The Future of Tipping in Hospitality: An Exploratory Study on Consumer Attitude in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study examines the perception of gratuity behaviours in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a nationwide survey, results were analyzed using statistical and cross tabulation analysis and interpreted through a prosocial spending framework to understand consumer behaviour in which food service patrons perceive emotional benefits from the experience. We find tipping is still strongly supported and most do not anticipate this to change. Social expectations of tipping amounts have not changed and remain at 15% (restaurant) and 10% (deliveries). Though most respondents perceive an increase in social expectations during the pandemic, there seems to be a slight decrease in support for tipping with the youngest age range and more supportive of tipping alternatives. Financial impacts of income loss may have contributed to less use of tipped services but does not seem to affect tipping behaviours. With people feeling in control of their own decisions, and perceive it as benefiting others and enabling connection, there is still strong support for tipping as a social norm.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".