Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Understanding and Conceptualising Authenticity in DiningExperiences Using Online Reviews
Author
Le, Truc H
Published
2020-12-17
Thesis Type
Thesis (PhD Doctorate)
School
Dept Tourism, Sport & Hot Mgmt
DOI
https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/4042
Copyright Statement
The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise.
Downloaded from
http://hdl.handle.net/10072/400563
Griffith Research Online
https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au
Griffith Business School
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Truc Hoang Le
July 2020
Understanding and Conceptualising Authenticity
in Dining Experiences Using Online Reviews
Truc Hoang Le
Bachelor in Business (First Class Honours)
Griffith Business School (Brisbane, Nathan)
Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management
Griffith University
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
July 2020
i
ABSTRACT
The quest for authentic experiences has been evidenced in modern society, either as a pursuit
for product purchases, leisure experiences, or true self. Many studies have investigated
authenticity and attempted to operationalise this complex concept in several ways. While
being well examined since the 1970s by tourism researchers such as MacCannell (1973, 1976)
and Cohen (1979), scholarly interest in authenticity remains prevalent in current hospitality
and tourism research.
In the dining context, the extant literature has only studied authenticity from the
dimensions of the cultural/ethnic theme displayed, the food, and the servicescape, lacking a
multi-dimensional approach for understanding authenticity in dining experiences.
Nevertheless, a small number of studies have started considering dining experiences as a
product, which directs research attention to the backstage role of the producer-organisation
in constructing authenticity cues. Delivering authentic experiences in restaurants has moved
beyond the core product itself (the food), and increasingly demands the producer-
organisation to project its own true qualities to co-construct these dining experiences. This
thesis attempts to offer a comprehensive understanding of consumers’ perceptions of
authenticity in dining experiences. In doing so, it also conceptualises authenticity as a multi-
dimensional notion by incorporating conceptualisations of authenticity from various
disciplines.
Following this line of argument, the overarching proposition of the thesis is that
authenticity is a multi-dimensional concept, encompassing Authenticity of the Other,
Authenticity of the Producer, and Authenticity of the Self. The thesis was guided by three
interrelated research objectives to address the proposition. A three-phase mixed-methods
design was adopted to fulfil the research objectives and a dataset of over a million online
reviews was scraped from a popular restaurant review platform, which was subsequently
sampled and analysed using an integrated learning approach.
This thesis is structured as a series of papers. The research began with a systematic
review (Paper 1) to investigate the gaps in the existing literature and three research directions
were subsequently explored in the papers which followed. Informed by the gaps identified in
the review regarding advanced analytical approaches of online reviews, Paper 2 served as the
methodology employed in the thesis, proposing a systematic approach that integrates
ii
traditional research methods and machine learning to conceptualise multi-dimensional
concepts using online reviews.
Reflecting the utility of the methodological approach proposed in Paper 2, Paper 3 used
traditional data collection and analysis method (quota sampling and thematic analysis) in the
examination of online reviews to understand how consumers form authenticity perceptions
in dining experiences. In addition, Paper 4 applied integrated learning which used the
outcomes from proportionate random sampling and manual classification to direct machine
learning in classification modeling, in order to determine the multi-dimensionality of
authenticity in dining experiences.
Overall, the findings suggest that authenticity is a multi-dimensional concept,
encompassing Authenticity of the Other, Authenticity of the Producer, and Authenticity of the
Self, thus supporting the overarching proposition. Additionally, beside historical and
categorical authenticity which have been previously explored in the literature, a new type of
authenticity - Deviated Authenticity – emerged as a sub-dimension of Authenticity of the
Other. Through the close-up examination of online reviews, a demonstration of consumers’
judgements about authenticity in dining experiences is also provided, which depicts several
authenticity cues in the dining context.
This thesis offers theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions. Theoretically,
it advances the current conceptualisations of authenticity not only in dining experiences, but
also in tourism, management and organisational studies contexts. Methodologically, the
thesis calls for greater attention to well-documented and systematic integrated learning
approaches in text analytics to conceptualise multi-dimensional concepts in consumer
research. It does this, while heightening the important complementary role of traditional
research methods in the era of more prevalent machine learning and big data analytics.
Practically, this thesis informs restaurants and other service-based businesses how to identify
and segment their consumers based on their assessments and expectations of authenticity,
as well as what constitutes authenticity in dining experiences, and the interaction of
restaurant attributes in constructing authentic dining experiences.
iii
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university. To the
best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or
written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself.
(Signed)______ __________
Truc Hoang Le
(Date) 21/07/2020
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. i
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PAPERS INCLUDED IN THIS THESIS ............................................. xiii
PhD SPECIFIC PUBLICATIONS ................................................................................................. xv
PART I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1
Rationale for the Research ............................................................................................. 1
Research Proposition and Objectives ............................................................................. 5
Theoretical Background .................................................................................................. 6
Methodology ................................................................................................................ 15
Significance of the Research ......................................................................................... 23
Structure of the Thesis ................................................................................................. 25
Summary of Part I ......................................................................................................... 26
References .................................................................................................................... 28
PART II. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 37
Paper 1. What we know and do not know about authenticity in dining experiences: A
systematic literature review
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 39
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 39
Theoretical Background and Approaches to Authenticity ........................................... 40
Methodology ................................................................................................................ 41
Review Findings ............................................................................................................ 43
Discussion of Gaps and Directions for Future Research .............................................. 50
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 53
Theoretical and Methodological Implications .............................................................. 53
v
Managerial Implications ............................................................................................... 53
Appendix A. Supplementary Data ................................................................................ 54
References .................................................................................................................... 54
PART III. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 57
Paper 2. Proposing a Systematic Approach for Integrating Traditional Research Methods
into Machine Learning in Text Analytics in Tourism and Hospitality
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 59
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 59
Machine Learning in Text Analytics .............................................................................. 61
A Systematic Approach for Integrating Traditional Research Methods into Machine
Learning ........................................................................................................................ 62
Framework Exemplification through Study of Authenticity in Dining Experiences ..... 66
Conclusions and Implications ....................................................................................... 71
References .................................................................................................................... 73
PART IV. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 75
Paper 3. How Consumers Perceive Authenticity in Restaurants: A Study of Online Reviews
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 79
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 80
Related Work ................................................................................................................ 83
Methodology ................................................................................................................ 89
Findings and Discussion ................................................................................................ 92
Conclusion and Implications ......................................................................................... 107
References .................................................................................................................... 113
Appendix A. An Overview of Authenticity Definitions in Tourism Literature and Their
Advocates ..................................................................................................................... 121
Paper 4. Conceptualising Authenticity in Dining Experiences Using Online Reviews
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 126
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 127
Related Literature ......................................................................................................... 129
Methodology and Proposed Framework ..................................................................... 136
vi
Results .......................................................................................................................... 149
Discussion and Implications ......................................................................................... 158
Research Contributions, Limitations and Future Research .......................................... 162
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 166
References .................................................................................................................... 167
PART V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 176
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 176
Revisiting the Research Objectives and Process .......................................................... 176
Mapping the State of Knowledge and Future Directions ............................................. 178
Employing Integrated Learning for Online Review Analysis ........................................ 180
Addressing the Research Objectives ............................................................................ 182
Contributions ................................................................................................................ 188
Limitations of the Thesis............................................................................................... 194
Future Research ............................................................................................................ 196
Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................................... 197
References .................................................................................................................... 199
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Ethical Clearance ...................................................................................... 202
Appendix 2. Griffith University Thesis Guidelines ........................................................ 203
Appendix 3. Griffith Business School Thesis Guidelines ............................................... 206
vii
LIST OF TABLES
PART I. INTRODUCTION
Table 1. Reliability and Validity of the Research Components .................................... 22
Table 2. Structure and Content of the Thesis ............................................................... 27
PART II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Paper 1
Table 1. A Summary of Key Authenticity Typologies in Tourism.................................. 40
Table 2. Journals by Major Contexts and Major Journals by Year of Publication ........ 43
Table 3. Dining Settings by Types of Cuisine and by Touristic Experiences ................. 44
Table 4. Methods Used ................................................................................................. 44
Table 5. Approaches to Authenticity (AU) .................................................................... 45
Table 6. Source of Data by Primary/Secondary and Cultural Perspectives ................. 45
Table 7. Theoretical Foundations ................................................................................. 46
Table 8. Key Concepts Investigated .............................................................................. 47
Table 9. Relationships between Authenticity (AU) and Other Concepts ..................... 48
Table 10. Emerging Dimensions of Authenticity Portrayed/Examined by Year of
Publication .................................................................................................................... 50
PART III. METHODOLOGY
Paper 2
Table 1. Empirical Studies that Integrate Traditional Research Methods into Machine
Learning in Text Analytics ............................................................................................. 63
Table 2. A Sample of Outputs for Milestones #1, #2, and #3 ....................................... 68
Table 3. Validity Check for the Potential New Authenticity Terms (Step 3) ................ 69
PART IV. FINDINGS
Paper 3
Table 1. List of Authenticity Terms ............................................................................... 90
Table 2. Themes Emerging from Data .......................................................................... 93
Paper 4
viii
Table 1. Final List of Authenticity Terms ...................................................................... 141
Table 2. Output Sample for the Training/Test Set ....................................................... 147
Table 3. Performance Measures for One-Label and Multi-Label Models on Test Set . 149
Table 4. Relevance Test among Classified Dimensions using Information Gain .......... 151
PART V. CONCLUSION
Table 1. Final List of Authenticity Terms ...................................................................... 183
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
PART I. INTRODUCTION
Figure 1. Research Framework ..................................................................................... 14
Figure 2. Research Design ............................................................................................ 19
PART II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Paper 1
Figure 1. Existing Authenticity Dimensions .................................................................. 41
Figure 2. A PRISMA Flowchart ...................................................................................... 42
Figure 3. Emerging Authenticity Dimensions in Dining Experiences: A Summary of
Existing Literature ......................................................................................................... 50
Figure 4. Summary of Review Findings by Sections ..................................................... 51
Figure 5. A Theoretical Model for Conceptualising Authenticity in Dining Experiences
and Directions for Future Research .............................................................................. 52
PART III. METHODOLOGY
Paper 2
Figure 1. Step-By-Step Methodological and Analytical Framework for the Analysis of
Online Reviews ............................................................................................................. 65
Figure 2. An Example Adapting the Proposed Framework: Authenticity in Dining
Experiences ................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 3. Final List of Authenticity Term (Step 4) ......................................................... 70
PART IV. FINDINGS
Figure 1. Structure and Content of Part IV ................................................................... 75
Paper 3
Figure 1. A Demonstration of Consumers’ Judgements about Authenticity in
Restaurants ................................................................................................................... 109
Paper 4
Figure 1. STAGE 1 – Diagram for the Identification of AU-RA Pairs ............................. 140
Figure 2. Authenticity Dimensions Emerging from Manual Classification ................... 143
x
Figure 3. Sets of Authenticity Terms Signifying Strongly Authenticity of the Other and
Authenticity of the Producer......................................................................................... 154
Figure 4. Set of Authenticity Terms Signifying Strongly Authenticity of the Self ......... 155
Figure 5. Sets of Authenticity Terms Signifying Strongly Historical/Categorical
Authenticity and Deviated Authenticity ....................................................................... 156
Figure 6. Timeline for Deviated Authenticity and Emergent Authenticity ................... 161
PART V. CONCLUSION
Figure 1. Summary of Research Process ...................................................................... 177
Figure 2. The Application of Integrated Learning ......................................................... 181
Figure 3. A Summary Map of Authenticity in Dining Experiences ............................... 186
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to firstly thank my supervisory team, Charles, Margarida
and Anna, for doing a fantastic job in advising and directing me throughout my PhD. More
importantly, thank you so much for bearing with me for the last three and a half years.
