See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263326123

To what extent does restaurant kitchen design influence consumers’ eating

out experience? An exploratory study

Article in Journal of Retail &#38 Leisure Property · August 2010

DOI: 10.1057/rlp.2010.8

CITATIONS READS

12 2,083

2 authors:

Abel Duarte Alonso Martin A. O’Neill

Liverpool John Moores University 82 PUBLICATIONS 3,476 CITATIONS
135 PUBLICATIONS 2,687 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Abel Duarte Alonso on 11 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Original Article

To what extent does restaurant

kitchen design influence
consumers’ eating out
experience? An exploratory
study
Received (in revised form): 7th May 2010

Abel Duarte Alonso

(PhD) Edith Cowan University, Western Australia and University of Western Sydney. School
of Marketing Tourism and Leisure. Faculty of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University. His
research interests include business-related areas of concern in small and medium enterprises
(SMEs), urban (for example, hospitality) and rural (for example, wineries), as well as wine
consumer and winery visitor behaviour.

Martin A. O’Neill
(PhD) is Professor and Program Director of Hotel and Restaurant Management at Auburn
University. His research interests include Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) and its
application within the broad tourism, hospitality and restaurant management fields, service
encounter and service recovery.

ABSTRACT A restaurant’s style, including that of its kitchen space

can not only provide much needed comfort, but can also serve as
a positive ‘complement’ in dining experiences. For example, the
opportunity to see kitchen staff working may contribute to a feeling of
reassurance by seeing how the foods are being prepared, especially in
terms of hygiene practices. Even the ‘entertainment’ factor of seeing
chefs displaying their skills could serve to enhance the experience at a
restaurant. Although the potential or actual relevance of kitchen style
is acknowledged in many studies, relatively little research has been
conducted concerning these aspects from restaurateurs’ or consumers’
perspective. In this study, consumers’ perceptions of open restaurant
kitchen styles were investigated. Questionnaire distribution in a
college town in the Southern United States allowed for the collection
of 277 usable responses. The findings indicate that consumers were
more in agreement that in an open kitchen staff ’s appearance will be
neater, that food will be prepared more carefully and that the kitchen
will also be cleaner. In contrast, participants’ level of agreement was
Correspondence: lowest regarding their feeling of safety with food prepared in an open
Abel Duarte Alonso kitchen, and regarding the value of the entertainment factor when they
University of Western Sydney,
School of Management, eat at restaurants featuring an open kitchen. While, in general, the
Locked Bag 1797, levels of agreement (means) are modest, clear differences between
Penrith South DC, men and women were identified in all items studied pertaining to
NSW 1797, Australia
E-mail: a.duartealonso@uws
open versus closed kitchens as they refer to the dining experience;
.edu.au differences were also noticed among several age groups. Overall, the

© 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246
www.palgrave-journals.com/rlp/
 Alonso and O’Neill

findings could be beneficial for the restaurant sector in understanding

consumers’ behaviour and potentially identifying segments that pay
more attention to open restaurant kitchen style.
Journal of Retail & Leisure Property (2010) 9, 231–246.
doi:10.1057/rlp.2010.8

Keywords: restaurants; kitchen style; open versus closed kitchen

style; eating out experience; consumers

INTRODUCTION
In its endless journey of providing, hosting and contributing towards
consumers’ memorable experiences, the hospitality industry continues to
evolve in many ways. Moreover, in a sector (hospitality/restaurant) in
which developments in innovation, for instance, in the form of food,
equipment, technology, trends (fast/slow foods, local produce, organic
produce and so on), competition and other challenges are constantly
occurring, restaurateurs need to be prepared to address multiple pressures
and demands simultaneously. To a great extent, restaurateurs look at their
food and service components as drawing cards and as their main revenue
sources.
However, there are also views that many restaurateurs have accepted
that the food and service elements are no longer core aspects of the dining
experience for many consumers; instead, other elements can also play a
critical role (Finkelstein, 1989; Auty, 1992; Bitner, 1992). More
knowledge about areas or dimensions that consumers are increasingly
paying attention to could be valuable in a number of ways, for instance,
in consumer segmentation (Reid, 1983; Bahn and Granzin, 1985; Riley,
1994; Yüksel and Yüksel, 2002). In segmenting consumers, restaurateurs
and managers could address many consumers’ likes, dislikes and
demands concerning aspects other than strictly food and service.
For many years, studies on consumer behaviour and related areas have
sought to explain elements that restaurant patrons may be drawn to, or
that contribute to their decision to choose one restaurant over another.
Several researchers have alluded that many consumers are drawn to the
theme/atmosphere and ambiance of the establishment (Finkelstein, 1989;
Auty, 1992; Kivela, 1997). Ambiance, design and other elements are part
of a bundle of intangible components; ambiance can be further divided
into subsets such as colour, lighting and style (Countryman and Jang,
2006). All these factors fall under the category of atmospherics (Kotler,
1974; Baker, 1986, Sharma and Stafford, 2000), and each of them is
suggested to have an impact on consumers, particularly in the retail sector
(Babin et al, 2003) and hospitality (Finkelstein, 1989).
Clearly, consumers determine whether intangible (colour, sound,
décor, service) or tangible (food) aspects are more or less relevant before,
during or even after dining experiences. What is critical is that with so
many different consumer segments, and their number increasing
continuously as new trends and demands arise, it becomes essential for
restaurateurs and other parties involved in the restaurant sector to
understand their patrons’ requirements. Still today, however, consumer

232 © 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246
 Influence of kitchen design on consumers’ eating out experience

knowledge in different dimensions of the dining experience is very

limited. One aspect that has been ignored in the contemporary hospitality,
consumer behaviour and related literature concerns consumers’ views on
kitchen design, including views regarding open versus closed kitchen
style. Moreover, although according to news and reports the popularity of
open kitchen style in many restaurant and other hospitality scenarios
continues or could even be on the increase, this aspect continues to be
overlooked from an academic, even a practitioner/industry perspective.
The present study seeks to increase the knowledge of this dimension,
exploring consumers’ views on several elements pertaining to open
versus closed restaurant kitchen style. Overall, the study attempts to
identify the extent to which consumers may agree with statements that
include the following:

• Open kitchens are cleaner than closed kitchens.

