Yeung, T. M., Chen McCain, S.-L., Lolli, J. C., & Larson, B. (2021).

The Influence of
Background Sounds, Physical Sounds, and Managers’ Proactive Customer Service
Regarding Situational Sounds on Customer Satisfaction in the Restaurant Industry.
Journal of Small Business Strategy, 31(5), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.53703/001c.29831

articles

The Influence of Background Sounds, Physical Sounds, and

Managers’ Proactive Customer Service Regarding Situational
Sounds on Customer Satisfaction in the Restaurant Industry
a b c d
Tak M Yeung, MS 1 , Shiang-Lih Chen McCain, Ph.D. 2 , Jeffrey C. Lolli, Ed.D. 1 , Brian Larson, Ph.D. 1
1 Widener University, 2 Colorado Mesa University
Keywords: Background Sounds, Physical Sounds, Situational Sounds, Ambient Noise, Proactive Customer Service, Customer Satisfaction, Restaurant
Industry
https://doi.org/10.53703/001c.29831

Journal of Small Business Strategy

Vol. 31, Issue 5, 2021

Noise complaints in restaurants have been accelerating and unpleasant sounds erode
customer satisfaction. Restaurant ambient noise, such as background and physical sounds
influence customer satisfaction and effectively controlling the sound environment in
restaurants is challenging, particularly situational sounds generated by customers.
Situational sounds address how customers are influenced by other customers dining in
the same restaurant and highlight a type of sound that cannot be easily managed by
employees. Situational sounds can be loud conversation among fellow customers or
misbehaving children. Concerns with situational sounds are less about how they impact
customer satisfaction, and more about the way in which managers handle them. Thus,
managers find a proactive service approach to be most effective when handling
situational sounds in a restaurant. For example, strategically placing a large noisy group
in a separate room or further away from other customers in the restaurant can mitigate
the negative impact to other diners. The results of this study confirmed that background
sounds, physical sounds, and managers’ proactive customer service regarding situational
sounds impact customer satisfaction. However, the interactive effects of background
sounds, physical sounds, and managers’ proactive customer service regarding situational
sounds do not influence customer satisfaction. Based on the results, recommendations for
restaurant managers are provided to decrease controllable unpleasant noises caused by
background and physical sounds as well as strategies for effectively executing proactive
customer service to handle situational sounds.

Introduction (Hodgson et al., 2007). Background sounds refer to noise

from musical compositions, projected radio programming,
Delivering a positive service experience is vital in the and other music that can be controlled by restaurant man-
hyper-competitive restaurant industry. However, today’s agers (Schafer, 1994). Physical sounds refer to the noise
restaurants are getting noisier (Spence, 2014) and control- generated by employees, such as placing dishes and silver-
ling ambient noise levels is increasingly being recognized ware onto trays, running around, moving tables and chairs,
for its contribution to the overall customer experience. and cleaning and setting up tables (Zemke et al., 2011). Sit-
Soundscape, a sound or combination of sounds from an uational sounds refer to the noise generated by customers,
environment, is so influential that some restaurant-goers which are part of the product (Bitner, 1990), and which
have begun calling for legislation to regulate noise levels managers do not have full control over (Christie, 2004).
and restaurant reviews in the Washington Post now come Unpleasant sounds in restaurant settings erode customer
with decibel ratings and explanations (e.g. “Must speak satisfaction and noise complaints in restaurants have been
with raised voice”) according to Wells (2020). accelerating (Hsu, 2012). They are repeatedly the top com-
Ambient noise refers to background sounds, physical plaint in Zagat’s America’s Top Restaurants Survey (Clark,
sounds, and situational sounds in a restaurant setting 2014; Morgan, 2016) and to audiologists (National Institute

a One University Place, Chester, PA 19013, USA, [email protected]

b 1100 North Ave, Grand Junction, CO 81501, USA, [email protected]
c One University Place, Chester, PA 19013, USA, [email protected]
d One University Place, Chester, PA 19013, USA, [email protected]
 The Influence of Background Sounds, Physical Sounds, and Managers’ Proactive Customer Service Regarding Situational Sounds...