Without all your help and commitment, I would not be sitting here right now writing this piece
of acknowledgement three months in advance of my anticipated submission date. All of you
have had great links to the start of my research career.
My deepest thanks to Professor Charles Arcodia, my principal supervisor and my mentor since
I started involving myself in research back in 2014 in my undergraduate degree. Thank you so
much for being such a dedicated and supportive supervisor throughout my Honours and PhD.
You have always believed in my work and my capabilities, which has become my biggest
motivation whenever I felt down. Thank you so much for all your guidance and support in my
academic career so far. I hope I will always make you proud of my work.
My deep thanks to Dr Margarida Abreu Novais, my associate supervisor and also my
undergrad tutor, who identified my “wonderful” writing skill and directed me to Charles.
Thank you for being an invaluable element to my supervisory team, for your critical mind and
for our many fascinating discussions about my papers in the office. Thank you so much for
always believing in my work and for being so supportive. Your critical mind has inspired my
thinking and writing, to which I am so grateful.
My deep thanks to Dr Anna Kralj, my associate supervisor and my favourite lecturer in my
undergrad (not sure if I have ever told you this, but you were!). I still feel grateful until now
for when you suggested me undertaking Honours when you read through my assignment.
Thank you for providing me with valuable feedback throughout my PhD. Thank you so much
for your support and commitment even though you have been through tough times with your
health. I wish you good health and positive attitude always.
xii
I would also like to send my sincere thanks to Dr Henry Nguyen, his fellow students and PhD
Candidate Cong Phan from Griffith School of ICT for their support and assistance with the data
collection and analysis. I hope I will have more opportunities to collaborate with you in the
future.
I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to my parents, without whom I would not be in such
a good position to pursue my passion. Thanks to my dad for always listening to my
philosophical talks. Thanks to my mum for giving me the encouragement and health advice I
needed to carry on. Thanks for giving me all that I could only dream of. I am ever grateful to
have you.
Thank you all!
xiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PAPERS INCLUDED IN THIS THESIS
Section 9.1 of the Griffith University Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (“Criteria
for Authorship”), in accordance with Section 5 of the Australian Code for the Responsible
Conduct of Research, states:
To be named as an author, a researcher must have made a substantial scholarly
contribution to the creative or scholarly work that constitutes the research output,
and be able to take public responsibility for at least that part of the work they
contributed. Attribution of authorship depends to some extent on the discipline
and publisher policies, but in all cases, authorship must be based on substantial
contributions in a combination of one or more of:
• conception and design of the research project
• analysis and interpretation of research data
• drafting or making significant parts of the creative or scholarly work or
critically revising it so as to contribute significantly to the final output.
Section 9.3 of the Griffith University Code (“Responsibilities of Researchers”), in accordance
with Section 5 of the Australian Code, states:
Researchers are expected to:
• Offer authorship to all people, including research trainees, who meet the
criteria for authorship listed above, but only those people.
• accept or decline offers of authorship promptly in writing.
• Include in the list of authors only those who have accepted authorship
• Appoint one author to be the executive author to record authorship and
manage correspondence about the work with the publisher and other
interested parties.
• Acknowledge all those who have contributed to the research, facilities or
materials but who do not qualify as authors, such as research assistants,
technical staff, and advisors on cultural or community knowledge. Obtain
written consent to name individuals.
xiv
Included in this thesis are four papers in Parts II, III and IV, which are co-authored with other
researchers. My contribution to each co-authored paper is outlined at the front of the
relevant part. The bibliographic details (if published or accepted for publication)/status (if
prepared or submitted for publication) for these papers including all authors, are also
included at the beginning of the relevant part and a summary can be found over page (p. xv).
Appropriate acknowledgements of those who contributed to the research but did not qualify
as authors are included in each paper.
(Signed) ________ ____________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Student: Truc Hoang Le
(Countersigned) ___ _____ (Date) 21/07/2020
Principal Supervisor: Prof. Charles Arcodia
(Countersigned) _____ _________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Associate Supervisor: Dr. Margarida Abreu Novais
(Countersigned) ______ _____________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Associate Supervisor: Dr. Anna Kralj
xv
PhD SPECIFIC PUBLICATIONS
Published Journal Papers
1. Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (2020). Producing authenticity in
restaurant experiences: interrelationships between the consumer, the provider, and the
experience. Tourism Recreation Research, 1-13 (ABDC Rank: A)
2. Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. Proposing a Systematic Approach for
Integrating Traditional Research Methods into Machine Learning in Text Analytics in
Tourism and Hospitality. Current Issues in Tourism, 1-16 (ABDC Rank: A)
3. Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (2019). What We Know and Do Not
Know about Authenticity in Dining Experiences: A Systematic Literature Review.
Tourism Management, 74, 258-275 (ABDC Rank: A*)
Journal Papers Currently Under Review
1. Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. Exploring the Multi-Dimensionality of
Authenticity in Dining Experiences Using Online Reviews. Manuscript under 2nd review
by Tourism Management. (ABDC Rank: A*)
2. Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. How Consumers Perceive
Authenticity in Restaurants: A Study of Online Reviews. Manuscript under review by
Tourism Management. (ABDC Rank: A*)
Conference Papers
1. Le, T.H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (2020). Proposing a Conceptual
Framework for Authenticity in Co-Created Experiences. CAUTHE 2020: 20:20 Vision:
New Perspectives on the diversity of Hospitality, Tourism and Events.
2. Le, T.H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (2020). Using Combined-Learning to
Conceptualise Constructs in Tourism and Hospitality. CAUTHE 2020: 20:20 Vision: New
Perspectives on the diversity of Hospitality, Tourism and Events.
3. Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Kralj, A., & Abreu Novais, M. (2018). Proposing an exploration of
authenticity and its key determinants in dining experiences. CAUTHE 2018: Get Smart:
Paradoxes and Possibilities in Tourism, Hospitality and Events Education and Research,
846.
xvi
<Intentionally left blank>
1
PART I. INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale for the Research
Authenticity refers to an attribute that describes something as genuine, real or true to the
original (Abarca, 2004; Brown, 2001; Taylor, 1991). The quest for authenticity and authentic
experiences has been evidenced in modern society, either as a quest for product purchases
(Chiu et al., 2012; Grayson & Martinec, 2004), leisure experiences (MacCannell, 1973; Tasci &
Knutson, 2004; Yeoman et al., 2007), or true self (Tribe & Mkono, 2017; van Nuenen, 2016).
Also, the demand for authenticity can be explained by the increasing prevalence of media-
influenced and constructed images (Boorstin, 1961), the growing predominance of
commoditised products as a result of mass production and globalisation (Kim & Jamal, 2007;
Lacy & Douglas, 2002), and the need for social approval and status conferring (Carroll &
Wheaton, 2009; Maslow, 1943; Spooner, 1986). Authenticity, therefore, has been sought to
convey quality and goodness, or as a feature to mitigate the homogeneity of mass-produced,
commoditised goods and services. Authenticity is thus valued highly in the marketplace
(Frazier et al., 2009; Wang, 2011), and a motivator for organisational dynamics to produce
authentic market offerings (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Gilmore & Pine, 2007).
Authenticity is also valued highly in the dining context (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Kovács et
al., 2014). Dining out in contemporary society is increasingly seen as an experience, a form of
entertainment, and a means by which to display taste, status and distinction (Warde &
Martens, 2000). Lu and Fine (1995) proclaim “dining out is identity work” (p. 547), and
authenticity in dining experiences is no doubt increasingly important in advanced economies
(Kovács et al., 2017). Further, dining out has entered the realm of the experience economy
(Pine & Gilmore, 1999), underpinned by the idea that businesses must orchestrate
memorable events for their customers, and that memory itself becomes the product, in other
words, the experience. This suggests the importance of examining authenticity in
consideration of the multi-dimensionality of the dining experience, i.e. food, social, place,
service and time dimensions (Andersson & Mossberg, 2004; Björk & Kauppinen-Räisänen,
2016; Kauppinen-Räisänen et al., 2013). To date, however, no research has attempted to
examine authenticity from the multi-dimensionality of the dining experience. Authenticity in
2
the extant literature has only been studied from the dimensions of the cultural/ethnic theme
displayed, the food, and the servicescape (which also includes employees’ ethnic
characteristics and the presence of ethnic customers) (Beardsworth & Bryman, 1999; Cohen
& Avieli, 2004; Ebster & Guist, 2005; Turgeon & Pastinelli, 2002), lacking an integrated
approach towards understanding authenticity in dining experiences. This thesis, therefore,
attempted to offer a more comprehensive understanding of consumers’ perceptions of
authenticity in dining experiences. In doing so, it conceptualised authenticity as a multi-
dimensional concept by incorporating conceptualisations of authenticity from various
disciplines.
Dining experiences often occur in the context of tourism, hospitality and leisure. The
discourse of authenticity in tourism, hospitality, and leisure studies is not new, rather, it has
attracted substantial scholarly attention and been the subject of diverse connotations and
conceptualisations over the past three decades (Belhassen & Caton, 2006; Bruner, 1994;
Cohen, 1988, 2007; MacCannell, 1973, 1976; Olsen, 2002; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Wang,
1999, 2000). The discussion of authenticity in this context has revolved heavily around
complex theoretical development, while its operationalisation remains a substantial
challenge for tourism, hospitality, and leisure scholars and practitioners (Cohen & Cohen,
2012; Rickly-Boyd, 2012). The dimensions of authenticity conceptualised within the context
of tourism, hospitality and leisure have raised a number of concerns such as: whether the
consumers are able to have authentic dining experiences which are constructed only through
the viewpoint of tourism, hospitality and leisure scholars; and potentially overlooked
perspectives that are useful in understanding the mechanisms shaping consumers’
perceptions of authenticity in dining experiences. Indeed, there have been a few research
attempts at examining the use of authenticity specifically in the restaurant domain (Kovács et
al., 2014; O’Connor et al., 2017), establishing an authenticity definition scale (Kovács et al.,
2014; O’Connor et al., 2017), and identifying determinants shaping perceptions of
authenticity in food-related settings (Chhabra et al., 2013a, 2013b; Robinson & Clifford,
2012). However, the extant research in this context also lacks an integrated theoretical
approach to conceptualise authenticity more holistically (Belhassen et al., 2008).
3
Authenticity in dining experiences can also be discussed from the view of organisational
management. From this lens, each restaurant is seen as ‘an organisation’ or ‘a business’
where dining experiences are hosted and offered. Dining experiences are hereby the final
outcome of the business operations. As a result, not only are the consumers’ experiences
important for the profitability and sustainability of a business, but also important is how a
business or an organisation operates and how effectively the operational practices yield
optimal business performance (Gilmore & Pine, 2007). Authenticity is conveyed not only via
business services and offerings, but also by the performance of the business itself. Further to
this, how the business portrays its public image and practices towards consumers also
influences how the consumers perceive authenticity portrayed by the business (Giebelhausen
et al., 2016; Huiskamp & Bartelsman, 2001; O’Connor et al., 2017). As such, the business itself
conveys its true self and values become part of the offerings to the market and will be
‘consumed’ by the consumers (Gilmore & Pine, 2007).
