10122607 陳俐君(hotel restaurant dining the relationship between perceived value and intention to...
TRANSCRIPT
Hotel restaurant dining: The relationship between perceived value and intention to purchase
Presenter: Anne ChenInstructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa HsuDate: November 26, 2012 1
Citation
Ashton, A., Scott, N., Solnet, D., & Breakey, N. (2010). Hotel restaurant dining: The relationship between perceived value and intention to purchase. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(3), 206-218.
2
Contents
3
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Result & Conclusion
Limitation
Reflection
Ⅰ
Ⅱ
Ⅲ
Ⅳ
Ⅴ
Ⅵ
Introduction
It is necessary for hotel managers to understand consumer expectations to ensure that they provide a product and service mix, which meets customer needs.
4
Purpose
To seek understand how perceived value in a hotel restaurant dining context relates to intention to purchase (ITP)
5
Research Question
What is the relationship between perceived value and ITP in hotel restaurant dining ?
6
Literature Review
7
The evaluation of a brand alliance relies on a consumer’s experience with a brand and opinions formed on the basis of several factors including the level of service experience, price paid, and word of mouth.
(Rust et al., 2005; Paswan et al., 2007)
8
Literature Review
The relationship between quality and value depends on overall service quality and improvement in core quality.
(McDougall, 2000)
9
Literature Review
Perceived sacrifice includes both a monetary (perceived price) component, and a non-monetary one such as time or energy spent.
(Monroe, 1990; Dodds et al., 1991)
10
Literature Review
Hypotheses
H1: If perceived brand image is high then intention to purchase is high.
H2: If perceived quality is high then intention to purchase is high.
11
12
H3: If perceived sacrifice on monetary price is low then intention to purchase is high.
H4: If perceived sacrifice on non-monetary price is low then intention to purchase is high.
Hypotheses
Methodology
13
Perceived value research instrument construct
14
Research Instrument of Perceived Value
Perceived Brand Image
Perceived Quality
Perceived Sacrifice
Perceived Value Construct
Consumer Attitude
Product & Service
Performance
Monetary Price Non-monetary
Price
Measurement Items
Intention to Purchase
15
• Five star hotel – Henry J. Bean Bar and Grill restaurant
• Bangkok, Thailand• A total of 88 questionnaires
Pilot test
• Five star hotel – Amari Orchid Resort & Tower
• Pattaya, Thailand• A total of 377 respondents
Main study
Methodology
Result
16
17
H1: If perceived brand image is high then intention to purchase is high.
Model
Unstandardized
coefficients
Standardizedcoefficients t Sig. F
B Std. error Beta (β)
(Constant) -2.278 1.683 ─── -1.354 0.177 64.670(1271)***
Perceived brand image 0.628 0.078 0.439 8.042 0.000 ───
Dependent variable: Intention to purchase,R2=0.193.***P<0.001.
Table 1: Perceived brand image regression results
18
H2: If perceived quality is high then intention to purchase is high.
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardized
coefficients T Sig. F
B Std. error Beta (β)
(Constant) -1.713 1.903 ─── -0.888 0.376 44.667(1279)***
Perceived quality 0.992 0.148 0.371 6.683 0.000 ───Dependent variable: Intention to purchase,R2=0.138.***P<0.001.
Table 2: Perceived quality regression results
19
H3: If perceived sacrifice on monetary price is low then intention to purchase is high.
Model
Unstandardized
coefficients
Standardized
coefficients t Sig. F
B Std. error Beta (β)
(Constant) 2.900 1.264 ─── 2.294 0.023 43.318(1287)***
Perceived sacrifice onmonetary price 1.032 0.157 0.362 6.582 0.000 ───
Dependent variable: Intention to purchase,R2=0.131.***P<0.001.
Table 3: Monetary price regression results
20
H4: If perceived sacrifice on non-monetary price is low then intention to purchase is high.
Model
Unstandardized
coefficients
Standardized
coefficients t Sig. F
B Std. error Beta (β)
(Constant) -5.566 1.889 ─── -2.947 0.003 78.831(1284)***
Perceived sacrifice onnon-monetary price 1.302 0.147 0.466 8.879 0.000 ───Dependent variable: Intention to purchase,R2=0.217.
***P<0.001.
Table 4: Non-monetary price regression results
Conclusion
21
Perceived brand image, perceived quality and perceived sacrifice combine to explain over two-thirds of the variance in ITP.
Four key factors (both monetary and non-monetary price) are the decision making of consumers regarding ITP in the hotel restaurant dining context.
22
Conclusion
23
Limitation
24
The limitations for this study revolve include its necessary selection of one particular study context; essentially, only one hotel chain located in Thailand.
Most of the participants in this study were leisure travelers.
Limitation
Reflection
25
26
Perceived value always influences customer intention to purchase.
On the hotel party who look forward to achieving the customers’ requirements increase intention to purchase.
Reflection
Thank you for listening.
27