The Influence of Dining Experience at Mary Jay Restaurant Research Notes

Research Overview and Authorship

Institutional Identification: Arellano University, Jose Rizal Malabon Campus, School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Gov. Pascual Ave., Malabon City.
Course Title: Research in Hospitality.
Professor: Dr. JOSE Y. TRENCIO, CPA, LPT, MBA, DBA.
Research Title: THE INFLUENCE OF DINING EXPERIENCE AT MARY JAY RESTAURANT: BASIS FOR A STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Degree Program: Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management.
Authors:
- Mhike Laurence G. Mangunay
- Rashley Serrano
- Joselito Enriquez
- Jaycee Yanni Abuan
- Jonel Sevandra
- Christian Santos
Year of Completion: 2026.

Chapter I: The Problem and Review of Related Literature

Introduction and Problem Context

State of the Industry: The restaurant industry is noted as one of the most competitive sectors within hospitality. Success depends on providing a positive dining experience that aligns with evolving customer expectations.
Multifaceted Evaluation: Customers evaluate restaurants based on a combination of factors:
- Food quality.
- Service quality.
- Restaurant ambiance.
- Cleanliness.
- Price fairness.
Fundamental Determinants of Success: Ryu and Han (2010), along with Namkung and Jang (2007), identify food quality, service quality, physical environment, and perceived price as significant influences on customers' behavioral intentions and intention to revisit. Recent studies (Sari et al., 2026; Lestari et al., 2026) confirm these factors positively contribute to satisfaction.
Research Motivation: There is currently a gap in the literature specifically regarding Mary Jay Restaurant. This study aims to fill that gap to determine how dining experience influences satisfaction in this specific context and to develop a Strategic Management Plan to improve operations.

Review of Related Literature (RRL) and Studies

Thematic Organization: The RRL is organized into themes: dining experience, food quality, service quality, restaurant ambiance, cleanliness, price fairness, customer satisfaction, and strategic management.

Dining Experience

Definition: The overall experience during dining, encompassing food, service, atmosphere, and cost.
Local Literature (Philippines):
- Masa (2021): Customers evaluate the overall experience rather than isolated service parts; high standards must be maintained for repeat patronage.
- Yan and Felicen (2021): Highlight the importance of "dinescape" and "servicescape" in creating memorable experiences.
Foreign Literature:
- El-Said et al. (2021): Consistent quality in products and services forms positive experiences.
- Che Ishak et al. (2023): Dining experience is a combination of food, service, ambiance, and customer interaction.
Recent Evidence: Bulalacao and Repatacodo (2025) and Villanueva et al. (2023) emphasize that servicescape and quality service are directly related to comfort and loyalty.

Food Quality

Evaluation Criteria: Taste, freshness, appearance, temperature, portion size, and consistency.
Philippine Context: Crisolo and Manalo (2025) found food quality, combined with fair pricing, is key for revisit intention in full-service restaurants.
Foreign Context: Kotsanopoulos and Arvanitoyannis (2017) link food quality directly to food safety, quality assurance, and proper handling practices.
Recent Studies:
- Malonzo and Pulhin (2023): Food safety practices contribute to positive behavioral intentions.
- Chinelato and Cruz (2025): Evaluation includes visible (taste/presentation) and hidden factors (ingredient quality/preparation).

Service Quality

Core Expectations: Promptness, courtesy, and professionalism.
Local Context:
- Glory et al. (2025): Reliability and responsiveness build customer trust.
- Cantela and Ylagan (2024): Service quality strengthens brand reputation.
Foreign Context:
- Oliveras-Villanueva et al. (2020) and Nazri et al. (2022): Continuous improvement is required to meet changing expectations.
- Uslu and Eren (2020): Direct effect on loyalty.
- Talukder et al. (2023): Technological support in food service increases revisit intention.

