clean restrooms: how important are they to restaurant consumers?

Clean restrooms: how important are they torestaurant consumers?fri_155 309..320

Nelson Barber* and Joseph M. Scarcelli†

*The Whittemore School of Business and Economics, Department of Hospitality Management, Universityof New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA; †Niagara University, NY 14109, USA

Correspondence:Nelson Barber, TheWhittemore School ofBusiness and Economics,Department ofHospitality Management,University of NewHampshire, 15 AcademicWay, Durham, NH03824, USA. Tel:603.862.3571; Fax:603.862.3383; E-mail:[email protected]

Keywords:cleanliness, food safety,restrooms

Abstract

There are many choices to make in restaurant dining, and for experiencedconsumers, the expectation of safe, quality food has increased. The foodser-vice industry is in a challenging and competitive environment. Determiningwhat factors of customer satisfaction are important to maintain or increasemarket share is critical to success. For consumers, there are few opportunitiesto evaluate food handling, safety and cleanliness practices of a restaurant.Research has shown that consumers are concerned with restroom cleanliness,with a functioning restroom having a positive influence on customers’ per-ception of the restaurant; and has also been shown to impact the choice ofwhere to eat or whether to return to a restaurant. This study tested theseassumptions by using a data set from the southwestern US, finding thatconsumers are concerned with restaurant cleanliness and food safety, withrestrooms an important factor to consumers when assessing the cleanliness ofan eating establishment.

Introduction

The restaurant industry has undergone manychanges over the last two decades, and with theAmerican public eating out with more frequencythan ever before, food has become a critical con-tributor to physical well-being (Variyam 2005). Itis also a major contributor to consumers’ sourcesof pleasure, worry and stress (Wilcock et al.2004), with their attitudes toward food safetyshown to influence and predict behavior. As thepublic dines out more, they increasingly put theirtastes, nutrition and safety into the hands of res-taurateurs. Understanding and controlling theseimportant attributes is crucial to the survival of arestaurant.

Consumer satisfaction is often used by manag-ers to predict repeat patronage, which leads to

brand loyalty and new consumers through word-of-mouth promotion (Oh 2000; Yuksel & Yuksel2002). According to Stevens et al. (1995), restau-rant consumers determine which restaurants meettheir quality and value standards, and restaura-teurs who do not recognize this will see decliningconsumer traffic as guests patronize competingrestaurants. Those expectations are importantbecause unfulfilled expectations create dissatis-fied consumers, who may quietly exit or spreadnegative word-of-mouth. So achieving consumersatisfaction and loyalty is realized through thedelivery of exceptional value (Qiang 1995;Raajpoot 2002).

Thus, an important element in the managementof service organizations is understanding the con-sumers’ needs, allowing management to put theirlimited resources to the best advantage. Among

Research article

20th Anniversary Volume

© 2009, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Foodservice, 20, pp. 309–320

DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0159.2009.00155.x

309

the many factors influencing the service encoun-ter, cleanliness is important (Johnston 1997; Oh2000), yet few research studies were found thatadequately measured the dimension of cleanlinessand service quality on consumers’ perceptions ofcleanliness (Stevens et al. 1995; Johnston 1997;Oh 2000; Ivanov 2007).

For the average consumer, few opportunitiesare available to determine the food handling prac-tices of a restaurant. One option is to check thelocal, county or state health department reportspublished in local newspapers or reported onlocal television news programs. Another optionfor the consumer is to look for certificationsposted in the restaurant. In an attempt to demon-strate the level of training and knowledge of foodhandlers, some restaurants voluntarily postemployee food safety certifications, while othersare required by state mandates. Consumers aretherefore left to their own presuppositions andobservations concerning the safety and cleanlinesspractices of a restaurant.

A consumer’s opinion of an establishment canbe formed very quickly, often in a matter ofseconds. In studies in Canada (Macaskill et al.2000) and Indiana (Scarcelli 2007), participantsconsidered the cleanliness of a restaurant to be agood indicator of the safety of the food served.The researchers noted several visible areas withina restaurant that can influence a consumer’sopinion, such as the dining room, which can beobserved as having clean floors, walls and tables.

Consumers can also be influenced by theappearance of the employees and whether theyare well-groomed and wearing clean, well-maintained uniforms (Scarcelli 2007; Ryu & Jang2008). Additionally, the visible condition of theserver’s station can indicate possible conditions inthe kitchen, such as clean and organized vs. dirtyand unkempt (Stevens et al. 1995; Ryu & Jang2008). Finally, one important area that a majorityof the dining public uses to assess service and foodquality is the restroom (Blackiston & Evans 2004;Klara 2004b).

Cleanliness of restrooms

The cleanliness of a restroom is critical to guests’perception of safety and satisfaction. While spot-less drinking glasses, immaculate tables, gleaming

silverware and tasteful decor contribute to therestaurant’s atmosphere, guests’ perceptions andreactions to their dining experience can be swayedby the smallest details (Fitzsimmons 2003). Oneoften overlooked ‘hot spot’ is the restroom. Fewthings can make the dining experience more dis-pleasing than an unkempt restroom. For example,consider the distraction from the other servicequality experiences, such as the wonderful food,that would be caused by a guest returning to thetable and complaining about the restroom’scleanliness (Fitzsimmons 2003; Klara 2004a,b).According to Klara (2004a), if the restroomis clean and functioning, it can have a positiveimpact on the consumers’ perception of the res-taurant. A study by Scarcelli (2007) found thatrespondents had both chosen not to eat at, as wellas not to return to, an establishment in responseto a visit to the restroom.

