Boredom-Induced Switching Behavior in the Restaurant Industry: The Mediating Role of Attachment

Abstract

While it is well documented that boredom with a particular product or service can result in switching behavior, the extent to which emotional attachment can affect this relationship is not well understood. The purpose of this research is to address this gap in the literature by exploring the role of place attachment in the relationships among boredom, satisfaction, and switching behavior in the domain of full-service restaurant patronage. The results indicate that while boredom can, in fact, result in switching intentions (particularly to unfamiliar alternatives), the reduction/elimination of boredom can actually lead to feelings of attachment that subsequently translate into lower levels of switching intention. The findings enhance the theoretical understanding of both restaurant switching behavior and hedonic adaptation in several important ways as well as provide meaningful implications for restaurant marketers interested in minimizing switching behavior attributable to repeat visitation and boredom.

Keywords

boredom place attachment switching behavior hedonic adaptation full-service restaurants

Within the context of consumption behavior, the concept of hedonic adaptation refers to the process whereby consumers realize incrementally decreasing emotional responses to product offerings as a result of repeat exposure (Coombs & Avrunin, 1977). Translated literally, this concept suggests that individuals adapt to the hedonic benefits of a product or service as they receive more and more exposure to those benefits (Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999). As a result, consumers become bored as each successive exposure results in marginally less cognitive and emotional arousal (Park & Jang, 2014a); and when the perceived benefits of a given product or service decrease past a certain level, consumers may begin to seek alternative means of hedonic stimulation (Line, Hanks, & Kim, 2016; Park & Jang, 2014b).

The effects of hedonic adaptation have been demonstrated in a number of contexts ranging from simple ice cream and jellybean consumption (see Kahneman & Snell, 1992, and Redden, 2008, respectively) to the viewing of French Impressionist art (DePaoli & Khan, 2014). Regardless of the context, however, the outcome of the adaptive process is always the same: boredom through overexposure. Naturally, such boredom can become a problem for marketers and managers, as bored customers are more likely to switch to a competing brand or product (Park & Jang, 2104a; 2014b).

Boredom-induced switching can be particularly problematic for restaurants that rely on repeat patronage to stay competitive in an increasingly saturated marketplace (Ha & Jang, 2013; Kim, Ok, & Canter, 2010). Recent research shows that, even among restaurants that consistently provide high-quality food and service, boredom with the product offering can result in significant decreases in satisfaction and quality perceptions (Line et al., 2016) and significant increases in variety-seeking behavior and switching intentions (Ha & Jang, 2013). However, while the quality of the product offering is an important determinant of the extent to which switching is pursued (Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000), it does not tell the whole story of the relationship between satisfaction and switching intentions.

Recently, increasing attention has been given to the role of attachment in consumer behavior (Line, Hanks, & Kim, 2018; Tumanan & Lansangan, 2012). Operationalized as a function of identification, dependence, and commitment, place attachment occurs when patrons incorporate patronage into their regular behavioral routines (Rosenbaum, Ward, Walker, & Ostrom, 2007). Such research has shown that attachment can play an important role in the consumer behavior function by significantly affecting repeat patronage (Tumanan & Lansangan, 2012). Given the powerful effects of place attachment, the purpose of this research is to explore the potential role of this construct as a mediating force in the relationship between boredom and switching behavior.

In terms of the effects of boredom, the present research proposes that the routinization of consumption associated with attachment can actually counteract the effects of hedonic adaptation, leading to a decreased incidence of switching intention among consumers. Stated more simply, the effects of boredom on consumer switching behavior are proposed to be mediated by the extent to which a consumer is attached to the establishment. Accordingly, the present research contributes to the existing understanding of boredom and the Hedonic Treadmill (Brickman & Campbell, 1971) by providing evidence that, while boredom through repeat exposure can result in undesirable consumer switching behavior, restaurateurs may also have an opportunity to leverage repeat exposure into feelings of attachment that can counteract such behavior.

Literature Review

Boredom and Hedonic Adaptation

Boredom can be defined as “a state of relatively low arousal and dissatisfaction, which is attributed to an inadequately stimulating situation” (Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993, p. 3). When individuals are exposed to the same stimuli repeatedly over time, they can quickly become bored. Thackray (1981) notes that repetition is one of the main causes of boredom. The idea that consumers can become bored through repeat exposure is rooted in Brickman and Campbell’s (1971) notion of the Hedonic Treadmill. Brickman and Campbell proposed that emotional responses to positive and negative life events are always relative to prior experience. Their theory suggests that reactions to stimuli are merely transitory, and that regardless of the magnitude of a positive event, individuals will grow bored after repeated exposure to the same stimulus and return to a baseline state of satisfaction (Wang, Novemsky, & Dhar, 2009; for an extensive review, see Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999). This is true regardless of the magnitude of the change in experience (Brickman, Coates, & Janoff-Bulman, 1978) and whether the new stimulus is of a positive or negative nature (Kahneman & Snell, 1992; Nelson & Meyvis, 2008). In this way, over time, the repetition of the stimuli ceases to yield an increase in satisfaction. Thus, it appears that fluctuations in the level of boredom have a direct impact on the level of satisfaction with the consumption experience. So, for example, the first bite of chocolate from a box of truffles may elicit a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction; but as one continues to eat, boredom sets in, and eventually each subsequent bite brings a relatively smaller increase in satisfaction.