• Food will be prepared more carefully in open kitchens.
• Kitchen staff will appear neater in an open kitchen.
• Consumers feel much safer when they eat food that is prepared in an
open kitchen.
• Whether the entertainment factor that arises in open kitchen settings is
of any importance to consumers.

New consumer information concerning the statements or threads above

could benefit the hospitality/restaurant sector, at the very least in assisting
with consumer group segmentation efforts. New knowledge could also be
of use to consumers in identifying the preference and importance, or lack
thereof, of open kitchen design among restaurant patrons, in turn helping
them (consumers) make purchase/consumption decisions. For business
development agencies, new or added knowledge about the threads above
could also be of use in their efforts to assist business operators. Such
scenario may particularly apply to those operators who lack resources, for
example, in the case of family or individually owned restaurants, in areas
that, as may be the case of open versus closed kitchen style, could
potentially encourage more restaurant patronage.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Part of the contemporary hospitality literature suggests that the way many
restaurant operations are designed can be critical for their long-term
survival. With regard to hotel restaurants, for example, Stipanuk (2006)
refers to the case of one ‘suburban Hyatt Regency’ (p. 446) to illustrate
the potential for success when serious consideration is given to basic
design aspects. Referring to the Hyatt Regency’s case, Stipanuk (2006)
explains that ‘The restaurant is highly successful in part because it offers
different moods for breakfast or dinner, for family groups or couples, and
for informal meals or special-occasion dinners’ (p. 447). Stipanuk’s
(2006) argument also illustrates the importance of flexibility, continuous
improvement, development, innovation, as well as attention to detail and
to different consumer segments.
While there is little doubt that restaurant design can be a vital
component for hospitality/restaurant establishments, other aspects that

© 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246 233
 Alonso and O’Neill

denote consumers’ concern with very basic elements are surprisingly

often missing in restaurant environments. In this regard, studies
investigating factors influencing restaurant choice indicate the importance
of cleanliness throughout the restaurant, including in the kitchen
(Aksoydan, 2007). Such obvious concern with the establishment’s
cleanliness demonstrates that despite the developments that have taken
place at both government level (for example, hygiene regulations,
controls, fines placed upon restaurants) and hospitality sector-wise (for
example, more use of technology, training, costs of compliance), many
consumers continue to be sceptical of restaurants’ fulfilment of basic
cleanliness requirements and standards.
In consumers’ defence, the many reports of food poisoning and
restaurant businesses closed or fined for breaking hygiene rules/laws,
not only in the United States but also internationally (Cullen, 2010;
Falkenstein, 2010; Schreck, 2010; Shaheen, 2010) are reasons persuading
patrons to be apprehensive of restaurateurs’ food handling and overall
hygiene-related practices. Thus, consumers’ paying attention to the aspect
of restaurant cleanliness could be interpreted as a safety measure and also
as a ‘peace of mind’ reassurance exercise. In this context, the opportunity
to see and scrutinise what goes on ‘behind the scenes’, as is arguably the
case of open restaurant kitchen settings, may positively contribute
towards consumers’ peace of mind.
According to Baraban and Durocher (2010), in the 1990s open
restaurant kitchen design became popular in many hospitality scenarios.
Media interest through articles presenting restaurants that feature open
kitchen design demonstrates that this concept continues to be widely used
(see, for example, Bruni, 2005; Raisfeld and Patronite, 2005; Ferren,
2010; Parmley, 2010; Virbila, 2010; Weisstuch, 2010). Apart from
allowing consumers to monitor – that is, as much as consumers can
monitor – clean/hygienic food handling during their eating out
experience, there are other motivations for choosing a restaurant where
the cooks are in the front line and can be seen in ‘full action’. For
example, Chow et al (forthcoming) mention today’s popularity of TV
shows (for example, Iron Chef, The Chopping Block) and also the
‘glamour’ aspect of some ethnic cuisines (for example, Japanese
restaurants) as foods are prepared in front of guests. In these scenarios,
chefs exhibit their cutting, filleting and related skills, thus providing
an entertainment component that may draw groups of consumers
who are interested in this side of food preparation and overall dining
experience.
Despite the alleged interest and preference of open kitchen design
among many individuals, to date very little has been presented and
or/discussed from an academic perspective concerning perceptions, either
from operators’ or from consumers’ viewpoint on open kitchens. In fact,
only recently have some researchers examined the open kitchen
dimension from a hospitality industry perspective. Among the few
stepping into this largely unexplored ground, Chow et al (forthcoming)
investigated the operators’ side concerning their perceptions of
cleanliness with regard to open versus closed kitchens. Although the
number of respondents in their study was very limited, Chow et al

234 © 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246
 Influence of kitchen design on consumers’ eating out experience

