Upadhyay - Do People Differ in Their Preferences Regarding Restaurants - An Exploritory Study

DO PEOPLE DIFFER IN THEIR
PREFERENCES REGARDING RESTAURANTS?

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
Yogesh Upadhyay, Shiv Kumar Singh and George Thomas
Consumer decision making process has always been a subject of interest for marketers. The present study
examines the decision making process in respect of restaurant services in India. Restaurant sector is vibrant
due to changing life style of people and composition of Indian families. The study aims to augment the
understanding about preferences of selected cross-sections of consumers regarding restaurants and
differences within the selected cross-section. This exploratory study attempts to investigate the impact of
demographic and reason to visit variables on restaurants preferences. In order to assess the relative
importance of various aspects of restaurant selection, customers were asked to rate selected attributes like
location, less time in serving, convenient operating time, safety, parking facility etc. The study utilized a
self-administered questionnaire to a convenience sample of 300 respondents. The findings of the study
suggest how consumers from selected cross-sections evaluate intrinsic and extrinsic cues while evaluating
a restaurant. It finally presents the implications for researchers and managers of Indian restaurants.
Key Words : Restaurant, Restaurant Attributes, Consumer Decision Making, Eating Out, Service
Environment.
INTRODUCTION
HE imprints of thrust in Indias development are

observable in changing life styles of consumer.
On the social plane, nuclear families are coming
up with gross high per head income. On the economic
side, rising income in India is leading to an overall growth
in consumption. This has a direct impact on spending
patterns involving food. As India beckons the world with
its famed hospitality culture, eating out is being
increasingly looked upon as a cool habit. Out-of-home
dining is getting high popularity and its demanding its
fair share of the pie in a spiced-up economy.
According to a research project conducted by
Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India
(www.fhari.com, 2005) there are 10 million households
in India with average household income of Rs 46,000
per month and 2 million households with a household
income of Rs 115,000 per month. Eating out has emerged
as a trend, which is prevalent within this elite group. Two

out of every five households in this group eat out at least
once a month. There are 100 million 17-21 years old in
India, and six out of ten households have a child that
was born in the post-liberalization era and has grown up
with no guilt of consumption. It is estimated that there
are approximately 5,00,000 restaurants in the organised
sector and this figure is expected to increase in future.
A recent industry survey also indicates that while
1.7 per cent of Indians dine out more than once a week,
2.5 per cent do so once a week and around 2.1 per cent
once every fortnight. About 5.5 per cent eat out once
every month and 5.4 per cent once every 2-3 months.
Around 8 per cent say eating out is relegated only to
festivals. For 69.6 per cent, it is a rare affair, but not
entirely a forsaken habit (The Economic Times, 21 May,
2005). Quick meals and convenience, social occasions,
business necessity, and celebration are all reasons people
dine out (Kivela, 1997; Pedraja and Yage, 2001).
8 Upadhyay, Singh and Thomas
Food is one of the basic necessities on which the

very survival of human beings rests. But the desire or
motivation to eat a food (incentive motivation) may be
distinguished from its hedonic value (liking) (Berridge
KC, 2001). That is, the drive or desire to eat foods can
be distinct from the enjoyment derived from eating them
(Cardello, Schutz, Snow, Lesher, 2000). A restaurant
takes that basic drive - the simplest act of eating-and
transforms it into a civilized ritual involving hospitality,
imagination, satisfaction, graciousness, and warmth
(Gunasekeran, 1992).
Several research studies have been conducted that
focus on different aspects of the restaurant industry to
understand consumer behaviour in various parts of the
world (Andersson & Mossberg, 2004; Auty, 1992;
Beardsworth, 1997; Bitner, 1992; Finkelstein, 1989;
Gunasekeran, 1992; Hing & Yun, 1995; Kivela, Reece,
& Inbakaran, 2000; Kivela, 1997; Kivela, Reece, &
Inbakaran, 1999; Mehta and Maniam, 2002; Oh, 1999,
Oh, 2000; Russell, 1979; Steadman, 1991).
Given the advancing phenomena of eating out and
in view of the scarcity of empirical research describing
the consumption behaviour of Indians especially
pertaining to restaurants, this study attempts to
investigate the variability, if any, in preferences regarding
various attributes of restaurants due to demographic and
other differences.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH
HYPOTHESES
Customers are looking for opportunities and experiences
that make their lives happier, richer and more rewarding
(Lewis and Chambers, 1998). They spend their time and
money in service environments looking for such
opportunities and experiences (Baker and Cameron,
1996; Hopkinson, Petterbridge, and Longmore, 1966;
Mehrabian and Russell, 1974; Milliman, 1986;
Wakefield and Blodgett, 1994). In a way consumers
purchase such experiences when he shells out for services
(Bateson, 1995; Tseng et al., 1999). This emotional
experience could further be declassified as joy or by the
structural dimensions underlying emotional categories
such as relaxation/action, comfort/discomfort or
pleasantness/unpleasantness (Russell, 1979). In a way
such experiences are a source of certain intrinsic rewards,
such as a feeling of well being, comfort, contentedness,
and happiness. It enables the customers to briefly escape
monotonousness from their daily routine (Finkelstein,
1989). Restaurants also serve as sociology of modern
manners where customers imitate each other, in response