Based on the concept of the Hedonic Treadmill, it is proposed that in a restaurant context, if a customer repeatedly patronizes a restaurant, the resultant boredom with the experience will ultimately exert a negative impact on the level of satisfaction he or she derives from eating there. The null and alternative statements of this relationship are proposed as follows:

Hypothesis 1₀: Boredom with a restaurant does not significantly affect satisfaction with the overall dining experience.

Hypothesis 1_a: Boredom with a restaurant exerts a significantly negative effect on satisfaction with the overall dining experience.

Place Attachment

Place attachment is defined as “the bonding between a person and a place” (Rosenbaum et al., 2007, p. 47). The concept of place attachment is based on the tenets of attachment theory, which has been widely researched in the psychology literature (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1982). At its core, attachment theory suggests that infants attach to primary caregivers because these individuals meet their physical, psychological, and emotional needs. When children are securely attached to the caregiver, they feel safe, comforted, and happy. Strong attachments result in positive emotional outcomes such as emotional stability, feelings of safety, and well-being. Translated to a consumer context, when a customer is attached to an establishment, he feels “at home” and experiences a feeling of comfort and belonging (Rosenbaum & Montoya, 2007; Yuksel, Yuksel, & Bilim, 2010). At deeper levels, place attachment results in an individual feeling emotionally invested in the establishment and experiencing a sense of well-being while there (Hummon, 1992). At the extreme end of the attachment spectrum, the customer comes to feel a sense of psychological ownership, referring to the establishment as “my restaurant” and virtually excluding all competitors from consideration (Asatryan & Oh, 2008).

Attachment is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon. Accordingly, place attachment is often conceptualized as a tripartite construct, composed of dependency, commitment, and identity. Place dependence is reflective of the degree to which the customer relies on the establishment to meet his particular needs while place commitment measures the extent to which the customer is willing to make sacrifices to ensure the continued success of the establishment. Finally, place identity captures the degree to which the customer perceives that his identity is tied to that of the establishment. In contrast to more behaviorally based constructs, such as intent to purchase or loyalty, place attachment speaks more to the customer’s emotional relationship with the establishment (Hummon, 1992; Rubinstein & Parmelee, 1992). In other words, place attachment is more about “being here” and less about “buying here” (Line et al., 2016).

A high level of place attachment usually results from visiting the location over time (Oldenburg, 1999; Tumanan & Lansangan, 2012). Such repeated exposure fosters a sense of familiarity and ownership. Additionally, having multiple satisfactory experiences during these visits leads to a strong sense of place attachment (Oldenburg, 1999; Tumanan & Lansangan, 2012). Indeed, Shumaker and Taylor (1983) note that the concept of place attachment involves “cognitions of satisfaction.” This sense of attachment is then enhanced as the customer accrues relational benefits from positive interactions with others in that establishment (Kim & Ok, 2009). Thus, in order for the customer to continue patronizing the restaurant over a long period of time, his needs must be met, he must have positive interactions, and he must enjoy his time at the establishment. In other words, he must be satisfied. Accordingly, it is proposed that the more satisfied a customer is with a restaurant, the more attached he will become to that particular establishment. The null and alternative statements of this relationship are proposed as follows:

Hypothesis 2₀: Satisfaction with a dining experience does not significantly affect attachment to the restaurant.

Hypothesis 2_a: Satisfaction with a dining experience exerts a significant and positive effect on attachment to the restaurant.

While satisfaction is expected to exert a positive influence on place attachment, the principles of hedonic adaptation suggest that boredom with a restaurant will exert an opposite effect on attachment. As a customer continues to patronize the same restaurant time and again (even if he is satisfied), the degree of enjoyment and satisfaction derived from each subsequent visit will decrease in accordance with the principles of hedonic adaptation (Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999; Perez-Truglia, 2012; Wang et al., 2009). Thus, it is predicted that feelings of boredom will detract from the positive feelings of emotional attachment to the location. Accordingly, the null and alternative statements of this proposition are as follows:

Hypothesis 3₀: Boredom with a restaurant does not significantly affect attachment to the restaurant.

Hypothesis 3_a: Boredom with a restaurant exerts a significantly negative effect on attachment to the restaurant.

Switching

While the place attachment construct is a unique outcome variable in its own right, it is not entirely divorced from the more traditional measurements of behavior, such as intent to visit, purchase, and return. For example, prior research has demonstrated that a high level of place attachment can result in an intention to return to the service establishment (Hummon, 1992; Rosenbaum & Montoya, 2007), an outcome that is clearly desirable to restaurant owners and managers.

A high level of attachment to an establishment may also decrease the chances that the consumer will switch to an alternative provider. However, when it comes to switching behavior, it is important to distinguish the object of that behavior. For example, when examining the deviation from an established habit of dining at a particular restaurant, there is a qualitative difference between switching to a familiar establishment (i.e., a place at which one has previously dined) and switching to an unfamiliar establishment (i.e., an establishment where one has not previously eaten). Restaurant consumers usually think of a familiar group of restaurants when choosing where to eat for a particular meal (Jung, Sydnor, Lee, & Almanza, 2015), called a consideration set (Kim et al., 2010). This is a group of familiar alternatives that are similar with regards to some feature. For example, when a consumer wants to order a pizza, he may choose among a consideration set that includes Domino’s, Pizza Hut, and Papa John’s, because he has eaten there before and liked the food.

