Key Study Summary

Aims: To investigate how diners perceive specific table distances during particular dining experiences, and the impact that those perceptions
have on attitudes and preferences.

Procedure:

32 statements - measured emotional, intentional and anticipated behavioural reactions to images of two tables 6,12, or 14 inches apart.

12 items to measure emotional responses from the Stress Arousal Checklist. (SACL)
16 items to measure perceived control, privacy and comfort.

Version 1
 Research method (underline): Experiment / Observation / Self-report / Correlation / Longitudinal / Case-study
What makes it that method?

Strengths of the method as used in the studyWeaknesses of the method as used in the studyClear establishment of IV and DV to test causal
relationship. Use of controls to eliminate the effects of confounding variables on the independent variable. Lack of ecological validity: the study has a
real-life context, yet was conducted in an artificial environment, therefore might introduce demand characteristic in participants. Participants might not
act the same as they would in the real-life setting as they might have guessed the aim.

For experiments:
Experimental Design (underline): Independent measures / Repeated measures / Matched pairs
What makes it that design?
Strengths of the method as used in the studyWeaknesses of the method as used in the studyUse of random allocation therefore would reduce
the subjection to bias.
Findings
Independent / results
measures design eliminates order effects as repetition is not introduced. Demand characteristics were also eliminated which increases
Significant
validity. differences
Participant across
variables almost
might allthe
affect responses for tables
IV, therefore at 6,the
reducing 12 validity
and 24 ofinches distance.
the study. In the case of Robson, participants of different
Close table spacing made respondents feel cultures
backgrounds, less private,
mightmore
havecrowded,
differentless likely to have
perceptions a positive
of personal experience, and more dissatisfied with their
space.
assigned table.
IV (Independent Variable): How was it manipulated / what are the different conditions of the experiment?
6-inch distance
(9 conditions): respondents:
table spacing more
– included concerned
chairs/ about being overheard or about disturbing other diners.
banquette.
Sample details: 1013 participants from USA
70% of
6, 12 inches this group
(Hall’s agreed
intimate zone)they would ask to be reseated if possible
Good
24 inches balance
Arousal score
(Hall’s of gender
did
personal not and
vary
zone) location ofbetween
significantly residence (urban,
table suburban,
spacing, or rural)
but stress levels were significantly higher for the 6 inch spacing, and feelings of control
and comfort
DV (Dependent were markedly
Variable): lower
Howethnicity,
was thanmeasured?
the but
DV for wider spaced tables.
Large range of age and not balanced (81% white; 39% 50+ years old)
Measures of emotional
Sampling and(underline):
method behavioural responses: Likert-type
Volunteer scales (1= /strongly
a.k.a Self-selected disagree
Opportunity – 7 = strongly agree)
/ Random
Controls:
How were they gathered using this method?
Version 1
same images, distances,
Volunteer sampleand statements
– shared were used forsampling
by professional each participant
company in each condition.
via weblink.
 Conclusions / explanations of results:
Diners feel strongly negative towards tightly spaced tables of 6 inches, in terms of feeling uncomfortable, overcrowded and general negative about the
restaurant.
This was the case regardless of individual differences.
Those who are seated uncomfortably are likely to stay for less time (and likely to spend less money), less likely to return, and less likely to recommend
the restaurant to others.

Methodological Issues

Reliability: Is the study replicable? How consistent is the measure? Validity: Is there something getting in the way of measuring what they

Does it have a standardised procedure? wanted to measure eg extraneous variables, demand characteristics?

The study used standardized measurements (questionnaires of 32 The study has use of controls (e.g. questions asking if they had

questions) – use of Likert scale for responses. experience in the restaurant industry, how often they ate in restaurants,
Evaluation Issues place of residents).
Easier for other research teams to replicate. Other research teams can
replicate the study to test for reliability. Quantitative data is used, ensuring objectivity as the analysis of

Data with higher reliability is more accurate and therefore is more quantitative data does not require personal opinions. :<

generalizable.
Version 1