The Korean Journal of Culinary Research Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 51 65 (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..,..,,. :, 010-7503-3000, big2011@ynu.ac.kr,
52 16 3 (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),,.,
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.
54 16 3 (2010) 1(H1) :. 2(H2) :. 3(H3) :.. 300 276, 92%. 19 257. 2009 5 13 2009 5 20 7. 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 20 7.8 2 3 times a month 44 17.2 1 2 times a week 43 16.8 4 5 times a week 38 14.8 Every day 72 28.1 Below 5,000 won 69 27.0 5,000 10,000 won less than 144 56.3 10,000 15,000 won less than 29 11.3 15,000 20,000 won less than 10 3.9 20,000 won or more 4 1.6 Family, friends, neighbors 124 48.4 Media 36 14.1 Brochures, leaflets 50 19.5 Internet 13 5.1 Others 33 12.9 Taste 154 60.2 Price 44 17.2 Location 13 5.1 Nutrition 20 7.8 Atmosphere 25 9.8 bulgogi 106 41.4 Ribs 58 22.7 Kimchi 15 5.9 Japchae 11 4.3 Bibimbap 34 13.3 Others 32 12.5 Family 29 11.4 Friends/lovers 202 78.9 Others 25 9.8. Table 2. 27, 21 6. Cronbach's α
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 0.814 Eigen value Cumulative Cronbach's Commonality variance α Korean food is not right to a constitution 0.785 0.697 Korean food is concerned about excessive intake 0.776 0.697 3.810 27.632 0.862 Korean food causes nutritional imbalance 0.751 0.663 Korean food is concerned about the side effects 0.690 0.621 Korean food has adverse effects on health 0.606 0.659 I am concerned about selected Korean food 0.812 I do not know whether Korean food is good 0.712 0.741 I do not trust the capabilities of Korean food 0.706 2.514 38.104 0.752 0.657 Korean food is not able to provide benefits 0.678 0.748 Korean food will not be helpful to your health 0.444 0.690 Korean food is expensive for the price 0.853 Korean food is a waste of money available 0.790 2.479 47.023 0.772 0.682 Korean food is not worth it 0.779 0.525 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 0.869 0.685 0.708 0.759 0.744 0.833 2.287 55.500 0.791 0.692 0.722 0.706 Choosing Korean food is afraid of making fun to associates 0.873 0.822 2.254 63.007 0.890 Choosing Korean food is afraid of making fun to family 0.851 0.813 Korean food is concerned about family atmosphere at dinner 0.887 0.782 2.109 68.313 0.867 Korean food is concerned about event 0.878 0.801 Kaier-Meyer-Olkin Measure=0.750. Bartlett's approximate Chi-square test=2414.898, Significant Prob.=0.000.. (PCA) Varimax. 6 Cronbach's α 0.60. 6,,,,.,,, 6.,, 5.,, 3.,, 3.,, 2.
56 16 3 (2010) 2. Table 3,.,,. 3.33, 2.45 3.28.. 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 3.33 0.913 The risk of negative perceptions 2.45 0.782 The risk of positive perceptions 3.28 0.826 <Table 4> Statistics of risk perception factors Factor Standard deviation Standings Physical 2.623 0.797 4 Functional 2.846 0.658 1 Economic 2.750 0.792 2 Time loss 2.724 0.781 3 Psychological 2.058 0.864 6 Social 2.500 0.953 5, (2.750), (2.724), (2.623), (2.505), (2.058). Table 3. 1( ) (ANOVA) Table 5.,.,..,,.,,.,,,,,,.,.,,,.,,,.,, 1,