(forthcoming) found that most operators agreed that overall the open
kitchen concept was more conducive to increased kitchen staff hygiene.
Operators also felt that open kitchen design positively contributed to
kitchen staff ’s behaviour in handling foods. Some of the operators
interviewed in Chow et al’s (forthcoming) study assumed that by being
physically/directly exposed to restaurant patrons (‘standing in the front
line’), kitchen employees might feel being watched, and therefore felt
more compelled to observe hygiene and overall cleanliness standards.
Chow et al (forthcoming) also made a valid point when emphasising that
more research is needed, including from consumers’ viewpoint, as
consumer information may assist the efforts of the restaurant sector and
government agencies in providing a cleaner, safer and more pleasurable
dining environment.
Arguably, there are additional strong motivations for addressing
consumers’ needs regarding hygiene, cleanliness and overall comfort and
quality. A fundamental motive for paying attention to these areas is rather
unsurprising: within the restaurant sector, operator–patron transactions
result in billions of dollars of revenues every year. Projected restaurant-
related sales for 2010 were in the amount of US$580 billion (National
Restaurant Association, 2010), clearly demonstrating the importance of
the restaurant sector in generating economic activity. Not only do
restaurateurs benefit from revenues generated from consumer patronage.
In fact, many thousand families directly or indirectly depend on
employment generated in the restaurant and hospitality sectors.
According to Ebbin (2000) and Klein et al (2008), on average each
week consumers in the United States purchase four meals prepared in
commercial/restaurant settings. Many of these meals are not only
consumed to quench hunger, but also as part of special occasions in
which the food may not be the ‘main event’ of the restaurant experience.
In other words, many consumers do have a choice as to what
establishment to choose for their eating out experience. Moreover, such
choice could very well be determined by a wide range of attributes that
consumers consider as very important, including the existence of an open
restaurant kitchen style.
In an effort to add to the very limited existing body of knowledge, the
present study explores the open restaurant kitchen style dimension from
consumers’ viewpoint.

METHODOLOGY
To gather consumer data that address the threads investigated in the
present study, a decision was made to use questionnaires and distribute
these in events that would congregate many potential respondents at one
time. In this regard, by previously requesting Institutional Review Board
(IRB) approval, the data collection process was carried out at the
researchers’ university. Such decision was made on the basis of

1. speed to collect data in several university-sponsored events (sports

events). The hosting of National Collegiate Athletic Association
basketball games gathered thousands of fans, allowing for the
distribution of large numbers of questionnaires at some games,

© 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246 235
 Alonso and O’Neill

2. convenience in the form of scenarios in which thousands of

individuals, many of who are habitual restaurant patrons, of different
walks of life, different gender and age groups would gather, and
3. potential respondents’ positive reaction to the study, and therefore a
greater likelihood of participation, as the study was conducted on
behalf of the researchers’ university. Thus, it was believed that many
of these sports events attendees may identify with the university,
either through their previous attendance, or through simply being part
of the local community where the institution is located.

The researchers designed the questionnaire based on the contemporary

literature on kitchen design (see, for example, Stipanuk, 2006), as well
as based on researchers’ experience in hospitality consumer research and
previous working experience in the same sector. First, the questionnaire
included sections that sought to identify respondents’ demographic
characteristics (for example, gender, age, frequency of restaurant
visitation). Other sections of the questionnaire were designed to gather
data on aspects that respondents may consider important in their dining
experience, including space for them to describe images of open kitchen
design and descriptions of the style of the restaurant they patronised.
During the months of January and the beginning of April 2010, a total
of 652 questionnaires were distributed at university-sponsored basketball
games. Potential respondents were briefly informed of the study’s
purpose and invited to participate by completing the questionnaire. An
envelope that was self-addressed and pre-paid allowed for the
respondents to complete the questionnaires at their leisure and mail these
to the researchers’ university. In doing so, any potential breach of
anonymity and other issues (confidentiality) were avoided. The letter that
explained the purpose of the study also contained the IRB approval seal
to conduct the study.
The distribution efforts allowed for the collection of 278 responses;
however, one respondent indicated never patronising restaurants and was
therefore omitted from the data analysis process. Thus, in all, 277
responses were considered usable, a 42.5 per cent response rate. Clearly,
the number of responses achieved is by no means representative of
Southern or United States consumers. However, this number was
considered sufficient to gather preliminary information regarding the
threads being explored.
Responses were first entered using Microsoft Excel, and then exported
to the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Doing so
allowed for conducting independent t-tests and Scheffé tests in
conjunction with the one-way ANOVA. Two sections chosen for this
study featured anchored scales, whereby respondents were to circle
numbers, where one (1) represented ‘totally disagree’ and five (5) ‘totally
agree;’ both sections were also tested for internal consistency.
According to previous research (for example, Santos, 1999; Williams
et al, 2001; Hadley et al, 2007), it is suggested that a Cronbach’s 
coefficient of 0.70 and/or greater suggests data’s reliability and therefore
is deemed acceptable for analysis purposes. As illustrated in Table 1, one
section of the questionnaire was at the lower limit (0.6840) of what other

236 © 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246
 Influence of kitchen design on consumers’ eating out experience

Table 1: Internal reliability for areas in the questionnaire using scales anchored at the end points
only

Section Aa – Extent to which design factors have the potential to influence consumers’ satisfaction while eating out
(illustrated in Table 2)
Cronbach’s  0.6840
Cronbach’s  based on standardised items 0.6865
Number of items 12
Number of valid cases + 261

Section Bb – Regarding views on open kitchen design (illustrated in Tables 5 and 6)

Cronbach’s  0.9155
Cronbach’s  based on standardised items 0.9172
Number of items 9
Number of valid cases + 273

a
Respondents rated from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree.
b
Respondents rated from 1=Totally disagree to 5=Totally agree.

researchers assume to be the acceptable reliability threshold of 0.70.

