1. Hotel restaurant dining: The relationship
between perceived value and intention to
purchase
Presenter: Anne Chen
Instructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa
Hsu
Date: November 26, 2012 1

2. 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

3. Contents
Ⅰ Introduction
Ⅱ Literature Review
Ⅲ Methodology
Ⅳ Result & Conclusion
Ⅴ Limitation
Ⅵ Reflection
3

4. 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

5. Purpose
To seek understand how perceived value in
a hotel restaurant dining context relates to
intention to purchase (ITP)
5

6. Research Question
What is the relationship between perceived
value and ITP in hotel restaurant dining？
6

7. Literature Review
7

8. Literature Review
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

9. Literature Review
The relationship between quality and
value depends on overall service quality
and improvement in core quality.
(McDougall, 2000)
9

10. 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

11. 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. Hypotheses
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.
12

13. Methodology
13

14. Perceived value research instrument construct
Research Instrument
of Perceived Value
Perceived Perceived Perceived Perceived Value
Brand Image Quality Sacrifice Construct
Consumer Product & Monetary Price
Non-monetary Measurement
Attitude Service
Price Items
Performance
Intention to
Purchase
14

15. Methodology
• Five star hotel – Henry J. Bean Bar and
Pilot Grill restaurant
• Bangkok, Thailand
test • A total of 88 questionnaires
• Five star hotel – Amari Orchid
Main Resort & Tower
• Pattaya, Thailand
study • A total of 377 respondents
15

16. Result
16

17. 
H1: If perceived brand image is high then intention to purchase
is high.
Standardi
Unstandardize
zed
d
coefficien
Model coefficients t Sig. F
ts
Std.
B Beta (β)
error
64.670
(Constant) -2.278 1.683 ─── -1.354 0.177
(1271)***
Perceived brand
0.628 0.078 0.439 8.042 0.000 ───
image
Dependent variable: Intention to purchase,R2=0.193.
***P<0.001.
Table 1: Perceived brand image regression results
17

18.  H2: If perceived quality is high then intention to purchase is
high.
Standardiz
Unstandardized ed
coefficients coefficient
Model s T Sig. F
Std.
B Beta (β)
error
44.667
(Constant) -1.713 1.903 ─── -0.888 0.376
(1279)***
Dependent variable: Intention to purchase,R2=0.138.
Perceived quality 0.992
***P<0.001.
0.148 0.371 6.683 0.000 ───
Table 2: Perceived quality regression results
18

19.  H3: If perceived sacrifice on monetary price is low then
intention to purchase is high.
Standardi
Unstandardize
zed
d
coefficien
Model coefficients t Sig. F
ts
Std.
B Beta (β)
error
43.318
(Constant) 2.900 1.264 ─── 2.294 0.023
(1287)***
Perceived sacrifice on
1.032 0.157 0.362 6.582 0.000 ───
monetary price
Dependent variable: Intention to purchase,R2=0.131.
***P<0.001.
Table 3: Monetary price regression results
19

20. 
H4: If perceived sacrifice on non-monetary price is low then
intention to purchase is high.
Standardi
Unstandardize
zed
d
coefficien
Model coefficients t Sig. F
ts
Std.
B Beta (β)
error
78.831
(Constant) -5.566 1.889 ─── -2.947 0.003
(1284)***
Perceived sacrifice on
Dependent variable: Intention to purchase,R2=0.217.
1.302 0.147 0.466 8.879 0.000 ───
non-monetary price
***P<0.001.
Table 4: Non-monetary price regression results
20

21. Conclusion
21

22. Conclusion
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

23. Limitation
23

24. Limitation
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.
24

25. Reflection
25

26. Reflection
Perceived value always influences customer
intention to purchase.
On the hotel party who look forward to
achieving the customers’ requirements
increase intention to purchase.
26

27. Thank you for listening. 27