to fashions and act with artifice and pretence. The
conditions in the service environment (e.g., seating
arrangements, size and flexibility) are found to affect
the nature of social interaction in terms of duration of
interaction and the actual progression of events (Bitner,
1990).
The decision making process of people is always
under scanner in order to comprehend how people select
restaurants, weigh attributes in restaurant selection,
attributes that influence the selection of menu etc. Such
insight is helpful for marketers in order to serve
customers in a better style. Consumers perceptions and
evaluations of products are based on information such
as intrinsic cues (e.g., products design, performance) and
extrinsic cues (e.g., price, prestige); with the latter
becoming increasingly important when intrinsic cues are
difficult to assess (Han and Terpstra, 1988).
Kivela, Reece, and Inbakaran (1999) studied the
difference in the ratings of restaurant attributes based
on the demographic characteristics of respondents. In
this exhaustive study on restaurants they divided the
restaurants into four categories based on their
differentiation in price, location, theme/ambience,
service level, cuisine and style. They argued that
determinants in restaurant selection vary across age
groups, income levels, and restaurant types. They found
ambience factor as an important determining choice
variable for 25-34 year olds. Auty (1992), Bitner (1992),
and Finkelstein (1989) argued that this might be because
these 25-34 years age group tend to look for ambience
or atmosphere type restaurants because they provide a
more suitable social environment for them. But Kivela,
Reece, and Inbakaran (1999) draws its support from other
studies that focused on the restaurant interior in various
contexts (Aubert-Gamet, 1997; Baker 1986; Belk 1975;
Bitner 1992; Wakefield & Blodgett 1994, 1996) and it
has been proven that the interior is an important satisfier
when the customer stays for some time in the
environment and when the motive is pleasure (Wakefield
& Blodgett 1994, 1996), which is the case for most
diners. Further, Andersson (1991) found interiors as an
essential factor influencing diners satisfaction both at
lunch and dinner.
Mehta and Maniam (2002) examined the
determinants of customers attitudes towards selecting
a restaurant either for leisure or for business. Various
factors such as service, product, location, physical
environment, promotion, price, and image attributes were
rated and analyzed on importance. The findings of this
VISIONThe Journal of Business Perspective Vol. 11 No. 2 AprilJune 2007
Do People Differ in their Preferences Regarding Restaurants? 9
exploratory study supports that customers find food

quality, ambience factors, image, and friendly staff
important in selecting a fine dining restaurant. The
business sector wants availability of rooms for special
functions, seminars and banquets, while the leisure
segment wants discounts, buffets and prices less than
$30 a person. Yuksel and Yuksel (2002) studied
selection of restaurants by tourists in Turkey. They
worked on 42 restaurant selection items that converged
into nine orthogonal factor dimensions. They were
service quality, product quality, menu diversity, hygiene,
convenience and location, noise, service speed, price and
value, facilities and atmosphere. Andersson and
Mossberg (2004) showed dining experience is an
engrossing concept that includes much more than good
food. They used the model described as concentric rings
(including the must and the satisfiers) to illustrate
what aspects influence a customers multidimensional
meal experience. The must is food in the center, and in
the adjacent ring there are five groups of satisfiers: (1)
service; (2) fine cuisine; (3) restaurant interior; (4) good
company and (5) other customers.
According to Steadman (1991), people do not go to
restaurants just to be fed, they can order, take away or
get delivered, if they do not want to cook. Customers at
fine dining restaurants want to be made to feel special.
Service quality is a critical component of customers
value perceptions that, in turn, become a determinant of
customer satisfaction, therefore, customers perceive
greater value for their money when they experience a
high level of quality (Oh, 2000). Lewis and Chamber
(1998) stated that the three components: goods, services,
and environment are concerns of customers when they
purchase the hospitality product. Tucci and Talaga
(1997) used conjoint analysis to determine the utility
consumers assign to restaurants that varied along
different levels of price, speed of service, quality of food,
courtesy of server and service guarantee. They concluded
that the presence of an explicit service guarantee is not
uniformly desirable in the selection of a table service
restaurant.
It is felt that quality food items, impeccable service,
low prices, and well-planned menus may all contribute
to restaurant selection, but it has not been effective unless
the customer returns. Lowenberg et al. (1979), Wood
(1995) and particularly Finkelstein (1989) concluded that
customers choice of restaurant and their subsequent
return is a result of dining satisfactions that are often
influenced by the customers psychological rather than
physical needs.
In the backdrop of the literature reviewed following

hypotheses are framed to put to test:
Hypothesis 1 : People do not differ in rating attributes
in restaurant selection when they
belong to different age groups.
in restaurant selection when they
belong to different gender.
in restaurant selection when they have
different occupations.
in restaurant selection when they visit
restaurants for different reasons.
VARIABLE OPERATIONALIZATION
Data Collection and Samples
As the study was explorative in nature, the sample of
the study was non-probabilistic convenience sample
comprising 300 respondents. Respondents from Gwalior
(India) were asked to complete and return the
questionnaires. The resulting sample was 35 per cent
female and 65 per cent male. The demographic profile
of the sample is given in Table 1.
Table 1:
Demographic Profile of Sample
Characteristic
Frequency
Percent
Age
18 -30
130
43.3 %
Above 30
170
56.7 %
Occupation
Private
88
29.3%
Public
46
15.3%
Self Employed
59
19.7%
Students
70
23.3%
Others
37
12.4%
Male
195
65 %
Female
105
35 %
144
48.0 %
Work Related
55
18.3 %
Special Occasion
101
33.7%
Gender
Reason to Visit
Recreation
Instrument
The disconfirmation theory is widely accepted as an
account of the process by which customers develop
feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, that is, when
customers compare new dining experiences with some
basis that they have developed from prior experiences.
On the other hand, the assumption that a customer will
weigh various restaurant attributes is based on
expectancy theory. In the majority of studies using
disconfirmation theory, expectations are formed
according to customers pre-experience beliefs and
standards that they use to measure their purchase
experience. These theories bring together the social,
psychological and cultural concepts into four distinct
groups of variables: input variables both internal and
external, process variables and output variables
(Lowenberg et al., 1979; Finkelstein, 1989). The present
study aims to examine whether the rating of input
variables differ by virtue of demographic and other
differences.
The issue is to identify the attributes that play a
dominant role in selection of a restaurant. To sort out
the same the benchmarks lay down by Myers and Alpert
(1968) and Alpert (1971) were observed. Clarifying
further, Myers and Alpert (1968), citing Foote (1961)
underpins that being important means that the
consumer is extremely offended by the attributes
absence and its presence is highly evaluated or that
its presence provides the consumers much satisfaction
(Fishbein, 1972). Firstly, attributes considered while
evaluating restaurants by consumers were finalised with
the help of review of literature and focus groups
conducted for the purpose. The focus group included
consumers who frequently used restaurants. In all, fifteen
attributes were selected to collect the responses of
consumers. These attributes were used to develop a selfadministered, close-ended questionnaire consisting of
5-point bi-polar type scales (1=not at all important and
5=extremely important) concerning different attributes.
The respondents were asked to select a rating of 1 to 5
for each attribute based on their weighing of attributes
while selecting a restaurant. Following this portion of
the survey, were a series of demographic questions.
All individual scale items had statistically significant (at