From the viewpoint of psychology, not only is authenticity perceived through entities that can
be evaluated using specific criteria and historical evidence, or through existing beliefs or
knowledge about a specific class or type, but it can also be evaluated through an assessment
of values, specifically, the consistency between the internal states and the external
expressions of an entity (Newman, 2019; Newman & Smith, 2016). When evaluating this type
of authenticity, people are less inclined to be based on the direct and physical properties of
the object/experience, rather, they assess it in relation to the values, characteristics, goals,
and intentions of the producer (Hahl, 2016; Mazutis & Slawinski, 2015). As a result,
perceptions of authenticity in dining experiences can also be formed if a consumer observes
an essence of an entity and believes that essence reflects the values and characteristics
possessed by the underlying producer of that entity. This line of conceptualisation is indeed
useful for understanding authenticity of (underlying) producers and restaurant businesses
that co-construct the dining experience.
By incorporating different authenticity conceptualisations from various disciplines, this thesis
attempted to offer a multi-dimensional understanding of authenticity, which aligns with the
multi-faceted dining experience and considers various actors constructing an authentic dining
experience. Accordingly, this thesis argued that in dining experiences, authenticity is
4
incorporated by Authenticity of the Other, Authenticity of the Self, and Authenticity of the
Producer.
The multi-dimensionality of authenticity proposed in this thesis was explored in the context
of online reviews. Previous authenticity examinations in dining experiences have investigated
authenticity from the actual diners’ perspective. However, recent studies examining
consumer behaviour have highlighted the vitality of electronic word-of-mouth, specifically
online restaurant reviews, in aiding consumers’ selection of restaurants and driving dining
patterns (Chhabra et al., 2013a; DiPietro, 2017; Tsao et al., 2015; Viglia et al., 2016; Zhang &
Hanks, 2018). Chhabra et al. (2013a) assert that online restaurant reviews hold potential to
mediate pre-dining perceptions of authenticity among other users or would-be buyers. Online
restaurant reviews are, therefore, considered as a means for individuals to exhibit their
culinary capital (e.g. authenticity, taste, quality and perceived value) to others who have
similar interests (Naccarato & LeBesco, 2012; Vásquez & Chik, 2015). Online reviews therefore
have opened a myriad of research possibilities for further understanding dining experiences
(see Rodríguez-López et al. 2019). Despite the prominent role of online reviewers in shaping
dining perceptions and behaviour of consumers, as well as substantial methodological
agendas emerging from the use of online reviews as collected data, the number of studies
examining authenticity using online reviews is surprisingly scant (Le et al., 2019). Online
reviews therefore can be an effective source for triangulation with other sources of data such
as interviewing or surveying diners when it comes to understanding dining perceptions and
behaviour among consumers.
This choice was further influenced by two elements. Firstly, online reviews allow data
collection and analysis to be more efficient given this readily available type of data. Secondly,
online restaurant reviews can be considered as a platform for foodies who have passion for
eating, learning and sharing experiences about food and dining out, and to portray their
interests and culinary capital about food and dining experiences with others (DeSoucey &
Demetry, 2016; Johnston & Bauman, 2010; Robinson & Getz, 2014). Foodies are thus seen as
a consumer segment that has familiarity with food and dining experiences and is likely to
show greater attention to and interest in authenticity when dining out (DeSoucey & Demetry,
2016; Gottlieb, 2015; Robinson & Getz, 2014). Examination of authenticity in online
5
restaurant reviews (thus capturing the viewpoints of the online reviewers), as a result, is
essential for understanding consumers’ perceptions of authenticity in the restaurant context.
2. Research Proposition and Objectives
The overarching proposition of this thesis was that authenticity in dining experiences is a
multi-dimensional concept encompassing Authenticity of the Other, Authenticity of the Self
and Authenticity of the Producer. In order to address the proposition, three interrelated
research objectives were developed:
1. To identify terms used to describe authenticity and restaurant attributes associated
with authenticity.
2. To understand how consumers form judgements about authenticity in dining
experiences.
3. To determine the multi-dimensionality of authenticity in dining experiences.
Achieving the first objective involved investigating the discourse of authenticity in dining
experiences in online restaurant reviews. This included identifying terms and restaurant
attributes used to refer to authenticity to identify authenticity judgements in online reviews.
The second objective examined how consumers form authenticity judgements in dining
experiences using the identified authenticity judgements. Based on these judgements, the
third objective attempted to establish a multi-dimensional framework for authenticity in
dining experiences incorporating Authenticity of the Other, Authenticity of the Self, and
Authenticity of the Producer. Given that delivering authentic experiences in restaurants has
moved beyond the core product itself (the food), and increasingly demands the producer-
organisation to project its own true qualities, failing to address the multi-dimensionality of
authenticity that incorporates such views may create an insufficient landscape of authenticity
understanding and determinants in the restaurant context. This thesis therefore is of
fundamental importance considering the aforementioned power of online restaurant reviews
and the increasing attention to the role of the producer-organisation in constructing
authenticity cues.
6
3. Theoretical Background
3.1. Authenticity Conceptualisations in Tourism
This section presents a theoretical background and the development of conceptualisations of
authenticity from the viewpoint of tourism, hospitality and leisure perspectives. The attention
on theorisations of authenticity has accelerated among tourism scholars since MacCannell
(1973, 1976) introduced the notion of staged authenticity. Definitions of authenticity abound,
to the extent that Taylor (2001, p.8) suggests that “there are at least as many definitions of
authenticity as there are those who write about it”. Debates around meanings, usage and
validity of those theorisations, especially in the tourism, hospitality and leisure literature,
have evoked several interesting perspectives towards a response to “What does authenticity
mean?” However, several philosophical consistencies of what authenticity encapsulates were
found across the literature, which helps shape the diverse connotations of authenticity into a
more systematised categorisation.
Conceptualisations of authenticity have been influenced by a variety of philosophical
standpoints including objectivism, constructivism, postmodernism, and existentialism. As
such, seeking a universal definition of authenticity is a challenge, largely because it has been
conceptualised in a way that makes it too confusing to operationalise (Belhassen & Caton,
2006). The fluidity of this complex concept, however, could present reasons for optimism
because social scientists are able to choose any angle from the philosophical landscape to
view and analyse the concept (Belhassen & Caton, 2006; Mkono, 2013). This section begins
by introducing staged authenticity and emergent authenticity as the early introduction of the
authenticity notion in tourism, hospitality and leisure contexts, then moves to the discussion
of key approaches towards authenticity in various disciplines and concludes with the
possibility of a multi-dimensional approach to authenticity, which is specifically proposed in
Paper 1.
3.1.1. Staged Authenticity and Emergent Authenticity: Initial Conceptualisations
The concept of staged authenticity was originally developed by MacCannell (1973, 1976), who
believed that modern tourists search for pilgrimage-type travel which allows them to escape
the mundane daily life and to look for the ‘real life’ of others. The term ‘tourist’ in
7
MacCannell’s view was overwhelmingly used as a label for someone who seemingly enjoys
inauthentic experiences. In this sense, MacCannell’s thesis on staged authenticity has
suggested a typically ‘stereotyped form’ of tourists who spontaneously longed for the
authentic Other to compensate their routine monotonous life (Chhabra, 2010; Jennings &
Stehlik, 2001; Mkono, 2013).
Cohen (1979, 1988, 2002, 2007) has been one of the most vocal critics of MacCannell’s (1973,
1976) notion of a like-minded touristic quest for the authentic life the Other. Cohen (1979)
asserts it is oversimplified to accept MacCannell’s discourse of modern tourists, who single-
mindedly seek the authentic lives of others but are simultaneously deceived by the staged
experiences manufactured by the tourism providers (Cohen, 1979). Cohen (1979) adds that
the term ‘tourist’ does not exist as one type because different types of people would be
motivated to travel to acquire different experiences, and the level of authenticity demand is
therefore different for each motivation. To add more weight to his argument, Cohen (1988)
introduced the concept of emergent authenticity, meaning that a tourism product or service
that can be regarded as contrived or inauthentic at a time, yet through the course of time can
be mutually recognised as authentic, even by the authorised agents or the field experts.
Emergent authenticity therefore questions objectivity in authenticity, that is whether the
objective criteria employed to assert authenticity claims for toured objects are actually
objective, or have they been socially constructed over time and thus are accepted
unquestionably as objective norms. The question of objectivity in authenticity cannot be
fulfilled because being objective or not depends on the philosophical approach taken by
individuals. The following section discusses key theoretical schools of thought that inform
different approaches towards authenticity.
3.1.2. Approaches to Authenticity: The Current Landscape
Several authenticity conceptualisations have been proposed to capture the diverse
viewpoints among tourism, hospitality and leisure scholars. Among them, Wang’s (1999)
typology appears to be the most widely used conceptualisation of authenticity (e.g. Chhabra
et al., 2013a, 2013b; Cohen & Cohen, 2012; Mkono, 2012b, 2013; Xie & Wall, 2002; Yang &
Wall, 2009). Wang’s typology is considered as one of a few conceptualisations that has
succeeded in explicating understandings of authenticity in a straightforward and accessible
8
manner (Mkono, 2013) and achieving high communicative engagement (Belhassen & Caton,
2006). Chhabra (2008), on the other hand, captures the diverse views of authenticity by
proposing an authenticity continuum. This incorporates an object-related sense of
authenticity, including pure objectivism and pure constructivism as extreme poles, with
negotiation between objectivism and constructivism as the middle stance (Chhabra, 2008).
Nevertheless, with the rise of existentialism in the context of tourism, hospitality and leisure,
and the stronger focus on the Self and how experiential aspects affect the total experience,
research attention has shifted towards how individuals see themselves as authentic when
experiencing the authentic Other (Hall, 2007; Wang, 1999).
Objectivist Approach
Authenticity from the objectivist perspective is firstly referred to as origins, the usage
borrowed from the language and practices of museumology (Cohen, 2007; Mkono, 2013;
Trilling, 1972). The judgement of authenticity in this sense is therefore based upon the
traditional or customary ways of production or usage that are enacted by local people or
authoritative certifications (Bruner, 1994; Mkono, 2013). Further, objectivists consider
authenticity as an objective and measurable attribute inherent in the object, which is usually
tested with a positivist set of absolute criteria to validate authenticity claims (Jones, 2010;
Wang, 1999). This process is referred to as cool authentication (Cohen & Cohen, 2012), where
objects are objectively authenticated, certified and officially validated as authentic. However,
even the most objective view of the objectivist approach has long come under criticism, not
to mention the solid critiques by constructivists (Cohen, 2007). The question is posed, that,
whether an object is still considered as objectively authentic when the criterion used to
determine authenticity is mutually constructed by groups of individuals who are believed to
have more authoritative power than others, in order to assign such judgements (Carroll,
2015). Mkono (2013) suggested that among all approaches to authenticity, the objectivist
school of thought is the least favoured due to the high level of objectivity required to establish
objective claims.
Constructivist Approach
The key argument of the constructivist approach is that authenticity is not a black or white
matter, but rather is a wider and blurrier concept, rich in ambiguous colours (Cohen, 2007;
9
Wang, 1999). Within the tourism, hospitality and leisure literature, the constructivist
approach revolves around a few common authenticity connotations. First, there is the belief
that there is no absolute and static original on which the absolute authenticity of the originals
can rely on as “we all enter society in the middle, and culture is always in process” (Bruner,
1994, p. 407). However, the absence of absolute origins noted here should not be confused
with the postmodernist belief that nothing can be regarded as authentic, because
constructivists still assert claims of authenticity, yet there are no objective measurements or
true originals on which such claims could be validated. Second, constructivists believe
authenticity is an output of how one sees things through his/her perspectives and
interpretations (Wang, 1999). The nature of authenticity, as a result, is pluralistic, relative to
each individual who may have their own way of defining, experiencing and interpreting
authenticity (Littrell et al., 1993; Pearce & Moscardo, 1985, 1986; Redfoot, 1984). Third,
authenticity is believed to be constructed through stereotyped images, expectations, and
consciousness onto the toured Other, which are subjected to the influence of mass media,
movies and word of mouth from friends or family (Adams, 1984; Bruner, 1991; Duncan, 1978;
Laxson, 1991; Silver, 1993). This influence can lead to a compromised negotiated authenticity
(Molz, 2004; Chhabra, 2005). The negotiated stance of authenticity, therefore, calls for a
compromise between the objectivist and constructivist (Chhabra, 2008; Chhabra et al.,
2013a). The compromise between these two philosophical approaches also supports a
mutually constructed authenticity by the suppliers and the consumers, by which the core of
objective authenticity can be retained if the market demand carefully embraces it (Chhabra
et al., 2013a, 2013b; Molz, 2004). Wang (1999) commented on the constructivist approach
that authenticity is not only a psychologistic concept that details a collection of individual
perceptions and attitudes, but also is a collective process, by which individual perceptions
coagulate into a socially constructed recognition of the authenticity of the phenomenon.
