   Goyalet al. 2007[42]




      x
            x
                   x
                                 x
                                      x
                                                  x
                                                                                  Zopiatiset al. 2007[22]




                                      x x
                                                                x x
                                                                                   Njite et al. 2008[34]




             x
                                                                                  Rydell et al. 2008[65]




            x
                                 x
                                                                        x
                                                                                  Tinocoet al. 2008[46]




        x
      x x
              x
                              x
                                      x x
                                                        x
                                                                x x
                                                                                   Liu et al. 2009[23]




            x x x
                x
                                      x x x
                                                     x
                                                         x
                                                                        x
                                                                                    Mamalis 2009[24]
                                                                                     Kozak 2010[54]




       x
                   x
                                                         x
                                                                                    Ha et al. 2010[25]




         x
         x
       x x
                                        x
                                      x x
                                                                        x
                                                                                   Choiet al. 2010[43]




       x
       x
       x
       x
       x
       x
                                                                                   Kim et al. 2010[26]




       x
       x
       x
                           x x
                                                 x x
                                                 x x
                                                         x x
                                                                x x
                                                                         x x
                                                                                   Kim et al. 2010[27]




       x x
       x x
       x x
                                         x x x
                                                        x
                                                                                   Jang et al. 2011[28]




       x
       x
       x
       x
                   x
                                      x
                                      x
                                                                x
                                                                         x
                                                                                  Sancheset al. 2011[35]
183                        Food and Public Health 2013, 3(4): 176-190
Table 3. (Continued)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     184



                                                                                                                                                                                                 Studies




                   Factors*
                                                                                                                                                                                 Park 2004[37]




                                                                      Auty 1992[61]

                                                                      Lewis 1981[60]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Akbay 2007[53]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Kozak 2010[54]




                                                                                                                                                     Azanza 2001[30]
                                                                                                                                                     Mattila 2001[36]


                                                                                                                          Knutson 2000[59]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Ha et al. 2010[25]




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Oyewole 2007[45]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Liu et al. 2009[23]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Mamalis 2009[24]




                                                                                               Hsu et al. 1997[20]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Choiet al. 2010[43]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Kim et al. 2010[26]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Kim et al. 2010[27]




                                                                    June et al. 1987[29]
                                                                    Kara et al. 1996[57]
                                                                                               Kara et al. 1997[48]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Jang et al. 2007[52]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Jang et al. 2011[28]




                                                                                                                                                                                                         Baek et al. 2006[32]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Njite et al. 2008[34]




                                                                                              Tucci et al. 1997[58]
                                                                                              Clark et al. 1998[49]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Goyalet al. 2007[42]




                                          Miller et al. 1979[44]
                                                                                                                         Vermaet al. 1999[55]
                                                                                                                                                                                                         Ayala et al. 2005[38]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Rydell et al. 2008[65]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Tinocoet al. 2008[46]




                                                                                                                                                                                                        Stewart et al. 2005[56]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Henson et al. 2006[33]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Zopiatiset al. 2007[22]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Sancheset al. 2011[35]




                                                                                                                        Rumore et al. 1999[63]
                                                                                                                                                                             Laroche et al. 2005[21]
                                                                                                                                                                             Laroche et al. 2005[39]




                                                                                                                                                   Moschis et al. 2003[31]
                                                                                                                                                   Gregory et al. 2004[51]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Knutson et al. 2006[41]




                                                                   Sweeney et al. 1992[47]
                                                                                                                        Susskind et al. 2000[62]
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Schroder et al. 2005[40]