In addition to their aesthetic or visual responseto restroom cleanliness, guests have becomeincreasingly aware about how germs spread ill-nesses and also of the precautions needed toreduce the possibility of contracting a bacterial orviral illness, such as swine flu. That is why suc-cessful establishments must address guests’ con-cerns by meeting or exceeding their expectationsabout the cleanliness of restrooms (Scarcelli2007).

Many establishments are learning the impor-tance of the restroom as a marketing tool. Asidefrom the occasional ‘gimmick’ restroom, such asoffering a full-service bar in the ladies’ room,some restaurants are taking advantage of the timea consumer spends in the restroom (Scaracelli2007). For example, they may ‘pipe in’ basic lan-guage lessons, in a Mexican or Italian restaurant,or use the time spent in the restroom as a sellingpoint by posting their specials or their dessertmenu. However, the consumer is unlikely to takeadvantage of these items if the visit was unpleas-ant. This should be an indicator to restaurateursthat the state of the restroom can affect the expe-rience of the consumer. Norsworthy (1997) sug-gests that consumers will eat up to 25% more inan establishment where they are comfortableusing the restroom. This seems logical; peoplewould generally eat less if they are disgusted bythe surrounding environment and the restroomsare no exception (Curran 1987; Ruggless 2001).

310 Clean restrooms and restaurants N. Barber & J. M. Scarcelli


Another aspect of the dimension of service tan-gibles is the product/service. Unclean restroomsare perhaps the least discussed health hazard inthe restaurant business, and the subject deservesmore attention from owners. According toDolliver (2001), consumers care nearly as muchabout the restrooms as they do about the foodwhen forming their opinion of fast-food eateries.With this in mind, consider that 78% of consum-ers surveyed judge a clean restroom as a strongindicator of a clean kitchen and thus the qualityand safety of the food; in fact, the more fashion-able the restaurant, the stronger is this belief(Blackiston & Evans 2004). The feeling seems tobe that with fast-food restaurants, the idea is toget in and out as quickly as possible, whereas in afine dining establishment, one lingers as part ofthe pampering of an upscale experience (Scarcelli2007).

Therefore, a restroom says a lot about the res-taurant. It is a key component of the operation,and it says as much about the kitchen as it doesabout other aspects of the service quality(Prewitt 2001). If a restroom is filthy, what is thekitchen like? How well the management main-tains the restroom may indicate the amount ofpride that is taken in preparing the food and theother attributes of service quality (Ruggless2001). Interestingly, Klara (2004a) found that75% of consumers said that they would notreturn to an establishment if the restrooms werenot well kept, while Amer (2003) found that74% would actually leave a fast-food establish-ment if it appeared dirty. Combine this with thefindings that up to 78% of consumers consider adirty restroom indicative of the overall level ofcleanliness in the restaurant and it becomes clearthat managers need to focus on their restrooms(Scarcelli 2007).

Segmentation of restaurant consumers

It is useful to consider how restaurant consumersmight be defined (Business Wire 2007) and whattheir attitudes are toward restaurant cleanliness,particularly if foodservice organizations want toposition themselves as having high service qualitystandards with attractive, safe and clean physicalenvironments. In other words, what are the per-sonality and demographic attributes that distin-

guish the consumers concerned with cleanlinessfrom other forms of restaurant patrons?

Consumer purchase behavior can be directlyassociated with consumers’ demographic charac-teristics such as gender, education, income andage and once identified, appropriate communica-tion strategies can be developed (Barber 2008).Kim et al. (2009) used age, gender and ethnicitywhen examining consumer service satisfactionin a foodservice establishment. They found thatolder consumers (over 31 years of age) were moresatisfied than younger (under 25 years of age)consumers. Scarcelli (2007) examined the impor-tance of restaurant restroom cleanliness usinggender, age and education, finding that youngerrespondents are more concerned with food safetythan older clientele.

Scarcelli (2007) also found that when decidingwhere to eat, men were more concerned about thecleanliness of a restroom and food safety thanwere women. Blackiston & Evans (2004) exam-ined gender, finding that both males and femalesequally considered a clean restroom a strong indi-cator of a clean kitchen. Terry & Israel (2004)suggested that age is an important variable affect-ing overall consumer satisfaction determiningthat older clients are inclined to be more satisfiedthan younger ones. Chowa et al. (2007) proposedfour demographic variables (gender, age, educa-tion level and income level) are directly related tofull service restaurant consumers’ revisit behaviorin China. They confirmed that only age was themost influential demographic variable, suggestingolder consumers tend to show higher repeatpatronage, possibly because of their involvementin traditional business deals and social activitiesin restaurants.

Given the above discussion, this current studyconsidered age (generation) and gender of the USconsumers.

