The Algebra of Features in Restaurants: Homo Emotionalis Versus Homo Economicus
Howard Moskowitz1*, Martin Topol2 and Joanne Mazzio3
1Mind Genomics Associates, Inc., White Plains, NY, USA
2Pace University, New York, USA
3Independent Researcher, Portchester, New York, USA
*Corresponding Author: Howard Moskowitz, Mind Genomics Associates, Inc., White Plains, NY, USA.
June 14, 2023; Published: July 08, 2023
210 respondents in the US each evaluated a unique set of 48 vignettes about restaurants. The elements or messages in the vignettes presented ‘top level’ information about the different aspects of a restaurant, such as the food, the service, the ambiance, the cleanliness, and so forth. Each respondent evaluated the unique set of 48 vignettes, constructed according to experimental design, with each of the 48 vignettes comprising 3-4 elements, selected from six groups of six elements each dealing with different aspects of the restaurant. The respondent rated each vignette on two attributes, first ‘enticing’ on an anchored nine-point scale, second ‘price would pay’ on an anchored seven-point scale. Deconstruction of the ratings by OLS (ordinary least-squares) regression quantified the contribution of the separate elements, first showing the contribution of each element to the feeling of enticing (homo emotionalis), and second showing price that the respondent would pay (homo economicus). Three mind-sets emerged, one focused on the inner experience, on focused on outer aspects such as restaurant features, and one focused on combinations of the two. The same mind-sets emerged for the two rating scales, but the segmentation into mind-sets were driven by different elements.
Keywords: Algebra; Restaurants; Homo emotionalis Versus; Homo economicus
- Barber N and Scarcelli JM. “Enhancing the assessment of tangible service quality through the creation of a cleanliness measurement scale”. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 20 (2010): 70-88.
- Moskowitz HR and Gofman A. “Selling Blue Elephants: How to Make Great Products That People Want Before They Even Know They Want Them”. Pearson Education (2007).
- Moskowitz HR. “’Mind Genomics’: The experimental, inductive science of the ordinary, and its application to aspects of food and feeding”. Physiology and Behavior 107 (2012): 606-613.
- Anderson NH. “How functional measurement can yield validated interval scales of mental quantities”. Journal of Applied Psychology 61 (1976): 677-692.
- Wind YJ and Green PE. “Some conceptual, measurement, and analytical problems in lifestyle research”. Marketing Classics Press (2011).
- Barrows CW., et al. “Influence of restaurant reviews upon consumers”. Hospitality Review 7 (1989).
- Gan Q., et al. “A text mining and multidimensional sentiment analysis of online restaurant reviews”. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism 18 (2017): 465-492.
- June LP and Smith SL. “Service attributes and situational effects on customer preferences for restaurant dining”. Journal of Travel Research 26 (1987): 20-27.
- Carter R., et al. “Applying choice based conjoint measurement to forcast demand for a new restaurant category”. Journal of Food Products Marketing3 (2001): 63-78.
- Chae IS., et al. “A conjoint-based approach to analyze the importance of brand choice attributes: pizza restaurant cases”. Korean Journal of Community Nutrition (2002): 354-360.
- Mazzio J., et al. “Understanding the algebra of the restaurant patron; A cartography using cognitive economics and mind genomics”. Nutrition Research Food Science 3 (2020): 1-11.
- Rhee HT., et al. “Exploring the comparative salience of restaurant attributes: A conjoint analysis approach”. International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016): 1360-1370.
- Sharma S and Malhotra NK. “Examining social setting and product reference visa conjoint analysis: An empirical study of restaurant patronage”. In: The 1980’s: A Decade of Marketing Challenges (2015).
- Likas A., et al. “The global k-means clustering algorithm”. Pattern Recognition 36 (2003): 451-461.
- Luce RD and Tukey JW. “Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement”. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1 (1964): 1-27.
- Gofman A and Moskowitz H. “Isomorphic permuted experimental designs and their application in conjoint analysis”. Journal of Sensory Studies25 (2010): 127-145.