Postmodernist Approaches
Postmodernist approaches have been characterised strongly by the deconstruction of the
authenticity concept (Cohen, 2007; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Wang, 1999). Indeed,
postmodernist scholars do not regard inauthenticity as a problem; rather, the concept of
authenticity should no longer be a primary concern for tourism, hospitality and leisure pursuit
in the postmodern era. Eco’s (1986) thesis on hyperreality supported the deconstruction of
10
authenticity through de-structuring the edge between the copy and the original, or between
fiction and reality. The most typical example of hyperreality is Disneyland, as it is born out of
fantasy and imagination, thus it is irrelevant to assert authenticity claims on such
establishments, since there is no true original to rely on (Eco, 1986). In this sense,
postmodernists are against the modernists/objectivists and in line with the constructivists
who doubt any discernible, objective reality underpinning authenticity. On the other hand,
postmodernists also criticise constructivists who have overestimated the awareness of
authenticity, which in fact, has not received sufficient attention to construct the myths
(Reisinger & Steiner, 2006). Postmodernists also believe the line between the real and the
fake is so blurred that argument about what is authentic or inauthentic is theoretically
pointless (Mkono, 2013; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006). Nevertheless, the calls to abandon
authenticity have received significant critiques as a “premature” step or an
“oversimplification”, or at worst, false (Mkono, 2012a, p. 480, 483). Authenticity is still
arguably very important to certain types of tourists, and as long as someone is aware of it, it
should still be relevant to scholarship (Belhassen & Caton, 2006, p. 855). This thesis assumes
Belhassen and Caton’s (2006) and Mkono’s (2012a) position, which does not embrace the
abandonment of authenticity suggested by Reisinger and Steiner (2006).
Existentialist Approach
The postmodernist deconstruction of authenticity has subsequently implied an alternative
way to conceptualise authenticity - existential authenticity - as an alternative experiential
concept in the realm of tourism, hospitality and leisure experiences (Reisinger & Steiner,
2006; Steiner & Reisinger, 2006). Although there have been several connotations for this
existentialist approach, the most commonly observed connotation in the literature is “tourists
might have authentic experiences without being in the presence of authentic sights” (Cohen,
2007, p. 79) that can have nothing to do with the toured objects or anything with museum
related sense (Mkono, 2013). Also, as Wang (1999) put it, existential authenticity occurs when
“tourist are not merely searching for authenticity of the Other […] they also search for the
authenticity of, and between, themselves” (p. 364). The existential authenticity examined in
this study adopts the conceptualisation of Wang (1999) due to its widely adopted theoretical
standpoint without being overly simplistic (Mkono, 2013).
11
Wang (1999, 2000) regards existential authenticity as an activity-related authenticity
triggered by tourist activities, in contrast to objective and constructive authenticity, which are
considered as object-related authenticity. Wang (1999) argues existential authenticity is “the
authenticity of Being” that is “to be subjectively or intersubjectively sampled by tourists as
the process of tourism unfolds” (p. 359). Two forms of existential authenticity are
conceptualised in Wang’s (1999) typology, offering a relatively sufficient comprehension of
the existential state of Being without being too overly simplistic. These two dimensions of the
existential state originate from subjective and intersubjective feelings of individuals, namely
intrapersonal and interpersonal authenticity (Leigh et al., 2006). Intrapersonal authenticity
involves individuals experiencing their authentic self via their bodily feelings (i.e. relaxation,
rehabilitation, and sensation-seeking) and their self-making or self-identity (i.e. self-fulfilment
and self-development), while interpersonal authenticity is experienced through the practice
of intimacy, friendship, inter-human relationship or sociality (Wang, 1999, 2000).
A Negotiated Approach: Theoplacity
Another form of negotiated authenticity found in the literature is theoplacity, which
integrates the objectivist and existentialist approaches (Belhassen et al., 2008; Chhabra et al.,
2013a, 2013b; Robinson & Clifford, 2012). Theoplacity denotes a sense of authenticity created
through the process of establishing the authenticity of the self by negotiating the authenticity
of material things/toured objects (Jones, 2010). In other words, consumers are capable of
having an optimised and exhilarated experience in objectively authentic surroundings
(Chhabra et al., 2013a). The concept of theoplacity, first developed by Belhassen et al. (2008),
suggests that tourists’ experiences of existential authenticity are the result of socially
constructed understandings about the places visited and the actions undertaken in the toured
places, in conjunction with the tourists’ own direct, empirical encounters. However, a
renewed negotiation of the objectivist and existentialist approaches has been suggested that
enhances the practicality of the theoplacity conceptualisation (Buchmann et al., 2010;
Chhabra, 2010; Chhabra et al., 2013a, 2013b; Jones, 2010). This notion of theoplacity
incorporates the key feature of the existential approach, that an individual’s perception and
interpretation of authenticity is privileged, yet also acknowledges the power of toured objects
or material things as the referential points of departure for achieving authenticity (Belhassen
et al., 2008; Robinson & Clifford, 2012).
12
3.2. Authenticity Conceptualisations in Other Disciplines
The conceptualisation of authenticity has not only inspired tourism scholars but researchers
from other disciplines including sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and
management studies (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Kovács et al., 2014; Kovács, 2019; Newman,
2019; Newman & Smith, 2016). Although the existing literature on authenticity in general has
proposed many different conceptualisations of the term, there appears to be a striking degree
of convergence across them when examined as a whole (Belhassen & Caton, 2006; Newman
& Smith, 2016).
Organisational management scholars argue that authenticity works best when it is
organisationally constructed (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Kovács et al., 2017). In this sense,
authenticity of a service offering or restaurant is conveyed most saliently by the service
provider when it is embedded within the structure of a business in a visible and central way.
Authenticity constructed in such ways is believed to accrue stronger appeal, better credibility
and to persist longer than authenticity which is not effectively organisationally embedded
(Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Elsbach, 2003; O’Connor et al., 2017). Focusing on different
meanings of authenticity to consumers, Carroll and Wheaton (2009) and Carroll (2015)
propose a conceptual framework that incorporates the organisational construction in shaping
consumers’ perceived authenticity, drawing inferences from food and restaurant contexts.
The authors argue that in modern societies, conformity with historical usage and cultural
elements is not by itself enough to arouse perceived authenticity and thus not convey
strongest advantage for restaurant businesses.
Carroll and Wheaton (2009) propose four meanings of authenticity: (1) type authenticity,
where the concern involves whether an entity is true to its associated type or category; (2)
craft authenticity, which derives from type authenticity and involves whether something is
made using appropriate techniques and ingredients; (3) moral authenticity, which refers to
the generation of moral meaning about the values and choices embedded in the object,
implying that an organisation would be authentic to the extent that it embodies the chosen
values of its founders or owners; and (4) idiosyncratic authenticity, which emerges from moral
authenticity, and is concerned with whether there is a commonly recognised (usually
13
historical) quirkiness to the product or place. Carroll and Wheaton (2009) argue, depending
on which of the four meanings of authenticity is effective, the attributes influencing the
meanings will vary.
Deep-rooted in psychology, Newman and Smith (2016) propose that authenticity assessments
can be classified into three typologies: historical, categorical, and values authenticity.
Specifically, historical authenticity is formed when an entity is believed to physically connect
or to possess the essence of a specific valued source, a person, or place. Categorical
authenticity refers to the evaluations in which an entity is seen to fit consumers’ existing
beliefs or knowledge about a specific class or type. Finally, values authenticity is associated
with the degree to which the external expressions of an entity is consistent with its internal
states (Newman & Smith, 2016; Newman, 2019). As a result, when evaluating values
authenticity, consumers are less likely to attend the immediate and physical properties of the
object or the experience, rather, they assess it in relation to the values, characteristics, goals,
and intentions of the producer (Hahl, 2016; Mazutis & Slawinski, 2015). The aforementioned
scholars (Carroll, 2015; Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Newman, 2019; Newman & Smith, 2016),
as a result, have attempted to converge numerous different authenticity conceptualisations
(including conceptualisations in tourism) in a more streamlined and manageable set of
typologies and incorporated the role of the producer-organisation in constructing
authenticity perceptions (thus authenticity judgements).
3.3. A Multi-Dimensional Approach to Authenticity
Figure 1 presents a multi-dimensional approach to authenticity in dining experiences adopted
in this thesis. By incorporating different authenticity conceptualisations from various
disciplines, this thesis attempted to offer a holistic understanding of authenticity, which aligns
with the multi-dimensionality of dining experiences and considers various actors shaping an
authentic dining experience. The extensive research focus on the othered settings (e.g. ethnic
and ethnic-themed restaurants) has driven the belief that authenticity judgements can only
be generated in cultural and ethnic-related establishments. By concomitantly approaching
authenticity from inter-disciplinary viewpoints, this thesis argued that in dining experiences,
authenticity is incorporated by Authenticity of the Other, Authenticity of the Self, and
Authenticity of the Producer.
15
4. Methodology
This thesis was oriented within a pragmatist paradigm and therefore adopted a mixed-
methods design to address the overarching proposition and fulfil the three research
objectives. This section offers an overview of the philosophical stance directing the thesis and
an outline of the proposed methods. It begins with the justification of the philosophical
paradigm underpinning this thesis. It then moves forward to a presentation of the research
design and a justification of the specific methods for data collection and data analysis. The
section subsequently outlines the research context and unit of analysis while addressing
issues of validity and reliability, ethical considerations, and delimitations.
4.1. Philosophical Underpinnings
Creswell (2014) contends that everyone brings a worldview to their research, and this may be
explicitly addressed or not. This worldview is referred to as a paradigm, which informs how a
researcher undertakes a study (Guba, 1990). A research paradigm is a set of beliefs and first
principles that represent understanding the nature of reality (ontology), the construction of
knowledge (epistemology), and the way information about the world is gathered
(methodology) (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Tracy, 2013).
This thesis was oriented within a pragmatist paradigm. Pragmatism is considered an
alternative to the forced-choice dichotomy between positivism and post-positivism and
constructivism and interpretivism (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). As constructivists,
pragmatists do not see the world as a single reality (ontology); however, as opposed to
constructivists and post-positivists, pragmatists consider truth is what works at a time, and
an external world can therefore either be independent of the mind or be within the mind
(Cherryholmes, 1992). As post-positivists, pragmatists maintain that knowledge claims
(epistemology) arise “out of action, situations, and consequences” instead of “antecedent
conditions” (Creswell, 2014, p. 10). Pragmatism prioritises freedom of choosing the methods,
techniques, and procedures of research (methodology) as foremost to achieve best
understanding of the problem (Creswell, 2003; Murphy, 1990). By integrating multiple
philosophical paradigms and flexibility in selecting a research method (Kumar, 2014),
pragmatism allows for a variety of data and research techniques in order to depict a
16
comprehensive literature of the phenomenon rather than just subscribing to one research
approach (Creswell, 2014).