Thus, this first section was only considered in descriptive terms (see
Table 3) but not for further analyses. In the second section of anchored
scales (Table 1), a Cronbach’s  coefficient of 0.9155 was noticed; this
section was therefore included as part of the analyses of the next sections.

FINDINGS
As illustrated in Table 2, women constituted the predominant respondent
group (63. 2 per cent versus 36.1 per cent men); this gender imbalance is
acknowledged as a limitation of this study. Also clearly prevalent were
respondent groups of Caucasian/White ethnicity (88.8 per cent), and
those whose home state was Alabama (81.2 per cent). With regard to the
age mix of the respondent population, it was noticed that participants
aged 50 years and above constituted just over half (51.6 per cent) and that
those between the ages of 30 and 39 years are the least represented
(8.7 per cent). The large majority of respondents indicated being habitual
restaurant patrons, with 92.8 per cent dining out at least once a week.
Finally, two groups, those patronising franchised full-service restaurants
and those patronising independent full-service establishments became
predominant among four possible categories, with 39.4 and 35 per cent of
responses, respectively. Thus, clearly, most respondents in this study
favour full-service over fast-food establishments.
Table 3 illustrates respondents’ views on 12 different design factors
concerning the eating out experience; two of these items also concern
kitchen style. Only one design factor could be considered as being within
‘agreement’ level (mean = 4.03). In this context, respondents seemed to
appreciate the physical attractiveness or appeal of the restaurant by means
of its décor and furniture. The theme of the restaurant, its spaciousness
and table set-up to allow for space and more privacy (for example, to
engage in conversations) also appeared to be of relevance in influencing
many respondents’ satisfaction during their eating out experience, even if
arguably at a lower level of agreement (means = 3.58 and 3.39, and 3.38,
respectively). In contrast, whether the restaurant kitchen style is closed
(mean = 2.90) or open (2.76) did not seem to be relevant areas in
influencing participants’ satisfaction with their dining experience. What

© 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246 237
 Alonso and O’Neill

Table 2: Basic respondent-related information

n %

Gender
Female 175 63.2
Male 100 36.1
Missing responses 2 0.7
Total 277 100.0

Age groups
21–29 years old 51 18.4
30–39 years old 24 8.7
40–49 years old 59 21.3
50–59 years old 76 27.4
60 + years old 67 24.2
Total 277 100.0

Respondents’ frequency of eating out

Daily 61 22.0
Once a week 196 70.8
Once a month 20 7.2
Total 277 100.0

Respondents’ ethnicity
Caucasian/White 246 88.8
Other (African American, Asian) 15 5.4
Missing responses 16 5.8
Total 277 100.0

Respondents’ home state/country

Alabama 225 81.2
Outside Alabama 51 18.4
Missing responses 1 0.4
Total 277 100.0

Type of restaurant chosen when eating out

Franchised full-service (eg, Applebee’s) 109 39.4
Franchised fast food (eg, McDonald’s) 40 14.4
Independent full-service (eg, locally owned restaurant) 97 35.0
Other (independent self-service, franchised self-service) 29 10.5
Missing responses 2 0.7
Total 277 100.0

became clear in this section was that respondents rather disagreed with
small windows being influential in their dining experience, for instance,
in providing a more private setting. Similarly, the intensity of the lighting
and the height of the ceiling were considered marginal elements in
contributing to respondents’ overall satisfaction within the eating out
experience.
Although overall their level of agreement tended more towards
‘neutral’ (neither totally disagree nor totally agree), Table 4 illustrates
that when respondents were asked to indicate how they felt about the
items pertaining to open versus closed kitchen style, three of these items
were close to ‘agreement’ level. The aspect of grooming, cleanliness and
care in preparing the food stood out over all other items. In comparison,
the ‘entertainment’ factor of an open restaurant kitchen did not seem to
be relevant to the majority of consumers in this study. One of the reasons
for such lack of agreement might be that only few restaurants with open
kitchen style exist in the university town where the study was conducted.

238 © 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246
 Influence of kitchen design on consumers’ eating out experience

Table 3: Extent to which each of the following design factors has the potential to influence
respondents’ satisfaction when eating out?

Design factors n Mean Median SD

Physical attractiveness/appeal of restaurant (eg, décor, 274 4.03 4.00 0.791

furniture)
Restaurant theme (eg, ethnic, regional/country style) 272 3.58 4.00 0.991
Restaurant table set-up is spacious (eg, everyone can see 275 3.39 3.00 1.116
each other)
Restaurant set-up allows for privacy/intimacy (eg, small 274 3.38 3.00 1.094
partitions)
Restaurant has large windows (eg, a better vision) 271 3.29 3.00 0.942
Restaurant ceiling is high (eg, it feels more spacious) 275 3.11 3.00 1.046
Restaurant lighting is low (eg, dim lights) 275 2.96 3.00 1.016
Restaurant kitchen style is closed (eg, I cannot see how 274 2.90 3.00 1.121
the food is prepared)
Restaurant kitchen style is open (eg, I can see how the 275 2.76 3.00 1.134
food is prepared)
Restaurant ceiling is low (eg, it feels cosier) 274 2.65 3.00 1.007
Restaurant lighting is intense (eg, very bright lights) 275 2.61 3.00 1.049
Restaurant has small windows (eg, it feels more ‘private’) 274 2.58 3.00 0.927

Respondents rated factors, where 1=Strongly disagree, and 5=Strongly agree.