p<0.05 level) item-to-total correlations. Hence, all items
are deemed reliable.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Data on selection of restaurants were first analyzed for
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Kolmogorov, 1933) for
normality and homogeneity of variance by Levenes Test
(Levene, 1960). Due to lack of normality (KolmogorovSmirnov test) and homogeneity of variance (Levenes
test), the data were analyzed with the help of MannWhitney U-Test (Mann and Whitney, 1947) and KruskalWalliss H-test (Kruskal and Wallis, 1952). In cases
where the result was significant, Dunnet-C was
performed. For all analyses, we used SPSS v10, setting
= 0.05.
RESULTS
The results of average rating of attributes by respondents
are illustrated in Table 2 in descending order.
Table 2:
Mean Ratings of Attributes Considered in Selection

of a Restaurant
N
Mean
1.
Quality of food
Attributes
300
4.85
2.
Safety
300
4.64
3.
Menu
300
4.60
4.
Location
300
4.56
5.
Less time in serving
300
4.55
6.
Parking facility
300
4.51
7.
Convenient operating time
300
4.51
8.
Separate place for family
300
4.46
9.
Ambiance
300
4.44
10.
Cuisine tariffs
300
4.32
11.
Separate bar
300
4.31
12.
Innovative recipe
299
4.22
13.
Specialised cuisine facility
300
3.97
14.
Only vegetarian cuisine availability
300
3.78
15.
Popularity of chef
300
3.68
Valid N
300
Reliability of the Scale

The scale showed a high level of internal consistency
(Cronbachs alpha of 0.81). All items were well above
the 0.70m - commonly accepted thresholds (DeVellis,
1991; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994; Spector, 1992).
Effects of the demographic variables viz., age,

gender, occupation and reason to visit, were tested using
non parametric tests. Age and gender were analysed
with the help of Mann-Whitney U-Test. whereas
Kruskal Wallis H-tests was used to analyse

Occupation and reason to visit (Table 3), as the data
did not comply with the prerequisites of normality
(Kolmogorov-Smirnov = 0.100, p<0.000) and
homogeneity of variance (F=1.532, p<0.05). In case
Table 3:
of demographic variableoccupation, where P value of

these pretests was below 0.05, post hoc analysis was
performed using Dunnet-C test to further buttress the
source of significance.
Mann-Whitney U Test Significance of Difference between Age Groups in their Importance Rating of Selected
Attributes of Restaurants
Quality of food
Ambience
Location
Menu
Innovative recipe
Separate bar
Cuisine tariffs
Safety
Parking facility
Popularity of chef
Age
Mean Rank
Mann-Whitney
U
Asymp. Sig.
(2-tailed)
18-30
130
146.58
10540.00
0.235
Above 30
170
153.50
10409.00
0.322
10647.50
0.499
9389.50
0.006*
9211.50
0.009*
10583.00
0.437
9920.50
0.054
10616.00
0.471
10630.00
0.499
10382.50
0.312
10708.00
0.613
9851.50
0.025*
10692.00
0.553
8617.00
0.001*
9703.00
0.059
18-30
130
145.57
Above 30
170
154.27
18-30
130
153.60
Above 30
170
148.13
18-30
130
163.27
Above 30
170
140.73
18-30
129
163.59
Above 30
170
139.69
18-30
130
146.91
Above 30
170
153.25
18-30
130
159.19
Above 30
170
143.86
18-30
130
153.84
Above 30
170
147.95
18-30
130
153.73
Above 30
170
148.03
18-30
130
155.63
Above 30
170
146.57
18-30
130
153.13
Above 30
170
148.49
18-30
130
159.72
Above 30
170
143.45
18-30
130
147.75
Above 30
170
152.61
18-30
130
169.22
Above 30
170
136.19
18-30
130
160.86
Above 30
170
142.58
* The mean rank difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Mann-Whitney U-Test shows that of the fifteen

variables rated by respondents concerning restaurants,
the difference between the mean ranks of four variables
i.e. Menu (W=9389.50, p<0.05), Innovative Recipe
(W=9211.50, p<0.05), Safety (W=9851.50, p<0.05) and
Specialised Cuisine Facility (W=8617.00, p<0.05) were
found to be significant between the age groups under
study (Table 3). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is not rejected in
respect of remaining eleven variables selected for study.
Table 4:
Mann-Whitney U-Test shows that of the fifteen

variables rated by respondents concerning restaurants,
the difference between the mean rank of one variable
i.e. Popularity of Chef (W=8893.50, p<0.05) was found
to be significant between male and female respondents
(Table 4). Thus, Hypothesis 2 is not rejected in view of
statistical evidence except for Popularity of Chef under
the study.
Mann-Whitney U Test Significance of Difference between Males and Females regarding their Importance Rating
of Selected Attributes of Restaurants
Quality of food
Ambience
Location
Menu
Innovative recipe
Separate bar
Cuisine tariffs
Safety
Parking facility
Popularity of chef
Gender
Mean Rank
Mann-Whitney
U
Asymp. Sig.
(2-tailed)
Male
195
147.90
9731.00
0.220
Female
105
155.32
9444.00
0.202
9793.5
0.439
10204.50
0.954
9918.00
0.679
10125.50
0.847
10096.50
0.803
9923.50
0.588
9917.50
0.593
10104.50
0.834
9622.00
0.344
9589.50
0.209
10175.50
0.915
9059.00
0.083
8893.50
0.050*
Male
195
154.57
Female
105
142.94
Male
195
152.78
Female
105
146.27
Male
195
150.33
Female
105
150.81
Male
194
151.38
Female
105
147.46
Male
195
151.07
Female
105
149.43
Male
195
149.78
Female
105
151.84
Male
195
148.89
Female
105
153.49
Male
195
152.14
Female
105
147.45
Male
195
149.82
Female
105
151.77
Male
195
147.34
Female
105
156.36
Male
195
147.18
Female
105
156.67
Male
195
150.82
Female
105
149.91
Male
195
144.46
Female
105
161.72
Male
195
143.61
Female
105
163.30
Table 5:
Kruskal-Wallis Significance of Difference in Importance Rating of Selected Attributes of Restaurants among