The freedom of choice in the pragmatic paradigm is critically important in determining the
choice of research design and analytical techniques of this thesis, as pragmatists are eager to
look to the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of research based on the intended outcomes they wish to
endeavour without being constrained by method (Tracy, 2013). Pragmatism allows the
research to be conducted holistically in both two paradigms, that while there have been some
existing theories/knowledge in authenticity in the dining context (a post-positivist
perspective), there have also been some noteworthy underlying socially constructed patterns
that have not yet been discovered in the extant literature (a constructivist perspective).
Moreover, since the concept of authenticity has been the subject of multiple connotations,
multiple dimensions, and an extreme heterogeneity of usage (Olsen, 2002), different
worldviews are best applied to capture the complexity and controversies emerged from this
concept (Chhabra et al., 2013a, 2013b; Robinson & Clifford, 2012). Both constructivism and
post-positivism therefore are appropriate for underpinning the research design of this thesis,
which implies pragmatism as an optimal choice for this thesis.
4.2. Research Design
The proposed research objectives and the influence of pragmatism on the researcher’s
worldview have suggested the use of a mixed-methods research design for this thesis. Mixed-
methods design encompasses qualitative and quantitative research methods within a single
study or multiple studies in a program of inquiry (Creswell, 2014). The value of mixed-
methods is that all methods entail bias and weaknesses, hence employing multiple
approaches may offset the weaknesses of individual approaches (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).
Mixed-methods design also allows for methodological triangulation, which is based upon the
assumption that in certain situations, there is a need to use more than one method (Kumar,
2014). Mixed-methods design aims to enrich depth and accuracy of the conclusions, to
provide more comprehensive evidence of the phenomenon, or even to reconfirm the findings
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).
17
Specifically, this thesis fits two research situations where the use of a mixed-methods
approach is most appropriate. These situations include when the phenomenon needs to be
explored and described from multiple perspectives (Morse, 1991); and when the nature of
the phenomenon may not be measured quantitatively at first (Kumar, 2014). Indeed, the
attributions of authenticity communicated online are both directly embedded in cultural
language and rhetoric (Kovács et al., 2014), and indirectly embedded in the recollection of the
lived experiences of the consumers (Mkono, 2012b); thus a mixed-method approach allows
for a more complete analysis and a holistic investigation of authenticity communications in
online reviews. Further, there has been a recognised gap in knowledge regarding the
operationalisation of the authenticity concept. A mixed-method approach is therefore
suitable to firstly aggregate the attributes associated with authenticity communications, and
then aids the development of a multi-dimensional model, which in turn suggests authenticity
is a multi-dimensional concept.
Figure 2 depicts the key components of the thesis as well as the research design. Specifically,
the research design consisted of three phases addressing the three research objectives of the
thesis accordingly. Phase 1 employed a text mining approach to identify terms used to
describe authenticity and restaurant attributes associated with authenticity embedded in
online reviews to fulfil Research Objective 1. Phase 1 was conducted to detect authenticity
judgements formed by authenticity terms and restaurant attributes found in online reviews.
This phase was a prerequisite for phases 2 and 3 because it helped identify relevant review
samples (i.e. authenticity judgements) which were utilised in those subsequent phases.
Following this, an exploratory sequential design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018) was adopted
for phases 2 and 3. To start with, Phase 2 employed a qualitative approach, incorporating
quota sampling and thematic analysis to examine how consumers form authenticity
perceptions in restaurant experiences by analysing consumers’ authenticity judgements
detected from Phase 1, thus responding to Research Objective 2. The findings emerging from
this phase included a demonstration of consumers’ judgements about authenticity in dining
experiences, which was then used to inform Phase 3.
18
Using the authenticity judgements identified from Phase 1 and the demonstration of
authenticity judgements as a result of Phase 2, Phase 3 employed a mixed-methods approach
(i.e. integrated learning), integrating traditional research methods with machine learning to
conceptualise the multi-dimensionality of authenticity in dining experiences, thus fulfilling
Research Objective 3. In order to do this, a training set was created using proportionate
random sampling, and the selected authenticity judgements were manually classified into
different authenticity dimensions based on the demonstration of judgements resulting from
Phase 2. This training set was then used to train the classification model depicting the multi-
dimensionality of authenticity. This classification model was subsequently evaluated and
confirmed, which suggests authenticity is a multi-dimensional concept encompassing
Authenticity of the Other, Authenticity of the Self, and Authenticity of the Producer.
20
electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004). Online restaurant reviews
therefore become a primary tool for consumers who have limited direct information
regarding the quality of food and services provided by restaurants (Zhang & Hanks, 2018),
and a means through which individuals can display their culinary capital to an audience who
share similar interests (Naccarato & Lebesco, 2012; Vásquez & Chik, 2015). To understand
consumers’ perceptions and communications of authenticity in dining experiences, this thesis
conducted an examination into textual review data.
According to Lewis-Beck et al. (2003), a unit of analysis is the subject (who or what) of
investigation about which a researcher may generalize. Since this thesis examined
authenticity embedded in online restaurant reviews, the unit of analysis was the individual
review text that contains judgements about authenticity (Kovács et al., 2014, 2017; O’Connor
et al., 2017). Phase 1 of the research design therefore was of utmost importance given that it
determined the unit of analysis for the following phases by identifying relevant judgements
about authenticity in online reviews.
It should be noted that it was beyond the practical scope of this thesis to gain access to all
online restaurant reviews generated worldwide, thus the research context was limited to
Australia. Due to strong multiculturalism from subsequent waves of immigration, cuisines in
Australia are diverse, embracing strong, exotic and sophisticated food cultures, as well as
contemporary adaptations and extensive influence on the development of its cuisine
(Australian Government, 2008). These conditions have led consumers to placing more value
on and having higher expectations of authenticity in dining experiences (Robinson & Getz,
2014). Further, the report, Eating Out in Australia (2017) also highlights the increasing trend
of booking online and the substantial reliance of online recommendations before eating out.
Accordingly, with the diversity and sophistication of cuisines, the increasing demand for
authenticity when eating out, as well as the dynamic upward trend in e-WOM behaviour, this
thesis examined online restaurant reviews from Zomato, Australia. Zomato is one of the
largest platforms for booking and reviewing restaurants in Australia, thus providing an
enormous number of reviews to facilitate the research (Zomato Australia, 2020). This thesis
used a dataset of 1,048,575 reviews scraped from Zomato during July 2018.
21
4.4. Validity and Reliability
Since this thesis adopted a mixed-methods research design which encompasses different
ontological and epistemological assumptions across different phases, considerations of
validity and reliability in qualitative research cannot employ the same criteria as quantitative
research. As a result, reliability and validity issues in different phases of the thesis were
addressed separately (see Table 1 for a summary). While quantitative research uses the terms
‘validity’ and ‘reliability’ to refer to research assessments underpinned by the post-positivism
paradigm, qualitative research generally uses credibility, transferability, dependability and
confirmability (Guba & Lincoln, 1994) to evaluate the soundness or quality of the inquiry of
the constructivist paradigm. Given that the thesis employed machine learning algorithms in
phases 1 and 3, specific evaluation metrics were provided to ensure validity and reliability of
the model training process.
In addition to responding to these criteria, generalisability of the findings in Phase 3 was also
warranted by the use of proportionate random sampling to create the training set for
classification modeling, as well as the use of a test set (as a sub-set of training set) to evaluate
the classification models. Further, the vast number of online reviews in the dataset was
sufficient to make inferences about the entire population of online reviews. Also, the use of
quota sampling in Phase 2 allowed for maximising dimensions of authenticity captured
through authenticity judgements in online reviews. This sampling strategy enriched and
triangulated the findings which emerged in Phase 2, thus enhancing the credibility of this
phase.
22
Table 1. Reliability and Validity of the Research Components
Approach Criteria (Author) Definition How the criteria are applied
Qualitative Credibility The results are credible and believable from the perspective of the participants in the research
The data were collected and analysed from a vast amount of online reviews capturing different perspectives until the data saturation was achieved. To further enhance the thesis’s rigour, thick descriptions were provided within the analysis and discussion of study findings. This entailed providing quotes that support each point made and acknowledged reflexivity of the researcher. The data collection and analysis process were thoroughly described and all phases in the data analysis followed the guidelines of thematic analysis to ensure the consistency and dependability.
Transferability The degree to which the results can be generalised or transferred to other contexts or settings
Dependability Whether the same results could be obtained if the same thing could be observed twice
Confirmability (Trochim & Donnelly, 2007; Guba & Lincoln, 1994)
The degree to which the results could be confirmed or corroborated by others
Text Mining Construct Validity (Creswell, 2014; Strauss & Smith, 2009)
Evaluation of the extent to which a measure assesses the construct it is deemed to measure
The authenticity list of keywords employed (Kovács et al., 2014; O’Connor et al., 2017) has been applied and tested in previous studies.
Classification Modeling
Classification Accuracy (Kirilenko et al., 2018; Tan et al., 2005)
A ratio of number of correct predictions to the total of input samples
The following metrics were computed and compared across models: Accuracy, Precision (percentage of identified positives), recall (percentage of identified negatives), and F1-score (a multiplicative combination of precision and recall).
4.5. Ethical Considerations
No major ethical considerations were identified for the thesis. This thesis followed Griffith
University’s guidelines for ethical approval to ensure it abided by the standard and regulations
of human research. The ethical clearance for the thesis is attached in Appendix 1.
4.6. Delimitations of the Thesis
This thesis was bound by several delimitations. It examined perceptions of authenticity in
dining experiences, taking the dining context into account. In addition to the restaurant
segment, the dining context also included establishments offering gastronomic-culinary
tourists’ experiences (e.g. specialty stores and factories, wineries, nature-based touristic
settings that have dine-in options) considering such establishments were listed on Zomato
Australia.
23
5. Significance of the Research
This thesis is of theoretical, methodological and practical significance. From a theoretical
perspective, it firstly offers a multi-dimensional approach to authenticity that supports the
development of a multi-dimensional authenticity framework in the restaurant context.
Although there have been several attempts to understand the multi-dimensionality of
authenticity in various disciplines (e.g. Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Chhabra, 2010; Cohen, 2007;
Kolar & Zabcar, 2010; Newman & Smith, 2016; Wang, 1999), such investigations remain
scarce in the restaurant context, in which the majority of authenticity research has focused
solely on presenting/selling of the otherness experience (e.g. ethnic culture, cuisine). Further,
while the increasingly important role of producer-organisation in shaping the multi-
dimensionality of authenticity perceptions has not yet raised sufficient attention in the
restaurant research, this thesis is one of the first attempts integrating this emerging
dimension (i.e. Authenticity of the Producer) into the multi-dimensionality of authenticity in
the context of restaurants.
Secondly, by developing a multi-dimensional framework for conceptualising authenticity, the
thesis advances existing conceptualisations and overcomes some current limitations.
Specifically, the authenticity framework developed lessens the intense focus on the debatable
objectivity of authenticity assessments in the conceptualisations in tourism (i.e. objective
versus constructive authenticity). To do this, the framework redirects the root of authenticity
assessments from studying the ‘fact’ itself to studying the ‘interpretation’ of the observer.
Authenticity studies in consumer research, therefore, would be more effective by considering
consumers’ thoughts and catering to their expectations regarding authenticity instead of
determining the ultimate ideal state of authenticity. The framework also improves tourism
conceptualisations by capturing the underlying element of the producer in constructing
authenticity, thus offering a holistic understanding of consumers’ perceptions of authenticity.
