Indirect customer-to-customer interactions and experiential value: examining solo and social diners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to examine whether indirect customer-to-customer interactions (CCI) affect consumers’ behavioral intentions and how that effect is generated. It also explores the effect of dining experience on customer behavioral intentions and how that effect varies by party type. Design/methodology/approach The research consists of an experimental survey-based study of n = 491 real-world consumers from a marketing research panel. Structural equation models are analyzed to examine hypothesized relationships. Findings Indirect CCIs significantly affect all five dimensions of experiential value. Food and beverage (F&B) excellence, aesthetics and service excellence positively affect customer revisit intentions and word-of-mouth intentions via restaurant image. Furthermore, party type moderates the effect of aesthetics on behavioral intentions so that the effect is significant for the social diner group only. Customer return on investment and playfulness show non-significant impacts on behavioral intentions. Practical implications Managers should be aware that indirect CCIs influence all aspects of the restaurant experience. Since F&B excellence, aesthetics and service excellence affect restaurant image and behavioral intentions, management can operationalize these elements of service. The impact of aesthetics differs by consumers’ party type, enabling management to create unique servicescapes based on their target customer segment. Originality/value The study pioneers an investigation of how indirect CCI is associated with behavioral intentions through the mediating effects of experiential value and restaurant image. It contributes to the literature by examining how the impact of diners’ experiences differs by party type.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".