on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 2016). A expectation. On the other hand, dissatisfaction occurs if a
2016 Consumer Reports survey found that excessive noise is customer receives products or services below expectation.
the top reason people complain about restaurants – ahead Overall, satisfaction comes from the level of trust, delight,
of service or even food quality (Belluz, 2018). Few factors and commitment of customers (Hennig-Thurau et al.,
are more central for restaurant managers than managing 2002). Importantly, several positive consequences come
noise in the restaurant setting. with satisfied customers, including a willingness to pay pre-
Established scientific studies show that unpleasant mium prices, positive word-of-mouth, and overall organiza-
sounds (e.g. background music, the clatter of silverware and tional performance enhancement (Mikolon et al., 2015).
dishes, and the conversations from the diners themselves) Customer satisfaction regarding the different dimen-
influence customer satisfaction (Bramley, 2019; Kivela et sions and types of restaurant sounds have been connected
al., 1999). Not surprisingly, and indicative of its centrality in previous research; for example, the level of sound oc-
to a good service experience, the concept of soundscape has curring at a restaurant (Fikret, 2013), or the types of music
been commonly applied when investigating noise level. restaurant-goers prefer to experience (Novak et al., 2010).
However, smartly controlling the sound environment in Physical sounds – those caused by employee tasks such as
restaurants is challenging. While customer satisfaction par- dropping dishes onto trays, running around, moving ta-
tially reflects the impact of the restaurant’s sound environ- bles and chairs, and cleaning and setting up tables - can
ment – referred to as ambient conditions (Turley & Mil- also influence customer satisfaction (Bitner, 1992; Harrell
liman, 2000), the sound environment also results from et al., 1980). While important, most of the time, physical
interactions with the customer themselves. For instance, situ- sounds such as heating, air conditioning and kitchen equip-
ational sounds cannot be fully controlled by managers be- ment can be managed in a restaurant setting (Zemke et
cause they are generated by customers who dine in the al., 2011). Finally, several studies have shown situational
same setting at the same time. Based on two of the authors’ sounds, those caused by other customers in the same set-
15 years of restaurant experience, many restaurant man- ting, also reflect negatively on the service firm (Adams et
agers indicate that the most common practice for them to al., 2006; Bitner, 1992; Grove & Fisk, 1997). However, since
handle noisy customers is to apply a proactive service ap- situational sounds are not completely control by managers,
proach where managers move customers further away from a proactive service strategy, when used, can alleviate the
the noise. This approach avoids making a scene and pre- negative impact of situational sounds. Instead of reacting
vents other customers from being interrupted by their noisy after a service failure, proactive customer service positively
co-diners. The human variables, and management’s han- impacts customer satisfaction by anticipating service fail-
dling of the human variables, should also affect the service ures and taking actions to prevent them (Jin et al., 2010;
provider’s setting. Raub & Liao, 2012; Söderlund, 2018).
Often, managers have not been trained to think about
service quality holistically and preventatively, but rather re- Background Sounds
actively. While employees are trained to deliver superior
service, often systems are not in place to deal with service Background sounds refer to audio environments like mu-
problems before they occur. For example, if a large group sical compositions, radio or recorded programming, and
of diners is too loud and this upsets the guest at the table other music (Schafer, 1994). Restaurants can select a unique
nearby, the manager may perform a service recovery for the background music that is related to the restaurant style or
disgruntled guest. However, if the manager initially took a theme. For instance, Chinese restaurants can play tradi-
proactive approach, the large group could have been seated tional Chinese music. Background music is generally used
away from other diners to avoid upsetting other customers. to enhance the activities and contribute positively to the
Proactive customer service plays an essential role because service environment. However, it can overwhelm the service
not every dissatisfied customer complains, and many times environment and negate the positive effect (Zemke et al.,
managers are not even aware of a service failure to be able 2011). If the restaurant is not playing the right music, cus-
provide a service recovery. The authors posit that manager- tomers may feel that the music is unpleasant and they may
ial action is vital to positively impacting the soundscape. not be able to fully enjoy the service. In addition, music vol-
The purpose of this study is to assess how background ume can vary from soft to loud and tempo varies from slow
sounds, physical sounds, and the managerial handling of to fast. According to Fikret (2013), customers said that mu-
situational sound problems impact customer satisfaction in sic made them more relaxed during shopping, and they were
a restaurant setting. willing to spend more time in the shopping mall when mu-
sic is playing. Likewise, previous studies have shown that
Literature Review loud music caused customers to spend less time in stores
and perceive the experience as unpleasant, affecting cus-
Customer Satisfaction
tomer return intention (Fikret, 2013).
Customer satisfaction is well-established in the service Similar to the volume, the tempo of background music
literature and arguably the most important factor to mea- also influences customers’ experience. As indicated by
sure success in a restaurant setting. For this study, customer Caldwell & Hibbert (1999), the tempo of music played in a
satisfaction refers to how their perceptions of performance restaurant has an effect on the amount of time customers
match with expectations based on past experience (Oliver, spend in the restaurant. According to Mattila & Wirtz
1980). To summarize this theory, satisfaction is when a cus- (2001), customers spent less time in a dining experience
tomer receives products or services perceived to be above when the restaurant played fast-tempo music in the dining

Journal of Small Business Strategy

 The Influence of Background Sounds, Physical Sounds, and Managers’ Proactive Customer Service Regarding Situational Sounds...

room; however, customers were willing to spend more time product and therefore can impact the quality of service de-
enjoying their meals listening to slow-tempo music. livery. Situational sounds address how customers are influ-
Because restaurants can modify background sounds to enced by other customers dining in the same restaurant and
suit customers, it’s not surprising that previous studies highlight a type of sound that cannot be easily managed
(Christie, 2004; Rohrmann, 2003) have shown that most by employees. For example, situational sounds can be loud
customers assessed the music played in cafes and restau- conversation among fellow customers or crying and fuss-
rant as acceptable. However, Rohrmann (2003) indicated ing children. Those unpleasant situational sounds make it
that the restaurant environment has changed. Louder difficult for other customers to enjoy their experience or
soundscapes are acceptable or at least tolerated more com- carry on a normal volume conversation with their co-din-
pared to ten years ago. Too few results show the soundscape ers (Christie, 2004). Unpleasant sounds generated by cus-
acceptable rate on customers’ perceptions in the restaurant tomers will affect other customers’ service expectations and
industry. perceptions of the service quality (Novak et al., 2010).
Hypothesis 1: Background sounds impact customer sat- Situational sounds are not easily controlled but influence
isfaction. customers’ revisit intentions (Huang et al., 2010). More-
over, managers and employees cannot force their customers
Physical Sounds to control their voices in the restaurant, and there is no
easy method to reduce unpleasant sounds generated by cus-
Physical sounds are defined as “furniture movement, tomers. Thus, the concern with situational sounds might
building equipment (heating/cooling, kitchen equipment, not be as much about how situational sounds impact cus-
cash registers), and exterior and street noise that infiltrates tomer satisfaction, but rather the way in which managers
the space” (Zemke et al., 2011, p. 257). Examples of physical handle situational sound problems. Therefore, proactive
sounds caused by employees are dropping dishes onto a customer service in handling a situational sound issue is ar-
bus tray, running around, moving tables and chairs, and guably key.
cleaning and setting up tables. These sounds are harsh, Shin et al. (2017) defines proactive customer service as
and customers may feel uncomfortable hearing them which “anticipating potentially problematic issues and acting
could affect customer satisfaction and other marketing out- prior to customer recognition or reaction to prevent service
comes. These short duration sounds do not cause immedi- failure from occurring” (p. 165). Proactive customer service
ate health problems; however, long-term exposure to that plays an essential role in today’s environment since service
kind of noise can cause customers to have hearing problems failure avoidance should be as important as service recovery
(Mondal, 2014). Physical sound levels in restaurants nor- because not every dissatisfied customer complains, and
mally should range between 60 dBA to 80 dBA (Christie, many times managers are not even aware of the service fail-
2004) and Rohrmann (2003) found that many restaurants ure to provide a service recovery. Anecdotally, 70-95% of
exceeded these levels. customers who experience a dissatisfying service encounter
While physical sounds can influence customer satisfac- do not bother complaining (Worsfold et al., 2007). Addition-
tion (Bitner, 1992; Harrell et al., 1980; Rabb et al., 2011), ally, Mikolon et al. (2015) stated that failure encounters are
most of the time, sounds such as heating, air conditioning less manageable in the service industry due to external fac-
and kitchen equipment can be managed or lessened by em- tors such as the customers themselves. Referring to the in-
ployees in a restaurant setting (Zemke et al., 2011). Instead separability nature of the service industry, customers are
of the employees dropping dishes, silverware, and glass- part of the service delivery process and therefore, the ser-
ware onto a bus tray, employees can adjust the level of vice delivery process is not completely controlled by man-
sound by carefully laying down these items in an organized agers to therefore guarantee service quality (Kotler et al.,
fashion in order to minimize noise levels. 2013). In addition to practicing service recovery strategies,
Furthermore, these physical sounds may cause difficul- service providers should anticipate potential problems and
ties for employees when trying to listen to customers. It take the initiative to solve problems and prevent failures
may cause them to make mistakes such as taking incorrect before they happen. In this study, proactive customer ser-
orders or missing special requirements during service de- vice refers to restaurant managers proactively taking care
livery. So, indirectly, overly-loud physical sounds can affect of situational sound problems before they affect other cus-
customer satisfaction. If these physical sounds can be re- tomers. For instance, managers moving customers further
duced, the customers’ perceptions of service quality will be away from the noise before customers voice their concerns.
increased (Bitner, 1992; Harrell et al., 1980). Barkai & Harison (2011) proposed a preventative service
Hypothesis 2: Physical sounds impact customer satisfac- management framework to elaborate the four stages in the
tion. proactive customer service approach: “detection, preven-
tion, notification and follow-up” (p. 21). In the detection
Proactive Customer Service Regarding stage, managers constantly monitor the service delivery
Situational Sounds process to prevent possible service failures from happening.
In the prevention stage, managers implement necessary
In addition to sounds from the restaurant, customers’ standard operation procedures to remove all the risk factors
perceptions have been found to be influenced by the mis- which might cause service failures. In the notification stage,
behavior of other customers (Adams et al., 2006; Grove & managers provide relevant information to those likely-to-
Fisk, 1997; Martin, 1996). Based on Kotler et al. (2013), ser- be impacted customers and explain to them about the pos-
vice inseparability means that the customers are part of the sible service failures even though customers might not rec-