Restaurant Ambiance

Components: Interior design, lighting, music, temperature, seating, and décor.
Local Context: Alcantara et al. (2021) equate ambiance to servicescape, influencing the perception of quality.
Foreign Context: Espitia et al. (2025) expanded the definition of servicescape to include the social interaction between customers, employees, and the environment.
Recent Evidence: Pizam et al. (2024) and Al-Kilani and El Hedhli (2021) found atmospheric factors strengthen emotional connections and authenticity.

Cleanliness

Reflection of Commitment: Reflects the restaurant's stance on hygiene and customer safety.
Local Perspective: De Vera et al. (2024) and Quinto and Payonga (2026) state cleanliness builds trust and reduces operational health risks.
Foreign Perspective: Kim et al. (2021) found personal perception of cleanliness is nearly as important as compliance with sanitation standards.
Post-Pandemic Context: Kim, Bonn, and Cho (2022) noted restaurant hygiene became more critical to customers following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Price Fairness

Value-Price Connection: Customers do not prioritize the lowest price, but rather whether the price matches the perceived quality.
Local Perspective: Bungabong et al. (2025) emphasize that satisfaction stems from receiving items worth the amount paid.
Foreign Perspective: Malc et al. (2016) suggest customers perceive an exchange as fair when benefits align with cost.
Recent Findings: Crisolo and Manalo (2025) and Gad (2024) link price fairness to retention and patrons continued support.

Customer Satisfaction

Definition: The overall post-experience evaluation.
Philippine Setting: Coronel (2025) associates it with the ability to meet expectations and remain competitive.
Foreign Literature: Pizam et al. (2016) and Prayag et al. (2019) describe it as the most widely studied topic in hospitality because it drives business performance.
Repurchase Intention: Cordova and Padilla (2025) and Gumasing (2025) link satisfaction to customer retention and word-of-mouth recommendations.

Strategic Management

Definition: A process involving planning, implementing, and evaluating strategies to improve operations and achieve long-term success.
Local Context: Barrozo (2020) highlights it as a guide for informed decision-making.
Foreign Context: Fuertes et al. (2020) and Alharbi (2024) describe it as a continuous process required to adapt to external/internal environments.
Problem Solving: Dingil et al. (2023) suggest managers use strategy to solve operational problems affecting quality.

Theoretical Framework

Servicescape Theory (Mary Jo Bitner, 1992): Explains that the physical environment (layout, symbols, functionality) significantly affects customer emotions and behaviors.
Expectation-Confirmation Theory (ECT - Richard L. Oliver, 1980): Proposes that satisfaction results from comparing pre-purchase expectations with actual experience.
- Experience > Expectation: Satisfaction.
- Experience < Expectation: Dissatisfaction.

Conceptual Framework

Independent Variable: Dining Experience (measured by Food Quality, Service Quality, Restaurant Ambiance, Cleanliness, and Price Fairness).
Dependent Variable: Customer Satisfaction.
Output: Strategic Management Plan.

Statement of the Problem (SOP)

What is the demographic profile (Age, Gender, Frequency of Visit)?
What is the level of dining experience (the five dimensions)?
Is there a significant influence of dining experience on customer satisfaction?
What Strategic Management Plan can be proposed based on findings?

Research Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis ( $H_0$ ): There is no significant influence of dining experience on customer satisfaction at Mary Jay Restaurant.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

Focus: Influence of dining experience dimensions on overall satisfaction at Mary Jay Restaurant.
Participants: Customers who dined during the data collection period.
Design: Quantitative research using structured surveys.
Exclusions: Other factors like marketing, personal outside experiences, or results from other restaurants.

Significance of the Study

Mary Jay Restaurant: Gains insights for operational improvements.
Management/Employees: Identification of service delivery gaps.
Customers: Access to improved future dining experiences.
Future Researchers: Reference for hospitality management studies.
Hospitality Students: Learning material for academic research.