                                                                                             Anderson et al. 1998[50]
            Size of portion                                                                   x                                                                                                                                                                                                 x                           x x               x
           Healthy options                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                x x x               x
                 Price
                 Price                             x x x                      x x x x x                 x x              x      x           x x            x          x x                                            x x x                x                         x x x                       x x                            x x            x                   x
             Localization
             Localization                                                     x x             x                          x                  x x            x x x x                                             x x                        x                         x x                         x               x                      x      x x                 x
             Other factors
              Indication                                                      x x             x                   x x                                            x x                                                               x                                      x                     x                    x x x x                  x
           New experience                                                     x                                                                                    x                                                                                                                            x
           Past experience                                                      x                                                                          x
        Influence of company                                                                                      x x                                                                                                x                               x                                                               x
        Novelties for children                                                         x           x
       Reputation of restaurant                                                   x                                                                                            x                                                                                                                                                                     x
             Brand name                                                                                                                                               x                                                    x                                 x
              Marketing                                                           x           x                          x                                                                                                         x                                                                                           x
             Convenience                           x x                                 x           x                                                                           x                        x      x                          x                                    x x              x
             Seating area                                                              x           x
          Demographic data                                                                                                                          x            x                                             x x                 x                         x      x x                                                        x                                  x
            Parking space                                                                     x                                                                                                                                                                                                 x                                      x      x
        Carryout availability                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          x      x
           Food preference                                                                                                                                                                                                                           x                                          x                    x
*Factors only investigated in one study: 1) Service: Drive-through[59]; Availability of employees to help and of special services[31]; Effi ciency[30]; Cost of adhesion to affiliation programs[52]; Entert ainment[20]; Payment
methods[31]; Rating of the restaurant[43]. 2) Atmosphere: Existence of washroom[49]; External design, Area for non-smokers, calm and spacious[20]; Illumination[23]. 3) Foods: Food temperature[23];Flexibility of borders
and fillings[55]; Consistency in menu items[59]; Menu: Item innovation, famous items and clear descriptions[20]; Food: fresh, requested by client, authentic and aroma[23]; Menus for children and youngsters[38]; Menu:
familiar and easily localized items[31]; Senior Menu, Combination Meals[41]; Meals that apply to dietary plan, Low calorie meals[43]. 4) Other factors: Premises, appearance of the consumers [47]; Freshness[20]; Accurat e
guest check[23]; Pleasure of visiting or being at a restaurant[24]; Client relationship[34]; Obligation[54]; Liquor license[29]; State of spirit[37]; Amenities available[30]; Take out service[22]; Personal recognition[36];
Possibility to stay after meal[20]; Combination meals[59]; Number of consumers[33]; Doggie Bag[41]; Decision tactics: persuasion, bargaining, pledge, coercion, intimidation, sacrifice, giving priority to the other[54];
Satisfaction and loyalty[25]; Overall impression of the restaurant[26]; Pro-environment al activities[28]; Quality stamp[35].
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Caroline Opolski Medeiros et al.: A Review of Food Service Selection Factors Important to the Consumer
Food and Public Health 2013, 3(4): 176-190                                         185



   In the studies of Auty[61] and Gregory and Kim[51],            that the price was the most relevant factor for Korean and
having a new experience was not a relevant factor for             Filipino consumers, but that the sequence of factors more
restaurant choice. Sweeney et al.[47] showed that past            important in the selection of food services differed fro m
experience was moderately important in the choice of a            country to country (Table 2).
restaurant.                                                          Considering the sex of the consumers, it can be seen that
   Other attributes presented as important in the selection of    male students and younger students both perceived the price
food services were the premises, freshness, accurate guest        as relatively more impo rtant than female and older students.
check, pleasure of visiting or being at a restaurant,             On the other hand, when making their choices, female
relationship with the client, obligation, influence of the        students gave greater value to the hygiene of the
company, novelties for children, appearance of the other          establishment[63]. Ayala et al.[38] found that Latin wo men
consumers, parking space and liquor license (Tables 2 and 3).     noted the following to a greater extent: the taste of the food,
It should be mentioned that novelties for children appeared       the distance from home, the variety on the menu and the
to be more relevant for those consumers who went less             preference of the children and the rest of the family. For their
frequently to restaurants[48, 57], and that the appearance of     part SanchesandSalay[35] showed that wo men considered
the other consumers was more valorized by those individuals       the service time, quality and appearance of the food and the
that went out for a meal with one friend than by those that       appearance and friendliness of the employees mo re
went out for a meal with a group of friends[47]. In addit ion,    important than men (p
186           Caroline Opolski M edeiros et al.: A Review of Food Service Selection Factors Important to the Consumer




