International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 786–797

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

The theory of repurchase decision-making (TRD): Identifying the critical factors

in the post-purchase decision-making process
Heesup Han a,1 , Kisang Ryu b,∗
a
Tourism Management, Dong-A University, Bumin-dong, 2 ga, 1 Bungi, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Food Service Management, College of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Sejong University, Gwang Gae to Building #612, 98 Gunja-Dong,
Gwanjin-Gu, Seoul 143-747, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: A theory particularly designed to explain re-buying decision formation is lacking. This research developed
Theory of repurchase decision-making and tested a theory of repurchase decision-making (TRD) that more comprehensively explains individ-
Model of goal-directed behavior uals’ post-purchase decision-making processes. Two studies were conducted in a full-service restaurant
Decision-making
setting for the development of this theory. Specifically, important factors generating the repurchasing
Intention
intention were identified through an exploratory qualitative approach in Study 1. In this qualitative
approach, a new set of belief items and salient referents in a re-buying decision-making process were
also identified. The proposed model merging the model of goal-directed behavior (MGB) with identified
factors and belief constructs from Study 1 were tested in the second study. Our results demonstrated that
incremental amounts of total variance in the re-buying decision were explained by the TRD. Newly inte-
grated constructs in combination with the original variables in the MGB were found to play a critical role
in the re-buying decision-making process. The implications of this study are presented and discussed.
© 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction integrating motivational and affective processes and past behavior

Understanding customers’ decision-making processes to pre-
dict their future intentions and behavior has been the goal of
many psychology, marketing, and consumer-behavior theories
(Han et al., 2010; Han and Kim, 2010). Such decision-making proce-
dures are known to be very complicated (Han and Kim, 2010; Lam
and Hsu, 2006). To accurately predict a wide range of customer
intentions and behaviors, researchers have frequently utilized
volitional components (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), non-volitional
factors (Ajzen, 1985, 1991), and motivational and emotional ele-
ments as determinants (Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001). Indeed, one
of the most widely adopted approaches for the understanding
of the complex customer decision-making process is the use of
such socio-psychological theories as the theory of reasoned action,
theory of planned behavior, and model of goal-directed behavior
(MGB). Specifically, the theory of reasoned action was designed to
explain human intention/behavior mainly focusing on attitude and
subjective norm (volitional factors). The theory of planned behavior
improved it by adding perceived behavioral control (non-volitional
factor). The MGB extended these socio-psychological theories by
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 3408 3219; fax: +82 2 3408 3813.
E-mail addresses: heesup.han@gmail.com (H. Han), kryu11@sejong.ac.kr,
kisang72@hotmail.com (K. Ryu).
1
Tel.: +82 010 9386 1931; fax: +82 051 200 7435.
for the enhancement of predictive ability. These models are gener-
ally thought to constitute a well-developed conceptual framework
contributing to the understanding of the psychological processes of
customers’ decision-making, but questions regarding the efficacy
of these theories have been repeatedly raised (Han et al., 2010; Oh
and Hsu, 2001; Taylor et al., 2009).
In this research, we particularly sought to understand the phe-
nomenon of re-buying decision-making based on the belief that
inducing repetitive business is the key to a firm’s long-term suc-
cess (Han and Kim, 2010; Lewis and Chambers, 2000). Efforts
were made to apply the existing socio-psychological models to
comprehend customers’ repurchasing decision formation (e.g.,
Bansal and Taylor, 1999; Han and Kim, 2010), but such stud-
ies mainly focus on volitional and non-volitional elements while
less considering the motivational element and affective/emotional
aspects, which are central in repurchase decision-making (Han
and Back, 2007; Phillips, 1999). In addition, although motiva-
tional and affective/emotional elements were reflected in these
models (e.g., Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006; Perugini and Bagozzi,
2001; Poels and Dewitte, 2008; Taylor et al., 2009), many pre-
vious studies frequently employed theoretical and conceptual
justifications/approaches mainly based on literature reviews for
the development or extension of the socio-psychological theory.
An appropriate qualitative exploratory approach that identifies
critical constructs in customers’ re-buying intention formation
was ignored in the previous studies. Such exploratory qualitative