Generational effect

Major consumer products companies consider theMillennial Generation, those born between 1978and 2000, as the largest generation in history, andits members are the most affluent, the most edu-cated and the most diverse (36% non-white), dis-playing strong support for social responsibilityand high levels of concern about the world and

311Clean restrooms and restaurants N. Barber & J. M. Scarcelli


the environment (Tulgan & Martin 2001; Thach& Olsen 2006; Barber 2008). They follow rulesmore readily and accept authority easier thantheir parents did at their age. Not surprisingly,they surpass their parents in the use of technology(Thach & Olsen 2006; Barber 2008).

The smallest of the three cohorts is GenerationX, those born between 1965 and 1976. Theywitnessed great social, economic and environ-mental changes growing up, resulting in expecta-tions of change, even embracing it and viewinganything that does not change with suspicion(Morton 2003). They have a unique style of com-municating. This generation expects immediateand ongoing feedback, and is equally comfortablegiving feedback to others. They are media savvyand know the value of the media. They under-stand its power, yet they realize how easily itdistorts reality (Morton 2003).

Members of the Baby Boomer Generation,those born between 1946 and 1964, were influ-enced by the 1960s decade with music, events andsocial changes leaving a permanent impression onthem. Many voiced strong opinions about theneed for clean air, a cleaner environment andmaking the earth a cleaner and safer place (Leeet al. 2000). They grew up in the standardizedkitchens and houses that came with the buildingcodes of the 1940s, studied the standardized cur-ricula that came with the drive for universalaccess to education of the 1950s and lived withthe standardized fear that came with atomicbomb drills and the Vietnam War in the 1960s(Lee et al. 2000).

Gender Effect

Gender continues to be one of the most commonforms of segmentation used by marketers andadvertisers, with males and females likely to differin information processes and decision-making(Palan 2001; Laroche et al. 2003; Mitchell &Walsh 2004; Barber 2008). According to theconcept of selectivity, Meyers-Levy & Maheswa-ran (1991) and Barber (2008) suggest that ratherthan comprehensively scrutinizing all availableinformation as a basis for decision-making, malesselectively draw upon a smaller set of informa-tion. In contrast, females are more apt to employa comprehensive strategy. That is, compared with

men, women attempt to take in more availablecues when faced with a situation or purchasedecision. Finally, Darley & Smith (1995) reportedthat females are more sensitive to the level(s) ofproduct or situational risk (e.g. performance),thus contributing to the potential difficulty ofmaking a decision.

Research propositions

This study has two purposes. The first is to assesswhether the condition of a restroom is importantto consumers, both in selection and repeat busi-ness, as well as to determine what specific parts ofthe restroom are most important. The secondpurpose of this research will be to assess consum-ers’ opinions and to segment respondents bygender and age (generation).

Based on the literature review and following themethodology used by Scarcelli (2007), which useda different regional population, the followingresearch propositions about the importance of thecleanliness of restaurants’ restrooms are proposed:1 Consumers consider certain criteria of therestroom as important in assessing the cleanlinessof the restroom.2 Consumers consider the cleanliness of therestroom in the selection and return to the restau-rant as important.

The Scarcelli (2007) study was performed inWest Lafayette, Indiana, which has a populationof 125 000 (West Lafayette 2004). One of theoutcomes of this current study was to determinehow respondents living in a different region viewconsumer satisfaction and cleanliness of therestrooms. The investigation of regional differ-ences follows from the idea that attitudes, valuesand beliefs have historical and cultural roots andthese roots are specific to distinctive regions of theUnited States (Guagnano & Markee 1995).

Materials and methods

Design of study

The population under study was the generaladult population of a mid-sized city in the south-west, of the United States, with a populationof just over 200 000 people. Prior to gatheringdata, the survey instrument was submitted to



and approved by the university’s InstitutionalReview Board. The subjects voluntarily parti-cipated through a link to an anonymous onlinesurvey provided during the month of June 2009on the university’s daily electronic news medium.There were over 35 000 students, faculty andother support personnel on campus and wereall residents of the city. Because this samplerepresented varying levels of employment (pro-fessional, service, administrative, operations),income and education, and based upon otherresearch studies that have used this methodof data collection (Barber et al. 2009), it wasexpected that there would be an acceptablenumber of respondents to perform the statisticalanalysis proposed in this study.

This study measured the importance of main-taining a clean restroom by assessing what thepublic considers important in public restroomcleanliness. The online public opinion surveywas anonymous and consisted of 32 questions,and was expected to take approximately 5 minto complete. The first two questions askedrespondents their overall opinion about thecleanliness of restaurant restrooms and theirlevel of concern with food safety when eatingout in a restaurant. Three questions askedrespondents the importance of restrooms indining selection or return visits after a visit tothe restaurant’s restroom. Three questions askedrespondents about their dining habits and howoften they read the health inspection resultsin their local newspaper. Six of the questionsasked for the respondents’ opinion on rest-rooms, their relationship to restaurant kitchensand the respondents’ level of concern with foodsafety. Twelve questions asked respondents torate the importance of certain restroom criteriawhen assessing restaurant restroom cleanli-ness. Finally, six questions determined therespondents’ demographics.