While most people do not go to the same restaurant every time they wish to eat outside the home, most people do like to rotate among familiar alternatives. The result is that over time, each member of the consideration set receives a particular “share of wallet,” or percentage of spending in that particular category for that particular customer. For example, if an individual is very loyal to his local Olive Garden and eats there very often, but occasionally also dines at Carrabba’s and Maggiano’s for variety, then it can be said that Olive Garden receives the largest “share of wallet” for this consumer when he is choosing to eat Italian food. Existing perspectives on place attachment suggest that over time, as his attachment to Olive Garden grows stronger, he will choose less often to forsake this favored establishment for Carrabba’s or Maggiano’s, thus reducing the likelihood that he will switch to these other familiar alternatives. Accordingly, the null and alternative statements of this relationship are as follows:

Hypothesis 4₀: Attachment to a restaurant does not significantly affect intentions to switch to a familiar alternative for a subsequent dining experience.

Hypothesis 4_a: Attachment to a restaurant exerts a significantly negative effect on intention to switch to a familiar alternative for a subsequent dining experience.

A bored customer may also choose to seek variety outside of his typical consideration set by switching to an unfamiliar alternative that he has never tried before, and in doing so will incorporate a new competitor to the choice set, which will subsequently decrease the revenue available to each member of the set (Han, Back, & Barrett, 2009). To continue the example, if a customer becomes bored with his experiences at Olive Garden, he may seek new experiences outside of his typical group of restaurants, deciding to try Romano’s Macaroni Grill. In doing so, he has now added a fourth restaurant to his consideration set. Assuming that he has a positive experience at this new restaurant, it will now be added to his “family causal Italian” consideration set. Because of this, the amount of money that he spends eating out at Italian restaurants will be distributed among four restaurants, instead of just three.

Such behavior represents a financial threat to the existing restaurants in the choice set, as it results in each member of the set realizing a decrease in revenue, profit, and market share, as well as an increase in marketing costs (Kim et al., 2010). However, as with switching to a familiar alternative, it is expected that a strong sense of place attachment will correspondingly decrease the likelihood of switching to an unfamiliar restaurant. That is, when a customer feels at home at a restaurant, feels his identity closely matches that establishment, and experiences a sense of belonging there, he may be less likely to step outside of this comfortable environment and seek variety at a completely unknown location elsewhere. Accordingly, the null and alternative statements of this relationship are proposed as follows:

Hypothesis 5₀: Attachment to a restaurant does not significantly affect intentions to switch to an unfamiliar alternative for a subsequent dining experience.

Hypothesis 5_a: Attachment to a restaurant exerts a significantly negative effect on intention to switch to an unfamiliar alternative for a subsequent dining experience.

Together, hypotheses that make up the framework suggest that while traditional perspectives concerning the relationship between satisfaction and switching behavior are well founded, there is an antecedent effect of boredom that can affect the dynamic of the framework (see Figure 1). Additionally, the model proposes that place attachment can mediate the relationship between boredom and switching behavior. Specifically, it is suggested that while boredom can, in fact, result in switching intentions, the elimination of boredom can actually lead to feelings of attachment that subsequently translate into reduced switching intention.

Figure 1

Conceptual Framework

The implied effect of boredom on switching behavior depicted in the figure can be interpreted as follows. The negative (or inverse) relationships predicted in Hypotheses 1 and 2 suggest that high levels of boredom lead to low levels of satisfaction and place attachment. In Hypothesis 3, the proposed positive relationship indicates that these low levels of satisfaction translate into similarly low levels of place attachment. In turn, the negative relationships proposed in Hypotheses 4 and 5 indicate that these low levels of place attachment lead to higher incidences of switching intentions.

Method

Sampling

To test the proposed model, data were collected from a sample of U.S. restaurant consumers using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) as the sampling frame (see Line et al., 2016 for a previous study using this data). MTurk samples have been identified as relatively representative of consumer demographics in the United States (Mason & Suri, 2011) and typically provide a significantly more diverse sample than other forms of Internet data collection (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Accordingly, because this research is concerned with establishing a construct nomology within a diverse industry (full-service restaurants) and across an equally diverse sample (restaurant consumers in the United States), MTurk was deemed an appropriate sampling frame.

Respondents received a $0.75 credit to their account in return for their participation. A total of 653 surveys were completed with 98 responses being deleted due to missing/incomplete information and/or failed attention checks. The sample was relatively representative of the U.S. restaurant consumer market in terms of income and education. However, there were slightly fewer females (45.1%) than males (54.9%), and Caucasians were overrepresented (80%) relative to minority groups (20%). In addition to reporting demographics, respondents were asked to report information pertaining to their selected restaurant. A majority of the respondents identified a casual restaurant (65.1%), while another 23.7% identified an upscale restaurant. The remaining respondents selected a fast casual restaurant (6.2%) or a fine dining restaurant (4.8%). Importantly, 100% of the respondents reported having eaten dinner at the referent restaurant at least once in the previous 2 weeks. Additionally, over half reported dining at the referent restaurant two or more times in the previous 6 weeks. These results suggest that the sample included substantial variance in terms of both 2-week and 6-week patronage (σ² = 4.56 and σ² = 0.65, respectively).

