Customers' Satisfaction Factors Regarding University Food Court Service

Effects of campus foodservice attributes on perceived value, satisfaction, and consumer attitude: A gender-difference approach

“…Most noticeable menu trends in campus foodservice include healthy menus, international-and ethnicflavors, specialty coffees and other beverages, plus promotionaland convenient menus like grab-and-go items (e.g., Duecy, 2005;Horwitz, 2005;June, 2006). Kim et al (2004) and Klassen et al (2005) confirmed that menus have significant effects on enhancing satisfaction among campus foodservice clientele. Thus, as part of a core element in foodservice management, positive perception on menu (e.g., variety, healthy menu, convenient menu, ethnic menu, and promotional menu) could enhance consumer's perceived value and satisfaction.…”

“…When Meiselman et al (2000) served identical meals in different locations within a university campus, the cafeteria scored lowest compared to the food science laboratory and the dining hall in a training restaurant. Previous studies show several key attributes of facility in campus foodservice had significant effects on satisfactions and revisit intentions, such as cleanliness, dining-room environment, comfort level, operating hours and days, atmosphere, and capacity (Andaleeb and Caskey, 2007;Kim et al, 2004Kim et al, , 2009Klassen et al, 2005). Based on related studies and similar reasoning for preceding campus foodservice attributes, favorable evaluation on campus foodservice facility is expected to have positive effect on perceived value and satisfaction.…”

“…Increasing interest in and attention to service-quality literature also brought considerable attention to foodservice research and has identified service quality as another core element in dining experience (e.g., Andaleeb and Conway, 2006;Brady et al, 2001). Both of these tangible and intangible aspects of foodservice operation have been identified as essential attributes in understanding perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions of consumers (Kivela et al, 1999;Kwun and Oh, 2006;Namkung and Jang, 2007;Pettjohn et al, 1997), as well as in campus foodservices (Andaleeb and Caskey, 2007;Kim et al, 2004Kim et al, , 2009). Thus, the first four research hypotheses are proposed:…”

“…Part One was designed to understand consumers' evaluations on service quality (6 items), food quality (6 items), menu (5 items), and facility (7 items) aspects of the campus foodservice attributes. Reviews of related studies (e.g., Andaleeb and Conway, 2006;Kim et al, 2004Kim et al, , 2009Kivela et al, 1999;Klassen et al, 2005;Namkung and Jang, 2007) provided measurement items for this part. Respondents were asked to evaluate on five-point scales ranging from poor (1) to excellent (5).…”

“…These constraints, such as captive environment, repetitive consumption of limited and monotonous menu items, mediocre execution of food and service, and facility in general (Gramling et al, 2005;Klassen et al, 2005), distinguish campus foodservice from other commercial restaurants. Although several researchers have investigated this growing foodservice segment (e.g., Andaleeb and Caskey, 2007;Kim et al, 2004Kim et al, , 2009, their approaches generally have focused on the relationships between a set of campus foodservice attributes and satisfaction or behavioral intentions, providing limited understanding of consumers' emotional evaluations of campus foodservice. Prior studies suggest that consumer attitude is a strong criterion construct in understanding consumers' summative evaluations of a product or brand and of their behavioral intentions.…”