Table 4: Views on open kitchen design – how respondents felt about the items below

Items n Mean Median SD

Kitchen staff (cooks, wash-ups) will appear neater 275 3.85 4.00 0.890
(eg, grooming) in an OPEN kitchen
Food will be prepared more carefully in an OPEN 275 3.70 4.00 0.939
than in a closed kitchen
An OPEN restaurant kitchen will be cleaner than a 275 3.61 4.00 1.032
closed kitchen
Food production employees are likely to be more 275 3.33 3.00 1.009
positive to guests in an OPEN kitchen
Food production employees will be more engaging 275 3.25 3.00 1.010
with guests in an OPEN kitchen
Food production employees will be more engaging 273 3.18 3.00 0.979
with each other in an OPEN kitchen
I trust more the food that is prepared in an OPEN 275 3.15 3.00 1.103
kitchen
I feel much safer when I eat food that is prepared in 275 3.08 3.00 1.057
an OPEN kitchen
I like the ‘entertainment’ factor when I eat at a 275 3.08 3.00 1.164
restaurant with an OPEN kitchen

Respondents rated factors, where 1=Totally disagree, and 5=Totally agree.

However, respondents were not asked whether they had or had not visited
restaurants with open kitchen before; therefore, their previous exposure to
these restaurant environments could not be established. Although the
overall mean scores were rather modest, many respondents seemed to
view open kitchen style as conducive to more positive attitudes and
overall responsiveness (kitchen staff). However, despite the suggestion
that safety may be at the core of respondents’ concerns regarding food
preparation and kitchen style, the item ‘I feel safer when I eat food that is
prepared in an open kitchen’ was where the most modest level of
agreement was noticed.

© 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246 239
 Alonso and O’Neill

Table 5: Views on open kitchen design – Gender comparisons

Items Gender n Mean SD Significance

(two-tailed)

Kitchen staff (cooks, wash-ups) will appear neater Female 172 3.94 0.866 0.031
(eg, grooming) in an OPEN kitchen Male 100 3.69 0.918

Food will be prepared more carefully in an OPEN Female 172 3.83 0.901 0.004
than in a closed kitchen Male 100 3.48 0.969

An OPEN restaurant kitchen will be cleaner than Female 172 3.70 1.021 0.048
a closed kitchen Male 100 3.44 1.038

Food production employees are likely to be more Female 172 3.51 1.000 0.001
positive to guests in an OPEN kitchen Male 100 3.04 0.953

Food production employees will be more engaging Female 172 3.41 1.047 0.001
with guests in an OPEN kitchen Male 100 2.99 0.893

I like the ‘entertainment’ factor when I eat at a Female 172 3.32 1.153 0.001
restaurant with an OPEN kitchen Male 100 2.69 1.089

Food production employees will be more engaging Female 172 3.31 1.016 0.004
with each other in an OPEN kitchen Male 99 2.97 0.874

I trust more the food that is prepared in an OPEN Female 172 3.29 1.117 0.008
kitchen Male 100 2.93 1.057

I feel much safer when I eat food that is prepared Female 172 3.20 1.087 0.010
in an OPEN kitchen Male 100 2.86 0.985

Respondents rated factors, where 1=Totally disagree, and 5=Totally agree.

When comparisons were made between men and women and the same
items shown in Table 4, differences were noticed, with women indicating
higher levels of agreement in all those same items than their male
counterparts (Table 5). Furthermore, in line with the previous descriptive
analysis, both genders’ means were highest regarding the items: ‘Kitchen
staff (cooks, wash-ups) will appear neater (eg, grooming) in an OPEN
kitchen’, ‘Food will be prepared more carefully in an OPEN than in a
closed kitchen’, and ‘An OPEN restaurant kitchen will be cleaner than a
closed kitchen’. However, the clearest difference was noticed concerning
the item ‘I like the “entertainment” factor when I eat at a restaurant with
an OPEN kitchen’, whereby women appeared to be much more in
agreement than men. Along similar lines, women were more in agreement
with the item ‘Food production employees are likely to be more positive
to guests in an OPEN kitchen’.
That female participants also agreed more with this item as well as
regarding ‘Food production employees will be more engaging with guests
in an OPEN kitchen’ may be in some ways related to employees’
involvement in entertaining guests. For example, womens’ higher level of
agreement concerning the entertainment factor may also be a result of
employees’ attitudes in seeking to display their skills, and therefore
contribute to guests’ positive feeling while they are observing the
working activity taking place in the kitchen. At the other end, despite the
statistically significant difference suggested (P = 0.010) regarding the item
‘I feel much safer when I eat food that is prepared in an OPEN kitchen’,

240 © 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246
 Influence of kitchen design on consumers’ eating out experience