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 2.49 0.64 2.96 0.81 2.82 1.93 2.64 0.55 2.11 3.29 2.60 Internet 2.83 (0.629) 2.92 (0.518) 3.02 (0.105) 2.92 (0.694) 2.76 (0.012) 2.84 Others 2.62 2.72 2.98 2.64 2.00 2.53 Less than 30 minutes 2.86 3.14 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 2.74 1.71 2.78 2.75 2.86 1.39 2.87 1.32 2.03 0.60 2.57 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 2.91 3.70 3.50 3.00 3.00 2.50 Atmosphere 2.82 3.04 Taste 2.45 2.75 2.61 2.64 2.00 2.45 Price 2.73 F= 3.03 F= 2.90 F= 2.68 F= 2.14 F= 2.72 Good services 2.99 1.86 2.84 1.32 2.77 0.90 2.92 1.44 2.30 2.02 2.59 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 2.60 2.88 2.76 2.68 1.79 2.38 Others 2.58 2.75 2.80 2.57 2.21 2.32 Taste 2.51 2.81 Price 2.66 F= 2.96 F= 2.73 F= 2.76 F= 2.20 F= 2.55 Location 2.89 3.70 2.76 1.05 2.46 1.23 2.61 2.98 2.30 3.23 2.76 Nutrition 3.17 (0.006) 3.02 (0.382) 2.78 (0.296) 3.23 (0.020) 2.55 (0.013) 2.72 Atmosphere 2.64 2.72 3.02 2.85 2.10 2.52 Barbecue 2.45 2.78 Ribs 2.64 2.87 2.94 2.75 2.09 2.47 F= F= F= F= F= Kimchi 2.78 2.70 2.93 3.42 2.43 2.70 2.26 0.81 3.58 3.28 1.99 Japchae 2.65 2.74 2.54 2.51 2.18 2.04 (0.049) (0.539) (0.004) (0.007) (0.080) Bibimbap 2.92 2.94 2.92 2.60 1.92 2.51 Others 2.72 2.98 2.93 2.83 2.34 2.90 Note : parenthesis is p-value. 2.63 2.79 2.94 2.72 2.52 2.73 2.92 2.84 2.63 2.63 1.93 2.04 2.25 1.92 1.92 2.47 2.47 2.83 2.42 2.40 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.,.,,.,,
58 16 3 (2010) <Table 6> ANOVA, difference of customer behavior depending on the dining type Divisions Mon 1 times 3.575 Returning to contact Recommendation intention Customer satisfaction F-value F-value F-value 3.303 3.000 The mean number of available Mon 2 3 times 3.590 3.215 3.301 Week 1 2 times 3.980 F=1.843 F=0.368 3.224 (0.105) (0.870) 3.410 Week 4 5 times 3.993 3.282 3.328 F=2.287 (0.047) 1 times the mean expenditure Priority of selection Preferred menu Accompanied Note : parenthesis is p-value. Daily 3.517 3.163 3.166 Below 5,000 won 3.822 3.264 3.217 5,000 10,000 won less than 3.653 3.119 3.243 F=0.344 F=1.896 10,000 15,000 won less than 3.741 3.284 3.353 (0.848) (0.112) 15,000 20,000 won less than 3.825 3.570 3.275 20,000 won or more 3.368 3.812 4.062 Taste 3.419 2.946 3.232 Price 4.031 3.383 3.349 Location 3.572 3.125 3.041 F=2.012 F=3.637 Nutrition 3.654 3.416 3.166 (0.065) (0.002) Mood 3.803 3.321 3.553 Korean foood experience 3.682 3.250 3.257 Etc. 3.437 2.732 3.178 Barbecue 3.787 3.346 3.250 Ribs 3.596 3.163 3.293 Kimchi 3.583 F=1.950 3.250 F=1.945 3.416 Chop suey 4.522 (0.099) 3.318 (0.087) 2.295 Bibimbap 3.588 3.007 3.183 Etc. 3.617 2.968 3.250 Family 3.750 3.241 3.405 F=0.032 F=0.082 Friends / Lovers 3.708 3.196 3.264 (0.969) (0.921) Etc. 3.750 3.250 3.046 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.,,.,.