Journal of Small Business Strategy

 The Influence of Background Sounds, Physical Sounds, and Managers’ Proactive Customer Service Regarding Situational Sounds...

ognize the issues. In the follow-up stage, managers can also

provide detailed information to the complaining customers
and offer compensation to recover the service failure where
needed.
For example, a restaurant may have a scenario where the
dish machine in the banquet kitchen is down and servers
need to carry dishes from the banquet area through the
restaurant. In a preventative service management frame-
work, managers would detect the potential service issues
(carrying additional dishware through the restaurant which
could make noise), develop alternative options to prevent
additional noise (change procedure to only carry dishes
through the restaurant during off-peak times), notify guests
in advance that there may be some additional traffic in the
Figure 1. Proposed Model
restaurant (servers can inform guests there may be some
additional noise), and finally, consistently check in with
customers during their dining experience to ensure every-
thing is meeting expectations (offer service recovery if and proactive customer service regarding situational sound.
needed).
Practicing proactive customer service has been shown
Methodology
to influence customer satisfaction and repurchase behavior Survey Instrument
(Worsfold et al., 2007). Proactive customer service enhances
customer satisfaction prior to the occurrence of the service There are three parts to the study. First, scenarios for
failure (Mikolon et al., 2015). Compared to reacting to the each of the three types of sound situations were composed.
service failure, customers prefer companies taking initiative Referring to Christie’s (2004) study, the authors created
to identify, expect, prevent, and solve potential service fail- eight scenarios to see if customers are impacted by back-
ure before they happen (Shin et al., 2017). Therefore, ground sounds and physical sounds and if the managers
restaurant managers should train themselves and their em- proactively or reactively handle situational sound prob-
ployees to be proactive in terms of customer service. lems. The 2*2*2 scenarios are: background sounds (distract
Proactive customer service should be part of the organi- vs. did not distract) * physical sounds (distract vs. didn’t
zation’s service culture and be considered a key element in distract) * situational sound problem responses (proactive
customer satisfaction. Service extras, whether anticipated vs. reactive). The second part measures customer satisfac-
or unanticipated due to a service recovery are not necessar- tion. The following four questions were modified from Hen-
ily salient in customers perceptions of service quality (Bit- nig-Thurau et al. (2002): Q1) My choice of this restaurant
ner, 1990). Rather, customers prefer to have the service firm was a wise one. Q2) I am always delighted with this restau-
follow through on the delivery of promised service extras in rant, Q3) Overall, I am satisfied with this restaurant, and
a consistent manner (Raub & Liao, 2012). Q4) I think I did the right thing when I decided to dine
Jin et al. (2010) proposed a proactive customer service in this restaurant. The third part asks participants’ demo-
strategy when dealing with Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) graphic background, such as visiting frequency, average
services. As in restaurants, traditional DSL service solutions check and gender.
are reactive in nature and initiated by the customer. They
found that a proactive customer service approach to trou- Eight Scenarios
bleshooting customer issues, reduced the number of care
Participants were told, “We are interested in how un-
calls and improved customer satisfaction and resulted in
pleasant sound affects customers’ perceptions in the
greater efficiencies.
restaurant industry. Please read the following scenario
Söderlund (2018) studied employee proactivity and its
carefully and imagine that the incident happened to you
impact on customer satisfaction in a retail grocery store
during a visit to a restaurant, and then answer the ques-
setting. The results found that proactivity did indeed in-
tions. The key to the success of this research depends on
crease customer satisfaction, which was sequentially facil-
whether you are really able to imagine yourself in these
itated by both perceived employee effort and performance.
situations.” Each participant was assigned to one scenario.
Therefore, it is important that service organizations have
The eight different scenarios tested in this study (numbered
a strong culture of proactive customer service and that it
1-8) are detailed below.
is supported from top to bottom. Additionally, employees
need to be supported and trained to anticipate service chal-
#1 BS-Distract, PS-Distract, SS-Manager handled
lenges such as situational sounds and how to handle any
situational sound problem proactively
potential issues before they impact the customer and result
in a service failure. Imagine that you dine in a restaurant where the food
Hypothesis 3: Proactive customer service regarding situ- quality is good, service is satisfactory, and price is reason-
ational sound impact customer satisfaction. able. Nevertheless, the music playing in this restaurant dis-
Hypothesis 4: Customer satisfaction is influenced by the tracts you. You also find it is hard to relax because of the
interactive effects of background sounds, physical sounds, sounds from the kitchen and air conditioning, chair/table

Journal of Small Business Strategy

 The Influence of Background Sounds, Physical Sounds, and Managers’ Proactive Customer Service Regarding Situational Sounds...