Data analysis

Statistical analysis was computed using theWindows versions of Statistical Package for SocialSciences (SPSS 15.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).Multivariate analysis of variance (‘MANOVA’)was used to analyze variables that consideredoverall cleanliness opinions, restaurant selection,

importance of health inspection reports and crite-ria for assessing a restroom’s cleanliness (depen-dent variables) using gender and generation bydetermining the main and interaction effectsof the independent categorical variables. If theMANOVA F–statistic was significant, follow-uptests were performed by conducting multipleanalysis of variances (ANOVAs) and controllingfor type I error using the Bonferroni inequalityapproach (Hair et al. 1998). Post hoc pairwisecomparison testing was performed if any ofthe ANOVAs were significant using the Scheffémethod.

Results

Descriptive statistics

A total of 339 responses were collected; 40% ofthe respondents were male (n = 136) and 60%were female (n = 203). The average age of respon-dents was 45 years. Respondents had high levelsof education with 63% of the sample havingearned a college degree. Fifty-two percent of therespondents had annual household incomebetween $40 000 and $80 000, with 7% over$100 000. There were 159 Millennial, 88 Genera-tion X and 92 Baby Boomers. These results aresimilar to other studies that have used this samplepopulation (Barber et al. 2009) and the results ofScarcelli (2007) where 60% had a college degreeand the average age was 42 years old. Income wasnot reported in that study.

When asked about their opinion of restaurantrestroom cleanliness and food safety, the respon-dents reported that overall restrooms were dirty[M = 2.5, standard deviation (SD) = 0.8, where1 = very dirty and 5 = very clean] and they werestrongly concerned about food safety when eatingout (M = 2.1, SD = 0.7; where 1 = extremely con-cerned and 5 = not at all concerned). Males con-sidered restrooms to be dirtier (M = 2.4, SD =0.7) than did females (M = 2.6, SD = 0.9). BabyBoomers considered restrooms to be dirtier(M = 2.3, SD = 0.6) than did Millennial (M = 2.6,SD = 0.8) and had a comparably same opinion asdid Generation X (M = 2.4, SD = 0.7). There waslittle difference between males and females intheir concern for food safety when diningout (M = 2.1, M = 2.0, respectively), while Baby



Boomers (M = 2.0, SD = 0.7) were more con-cerned than Generation X (M = 2.4, SD = 0.9)and Millennial (M = 2.5, SD = 1.2).

Restaurant selection

Respondents were asked the importance of aclean restroom and their selection of or return toa restaurant. The results (Table 1) indicate thatoverall, respondents have chosen not to returnto a restaurant based upon a visit to the rest-room (M = 4.1, SD = 1.0), with females (M = 4.2,SD = 1.2) agreeing with this statement more thanmales (M = 3.6; SD = 1.1). Baby Boomers werefound to be in agreement with this statement (M =4.4, SD = 1.2) more than Generation X (M = 4.2,SD = 1.1) and Millennial (M = 4.0, SD = 1.0).

Criteria for assessing restroom cleanliness

The results of the criteria that respondents usedto assess the cleanliness of a restaurant rest-room are shown in Table 2. Overall, evidence ofinsects and rodents (M = 4.7, SD = 0.9) was themost important criteria in assessing the cleanli-ness of restrooms, followed by dirty, soiled orwet toilets (M = 4.6; SD = 1.1); toilet clogged orbroken (M = 4.5; SD = 1.1); and toilets withoutsoap (M = 4.5; SD = 1.3) and without toiletpaper (M = 4.5, SD = 1.2). The least important

was no hot water (M = 3.3, SD = 0.9) and dirtywalls and ceilings (M = 3.4, SD = 1.2).

With regard to gender differences, femalesconsidered no toilet paper (M = 4.7, SD =1.0) and toilet clogged or broken (M = 4.7,SD = 1.2) more important than males (M =4.1, SD = 0.9; M = 4.4, SD = 1.2, respectively).Overall, Baby Boomers considered all 12 criteriamuch more important than the other two cohorts,particularly no hot water (M = 3.8, SD = 1.3) andtoilet clogged or broken (M = 4.7, SD = 1.4).

Respondent segmentation

The results of the MANOVA testing indicatedthere were significant differences found amonggender (Wilks’s L = 0.808, F’(32, 268) = 1.98, P <0.01) and generation (Wilks’s L = 0.621, F’(96,803) = 1.441, P < 0.00), on the dependent vari-ables. ANOVA on each dependent variable wereconducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA,using the Bonferroni inequality approach.

For the ANOVA on the gender and generationindependent variables, several dependent vari-ables were significant (see Table 3).

Post hoc analyses to the univariate ANOVA forthe significant dependent scores consisted of con-ducting pairwise comparisons to find which inde-pendent variable, gender and generation moststrongly influenced the dependent variables. Each

Table 1 Results of clean restrooms and restaurant selection (n = 339)

Restaurant selection

Overall

Gender Generation

Male Female MillennialGenerationX

Babyboomers

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

A clean restaurant isimportant to me whendeciding where to eat.

4.0 1.1 3.9 1.3 4.0 0.9 3.9 1.1 3.9 1.2 4.1 1.0

I have chosen not to eat in arestaurant based on thecleanliness of the restroom.

3.9 0.9 3.9 1.0 4.0 1.2 3.9 0.8 3.9 1.1 4.0 1.3

I have chosen not to return toa restaurant based on thecleanliness of the restroom.