Respondents Belonging to Varied Occupations
Quality of food
Ambience
Location
Menu
Innovative recipe
Separate bar
Occupation
No. of
cases
Mean Rank
Chi-square
Degree of
Freedom
Asymp.
Sig
Private
88
140.65
7.589
0.108
Public
46
156.32
Self Employed
59
148.63
Student
70
152.70
Others
37
165.53
3.057
0.548
11.050
0.026*
12.962
0.011*
23.999
0.000*
10.815
0.029*
11.460
0.022*
12.395
0.015*
Private
88
151.77
Public
46
152.09
Self Employed
59
146.59
Student
70
159.87
Others
37
134.01
Private
88
150.20
Public
46
159.88
Self Employed
59
129.36
Student
70
167.32
Others
37
141.43
Private
88
143.48
Public
46
161.95
Self Employed
59
132.75
Student
70
171.64
Others
37
141.27
Private
87
134.14
Public
46
167.93
Self Employed
59
132.23
Student
70
183.26
Others
37
130.41
Private
88
157.21
Public
46
163.40
Self Employed
59
125.14
Student
70
156.99
Others
37
146.68
Private
88
146.27
Public
46
155.41
Self Employed
59
134.60
Student
70
171.70
Others
37
139.69
Private
88
147.32
Public
46
158.74
Self Employed
59
125.34
Student
70
166.39
Others
37
157.89
Cuisine tariffs
Only vegetarian cuisine

availability
Safety
Parking facility
Popularity of chef
Private
88
151.39
Public
46
153.66
Self Employed
59
129.86
Student
70
170.19
Others
37
140.11
Private
88
134.19
Public
46
173.49
Self Employed
59
144.07
Student
70
176.62
Others
37
121.55
Private
88
129.31
Public
46
163.75
Self Employed
59
135.11
Student
70
181.61
Others
37
150.12
Private
Public
88
46
150.90
140.55
Self Employed
59
126.47
Student
70
175.29
Others
37
153.34
Private
88
148.84
Public
46
155.70
Self Employed
59
122.04
Student
70
171.05
Others
37
154.49
Private
88
133.89
Public
46
140.32
Self Employed
59
133.13
Student
70
195.42
Others
37
145.38
Private
88
123.84
Public
46
170.13
Self Employed
59
123.30
Student
70
193.01
Others
37
152.45
10.817
0.029*
21.766
0.000*
20.846
0.000*
21.041
0.000*
16.088
0.003*
28.000
0.000*
36.219
0.000*
One way Anova (Kruskal Wallis H-test) showed that

impact of occupation on preferences of respondents was
significant in case of thirteen variables out of the fifteen
variables rated by respondents (Table 5). Quality of food
(H=7.59, p>0.05) and Ambiance (H=3.06, p>0.05)
showed immunity to this impact. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is
rejected in view of statistical evidence except in case of

the above referred two variables.
To look at the source of difference in case of
occupation, post-hoc analysis was conduced using
Dunnet-C test (unequal variance) in respect of cases that
reported the difference to be significant at 5 per cent level.
Table 6:
Dunnet C Post-Hoc Analysis of the Source of Significant Differences in Importance Rating of Selected Attributes
of Restaurants among Respondents Belonging to Varied Occupations
Dependent Variable
(I) Occupation
(J) Occupation
Mean Difference (I-J)
Location
Student
Private
Public
Self Employed
Others
0.23
0.18
0.45(*)
0.33
Menu
Student
Private
Public
Self Employed
Others
0.34(*)
0.08
0.36(*)
0.25
Innovative recipe
Student
Private
Public
Self Employed
Others
0.59(*)
0.16
0.63(*)
0.56(*)
Student
Private
Public
Self Employed
Others
-0.03
-0.07
0.35
0.01
Student
Private
Public
Self Employed
Others
0.35
0.15
0.55(*)
0.54
Separate bar
Student
Private
Public
Self Employed
Others
0.39
0.06
0.64(*)
0.21
Student
Private
Public
Self Employed
Others
0.22
0.19
0.44(*)
0.30
Cuisine tariffs
Student
Private
Public
Self Employed
Others
0.52(*)
0.09
0.49(*)
0.60(*)
Student
Private
Public
Self Employed
Others
0.97(*)
0.30
0.78(*)
0.61
Safety
Student
Private
Public
Self Employed
Others
0.35(*)
0.42(*)
0.52(*)
0.29
Parking facility
Student
Private
Public
Self Employed
Others
0.24
0.20
0.52(*)
0.20
Student
Private
Public
Self Employed
Others
0.83(*)
0.73(*)
0.78(*)
0.61(*)
Popularity of chef
Student
Private
Public
Self Employed
Others
1.06(*)
0.41
1.07(*)
0.64
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
As envisaged, the Post-Hoc Dunnet-C test (Table

6) reveals fine prints of the difference. Observation of
the Post-Hoc table revealed that among the five
categories of the respondents, only students exhibited
significant differences with other categories. Therefore,
the difference of students vis--vis other categories has
been displayed in the table. The table 6 demonstrates
that the major contribution to the significance of
difference has been the difference between student and
Table 7:
other categories. Further, in case of almost all variables

student and self-employed category display
significant differences. The category of student and
public showed the least differences. In case of about
half of the variables the category private also displayed
significant differences with student category. In case
of specialized cuisine facility, safety and cuisine
tariffs difference among all the categories contributed
to the significance of difference.
Kruskal-Wallis Significance of Difference in Importance Rating of Selected Attributes of Restaurants among