scraping, and glasses clinking. Additionally, there is a group #6 BS-Not Distract, PS-Distract, SS-Manager
of customers sitting close to your table who are talking/ handled situational sound problem reactively
laughing very loudly which impacts your dining experience.
Consequently, the manager moves you to another table fur- Imagine that you dine in a restaurant where the food
ther away from the noise. quality is good, service is satisfactory, and price is reason-
able. Nevertheless, the music playing in this restaurant
#2 BS-Distract, PS-Distract, SS-Manager handled does not distract you. However, you find it is hard to relax
situational sound problem reactively because of the sounds from the kitchen and air condition-
ing, chair/table scraping, and glasses clinking. Additionally,
Imagine that you dine in a restaurant where the food there is a group of customers sitting close to your table who
quality is good, service is satisfactory, and price is reason- are talking/laughing very loudly which impacts your dining
able. Nevertheless, the music playing in this restaurant dis- experience. Consequently, the manager does not move you
tracts you. You also find it is hard to relax because of the to another table further away from the noise.
sounds from the kitchen and air conditioning, chair/table
scraping, and glasses clinking. Additionally, there is a group #7 BS-Not Distract, PS-Not Distract, SS-Manager
of customers sitting close to your table who are talking/ handled situational sound problem proactively
laughing very loudly which impacts your dining experience.
Consequently, the manager does not move you to another Imagine that you dine in a restaurant where the food
table further away from the noise. quality is good, service is satisfactory, and price is reason-
able. Nevertheless, the music playing in this restaurant and
#3 BS-Distract, PS-Not Distract, SS-Manager the sounds from the kitchen and air conditioning, chair/
handled situational sound problem proactively table scraping, and glasses clinking is acceptable. Addition-
ally, there is a group of customers sitting close to your table
Imagine that you dine in a restaurant where the food who are talking/laughing very loudly which impacts your
quality is good, service is satisfactory, and price is reason- dining experience. Consequently, the manager moves you
able. Nevertheless, the music playing in this restaurant dis- to another table further away from the noise.
tracts you. However, you find the sounds from the kitchen
and air conditioning, chair/table scraping, and glasses #8 BS-Not Distract, PS-Not Distract, SS-Manager
clinking is acceptable. Additionally, there is a group of cus- handled situational sound problem reactively
tomers sitting close to your table who are talking/laughing
very loudly which impacts your dining experience. Conse- Imagine that you dine in a restaurant where the food
quently, the manager moves you to another table further quality is good, service is satisfactory, and price is reason-
away from the noise. able. Nevertheless, the music playing in this restaurant and
the sounds from the kitchen and air conditioning, chair/
#4 BS-Distract, PS-Not Distract, SS-Manager table scraping, and glasses clinking is acceptable. Addition-
handled situational sound problem reactively ally, there is a group of customers sitting close to your
table who are talking/laughing very loudly which impacts
Imagine that you dine in a restaurant where the food your dining experience. Consequently, the manager does
quality is good, service is satisfactory, and price is reason- not move you to another table further away from the noise.
able. Nevertheless, the music playing in this restaurant dis-
tracts you. However, you find the sounds from the kitchen Data Collection and Respondent Profile
and air conditioning, chair/table scraping, and glasses
clinking is acceptable. Additionally, there is a group of cus- A non-probability convenience sampling method was
tomers sitting close to your table who are talking/laughing used for this study. The data was collected from a Chinese
very loudly which impacts your dining experience. Conse- & Japanese Restaurant in a metropolitan city in the north-
quently, the manager does not move you to another table eastern area of the USA. The reason we selected this par-
further away from the noise. ticular restaurant is that according to the Restaurant, Food
and Beverage Market Research Handbook 2018-2019, the
#5 BS-Not Distract, PS-Distract, SS-Manager most popular restaurant type in the USA is local casual-din-
handled situational sound problem proactively ing. Fifty-seven percent of the participants indicated that
local casual-dining restaurants are the type of restaurants
Imagine that you dine in a restaurant where the food they visit in a typical month and the participating restau-
quality is good, service is satisfactory, and price is reason- rant belongs to this category (Miller & Washington, 2018).
able. Nevertheless, the music playing in this restaurant The surveys were distributed by one of the authors to
does not distracts you. However, you find it is hard to relax customers who dined in the restaurant during lunch time
because of the sounds from the kitchen and air condition- (12:00pm-2:00pm) and dinner time (6:00pm-8:00pm). The
ing, chair/table scraping, and glasses clinking. Additionally, survey questionnaires were printed in eight different colors,
there is a group of customers sitting close to your table who one color for each scenario. Participants were randomly as-
are talking/laughing very loudly which impacts your dining signed to a scenario. For example, based on the order of
experience. Consequently, the manager moves you to an- seating, once diners were settled at their tables, the author
other table further away from the noise. approached the first diner to ask for their participation in
this study with a scenario one questionnaire, then, the au-

Journal of Small Business Strategy

 The Influence of Background Sounds, Physical Sounds, and Managers’ Proactive Customer Service Regarding Situational Sounds...