4.1 1.0 3.6 1.1 4.2 1.2 4.0 1.0 4.2 1.1 4.4 1.2

Note: responses on a Likert 5-point scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.SD, standard deviation.



pairwise comparison was tested using the Scheffémethod (see Table 4).

Gender

Regarding the overall opinion on restroom clean-liness, there is a significant difference between

males and females, with a mean difference= 0.324, P < 0.02. There were five assessmentcriteria that were significant between gender(Table 2). For example, when assessing the clean-liness of a restroom, ‘No toilet paper’ was con-sidered significantly more important for females(M = 4.7, SD = 0.9) than for males (M = 4.1,

Table 2 Results of criteria for assessing a restroom’s cleanliness (n = 339)

Criteria

Overall

Gender Generation

Male Female MillennialGenerationX

Babyboomers

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Evidence of insects/rodents 4.7 0.9 4.6 1.2 4.7 1.0 4.6 0.9 4.6 1.0 4.7 1.0Dirty, soiled or wet toilet 4.6 1.1 4.4 1.2 4.7 1.2 4.6 1.3 4.6 1.1 4.7 1.1Toilet clogged or broken 4.5 1.1 4.4 1.0 4.7 0.9 4.4 1.2 4.5 1.2 4.7 1.4No soap 4.5 1.3 4.4 1.3 4.5 1.3 4.4 1.0 4.5 1.4 4.6 0.9No toilet paper 4.5 1.2 4.1b 0.9 4.7a 1.0 4.2b 1.4 4.5a 1.2 4.6a 1.2Dirty floor 4.3 1.3 4.1 1.1 4.4 1.1 4.1 1.1 4.3 0.9 4.4 1.4Odor 4.1 0.9 4.1 1.2 4.2 1.2 4.1 0.8 4.1 1.0 4.3 1.0Dirty, soiled or wet sink 4.0 1.0 3.9 0.8 4.0 1.4 3.9b 1.2 4.1a 1.1 4.3a 1.1No paper towels/drying 4.0 1.1 3.9 1.0 4.0 0.8 3.8b 1.1 4.0a 1.3 4.3a 1.2Trash in toilet 3.6 0.8 3.3b 1.3 3.8a 1.0 3.5 0.9 3.6 0.8 3.7 1.0Dirty, cracked wall and

ceiling tiles3.4 1.2 3.3 0.9 3.5 1.2 3.4 1.4 3.5 1.3 3.6 1.3

No hot water 3.3 0.9 3.1 1.2 3.5 1.0 3.0b 1.1 3.5a 1.1 3.8a 1.3

Note: responses on a 5-point bi-polar scale with 1 = not at all important and 5 = extremely important. Means withdifferent letters are significant at P < 0.02.

Table 3 Analysis of variance results of significant criteria

Independent anddependent variables

Degreesof freedom

Between groupsmean square

Within groupsmean squares

Fstatistic

Significanceof F

GenderOverall opinion 1 3.09 0.75 4.13 0.02Read health inspection reports 1 3.94 0.71 5.54 0.02Assessing criteria – dirty toilet 1 4.11 0.44 9.42 0.00Assessing criteria – toilet 1 6.71 0.49 13.65 0.00Assessing criteria – no hot water 1 10.83 1.90 5.89 0.01Assessing criteria – no toilet paper 1 29.69 0.61 48.42 0.00Assessing criteria – dirty floor 1 3.98 0.78 5.11 0.02

GenerationsOverall opinion 3 3.59 1.39 2.59 0.03Read health inspection reports 3 2.98 0.71 4.22 0.00Health inspection part of decision 3 4.85 1.31 3.71 0.01Assessing criteria – toilet 3 2.29 0.49 4.66 0.00Assessing criteria – no hot water 3 13.28 1.76 7.54 0.00Assessing criteria – no toilet paper 3 2.17 0.46 3.54 0.01Assessing criteria – dirty sink 3 2.66 0.89 2.99 0.03

SD, standard deviation.



SD = 0.6), with a mean difference = 0.787,P < 0.00.

Generation

Regarding the overall opinion of restroom clean-liness, there is a significant difference betweengenerations, with a mean difference = 0.379,P < 0.05. There were six assessment criteria thatwere significantly different between the genera-tions (Table 2), with five between Baby Boomersand Millennial. For example, when assessing thecleanliness of a restroom, ‘No hot water’ wasconsidered significantly more important for BabyBoomers (M = 3.8, SD = 1.1) than for Millennial(M = 3.0, SD = 1.4), with a mean difference =0.787, P < 0.00.

Interaction

The interaction testing between gender and gen-eration, (Wilks’s L = 0.934, F’(21, 905) = 5.14,P < 0.02) was significant. Post hoc analysis of theinteraction results indicated that for the depen-dent variable ‘No hot Water’, Generation Xfemales (M = 4.2, SD = 0.9) considered this crite-ria more important than Generation X males(M = 2.9, SD = 0.5), as did Baby Boomer females(M = 4.0, SD = 0.5) when compared with BabyBoomer males (M = 3.5, SD = 0.7).