Contextualization

Prior to measuring the operational constructs, respondents were asked to think about the most recent full-service restaurant at which they had dined for dinner. To ensure an appropriate and consistent experience for the survey content, respondents were explicitly advised not to choose a fast food restaurant or any take out/drive through experience. The chosen experience served as the referent for all subsequent measurement.

Because the contextualization process required that respondents react to a previous experience from memory, it was necessary to consider the effects of recall bias. In order to reduce the potential for such effects, Bradburn, Rips, and Shevell’s (1987) recommendations were followed. First, rather than simply asking them to “think about” the referent restaurant experience, participants were asked to actually type the name of the referent restaurant into a text box. Then, they were asked to deeply consider that experience for a full 15 seconds before being prompted to advance in the questionnaire. Additionally, the name of the reported restaurant was piped into the content of the measurement items in the questionnaire. Because they were presented using piped data, all reflective indicators were uniquely constructed and framed within the specific context of the evoked experience. By approaching the measurement process in this manner, the experience was kept salient across the operationalization of each reflective construct, thus helping minimize the potential effects of recall bias (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009).

Measurement

The constructs in the proposed framework were measured based on methods utilized in previous studies. All reflective construct operationalizations employed 7-point Likert-type scaling. Boredom was operationalized through a first-order, reflective approach as advocated by Park and Jang (2014a). Similarly, satisfaction was operationalized as proposed by Park and Jang (2014b). Place attachment was operationalized as a second-order factor (consisting of identity, dependence, and commitment) according to process put forth by Rosenbaum et al. (2007). Finally, switching intention was operationalized as put forth by Ha and Jang (2013). These specific operationalizations were chosen due to their established validity in the domain of restaurant consumption behavior.

Common Method Bias

As a part the measurement process, steps were taken to minimize the potential effects of common method variance as recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003). Additionally, to ensure that participant responses were not unduly influenced by recall biases, respondents were asked to report how long ago the referent experience took place (Bradburn et al., 1987). Analysis of these data indicated that more than half of the sample recalled a restaurant experience that had taken place in the previous 14 days. Another 16.8% of the sample indicated a referent experience occurring in the previous 14 to 21 days. Moreover, the memory variable data were normally distributed across the sample. These results provide at least some evidence that measurement error due to recall effects was not a significant source of artificial variance in the sample.

Results

Measurement Model

In order to establish the convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs, a measurement model was specified that included all first- and second-order constructs in the proposed framework (AMOS 22). The resulting model was a good fit to the data (χ² = 944.1, degrees of freedom [df] = 389; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .05; comparative fit index [CFI] = .97; normed fit index [NFI] = .95; Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .96). Moreover, each respective observable indicator loaded positively and significantly onto the proposed latent construct (p < .05). The results of the measurement model can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1

Scale Properties

Constructs and Indicators	Standard Estimate	Standard Error
Boredom (α = .87)	.60^a
My most recent dining experience at X was not as enjoyable as previous visits.	.45*	.066
My most recent dining experience at X was not as exciting as previous visits.	.53*	.057
I am tired of eating from the same menu at X.	.82*	.049
I am tired of dining at X.	.97*	.041
I am bored with dining at X.	.97*	.042
Experience Satisfaction (α = .98)	.95^a
I was happy with the dining experience.	.98*	.033
I was pleased with the dining experience.	.98*	.033
I was satisfied with the overall dining experience.	.97*	.033
Place Attachment (α = .84)	.65^a
Place Commitment (α = .93)	.93*	C
I really care about the fate of X.	.80*	C
I talk up X to my friends as a great restaurant to go to.	.82*	.049
I would go out of my way in order to keep patronizing X.	.80*	.045
I find my values are very similar to other individuals at X.	.72*	.041
X means a lot to me.	.86*	.044
I am proud to tell others that I eat at X.	.84*	.044
I am very attached to X.	.83*	.048
Place Dependence (α = .94)	.88*	.071
I enjoy eating at X more than I do at any other restaurant.	.87*	C
I get more satisfaction out of going to X than I do from going to any other restaurant.	.89*	.024
X is the best place for the kind of dining that I like to do.	.85*	.038
I wouldn’t substitute any other restaurant for the overall experience I get at X.	.83*	.039
For me, X is the best of all possible restaurants to patronize.	.86*	.039
Place Identity (α = .91)	.56*	.051
When someone praises X, it feels like a personal compliment.	.88*	C
I care about what others think about X.	.91*	.034
When someone criticizes X, it feels like a personal insult.	.78*	.037
The success of X is my success.	.82*	.039
Switching Intent: Familiar (α = .93)	.82^a
To visit some someplace I have been several times already.	.87*	.050
To have a dining experience at another restaurant that I am already familiar with.	.96*	.046
To dine out at another restaurant that I have visited before.	.89*	.049
Switching Intent: Unfamiliar (α = .95)	.86^a
Visit another restaurant I have never visited before.	.94*	.045
Have a new dining experience at another restaurant that I am not familiar with.	.94*	.046
To try something else at another restaurant where I have never dined.	.91*	.047

Note: Fit: χ² = 944.1, degrees of freedom = 389; root mean square error of approximation = .05; comparative fit index = .97; normed fit index = .95; Tucker–Lewis index = .96. X = piped data (referent restaurant). C = parameter constrained to 1 for identification.