0278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.09.015
 H. Han, K. Ryu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 786–797
application is necessary to better comprehend customers’ post pur-
chase decision-making process in that it includes actual customers’
opinions related to their re-buying decisions. Further, belief con-
structs, which are critical parts of decision formation (Han and
Kim, 2010; Lam and Hsu, 2004, 2006; Lee and Back, 2007, 2009),
were often overlooked. Overall, the socio-psychological models
extended or developed in the previous studies continue to lack
comprehensiveness. Existing theories involving motivational and
affective components generally targeted broad decision forma-
tion. A limited number of theories were specifically designed to
comprehend an individual’s re-buying decision-making process.
Such process for repurchasing is different from the overall deci-
sion formation that overlooks the difference between pre and
post purchase decision-making processes. For instance, researchers
repeatedly emphasize the significance of satisfaction, quality,
switching costs, and commitment in explaining repurchase inten-
tion/behavior (Han and Ryu, 2009; Jones et al., 2000; Ok et al., 2005;
Ryu et al., 2008). It is not possible for customers to have/perceive a
certain level of satisfaction, service quality, switching costs, and
commitment before they actually experience a product/service
(Han and Kim, 2010; Jones et al., 2007). Unlike customers’ deci-
sion formation for a new product/service, such essential variables
should be considered to gain a better understanding of their repeat
purchase decision-making process. In addition, Han et al. (2011)
verified the differences in decision formation between experienced
and inexperienced customer groups in eco-friendly hospitality
product consumption.
Overall, the present research pursued two main goals by
broadening and deepening the existing socio-psychological the-
ory to better explain re-buying decision formation in a full-service
restaurant setting. First, the current work attempted to identify
factors contributing to the formation of a re-buying intention
and to obtain a new set of belief items and salient refer-
ents in a post-purchase decision-making process through an
exploratory qualitative approach (Study 1). Second, the present
research aimed to develop a more comprehensive theory of
repurchase decision-making (TRD) specifically designed to explain
full-service restaurant customers’ post-purchase decision-making
process (Study 2). In order to achieve a theory that better accounts
for repurchase decisions, this study integrated beliefs constructs
(behavioral, normative, and control) and essential variables for re-
buying decisions from the qualitative approach into the MGB while
taking its original variables into account.
2. Literature review
2.1. Model of goal-directed behavior
The theory of reasoned action was designed to account for
the human decision formation (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). This
theory involving behavioral and normative beliefs, attitude, and
subjective norms as antecedents of intention focuses mainly on
an individual’s volitional efforts for a specific decision/behavior
(Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen, 1991, 2011). However, the major
limitation of this theory is the ignorance of non-volitional control
(e.g., requisite opportunities and resources) in explaining human
decision-making process/behavior (Lee and Back, 2007; Oh and
Hsu, 2001). That is, the perceived presence/absence of resources
and opportunities, which are not easily controllable, often facili-
tate/impede performance of a specific behavior in many situations
(Han et al., 2010; Lee and Back, 2007). The prediction using this the-
ory is precise only when the specific behavior is completely under
volitional control (e.g., Han et al., 2010; Lee and Back, 2007; Oh and
Hsu, 2001).
787
As an extension of the theory of reasoned action, the theory
of planned behavior was developed to predict purposive human
behavior more accurately. Specifically, the theory of planned
behavior predicts an individual’s intention/behavior by considering
not only volitional factors (attitude and subjective norm) but a non-
volitional factor (perceived behavioral control). In other words, the
theory of planned behavior posits that an individual’s behavior is
governed by favorable/unfavorable personal attitudes toward the
behavior, by social pressure exerted to engage in the behavior, and
by a personal perception of the ease or difficulty in performing
the behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen, 1991, 2011). How-
ever, while researchers agree that the theory of planned behavior
provides a parsimonious account of the human decision-making
process and behavior, they have questioned its sufficiency (e.g.,
Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006; Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001; Poels and
Dewitte, 2008; Taylor et al., 2009). Particularly, the main weakness
of the theory of planned behavior is that the motivational pro-
cess (desires), affective process (positive and negative anticipated
emotions), and past behavior that are critical factors in explain-
ing decision-making process were not considered in this theory
(Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006; Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001; Poels
and Dewitte, 2008; Taylor et al., 2009). In other words, this theory
fails to consider how an individual’s decision/action becomes moti-
vated/energized not incorporating precise motivational content
required to stimulate intention to behavior, to consider affective
consequences of both achieving and not achieving a goal-directed
decision/behavior, and to take into account past experiences to a
specific action. Therefore, to satisfy the need of improvement of
the theory of planned behavior, the MGB was proposed and tested
by Perugini and Bagozzi (2001). The MGB increases the explana-
tory ability, addressing problematic issues in the theory of planned
behavior and incorporating several essential constructs for better
prediction of human decision-making and behavior (e.g., Bagozzi
and Dholakia, 2006; Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001; Poels and Dewitte,
2008; Taylor et al., 2009). There are several notable improvements
in the MGB. First, the MGB incorporates desire as the most prox-
imal determinant of decision and behavior. Providing evidence of
the role of desire in intention formation, researchers demonstrated
that desire acts as a mediator in the proposed relationships among
the theoretical variables, and intention is a direct function of this
variable (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006; Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001;
Poels and Dewitte, 2008; Taylor et al., 2009). Second, anticipated
positive and negative emotions are included in the MGB. Perugini
and Bagozzi (2001) indicated that these emotions possibly arise
when an individual assesses the consequences of attaining or not
attaining a specific goal. Researchers empirically demonstrated that
positive and negative anticipated emotions contribute to generat-
ing/reducing an individual’s desire to conduct a particular behavior
in a decision-making process (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006; Lee
et al., 2012; Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001; Poels and Dewitte, 2008;
Taylor et al., 2009). Third, the MGB includes past behavior for the
prediction of future human behavior. Past behavior is believed to be
a significant impetus for human decision formation (Perugini and
Bagozzi, 2001; Ouellette and Wood, 1998). Researchers in previous
studies empirically identified that frequency of past behavior have
a critical role in forming an individual’s intention to act in various
contexts (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006; Lee et al., 2012; Perugini
and Bagozzi, 2001; Poels and Dewitte, 2008; Ryu and Jang, 2006;
Taylor et al., 2009). Compared to the theory of planned behavior’s,
the MGB’s superior predictive power over human behavior has been
demonstrated in recent studies in a variety of settings (e.g., Perugini
and Bagozzi, 2001; Poels and Dewitte, 2008; Taylor et al., 2009).
The elements of the MGB warrant individual notice. In the MGB,
attitude, “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluat-
ing a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor” (Eagly
and Chaiken, 1993, p. 1), indirectly affects intention through desire,
788 H. Han, K. Ryu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 786–797
while subjective norm, which refers to an individual’s perceived
social pressure to conduct or not conduct a certain behavior (Ajzen,
1991), has a direct impact on desire and an indirect impact on
intention through desire. Perceived behavioral control, which indi-
cates a person’s understanding of the ease or difficulty of carrying
out a particular behavior (Ajzen, 1991), directly affects desire and
indirectly induces intention (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006; Perugini
and Bagozzi, 2001; Poels and Dewitte, 2008; Prestwich et al., 2008;
Taylor et al., 2009). That is, the roles of the variables adopted from
the theory of planned behavior were redefined in the MGB, increas-
ing its predictive power.
2.2. Derivation of the theory of repurchase decision-making
In the MGB, although some original predictors of inten-
tion/behavior in the theory of planned behavior (i.e., attitude,
subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control) were retained,
critical variables that induce such predictors were not inte-
grated (i.e., behavioral, normative, and control beliefs). To better
understand the role of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived
behavioral control, eliciting and assessing the behavioral, norma-
tive, and control beliefs are necessary (Ajzen, 2011). Behavioral
beliefs refer to a subjective probability of the occurrence of the
expected outcomes/benefits by engaging in the behavior, and out-
come evaluation indicates a subjective assessment/value of the
possible outcomes (Ajzen, 1991, 2011). Normative beliefs can be
described as perceived behavioral expectations of an individual’s
salient referents, and motivation to comply indicates his/her desire
to comply with the wishes of his/her important referents about the
behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Control beliefs
refer to one’s perceived presence or absence of factors facilitating
or hindering the behavior, and perceived power can be defined as
his/her appraisal of the significance of these factors (Ajzen, 1991;
Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Previous studies employing the theory of
reasoned action/theory of planned behavior identified these vari-
ables as exerting a critical role in explaining the pre/post-purchase
decision-making processes (e.g., Han and Kim, 2010; Lam and Hsu,
2004, 2006; Lee and Back, 2007, 2009).
In addition, the MGB involving volitional, non-volitional, emo-
tional, and motivational elements showed substantially improved
predictive capacity over the theory of planned behavior. However,
although this theory is superior to the theory of planned behav-
ior, its sufficiency in explaining post-purchase decision-making
processes is still questionable. The MGB seeks to account for
general decision formation and action. The theory’s ability to pre-
dict a specific post-purchase behavior has never been tested. In
other words, factors affecting a re-buying decision/behavior are
not wholly considered in the MGB. For instance, there is grow-
ing empirical evidence that customer satisfaction, service quality,
switching costs, and image are imperative in explaining a cus-
tomer’s a post-purchase decision-making process (e.g., Han and
Ryu, 2009; Jones et al., 2000; Ok et al., 2005; Ryu et al., 2008). These
studies emphasized the significance of such variables in forming
re-buying intentions and behaviors. Yet, none of these critical vari-
ables in post-purchase decision formation is adequately delineated
in the MGB.
The TRD specifically addresses these issues by broadening and
deepening the MGB. Particularly, the TRD adds beliefs constructs
as determinants of the predictors of desire (attitude, subjective
norm, and perceived behavioral control) and integrates the impor-
tant identified factors that are fundamental in re-buying decision
formation through a qualitative approach for the enhancement
of predictive ability in the re-buying decision-making process
(see Study 1). Fig. 1 presents the TRD. This theory proposes
that attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control
derive from behavioral, normative, and control beliefs, respectively.
Positive and negative anticipated emotions are posited to be out-
comes of overall image and to be, along with behavioral beliefs, a
determinant of customer satisfaction. Switching costs, desire, and
commitment are assumed to be directly affected by satisfaction.
Desire is also predicted to be an outcome of attitude, subjective
norm, perceived behavioral control, and frequency of past behav-
ior. Finally, switching costs, desire, commitment, and frequency of
past behavior are taken to be direct predictors of the re-buying
intention.
The variables integrated into the TRD satisfy Ajzen’s (1991)
requirements for the enhancement of the socio-psychological
model. Specifically, the added constructs do not overlap conceptu-
ally with other existing variables in the MGB. In addition, based on
the previous literature, these constructs can be regarded as imper-
ative causal factors determining one’s re-buying decision (e.g., Han
and Ryu, 2009; Jones et al., 2000; Ok et al., 2005; Ryu et al., 2008).
Further, the integrated variables are potentially applicable to a
wide range of post-purchase decision-making processes/behaviors
in various contexts.
3. Study 1
Two studies were conducted to test our predictions. In Study
1, a qualitative exploratory approach was employed to identify
essential constructs in customers’ re-buying intention formation.
Another objective of the qualitative approach was to obtain a new
set of belief items and salient referents. According to Ajzen (2011)
and Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), an elicitation study (e.g., an open-
ended survey or focus group) is necessary to construct an adequate
questionnaire for a specific behavior and population of interest.
Research procedures followed Maxwell’s (2005) recommended
guidelines for qualitative research involving data collection, data
analysis, and quality judgment. In the following section, we began
with the research methodology involving questionnaire develop-
ment and open-ended survey procedures. Next, results involving
unit of analysis and categorization were discussed. The explication
of the identified constructs was then presented.
3.1. Methodology
An open-ended questionnaire was developed and refined based
on a literature review and a focus group. Both academic and
industry professionals who are familiar with the topic area and
regular customers who frequently dine at full-service restaurants
were included in the focus group. This process with hospital-
ity experts and actual customers (target audience) contributed
to generating questions for behavioral beliefs (i.e., salient out-
comes) (“What do you believe will be the benefits of revisiting the
restaurant to dine?”), control beliefs (i.e., control factors) (“What
do you believe are factors that would facilitate/inhibit your deci-
sion to revisit the restaurant to dine?”), and salient referents
(“Are there any groups or people who might influence your deci-
sion to revisit the restaurant to dine?”) and for identification
of the factors affecting customers’ repurchase intention (“If you
decide to revisit the restaurant, what will be the reason(s) beyond
those stated in your answers for the first three questions?”). In
addition, the focus group participants actually filled out these open-
ended questions to evaluate whether the instruments could be
clearly understood by respondents. Further, a pre-test with grad-
uate students and faculty members was conducted to refine the
research instrument and to ensure the effectiveness of the survey
questionnaire.
A web-based survey was conducted to collect the data. The
questionnaire was electronically distributed to 1000 randomly
selected general U.S. full-service restaurant customers by an online
 H. Han, K. Ryu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 786–797 789