From a methodological perspective, the analysis of vast amounts of online reviews
contributes to the development of advanced analytic techniques of user-generated content.
These advanced analytic techniques indeed have been regarded as dispersed, not innovative
and lacking synthesis within the context of tourism and hospitality (Schuckert et al., 2015).
24
The thesis offers two important methodological contributions. Firstly, the systematic
integrated learning approach allows for the integration of traditional research methods into
machine learning in the analysis of online reviews, with the goal of enhancing conceptual
understanding and theory development. This systematic integrated learning approach is
proposed to overcome limitations imposed by both machine learning and traditional research
methods in understanding and conceptualising complex phenomena in social science such as
authenticity, while also exploring powerful insights emerging from vast amounts of user-
generated content to understand consumer behaviour and consumer analytics.
Secondly, this thesis reaffirms the room for improvement in human knowledge about
complex multi-dimensional phenomena in tourism and hospitality, especially when there is a
need for further validation and observation from other sources of data to understand the
phenomenon fully. This is highly applicable for the study of authenticity in dining experiences,
in which the examination into multi-dimensionality is still rather fractured and unidimensional
(Le et al., 2019). The thesis also appears as a preliminary effort to make machine learning
applications more approachable in tourism and hospitality text analytics, and the proposed
framework offers a useful starting point from which to develop more effective integration of
traditional research methods and big data analytics.
From a practical perspective, the thesis offers insights that help restaurateurs understand
what constitutes authenticity in dining experiences and the interaction of determinants
creating an authentic experience. Customising what diners want, which tangible elements
induce authentic, thus memorable, experiences that make them long to return are crucial,
and so are the underlying psychological factors of the consumers themselves that motivate
repurchase intentions (Chhabra et al., 2013a, 2013b). The ability to interpret the concept of
authenticity from the consumer perspective and thus identify potential determinants shaping
authenticity perceptions are therefore prerequisites for organisation-value adding and
business sustainability (Zeng et al., 2012). Past research has found that perceived authenticity
is one of the main drivers of customer satisfaction with ethnic dining (Jang et al., 2011; Liu &
Jang, 2009; Tsai & Lu, 2012). This thesis firstly posits that customers perceive authenticity not
only in the setting of ethnic dining, and secondly proposes certain determinants that
restaurateurs in general can influence diners’ perceptions of authenticity within their
25
establishments. As such, this thesis also calls for greater attention among restaurateurs that
staging authenticity (or trying too hard) or pretentiousness can put restaurants at risk of being
disclosed by consumers, thus resulting in decreased trustworthiness and consumer loyalty.
6. Structure of the Thesis
This thesis is structured as a series of papers. The structure of the thesis complies with the
Griffith University thesis policy (Appendix 2) and Griffith Business School thesis guidelines
(Appendix 3) for a PhD thesis as a series of published and unpublished papers. The thesis
consists of five parts: a general introduction, a literature review paper, a methodological
paper, two empirical papers, and an overall discussion and conclusion.
In Part I, a general introduction has presented the research rationale, summarised the
research background, explained the research proposition and objectives, and outlined an
overview of the methodology.
Part II consists of Paper 1, which served as a systematic review of existing literature. Paper 1
examined the existing literature on authenticity in dining experiences, identified the research
gaps and suggested two research directions which were undertaken in the subsequent
papers: (a) adopting a multi-dimensional approach for examining authenticity in dining
experiences, and (b) adopting a quantitative approach to authenticity using online reviews.
Part III consists of Paper 2, which served as the methodology employed in the thesis. Paper 2
proposed a systematic approach that integrates traditional research methods into machine
learning in the analysis of online reviews, with the goal to enhance conceptual understanding
and theory development. The application of the proposed approach in the context of
understanding authenticity in dining experiences in Paper 2 highlighted the utility of
integrated learning in exploring and conceptualising complex and multi-dimensional
concepts.
Part IV consists of Paper 3 and Paper 4, which served as the two empirical papers fulfilling the
three research objectives in the thesis. Specifically, Paper 3 adopted a qualitative approach
26
(i.e. quota sampling and thematic analysis) to examine how consumers’ authenticity
perceptions in dining experiences are formed by analysing consumers’ authenticity
judgements from online reviews. Paper 3 addressed the first and second research objectives
of the thesis. Paper 4 served as the second empirical paper, following an integrated learning
approach in the analysis of online reviews (i.e. proportionate random sampling and manual
classification integrated with classification modeling). This paper conceptualised authenticity
as a multi-dimensional concept, through the examination of authenticity dimensions
underpinning consumer judgements in dining experiences. To do this, the paper put forward
a theoretical framework depicting the multi-dimensionality of authenticity and used
integrated learning to train and test the proposed framework. As such, Paper 4 addressed the
first and third research objectives of the thesis.
The thesis concludes with a general discussion and conclusion in Part V, where the key
findings across the four papers are brought together and the contributions of the thesis are
identified. Table 2 demonstrates how the different papers incorporated in the thesis related
to the different stages of the research.
7. Summary of Part I
Part I consisted of a general introduction to the thesis. The discussion has introduced readers
to the rationale for the research. In response to the dearth of research adopting a multi-
dimensional approach towards understanding authenticity in dining experiences, this thesis
concomitantly approached authenticity from inter-disciplinary viewpoints, with the
overarching proposition that in dining experiences, authenticity is a multi-dimensional
concept, incorporated by Authenticity of the Other, Authenticity of the Self, and Authenticity
of the Producer.
Three research objectives have been put forward in Part I, which will be fulfilled in the thesis
through a series of four papers. The theoretical background was explained, followed by the
overview of the methodology that guides the research, the discussion of the research
significance, and the structure of the thesis. Part II presents a literature review paper on
authenticity in dining experiences. Through systematic and comprehensive investigations of
27
existing literature, this review paper developed knowledge foundations and identified
informed gaps for the succeeding papers in this thesis.
Table 2. Structure and Content of the Thesis
PART PAPER OBJECTIVE TYPE OF PAPER APPROACH DATASET
PART I INTRODUCTION
PART II PAPER 1 What We Know and Do not Know about Authenticity in Dining Experiences: A Systematic Literature Review
To offer a critical review of authenticity in dining experiences and identify knowledge gaps in the literature
Review Paper Systematic Quantitative Review
85 journal articles in authenticity in dining experiences
PART III PAPER 2 Proposing a Systematic Approach for Integrating Traditional Research Methods into Machine Learning in Text Analytics in Tourism and Hospitality
To propose a systematic process that integrates machine learning and traditional research methods to analyse online reviews in tourism and hospitality contexts
Methodological Paper
Integrated Learning Machine Learning Complemented by Traditional Research Methods
N/A
PART IV PAPER 3 How Consumers Perceive Authenticity in Restaurants: A Study of Online Reviews
To identify terms used to describe authenticity and restaurant attributes associated with authenticity. To understand how consumers form judgements about authenticity in dining experiences.
Empirical Paper Qualitative Quota Sampling & Thematic Analysis
1,048,575 online reviews from Zomato Australia
PAPER 4 Conceptualising Authenticity in Dining Experiences Using Online Reviews
To identify terms used to describe authenticity and restaurant attributes associated with authenticity. To determine the multi-dimensionality of authenticity in dining experiences.
Empirical Paper Integrated Learning (Mixed-Methods) Proportionate Random Sampling & Manual Classification (Traditional Research Methods) Classification Modeling (Machine Learning)
1,048,575 online reviews from Zomato Australia
PART V CONCLUSION
28
References
Abarca, M. E. (2004). Authentic or not, it’s original. Food and Foodways, 12(1), 1-25.
Adams, K. M. (1984). Come to Tana Toraja, “land of the heavenly kings”. Annals of Tourism
Research, 11(3), 469-485.
Andersson, T. D., & Mossberg, L. (2004). The dining experience: do restaurants satisfy
customer needs? Food Service Technology, 4(4), 171-177.
Australian Government. (2008). Australian food and drink. Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20110322040504/http://www.cultureandrecreation.g
ov.au/articles/foodanddrink/index.htm
Beardsworth, A., & Bryman, A. (1999). Late Modernity and the Dynamics of Quasification:
The Case of the Themed Restaurant. The Sociological Review, 47(2), 228-257.
Belhassen, Y., & Caton, K. (2006). Authenticity Matters. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3),
853-856.
Belhassen, Y., Caton, K., & Stewart, W. P. (2008). The search for authenticity in the pilgrim
experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 668-689.
Björk, P., & Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. (2016). Exploring the multi-dimensionality of travellers'
culinary-gastronomic experiences. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(12), 1260-1280.
Boorstin, D. (1961). The Image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York, Athenum.
Brown, S. M. (2001). Marketing: the retro revolution. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Bruner, E. M. (1991). Transformation of self in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2),
238-250.
Bruner, E. M. (1994). Abraham Lincoln as Authentic Reproduction: A Critique of
Postmodernism. American Anthropologist, 96(2), 397-415.
Buchmann, A., Moore, K., & Fisher, D. (2010). Experiencing Film Tourism: Authenticity &
Fellowship. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 229-248.
Carroll, G. R. (2015). Authenticity: Attribution, value, and meaning. In R. Scott & S. Kosslyn
(Eds.), Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary,
Searchable, and Linkable Resource (pp. 1-13). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Carroll, G. R., & Wheaton, D. R. (2009). The organizational construction of authenticity: An
examination of contemporary food and dining in the U.S. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 29, 255-282.
29
Cherryholmes, C. H. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational
researcher, 21(6), 13-17.
Chhabra, D. (2005). Defining Authenticity and Its Determinants: Toward an Authenticity
Flow Model. Journal of Travel Research, 44(1), 64-73.
Chhabra, D. (2008). Positioning museums on an authenticity continuum. Annals of Tourism
Research, 35(2), 427-447.
Chhabra, D. (2010). Back to the past: a sub-segment of Generation Y's perceptions of
authenticity. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(6), 793-809.
Chhabra, D., Lee, W., & Zhao, S. (2013a). Epitomizing the "other" in ethnic eatertainment
experiences. Leisure: Journal of the Canadian Association for Leisure, 37(4), 361-378.
Chhabra, D., Lee, W., Zhao, S., & Scott, K. (2013b). Marketing of ethnic food experiences:
authentication analysis of Indian cuisine abroad. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 8(2-3),
145-157.
Chiu, H.-C., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Kuo, Y.-C. (2012). How to Align your Brand Stories with Your
Products. Journal of Retailing, 88(2), 262-275.
Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13(2), 179-201.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
15(3), 371-386.
Cohen, E. (2002). Authenticity, equity and sustainability in tourism. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 10(4), 267-276.
Cohen, E. (2007). ‘Authenticity’ in Tourism Studies: Aprés la Lutte. Tourism Recreation
Research, 32(2), 75-82.
Cohen, E., & Avieli, N. (2004). Food in tourism - Attraction and impediment. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31(4), 755-778.
Cohen, E., & Cohen, S. A. (2012). Authentication: Hot and cool. Annals of Tourism Research,
39(3), 1295-1314.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th, international student ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30
DeSoucey, M., & Demetry, D. (2016). The dynamics of dining out in the 21st century:
Insights from organizational theory: Dynamics of Dining Out in the 21st Century.
Sociology Compass, 10(11), 1014-1027.
DiPietro, R. (2017). Restaurant and foodservice research. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(4), 1203-1234.
Duncan, J. S. (1978). The social construction of unreality: an interactionist approach to the
tourist's cognition of environment. Humanistic geography: Prospects and problems,
269-282.
Eating Out in Australia. (2017). Respondent Summary. Retrieved from http://www.the-
drop.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/EatingOutinAustralia_2017_Respondent-
Summary.compressed.pdf
Ebster, C., & Guist, I. (2005). The Role of Authenticity in Ethnic Theme Restaurants. Journal
of Foodservice Business Research, 7(2), 41-52.