once again the very modest means demonstrate that neither gender seems
to agree with a feeling of safety as it relates to having foods prepared in
an open kitchen. On the other hand, in some respects, the overall findings
in this section are in accordance with what Chow et al (forthcoming)
found in their study. For example, these authors identified operators’
views that open restaurant kitchen style was conducive to more awareness
of hygiene and cleanliness standards among kitchen staff. In this study,
although the feeling of complete safety is missing, respondents,
nevertheless, considered an open kitchen as being cleaner than a closed
kitchen.
Overall, in all items included in Table 5, women appeared as the more
concerned of the two groups, or at least their level of agreement was
higher. Arguably, more research is needed to confirm – or disconfirm –
that this finding suggests the potential for more revenues from female
patrons. However, the fact that one group demonstrated more awareness
concerning open versus closed kitchens could have direct as well as
indirect implications in some eating out scenarios. For example, some
studies conducted among winery that are open to the public identified
that, although women appeared to be less involved in wine (consumption,
purchases) than men (Alonso, 2005), in other studies (Dodd, 1995)
women appeared to be the more educated visitors, and also earning high
incomes. Alonso (2005) therefore argued that women’s impact should not
be overlooked, particularly because of their role as an accompaniment,
that is, in joining their partners in visiting wineries. Thus, although
women’s involvement with a particular produce may be lower than that
of men, they, nevertheless, may contribute to purchases (for example,
foods, or even some wine styles). In this study, being the group with
clearly higher levels of agreement concerning open kitchens, women’s
impact could be in some ways of potentially similar significance,
particularly in influencing their male counterparts in choosing a dining
establishment.
Some differences were also noticed when the same items concerning
open kitchen design and the age of the respondents were compared
(Table 6). Although differences did not occur in all items, in general, it
was noticed that as compared with other age groups, the younger the
respondents, the higher was their level of agreement. Regarding ‘Kitchen
staff (cooks, wash-ups) will appear neater (eg, grooming) in an OPEN
kitchen’, respondents between the ages of 21 and 29 years were more in
agreement (mean = 4.14) than other age groups, particularly those of ages
between 50 and 59 years. Similarly, but at a lower level of agreement, the
same age group (21–29 years) was more in agreement than those of the
more mature age groups (for example, 50–59, 60 + years old) concerning
the item ‘I like the “entertainment” factor when I eat at a restaurant with
an OPEN kitchen’, and ‘Food production employees will be more
engaging with guests in an OPEN kitchen’.
Interestingly, with regard to the item ‘Food production employees
will be more engaging with each other in an OPEN kitchen’, a statistically
significant difference is suggested between the age group 21–29 years
and that between the next age group (30–39 years). However, in general,
the younger age groups were more in agreement and therefore had more

© 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246 241
 Alonso and O’Neill

Table 6: Views on open kitchen design – age group comparisons

Items Age group n Mean SD Significance

(years) (two-tailed)

Kitchen staff (cooks, wash-ups) will appear 21–29 49 4.14 0.791 0.026 (1, 5)
neater (eg, grooming) in an OPEN kitchen 40–49 59 3.93 0.716 —
60 + 66 3.86 0.762 —
30–39 24 3.71 0.751 —
50–59 76 3.63 1.141 0.026 (5, 1)

Food will be prepared more carefully in an 21–29 49 3.92 1.017 NS

OPEN than in a closed kitchen 30–39 24 3.83 0.702 NS
40–49 59 3.78 0.721 NS
60 + 66 3.67 0.829 NS
50–59 76 3.50 1.149 NS

An OPEN restaurant kitchen will be cleaner 30–39 24 3.92 0.830 NS

than a closed kitchen 21–29 49 3.76 1.051 NS
60 + 66 3.67 0.950 NS
40–49 59 3.66 0.902 NS
50–59 76 3.33 1.193 NS

I like the ‘entertainment’ factor when I eat at a 21–29 49 3.78 1.006 0.001 (1, 5)
restaurant with an OPEN kitchen 30–39 24 3.21 1.062 —
40–49 59 3.20 1.030 —
50–59 76 2.88 1.200 —
60 + 66 2.65 1.157 0.001 (5, 1)

Food production employees are likely to be 21–29 49 3.65 1.032 NS

more positive to guests in an OPEN kitchen 40–49 59 3.46 0.816 NS
30–39 24 3.29 0.955 NS
50–59 76 3.21 1.123 NS
60 + 66 3.15 0.980 NS

Food production employees will be more 21–29 49 3.59 1.098 0.009 (1, 5)
engaging with guests in an OPEN kitchen 40–49 59 3.41 0.853 —
30–39 24 3.38 0.924 —
50–59 76 3.11 1.066 —
60 + 66 2.98 0.969 0.009 (5, 1)

I trust more the food that is prepared in an 21–29 49 3.57 1.173 0.031 (1, 5)
OPEN kitchen 40–49 59 3.20 0.943 —
30–39 24 3.08 1.060 —
60 + 66 3.08 1.057 —
50–59 76 2.93 1.181 0.031 (5, 1)

Food production employees will be more 21–29 49 3.55 1.119 0.015 (1, 5)
engaging with each other in an OPEN kitchen 40–49 58 3.21 0.913 —
60 + 65 3.20 0.712 —
50–59 76 3.05 1.106 —
30–39 24 2.79 0.833 0.015 (5, 1)

I feel much safer when I eat food that is 21–29 49 3.37 1.202 NS
prepared in an OPEN kitchen 40–49 59 3.07 1.032 NS
30–39 24 3.04 0.999 NS
60 + 66 3.03 0.877 NS
50–59 76 2.95 1.130 NS

Abbreviation: NS = No significance.
Respondents rated factors, where 1=Totally disagree, and 5=Totally agree.

positive views about open restaurant kitchen style. One reason for the less
positive responses among the more mature respondent groups is that they
are either less exposed to open kitchen environments, or that past negative
experiences (for example, lack of cleanliness) have conditioned their
behaviour towards restaurant kitchen styles. Moreover, as a result of

242 © 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246
 Influence of kitchen design on consumers’ eating out experience

dissatisfying past experiences, the more mature age groups may have grown
more distrustful, or may not be entirely convinced of the alleged cleanliness
and ‘transparency’ of open restaurant kitchen environments.