Behavioral
Beliefs Attitude

Frequency
of Past
Behavior
Positive Switching
Anticipated Costs
Emotion

Overall Customer Re-buying

Image Satisfaction Desire Intention

Negative Commit-
Anticipated ment
Emotion

Normative Subjective
Note 1. Behavioral and normative beliefs, attitude,
Beliefs Norm subjective norm, and intention in the model are the
original variables of the theory of reasoned action.
Note 2. Behavioral, normative, and control beliefs,
attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control,
Control Perceived and intention in the model are the original variables of
Beliefs Behavioral the theory of planned behavior.
Control Note 3. Attitude, positive and negative anticipated
emotions, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control,
desire, frequency of past behavior, and intention in the
model are the original variables of the MGB.
Note 4. Behavioral, normative, and control beliefs,
overall image, customer satisfaction, switching costs,
and commitment in this figure were added in the original
MGB. In addition, paths from positive and negative
anticipated emotions to desire were excluded from the
original MGB.
Note 5. The solid lines indicate the paths in the original
MGB, and the dotted arrows indicate the paths newly
included.

Fig. 1. Theory of repurchase decision-making. Note 1. Behavioral and normative beliefs, attitude, subjective norm, and intention in the model are the original variables of
the theory of reasoned action. Note 2. Behavioral, normative, and control beliefs, attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and intention in the model are
the original variables of the theory of planned behavior. Note 3. Attitude, positive and negative anticipated emotions, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, desire,
frequency of past behavior, and intention in the model are the original variables of the MGB. Note 4. Behavioral, normative, and control beliefs, overall image, customer
satisfaction, switching costs, and commitment in this figure were added in the original MGB. In addition, paths from positive and negative anticipated emotions to desire
were excluded from the original MGB. Note 5. The solid lines indicate the paths in the original MGB, and the dotted arrows indicate the paths newly included.

