The Korean Journal of Culinary Research Vol. 16, No. 3, pp (2010) 51 1) 1) 1) A Study on the Effect of Perceived Risk in Choosing a Korean Rest

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The Korean Journal of Culinary Research Vol. 16, No. 3, pp (2010) 51 1) 1) 1) A Study on the Effect of Perceived Risk in Choosing a Korean Rest"

현석 신
2 years ago
Views:

1 The Korean Journal of Culinary Research Vol. 16, No. 3, pp (2010) 51 1) 1) 1) A Study on the Effect of Perceived Risk in Choosing a Korean Restaurant on Customer Behavior - Based on Chinese Students Studying in Korea - Hyun Ae An, Gwang In Byun 1), Dong Jin Kim 1) Dept. of Food Service Industry, Graduate School of Yeungnam University School of Food Service Industry, Yeungnam University 1) Abstract This study attempts to examine how the perception of risk and customer satisfaction influence the intention to recommend when selecting a Korean restaurant. 257 copies of the questionnaire for the Chinese students studying in Daegu and Gyeongsangbuk-do are analyzed. Three hypotheses were established and the results are as follows. First, as a result of difference analysis about perception of risk depending on dining types, there are significant differences in all factors of preception of risk partially. Second, as a result of difference analysis of customer behavior depending on dining types, there are significant differences between revisit intention and recommendation intention, and dining motivation and preferred Korean menu. Third, the effects of 6 factors of perception of risk on customer behavior are analyzed, and there are decreased customer satisfaction as the customers perceive financial and psychological crisis highly. Key words: Korea restaurant, risk perception, customer behavior, recommendation intention, customer satisfaction, returning to contact..,..,,. :, , big2011@ynu.ac.kr,

2 (2010)...., (Lee YJ 2007).,,.,. (Seo KH Lee SB 2008),.,..,... (risk perception),, (Cox 1991). Peter JP & Ryan JJ(1976). (Jacoby J 1972),. Roselius T(1971),,. Taylor JW(1974), / /. Taylor JW(1999) 6. Jacoby J & Kaplan LB (1972),,,. Son DW(1985),,. Kim SH(2008),,.,

3 53 /. (Boulding W 1993).,,,,.,. (Engel JF 1990).., (Song SJ 2009).. Park KN(2001),.. Oliver RL(1993).,, (Song KO 2006).,,,... Fig. 1. Fig. 1., 1., 2. 3.,. <Fig. 1> Research model.

4 (2010) 1(H1) :. 2(H2) :. 3(H3) : , 92% Kim SH(2008). 5., 10., 27., 4., 4,, 4.,,, 5.. Table 1 <Table 1> Characteristics of dining types Division Plot Frequency % number of available 1 times the mean expenditure Information source Priority of selection Preferred menu Companion Once a month times a month times a week times a week Every day Below 5,000 won ,000 10,000 won less than ,000 15,000 won less than ,000 20,000 won less than ,000 won or more Family, friends, neighbors Media Brochures, leaflets Internet Others Taste Price Location Nutrition Atmosphere bulgogi Ribs Kimchi Japchae Bibimbap Others Family Friends/lovers Others Table 2. 27, Cronbach's α

5 55 <Table 2> Factor analysis and reliability analysis of perceived risk Factor Physical risk Functional risk Economic risk Time loss risk Psychological risk Social risk Measurement item Factor loading Korean food will cause obesity Eigen value Cumulative Cronbach's Commonality variance α Korean food is not right to a constitution Korean food is concerned about excessive intake Korean food causes nutritional imbalance Korean food is concerned about the side effects Korean food has adverse effects on health I am concerned about selected Korean food I do not know whether Korean food is good I do not trust the capabilities of Korean food Korean food is not able to provide benefits Korean food will not be helpful to your health Korean food is expensive for the price Korean food is a waste of money available Korean food is not worth it Additional time is used during accumulation information about production methods of Korean food Additional time is used during accumulation information about vendors of Korean food Additional time is used during accumulation information about nutrition Korean food Choosing Korean food is afraid of making fun to associates Choosing Korean food is afraid of making fun to family Korean food is concerned about family atmosphere at dinner Korean food is concerned about event Kaier-Meyer-Olkin Measure= Bartlett's approximate Chi-square test= , Significant Prob.= (PCA) Varimax. 6 Cronbach's α ,,,,.,,, 6.,, 5.,, 3.,, 3.,, 2.