discussion of the results.                                        pizza houses, Korean restaurants and “green” restaurants, are
                                                                  discussed below.
3.4. Factor Importance According to Type of Restaurant               An investigation of the factors that determine the choice of
      and Occasion Investigated                                   restaurants in general was carried out in 15 studies (33.3%),
   Some authors analyzed the selection of the choice of (Table 2). It can be seen that, in this case, the results of the
restaurant in more than one type of restaurant, and in the articles were more diversified than in the case of fast-food
present review, it was observed that the type of restaurant restaurants. The follo wing attributes were noted as more
most investigated was that of fast-food (40.0%) (Table 2).        relevant in the choice of establishments cited as “restaurants”:
                                                                  1) food quality; 2) availab ility of attentive emp loyees and
3.4.1. Fast-food                                                  their behavior, quality o r speed of service and the
                                                                  atmosphere or amb ience of the restaurant; and 3) localization
3.4.1.1. Choice Factors                                           of the establishment, taste of the food, hygiene and price
   According to the frequency of citation in the studies, the (Table 2).
most impo rtant factors in the selection of fast-food                Other studies specified the type of restaurant investigated,
restaurants were: 1) price; 2) speed of service and quality of and some researchers analyzed more than one type of
the service and/or of the food; 3) hygiene; 4) taste of the food; restaurant. Hsu et al.[20] found that hygiene was the most
5) friendliness and behavior of the emp loyees and valorized attribute in the selection of quick-service or
convenience (Table 2). Other studies additionally cited the fine-d ining restaurants, whereas it was the taste of the food in
following attributes as relevant aspects: the offer of quality the selection of family-style restaurants (Table 2). In the
delivery service, variety, installations, seating capacity, studies by Kim et al.[26, 27], the taste and quality of the
nutritional values, preference of other people, fast working foods were the relevant attributes in the selection of all the
pace, localizat ion, menu, food safety, positive past types of establishment investigated (fine din ing, buffet and
experience, restaurant brand, reliability and service speed family/casual dining restaurant) (Table 2).
(Table 2).                                                           Njite et al.[34] also studied the motives used in the choice
   It is worth mentioning that in a study carried out by Akbay of fine-din ing restaurants, and showed that the most
et al.[53] in Turkey, where the consumers perceived price as important attribute was the relationship between the
a relevant factor when eating meals away fro m ho me, they emp loyees and the consumers, fo llo wed by employee
were less inclined to eat in fast-food establishments. It was competence and convenience. Stewart et al.[56] and Kim et
also shown in the same country that concern with food safety al.[26] also found evidence that the ambience was positively
could be a limit ing factor in the selection of fast-food related to fine-dining establishments. An analysis of the
restaurants.                                                      surveys carried out by Kim et al.[26, 27] showed that the
   Also with respect to the choice of fast-food restaurants, attributes perceived in the choice of fine-d ining and
Baek et al.[32] observed that the students preferred local casual-dining restaurants by more mature consumers were
fast-food establishments when co mpared to restaurants with similar, but differed at the mo ment of selecting a buffet -type
an international franchise.                                       restaurant (Table 2).
                                                                     TucciandTalaga[58], investigating the selection of
3.4.1.2. Context                                                  table-service restaurants took the following into account to a
   Miller andGinter[44] investigated the selection of special extent: hygiene, service, at mosphere and offer of
fast-food restaurants considering specific situations: 1) products. In addition they observed a greater use of
week-day lunch, 2) snack during a visit to a shopping center, establishments that offered quicker service. On the other
3) meal at n ight when time is short, and 4) meal with family hand, Liu and Jang[23] surveyed Chinese restaurants and
when time is not short. Table 2 shows the order of showed that the food quality and hygiene of the environment
importance of the factors in each situation, and the fact that influenced the consumer decision more strongly, and could
the taste of the food was the most important attribute be understood as prerequisites in the choice of these
considered by the consumers on all occasions, stood out.          establishments.
                                                                     Pizza houses were investigated by Verma and Thompson
3.4.2. Other Restaurants                                          [55], who showed that “service reliability” and “pizza filling”
                                                                  were the most important attributes when selecting these
3.4.2.1. Choice Factors
                                                                  establishments (Table 2).
   In addition to fast-food restaurants, other types of              Ha and Jang[25] analy zed the choice of Korean
restaurant were also investigated. So me studies did not restaurants, and their results suggested that American
specify the type of restaurant analyzed, considering the consumers considered the cost, the taste or the menu options
analysis of the choice of restaurant in general. The factors at the mo ment of choosing an ethnic restaurant, as also when
involved in the choice of restaurants in general, quick - choosing an American restaurant. Of the attributes analyzed,
service restaurants, fine-din ing restaurants,family-style the taste, menu variety and the option of healthy foods had a
restaurants, table-service restaurants, Chinese restaurants, significant relationship with the satisfaction and buying
Food and Public Health 2013, 3(4): 176-190                                          187