market research firm. The survey was initiated with a brief and
broadly stated explanation of the study. Respondents were asked to
indicate the full-service restaurant that they visited most recently.
Afterward, respondents were asked to complete questions for
behavioral beliefs (i.e., salient outcomes), control beliefs, and
salient referents. Further, they were asked to answer a question
to identify factors affecting their re-buying intentions.
A total of 124 questionnaires were completed for a response
rate of 12.4%. The mean age of the survey participants was 41.22
years old. About 54.5% of the respondents were female, and 45.5%
were male. Approximately 75.9% of the participants indicated their
dining experience had occurred within the last month. Among the
124 responses, judges removed 12 responses which were found to
be vague and/or marred by imprecise descriptions as it can usually
be assumed that the information from such responses is inaccurate
(Keaveney, 1995). The data screening resulted in a final sample of
112.
3.2. Results
The data collected through the open-ended survey were ana-
lyzed using units of analysis and categorization. Qualitative
researchers usually define each sentence as a unit of analysis, and
then categorize it into several predefined categories when using
open-ended questions (Bergadaa, 1990; Spiggle, 1994). Determin-
ing the appropriate unit of analysis was the first step in the data
analysis. During the coding of responses, the independence of
judges was preserved to ensure autonomous and honest judgments
free from outside influence (Kolbe and Burnett, 1991). Thus, two
judges independently coded the responses. For example, if a sur-
vey participant stated “My previous experience at the restaurant
was satisfactory” when answering the question for identification of
factors affecting re-buying intention, it was coded as “satisfaction”.
That is, satisfaction works as an influencing factor on re-buying
intention. Upon completing the unit of analysis coding task, the two
790 H. Han, K. Ryu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 786–797
judges compared their decisions for each response, and resolved
any disagreements. The next step was to sort the units into cate-
gories. As Spiggle (1994) succinctly summarized, “The essence of
categorization is identifying a chunk or unit of data (e.g., a passage
of text of any length) as belonging to, representing, or being an
example of some more general phenomenon” (p. 493). A passage
categorized with a specific label involved a few words. The two
judges developed categories based on the results of the unit of anal-
ysis and prior literature, and independently categorized the units
into the categories. Disagreements were handled by discussion.
In the process of coding and categorizing open-ended questions,
evaluation of interjudge reliability is considered a critical issue
(Leiva et al., 2006). Indeed, numerous researchers have agreed that
the estimation of the coding process’s reliability should be explic-
itly included in all marketing/consumer-behavior research reports
(Leiva et al., 2006; Perreault and Leigh, 1989). Since Perreault and
Leigh’s (1989) coefficient (Ir ) shows a higher adequacy in mar-
keting research (Leiva et al., 2006), Perreault and Leigh’s (1989)
method was employed to assess interjudge reliability. Based on the
observed proportion of agreement between the judges and the total
number of categories developed, Perreault and Leigh’s (1989) coef-
ficient (Ir ) was assessed. The values were all above .90, showing an
adequate level of interjudge reliability (Perreault and Leigh, 1989).
Overall, this procedure provided nine categories of behavioral
beliefs (i.e., particular quality foods, menu and food selections, qual-
ity facilities and atmosphere, reduced expense, good value for price,
efficient and reliable service, clean and comfortable environment,
comfortable interaction with staff, and special treatment and atten-
tion from staff), three categories of control beliefs (i.e., location,
cost, others’ preferences), and three categories of salient referents
(i.e., family/relatives, friends, and co-workers/colleagues).
This qualitative procedure also provided four major categories
of reasons spurring re-buying decisions (i.e., satisfaction, switch-
ing costs, overall image, and commitment). The first set of reasons
for repurchase decisions reported by respondents can be described
as satisfaction. Many respondents indicated satisfactory over-
all experiences at the restaurant (e.g., “My previous experience
at this restaurant was satisfactory”). Several respondents men-
tioned satisfactory core and service encounter performances (e.g.,
“Employee performances were satisfactory meeting my needs and
wants”, and “Quality of foods was satisfactory”). Some mentioned
evaluation related to discrepancy between their expectation and
product/service performances (e.g., “As I expected, my experiences
at this restaurant were great”, and “I was satisfied at this restaurant
– everything including services and foods was much better than I
thought”). Overall, a total of 50.60% of the participants mentioned
satisfaction. This finding is consistent with what other scholars
suggested. Many researchers indicated that customer satisfaction
is considered an essential concept in marketing and consumer
behavior in that satisfying customers’ needs and wants largely
determines their post-purchase decision-making and retention
processes, which are highly associated with a firm’s success (Han
and Ryu, 2009; Hunt, 1977; Oliver, 1997). Hunt (1977) described
customer satisfaction as “an evaluation rendered that the consump-
tion experience was at least as good as it was supposed to be” (p.
495). Similarly, Oliver (1997) described it as an overall evaluation
process of the discrepancy between the expectations for consump-
tion experiences and the corresponding actual product and/or
service performances. While the conceptualization of customer
satisfaction varies, there is general agreement that an evaluation
process of product/consumption experiences is a central part of
satisfaction (Han and Ryu, 2009; Hunt, 1977). Researchers agree
that customer satisfaction, in combination with many other vari-
ables, has a critical role when explicating customers’ post-purchase
decision-making processes and behavior (Henning-Thurau et al.,
2002; Jones et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2001; Perugini and Bagozzi,
2004; Ranaweera and Prabhu, 2003). Kim et al. (2001) identified a
positive association with satisfaction and commitment, and noted
that such a relationship contributed to building behavioral inten-
tion in a hotel setting. Henning-Thurau et al. (2002) demonstrated
the positive relationship between satisfaction and commitment
and identified these variables as important drivers of behavioral
intention. When describing desire as a motivation to perform a
particular action to achieve a goal, Perugini and Bagozzi (2004)
indicated that desire forms based on the integration of various
sources of appraisals (e.g., evaluative and emotional). Such indi-
cation implies that satisfaction as an evaluation process can induce
an individual’s motivation or desire to perform a specific behav-
ior. In addition, researchers in previous studies have identified the
significant association between satisfaction and switching costs,
and the importance of such a relationship in decision-making (e.g.,
Jones et al., 2000; Ranaweera and Prabhu, 2003). Customer satisfac-
tion is generally considered to be an intervening construct in model
development, which mediates the impact of its antecedent(s) on its
outcome variable(s) (Han and Back, 2007; Phillips, 1999; Ryu et al.,
2008). That is, when satisfaction is involved, its antecedent(s) indi-
rectly affects its dependent variable(s). Han and Back (2007) and
Phillips (1999) demonstrated that satisfaction completely medi-
ated the impact of customers’ emotional responses on its outcome
variable in decision formation.
The second set of reasons for rebuying emerging from the data
analysis involves costs/economic considerations related to switch-
ing. The first type of considerations relates to monetary switching
costs. Many respondents mentioned financial loss related to
switching (e.g., “I have a membership which is not available in
other restaurants”, “It will be costly to change”, and “I should use
gift certificate or coupon for the next visit”). In addition to mone-
tary costs for switching, non-monetary costs related to switching
were identified. Several respondents indicated time/effort costs
and convenience loss (e.g., “It would be inconvenient to search
and find a better one”, and “It takes time/effort to search and
find a good restaurant”). Overall, monetary and non-monetary
switching costs were mentioned by 38.32%. Respondents’ descrip-
tions about switching costs are consistent with previous studies.
Researchers generally agree that switching costs involve both mon-
etary and non-monetary costs (i.e., time, effort, convenience loss,
and psychological costs) (Balabanis et al., 2006; Dick and Basu,
1994; Ranaweera and Prabhu, 2003; Sharma and Patterson, 2000).
Monetary costs, which are also described as economic or financial
costs in the literature (e.g., Balabanis et al., 2006; Ranaweera and
Prabhu, 2003; Sharma and Patterson, 2000), refer to sunk costs that
appear when customers switch their service provider (i.e., actual
financial expenses and losses of financial benefits) (Aydin et al.,
2005; Klemperer, 1987). Non-monetary costs involve time/effort
costs (e.g., search/setup costs and other physical costs), conve-
nience loss, and psychological costs (perceived risks). It would be
true that changing from the current service provider to a new ser-
vice provider requires an investment of time, effort, and monetary
expenses as well as a high degree of perceived risk (Balabanis et al.,
2006; Dick and Basu, 1994). Thus, switching costs act as a facilita-
tor for re-buying, preventing customers from leaving the current
relationship (Colgate and Lang, 2001).
The third category reported by respondents can be described as
overall image. Many participants indicated that they are willing to
revisit the restaurant because of favorable overall image (e.g., “The
restaurant has a good image”, “Compared to other restaurants, the
overall image I have about this brand is better”, and “Overall image
I have about dining at this restaurant is positive”). Some mentioned
good perception about the restaurant (e.g., “Overall, I have a favor-
able perception and view about this restaurant and its attributes”).
In sum, image was mentioned by 20.90%. Image and its concept
have been frequently mentioned in the marketing and consumer
 H. Han, K. Ryu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 786–797
behavior literature. Assael (1984) described overall image as an
individual’s entire perception of a particular product/firm formed
through the processing of information from various sources. Con-
sistent with this description, Han and Kim (2010) conceptualized
overall image as customers’ total perceptions of a product/firm
and its salient attributes formed out of vicarious knowledge and
from various information sources about them. Researchers gen-
erally agree that the overall image of a specific product/service
mainly forms through a cognitive/perceptual process (Assael, 1984;
Bloemer and de Ruyter, 1998; Han and Kim, 2010). The importance
of a firm’s overall image has been emphasized in many marketing
and consumer-behavior studies because of its critical role in cus-
tomers’ decision-making processes (Han and Back, 2008; Han and
Kim, 2010; Ryu et al., 2008). Han and Back (2008) indicated that
image as a cognitive process generates positive/negative emotional
responses. Oliver (1997) stated that cognition, such as a customers’
image about a product or firm, directly influences his or her affec-
tive/emotional state in decision formation, and such relationships
contribute to inducing their satisfactory experiences and favorable
intentions toward a firm.
The final category of reasons for repurchase decisions identi-
fied relates to commitment. Many respondents mentioned good
relationship with the restaurant and employees (e.g., “I’d like to
continue a good relationship with several service staff in this
restaurant. I like them”, and “I just want to maintain a good rela-
tionship with this nice restaurant and its employees”). Several
participants directly indicated the word, commitment, for their rea-
son of revisiting the restaurant (e.g., “I am very committed in this
restaurant. I am willing to put my efforts to eat at this restaurant”).
Overall, commitment was described by 12.5%. This result is consis-
tent with what other scholars suggested in the previous literature.
Moorman et al. (1992) described commitment as “an enduring
desire to maintain a valued relationship” (p. 316). Likewise, Brown
et al. (2005) defined it as “an enduring desire to maintain a rela-
tionship with a specific entity” (p. 126). According to Reichheld and
Sasser (1990) and Sharma and Patterson (2000), under a committed
relationship, customers are less likely to seek alternatives and more
likely to put their maximum efforts into remaining with the exist-
ing partner. In this regard, commitment is believed to be a critical
factor for building a valued long-term relationship (Brown et al.,
2005; Moorman et al., 1992; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Researchers
in previous studies have identified the critical role of commitment
in forming behavioral intention. Brown et al. (2005) noted the
impact of commitment on intention and behavior, while Ok et al.
(2005) empirically verified that commitment generates customers’
favorable behavioral intentions for a firm.
Some participants’ descriptions were associated with good
quality of service and physical environment, high value, and
healthy/delicious foods. However, these factors (outcomes/benefits
maintained by engaging in the behavior) were not included in the
major categories in that these can be regarded as aspects of behav-
ioral beliefs (Ajzen, 1991). Several participants mentioned “others’
preferences,” referring to those who frequently accompany them
when dining out (and which comprise non-volitional factors facil-
itating the decision to perform the behavior), which can be part of
control beliefs (Ajzen, 1991), and therefore also were not included
in the categories.
4. Study 2
The aim of Study 2 was to empirically test a proposed TRD
particularly designed to explain customers’ decision-making pro-
cesses for repurchasing. Given the evidence discussed in the
previous section, it seems appropriate to integrate the identified
critical variables of explaining repurchase behavior along with
791
beliefs constructs into a unified theoretical model designed to
explain re-buying decision formation for ensuring a sounder the-
oretical underpinning. In the next section, research methods are
introduced. The statistical results obtained from the quantitative
analysis are then presented. After the results section, a general
discussion based on the findings from Studies 1 and 2 are provided.
4.1. Methodology
4.1.1. Measures for study variables
A multi-item measure using a 7-point Likert type scale, com-
posed of all identified elements of belief constructs, salient
referents, and reasons for re-buying decisions from the first sur-
vey, was developed (see Table 1). Questions were based on the
previous literature and the participants’ information provided in
response to the open-ended question. Specifically, nine items were
used for behavioral beliefs and outcome evaluations, respectively.
In addition, three items were employed for normative beliefs
and motivation to comply, respectively. Furthermore, three items
were used for control beliefs and perceived power, respectively.
As suggested by Ajzen (1991) and Ajzen and Fishbein (1980),
measurement items for behavioral, normative, and control beliefs
were multiplicatively combined with their corresponding evalua-
tive components (i.e., items for outcome evaluations, motivation to
comply, and perceived power). In addition, based on the previous
literature, 13 questions were developed to assess the identified rea-
sons for re-buying decisions. In particular, three items were used
for satisfaction, overall image, and commitment, respectively, and
four items were employed for switching costs. For other study vari-
ables in the proposed model (i.e., attitude, positive and negative
anticipated emotions, subjective norm, perceived behavioral con-
trol, desire, frequency of past behavior, and re-buying intention),
existing validated measures were slightly modified for use in a
questionnaire adequate in a full-service restaurant setting. Specif-
ically, seven items and a 7-point semantic differential scale were
used to measure attitude. Four items were employed to assess posi-
tive anticipated emotion. Six items were used to measure negative
anticipated emotion. Three items were employed for the assess-
ment of subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, desire, and
re-buying intention, respectively. Finally, frequency of past behav-
ior was assessed with a single item using a frequency category.
The questionnaire was pre-tested by academics in hospitality man-
agement. The questionnaire was also sent to restaurant managers
and hospitality professionals to solicit opinions on the content and
wording of the instrument to assess face validity. Modifications
were made based on their feedback.
4.1.2. Data collection and demographic profile
A web-based survey was employed. The questionnaire was
transmitted by e-mail to 3000 general U.S. full-service restaurant
customers randomly chosen from an e-mail list by an online mar-
ket research firm. Survey participants were requested to indicate
the name of the full-service restaurant that they had visited most
recently and were asked to complete questions based on their
experiences at the restaurant they had indicated. A total of 330
complete responses were received from the participants (response
rate = 11.00%). Among these, five extreme outliers were removed
based on the results of the test for multivariate outliers. According
to recency bias theory, more recent events/memories are eas-
ier to discriminate (Crowder, 1976). In addition, Keaveney (1995)
indicated that the timeframe given (6 months) would be recent
enough to reliably recall the service experiences. Thus, of these,
317 responses from participants who had dined in a full-service
restaurant within the last 6 months were used in further analyses.
A total of 53.5% of the respondents were female, and 46.5% were
male. Their average age was 42.23 years. About 58.9% described
792 H. Han, K. Ryu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 786–797