Definition of Terms

Customer Satisfaction: Respondents' overall evaluation after dining, measured by the questionnaire.
Dining Experience: Respondents' assessment of food, service, ambiance, cleanliness, and price fairness elements.
Food Quality: Assessment of taste, freshness, and presentation of served food.
Influence: The statistical effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable.
Price Fairness: Perception of reasonable pricing relative to value received.
Restaurant Ambiance: Assessment of the physical environment, including lighting, seating, and music.
Service Quality: Evaluation of staff promptness, courtesy, and professionalism.
Strategic Management Plan: The proposed plan based on findings to enhance restaurant success.
Cleanliness: Assessment of sanitation in the dining area, utensils, and restrooms.

Chapter II: Research Methodology

Research Design

Approach: Quantitative research.
Design: Descriptive-Correlational.
- Descriptive: Used for demographic profiles and assessing the level of variables.
- Correlational: Determining if there is a significant relationship.
Core Tool: Simple Linear Regression Analysis to determine the predictive influence of the independent variable.

Respondents of the Study

Target: Current customers of Mary Jay Restaurant.
Population Estimate: Management estimates 250 to 300 customers daily.
Average Population ( $N$ ): $275$ .
Inclusion Criteria:
- Age: 18 years old or above.
- Experience: Must have dined at Mary Jay Restaurant.
- Consent: Voluntary participation.
- Completeness: Must answer the questionnaire fully.

Sample Size and the Calmorin Formula

Formula Variables:
- $S_s$ = Sample Size
- $N$ = Total Population ( $275$ )
- $V$ = Standard Value ( $2.58$ ) at 1% level of probability with 0.99 reliability.
- $S_e$ = Sampling Error ( $0.05$ ).
- $P$ = Population Proportion ( $0.50$ ).

Research Instrument and Data Collection

Type: Researcher-adapted structured questionnaire.
Sources: DINESERV (Stevens, Knutson, & Patton, 1995) and DINESCAPE (Ryu & Jang, 2008).
Structure:
- Part I: Profile (Age, Gender, Frequency of Visit).
- Part II: Dining Experience (5 dimensions).
- Part III: Customer Satisfaction (Researcher-developed items).

Five-Point Likert Scale

Scale 5: Range $4.21 - 5.00$ ; Verbal Interpretation: "Strongly Agree".
Scale 4: Range $3.41 - 4.20$ ; Verbal Interpretation: "Agree".
Scale 3: Range $2.61 - 3.40$ ; Verbal Interpretation: "Neutral".
Scale 2: Range $1.81 - 2.60$ ; Verbal Interpretation: "Disagree".
Scale 1: Range $1.00 - 1.80$ ; Verbal Interpretation: "Strongly Disagree".

Data Gathering Procedure and Sampling Technique

Sampling Technique: Purposive sampling (Non-probability based on study objectives).
Sequence:
1. Seek approval from Research Adviser/Dean.
2. Obtain permission from Mary Jay Restaurant management.
3. Expert content validation.
4. Pilot testing with 30 respondents (not included in final count).
5. Distribution/collection by researchers personally.

Validation of the Instrument and Reliability Testing

Validation: Conducted by three (3) experts from the Hospitality Management Department.
Reliability: Pilot test analyzed using Cronbach's Alpha to ensure internal consistency.
Ethics: Adherence to the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10173).

Statistical Treatment of Data

Frequency and Percentage: Used for demographics.
- $Percentage = (\frac{f}{N}) \times 100$
Weighted Mean ( $\overline{X}$ ): Used for dining experience levels.
- $\overline{X} = \frac{\sum f X}{N}$
Simple Linear Regression Analysis: Used for predicting satisfaction.
- Regression Equation: $Y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X + \varepsilon$
- Decision Rule:
  - If $p \leq 0.05$ , reject $H_0$ (Significant influence).
  - If $p > 0.05$ , fail to reject $H_0$ (Non-significant influence).
- Metrics: $R^2$ (Coefficient of Determination) indicates the proportion of variation explained by the dining experience.