Eco, U. (1986). Travels in hyper reality: Essays. San Diego, CA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Elsbach, K. D. (2003). Relating Physical Environment to Self-Categorizations: Identity Threat
and Affirmation in a Non-Territorial Office Space. Administrative Science Quarterly,
48(4), 622-654.
Frazier, B. N., Gelman, S. A., Wilson, A., & Hood, B. M. (2009). Picasso paintings, moon rocks,
and hand-written Beatles lyrics: Adults' evaluations of authentic objects. Journal of
Cognition and Culture, 9(1), 1-14.
Giebelhausen, M. D., Chan, E., & Sirianni, N. J. (2016). Fitting Restaurant Service Style to
Brand Image for Greater Customer Satisfaction. Cornell Hospitality Report, 16(9), 3-
10.
Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J. (2007). Authenticity: what consumers really want. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Gottlieb, D. (2015). “Dirty, Authentic…Delicious”. Gastronomica, 15(2), 39-48.
Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer Perceptions of Iconicity and Indexicality and
Their Influence on Assessments of Authentic Market Offerings. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31(2), 296-312.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, UK: SAGE.
31
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K.
Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hahl, O. (2016). Turning Back the Clock in Baseball: The Increased Prominence of Extrinsic
Rewards and Demand for Authenticity. Organisation Science, 27(4), 929-953.
Hall, C. M. (2007). Response to Yeoman et al: The fakery of ‘The authentic tourist’. Tourism
Management, 28(4), 1139-1140. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2006.09.008
Hennig-Thurau, T., & Walsh, G. (2003). Electronic Word-of-Mouth: Motives for and
Consequences of Reading Customer Articulations on the Internet. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 51-74.
Huiskamp, R., & Bartelsman, R. (2001). Great restaurant concepts: An in-depth analysis of
five noteworthy European success stories. Wervershoof, Netherlands: Food &
Beverage Publications.
Jang, S., Liu, Y., & Namkung, Y. (2011). Effects of authentic atmospherics in ethnic
restaurants: investigating Chinese restaurants. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(5), 662-680.
Jennings, G., & Stehlik, D. (2001). Mediated authenticity: the perspectives of farm tourism
providers. 2001: A Tourism Odyssey, 10-13.
Johansen, E. N., & Blom, T. (2004). An artistic director of the hotel and restaurant
experience through the details’ radiance and harmony. In J. S .A Edwards & I-B.
Gustafsson (Eds.), Culinary Arts and Sciences IV: Global and National Perspectives
(pp. 115-123). Bournemouth University, England: Workshipful Company of Cooks
Research Centre.
Johnston, J., & Baumann, S. (2014). Foodies: Democracy and distinction in the gourmet
foodscape. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jones, S. (2010). Negotiating Authentic Objects and Authentic Selves: Beyond the
Deconstruction of Authenticity. Journal of Material Culture, 15(2), 181-203.
Kauppinen-Räisänen, H., Gummerus, J., & Lehtola, K. (2013). Remembered eating
experiences described by the self, place, food, context and time. British Food Journal,
115(5), 666-685.
Kim, H., & Jamal, T. (2007). Touristic quest for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism
Research, 34(1), 181-201.
32
Kirilenko, A. P., Stepchenkova, S. O., Kim, H., & Li, X. (2018). Automated Sentiment Analysis
in Tourism: Comparison of Approaches. Journal of Travel Research, 57(8), 1012-1025.
Kolar, T., & Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or the
foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tourism Management, 31(5), 652-664.
Kovács, B. (2019). Authenticity Is in the Eye of the Beholder: The Exploration of Audiences’
Lay Associations to Authenticity Across Five Domains. Review of General Psychology,
23(1), 32-59.
Kovács, B., Carroll, G. R., & Lehman, D. W. (2014). Authenticity and Consumer Value Ratings:
Empirical Tests from the Restaurant Domain. Organisation Science, 25(2), 458-478.
Kovács, B., Carroll, G., & Lehman, D. (2017). The Perils of Proclaiming an Authentic
Organizational Identity. Sociological Science, 4, 80-106.
Kumar, R. (2014). Research methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lacy, J. A., & Douglass, W. A. (2002). Beyond authenticity: The meanings and uses of cultural
tourism. Tourist Studies, 2(1), 5-21.
Laxson, J. D. (1991). How “we” see “them” tourism and Native Americans. Annals of Tourism
Research, 18(3), 365-391.
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (2019). What we know and do not know
about authenticity in dining experiences: A systematic literature review. Tourism
Management, 74, 258-275.
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (2020). Producing authenticity in
restaurant experiences: interrelationships between the consumer, the provider, and
the experience. Tourism Recreation Research, 1-13. doi:
10.1080/02508281.2020.1805932
Leigh, T. W., Peters, C., & Shelton, J. (2006). The consumer quest for authenticity: The
multiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of consumption. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 481-493.
Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A., & Liao, T. F. (2003). The SAGE Encyclopaedia of social science
research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Littrell, M. A., Anderson, L. F., & Brown, P. J. (1993). What makes a craft souvenir authentic?
Annals of Tourism Research, 20(1), 197-215.
33
Liu, Y., & Jang, S. (2009). Perceptions of Chinese restaurants in the U.S.: What affects
customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions? International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28(3), 338-348.
Lu, S., & Fine, G. A. (1995). The Presentation of Ethnic Authenticity: Chinese Food as a Social
Accomplishment. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(3), 535-553.
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist
Settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589-603.
MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. Berkeley, CA: UC Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
Mazutis, D. D., & Slawinski, N. (2015). Reconnecting Business and Society: Perceptions of
Authenticity in Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(1),
137-150.
Mkono, M. (2012a). Authenticity does matter. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 480-483.
Mkono, M. (2012b). A netnographic examination of constructive authenticity in Victoria
Falls tourist (restaurant) experiences. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 31(2), 387-394.
Mkono, M. (2013). Contested authenticity in Zimbabwean tourist eatertainment (Doctoral
Thesis, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing.
Molz, J. G. (2004). Tasting an imagined Thailand: Authenticity and culinary tourism in Thai
restaurants. In L. M. Long (Ed.), Culinary tourism (pp. 53-75). Lexington, KY:
University Press of Kentucky.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to Qualitative-Quantitative Methodological Triangulation.
Nursing Research, 40(2), 120-123.
Murphy, J. P. (1990). Pragmatism: From Peirce to Davidson. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Naccarato, P., & LeBesco, K. (2013). Culinary capital. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Newman, G. E. (2019). The Psychology of Authenticity. Review of General Psychology, 23(1),
8-18.
Newman, G. E., & Smith, R. K. (2016). Kinds of Authenticity. Philosophy Compass, 11(10),
609-618.
O'Connor, K., Carroll, G. R., & Kovacs, B. (2017). Disambiguating authenticity: Interpretations
of value and appeal. PLoS One, 12(6), e0179187.
34
Olsen, K. (2002). Authenticity as a concept in tourism research: The social organization of
the experience of authenticity. Tourist Studies, 2(2), 159-182.
Ozdemir, B., & Seyitoglu, F. (2017). A conceptual study of gastronomical quests of tourists:
Authenticity or safety and comfort? Tourism Management Perspectives, 23, 1-7.
Pearce, P. L., & Moscardo, G. M. (1985). The relationship between travellers' career levels
and the concept of authenticity. Australian Journal of Psychology, 37(2), 157-174.
Pearce, P. L., & Moscardo, G. M. (1986). The Concept of Authenticity in Tourist Experiences.
The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 22(1), 121-132.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: work is theatre & every business
a stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Redfoot, D. L. (1984). Touristic authenticity, touristic angst, and modern reality. Qualitative
Sociology, 7(4), 291-309.
Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. J. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 33(1), 65-86.
Rickly-Boyd, J. M. (2012). Authenticity & aura. A benjaminian approach to tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 39(1), 269-289.
Robinson, R. N. S., & Clifford, C. (2012). Authenticity and festival foodservice experiences.
Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 571-600.
Robinson, R., & Getz, D. (2014). Profiling potential food tourists: an Australian study. British
Food Journal, 116(4), 690-706.
Rodríguez-López, M. E., Alcántara-Pilar, J. M., Del Barrio-García, S., & Muñoz-Leiva, F.
(2019). A review of restaurant research in the last two decades: A bibliometric analysis.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 102387.
Schuckert, M., Liu, X., & Law, R. (2015). A segmentation of online reviews by language
groups: How English and non-English speakers rate hotels differently. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 48, 143-149.
Silver, I. (1993). Marketing authenticity in third world countries. Annals of Tourism Research,
20(2), 302-318.
Spooner, B. (1986). Weavers and dealers: The authenticity of an oriental carpet. In A.
Appadurai (Ed.), The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective (pp.
195-235). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35
Steiner, C. J., & Reisinger, Y. (2006). Understanding existential authenticity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 33(2), 299-318.
Strauss, M. E., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct validity: Advances in theory and
methodology. Annual review of clinical psychology, 5, 1-25.
Tan, P.-N., Steinbach, M., & Kumar. V. (2005). Introduction to Data Mining. Boston, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Tasci, A. D. A., & Knutson, B. J. (2004). An Argument for Providing Authenticity and
Familiarity in Tourism Destinations. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 11(1),
85-109.
Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: integrating
quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
communicating impact. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Tribe, J., & Mkono, M. (2017). Not such smart tourism? The concept of e-lienation. Annals of
Tourism Research, 66, 105-115.
Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Trochim, W., & Donnelly, J. (2007). The research methods knowledge base. Cincinnati, OH:
Atomic Dog Publishing.
Tsai, C.-T., & Lu, P.-H. (2012). Authentic dining experiences in ethnic theme restaurants.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(1), 304-306.
Tsao, W. C., Hsieh, M. T., Shih, L. W., & Lin, T. M. Y. (2015). Compliance with eWOM: The
influence of hotel reviews on booking intention from the perspective of consumer
conformity. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46, 99-111.
Turgeon, L., & Pastinelli, M. (2002). 'Eat the world': Postcolonial encounters in Quebec City's
ethnic restaurants. Journal of American Folklore, 115(456), 247-268.
van Nuenen, T. (2016). Here I am: Authenticity and self-branding on travel blogs. Tourist
Studies, 16(2), 192-212.
Vásquez, C., & Chik, A. (2015). “I Am Not a Foodie…”: Culinary Capital in Online Reviews of
Michelin Restaurants. Food and Foodways, 23(4), 231-250.
36
Viglia, G., Minazzi, R., & Buhalis, D. (2016). The influence of e-word-of-mouth on hotel
occupancy rate. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
28(9), 2035-2051.
Wang, C.-Y. (2011). The impact of servicescapes on the pre-consumption authenticity
assessments of ethnic-oriented services (Doctoral Thesis, The Pennsylvania State
University, Pennsylvania, USA). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research,
26(2), 349-370.
Wang, N. (2000). Tourism and modernity: a sociological analysis (1st ed.). Oxford, NY:
Pergamon.
Warde, A., & Martens, L. (2000). Eating out: Social differentiation, consumption and
pleasure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Xie, P. F., & Wall, G. (2002). Visitors' perceptions of authenticity at cultural attractions in
Hainan, China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(5), 353-366.
Yang, L., & Wall, G. (2009). Authenticity in ethnic tourism: domestic tourists' perspectives.
Current Issues in Tourism, 12(3), 235-254.
Yeoman, I., Brass, D., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2007). Current issue in tourism: The
authentic tourist. Tourism Management, 28(4), 1128-1138.