intention model. They also observed that when the                 food service, the characteristics of the customers (ethnicity,
consumers preferred healthier foods, they tended to select        sex and age) and the context in which the meals will be eaten.
fine-d ining establishments instead of fast-food restaurants.        The “food quality” and “food taste” appear to be important
In the same way, indiv iduals who practiced physical              factors in the choice of all types of food service. For
activities were less inclined to purchase food in fast-food       fast-food restaurants, the aspects observed to be mo re
restaurants[56].                                                  relevant were: price, service speed, service and food quality,
   On analyzing the choice of “green” restaurants, Jang et        hygiene and food taste. On the other hand, for general type
al.[28] observed that the most important attributes were the      restaurants and the other types of establishment analy zed, the
value and service reliability, food quality and reputation of     most relevant factors were: food quality and taste, employee
the restaurant. The pro-environmental activ ities carried out     behavior and friendliness, service, atmosphere and ambience
by the food services were not perceived as relevant.              of the restaurant and its localization.
                                                                     Price was the most relevant factor for the student
3.4.2.2. Context                                                  population, and was also shown to be important for the
   In a study carried out by June and Smith[29], a liquor         lower-income populations, for individuals who eat out less
license in restaurants was shown to be more important in the      frequently and for fast-food restaurant frequenters. On the
case of intimate dinners and celebrations amongst friends,        other hand, for the mature consumer the importance of the
such as birthdays, whereas the presence of attentive              following stood out: the offer of special discounts, the
emp loyees was more relevant for family dinners and               attributes related to food and service quality, the taste of the
business lunches, and a secluded place for intimate d inners.     food and the comfort of the p lace. W ith respect to gender, it
   Sweeney et al.[47] also considered distinct situations, and    was shown that women were mo re inclined than men to
observed that the price was mo re impo rtant when selecting a     valorize the preferences of their family and children when
restaurant for a meal with a group of friends, than when          choosing a food service, and they were also more concerned
having a special meal with one friend. Another attribute          about food safety, quality and taste.
analyzed by the authors was the appearance of the other              The participation of food consumed away fro m home is
consumers, which was more important for indiv iduals who          relevant in the d iets of several populations and also for their
go out for a special meal with one friend than for those who      health. The few papers that have studied the nutritional
go out for a meal with a group of friends.                        informat ion, nutrit ional value and the offer of healthy foods
   Auty[61] showed that the type of food was the most             showed that these factors were not so relevant in the choice
relevant attribute when choosing a food service for social or     of a restaurant. Maybe policies should be designed with a
convenience occasions, followed by the food quality. On the       view to increasing consumer awareness of healthy food
other hand, for a celebration, the reco mmendation of the         choices when eating away fro m home. However, new studies
restaurant was the most important information. It was also        regarding consumer perception about nutritional information
apparent that for special occasions and celebrations,             and healthy food choices in restaurants are necessary. Food
attributes related to service speed and the opening times of      service managers should also search for strategies that take
the restaurant were not cited, and for convenience occasions,     into consideration different occasions. For examp le, for
recommendations were not cited. Service speed was the third       every day contexts, the attributes considered most important
most impo rtant attribute for convenience occasions together      by food service clients were the hygiene of the establishment
with value for money.                                             and the quality and taste of the food, whereas for fast-food
   Tinoco and Ribeiro[46] determined the factors for the          restaurants, an accessible price and speedy service appear to
choice of full-service restaurants with four distinct groups of   be indispensible. However for co mmemorations, amongst
people: ‘couples without children’, ‘group of friends’,           the factors perceived by the consumers, a liquor license,
‘family group’ and ‘executive group’. Differences were            appearance of the other consumers and reco mmendations of
found between the groups and the factors considered (Table        the restaurant by other people stood out.
2). Another type of establishment investigated was that used         Some studies observed that “information passed on by
for the occasional dinner. In this case the three principal       friends and relatives” had more influence on the choice of
reasons cited by the interviewees were the food quality           restaurant than information obtained fro m the media. The
followed by the service and the atmosphere[36].                   value given to the “word of mouth” shows how important it
                                                                  is to satisfy the customer, since a satisfied customer tends to
                                                                  recommend the establishment[66], and can also encourage
4. Practical Implications and                                     his or her intention to return[67].
   Conclusions                                                       Few studies cited the validity and reliability of the
                                                                  instrument used in the survey. When using a validated
   This review o f the body of studies regardingfood service      instrument the researcher is considering that the instrument
choice results in relevant conclusions and applications. The      used in the data collect ion really is measuring the variab le it
findings showthat differences in the degree of importance         intended to measure. Instrument reliability is related to its
given to the selection factors varies according to the type of    consistency, repeatability and reproducibility. Thus the
188            Caroline Opolski M edeiros et al.: A Review of Food Service Selection Factors Important to the Consumer