thor approached the second diner with a scenario two sur- tant during the dining time.
vey questionnaire, etc. As indicated in Cohen et al. (2007), H2 was supported. The results indicate that physical
“experimental methodologies required a sample size of no sound impacts participants’ satisfaction in one aspect:
fewer than fifteen cases” (p. 102). A total of eight scenarios whether they believe they made the right decision to dine
each with fifteen participants yielded a total of 120 par- in the restaurant (F=5.292; ρ=0.023). Physical sounds can
ticipants in this study. The data collection lasted for three influence customer satisfaction, such as sounds generated
weeks. One hundred fifty customers were approached for by heating, air conditioning and kitchen equipment (Bitner,
this study, 140 surveys were returned and among those, 120 1990; Harrell et al., 1980). A possible explanation for this
were valid, generating a response rate of 80 % (120/150). result may be customers understand that physical sounds
The participants were mostly female (51.7%). Further- (heating, air condition and kitchen equipment) are difficult
more, 24.2% of the respondents were single; 69.2% were to reduce since they are necessary for the restaurant to op-
married or in a domestic partnership; 0.8% of the respon- erate and the sound may not be too annoying while dining.
dents were widowed; 4.2% of the respondents were di- Also, customers may consider food quality and service qual-
vorced, and 2% of the respondents were separated. When ity to be of more importance compared to physical sounds.
respondents were asked about the highest education level H3 was supported. The results indicate that how man-
completed, they replied 25.8% high school; 52.5% college/ agers handle the problems caused by situational sounds in-
university; and 21.7% master’s degree or higher. Further- fluence customers satisfaction in all four aspects: Q1. My
more, 5% of the participants are Asian; 0.8% African Amer- choice of this restaurant was a wise one (F=9.846;
ican; 90.8% Caucasian /White; 0.8% Latino; 2.5% of par- ρ=0.002), Q2. I am always delighted with this restaurant
ticipants identified as other. In addition, participants when (F=5.061; ρ=0.026), Q3. Overall, I am satisfied with this
asked about how often do you visit a casual restaurant per
restaurant (F=4.770; ρ=0.031), and Q4. I think I did the
month, 10.8% of participants answered that they eat out
right thing when I decided to dine in this restaurant
two or less times per month, 41.7% of answered three to five
(F=6.252; ρ=0.014). The results were consistent with pre-
times per month, 30.8% of answered six to eight time per
month, 16.7% answered over eight times per month. When vious studies. How managers handled the problem caused
participants were asked about their average dining budget by situational sounds significantly impacted several issues:
per month in a casual restaurant, 19.2% answered spent such as the customer choice of the restaurant was a wise
$100 or less, 31.7% answered $101 to $200, 25% answered one, customers are always delighted with the restaurant,
$201 to $300, 12.5% answered $301 to $400, 9.2% answered and customers thought they made the right decision to dine
$401 to $500, and 2.5% answered more than $501. in the restaurant. The possible explanation for this result is
that situational sounds may be annoying and very sensitive
Hypothesis Testing Results and Discussion for the customers. Situational sounds are difficult to con-
trol by managers and hard to resolve. Even though situation
Four independent variables were investigated in a 2 x 2 x sounds are not generated by the restaurant, they still affect
2 design and therefore, a Three-Way MANOVA analysis was customer revisit intention.
used to examine the four hypotheses (Moore et al., 1994). H4 was not supported. The interactive effects of back-
The results of this study confirmed that background sounds ground sounds (distracts vs. did not distract) * physical
(H1), physical sounds (H2), and managers’ proactive cus- sounds (distracts vs. didn’t distract) * situational sound
tomer service regarding situational sounds (H3) impact cus- problems (reactive .vs. proactive) do not significantly influ-
tomer satisfaction. However, the interactive effects of back- ence any aspects in customer satisfaction with α = .05 level.
ground sounds, physical sounds, and managers’ proactive
customer service regarding situational sounds (H4) do not Theoretical Implications
influence customer satisfaction.
H1 was supported. The results indicate that background The results of this study confirm the first three hypothe-
sounds influence customer satisfaction in two aspects: Q2-I ses where background sounds, physical sounds, and proac-
am always delighted with this restaurant (F=4.201; tive customer service influence customer satisfaction. The
ρ=0.043) and Q4- whether they believe they made the right results are consistent with previous studies and extends
the work of authors such as Wilson (2003) regarding back-
decision to dine in this restaurant (F=5.292; ρ=0.023).
ground sounds and Zemke et al. (2011) regarding physical
Caldwell & Hibbert (1999) found that background sounds
sounds. Additionally, the results indicate that how man-
influence customer satisfaction. Background music can also
agers handle problems caused by situational sounds influ-
influence the customer’s experience and affects the amount
ence customer satisfaction. The results are in line with re-
of time they spend in a restaurant. In this study, background
search by Andaleeb & Conway (2006) who found that
sounds impacted whether customers were delighted with
customer satisfaction was influenced most by responsive-
the restaurant and if customers thought they made the right
ness of frontline employees. In particular, the results show
decision to dine in this restaurant; even though background
that this area has the greatest impact on customer satisfac-
sounds did not impact if customers thought their choice of
tion in a restaurant setting.
the restaurant was a wise one and if the customer was sat-
Recognizing the importance of how ambient sounds in-
isfied with the restaurant. Based on the authors’ work expe-
fluence customer satisfaction, previous studies only evalu-
rience, many times when customers are satisfied with food
ated how background sounds, physical sounds, and situa-
and service quality at that moment; they may think back-
tional sounds influence customer satisfaction (Bitner, 1992;
ground sounds such as tempo and volume is not that impor-

Journal of Small Business Strategy

 The Influence of Background Sounds, Physical Sounds, and Managers’ Proactive Customer Service Regarding Situational Sounds...

Table 1. Comparison of Means (Three-Way MANOVA) for Customer Satisfaction

Question df F p Mean
Background Sounds
Distract=4.967
Q1) My choice of this restaurant was a wise one 1 2.613 .109
Not Distract=5.533
Distract=4.950
Q2) I am always delighted with this restaurant 1 4.201 .043 *
Not Distract=5.633
Distract=5.233
Q3) Overall, I am satisfied with this restaurant 1 3.558 .062
Not Distract=5.867
Distract=5.133
Q4) I think I did the right thing when I decided to dine in this restaurant 1 5.292 .023*
Not Distract=5.900
Physical Sounds
Distract=4.933
Q1) My choice of this restaurant was a wise one 1 3.264 .074
Not Distract=5.567
Distract=4.967
Q2) I am always delighted with this restaurant 1 3.801 .054
Not Distract=5.617
Distract=5.267
Q3) Overall, I am satisfied with this restaurant 1 2.848 .094
Not Distract=5.833
Distract=5.133
Q4) I think I did the right thing when I decided to dine in this restaurant 1 5.292 .023*
Not Distract=5.900
Proactive Service
df F p Mean
Reactive=4.700
Q1) My choice of this restaurant was a wise one 1 9.846 .002**
Proactive=5.800
Reactive=4.917
Q2) I am always delighted with this restaurant 1 5.061 .026*
Proactive=5.667
Reactive=5.183
Q3) Overall, I am satisfied with this restaurant 1 4.770 .031*
Proactive=5.917
Reactive=5.100
Q4) I think I did the right thing when I decided to dine in this restaurant 1 6.252 .014*
Proactive=5.933
Background Sounds x Physical Sounds x Proactive Service
df F p
Q1-My choice of this restaurant was a wise one 1 .443 .507
Q2) I am always delighted with this restaurant 1 .442 .517
Q3) Overall, I am satisfied with this restaurant 1 .158 .692
Q4) I think I did the right thing when I decided to dine in this restaurant 1 .090 .765