Respondents Visiting Restaurant for Different Reasons
Quality of food
Ambience
Location
Menu
Innovative recipe
Separate bar
Cuisine tariffs
Occupation
No of
cases
Mean
Rank
Chisquare
Degree of
Freedom
Asymp.
Sig
Recreation
144
153.80
7.632
0.022*
Work Related
55
133.69
3.025
0.220
.986
0.611
5.978
0.050*
4.022
0.134
.113
0.945
1.397
0.497
1.250
0.535
1.833
0.400
3.987
0.136
Special Occasion
101
154.95
Recreation
144
143.31
Work Related
55
162.95
Special Occasion
101
153.97
Recreation
144
146.37
Work Related
55
154.85
Special Occasion
101
154.02
Recreation
144
141.50
Work Related
55
149.85
Special Occasion
101
163.68
Recreation
144
145.92
Work Related
55
138.47
Special Occasion
100
162.22
Recreation
144
149.24
Work Related
55
150.52
Special Occasion
101
152.29
Recreation
144
146.38
Work Related
55
149.68
Special Occasion
101
156.82
Recreation
144
153.55
Work Related
55
141.19
Special Occasion
101
151.22
Recreation
144
146.18
Work Related
55
147.24
Special Occasion
101
158.43
Recreation
144
147.52
Work Related
55
137.47
Special Occasion
101
161.85
Only vegetarian cuisine

availability
Safety
Parking facility
Popularity of chef
Recreation
144
128.76
Work Related
55
171.53
Special Occasion
101
170.04
Recreation
144
149.02
Work Related
55
137.87
Special Occasion
101
159.49
Recreation
144
147.42
Work Related
55
129.86
Special Occasion
101
166.13
Recreation
144
139.30
Work Related
55
145.81
Special Occasion
101
169.03
Recreation
144
137.50
Work Related
55
164.03
Special Occasion
101
161.67
21.110
0.000*
4.430
0.109
10.019
0.007*
7.992
0.018*
6.793
0.033*
One way Anova (Kruskal Wallis H-test) showed that

impact of reason to visit restaurant on preferences of
respondents was significant in case of only six variables
viz., Quality of food, Menu, Only vegetarian cuisine
availability, Parking facility, Specialised cuisine facility,
and Popularity of chef out of the total fifteen variables
(Table 7). Rest of them did not display this impact. Thus,
Table 8:
Hypothesis 4 is rejected in case of the above identified

six variables and in case of the rest we do not reject them
in view of available statistical evidence.
In this case too post-hoc analysis was conduced
using Dunnet-C test (unequal variance) in respect of
cases that reported the difference to be significant at 5
per cent level.
Dunnet C Post-Hoc Analysis of the Source of Significant Differences in Importance Rating of Selected Attributes
of Restaurants among Respondents Visiting Restaurant for Different Reasons
Dependent Variable
(I) Reason
(J) Reason
Mean Difference (I-J)
Menu
Recreation
Work Related
-0.07*
Special Occasion
-0.17
Recreation
0.07*
Special Occasion
-0.10
Work Related
Special Occasion
Recreation
Work Related
Special Occasion
Recreation
0.17
Work Related
0.10
Work Related
-0.92(*)
Special Occasion
-0.77(*)
Recreation
0.92(*)
Special Occasion
0.14
Recreation
0.77(*)
Work Related
-0.14
Parking facility
Recreation
Work Related
Special Occasion
Recreation
Work Related
Special Occasion
Popularity of chef
Recreation
Work Related
Special Occasion
Quality of food
Recreation
Work Related
Special Occasion
Work Related
0.25
Special Occasion
-0.22
Recreation
-0.25
Special Occasion
-0.47(*)
Recreation
0.22
Work Related
0.47(*)
Work Related
-0.02
Special Occasion
-0.34(*)
Recreation
0.02
Special Occasion
-0.33
Recreation
0.34(*)
Work Related
0.33
Work Related
-0.41
Special Occasion
-0.37
Recreation
0.41
Special Occasion
0.04*
Recreation
0.37
Work Related
-0.04*
Work Related
0.20
Special Occasion
-0.03*
Recreation
-0.20
Special Occasion
-0.23
Recreation
0.03*
Work Related
0.23
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
The post hoc conduced using Dunnet-C test

(Table 8) explores the source of significance of difference
in case of three categories of reason of visit. The test
was conducted in respect of six variables that exhibited
significant differences. In case of variable only
vegetarian cuisine availabilitythe significance of
difference among categories was contributed by
difference among the three categories. In rest of the cases
the difference was contributed any of the two of the
categories. The results are mixed as exhibited by Table
8 negating a chance of any clear-cut judgment.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Consumer behaviour pertaining to one of the fast
growing service sector i.e., restaurants, has been
investigated in past as suggested by the review of
literature. However, lack of sufficient research in India
on this account, encouraged this research. The purpose
of this study was to advance the understanding about

selection of restaurants in India. This was done by
assessing: (1) whether persons with different occupations
differ in their preferences for selected attributes in
restaurant selection; (2) whether persons from different
age groups differ in their preferences for selected
attributes in restaurant selection; (3) whether persons
belonging to different gender differ in their preferences
for selected attributes in restaurant selection; (4) whether
persons visiting restaurant for different reasons differ in
their preferences for selected attributes in restaurant
selection.
The results suggest that the highest rated attribute
by the consumers in choosing a restaurant is its core
product i.e., the quality of food. The marketers cannot
afford the risk of losing the sight of the core in view of
the increasing number of variables affecting restaurant
choice. The results find its support in the work of
Andersson and Mossberg (2004) who concluded that the
must for restaurants is food which is at the center, and

others are supporting constituents that fall into the
adjacent ring. Further, the results tone with the finding
of Kokko, T. (2005) who also identified the quality of
restaurants product as the most important criteria in
the minds of customers while selecting a restaurant. But
it deviates from the results of Kivela, Reece, and
Inbakaran (1999) who concluded ambience as the most
preferred attribute in selection of restaurants in their
work. The position of menu as third preferred attribute
further augments the importance of core. Interestingly
safety positioned at second spot indicates the emerging
concerns amongst the diners and appears to be India
specific.
Location is one of the most important attributes in
choice criteria of customers. The restaurants such as
Applebees, Blimpie Subs & Salads, Burger king,
McDonalds, Subway, and T.G.I. Fridays select the site
for franchisees. The old joke about the three most
important keys or prerequisite to success in the fashion
retailing businessThree L principle, or Location,
location, and locationis just as true of the restaurant
business (Mariani, 2001). The findings of the study
support above contentions as it is considered as the fourth
important choice criteria in selection of restaurants. The
findings well syncs with the results of Kokko, T. (2005)
who also places location as the fourth most important
criteria in the minds of customers while selecting a
restaurant. Parking facility at the seventh place
highlights the problem of increased congestion in cities.
Significantly the lowest rated attributes are related to
customization of cuisine. It is considered that the
restaurant business in the city is emerging one. At
present, people at large are only scouting for basic
products. With the time the sector will become more
buyer dominated. Broadly, the results vindicate the
findings by Andersson and Mossberg (2004) who
suggested dining experience is an engrossing concept
that includes much more than good food. Finally, the
selection of attributes by respondents again buttress that
products are a combination of goods and services
(Rathmell, 1966; Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons, 2000;
Magnusson, 2003; Nickels and Wood, 1997; Vargo and
Lusch 2004a and 2004b).
The results of the study illustrate that only four
attributes rated by consumers concerning selection a
restaurant vary by selected age groups. The results do
not conform to the findings of Kivela, Reece, and
Inbakaran (1999) who argue that determinants in
restaurant selection vary by age groups. Whatever
differences between the age groups have come up, they