Average variances extracted.

p < .001.

The validity of the operational constructs was established using Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) method of comparing the average variances extracted (AVE) of each construct to the pairwise estimates in the correlation matrix. Table 2 shows the AVE (along with the critical ratio) for each construct. The correlation matrix is included in the table featuring the square root of each AVE value on the diagonal. As seen in the table, each reflective construct meets the established threshold for convergent validity (AVE > 0.5) as put forth by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Additionally, the shared correlation of each construct pair is less than the square root of the associated AVE. These results provide evidence of discriminant validity among the constructs in the model (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006).

Table 2

Validity Assessment Criteria and Correlation Matrix

	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV	BOR	ESAT	PA	FAM	UFAM
BOR	0.88	0.60	0.35	0.15	0.78^a
ESAT	0.98	0.95	0.35	0.16	−0.60	0.98^a
PA	0.84	0.65	0.26	0.13	−0.46	0.51	0.80^a
FAM	0.93	0.82	0.04	0.02	0.06	−0.14	−0.09	0.91^a
UFAM	0.95	0.86	0.05	0.03	0.20	−0.13	−0.21	−0.19	0.93^a

Square root of average variances extracted (AVE). BOR=Boredom; ESAT=Experience satisfaction; PA=Place attachment; FAM=Switching intention (familiar); UFAM=Switching intention (unfamiliar); CR=Critical Ratio.

Hypotheses Testing

Following the measurement model specification and analysis, a structural model was specified according to the conceptual framework proposed in Figure 1. According to the fit statistics, the hypothesized model was a relatively good representation of the data (χ² = 982.3, df = 394; RMSEA = .05; CFI = .97; NFI = .94; TLI = .96). Additionally, with the exception of the path between place attachment and switching to a familiar alternative, all specified parameters were significant in the hypothesized direction. Thus, the null statement was rejected for all hypotheses except Hypothesis 4 (see Table 3).

Table 3

Structural Model Analysis and Hypothesis Tests

Hypothesis: Path	Standard Estimate	CR	p	Result
Hypothesis 1_a: Boredom—Experience Satisfaction	−0.60	−15.15	<.001	Null rejected
Hypothesis 2_a: Experience Satisfaction—Place Attachment	0.36	6.83	<.001	Null rejected
Hypothesis 3_a: Boredom—Place Attachment	−0.25	−4.86	<.001	Null rejected
Hypothesis 4_a: Place Attachment—Switch: Familiar	−0.09	−1.88	.06	Failed to reject null
Hypothesis 5_a: Place Attachment—Switch: Unfamiliar	−0.22	−4.61	<.001	Null rejected

Note: CR: Critical Ratio; Model Fit: χ²/degrees of freedom = 2.49; root mean square error of approximation = .051; comparative fit index = .97; normed fit index = .94; Tucker–Lewis index = .96.

Overall, the results provide strong support for the proposed relationships among boredom, satisfaction, place attachment, and switching behavior. Together, the results suggest that as boredom increases (decreases), satisfaction and attachment increase (decrease) accordingly. Additionally, the results suggest that the direct effect of boredom on place attachment is compounded by a mediating effect of satisfaction. To test for the partial mediation implied in these relationships, three alternative models were specified (Barron & Kenny, 1986). In the first model, the path from boredom to satisfaction was eliminated rendering both constructs fully exogenous in the model (χ² = 1214.2, df = 395). Compared with the hypothesized model, this alternative specification was a significantly worse fit to the data (Δχ² = 231.9, Δdf = 1; p < .001). Next, a fully mediated model was specified eliminating the path between boredom and place attachment (χ² = 1006.7, df = 395). Again, the model was a significantly worse fit (Δχ² = 78.4, Δdf = 1; p < .001). Finally, a second fully mediated model was specified that eliminated the parameter representing the relationship between satisfaction and place attachment (χ² = 1031.8, df = 395). This model was also a worse fit to the data (Δχ² = 103.5, Δdf = 1; p < .001). The results of these analyses indicate full support for the proposed partial mediation among boredom, experience satisfaction, and place attachment. Accordingly, the null statement was rejected for Hypotheses 1 to 3.

Regarding Hypotheses 4 and 5, the results were mixed, though no less interesting. First, as expected, a negative relationship was identified between participants’ attachment to the restaurant and their intentions to switch to an unfamiliar restaurant for a subsequent dining experience (β = −.22, p < .001), leading to a rejection of the null statement concerning Hypothesis 5. This indicates that as boredom increases, place attachment decreases, thus causing switching intentions to increase. However, this finding was only true when it came to the intention to switch to an unfamiliar alternative. When asked about potentially switching to a familiar alternative, no significant effect of a boredom-induced decrease in attachment was identified (β = −.09, p = .06), leading to a failure to reject the null statement for Hypothesis 4. Interestingly, this suggests that while boredom can result in decreases in both satisfaction and place attachment, customers are only willing to pursue switching behavior when there are unfamiliar alternatives available. That is, they will not defect from a relationship when the only alternatives are places that they already know and understand (and to which they are thus presumably less attached).