validity and reliability of the instrument are fundamental             [7]   M elina V. Santos; Rossana P. C. Proença, Giovanna M . R.
requirements for research instruments[68].                                   Fiates, M aria Cristina M .Calvo, “Pay-per-kilo restaurants in
                                                                             the context of healthy eating away from home”,Brazilian
   Some studies did not clearly report the characterization of               Journal of Nutrition,vol.24, no.4, pp.641-649, 2011.
the population analyzed. The age of the interviewees were
not reported in 13 papers. The lack of such information                [8]   Joanne F. Guthrie, Biing-Hwan Lin, Elizabeth Frazao, “Role
makes it difficu lt to compare the results of different papers.              of food prepared away from home in the American diet,
                                                                             1977-78 versus 1994-96: changes and consequences”, Journal
Thus it is recommended that future papers provide relevant                   of Nutrition Education and Behavior, vol.34, no.3,
data regarding the characterizat ion of the population studied.              pp.140-150, 2002.
   Amongst the limitations of the present study, one could
say that there may be other art icles published that analyze the       [9]   Philippos Orfanos, AndronikiNaska, DimitriosTrichopoulos,
                                                                             Nadia Slimani, Pietro Ferrari, M arit van Bakel, Genevieve
choice of food services by consumers, but did not enter the                  Deharveng, Kim Overvad, Anne Tjønneland, JytteHalkjær,
present review because they were not in the data bases used                  M aria S. M agistris, Rosario Tumino, Valeria Pala, Carlotta
in this review and/or were not cited in the art icles found in               Sacerdote, Giovanna M asala, GuriSkeie, DagrunEngeset,
these data bases. Nevertheless, the authors believe that the                 Eiliv Lund, Paula Jakszyn, Aurelio Barricarte, M aria D.
survey carried out managed to compile many studies that                      Chirlaque, Carmen M artinez-Garcia, PilarAmiano, J. Ramon
                                                                             Quirós, Sheila Bingham, Ailsa Welch, Elizabeth A. Spencer,
analyzed the selection of food services, and thus the results                Timothy J. Key, Sabine Rohrmann, JakobLinseisen, Jennifer
of the survey are of relevance to the sector.                                Ray, Heiner Boeing, Petra H. Peeters, H. Bas Bueno – de -
   Considering the diversity of types of restaurant on the                   M esquita, M argaOcke, Ingegerd Johansson, Gerd Johansson,
market, there is a need for more surveys, since many types of                Göran Berglund, Jonas M anjer, M arie-Christine Boutron -
food service have not yet been investigated, or were only                    Ruault, M athildeTouvier, Françoise Clavel- Chapelon,
                                                                             Antonia Trichopoulou, “Eating out of home and its correlates
involved in a limited nu mber of surveys, such as full-service               in 10 European countries. The European Prospective
restaurants, buffet by weight restaurants, vegetarian                        Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study”, Public
restaurants, ethnic restaurants, etc. In addition, the                       Health Nutrition, vol.10, no.12, pp.1515-1525, 2007.
development of new research with adolescent and elderly
                                                                       [10] Biing-Hwan Lin, Joanne Guthrie, “Nutritional Quality of
populations is recommended, since few papers have                           Food Prepared at Home and Away From Home,1977-2008”,
analyzed these population segments. Similarly the study of                  EIB-105, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Economic
restaurant choice in several contexts is suggested.                         Research Service, 2012.
                                                                       [11] Timothy F. Jones, Frederick J. Angulo, “Eating in
                                                                            Restaurants: A Risk Factor for Foodborne Disease?”, Clinical
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                                            Infectious Diseases, vol.43, no.10, pp.1324–1328, 2006.
   The authors are grateful to the National Council for                [12] Craig W. Hedberg, S. Jay Smith, Elizabeth Kirkland, Vincent
Scientific and Technological Develop ment–CNPq/Brazil                       Radke, Tim F. Jones, Carol A. Selman,Ehs-Net Working
(Process 141036/ 2010-9) for providing a fello wship to the                 Group, “Systematic environmental evaluations to identify
                                                                            food safety differences between outbreak and nonoutbreak
first author.                                                               restaurants”, Journal of Food Protection, vol.69, no.11,
                                                                            pp.2697-2702, 2006.