* P< 0.05 and ** P< 0.01

Christie, 2004; Huang et al., 2010; Zemke et al., 2011). Fur- ground sounds, physical sounds, and situational sounds im-
thermore, scholars have also investigated the relationship pact customer satisfaction, this study retained the
between proactive service strategies and customer reac- background sounds and physical sounds in the theoretical
tions and satisfaction (Barkai & Harison, 2011; Mikolon et framework since restaurant managers can control these two
al., 2015; Shin et al., 2017). In addition to confirming the sounds and instead of simply evaluating how situational
results from previous studies, the theoretical contribution sounds impact customer satisfaction, this study evaluated
of this study is integrating the concepts of soundscape and the impact of how managers handle situational sounds and
proactive service in the same theoretical framework. the influence on customer satisfaction.
Moreover, based on the author’s years of work and con- As indicated by Schuckert & Law (2015), when a research
sulting experience with small independent restaurants field is inherently practical and applied in nature, “the lack
owners/chefs, it is not realistic to completely control situ- of a practical application may in turn have diminished en-
ational sounds and most importantly, industry practice is thusiasm for academic research” (p. 613). Restaurant busi-
not to focus on controlling situational sounds, but rather to nesses certainly belong to the practical and applied knowl-
manage situation sounds through proactive service strate- edge field and this modified theoretical framework better
gies. In order to better connect the academic theories with links the academic theoretical concepts with current indus-
industry current practices, this study combines these two try practices and encourages further scholarly research in
streams of theories into one theoretical framework. Differ- this field.
ent from previous studies which merely assessed how back- Furthermore, the concept of the service recovery paradox

Journal of Small Business Strategy

 The Influence of Background Sounds, Physical Sounds, and Managers’ Proactive Customer Service Regarding Situational Sounds...

(SRP) has been an important research area in service mar- pathize to a degree that the sounds coming from equipment
keting research (El-Manstrly et al., 2016). Some scholars are difficult to completely avoid. For examples, diners in
support a notion that a successful service recovery action a restaurant in a large city with close surroundings expect
fixes service failures and can actually enhance customer that there may be exterior noise from the street such as
satisfaction (Kaur & Singh, 2020), whereas other scholars sirens and car horns.
claim that providers should strive to deliver services suc- Additionally, restaurant design might help. Today’s sys-
cessfully the first time because a superior service recovery tems such as heating and air conditioning are designed to
is “highly contingent upon the context and situation” (Haz- run more efficiently and quietly. Designers can place glass
arika & Dhaliwal, 2019, p. 30). It is important to remember, between the dining room and open kitchens to minimize
dissatisfied customers may not always give service kitchen noises for customers. Furthermore, designers can
providers a second chance to make things right. Based on add decorative sound absorbing panels in strategic places
the results of this study, when managers handle situational that complement the design and help absorb physical
sounds proactively, customers’ levels of satisfaction are sig- sounds. Finally, managers should train employees how to
nificantly higher than when managers employ a reactive properly set up and bus tables and transport tableware to
strategy and therefore support the notion of doing things minimize physical sounds.
right the first time. The results also indicate that how managers handle the
problems caused by situational sounds influence customer
Managerial Implications satisfaction. In particular, the results showed that this area
has the greatest impact on customer satisfaction in a
The results of this study reveal important insights for restaurant setting. For example, it impacted whether the
restaurant managers. Importantly, the results were consis- customer considered their restaurant choice to be wise, the
tent with previous studies (Caldwell & Hibbert, 1999; customer’s delight with the restaurant, the customer’s over-
Mikolon et al., 2015; Shin et al., 2017), but also extended all satisfaction with the restaurant, and whether the cus-
understanding. By controlling for and comparing different tomer believed they did the right thing when deciding to
sound situations, the authors’ found that the way managers dine in the restaurant.
handled situational sound problems has the greatest impact How managers handle the problems caused by the situ-
and physical sounds have the least impact on customer sat- ational sounds is exemplified in the following example. A
isfaction. Many of the participants, considered noises from customer, “customer one” comes into a restaurant with his
heating and cooling system part of normal restaurant op- fiancé to have dinner and hear the featured guitarist/vocal-
erations reasonable and therefore, those sounds were not ist for the evening. Shortly after, a large group of approx-
bothersome. More importantly, customers pay attention to imately 25 individuals enter the restaurant and are seated
and care about the quality of service delivered. It is well re- directly next to customer one. The restaurant has several
ceived by customers when managers take the initiative and smaller rooms as well as the main room. The large party
act proactively to enhance customer experiences. While un- is celebrating a marriage engagement. As the night pro-
comfortable sounds are going to occur, what managers do gresses, the situational sounds from the large group in-
about it is crucial to customer satisfaction. crease. Customer one and his fiancée cannot not hear the
The results indicate that background sounds influence musician or even have a conversation. Their service expe-
customer satisfaction and extends the work of authors such rience is rapidly declining. At one point in the night, the
as Wilson (2003). Important to managers, background host of the large group starts whistling loudly and making a
sounds can be managed by restaurant staff to avoid negative lot of noise. Customer one asks the host of the large group
outcomes and amplify the likelihood of positive customer to stop, but nothing happens. Expletives and words are ex-
outcomes. Background noises refer to musical composi- change between the two guests. Upon returning from the
tions, radio programs, and acoustic music (Schafer, 1994). restroom, three individuals from the large group yell at cus-
It is a major factor of the soundscape in the restaurant and tomer one and block him from returning back to his table.
could impact customer satisfaction. Background sounds can After a heated exchange of words, a physical altercation oc-
be adjusted easily in restaurant settings and managers can curs and customer one sustains several injuries.
select different kinds of background music based on the This scenario illustrates the importance of managers
type of restaurant. For example, if there is an important handling problems caused by situational sounds. A proac-
sporting event occurring such as the Super Bowl, customers tive customer service approach could have delivered a dif-
may want the TVs on and at higher volume as they want ferent outcome and led to customer satisfaction in previous
to watch the game and it a part of the overall dining expe- scenario. Management should have detected that a large
rience. Conversely, a couple out on a date in a fine-dining party is prone to creating additional situational sounds and
restaurant may want soothing music at a slow tempo and came up with other seating arrangements. Managers should
low volume to complement their dining experience. Thus, have been monitoring the situation to prevent the outcome
restaurant managers should select the appropriate back- that occurred. Since the restaurant has private rooms, the
ground music volume and tempo which best fits their large group should have been seated away from other
restaurant setting and customer preferences. guests. Managers could have also told customer one that
The results indicate that the physical sounds also influ- the large group was given a private room to isolate the loud
ence customer satisfaction. Similar to background sounds, noises. By anticipating potential service issues, service fail-
physical sounds can be managed. Customers may think ures can be avoided. Finally, even if the large group was
these sounds are an annoyance, but customers may em- moved away after the first altercation, the restaurant could