In addition to testing the direct effect of boredom on switching (to an unfamiliar restaurant), it was necessary to test for the mediating effect of place attachment. Accordingly, a model was specified with an added parameter from boredom to the switch-unfamiliar construct (χ² = 975.8, df = 393; RMSEA = .05). The results indicated that the alternative model was a significantly better fit to the data (though modestly so) than the hypothesized model (Δχ² = 6.5, Δdf = 1; p = .01). Additionally, the added parameter was significant (β = .13, p = .01). These results provide evidence of a partially mediated effect of place attachment in the relationship between boredom and the intent to switch to an unfamiliar restaurant.

To conclude, the hypothesized model was compared with a model that omitted place attachment from the framework (χ² = 276.4, df = 73; RMSEA = .07; CFI = .98; NFI = .97; TLI = .97). A comparison of this model with the hypothesized model indicated that the addition of place attachment to the framework yielded a significantly better fit to the data (Δχ² = 705.9, Δdf = 321; p < .001). Accordingly, this finding suggests that the addition of place attachment (as a mediator) to the existing perspectives concerning the relationships among boredom, satisfaction, and switching intentions does, in fact, serve to increase the explanatory power of the framework. The implications of these findings are considered in the following section.

Discussion

In the study of consumption behavior, the concept of hedonic adaptation refers to the process whereby consumers realize incrementally decreasing levels of emotional response to product offerings as a result of repeated exposure (Coombs & Avrunin, 1977). The effects of hedonic adaptation have been demonstrated in a number of contexts (DePaoli & Khan, 2014; Kahneman & Snell, 1992; Line et al., 2016; Redden, 2008), typically resulting in the subject becoming bored due to overexposure to the stimulus/product. The purpose of this research was to explore the potential role of place attachment in the relationships of the attendant constructs of boredom, satisfaction, and switching behavior.

In terms of the proposed framework, a significant, positive relationship between satisfaction and place attachment was hypothesized. In this part of the model, it was proposed that a customer must be satisfied with a given dining experience in order to develop attachment to the restaurant. That is, if his basic food quality and service quality standards are not met, he will not be inclined to engage with the establishment at a deeper emotional level. However, if he is satisfied, he may begin to form an attachment to the place and will almost certainly be more likely to repatronize (Kim, Vogt, & Knutson, 2015). The findings supported this hypothesis, suggesting that as levels of overall satisfaction with the dining experience increase, so too does attachment to the restaurant.

At the same time, it was expected that while satisfaction would exert a positive influence on place attachment, boredom with the restaurant would exert a negative effect. More specifically, it was predicted that as a customer continues to patronize the same restaurant time and again, the degree of satisfaction derived from each subsequent visit will decrease (in accordance with the principles of hedonic adaptation; Line et al., 2016). Again, as hypothesized, the results indicated that feelings of boredom appear to detract from satisfaction, and subsequently, from the positive feelings of emotional attachment to the location. This is important, as it speaks to the role of boredom in the customer’s global assessment of satisfaction with the experience. In other words, the usual contributors to satisfaction, such as service quality, food quality, and physical servicescape, can all deliver a positive experience as desired (e.g., Line et al., 2016); and yet the level of satisfaction with the overall experience can still decrease simply because the customer has become bored with the situation.

Finally, and perhaps most important, strong feelings of place attachment were predicted to lead to a decreased incidence of switching behavior. It stands to reason that when a customer feels at home at a restaurant, feels his identity closely matches that of the establishment, and experiences a sense of belonging there, he will be less likely to step outside of this comfortable environment and seek variety. Therefore, a significant and negative relationship between place attachment and the likelihood to switch to an alternative restaurant was predicted, regardless of whether the alterative restaurant was familiar or a new addition to the consideration set. However, the findings only partially supported these predictions. While attachment did, in fact, decrease the likelihood of a switch to an unfamiliar alternative, the corresponding effect on switching intentions to a familiar alternative was not significant. This is particularly interesting, because it speaks to the key role of boredom in the switching intention. As noted in the definitional section of the literature review, boredom is characterized as a lack of arousal resulting from the absence of new stimuli. The fact that people who experienced a high level of boredom and low level of place attachment were only willing to switch to a completely unfamiliar restaurant suggests that the switching behavior was perhaps an effort to seek out new, arousing stimuli to alleviate the boredom (Ha & Jang, 2013).

Together, the relationships established in the empirical tests indicate that high (low) levels of boredom with a given restaurant lead to low (high) levels of satisfaction and place attachment. Downstream, the positive relationship between satisfaction and attachment indicates that these low (high) levels of satisfaction translate into similarly low (high) levels of place attachment. In turn, low (high) place attachment leads to higher (lower) incidences of switching to an unfamiliar alternative (but not to a familiar alternative).

Theoretical Implications

The findings of this research make a significant contribution to the advancement of the theoretical understanding of both consumption behavior and hedonic adaptation. First, it is interesting to note that both attachment and boredom arise through repeat exposure (Oldenburg, 1999; Park & Jang, 2014a). However, while these two constructs share an antecedent condition, the outcome of each is quite different. As the present research is among the first to consider these two constructs of simultaneous origin in the same theoretical model, it represents a step forward in the understanding how they interact in the domain of consumption behavior.