Discussion

The first purpose of this study was to assesswhether the condition of a restroom is important

Table 4 Post hoc results of significant analysis of variance criteria testing

Independentvariables Dependent variable Mean SD

Meandifference

GenderMale Overall opinion† 2.4 0.8 0.324**Female 2.6 0.9Female Assessing criteria – dirty toilet/soiled‡ 4.7 0.7 0.446*Male 4.4 0.6Female Assessing criteria – toilet clogged 4.7 0.8 0.281**Male 4.4 0.6Female Assessing criteria – no hot water 3.5 1.4 0.557**Male 3.1 1.3Female Assessing criteria – no toilet paper 4.7 0.9 0.787*Male 4.1 0.6Female Assessing criteria – dirty floor 4.4 0.9 0.377**Male 4.1 0.8

GenerationGeneration X Overall opinion 2.4 0.9 0.379***Millennial 2.6 0.8Baby boomers Health inspection part of decision§ 3.6 1.1 0.447**Millennial 3.0 1.2Baby boomers Assessing criteria – toilet clogged‡ 4.7 0.6 0.308*Millennial 4.4 0.8Baby boomers Assessing criteria – no hot water 3.8 1.1 0.760*Millennial 3.0 1.4Baby boomers Assessing criteria – no toilet paper 4.6 0.6 0.350***Millennial 4.2 0.8Baby boomers Assessing criteria – dirty sink 4.3 0.8 0.355**Millennial 3.9 1.0

Note*The mean difference is significant at the P < 0.00 level; **the mean difference is significant at the P < 0.02 level;***the mean difference is significant at the P < 0.05 level; †1 = very dirty and 5 = very clean; ‡1 = not at allimportant and 5 = extremely important; §1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.SD, standard deviation.



to consumers, both in the selection of the restau-rant and the repeat business of the consumer, aswell as to establish what specific conditions aremost important in assessing restroom cleanliness.The results from this study suggest that consum-ers are concerned with cleanliness and food safety.In particular, restrooms were found to be animportant factor when assessing the cleanliness ofan eating establishment. The results further indi-cated that consumers have chosen not to returnto a restaurant based on the cleanliness of therestroom (M = 4.1) and that they want a cleanand functioning restroom (M = 4.0). For exam-ple, there was an overwhelming agreement thatpersonal hygiene was important with ‘no soap’(M = 4.5) an important criteria, while ‘dirty,soiled or wet toilet’ (M = 4.6) and ‘toilet cloggedor broken’ (M = 4.5) were important to the judg-ment of the restroom. These results were similarto Scarcelli (2007), who reported that consumersfound that ‘dirty, soiled or wet toilet’ (M = 4.7)and ‘toilet clogged or broken’ (M = 4.6) wereimportant factors to them. However, in the studyby Scarcelli (2007), respondents did not agree asstrongly that they had chosen to not return to arestaurant based on the cleanliness of therestroom (M = 3.4). These results suggest con-sumers may form different impressions about therestaurant and the behavior of its employees whouse the same facilities, depending on where theylive in the country, as well as the managementwho oversee those facilities and the training ofemployees. Scarcelli (2007) and Klara (2004a,b)suggested that well-groomed employees and man-agers wearing clean, well-maintained uniformscan influence how consumers perceive the kitchenoperation.

These perceptions are important because man-agement is responsible for the purchase, mainte-nance, and employee supervision and training.Management needs to be concerned whether therestrooms are functional and are meeting bothconsumer and government requirements. Thisincludes whether the soap dispensers are dispens-ing soap and if the toilets run or flush properly.Management must ensure that employees haveaccess to the proper supplies to maintain a cleanand sanitary operation. Further, they must ensurethat the restrooms are being maintained. Mainte-nance goes beyond adequately stocked supplies

and includes general cleaning and upkeep of thefacilities. Maintaining cleanliness for this particu-lar area of the restaurant is often a difficult taskfor several reasons. First, the restroom may not bein the normal traffic flow of employees, includingmanagers who may be circulating through thedining room and kitchen checking on consumersor food. Therefore, cleanliness issues in therestroom would not be noticed as readily as some-thing amiss such as a spill or dropped towel in thekitchen or dining area. Additionally, responsibil-ity for the condition of the restroom is often notclearly defined, possibly because the job of clean-ing the restrooms may be considered a ‘negative’assignment.

Servers know that a dirty table or littereddining room floor is their responsibility to clean,and would take corrective action if it was encoun-tered. However, within the confines of therestroom, that sense of responsibility or owner-ship may not exist for employees. Therefore, anemployee who encounters a problem in therestroom may ignore the issue and continue withother work or report it to someone else ratherthan fix the problem. Further, the restroom isan easily corruptible environment, with a singleconsumer creating a severely negative “image” ofits condition.

Therefore, management should use the sameproactive approach with the restroom as they dowith the kitchen and other parts of the restaurant.Foodservice managers today are encouraged toimplement a Hazard Analysis Critical ControlPoint (HACCP) plan. HACCP is a proactivemethod of preventing food-related illnesses bydetermining what areas of the operation have thepotential to allow for unsafe conditions for thefood. Once these areas are identified, every effortis made to change the protocol or more closelymonitor the conditions. Managers could expandthe HACCP approach, bringing the same proac-tive analysis to the restroom. They could thendevelop a comprehensive cleaning program thataddresses specific topic areas. These areas mayinclude specific job descriptions and definitionsof responsibility, frequency of cleaning andconsumer-related issues. Further, managementshould consider the impact design and equipmentchoices have on the consumer. For example, arestroom that provides a hand blow dryer as the



only option has essentially trapped a patron whowould prefer not to touch the handle of the door.These are just a few examples of the consider-ations facing management when considering thisarea of their establishment.