Journal of Small Business Strategy

 The Influence of Background Sounds, Physical Sounds, and Managers’ Proactive Customer Service Regarding Situational Sounds...

have offered the large group a complimentary cake to cel- Limitations and Recommendations for Future
ebrate the engagement. Managers could have also offered Research
complimentary food to customer one for his inconvenience.
Managers should also develop and train employees to While great care was exerted, there are limitations to the
practice proactive customer service by developing (1) self- current study. Based on the investigation of the influence of
initiated behaviors where employees demonstrate perfor- different types of noises and management’s proactive ser-
mance that goes above and beyond implicit expectations, vice strategies on customer satisfaction, this study utilized
(2) long-term oriented thinking processes where employees a convenience sampling method. However, the limitation of
can exercise forward-thinking abilities to anticipate cus- a convenience sampling is that the results from this study
tomer needs before customers even ask, and (3) persistent can’t be generalized to the population as a whole. There-
service behavior where employees need to follow through fore, utilizing the results of this study for broader applica-
whatever the restaurant promises customers (Rank et al., tion should be done so with caution. In addition, the sec-
2007). ond limitation is that the survey was distributed only in the
Proactive customer service plays a crucial role in creating USA. If replicated, findings from other countries might be
memorable and outstanding customer experiences which dissimilar due to the differences in cultures. Furthermore,
can lead to customer satisfaction. In the past, the focus in the evaluation of the participants’ satisfaction was done
service organizations centered on effective service recovery with hypothetical rather than actual scenarios regarding
models (a reactive approach). Today, that focus is shifting to soundscape. While this helps control for greater analysis of
creating service models that anticipate customer issues by the independent variables, the study should be replicated to
developing preventative service protocols and procedures (a established field validity. There is regularly a trade-off be-
proactive approach). In a restaurant setting, the focus is on tween internal and external validity. Future research might
quality food and attentive service to customers; all things find results to be more accurate with actual scenarios since
that are in the control of restaurant management. How- one of the five senses is hearing, which might be hard for
ever, when service failures occur due to situations that may study participants to imagine the sound level based on sim-
be beyond the control of the restaurant, managers typically ply reading the scenario. Finally, this study placed more
deal with these scenarios reactively with a service recovery. focus on participants’ restaurant perceptions and visiting
Furthermore, since not all dissatisfied customers complain, behaviors and failed to gather information about the par-
managers may not even have the opportunity to provide a ticipants’ age, thus future research should add more demo-
service recovery, which could result in customers leaving graphic questions to better understand the participants in
dissatisfied never to return to the service organization. the study.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(CCBY-4.0). View this license’s legal deed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 and legal code at http://creativecom-
mons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode for more information.

Journal of Small Business Strategy

 The Influence of Background Sounds, Physical Sounds, and Managers’ Proactive Customer Service Regarding Situational Sounds...

REFERENCES

Adams, M., Cox, T., Moore, G., Croxford, B., Refaee, M., Fikret, A. (2013). The Influence of Music Tempo and
& Sharples, S. (2006). Sustainable Soundscapes: Occupancy Rate on Alcohol Consumption Time Spent
Noise Policy and the Urban Experience. Urban Studies, and Money Spent in Restaurant [Master’s Thesis]. htt
43(13), 2385–2398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980 p://essay.utwente.nl/64209/1/Akin_Fikret_-s_113872
600972504 3_scriptie.pdf
Andaleeb, S. S., & Conway, C. (2006). “Customer Grove, S. J., & Fisk, R. P. (1997). The Impact of Other
Satisfaction in the Restaurant Industry: An Customers on Service Experiences: A Critical Incident
Examination of the Transaction‐Specific Model.” Examination of “Getting Along.” Journal of Retailing,
Journal of Services Marketing, 20(1), 3–11. https://do 73(1), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4359(9
i.org/10.1108/08876040610646536 7)90015-4
Barkai, O., & Harison, E. (2011). Preventive Service Harrell, G. D., Hutt, M. D., & Anderson, J. C. (1980).
Management: Towards Pro-Active Improvement Of Path Analysis of Buyer Behavior Under Conditions of
Service Quality. Review of Business Information Crowding. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(1), 45–51.
Systems (RBIS), 15(4), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1903 https://doi.org/10.2307/3151115
0/rbis.v15i4.6009 Hazarika, D. D., & Dhaliwal, A. (2019). Service Recovery
Belluz, J. (2018). Why Restaurants Became So Loud - And Paradox: Influence of service encounter and context.
How To Fight Back. http://www.vox.com/2018/4/18 International Journal of Innovative Science and
Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating Service Encounters: The Research Technology, 4(2), 28–36.
Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., & Gremler, D. D.
Responses. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18. https://d (2002). Understanding Relationship Marketing
oi.org/10.2307/1251871 Outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 230–247.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The Impact of https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670502004003006
Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees. Hodgson, M., Steininger, G., & Razavi, Z. (2007).
Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71. https://doi.org/1 Measurement and Prediction of Speech and Noise
0.2307/1252042 Levels and the Lombard Effect in Eating
Bramley, E. (2019). Great Food, But Please do Something Establishments. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
About the Noise’ – the Battle for Quieter Restaurants. ht America, 121(4), 2023–2033. https://doi.org/10.1121/
tps://www.theguardian.com/food/25019/may/09 1.253557
Caldwell, C., & Hibbert, S. A. (1999). Play That One Hsu, T. (2012). Noisy Restaurants: Taking the Din Out of
Again: The Effect of Music Tempo on Consumer Dinner. Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.co
Behavior in a Restaurant. European Advances in m/2012/jun/08/business/la-fi-restaurant-noise-20120
Consumer Research, 4, 58–62. 504
Christie, L. H. (2004). Psycho - to - Building Acoustics: Huang, W.-H., Lin, Y.-C., & Wen, Y.-C. (2010).
Are Bars, Cafe’s and Restaurants Acceptable Acoustic Attributions and Outcomes of Customer Misbehavior.
Environments? http://www.victoria.ac.nz/architectur Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1), 151–161. htt
e/centres/cbpr/publications/acoustics-in-the-field/pd ps://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9137-x
fs/l-christie-report.pdf Jin, Y., Duffield, N., Gerber, A., Haffner, P., Sen, S., &
Clark, J. (2014). What’s Your Biggest Complaint About Zhang, Z.-L. (2010, November). NEVERMIND, the
Restaurants? USATODAY. https://www.usatoday.com/ problem is already fixed: Proactively detecting and
story/dispatches/2013/12/03/2014-zagat-best-restaur troubleshooting customer DSL problems [Paper
ants/3807051/ presentation]. ACM Co-NEXT ’10: Proceedings of the
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research 6th International Conference, Philadelphia, PA, United
methods in education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.43 States. https://doi.org/10.1145/1921168.1921178
24/9780203029053 Kaur, A., & Singh, R. (2020). Service recovery paradox: A
El-Manstrly, D., Liu, G., & Rosenbaum, M. (2016). An study of after sale services in tractor market. Journal
Empirical Examination of the Interrelationships of Xi’an University of Architecture & Technology, 12(3),
Between Service Recovery Paradox and Its Key 5182–5207.
Antecedents and Outcomes. In M. Groza & C. Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R., & Reece, J. (1999). Consumer
Ragland (Eds.), Marketing Challenges in a Turbulent Research in the Restaurant Environment, Part 1: A
Business Environment. Developments in Marketing Conceptual Model of Dining Satisfaction and Return
Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Patronage. International Journal of Contemporary
Science (pp. 978–973). Springer International Hospitality Management, 11(5), 205–222. https://doi.o
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-1942 rg/10.1108/09596119910272739
8-8_64 Kotler, P. T., Bowen, J. T., & Makens, J. (2013). Marketing
for Hospitality and Tourism (6th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Journal of Small Business Strategy