It is also quite interesting to note the difference in the model concerning the switching variables. The hypotheses predicted that boredom-induced switching behavior would be the same regardless of whether the alternative was inside (familiar) or outside (unfamiliar) of the consideration set. However, the results indicated that when place attachment is eroded through boredom, customers are more likely to switch, but only to alternatives outside of the consideration set. This suggests that while boredom can indeed result in switching behavior, the switching construct may be more nuanced than is often considered in the literature. While this research cannot definitively account for the reasons why switching is different between familiar and unfamiliar options, it suggests that future research is needed to understand why some consumers elect to stay inside of a consideration set and why others go outside of this set.

Practical Implications

Existing research clearly shows that when customers get bored with a restaurant, they become more likely to eat elsewhere (Ha & Jang, 2013). This represents a financial threat to restaurateurs, as this will result in a loss of revenue. To better understand this issue, the present research undertook an exploration of the concept of place attachment and how it can lead to decreases in the likelihood that a customer will switch to a competing restaurant. The practical implications of these findings are considered as follows.

Our results found a significant and positive relationship between satisfaction with the dining experience and place attachment. These results suggest that restaurant operators should focus first on strategies to increase satisfaction, such as maintaining high levels of food quality, delivering excellent service, and creating a welcoming servicescape. However, previous research suggests that satisfaction may not be enough, because the incremental gain in satisfaction decreases with each repeated exposure (Wang et al., 2009; for an extensive review, see Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999). Thus, even if customers are satisfied, boredom through repeat visitation may still result in switching behavior. These findings are meaningful to practitioners, because much of restauranteurs’ efforts are focused on improving service levels to create satisfactory experiences. While such efforts are often effective, the results of the present research show that they may not be enough. In addition, managers and marketers may want to consider diverting some time and resources to creating novel, stimulating experiences to alleviate or prevent boredom, as well. For example, creating rotating or seasonal menus, having themed dining experiences, or hosting special events such as wine tastings, menu tastings, or cooking classes could add novel and interesting stimuli to an otherwise positive, but boring and predictable dining experience.

To counteract boredom-induced switching behavior, the results further suggest that restaurateurs consider taking steps to build attachment. As discussed previously, place attachment goes beyond merely satisfying the consumer with good food and excellent service—it is reflective of the customer’s feelings of belonging and sense of identity with the restaurant (Asatryan & Oh, 2008; Hummon, 1992). Accordingly, strategies to foster these feelings can be employed as a force against boredom. For restaurant managers, this could mean learning repeat customers’ names, greeting them individually, seating them at a favorite table, and training servers to remember their names and/or their favorite orders.

A second important element of place attachment is the experience of being “part of the in crowd” or feeling a sense of relationship with other patrons at the restaurant. Restaurateurs may be able to capitalize on this as well in order to counteract the negative effects of boredom. For example, while diners do not often spontaneously interact with each other, restaurant employees could initiate and facilitate interactions and casual conversations among frequent, repeat guests who often sit near each other at their favorite table or booth. Such practices would help foster not only a sense of fun and entertainment (thereby counteracting boredom) but also engender a sense of membership and belonging (Lee & Severt, 2017; Tumanan & Lansangan, 2012) or being “part of the gang” that, in turn, would lead to a heightened sense of place attachment.

Finally, the results of this research suggest that boredom negatively affects place attachment and can lead to switching behavior. Thus, customer feedback mechanisms such as satisfaction surveys would benefit from including some items asking about boredom. When these items are included, it will lead to a better understanding of levels of boredom among customers, allowing restauranteurs to either vary the menu options or change other elements of the dining experience before their customers defect.

Limitations and Future Research

In this section, we identify several limitations of the research and ways in which this study may be able to inform future research. First, it should be acknowledged that each respondent reported both boredom and attachment based on experiences at a variety of restaurants. While the methods were specifically designed to reflect diversity of experience (for the purposes of increasing generalizability of the phenomenon), this approach does introduce a level of variability into the results. To address this potential issue, future research should seek to replicate this study with a targeted population of patrons from only one restaurant.

Additionally, it is important to note that the purpose of this research was to identify the relationships among boredom, satisfaction, attachment, and switching in the broadly defined domain of full-service restaurant patronage. Accordingly, the results of this research cannot account for the potential effects restaurant-specific moderators. For example, it is possible that the relationships established in this research could differ according to structural characteristics (e.g., franchise, chain, independent, etc.) and/or category membership (fast casual, casual, upscale, or fine-dining). Future research should consider nested model tests of the proposed framework to test for the potential effects of such moderators.

Finally, it is important to note that boredom was treated as a global (i.e., unidimensional) assessment of the referent experience. As such, this research does not address which specific components of the restaurant experience are more (or less) associated with satisfaction, attachment, and switching. Future research should continue to pursue questions pertaining to various aspects of the dining experience (service style, food, servicescape, etc.), and the extent to which boredom with each part is associated with increased (or decreased) levels of place attachment.

Footnotes

Nathaniel D. Line, PhD (e-mail: nline@dedman.fsu.edu) is an associate professor at the Dedman School of Hospitality, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Lydia Hanks, PhD (e-mail: lhanks@dedman.fsu.edu) is an associate professor at the Dedman School of Hospitality, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

References

Ainsworth

M. S.

(1979). Infant–mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34, 932-937.