are largely related to the variety and creativity in cuisine.
Further, the results suggest that the preferences do not
differ significantly on the basis of gender. The
difference is significant only in respect of one variable,
thus indicating homogeneity of preferences across
genders. Broadly the insignificant impact of age and
gender on the preferences of consumers suggest that the
restaurant market is still nascent and consumers
preferences are still evolving. In case of occupations, it
is the category of students that is at significant deviation
with all other occupations like, private sector employees,
self employed and others. Overall what translates is that
the young generation is emerging as a separate cult
amongst the rest. Interestingly companies are also
recognising rising power of youth. It could be gauged
from the excerpts of Mr. S.V. Prasad, CEO, Birla Mutual
Fund (www.adityabirla.com, 2005) The fund intends
to take advantage of the large opportunity created by the
emergence of GenNext (The young generation) as the
largest population cohort in the country and its lavish
spending habits. It surfaces that the younger generation
has markedly different habits, lifestyle and attitudes in
comparison to other segments of the population.
Recognising and understanding GenNext will pave way
for harnessing this emerging sector in a profitable
manner.
As far as reason to visit is concerned it has also not
been able to emerge as a factor contributing to significant
differences among preferences. It further reinforces that
restaurant market is still maturing.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
The study furnishes a preliminary view of state of
consumer behaviour with respect to difference among
selected cross sections of consumers regarding their
preferences concerning restaurant. It assesses the impact
of demographic variables and reasons to visit on these
preferences. The results suggest that overall demographic
variables like, age and gender hardly contributes towards
difference in preferences. This bears out that restaurant
sector is an emerging sector and the consumption
preferences are yet evolving. It translates into excellent
opportunity for the marketers in shaping the preferences
of consumers through communication mix rather leaving
them in lurch to shape themselves. If effectively tapped,
this will give proactive business organisations a needed
head start in todays competitive sphere. The study also
heralds the rise of GenNext in the Indian market in
general and restaurant sector in particular. The sector

has to recognize their potential in terms of purchasing
power as well as the role played by them viz., influencer,
gatekeeper etc., to finally recognize their clout. It appears
to be quite challenging but rewarding for the restaurant
sector to serve this emerging subset of Indian consumers.
Knowing how potential clients make this information
search is fundamental for restaurant sector which will
provide help for marketing communications strategies
that facilitate the selection of their restaurant by potential
customers.
The study serves an unambiguous message by
suggesting to keep food at the core of their offerings
without loosing sight of other add-ons. Besides, extrinsic
clues like security, location, parking place etc. play a
significant role in selection of restaurants. The demand
curve of restaurants is not price elastic as consumers place
tariffs at the tenth spot. Therefore, the nature of
competition in the restaurant is a non-price one. The
study offers a right recipe to the sector regarding the areas
to focus in order to improve overall value of the offering.
In general the findings of the study serve as a guide post
for entrepreneurs in this sector to prioritize their focus
areas and appreciate the difference between the GenNext
and other segments.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
The service sector is leading the growth in India. The
stride towards opening of retail sector to the world is
opening up new opportunities to entrepreneurs,
consumers, researchers etc. The present study,
explorative in nature, tries to discover the preferences
of consumers in selection of a restaurant in India. As the
study has been done in a city where the city belongs to
B+ category, the external validity of the study could also
be tested in cities belonging to other categories.
Consumer is the epic centre of marketing. They could
be served better when their needs are understood and
consumers are segmented accordingly. The sociodemographic variables that were tested for the variance
could be further expanded by adding more variables. The
results will help marketers to offer a better mix to
customers. As a guide to future research the linkage
between determinants of restaurants selection and
customer satisfaction and its consequents like customer
retention, word-of-mouth, perceived service quality etc.
could be studied in case of India. Finally, our analysis
revealed determinants of restaurant selection differ to
that of some other studies like Kivela, Reece, &
Inbakaran (1999). Hence, further research could take up
such variances.
REFERENCES
The study has not taken into consideration different types

of restaurants as has been done by earlier studies. A study
funded by Coca-Cola Foodservice & Hospitality (2005)
reveals that consumers group restaurants into five
categories that the authors of the study call Home
Comfort, Entertain n Unwind, Breads Abound,
Pizza and Quick Service. Those five categories are
then divided into 18 subgroups that further define each
restaurants identity in the consumers mind. For
example, the Entertain n Unwind category is subdivided
into Themed, Fun First, Food n Fun, Mexican
Grill, Social Comfort and Food Focus. The
determinants of these types may differ. One of the
important demographic variable i.e. income, could not
be included due to widespread skeptism in Indian genre
regarding revealing the correct income. Analysing
impact of income on the selection of restaurants could
have offered more insights. The selection of sample that
is more representative of the heterogeneous strata of
Indian society could fetch better results. The study was
conducted in the city Gwalior which is a B+ city having
a city population of about 6 lacs. The study may not be a
representative one for the larger cities.
Alpert, M.I. (1971), Identification of Determinant Attributes: A