                                                                       [13] Leon G. Schiffman, Leslie L. Kanuk, Comportamento do
                                                                            Consumidor, Livros Técnicos e Científicos Editora S.A.,
REFERENCES                                                                  Brazil, 2000.

[1]   Online Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/62-554-x/62       [14] Philip Kotler, M arketing M anagement M illenium Edition,
      -554-x2001001-eng.pdf.                                                10nd ed., Pearson Custom Publishing, USA, 2002.

[2]   Online Available: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/foo      [15] Kirsten I. Dunn, Philip B. M ohr, Carlene J. Wilson,Gary A.
      d-expenditures.aspx.                                                  Wittert, “Beliefs about fast food in Australia: a qualitative
                                                                            analysis”, Appetite, vol.51, no.2, pp.331-334, 2008.
[3]   Associação Brasileira das Indústrias da Alimentação, “O
      mercado de food service no Brasil”, ABIA, 2010.                  [16] Linda S. Pettijohn, Charles E. Pettijohn, Robert H. Luke, “An
                                                                            Evaluation of fat food restaurant satisfaction: determinants,
[4]   Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, “Pesquisa de         competitive comparisons and impact on future patronage”,
      orçamento familiar 2008-2009: despesas rendimento e                   Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice M arketing, vol.2, no.3,
      condições de vida”, IBGE, 2010.                                       pp.3-20, 1997.
[5]   Online Available: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/       [17] Young Namkung, SooCheong (Shawn) Jang, “Are highly
      deptdocs.nsf/all/sis13383.                                            satisfied restaurant customers really different? A quality
                                                                            perception perspective”, International Journal of Contempor
[6]   A. Lassen, K.S. Hansen, E. Trolle, “Comparison of buffet and          ary Hospitality M anagement, vol.20, no. 2, pp.142-155, 2008.
      à la carte serving at worksite canteens on nutrient intake and
      fruit and vegetable consumption”, Public Health Nutrition,       [18] Heesup Han, Ki-Joon Back, Betsy Barrett, “Influencing
      vol.10, no. 3, pp.292-297, 2007.                                      factors on restaurant customers’ revisit intention: the roles of
Food and Public Health 2013, 3(4): 176-190                                             189