The second purpose of this research was toassess consumers’ opinions and segment respon-dents by gender and age (generation). The resultsindicated demographic differences about thedining public. Both age and gender play impor-tant parts in whether a clean restroom is impor-tant to them when deciding where to eat. First,Baby Boomers are more concerned with foodsafety and restroom cleanliness than youngerrespondents. It was found in this study that theavailability of personal hygiene items, such as hotwater, were more important to Baby Boomersthan Millennials, which as Datamonitor (2008, p.37) found, Baby Boomers are more likely to statepersonal hygiene as important or very importantin maintaining wellness and creating a feeling ofwell-being than any other age group. This may beimportant to restaurant managers that target theBaby Boomer generation. These results were dif-ferent to those found by Scarcelli (2007) whereolder respondents were more concerned than theyounger generations with the odor of therestroom.

Males consider restrooms to be dirty more thanwomen did, yet females assessed the appearanceof restroom items, such as dirty or soiled toiletsand toilets clogged as being more important thanmales. This contradiction was confirmed bywomen who stated that they have chosen not toreturn to a restaurant based upon a visit to therestroom more than males, with personal hygieneconsidered the most important reason. Scarcelli(2007) found that over 70% of the women andover 60% of the men had chosen not to return toa restaurant based on a visit to the restroom, withtwo aspects considered the most important, adirty, soiled or wet toilet and evidence of insectsor rodents.

Finally, the interaction testing revealed that notonly are there differences within each of thegenerations and gender respondents, but thatdifferences exist within gender by generationalgrouping. For example, the Baby Boomer femalesfound that ‘no hot water’ was significantly moreimportant to them when assessing a restroom

than did Baby Boomer males. This is importantto restaurateurs because it indicates that olderfemales may be more critical in assessing restau-rant restrooms than males. When considering thatolder couples may be frequent consumers in aparticular restaurant, if older females have a badexperience, they may have a strong influence onthe choice of staying, returning or recommendinga restaurant in any given relationship, regardlessif the male is satisfied with the restaurant and itsrestroom facilities.

Thus the results of this study should be awake-up call to restaurant owners, who considerloyalty and repeat business key to their financialsuccess, that the appearance of the restroom is acritical component of the overall physical envi-ronment, and that, depending on the consumers’age or gender, or both, it may impact their will-ingness to reward the restaurant with positiveword of mouth or repeat business.

Managerial implications

This study has both implications and applicationsto the foodservice industry because it confirms thatthe public is concerned with food safety, and theperception by the vast majority is that the restroomis a reflection of the potential sanitary conditionsof the kitchen. In the kitchen, the chef takes greatpride in its cleanliness, and for a restaurant, thegoal of having a kitchen environment that is ‘soclean you can eat off of the floor’ is certainly fitting.Thus, cleanliness of the restroom should be treatedthe same way. For example, paper towels, frag-ments of toilet paper on the floor, and constantfoot traffic make restroom floors look dirty anddismal and ultimately can reflect on the consum-ers’ perception of the quality and safety of thefood. Managers should make sure their employeesare well-trained and are knowledgeable of what’sexpected of them as to how restrooms should becleaned; and depending on the foot traffic, howoften the restrooms should be checked, replen-ished and thoroughly cleaned.

Regional differences appear to exist whenconsidering age, and to some degree, gender.Managers of chain restaurants should considerthe potential influence and needs of age andgender when maintaining a restroom. This couldbe accomplished through the use of benchmark-



ing consumer assessments, thus tailoring therestroom amenities and cleanliness toward whatis expected and important.

Finally, management must make a health-conscious approach to cleanliness part of thebusiness proposition. Let consumers know whatspecial things are being done to keep the facilityclean. Place products for killing germs, such ashand sanitizer, in the open for guests to use. It’s aneasy way to reinforce their positive experienceand renew any potential misperceptions of theestablishment’s quality and safety.

References

Amer S (2003). A sinking feeling. Restaurant Business102:84–92.

Barber N (2008). How self-confidence and knowledgeeffects the sources of information selected duringpurchase situations. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.

Barber N, Taylor C, Dodd T (2009). The importanceof wine bottle closures in retail purchase decisionsof consumers. Journal of Hospitality Marketing andManagement 18:597–614.

Blackiston H, Evans C (2004). The lavatory laboratory.Restaurant Hospitality 88:142–4.

Business Wire (2007). Consumers scrutinize leadingquick-service and casual dining Chains. Availableat: http://www.allbusiness.com/services/business-services/4550423-1.html (accessed 25 April 2009).

Chowa IH, Laua VP, Lo TW, Sha Z, Yun H (2007).Service quality in restaurant operations in China:decision- and experiential-oriented perspectives.International Journal of Hospitality Management26:698–710.