CONCLUSIONS
The food and service elements, while very critical within the context of
eating out experiences (Clark and Wood, 1999), are referred to in some
studies as complements rather than as the main pillars of such
experiences (see, for example, Finkelstein, 1989; Auty, 1992). In fact,
aspects other than food and service, including the restaurant’s design and
style have been acknowledged as contributing factors in drawing patrons
and in enhancing their restaurant visit. Studies in the retail sector (Sharma
and Stafford, 2000; Babin et al, 2003), for example, have acknowledged
the importance of lighting, colour and music, as some of the intangible
aspects that can have positive impacts on consumers. These intangible
aspects form part of the atmospherics (Kotler, 1974; Baker et al, 1994),
a concept that emphasises the surrounding, environmental, intangible
elements that arguably play a supporting role within consuming
experiences, influencing consumer’s attitudes.
With regard to the restaurant sector, studies mention the importance of
restaurant design and style (see, for example, Stipanuk, 2006) to suggest
ways in which these components can add value to the establishment.
Undoubtedly, there is merit for restaurateurs in pursuing strategies and
concepts (atmospherics) that may extend from the traditional food and
service quality requirements. In short, there is much merit in using
knowledge to validate and execute such strategies. However, to date,
there is a dearth of knowledge in a number of restaurant style-related
areas. For example, very little has been reported from an academic
perspective concerning open versus closed restaurant kitchen styles. In
fact, very few studies have explored this dimension, with Chow et al
(forthcoming) being among the few studying the views of small
restaurant operators. The present study sought to add to the limited
existing knowledge on consumers’ perspectives on open versus closed
kitchen style, studying the views of 277 individuals, most of who
regularly patronise restaurants.
The findings demonstrate that, although overall the level of agreement
among respondents is modest, gender and age group differences were
noticed. Regarding genders, female participants were more in agreement
with aspects related to cleanliness and overall hygiene standards as these
concerned open versus closed kitchen style. Similarly, it was noticed that
the younger age groups agreed more with regard to several of the same
items than did respondents of the more mature age groups. Clearly, the
findings do not conclude that restaurateurs should be implementing open
kitchen design related strategies to satisfy or address the needs of one of
these consumer groups. However, the differences that were noticed
according to gender and age groups may have implications for the
restaurant sector in some ways. For instance, it is argued that women’s
impact could be very significant, particularly as previous studies have
noticed. Moreover, in some scenarios, it has been found that women have
the resources to make substantial expenditures (see, for example, Dodd,

© 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246 243
 Alonso and O’Neill

1995), whereas in other studies, women’s impact accompanying their

partners (husbands and so on), is referred to as potentially very important
(Alonso, 2005).
Along similar lines, the younger age groups could also have a strong
and positive impact within eating out scenarios. Many of these younger
consumers already have the resources (education, income) to afford
eating out, whereas others will soon follow. In addition, younger
consumers also accompany family members and other potentially
important consumer groups and can make suggestions, recommendations,
or simply are the ones designated to choose an eating out venue.
Therefore, the findings identifying consumer groups that do pay more
attention to open kitchen design than others could be of use to the
restaurant sector in several practical ways.
This study is clearly not free from limitations; in fact, several have
been previously recognised. First, the number of respondents is clearly
very small to make generalisations of the findings with regard to Southern
or United States consumers. Second, the geographic context of the study,
that is, choosing only a Southern college town, is very restricted; hence,
once again, the findings may be too restricted to the geographic context
and therefore may not be generalisable. Third, the prevalence of female
respondents also constitutes a limitation: a much more balanced male
versus female population is preferred when gathering consumer data and
making gender comparisons. Lastly, the modest means that were obtained
in the descriptive as well as the statistical analyses are also reasons for
suggesting caution when interpreting the study’s findings.
Despite these limitations, the findings provide a preliminary source of
information that may assist the restaurant sector in future segmentation
and similar efforts. The findings could also be a tool that assists future
consumer- and restaurateur-related studies on open versus closed kitchen
style. Studies could build on this first foray into a rather unexplored
dimension, focussing on

(a) a much wider audience, that is, a much larger number of respondents,
(b) respondents from several regions or states,
(c) a more balanced gender distribution, and possibly,
(d) a revision and/or extension of the factors examined in the present
study concerning open versus closed kitchens.

Future studies addressing the points above could significantly contribute

towards the body of knowledge of consumer and restaurateur research.
For example, for many consumers, food and service personnel hygiene,
cleanliness and related aspects are based on first sight and appearance,
and much of a restaurant’s appearance starts with its physical design.
Furthermore, for those consumers who pay attention to open kitchen design
as a source of cleanliness, transparency, responsiveness, positiveness
towards guests and even entertainment, the proper execution of the open
kitchen element could contribute towards increased or repeat consumer
patronage, positive feedback (word of mouth), and ultimately translate into
revenues for restaurateurs. Hence, the monitoring of the open kitchen design
and/or related areas merit much attention in future research.

244 © 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246
 Influence of kitchen design on consumers’ eating out experience