6 (2010) 2. Table 3,.,,. 3.33, Table 4.. (2.846) <Table 3> Statistics of interest in Korean food and the risk of negative and positive perceptions Division Standard deviation Interest in Korean food The risk of negative perceptions The risk of positive perceptions <Table 4> Statistics of risk perception factors Factor Standard deviation Standings Physical Functional Economic Time loss Psychological Social , (2.750), (2.724), (2.623), (2.505), (2.058). Table 3. 1( ) (ANOVA) Table 5.,.,..,,.,,.,,,,,,.,.,,,.,,,.,, 1,

7 57 <Table 5> ANOVA, difference of risk perception depending on the dining Information source Residence time Customer motivation Priority of selection Preferred menu Division Physical Functional Economic Time loss Psychological Social Family, friends, neighbors 2.63 F- value 2.83 F- value F- value F- value F- value Media 2.69 F= 2.80 F= 2.73 F= 2.81 F= 2.20 F= 2.30 Brochures, leaflets Internet 2.83 (0.629) 2.92 (0.518) 3.02 (0.105) 2.92 (0.694) 2.76 (0.012) 2.84 Others Less than 30 minutes Less than 30 1 minutes 2.52 F= 2.84 F= 2.67 F= 2.65 F= 2.05 F= 2.51 Less than 1 2 hours Less than 2 3 hours 2.84 (0.148) 2.55 (0.029) 2.97 (0.235) 2.64 (0.262) 2.07 (0.662) 2.07 Over 3 hours Atmosphere Taste Price 2.73 F= 3.03 F= 2.90 F= 2.68 F= 2.14 F= 2.72 Good services People close to worship 2.42 (0.088) 2.65 (0.247) 2.57 (0.489) 3.16 (0.199) 2.32 (0.063) 2.50 Experience the Korean food Others Taste Price 2.66 F= 2.96 F= 2.73 F= 2.76 F= 2.20 F= 2.55 Location Nutrition 3.17 (0.006) 3.02 (0.382) 2.78 (0.296) 3.23 (0.020) 2.55 (0.013) 2.72 Atmosphere Barbecue Ribs F= F= F= F= F= Kimchi Japchae (0.049) (0.539) (0.004) (0.007) (0.080) Bibimbap Others Note : parenthesis is p-value F- value F= 0.97 (0.422) F= 0.72 (0.576) F= 1.22 (0.292) F= 0.79 (0.531) F= 2.05 (0.072)., 1. 2( ) ANOVA. Table 6.,.,,.,,

8 (2010) <Table 6> ANOVA, difference of customer behavior depending on the dining type Divisions Mon 1 times Returning to contact Recommendation intention Customer satisfaction F-value F-value F-value The mean number of available Mon 2 3 times Week 1 2 times F=1.843 F= (0.105) (0.870) Week 4 5 times F=2.287 (0.047) 1 times the mean expenditure Priority of selection Preferred menu Accompanied Note : parenthesis is p-value. Daily Below 5,000 won ,000 10,000 won less than F=0.344 F= ,000 15,000 won less than (0.848) (0.112) 15,000 20,000 won less than ,000 won or more Taste Price Location F=2.012 F=3.637 Nutrition (0.065) (0.002) Mood Korean foood experience Etc Barbecue Ribs Kimchi F= F= Chop suey (0.099) (0.087) Bibimbap Etc Family F=0.032 F=0.082 Friends / Lovers (0.969) (0.921) Etc F=2.647 (0.034) F=1.950 (0.074) F=0.446 (0.816) F=2.725 (0.067). 4 5, 1., 4 5.,,.,.

9 59.,.,,., 2., (3.717), (3,263), (3.206)..., 3.,,, 6 (Ordinary Least Square: OLS), Table 7. (OLS) (auto correlation) Durbin-Watson test. 3 D.W ,., (multicollinearity) (tolerance) (variance inflation factor : VIF) , VIF ( )...,,,. Table 8, ( ). <Table 7> The effect of risk perception on returning to contact Dependent variable Returning to contact Statistics Independent variables Regression coefficients Standardized regression coefficients t-value Physical 0.093(0.092) Functional 0.011(0.107) Economic 0.117(0.084) Time loss 0.05 (0.087) Psychological 0.283(0.082) *** Social 0.008(0.073) Note : parenthesis is p-value. *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01. F=3.768***(0.001), df=6,248, adj. R 2 =0.061, D.W=1.966

10 (2010) <Table 8> The effect of risk perception on recommendation intention Dependent variable Recommended intend Statistics Independent variables Regression coefficients Standardized regression coefficients t-value Physical 0.100(0.066) Functional 0.203(0.077) *** Economic 0.244(0.060) *** Time loss 0.065(0.063) Psychological 0.006(0.059) Social 0.101(0.053) * Note : parenthesis is p-value. *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01. F=3.102***(0.000), df=6,249, adj. R 2 =0.105, D.W=1.620,.,.,.,,.,. Table 9,. ( ),.,,. 6 (risk perception cluster) (Multivariate analysis of variance: MANOVA). (hierarchical cluster analysis), Ward. Table 10 4, <Table 9> The effect of risk perception on customer satisfaction Dependent variable Customer satisfaction Statistics Independent variables Regression coefficients Standardized regression coefficients t-value Physical 0.022(0.049) Functional 0.065(0.057) Economic 0.076(0.044) * Time loss 0.009(0.046) Psychological 0.087(0.044) ** Social 0.013(0.039) Note: parenthesis is p-value. *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01. F=2.426**(0.027), df= 6,249, adj. R 2 =0.032, D.W=1.830