Curran G (1987). Maintenance & sanitation:restrooms: bubble, bubble, toilets and trouble: sched-uled cleaning controls odor and disease caused bybacteria. Restaurants & Institutions 97:160.

Darley WK, Smith RE (1995). Gender differencesin information processing strategies: An empiricaltest of the selectivity model in advertising response.Journal of Advertising 24:41–59.

Datamonitor (2008). Aging Populations: ChangingPersonal Care Needs and Behaviors of Senior Con-sumers, pp. 1–97. New York, NY: Datamonitor.

Dolliver M (2001). Wield a spatula and a mop. AdweekEast 42:22.

Fitzsimmons B (2003). Restroom cleanliness: the lastdetail. Restaurant Hospitality 87:100–2, October.

Guagnano G, Markee N (1995). Regional differencesin the sociodemographic determinants of environ-mental concern. Population and Environment 17:135–49.

Hair J, Anderson R, Tatham R, Black W (1998). Mul-tivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall:Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Ivanov S (2007). Quality as a Competitive Advantageof Travel Agents, pp. 150–6. Dobrich, Bulgaria:Yearbook of International University College.

Johnston R (1997). Identifying the critical determinantsof service quality in retail banking: importance andeffect. The International Journal of Bank Marketing15:111–6.

Kim W, Ng Y, Kim Y (2009). Influence of institutionalDINSERV on customer satisfaction, return intention,and word-of-mouth. International Journal of Hospi-tality Management 28:10–7.

Klara R (2004a). Consumer insights: the comfort zone.Restaurant Business 103:14–6.

Klara R (2004b). Table the issue. Restaurant Business130:14–6.

Laroche M, Cleveland M, Bergeron J, Goutaland C(2003). The knowledge-experience-evaluation rela-tionship: a structural equations modeling test ofgender differences. Canadian Journal of Adminis-trative Sciences 20:246–59. Available at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3981/is_200309?tag=content;col1 (accessed 20 Feburary 2009).

Lee E, Mathur A, Moschis G, Strautman J (2000).The Maturing Marketplace: Buying Habits of BabyBoomers and Their Parents. Quorum Books: West-port, CT.

Macaskill L et al. (2000). An evaluability assessment todevelop a restaurant health promotion program inCanada. Health Promotion International 15:57–69.

Meyers-Levy J, Maheswaran D (1991). Exploring dif-ferences in males’ and females’ processing strategy.Journal of Consumer Research 18:63–70.

Mitchell V-W, Walsh G (2004). Gender differences inGerman consumer decision-making styles. Journal ofConsumer Behaviour 3:331–46.

Morton LP (2003). Targeting Generation X. PublicRelations Quarterly 48:43–5.

Norsworthy E (1997). Service suffers when yourrestroom is a toilet. Nation’s Restaurant News31:32.

Oh H (2000). Diners’ perceptions of quality, value, andsatisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Adminis-tration Quarterly 41:58–66.

Palan KM (2001). Gender identity in consumer behav-ior research: a literature review and research agenda.Academy of Marketing Science Review 10:1–31.

Prewitt M (2001). Operators clean up image of restau-rant rest rooms. Nation’s Restaurant News 35:1–2.

Qiang H (1995). Food safety issues, consumer foodsafety concerns, and food consumption. DissertationAbstracts International 56:UMI No. 9601680.

Raajpoot N (2002). Tangserv: a multiple item scale formeasuring tangible quality in food service industry.Journal of Foodservice Business Research 5:109–27.



Ruggless R (2001). Straight flush: keeping a cleanbathroom always leads to a winning hand. Nation’sRestaurant News 35:66.

Ryu K, Jang S (2008). DINESCAPE: a scale forcustomers’ perception of dining environments.Journal of Foodservice Business Research 11:2–22.

Scarcelli J (2007). Clean restaurant restrooms: do theyindicate a clean kitchen? Published Masters Thesis,Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Stevens P, Knutson B, Patton M (1995). DINESERV: atool for measuring service quality in restaurants.Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quar-terly 36:56–60.

Terry BD, Israel GD (2004). Agent performance andcustomer satisfaction. Journal of Extension 42.Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/a4.php (accessed 27 September 2009).

Thach E, Olsen J (2006). Market segment analysis totarget young adult wine drinkers. Agribusiness 22:307–22.

Tulgan B, Martin CA (2001). Managing Generation Y:global citizens born in the late seventies and earlyeighties. HRD Press: Amherst, MA.

Variyam J (2005). Nutrition labeling in the food-away-from-home sector: an economic assessment.United States Department of Agriculture, EconomicResearch Service. Economic Research Report No.(ERR4), April 2005. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err4/err4.pdf (accessed 25June 2009).

West Lafayette (2004). West Lafayette, Indiana, censusand community profile. Available at: http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/geninfo.php?locindex=5814#cens (accessed 25 July 2009).

Wilcock A, Pun M, Khanona J, Aung M (2004).Consumer attitudes, knowledge and behavior: areview of food safety issues. Trends in Food Science& Technology 15:56–66.

Yuksel A, Yuksel F (2002). Measurement of touristsatisfaction with restaurant services: a segment-basedapproach. Journal of Vacation Marketing 9:52–68.



clean restrooms: how important are they to restaurant consumers?

Documents