REFERENCES
Aksoydan, E. (2007) Hygiene factors influencing customers’ choice of dining-out units: Findings
from a study of university academic staff. Journal of Food Safety 27: 300–316.
Alonso, A.D. (2005) Wine tourism experiences in New Zealand: An exploratory study.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Faculty of Commerce, Lincoln University, New Zealand.
Auty, S. (1992) Consumer choice and segmentation in the restaurant industry. The Service
Industries Journal 12(3): 324–339.
Babin, B.J., Hardesty, D.M. and Suter, T.A. (2003) Color and shopping intentions: The intervening
effect of price fairness and perceived affect. Journal of Business Research 56: 541–551.
Bahn, D.K. and Granzin, L.K. (1985) Benefit segmentation in the restaurant industry. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 13(3): 226–247.
Baker, J. (1986) The role of the environment in marketing services: The consumer perspectives, in
the services challenge: Integrating for competitive advantage. In: J.A. Czepiel, C. Congram
and J. Shanaham (eds.) The Services Marketing Challenge: Integrated for Competitive
Advantage. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, pp. 79–84.
Baker, J., Grewal, D. and Parasuraman, A. (1994) The influence of store environment on quality
inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22: 328–339.
Baraban, R.S. and Durocher, J.F. (2010) Successful Restaurant Design, 3rd edn. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Bitner, M.J. (1992) Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. Journal of Marketing 56: 57–71.
Bruni, F. (2005) Yes the kitchen’s open. Too open. The New York Times online, http://www
.nytimes.com/2005/07/27/dining/27open.html, accessed 5 May 2010.
Chow, A.J., Alonso, A.D., Douglas, A.C. and O’Neill, A.M. (2010) Exploring open kitchens’
impact on restaurateurs’ cleanliness perceptions. Journal of Retail and Leisure Property 9(2):
93–104.
Clark, M.A. and Wood, R.C. (1999) Consumer loyalty in the restaurant industry. British Food
Journal 4: 317–327.
Countryman, C.C. and Jang, S. (2006) The effects of atmospheric elements on customer
impression: The case of hotel lobbies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 18(7): 534–545.
Cullen, P. (2010) Three Hare Krishna restaurants on breaches in food safety list. The Irish Times
online, http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0507/1224269870424.html,
accessed 14 May 2010.
Dodd, T.H. (1995) Opportunities and pitfalls of tourism in a developing wine industry.
International Journal of Wine Marketing 7(1): 5–17.
Ebbin, R. (2000) Americans’ dining-out habits. Restaurants USA online, November 2000 issue
http://www.restaurant.org/tools/magazines/rusa/magArchive/year/article/?ArticleID=138,
accessed 3 May 2010.
Falkenstein, D. (2010) Ohio food poisoning count increases: 22 Salmonella cases at Athens
restaurant. Food Poison Journal online, http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/2010/05/articles/
foodborne-illness-outbreaks/ohio-foodpoisoning-count-increases-22-salmonella-cases-at-
athens-restaurant/, accessed 13 May 2010.
Ferren, A. (2010) High and low dining: Barcelona. The New York Times online, http://travel.
nytimes.com/2010/04/18/travel/18Barcelona.html, accessed 4 May 2010.
Finkelstein, J. (1989) Dining Out: A Sociology of Modern Manners. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hadley, J.A., Wall, D. and Khan, K. (2007) Learning needs analysis to guide teaching
evidence-based medicine: Knowledge and beliefs amongst trainees from various specialties.
BMC Medical Education, pp. 7–11, http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6920-7-11.pdf,
accessed 21 January 2010.
Kivela, J.J. (1997) Restaurant marketing: Selection and segmentation in Hong Kong. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 9(3): 116–123.
Klein, S., De Waal, C.S., Bhuiya, F., Witmer, J., Everett, C. and Newland, L. (2008) Dirty Dining
Report. Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) http://www.cspinet.org/dirtydining/
DirtyDiningReport.pdf, accessed 5 May 2010.
Kotler, P. (1974) Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing 49: 48–64.
National Restaurant Association. (2010) Profitability and entrepreneurship, http://www.restaurant
.org/profitability/, accessed 14 May 2010.
Parmley, S. (2010) Designing venues with vibes for the casino industry, http://www.philly.com/
philly/business/homepage/20100426_Designing_venues_with_vibes_for_the_casino_industry
.html, accessed 5 May 2010.
Raisfeld, R. and Patronite, R. (2005) Dinner and a show. New York Magazine online, http://nymag
.com/nymetro/food/features/10313/, accessed 13 May 2010.
Reid, D.R. (1983) Foodservice Restaurant Marketing. London: CBI.

© 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246 245
 Alonso and O’Neill

Riley, M. (1994) The influence of social culture and innovation. British Food Journal 96(10):
15–18.
Santos, J.R.A. (1999) Cronbach’s Alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of
Extension 37(2), http://www.joe.org/joe/1999april/tt3.php, accessed 2 January 2010.
Schreck, S. (2010) Durham food poisoning traced to restaurant. Food Safety News online, http://
www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/04/durham-food-poisoning-traced-to-restaurant/, accessed 13
May 2010.
Shaheen, K. (2010) Hygiene ‘police’ fail 9 in 10 restaurants. The National online, http://www
.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100419/NATIONAL/704189802/1040/business,
accessed 13 May 2010.
Sharma, A. and Stafford, T.F. (2000) The effect of retail atmospherics on customers’ perceptions
of salespeople and customer persuasion: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business
Research 49: 183–191.
Stipanuk, D.M. (2006) Hospitality Facilities Management and Design, 3rd edn. Lansing, MI:
Educational Institute of the American Hotel and Motel Association.
Virbila, S.I. (2010) The review: Elements kitchen in Pasadena – All the elements of success. Los
Angeles Times online, http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-fo-review-20100429,0,7544595
.story, accessed 5 May 2010.
Weisstuch, L. (2010) Louisville takes the reins in crafting new cuisine. The Boston Globe online,
http://www.boston.com/travel/getaways/us/articles/2010/04/25/louisville_takes_the_reins_in_
crafting_new_cuisine/, accessed 4 May 2010.
Williams, R.M., Sundelin, G. and Schmuck, M.L. (2001) Reliability of the demand-control
questionnaire for sewing machine operators. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and
Rehabilitation 16(2): 71–75.
Yüksel, A. and Yüksel, F. (2002) Market segmentation based on tourists’ dining preferences.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 26: 315–331.

246 © 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1479–1110 Journal of Retail & Leisure Property Vol. 9, 3, 231–246

View publication stats