Comparison of Methods, Journal of Marketing Research,
8, May, pp. 184-191.
Andersson, T.D. and Mossberg, L. (2004), The Dining
Experience: Do Restaurants Satisfy Customer Needs?,
Food Service Technology, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 4(4),
Dec., pp. 171177.
Andersson, T.D. (1991), Dining Quality: Do Customers Get
Value for Money?, The Journal of Hospitality Financial
Management,1, pp. 314.
Aubert-Gamet, V. (1997), Twisting Servicescapes: Diversion of
the Physical Environment in a Re-appropriation Process,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8,
pp. 2641.
Auty, S. (1992), Consumer Choice and Segmentation in the
Restaurant Industry, The Service Industries Journal, 12(8),
pp. 324-39.
Baker, J. (1986), The Role of the Environment in Marketing
Services: The Consumer Perspective, in The Services
Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage, J
Czepiel, C Congram & J Shanahan (eds.), pp.7984,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Baker, J. and Cameron, M. (1996), The Effects of the Service
Environment on Affect and Consumer Perception of Waiting

Time: An Integrative Review and Research Propositions,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4),
pp. 338349.
Bateson, J. E. (1995), Managing Service Marketing, 3rd edition,
Harcourt Brace College Publishers, New York.
Beardsworth, A. and Keil, T. (1997), Sociology on the Menu.
Routledge, London.
Belk, R.W. (1975), Situational Variables and Consumer
Behaviour, Journal of Consumer Research, 2, pp. 15764.
Berridge, K.C. (2001), Reward Learning: Reinforcement,
Incentives Expectations, Psychology Learn Motivation, 40,
pp. 22378.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effect
of Physical Surrounding and Employee Responses, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 6982.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical
Surroundings on Customers and Employees, Journal of
Marketing, 56, pp. 5771.
Cardello, A.V., Schutz, H., Snow, C. and Lesher, L. (2000),
Predictors of Food Acceptance, Consumption and
Satisfaction in Specific Eating Situations, Food Quality
Pref, 11, pp. 20116.
Hopkinson, R.G., Petterbridge, D. and Longmore, J. (1966),

Daylighting, Heinemann, London.
Kivela, J. (1997), Restaurant Marketing: Selection and
Segmentation on Hong Kong, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9(2-3), pp. 116-23.
Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R. and Reece, J., (2000), Consumer
Research in the Restaurant Environment- Part 3: Analysis,
Findings and Conclusions, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12/1, pp. 13-30.
Kivela, J., Reece, J. and Inbakaran, R. (1999), Consumer
Research in the Restaurant Environment. Part 2: Research
Design and Analytical Methods, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management 199, 11(6),
pp. 269-286.
Kokko, T. (2005), Offering Development in the Restaurant
Sector - A Comparison between Customer Perceptions and
Management Beliefs, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Finland: University of Helsinki, p. 182.
Kolmogorov, A.N. (1933), On the Empirical Determination of a
Distribution Function, (Italian) Giornale dellInstituto
Italiano degli Attuari, 4, pp. 83-91.
Kruskal, W.H., and Wallis, W.A. (1952), Use of Ranks in Onecriterion Variance Analysis, Journal of American
Statistical Association, 47, pp. 583621.
DeVellis, R.F. (1991), Scale Development: Theory and

Applications, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Levene, H. (1960), Contributions to Probability and Statistics,

Stanford University Press, CA, pp. 278292.
Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association of India

(online) (cited 04 June 2005) http://www.fhrai.com/MagNews/magIndianIndustry.asp
Lewis, R.C. and Chambers, R.E. (1998), Marketing Leadership

in Hospitality: Foundations and Practices, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Finkelstein, J. (1989), Dining Out: A Sociology of Modern

Manners, Polity, Cambridge.
Lowenberg, M.E., Todhunter, E.N., Wilson, E.D., Savage, J.R.

and Lubawski, J.L. (1979), Food and People, Wiley, New
York, NY.
Fishbein, M. (1972), The Search for Attitudinal-Behavioral

Consistency, in Behavioral Science Foundations of
Consumer Behavior, Joel B. Cohen (ed.), Free Press, New
York.
Fitzsimmons, J.A. and Fitzsimmons, M.J. (2000), New Service
Development: Creating Memorable Experiences, Sage
Publications, Inc, London.
Foote, N.N. (1961), Introduction, In Household Decision
Making: Consumer Behavior, Vol. 4, Nelson N. Foote (ed.),
New York University Press, New York.
Gunasekeran, R. (1992), Choice of Up-market (Fine Dining)
Restaurants by Young Professional and Business People,
National University of Singapore School of Business
Management. Unpublished.
Han, C. Min and Vern, T. (1988), Country-of-Origin Effects for
Uni-National and Bi-National Products, Journal of
International Business Studies, 19 (Summer), pp. 235-254.
Hing, N. and Yun, L. L. (1995), Measuring Quality in Restaurant
Operations: An Application of the SERVQUAL
Instrument, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 14(3-4), pp. 293-310.
Magnusson, P.R. (2003), Customer-Orientated Product

DevelopmentExperiments Involving Users in Service
Innovation, Stockholm School of Economics, EFIThe
Economic Research Institute.
Mann, H.B. and Whitney, D.R. (1947), On a Test of Whether
One of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger Than
the Other, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, pp. 50
Mariani, J. (2001), The Implications of Your Location,
Restaurant Hospitality, 85, pp. 20.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to
Environmental Psychology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Mehta, S.S. and Maniam, B. (2002), Marketing Determinants of
Customers Attitude Towards Selecting a Restaurant,
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 6(1), pp. 27-44.
Milliman, R.E. (1986), The Influence of Background Music on
the Behaviour of Restaurant Patrons, Journal of Consumer
Research, 13(9), pp. 286288.
Myers, J.H. and Alpert M.I. (1968), Determinant Buying
Attitudes: Meaning and Measurement, Journal of
Marketing, 32, October, pp. 13-20.
Nations Restaurant News, (2005), Study Reveals Consumers

Restaurant-selection Habits, March 21, 27.
Available at < http://www.adityabirla.com/media/press_

releases/200506june/birla_india_gennext_fund.htm>
Nickels, W.G. and Wood, M.B. (1997), Marketing:

Relationships, Quality, Value, Worth Publishers, New York.
The Economic Times, (2005), Dining out Hots up in India, April

27 (cited on 15 Dec, 2006) Available at < http://
economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1089677.cms>
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory

(3rd Edition), McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology, McGrawHill, Inc., New York, pp. 264-265.
Tseng, M., Ma, Q. and Su, C.J. (1999), Mapping Customers