     emotions and switching barriers”, International Journal of             Sockett, Andria Jones, Robert Hart, Deborah Carr, Lewinda
     Hospitality M anagement, vol.28, no.4, pp.563-572, 2009.               Knowles, “Consumer assessment of the safety of restaurants:
                                                                            the role of inspection notices and other information cues”,
[19] RohitVerma, “Customer choice modeling in hospitality                   Journal of Food Safety, vol.26, no.4, pp.275-301, 2006.
     services: a review of past research and discussion of some
     new applications”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, vol.51, no.4,   [34] David Njite, Greg Dunn, Lisa H. Kim, “Beyond good food:
     pp.470-478, 2010.                                                      what other attributes influence consumer preference and
                                                                            selection of fine dining restaurants?” Journal of Foodservice
[20] Cathy H.C. Hsu, SungheeByun, Il-Sun Yang, “Attitudes of                Business Research, vol.11, no. 2, pp.237-265, 2008.
     korean college students towards quick-service, family-style,
     and fine dining restaurants”, Journal of Restaurant &             [35] M icheleSanches, ElisabeteSalay, “Alimentação fora do
     Foodservice M arketing, vol.2, no.4, pp.65-85, 1997.                   domicílio de consumidores do município de Campinas, São
                                                                            Paulo”, Revista de Nutrição, vol.24, no.2, pp.295-304, 2011.
[21] M ichel Laroche, Ikuo Takahashi, M aria Kalamas, LefaTeng,
     “M odeling the selection of fast-food franchises among            [36] Anna S. M attila, “Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty”,
     Japanese consumers”, Journal of Business Research, vol.58,             Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
     no.8, pp.1121-1131, 2005.                                              vol.42, no.6, pp.73-79, 2001.