Table 1 Table 1 (Continued )

Measurement items, standardized loadings, and composite reliability.
Variables and measurement items Standardized Composite
Variables and measurement items Standardized Composite (sources) loadinga reliability
(sources) loadinga reliability
My decision to dine at this restaurant was .87
Behavioral beliefs (Han et al., 2010; Han .903 a wise one.
and Kim, 2010; Lam and Hsu, 2004; Oh, As a whole, I have really enjoyed myself at .95
2000) this restaurant.
Revisiting this restaurant to dine would Negative anticipated emotion (Perugini .937
enable me to – and Bagozzi, 2001)
Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7) If I succeed in achieving my goal of
Eat particular quality foods that I am .77 (revisiting the restaurant to dine) over the
partial to. next 3 months, I will feel –
Enjoy the menu and food selections. .59 Not at all (1)/Very Much (7)
Enjoy high quality facilities and .65 Angry .75
décor/atmosphere. Frustrated .84
Have a reduced expense through .63 Sad .86
membership services or gift certificates. Disappointed .82
Enjoy good value for the price. .66 Depressed .90
Experience efficient and reliable service. .95 Uncomfortable .89
Dine in a clean and comfortable .79 Subjective norm (Perugini and Bagozzi, .936
environment. 2001)
Enjoy comfortable interactions with staff. .67 Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7)
Enjoy such benefits as special treatment .68 Most people who are important to me .91
and attention from staff. think I should revisit this restaurant to
Overall image (Han et al., 2009b; Baloglu .893 dine.
and McCleary, 1999) Most people who are important to me .87
Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7) would want me to revisit this restaurant to
My overall image for dining at this .87 dine.
restaurant is positive. People whose opinions I value would .95
The overall image I have about this .91 prefer me to revisit this restaurant to dine.
restaurant is favorable. Perceived behavioral control (Perugini .884
Overall, I have a good image about this .79 and Bagozzi, 2001)
restaurant for dining out. How much control do you have over
Normative beliefs (Han and Kim, 2010; .885 revisiting this restaurant in order to dine
Lam and Hsu, 2004) during the next 3 months?
Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7) No control (1)–Full control (7) .84
My family (or relatives) think I should .69 For me to revisit this restaurant during the
revisit this restaurant when dining out. next 3 months in order to dine is –
My friends think I should revisit this .88 Difficult (1)–Easy (7) .86
restaurant when dining out. If I want to, it would be easy for me to
My co-workers (or colleagues) think I .96 revisit this restaurant in order to dine.
should revisit this restaurant when dining Very unlikely (1)–Very likely (7) .84
out. Switching costs (Han et al., 2009a; Jones .920
Control beliefs (Han and Kim, 2010; Lam .895 et al., 2000)
and Hsu, 2004) Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7)
Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7) If I switch to a new restaurant, I could not .80
Dining at this restaurant is expensive. .81 use the services and benefits of this
The location of this restaurant is .88 restaurant, such as membership services
inconvenient. and gift certificates.
Family/friends/co-workers/others who .89 Switching to another restaurant will .83
frequently accompany with me when increase monetary costs, such as paying a
dining out encourage me to dine at another higher price for food or drinks.
restaurant. For me, the costs in time and effort to .91
Attitude (Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001) .942 switch to another restaurant are high.
I think that revisiting this restaurant to In general, it would be inconvenient and a .90
dine during the next 3 months will be – hassle to switch to another restaurant.
Disadvantageous (1)–Advantageous (7) .71 Desire (Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001) .935
Foolish (1)–Wise (7) .70 I desire to revisit this restaurant in the next .91
Unpleasant (1)–Pleasant (7) .88 3 months in order to dine.
Joyless (1)–Joyful (7) .90 False (1)–True (7)
Boring (1)–Exciting (7) .87 My desire for revisiting this restaurant in .90
Unattractive (1)–Attractive (7) .85 the next 3 months in order to dine is –
Unenjoyable (1)–Enjoyable (7) .92 Very weak (1)–Very strong (7)
Positive anticipated emotion (Perugini .926 I want to revisit this restaurant in the next .92
and Bagozzi, 2001) 3 months to dine.
If I succeed in achieving my goal of False (1)–True (7)
(revisiting the restaurant to dine) over the Commitment (Morgan and Hunt, 1994) .922
next 3 months, I will feel – Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7)
Not at all (1)/Very Much (7) I am very committed in this restaurant. .86
Excited .87 I will definitely maintain a relationship .91
Delighted .92 with this restaurant.
Happy .94 I think this restaurant deserves my effort .91
Glad .74 to maintain a relationship.
Customer satisfaction (Oliver, 1980; .938 Frequency of past behavior (Lam and Hsu,
Oliver and Swan, 1989) 2004; Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001)
Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7) Seldom (1)/Occasionally (4)/Frequently (7)
Overall, I am satisfied with my experience .92 How often have you visited this restaurant
at this restaurant. during the past 1 year?
 H. Han, K. Ryu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 786–797 793

Table 1 (Continued )

Note 3. BB, behavioral beliefs; OE, outcome evaluation; NB, normative beliefs; MC, motivation to comply; CB, control beliefs; PP, perceived power; PAE, positive anticipated emotion; CS, customer satisfaction; NAE, negative
.878

1.093
5.080

Note 4. Frequency of past behavior was not included in the table since frequency of past behavior was measured by using a single item. Mean and SD values for frequency of past behavior were 4.968 and 1.140, respectively.
Variables and measurement items Standardized Composite

RI
(sources) loadinga reliability

Commitment

.782 (.612)
Re-buying intention (Maxham and .956
Netemeyer, 2002; Perugini and Bagozzi,
2001)

.799

5.031
1.036
Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7)
I am planning to dine at this restaurant .96
during the next 3 months

.751 (.564)
.769 (.591)
I intend to dine at this restaurant during .94
the next 3 months.

Desire

.828

4.991
1.023
I will expend effort on revisiting this .91
restaurant to dine during the next 3
months.

.717 (.514)
.766 (.587)
.636 (.404)
Note: Loading and reliability values for frequency of past behavior were not included
in the table since frequency of past behavior was measured by using a single item.

.742

.982
4.805
a
All factor loadings are significant at (p < .01).

SC

.534 (.285)
.767 (.588)
.642 (.412)
.655 (.429)
experiences at a restaurant they had visited within the past week,
and 77.9% had visited the restaurant within the last 1 month. The

.717

.938
5.054
PBC
respondents’ education level was relatively high. Approximately
86.0% of the participants had a higher-education degree. While

.773 (.598)
.687 (.472)
.663 (.440)
.620 (.384)

.704 (.496)
about 25.2% of the participants indicated their household income
was greater than $70,000, a majority of the participants indicated

.829

4.946
.971
their household income to be $69,999 (74.8%) or less.