11 61 <Table 10> Cluster categories derived by risk perception Risk perception factors Functional, physical risk perception group (n = 80) Psychological risk perception group (n = 54) Clusters Economical, time loss risk perception group (n = 93) Social risk perception group (n = 29) F-value Physical ***(0.00) Functional ***(0.00) Economic ***(0.00) Time loss , ***(0.00) Psychological ***(0.00) Social ***(0.00) Note : parenthesis is p-value. *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01.,, Table 11. MANOVA,.,.,., Table <Table 11> Multivariate analysis of variance to customer behavior depending on risk perception cluster Risk perception clusters Divisions Functional, physical 3.778(80) Returning to contact Recommendation intention Customer satisfaction F-value F-value F-value Psychological 3.344(53) F= F= Economical, time loss 3.857(93) (0.028)** (0.100)* Social 3.775(29) MANOVA statistics Note: parenthesis is p-value. *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01. Box's M=78.186, F=4.226***(0.000), Wilks's λ=0.932, F=1.986**(0.039), Hotelling's T=0.072, F=1.380**(0.039) F=2.176 (0.091)*

12 (2010) <Table 12> Canonical correlation analysis of risk perception and customer buying behavior Variables Standardized canonical correlation coeffcients Independent variable, group : risk perception Canonical loadings Cross loadings Physical Functional Economic Time loss Psychological Social Redundancy coefficient Dependent variables: customer behavior Returning to contact Recommendation Customer satisfaction Redundancy coefficient Canonical correlation Canonical function 1 Canonical function 2 Canonical function Wilk's Lambda χ df p-value , (standardized canonical correlation coeffcients), 1,,,,,, 2,,. 1,,, 2. (canonical loading) ( 0.590), ( 0.479), 2 ( 0.858), ( 0.576). 1 (0.816), 2 (0.893). (cross loadings) 0.3, , ,.

13 63., MANOVA, 3..,..,,.,,,,, 6.,,..,,,..,,.,,,,,,.,.,,.,,.,,. 1., 4 5.,,.,..,,,., 6.,,.,,.,,,

14 (2010),.,,, 4 (MANOVA),,,.,,.,.,,,,,,,,,,..,,,..,,,,,..,,..,,.., 12,...,,.,.,,.,,.,,.

15 65,,,.,,,,,. (2008).., 15-19,. (1985).., 12-23,. (2009).., 21-27,. Boulding W Kirmani A (1993). A consumer- side experimental examination of signaling theory: Do consumers perceive warranties as signals of quality?. The Journal of Consumer Research 20(1):111. Cox SJ Blake S (1991). Managing culture diversity: Implication for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Excutive 5(2): Engel JF Roger D Blackwell Paul Miniard PW (1990). Hinsdale: The Dryden Press, Inc. Consumer Behavior, 6th: Jacoby J Kaplan LB (1972). The component of perceived risk. Advanced in Consumer Res 11(2): Kim HA (2006). Effect of the consumer-brand relationship quality on the revisit intent and recommendation intent in the family restaurant in Masan, Korea. J Korean Soc Dietary Culture 21(4): Lee YJ (2007). A study on the recognition, satisfaction, and revisit intentions of Japanese tourists based on traditional Korean foods. Korean Soc Food & Cookery Sci 23(1): Oliver RL (1986). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decision. J Marketing Res 17(9): Park EA Ha DH Jang BJ (2007). A study on perceived risk and consumers' evaluation based on the nutritional information of bakery products. Korea Academic Soc Culinary 13(2): Park KN Kim KE (2001). An empirical study on the effects of web service quality on corporation image and purchase intent. Korean Society of Consumer Studies 12(3):1-27. Peter JP Ryan JJ (1976). An investigation of perceived risk at the brand level. J Marketing Res 13(5): Roselius T (1971). Consumer randings of risk reduction methods. J Marketing 35(1): Seo KH Lee SB Shin MJ (2003). Research on Korean food preference and the improvement of Korean restaurants for Japanese and Chinese students in Korea. Korean Soc Food & Cookery Sci 19(6): Song KO (2006). A study on the effects of strategic alliance of the foodservice industry on customer's satisfaction and revisiting. Korea Academic Soc Culinary 12(3): Taylor JW (1974). The role of risk in consumer behavior. J Marketing 38(4):

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA e- 비즈니스연구 (The e-business Studies) Volume 17, Number 1, February, 28, 2016:pp. 293~316 ISSN 1229-9936 (Print), ISSN 2466-1716 (Online) 원고접수일심사 ( 수정 ) 게재확정일 2015. 12. 04 2015. 12. 24 2016. 02. 25 ABSTRACT