[22] AnastasiosZopiatis, JovanaPribic, “College students’ dining       [37] Cheol Park, “Efficient or enjoyable?Consumer values of
     expectations in Cyprus”, British Food Journal, vol.109, no.10,         eating-out and fast-food restaurant consumption in Korea”,
     pp.765-776, 2007.                                                      International Journal of Hospitality M anagement, vol.23,
                                                                            no.1, pp.87-94, 2004.
[23] Yinghua Liu, SooCheong (Shawn) Jang, “Perceptions of
     Chinese restaurants in the U S: What affects customer             [38] Guadalupe X. Ayala, Kristin M ueller, Eva Lopez-M adurga,
     satisfaction and behavioral intentions?”, International Journal        Nadia R. Campbell, John P. Elder, “Restaurant and food
     of Hospitality M anagement, vol.28, no.3, pp.338-348, 2009.            shopping selections among latino women in southern
                                                                            California”, Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
[24] Spyridon M amalis, “Critical success factors of the food               vol.105, no.1, pp.38-45, 2005.
     service industry”, Journal if International Food &
     Agribusiness M arketing, vol.21, no. 2-3, pp.191-206, 2009.       [39] M ichel Laroche, M aria Kalamas, Qinchao Huang, “Effects
                                                                            coupons on brand categorization and choice of fast foods in
[25] Jooyeon Ha, SooCheong (Shawn) Jang, “Effects of service                China”, Journal of Business Research, vol.58, no. 5,
     quality and food quality: the moderating role of atmospherics          pp.674-686, 2005.
     in an ethnic restaurant segment”, International Journal of
     Hospitality M anagement, vol.29, no.3, pp.520-529, 2010.          [40] M onika J. A. Schröder, M orven G. M cEachern, “Fast foods
                                                                            and ethical consumer value: a focus on M cDonald’s and
[26] Yen-Soon Kim, Christine Bergman, CarolaRaab, “Factors                  KFC”, British Food Journal, vol.107, no.4, pp.212-224, 2005.
     that impact mature customer dining choices in Las Vegas”,
     Journal of Foodservice Business Research, vol.13, no.3,           [41] Bonnie Knutson, Jeffrey Beck, Jeffery Elsworth, “The Two
     pp.178-192, 2010.                                                      Dimensions of Restaurant Selection Important to the M ature
                                                                            M arket”, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure M arketing, vol.14,
[27] Yen-Soon Kim, CarolaRaab, Christine Bergman, “Restaurant               no. 3, pp.35-47. 2006.
     selection preferences of mature tourists in Las Vegas: A pilot
     study”, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism          [42] Anita Goyal, N. P. Singh, “Consumer perception about fast
     Administration, vol.11, no. 2, pp.157-170, 2010.                       food in India: an exploratory study”, British Food Journal,
                                                                            vol.109, no.2, pp.182-195, 2007.
[28] Yoon J. Jang, Woo G. Kim, M ark A. Bonn, “Generation Y
     consumers’ selection attributes and behavioral intentions         [43] Jinkyung Choi, Jinlin Zhao, “Factors influencing restaurant
     concerning green restaurants”, International Journal of                selection in south florida: Is health issue one of the factors
     Hospitality M anagement, vol.30, no.4, pp.803-811, 2011.               influencing consumers' behavior when selecting a
                                                                            restaurant?”, Journal of Foodservice Business Research,
[29] Leslie P. June, Stephen L. J. Smith, “Service attributes and           vol.13, no.3, pp.237-251, 2010.
     situational effects on customer preferences for restaurant
     dining”, Journal of Travel Research, Fall, pp.20-27, 1987.        [44] Kenneth E. M iller, James L. Ginter, “An investigation of
                                                                            situational variation in brand choice behavior and attitude”,
[30] Patricia V. Azanza, “Food consumption and buying patterns              American M arketing Association, vol.16, no.1, pp.111-123,
     of students from a Philippine university fastfood mall”,               1979.
     International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, vol.52,
     no.6, pp.515-520, 2001.                                           [45] Philemon Oyewole, “Fast food marketing and the African
                                                                            American consumers: the impact of socio-economic and
[31] George M oschis, Carolyn F. Curasi, Danny Bellenger,                   demographic characteristics”, Journal of International
     “Restaurant-selection preferences of mature consumers”,                Consumer M arketing, vol.19, no.4, pp.75-108, 2007.
     Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
     vol.44, no.4, pp.51-60, 2003.                                     [46] M aria A. C. Tinoco, José L. D. Ribeiro, “Estudo qualitativo
                                                                            dos principais atributos que determinam a percepção de
[32] Seung-HeeBaek, Sunny Ham, Il-Sun Yang, “A cross-cultural               qualidade e de preço dos consumidores de restaurantes a la
     comparison of fast food restaurant selection criteria between          carte”, Gestão & Produção, vol.15, no.1, pp.73-87, 2008.
     Korean and Filipino college students”, International Journal
     of Hospitality M anagement, vol.25, no. 4, pp.683-698, 2006.      [47] Jillian C. Sweeney, Lester W. Johnson, Robert W. Armstrong,
                                                                            “The effect of cues on service quality expectations and
[33] Spencer Henson, Shannon M ajowicz, Oliver M asakure, Paul              service selection in a restaurant setting”, The Journal of
You can also read
Next part ... Cancel