SN
4.2. Results

−.359 (.129)

−.352 (.124)
−.284 (.081)
−.246 (.061)
−.350 (.123)
−.330 (.109)
4.2.1. Measurement model

.714

1.963
1.006
The collected data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows 11.0 NAE

Note 1. Goodness-of-fit statistics: 2 = 5099.369 (df = 1444, p < .001), RMSEA = .076, CFI = .904, NFI = .890, RMR = .046, NNFI = .903.
and AMOS 5. Before testing the structural model, Anderson and

−.351 (.123)
.654 (.428)
.614 (.377)
.499 (.249)
.733 (.537)
.619 (.383)
.581 (.338)
Gerbing’s (1988) confirmatory factor analytic approach was used

anticipated emotion; SN, subjective norm; PBC, perceived behavioral control; SC, switching costs; RI, re-buying intention.
to assess the reliability and validity of the scale. The fit statistics

.835

5.138
1.003
of the measurement model showed an acceptable measure-
CS

ment model fit (2 = 5099.369, df = 1444, p < .001, RMSEA = .076,

.442 (.195)

.499 (.249)

.377 (.142)
.463 (.214)
.471 (.222)
−.277 (.077)

.452 (.204)
.304 (.092)
CFI = .904, NFI = .890, RMR = .046, NNFI = .903). The results sup-
ported internal consistency among the items for each construct as
.759

.923
5.068
values for composite reliability ranged from .884 to .942, exceeding
PAE

the suggested threshold of .60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). As shown in

Table 2, all AVE values were greater than .50, providing evidence of
.459 (.211)
.537 (.288)
−.351 (.123)

.562 (.316)
.497 (.247)
.665 (.442)

.578 (.334)
.630 (.397)

convergent validity. The results also indicated an acceptable level .600 (.360)
Attitude

of discriminant validity in that the AVE value for each study con-
.701

5.022
1.030
struct was greater than the squared value for its correlations with
other study constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
.544 (.296)
.358 (.128)

.627 (.393)
.675 (.456)

.492 (.242)
.496 (.244)
.509 (.259)

.620 (.384)
−.172 (.030)

.480 (.230)

4.2.2. Structural model

.741

24.796
8.749
CBXPP

The structural model was estimated. Overall, the fit indices

indicated an adequate fit (2 = 5987.273, df = 1563, p < .001,
RMSEA = .079, CFI = .900, NFI = .886, RMR = .048, NNFI = .900). The
.414 (.171)

.588 (.346)
.465 (.216)
.581 (.338)
.619 (.383)

.534 (.285)
.529 (.280)

.436 (.190)
.551 (.304)

.554 (.307)
−.200 (.040)
Correlations among latent constructsa (squared correlation)

results of the test are summarized in Fig. 2 and in Table 3. Behav-

NBXMC

ioral, normative, and control beliefs were expected to be positively

.724

25.453
8.048

associated with attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral

Results of the confirmatory factor analysis (N = 317).

control, respectively. Findings indicated that behavioral beliefs

All correlations were significant at .01 level.
.488 (.238)
.481 (.231)
.491 (.241)

.589 (.347)

.494 (.244)
.559 (.312)
.572 (.327)
.468 (.219)
.508 (.258)

.604 (.365)
−.280 (.286)

.548 (.300)

exerted a significant influence on attitude ( = .638, t = 7.226);

normative beliefs significantly affected subjective norm ( = .711,
Note 2. AVE is represented on the diagonal.
.736

5.221
1.007

t = 11.213); and control beliefs had a significant impact on perceived

OI

behavioral control ( = .779, t = 10.902). Behavioral, normative, and

control beliefs accounted for 40.7%, 50.6%, and 60.6% of the total
.572 (.327)

.385 (.148)
.533 (.284)
.447 (.199)

.538 (.289)

.527 (.278)
.538 (.289)
.545 (.297)
.518 (.268)
.454 (.206)

.470 (.221)
−.353 (.096)

.457 (.209)

variance in attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral

control, respectively. Overall image was found to be a significant
Study variables BBXOE

.515

27.353
7.637

predictor of positive ( = .594, t = 8.030) and negative anticipated

emotions ( = −.333, t = −4.508). This variable explained 35.2% of
the total variance in positive anticipated emotion and 11.1% in neg-
Commitment

ative anticipated emotion. As expected, the results showed that

Attitude
NBXMC

customer satisfaction was a function of positive (ˇ = .265, t = 3.759)

BBXOE

CBXPP

Desire

Mean
Table 2

NAE

and negative anticipated emotions (ˇ = −.126, t = −1.997) and

PAE

PBC
SN

SD
CS

SC
OI

RI

behavioral beliefs ( = .444, t = 5.341). These variables accounted

794 H. Han, K. Ryu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 786–797

.638**
Behavioral
Beliefs Attitude
.141** Frequency
.444** of Past
Behavior
Positive Switching
Anticipated Costs
Emotion
.301**

.315**
.594** .265** .247*
.560**

Overall Customer .200** .254** Re-buying

Image Satisfaction Desire Intention

.689**
-.333** -.126*

Negative .439**
Commit-
Anticipated ment
Emotion
.329**
.711**
Normative Subjective
Beliefs Norm
Goodness-of-fit statistics: χ2 = 5987.273,
.370** (df = 1563, p<.001), RMSEA = .079;
.779** CFI = .900; NFI = .886, RMR = .048,
Control Perceived NNFI = .900
Beliefs Behavioral
Control *p < .05, **p < .01

Fig. 2. Findings from structural equation model (N = 317). Goodness-of-fit statistics: 2 = 5987.273 (df = 1563, p < .001), RMSEA = .079; CFI = .900; NFI = .886, RMR = .048,
NNFI = .900. *p < .05, **p < .01.

for 42.3% of the variance in satisfaction. Desire was a positive func-
tion of attitude (ˇ = .141, t = 2.995), satisfaction (ˇ = .200, t = 3.887),
subjective norm (ˇ = .329, t = 5.026), perceived behavioral con-
trol (ˇ = .370, t = 6.242), and frequency of past behavior (ˇ = .315,
t = 2.872). About 87.4% of the total variance in desire was explained
by its antecedents. Switching costs (ˇ = .560, t = 8.285) and commit-
ment (ˇ = .689, t = 10.784) were significantly affected by customer
satisfaction. A total of 31.4% of the variance in switching costs and
47.5% in commitment were accounted for by their predictors. As
anticipated, re-buying intention was found to be a direct function
of switching costs (ˇ = .301, t = 4.860), desire (ˇ = .254, t = 3.015),
commitment (ˇ = .439, t = 6.003), and frequency of past behavior
(ˇ = .247, t = 2.182). The variables in the TRD explained about 79.7%
of the total variance in re-buying intention.
5. General discussion
The present study successfully developed a comprehensive
TRD that more fully accounts for motivation, emotions, beliefs
constructs, and the critical role of identified factors achieved
from the qualitative study in studying re-buying decision. This
study effectively merged the MGB with belief constructs (behav-
ioral, normative, and control), overall image, customer satisfaction,
switching costs, and commitment. Our results supported the
theoretical and empirical efficacy of the proposed TRD, and high-
lighted the significance of beliefs, image, satisfaction, switching
costs, and commitment, along with the original variables of the
MGB, in the formation of re-buying intentions. Capturing the
considerable proportion of the variance in the intention to re-
buy and satisfactorily fulfilling the conditions for the improvement
of the socio-psychological model suggested by Ajzen (1991),
the TRD (R2 = .797) showed a greater predictive power than the
MGB (R2 = .632) (2 = 1438.664, df = 381, p < .001, RMSEA = .078,
CFI = .901, NFI = .887, RMR = .049, NNFI = .900). To our knowledge,
this is one of the few studies to develop a theory specifically
designed for full-service restaurant customers’ re-buying deci-
sions by employing an exploratory approach that exceeds a
simple theoretical/conceptual approach for theory development
and extension. The developed TRD may be applicable to a broad
range of customer post-purchase decisions and behaviors in a vari-
ety of contexts, with modifications or extensions being made if
necessary. Thus, this study has added considerably to the field
of service/hospitality marketing and consumer behavior by pro-
viding a more comprehensive framework for re-buying decision
formation.
An exploratory qualitative inquiry involving full-service restau-
rant customers led us to conclude that there are four primary factors
for re-buying decisions and nine major expected outcomes/benefits
derived from the re-visiting of restaurants. Consistent with previ-
ous studies (e.g., Han and Ryu, 2009; Han and Kim, 2010; Jones
et al., 2000; Ok et al., 2005; Ryu et al., 2008), our results indicated
that these four factors, along with behavioral beliefs involving these
nine expected outcomes/benefits, are imperative in determining
customers’ post-purchase decisions. The identified variables should
be utilized as tools for restaurant managers to develop efficient
marketing and retention strategies.
 H. Han, K. Ryu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 786–797 795