 The Influence of Background Sounds, Physical Sounds, and Managers’ Proactive Customer Service Regarding Situational Sounds...

Martin, C. L. (1996). Consumer-to-Consumer Raub, S., & Liao, H. (2012). Doing the right thing
Relationships: Satisfaction with Other Consumers’ without being told: Joint effects of initiative climate
Public Behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 30(1), and general self-efficacy on employee proactive
146–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1996.tb customer service performance. Journal of Applied
00729.x Psychology, 97(3), 651–667. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0
Mattila, A. S., & Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of Scent 026736
and Music as a Driver of In-Store Evaluations and Rohrmann, B. (2003). Soundscapes in Restaurants.
Behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 273–289. http Proceedings of the International Symposium of Acoustic
s://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4359(01)00042-2 Ecology, 1–9.
Mikolon, S., Quaiser, B., & Wieseke, J. (2015). Don’t Try Schafer, R. M. (1994). Sonic Environment and the
Harder: Using Customer Inoculation to Build Soundscape: The Tuning of the World. Destiny Books.
Resistance Against Service Failures. Journal of the Schuckert, M., & Law, R. (2015). Hospitality and
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(4), 512–527. http Tourism Online Reviews: Recent Trends and Future
s://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0398-1 Directions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
Mondal, P. (2014, February 27). Noise Pollution: 32(5), 608–621.
Definition, Sources and Effects of Noise Pollution. htt Shin, H., Ellinger, A. E., Mothersbaugh, D. L., &
p://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/speech/noise-pollutio Reynolds, K. E. (2017). Employing Proactive
n-definition-sources-and-effects-of-noise-pollution/ Interaction for Service Failure Prevention to Improve
28295/ Customer Service Experiences. Journal of Service
Moore, C. H., Wuensch, K. L., Hedges, R. M., & Theory and Practice, 27(1), 164–186. https://doi.org/1
Castellow, W. A. (1994). The effects of physical 0.1108/jstp-07-2015-0161
attractiveness and social desirability on judgments Söderlund, M. (2018). The proactive employee on the
regarding a sexual harassment case. Journal of Social floor of the store and the impact on customer
Behavior and Personality, 9, 715–730. satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Morgan, J. (2016). Music to their Ears: How Sound effects Services, 43, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretcons
Your Restaurant’s Dining Experience. https://www.food er.2018.02.009
abletv.com/blog/2016/7/5 Spence, C. (2014). Noise and Its Impact on the
National Institute on Deafness and Other Perception of Food and Drink. Flavour, 3(1). https://do
Communication Disorders. (2016). Noise Levels in i.org/10.1186/2044-7248-3-9
Restaurants-Tips for Protecting Your Hearing. https://w Turley, L. W., & Milliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric
ww.noisyplanet.nidcd.nih.gov/have-you-heard/noise- Effects on Shopping Behavior. Journal of Business
levels-restaurants Research, 49(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/s01
Novak, C. C., La Lopa, J., & Novak, R. E. (2010). Effects 48-2963(99)00010-7
of Sound Pressure Levels and Sensitivity to Noise on Wells, P. (2020). Is Restaurant Noise a Crime? Our Critic
Mood and Behavioral Intent in a Controlled Fine Mounts a Ringing Defense. https://www.nytimes.com/
Dining Restaurant Environment. Journal of Culinary 2020/01/21/dining/restaurant-noise-level-loud.html
Science & Technology, 8(4), 191–218. https://doi.org/1 Wilson, S. (2003). The Effect of Music on Perceived
0.1080/15428052.2010.535756 Atmosphere and Purchase Intentions in a Restaurant.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Society and Psychology Research, 31(1), 93–112. http
Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction s://doi.org/10.1177/0305735603031001327
Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), Worsfold, K., Worsfold, J., & Bradley, G. (2007).
460–469. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150499 Interactive Effects of Proactive and Reactive Service
Rabb, C., Zemke, D. V., Hertzman, J. L., & Singh, D. Recovery Strategies: The Case of Rapport and
(2011). Restaurants Customers’ Perceptions of Noise Compensation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
and Their Satisfaction and Loyalty Behaviors. https://w 37(11), 2496–2517. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-18
ww.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080 16.2007.00267.x
Rank, J., Carsten, J., Unger, J., & Spector, P. (2007). Zemke, D. M., Hertzman, J. L., Raab, C., & Singh, D.
Proactive Customer Service Performance: (2011). A Little More Noise and a Little Less
Relationships with Individual, Task, and Leadership Conversation? Ambient Noise in Restaurants. Journal
Variables. Human Performance, 20(4), 363–390. of Foodservice Business Research, 14(3), 256–271. http
s://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2011.594384

Journal of Small Business Strategy