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 1.620 1.966,., (multicollinearity) (tolerance) (variance inflation factor : VIF). 3 0.728 0.889, VIF 1.124 1.373. ( )...,,,. 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) 0.072 1.016 Functional 0.011(0.107) 0.007 0.107 Economic 0.117(0.084) 0.091 1.405 Time loss 0.05 (0.087) 0.043 0.643 Psychological 0.283(0.082) 0.237 3.439*** Social 0.008(0.073) 0.007 0.106 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
60 16 3 (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) 0.105 1.511 Functional 0.203(0.077) 0.176 2.632*** Economic 0.244(0.060) 0.255 4.053*** Time loss 0.065(0.063) 0.067 1.032 Psychological 0.006(0.059) 0.007 0.103 Social 0.101(0.053) 0.126 1.910* 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) 0.033 0.459 Functional 0.065(0.057) 0.080 1.145 Economic 0.076(0.044) 0.112 1.715* Time loss 0.009(0.046) 0.013 0.193 Psychological 0.087(0.044) 0.140 2.002** Social 0.013(0.039) 0.022 0.323 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
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 2.942 3.151 1.965 2.850 56.439***(0.00) Functional 3.192 3.007 2.307 3.027 32.123***(0.00) Economic 2.816 2.738 2.415 2.731 10.630***(0.00) Time loss 2.870 3.166 2.336 2,735 17.013***(0.00) Psychological 1.693 3.396 1.729 1.655 103.74***(0.00) Social 2.056 3.259 1.946 4.086 149.01***(0.00) Note : parenthesis is p-value. *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01.,,. 0.01. Table 11. MANOVA,.,.,.,.. 6 3. Table 12 2. 1 2 <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 3.121 3.212 Psychological 3.344(53) F=3.090 3.106 F=2.107 3.143 Economical, time loss 3.857(93) (0.028)** 3.362 (0.100)* 3.352 Social 3.775(29) 3.120 3.336 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)*
62 16 3 (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 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Physical 0.463 0.215 0.142 0.198 0.549 0.257.074 0.176 0.015 Functional 0.512 0.136 0.594 0.479 0.434 0.528 0.178 0.139 0.031 Economic 0.613 0.378 0.064 0.590 0.576 0.080 0.320 0.185 0.005 Time loss 0.149 0.119 0.515 0.187 0.226 0.482.070 0.072 0.028 Psychological 0.503 0.756 0.184 0.338 0.858 0.164.126 0.275 0.010 Social 0.415 0.047 0.738 0.250 0.349 0.511 0.093 0.001 0.030 Redundancy coefficient 0.230 0.543 0.227 Dependent variables: customer behavior Returning to contact 0.573 0.743 0.653 0.084 0.893 0.442 0.031 0.286 0.026 Recommendation 1.206 0.004 0.223 0.816 0.574 0.064 0.304 0.184 0.004 Customer satisfaction 0.256 0.473 1.004 0.126 0.708 0.695 0.047 0.227 0.041 Redundancy coefficient 0.373 0.320 0.059 Canonical correlation Canonical function 1 Canonical function 2 Canonical function 3 0.373 0.320 0.059 Wilk's Lambda 0.770 0.894 0.997 χ 2 65.103 27.834 0.871 df 18.000 10.000 4.000 p-value 0.000 0.002 0.929 0.373, 0.320. (standardized canonical correlation coeffcients), 1,,,,,, 2,,. 1,,, 2. (canonical loading) 0.4. 1 ( 0.590), ( 0.479), 2 ( 0.858), ( 0.576). 1 (0.816), 2 (0.893). (cross loadings) 0.3, 1 0.320, 0.304..,.
63., MANOVA, 3..,..,,.,,,,, 6.,,..,,,..,,.,,,,,,.,.,,.,,.,,. 1., 4 5.,,.,..,,,., 6.,,.,,.,,,
64 16 3 (2010),.,,, 4 (MANOVA),,,.,,.,.,,,,,,,,,,..,,,..,,,,,..,,..,,.., 12,...,,.,.,,.,,.,,.
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):45-56. Engel JF Roger D Blackwell Paul Miniard PW (1990). Hinsdale: The Dryden Press, Inc. Consumer Behavior, 6th:18-21. Jacoby J Kaplan LB (1972). The component of perceived risk. Advanced in Consumer Res 11(2):382-393. 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):396-405. 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):156-164. Oliver RL (1986). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decision. J Marketing Res 17(9):46-49. 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):98-109. 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):184-188. Roselius T (1971). Consumer randings of risk reduction methods. J Marketing 35(1):56-61. 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):715-722. 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):134-150. Taylor JW (1974). The role of risk in consumer behavior. J Marketing 38(4):54-60. 2009 12 1 2010 1 7 1 2010 3 21 2 2010 5 27