Table 3 have alerted managers that relying solely on switching costs for the
Results of the structural model.
retention of existing customers should be avoided due to its risks
Path Coefficient t-Value for a long-term valued relationship (Han et al., 2009a; Jones et al.,
BBXOE → Attitude .638 7.226** 2000), increasing customers’ perceived monetary/non-monetary
BBXOE → CS .444 5.341** costs associated with switching is generally believed to be a useful
OI → PAE .594 8.030** and appropriate strategy to reduce defection from a firm. Restau-
OI → NAE −.333 −4.508** rant operators, thus, should carefully build up various switching
NBXMC → SN .711 11.213**
costs that work to reduce the likelihood of switching.
CBXPP → PBC .779 10.902**
PAE → CS .265 3.759** Our results indicated that customer satisfaction had the greatest
NAE → CS −.126 −1.997* total impact on re-buying intention (.523). In addition, commit-
Attitude → Desire .141 2.995** ment and switching costs were positive functions of customer
CS → SC .560 8.285**
satisfaction. Thus, increasing restaurant customers’ satisfaction
CS → Desire .200 3.887**
CS → Commitment .689 10.784** level should be emphasized for the enhancement of re-buying
SN → Desire .329 5.026** intention. In previous studies employing the MGB (e.g., Perugini
PBC → Desire .370 6.242** and Bagozzi, 2001; Taylor et al., 2009), desire was one of the
SC → RI .301 4.860** predominant variables explaining individuals’ decision-making
Desire → RI .254 3.015**
processes. However, in the TRD, satisfaction, along with switching
Commitment → RI .439 6.003**
FPB → Desire .315 2.872** costs and commitment, plays a major role in explaining customer-
FPB → RI .247 2.182* decision formation. In other words, individuals’ decision-making
processes/behavior in repeat-purchase situations differs from their
Explained variance Total effect on RI overall decision-making formation. This finding is consistent with
R2 (AT) .407 BBXOE .255 Han and Kim’s (2010) study about green-hotel repurchasing behav-
R2 (PAE) .352 OI .104 ior. In their study, newly integrated constructs in the theory
R2 (NAE) .111 NBXMC .060 of planned behavior (i.e., customer satisfaction, image, and past
R2 (SN) .506 CBXPP .073
R2 (PBC) .606 PAE .139
behavior) had greater roles in decision formation than the original
R2 (CS) .423 NAE −.066 key variables in the theory of planned behavior (i.e., attitude and
R2 (SC) .314 Attitude .036 perceived behavioral control). Restaurant operators should make
R2 (Desire) .874 CS .523 every effort to offer an excellent dining experience by enhancing
R2 (Commitment) .475 SN .084
significant restaurant attributes (superior menu items, good quality
R2 (RI) .797 PBC .094
SC .301 of food, clean and comfortable dining environment, high value for
Desire .254 the price, high-quality facilities and atmosphere, efficient and reli-
Commitment .439 able services, etc.). Such endeavors along with various marketing
FPB .327 efforts would contribute to improving the image of the restau-
Note 1. Goodness-of-fit statistics: 2 = 5987.273 (df = 1563, p < .001), RMSEA = .079, rant, which eventually increases positive anticipated emotion and
CFI = .900, NFI = .886, RMR = .048, NNFI = .900. reduces negative anticipated emotion while eliciting customer
Note 2. BB, behavioral beliefs; OE, outcome evaluation; NB, normative beliefs; MC,
satisfaction—all salient points in the formation of the re-buying
motivation to comply; CB, control beliefs; PP, perceived power; PAE, positive antic-
ipated emotion; CS, customer satisfaction; NAE, negative anticipated emotion; SN, decision.
subjective norm; PBC, perceived behavioral control; SC, switching costs; RI, re- The present study is subject to several limitations and, con-
buying intention. sequently, provides opportunities for future studies. First, the
*
p < .05. identified factors determining re-buying intention in Study 1 were
**
p < .01.
based on full-service restaurant customers’ responses. It is likely
that critical factors in decision-making will differ in other types
As the results indicated, commitment (coefficient = .439, of restaurants (quick-service, buffet, fast-casual, etc.) as well as
t = 6.003) and switching costs (coefficient = .301, t = 4.860) were other study settings (hotels, country clubs, manufactured prod-
found to be important constructs in the TRD, and these variables ucts, etc.). Other explanatory variables in a particular context could
had an even greater role than desire (coefficient = .254, t = 3.015) be introduced or integrated for better comprehension of repur-
in explaining repurchase intention. Many studies in various fields chasing decisions/behavior. This limitation should be noted when
have emphasized the significance of both commitment (Brown applying this theory to certain contexts. The TRD is available for
et al., 2005; Moorman et al., 1992; Morgan and Hunt, 1994) extension and modification so as to become more adequate in
and switching costs (e.g., Balabanis et al., 2006; Ranaweera and unique contexts. Future research is needed to test the applicability
Prabhu, 2003; Sharma and Patterson, 2000). Our findings were of this theory to other study contexts and to revise it if necessary.
in line with such previous studies. Previous studies have indi- Second, in the present study, an online survey was employed to
cated that inducing a customer’s perceived relationship fulfillment sample and reach a broader range of full-service restaurant cus-
with a service provider is the best means for the enhance- tomers. Although most survey participants for the first (75.9%)
ment of commitment (Jarvelin and Lehtinen, 1996; Kim and Han, and second survey (77.9%) described a dining experience that had
2008). Restaurant operators should actively execute and thereafter occurred within the last month, their dining experiences may not
support relationship-marketing activities by developing effective have been completely recallable. Additional research should fur-
relationship-marketing strategies. In addition, restaurant operators ther examine this theory in an actual consumption situation to
should establish employee training guidelines for the improvement enhance internal validity. Third, the tested relationships among the
of appropriate service and communication skills that help cus- variables in the TRD can differ based on personal characteristics.
tomers enjoy their meals and total dining experiences. Such efforts Thus, future studies should consider personal characteristics (per-
will eventually ensure high levels of commitment, making cus- sonality, variety-seeking, household income, cultural background,
tomers want to return. The results of this study were also consistent etc.) when applying the TRD in disparate contexts. Lastly, a reduced
with previous studies that emphasized the criticality of switching model of the TRD without some variables (e.g., beliefs) can be possi-
costs (Dick and Basu, 1994; Jones et al., 2000, 2007; Ranaweera and bly utilized, particularly when broadening/deepening the TRD and
Prabhu, 2003; Sharma and Patterson, 2000). Though researchers developing a new theory rooted in the TRD.
796 H. Han, K. Ryu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 786–797
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by research funds from Dong-A Uni-
versity.
References
Ajzen, I., 1985. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl,
J., Beckman, J. (Eds.), Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Springer, Hei-
delberg, pp. 11–39.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 50 (2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I., 2011. A Theory of Planned Behavior, Retrieved January 05, 2011, from
http://people.umass.edu/aizen/tpb.html.
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding Attitude and Predicting Social Behavior.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3),
411–423.
Assael, H., 1984. Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. Kent, Boston.
Aydin, S., Ozer, G., Arasil, O., 2005. Customer loyalty and the effect of switching costs
as a moderator variable: a case in the Turkish mobile phone market. Marketing
Intelligence and Planning 23 (1), 89–103.
Bagozzi, R.P., Dholakia, U.M., 2006. Antecedents and purchase consequences of cus-
tomer participation in small group brand communities. International Journal of
Research in Marketing 23, 45–61.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science 16, 74–94.
Balabanis, G., Reynolds, N., Simintiras, A., 2006. Bases of e-loyalty: perceived switch-
ing barriers and satisfaction. Journal of Business Research 59 (2), 214–224.
Baloglu, S., McCleary, K.W., 1999. A model of destination image formation. Annals
of Tourism Research 32 (2), 94–104.
Bansal, H.S., Taylor, S.F., 1999. The service provider switching model (SPSM): a model
of consumer switching behavior in the services industry. Journal of Service
Research 2 (2), 200–218.
Bergadaa, M.M., 1990. The role of time in the action of the consumer. Journal of
Consumer Research 17, 289–302.
Bloemer, J., de Ruyter, K., 1998. On the relationship between store image,
store satisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of Marketing 32,
499–513.
Brown, T.J., Barry, T.E., Dacin, P.A., Gunst, R.F., 2005. Spreading the word: investigat-
ing antecedents of consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors
in a retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33 (2),
123–138.
Colgate, M., Lang, B., 2001. Switching barriers in consumer markets: an investiga-