Asatryan

(2008). Psychological ownership theory: An exploratory application in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 32, 363-386.

Barron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bowlby

(1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed., pp. 220-223). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bradburn

Rips

Shevell

(1987). Answering autobiographical questions: The impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science, 236, 208-221.

Brickman

Campbell

D. T.

(1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In Appley

M. H.

(Ed.), Adaptation level theory: A symposium (pp. 287-302). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Brickman

Coates

Janoff-Bulman

(1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 917-927.

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.

Coombs

C. H.

Avrunin

G. S.

(1977). Single-peaked functions and the theory of preference. Psychological Review, 84, 216-230.

10.

Cronin

J. J.

Brady

M. K.

Hult

G. T.

(2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76, 193-218.

11.

DePaoli

Khan

(2014). Favorites fall faster: Greater liking leads to greater satiation. In Cotte

Wood

(Eds.), NA—Advances in consumer research (Vol. 42, pp. 220-224). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.

12.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

13.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 39-50.

14.

Frederick

Loewenstein

(1999). Hedonic adaptation. In Kahneman

Diener

Schwarz

(Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 302-329). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

15.

Jang

(2013). Variety seeking in restaurant choice and its drivers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 155-168.

16.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

17.

Han

Back

K-J.

Barrett

(2009). Influencing factors on restaurant customers’ revisit intention: The roles of emotions and switching barriers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 563-572.

18.

Han

Hyun

S. S.

(2013). Image congruence and relationship quality in predicting switching intention: Conspicuousness of product use as a moderator variable. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37, 303-329.

19.

Hummon

D. M.

(1992). Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place. In Altman

Low

S. M.

(Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 253-278). New York, NY: Plenum.

20.

Jung

J. M.

Sydnor

Lee

S. K.

Almanza

(2015). A conflict of choice: How consumers choose where to go for dinner. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 45, 88-98.

21.

Kahneman

Snell

(1992). Predicting a changing taste: Do people know what they will like? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5, 187-200.

22.

Kim

(2009). The effects of relational benefits on customers’ perception of favorable inequity, affective commitment, and repurchase intention in full-service restaurants. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33, 227-244.

23.

Kim

Canter

(2010). Contingency variables for customer share of visits to full-service restaurant. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29,136-147.

24.

Kim

Vogt

C. A.

Knutson

B. J.

(2015). Relationships Among Customer Satisfaction, Delight, and Loyalty in the Hospitality Industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 39, 170–197.

25.

Lee

J. E.

Severt

(2017). The role of hospitality service quality in third places for the elderly: An exploratory study. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 58, 214-221.

26.

Line

Hanks

Kim

(2016). Hedonic adaptation and satiation: Understanding switching behavior in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 52, 143-153.

27.

Line

Hanks

Kim

W.G.

(2018). An expanded servicescape framework as the driver of place attachment and word of mouth. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42, 476-499.

28.

Mason

Suri

(2011). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1-23.

29.

Mikulas

W. L.

Vodanovich

S. J.

(1993). The essence of boredom. Psychological Report, 43, 3-12.

30.

Nelson

L. D.

Meyvis

(2008). Interrupted consumption: Disrupting adaptation to hedonic experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 654-664.

31.

Oldenburg

(1999). The great good place. New York, NY: Marlowe.

32.

Park

J.-Y.

Jang

(2014a). Revisit and satiation patterns: Are your restaurant customers satiated? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 38, 20-29.

33.

Park

J.-Y.

Jang

(2014b). Why do customers switch? More satiated or less satisfied. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 159-170.

34.

Perez-Truglia

(2012). On the causes and consequences of hedonic adaptation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 1182-1192.

35.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

36.

Redden

J. P.

(2008). Reducing satiation: The role of categorization level. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 624-634.

37.

Rosenbaum

M. S.

Montoya

D. Y.

(2007). Am I welcome here? Exploring how ethnic consumers assess their place identity, Journal of Business Research, 60, 206-214.

38.

Rosenbaum

M. S.

Ward

Walker

B. A.

Ostrom

A. L.

(2007). A cup of coffee with a dash of love: An investigation of commercial social support and third-place attachment. Journal of Service Research, 10, 43-59.

39.

Rubinstein

R. I.

Parmelee

P. A.

(1992). Attachment to place and the representation of the life course by the elderly. In Rubinstein

R. I.

Parmelee

P. A.

(Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 139-163). New York, NY: Springer.

40.

Shumaker

S. A.

Taylor

R. B.

(1983). Toward a clarification of people-place relationships: A model of attachment to place. Environmental Psychology, 2, 19-25.

41.

Thackray

R. I.

(1981). The stress of boredom and monotony: A consideration of the evidence. Psychosomatic Medicine, 43, 165-176.

42.

Tumanan

M. A. R.

Lansangan

J. R. G.

(2012). More than just a cuppa coffee: A multi-dimensional approach towards analyzing the factors that define place attachment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, 529-534.

43.

Wang

Novemsky

Dhar

(2009). Anticipating adaptation to products. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 149-159.

44.

Yuksel

Bilim

(2010). Destination attachment: Effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tourism Management, 31, 274-284.