Service Experience for Operations Improvement Business
Process Management, 5(1), pp. 50-64.
Oh, H. (1999), The Effect of Brand Class, Brand Awareness, and

Price on Customer Value and Behavioral Intentions,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24(2), May,
pp. 136-162
Tucci, L.A. and Talaga J. (1997), Service Guarantees and

Consumers Evaluation of Services Journal of Services
Marketing, 11(1), pp. 10-18.
Oh, H. (2000), Diners Perceptions of Quality, Value, and

Satisfaction: A Practical Viewpoint, Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, pp. 58-66.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004a), Evolving to a New

Dominant Logic for Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 68,
Jan., pp. 1-17.
Pedraja, M. and Yage, J. (2001), What Information do

Customers Use When Choosing a Restaurant?,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 13(6), pp. 316-318.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004b), The Four Service

Marketing Myths : Remnants of a Goods-Based,
Manufacturing Model, Journal of Service Research, 6(4),
May, pp. 324-335.
Rathmell, J.R. (1966), What is Meant by Services?, Journal of

Marketing, 30, Oct., pp. 32-36.
Wakefield, K. and Blodgett, J. (1996), The Effect of the

Servicescape on Customers Behavioral Intentions in
Leisure Service Settings, Journal of Services Marketing,
10, pp. 45-61.
Russell, J.A. (1979), Affective Space is Bipolar, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 37(4), pp. 345-56.
Spector, P.E. (1992), Summated Rating Scale Construction: An
Introduction, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences 07-082, Sage, Newbury
Park, CA.
Steadman, D. (1991), Restaurant Biz is Show Biz! Whittier Green
Publishing Co. Inc.,Greenlawn, New York.
The Aditya Birla Group (online) (cited 14 December, 2006).
Wakefield, L.K. and Blodgett, G.J. (1994), The Importance of

Servicescape in Leisure Service Settings, Journal of
Services Marketing, 8, pp. 66-76.
Wood, R.C. (1995), The Sociology of the Meal, Edinburgh
University Press, Edinburgh.
Yuksel, A. and Yuksel, F. (2002), Measurement of Tourist
Satisfaction with Restaurant Services: A Segment-Based
Approach, Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(1), pp. 52-68.
Yogesh Upadhyay (yogesh400@gmail.com) is a Reader at the Institute of Commerce and Management, Jiwaji University,
Gwalior. He has 16 years of experience in teaching and research. His areas of interest are Social Marketing, Service Marketing
and International Marketing.
Shiv Kumar Singh (shivksingh1@rediffmail.com) is a Reader and Co-ordinator of MBA (Part-Time) Programme of Commerce
and Management, Jiwaji University, Gwalior. He has 16 years of experience in teaching and research . His areas of interest are
Consumer Behaviour, Model Building and Corporate Governance.
George Thomas (georginogeorgino@yahoo.co.in) is Reader and Heads the Department of Management Technology, ITM
Universe, Gwalior. He has 13 years of experience in teaching, research and industry. His areas of interest are Service
Marketing, Brand Management and Strategic Marketing.

Upadhyay - Do People Differ in Their Preferences Regarding Restaurants - An Exploritory Study

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Upadhyay - Do People Differ in Their Preferences Regarding Restaurants - An Exploritory Study

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

DO PEOPLE DIFFER IN THEIR

PREFERENCES REGARDING RESTAURANTS?

HE imprints of thrust in Indias development are

as a trend, which is prevalent within this elite group. Two

8 Upadhyay, Singh and Thomas

Food is one of the basic necessities on which the

manners where customers imitate each other, in response

VISIONThe Journal of Business Perspective Vol. 11 No. 2 AprilJune 2007

Do People Differ in their Preferences Regarding Restaurants? 9

exploratory study supports that customers find food

In the backdrop of the literature reviewed following

Demographic Profile of Sample

VISIONThe Journal of Business Perspective Vol. 11 No. 2 AprilJune 2007

10 Upadhyay, Singh and Thomas

All individual scale items had statistically significant (at

Mean Ratings of Attributes Considered in Selection

Less time in serving

Convenient operating time

Separate place for family

Specialised cuisine facility

Only vegetarian cuisine availability

Reliability of the Scale

Effects of the demographic variables viz., age,

VISIONThe Journal of Business Perspective Vol. 11 No. 2 AprilJune 2007

Do People Differ in their Preferences Regarding Restaurants? 11

Kruskal Wallis H-tests was used to analyse

of demographic variableoccupation, where P value of

* The mean rank difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

VISIONThe Journal of Business Perspective Vol. 11 No. 2 AprilJune 2007

12 Upadhyay, Singh and Thomas

Mann-Whitney U-Test shows that of the fifteen

Mann-Whitney U-Test shows that of the fifteen

* The mean rank difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

VISIONThe Journal of Business Perspective Vol. 11 No. 2 AprilJune 2007

Do People Differ in their Preferences Regarding Restaurants? 13

Kruskal-Wallis Significance of Difference in Importance Rating of Selected Attributes of Restaurants among

Less time in serving

Separate place for family

VISIONThe Journal of Business Perspective Vol. 11 No. 2 AprilJune 2007

14 Upadhyay, Singh and Thomas

Convenient operating time

Only vegetarian cuisine

Specialised cuisine facility

* The mean rank difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

One way Anova (Kruskal Wallis H-test) showed that

rejected in view of statistical evidence except in case of

VISIONThe Journal of Business Perspective Vol. 11 No. 2 AprilJune 2007

Do People Differ in their Preferences Regarding Restaurants? 15

Mean Difference (I-J)

Less time in serving

Separate place for family

Convenient operating time

Only vegetarian cuisine availability

Specialised cuisine facility

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

VISIONThe Journal of Business Perspective Vol. 11 No. 2 AprilJune 2007

16 Upadhyay, Singh and Thomas

As envisaged, the Post-Hoc Dunnet-C test (Table

other categories. Further, in case of almost all variables

Kruskal-Wallis Significance of Difference in Importance Rating of Selected Attributes of Restaurants among

Less time in serving

Separate place for family

Convenient operating time

VISIONThe Journal of Business Perspective Vol. 11 No. 2 AprilJune 2007