tion of the financial services industry. Journal of Consumer Marketing 18 (4),
332–347.
Crowder, R.G., 1976. Principles of Learning and Memory. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Dick, A.S., Basu, K., 1994. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual frame-
work. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22, 99–113.
Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, S., 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Fort Worth, PA.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction
to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Boston.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18,
39–50.
Han, H., Back, K., 2007. Assessing guest emotional experiences influencing customer
satisfaction in the lodging industry. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 23
(1), 43–56.
Han, H., Back, K., 2008. Relationships among image congruence, consumption emo-
tions, and customer loyalty in the lodging industry. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research 32 (4), 467–490.
Han, H., Kim, Y., 2010. An investigation of green hotel customers’ decision formation:
developing an extended model of the theory of planned behavior. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 29, 659–668.
Han, H., Ryu, K., 2009. The roles of the physical environment, price perception, and
customer satisfaction in determining customer loyalty in the family restaurant
industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 33 (4), 487–510.
Han, H., Back, K., Barrett, B., 2009a. Influencing factors on restaurant customers’
revisit intention: the roles of emotions and switching barriers. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 28, 563–572.
Han, H., Hsu, L., Lee, J., 2009b. Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes toward
green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in hotel customers’ eco-friendly
decision-making process. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28,
519–528.
Han, H., Hsu, L., Sheu, C., 2010. Application of the theory of planned behavior to green
hotel choice: testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tourism
Management 31, 325–334.
Han, H., Hsu, L., Lee, J., Sheu, C., 2011. Are lodging customers ready to go green? An
examination of attitudes, demographics, and eco-friendly intentions. Interna-
tional Journal of Hospitality Management 30, 345–355.
Henning-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D., 2002. Understanding relation-
ship marketing outcomes: an integration of relational benefits and relationship
quality. Journal of Service Research 4 (3), 230–247.
Hunt, H.K., 1977. CS/D-overview and future research directions. In: Hunt, K.H. (Ed.),
Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfac-
tion. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp. 455–488.
Jarvelin, A., Lehtinen, U., 1996. Relationship quality in business-to-business service
context. In: Edvardsson, B.B., Johnston, S.W., Scheuing, E.E. (Eds.), QUIS 5 Advanc-
ing Service Quality: A Global Perspective. Warwick Printing, Lethbridge, Canada,
pp. 243–254.
Jones, M.A., Mothersbaugh, D.L., Beatty, S.E., 2000. Switching barriers and repurchase
intentions in services. Journal of Retailing 76 (2), 259–274.
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E., Mothersbaugh, D.L., Beatty, S.E., 2007. The positive and
negative effects of switching costs on relational outcomes. Journal of Service
Research 9 (4), 335–355.
Keaveney, S.M., 1995. Customer switching behavior in service industries: an
exploratory study. Journal of Marketing 59, 71–82.
Kim, W., Han, H., 2008. Determinants of restaurant customers’ loyalty intentions: a
mediating effect of relationship quality. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospi-
tality and Tourism 9 (3), 218–238.
Kim, W.G., Han, J.S., Lee, E., 2001. Effects of relationship marketing on repeat pur-
chase and word of mouth. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 25 (3),
272–288.
Klemperer, P., 1987. Markets with consumer switching costs. The Quarterly Journal
of Economics 102, 376–394.
Kolbe, R.H., Burnett, M.S., 1991. Content-analysis research: an examination of appli-
cations with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity. Journal
of Consumer Research 18, 243–250.
Lam, T., Hsu, C.H.C., 2004. Theory of planned behavior: potential travelers from
China. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 28 (4), 463–482.
Lam, T., Hsu, C.H.C., 2006. Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel des-
tination. Tourism Management 27, 589–599.
Lee, M.J., Back, K., 2007. Association members’ meeting participation behaviors:
development of meeting participation model. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing 22 (2), 15–33.
Lee, M.J., Back, K., 2009. Association meeting participation: a test of competing
models. Journal of Travel Research 46, 300–310.
Lee, K., Song, H., Bendle, L.J., Kim, M., Han, H., 2012. The impact of non-
pharmaceutical interventions for 2009 H1N1 influenza on travel intentions: a
model of goal-directed behavior. Tourism Management 33, 89–99.
Leiva, F.M., Rios, F.M., Martinez, T.L., 2006. Assessment of interjudge reliabil-
ity in the open-ended questions coding process. Quality and Quantity 40,
519–537.
Lewis, R.C., Chambers, R.E., 2000. Marketing Leadership in Hospitality, 3rd ed. Wiley,
New York.
Maxham, J.G., Netemeyer, R.G., 2002. Modeling customer perceptions of complaint
handling: the effects of perceived justice on complainant attitudes and inten-
tions. Journal of Retailing 78, 239–252.
Maxwell, J.A., 2005. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, 2nd ed.
Sage Publication, London.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., Deshpande, R., 1992. Relationships between providers
and users of marketing research: the dynamics of trust within and between
organizations. Journal of Marketing Research 29, 314–329.
Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D., 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship mar-
keting. Journal of Marketing 58, 20–38.
Oh, H., 2000. The effect of brand class, brand awareness, and price on customer value
and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 24 (2),
136–162.
Oh, H., Hsu, C.H.C., 2001. Volitional degrees of gambling behaviors. Annals of Tourism
Research 28 (3), 618–637.
Ok, C., Back, K., Shanklin, C.W., 2005. Modeling roles of service recovery strategy: a
relationship-focused view. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 29 (4),
484–507.
Oliver, R.L., 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satis-
faction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research 17, 460–469.
Oliver, R.L., 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Oliver, R.L., Swan, J.E., 1989. Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and
satisfaction in transaction: a field survey approach. Journal of Marketing 53,
21–35.
Ouellette, J.A., Wood, W., 1998. Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple pro-
cesses by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin
124 (1), 54–74.
Perreault, W.D., Leigh, L.E., 1989. Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative
judgments. Journal of Marketing Research 16, 135–148.
Perugini, M., Bagozzi, R.P., 2001. The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-
directed behaviors: broadening and deepening the theory of planned behavior.
British Journal of Social Psychology 40, 79–98.
Perugini, M., Bagozzi, R.P., 2004. The distinction between desires and intentions.
European Journal of Social Psychology 34 (1), 69–84.
Phillips, D.M., 1999. The role of consumption emotions in the satisfaction response
(Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1999). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 60-07A, 2589 (UMI No. AAI9938040).
Poels, K., Dewitte, S., 2008. Hope and self-regulatory goals applied to an advertis-
ing context: promoting prevention stimulates goal-directed behavior. Journal
of Business Research 61, 1030–1040.
 H. Han, K. Ryu / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 786–797
Prestwich, A., Perugini, M., Hurling, R., 2008. Goal desires moderate
intention-behaviour relations. British Journal of Social Psychology 47 (1),
49–71.
Ranaweera, C., Prabhu, J., 2003. The influence of satisfaction, trust, and switching
barriers on customer retention in a continuous purchasing setting. International
Journal of Service Industry Management 14 (4), 374–395.
Reichheld, F.F., Sasser, W.E., 1990. Zero defections: quality comes to services. Har-
vard Business Review 68 (5), 2–9.
Ryu, K., Han, H., Kim, T., 2008. The relationships among overall quick-casual restau-
rant image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (3), 459–469.
797
Ryu, K., Jang, S., 2006. Intentions to experience local cuisine in a travel destina-
tion: the modified theory of reasoned action. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research 30 (4), 507–516.
Sharma, N., Patterson, P.G., 2000. Switching costs, alternative attractiveness and
experience as moderators of relationship commitment in professional consumer
services. International Journal of Service Industry Management 11 (5), 470–490.
Spiggle, S., 1994. Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research 21, 491–503.
Taylor, S.A., Ishida, C., Wallace, D.W., 2009. Intention to engage in digital piracy:
a conceptual model and empirical test. Journal of Service Research 11 (3),
246–262.