Zeng, G., Go, F., & de Vries, H. J. (2012). Paradox of authenticity versus standardization:
Expansion strategies of restaurant groups in China. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1090-1100.
Zhang, L., & Hanks, L. (2018). Online reviews: The effect of cosmopolitanism, incidental
similarity, and dispersion on consumer attitudes toward ethnic restaurants.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 68, 115-123.
Zomato Australia. (2020). About Us. Retrieved from https://www.zomato.com/about
37
PART II. LITERATURE REVIEW
In this second part of the thesis, a systematic literature review paper (Paper 1) is presented
in the published version in place of the traditional literature review chapter. The formatting,
spelling, and referencing style follow the requirements of the respective journal. Although the
paper contains page numbers prescribed by the journal, I have provided running page
numbers for easier reference within the thesis.
Paper 1 is a co-authored journal article. In accordance with the requirement of Griffith
University, the full bibliographic details and statement of contribution for the paper are
provided.
Paper 1
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (2019). What we know and do not know
about authenticity in dining experiences: A systematic literature review. Tourism
Management, 74, 258-275. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2019.02.012
The co-authors of this manuscript are my thesis supervisors, Prof. Charles Arcodia, Dr.
Margarida Abreu Novais, and Dr. Anna Kralj. My contribution to the paper involved: overall
conception and construction of the paper including collecting the relevant articles, analysing
the articles, interpreting the emerged findings, and developing the first draft and rewriting
subsequent drafts of the paper.
(Signed) _______ _____________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Truc Hoang Le
(Countersigned) __ ____________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Corresponding author of paper: Truc Hoang Le
(Countersigned) ___ _______ (Date) 21/07/2020
Principal Supervisor: Prof. Charles Arcodia
motivating purchasing behaviour and fulfilling the need for social ap-proval and status conferral, and the emerging emphasis placed on ex-perience, authenticity in dining experiences is no doubt increasinglyimportant in contemporary economies and societies (Kovács, Carroll, &Lehman, 2017; Gilmore & Pine, 2007).
In order to better understand the state of knowledge in this area,this paper critically examines and synthesises the existing literature onauthenticity in dining experiences by adopting a systematic quantita-tive review approach. This approach is deemed preferable to con-ducting a narrative review because of two underpinning reasons.Firstly, the systematic quantitative approach is particularly useful inidentifying and assessing emerging trends within multi- and inter-dis-ciplinary research (Kamler, 2008; Lee & Kamler, 2008; Petticrew,2001). Given the aim of this study is to investigate the existing theo-retical approaches and highlight gaps and directions, adopting thisapproach is suitable. Secondly, although the narrative approach can beargued as in-depth and well-targeted at particular subjects (Mays, Pope,& Popay, 2005), the systematic quantitative approach is more capablein mapping and synthesising a sizable amount of literature (Yang,Khoo-Lattimore, & Arcodia, 2017). The mapping of current knowledgeon the topic therefore materialises by analysing previous research interms of conceptualisations, theoretical frameworks informing suchconceptualisations, research methods, and key investigated conceptsused in the study of authenticity in the particular context of diningexperiences. In addition, academic fields yielding authenticity scho-larship, dining settings, and research samples are also considered in theanalysis. As a result of this process, key aspects are summarised, in-congruity issues discussed and gaps in knowledge identified.
The significance of this review is threefold: first, given the currentstate of the literature, a reflection on the topic and existing knowledgeis important. By quantitatively outlining what is known and identifyingwhat is yet to be known in a systematic and reproducible manner, thisreview provides insights into the current progress of authenticity re-search to the development of a more comprehensive theoretical ap-proach towards understanding authenticity in dining experiences and topropose directions for future research on the topic. The quantitative andsynthesised features are indeed essential for mapping a more inclusivelandscape of understandings of authenticity in dining experiences.Second, this review enables the advancement of conceptualisations ofauthenticity by integrating the consumer-focused dimensions into theorganisation-focused dimension in order to facilitate a multi-dimen-sional understanding of authenticity in dining experiences. Through acritical analysis of the existing theoretical conceptualisations under-pinning understandings of authenticity and proposing an integratedmulti-dimensional approach towards authenticity in dining experi-ences, this review provides opportunities for expanding the existingperspectives when approaching authenticity, so as to address theoverlooked dimensions informing authentic dining experiences. Third,since the discussion of authenticity has revolved heavily around com-plex theoretical developments while the operationalisation of authen-ticity remains a substantial challenge for tourism, hospitality, and lei-sure scholars and practitioners (Cohen & Cohen, 2012; Rickly-Boyd,2012), this review offers insights into how scholars and practitionerscan approach authenticity in a more practical manner, as well as pro-viding suggestions as to how restaurateurs can enhance and stimulateauthentic dining experiences.
2. Theoretical background and approaches to authenticity
Although authenticity was firstly used to describe an object asgenuine, real or true to the original (Abarca, 2004; Brown, 2001;Taylor, 1991), it has been increasingly seen as a consumer-drivenconcept, which suggests that any practices towards authenticity are forthe enhancement of the perception of authenticity from the eye of theconsumers (Kovács, Carroll, & Lehman, 2014; Rose & Wood, 2005;Wang & Mattila, 2015). As argued by Gilmore & Pine (2007),
authenticity in the marketplace nowadays is a subjectively definedconcept, suggesting that every product sold in the marketplace could beperceived as authentic by the consumers who buy them.
The attention on conceptualisations of authenticity has accelerated,especially among tourism scholars since MacCannell (1973, 1976) in-troduced the notion of staged authenticity. Debates around meanings,usage and validity of those conceptualisations, especially in the tourismliterature, have evoked several interesting perspectives on the responseto “what does authenticity mean?” However, a number of philosophicalconsistencies of what authenticity encapsulates are found across theliterature, which helps shape the diverse connotations of authenticityinto a more systematised categorisation (e.g. objectivism, con-structivism, existentialism).
A number of conceptualisations of authenticity have been proposed,capturing the diverse viewpoints among tourism scholars. Among them,Wang's (1999, 2000) typology appears to be the most widely usedconceptualisation of authenticity (e.g. Chhabra, Lee, Zhao, & Scott,2013b, 2013a; Cohen & Cohen, 2012; Le, Arcodia, Kralj, & AbreuNovais, 2018; Mkono, 2012b, 2013d; Xie & Wall, 2002; Yang & Wall,2009). Indeed, Wang (1999, 2000) distinguishes three types of au-thenticity, namely objective authenticity, constructive authenticity andexistential authenticity. Wang's typology is considered as one of a fewconceptualisations that have succeeded in explicating understandingsof authenticity in a straightforward and accessible manner (Mkono,2013c) and achieving high communicative engagement (Belhassen &Caton, 2006). Also, with the rise of existentialism in the context oftourism and leisure, and the stronger focus on the Self (the individual)and how experiential aspects affect the total experience, research at-tention has shifted towards how individuals see themselves as authenticwhen experiencing the authentic Other (the other culture/ethnicityapart from one's own culture and ethnic background) (Hall, 2007;Wang, 1999, 2000).
Despite the robust support for the construction of different con-ceptualisations of authenticity, postmodernist approaches to authenticityin tourism have argued for the deconstruction of the concept (Cohen,2007; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Wang, 1999). Indeed, postmodernistscholars do not regard inauthenticity as a problem, rather, the concept ofauthenticity should no longer be a primary concern for tourism pursuit inthe postmodern era. Eco's (1986) thesis on hyperreality supported thedeconstruction of authenticity through de-structuring the edge betweenthe copy and the original, or between fiction and reality. Postmodernistsargue that the line between the real and the unreal is so blurred that theargument about what is authentic or inauthentic is theoretically pointless(Reisinger & Steiner, 2006). Nevertheless, the calls to abandon authenti-city have received significant critiques as a “premature” step or an“oversimplification”, or at worst, false (Mkono, 2012a, pp. 480, 483).Authenticity is still arguably very important to certain types of tourists,and “as long as someone is aware of it, it should still be relevant toscholarship” (Belhassen & Caton, 2006, p. 855). This paper assumesBelhassen and Caton's (2006) and Mkono's (2012a) position, which doesnot embrace the abandonment of authenticity suggested by Reisinger andSteiner (2006). As a result, a number of representative authenticity con-cepts corresponding to the supported philosophical approaches towardsauthenticity in tourism are depicted in Table 1 and are elucidated furtherin the following paragraphs.
Table 1A summary of key authenticity typologies in tourism.adapted from Belhassen, Caton, & Stewart, 2008; Chhabra, 2008; Wang, 1999,2000
Approach to Authenticity Representative Concept
Objectivist Objective AuthenticityConstructivist Constructive AuthenticityExistentialist & Objectivist - Negotiated TheoplacityExistentialist Existential Authenticity
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
25940
Authenticity from the objectivist perspective is firstly referred to asorigins, the usage borrowed from the language and practices of mu-seumology (Cohen, 2007; Mkono, 2013c; Trilling, 1972). The judge-ment of authenticity in this sense is therefore based upon the traditionalor customary ways of production or usage that are enacted by localpeople or authoritative certifications (Bruner, 1994; Mkono, 2013c).Further, objectivists consider authenticity as an objective and measur-able attribute inherent in the object, which is usually tested with apositivist set of absolute criteria to validate authenticity claims (Jones,2010; Wang, 1999, 2000). However, even the most objective view ofthe objectivist approach has long come under criticism, not to mentionthe solid critiques by constructivists (Cohen, 2007). Cohen (2007),Mkono (2013c) and Steiner and Reisinger (2006) suggested that amongall approaches to authenticity, the objectivist school of thought is theleast favoured due to the high level of impartiality required to establishobjective claims.
The constructivist approach revolves around a few common au-thenticity assumptions. First, there is the belief that there is no absoluteand static original on which the authenticity of the originals can rely(Bruner, 1994). Second, constructivists believe authenticity is an outputof how one sees things through his/her perspectives and interpretations(Wang, 1999, 2000). Third, authenticity is believed to be constructedthrough stereotyped images, expectations, and consciousness onto thetoured Other, which are subjected to the influence of mass media,movies and word of mouth from friends or family (Adams, 1984;Bruner, 1991; Duncan, 1978; Laxson, 1991; Silver, 1993). Wang (1999)commented that the constructivist approach to authenticity is not onlya process grounded in psychologism that details a collection of in-dividual perceptions and attitudes, but also is a collective process, bywhich individual perceptions coagulate into a socially constructed re-cognition of the authenticity of the phenomenon.
Although there have been several connotations of the existentialistapproach, the most commonly observed one in the literature is “touristsmight have authentic experiences without being in the presence ofauthentic sights” (Cohen, 2007, p. 79) that have nothing to do with thetoured (Mkono, 2013c). Also, as Wang (1999) puts it, existential au-thenticity occurs when “tourists are not merely searching for authen-ticity of the Other […] they also search for the authenticity of, andbetween, themselves” (p. 364). As a result, existential authenticity hasbeen regarded as activity-related authenticity (authenticity of the Self)triggered by tourist activities (Wang, 1999), in contrast to objective andconstructive authenticity, which are considered as object-related au-thenticity (authenticity of the Other/the Thing).
Theoplacity denotes a sense of authenticity created through theprocess of establishing the authenticity of the self by negotiating theauthenticity of material things/toured objects (Jones, 2010). The con-cept of theoplacity, first developed by Belhassen et al. (2008), suggests
that experiences of existential authenticity are the result of sociallyconstructed understandings about the places visited and the actionsundertaken in toured places, in conjunction with the tourists' own di-rect, empirical encounters. A renewed negotiation of the objectivist andexistentialist approaches has been suggested that enhances the practi-cality of the theoplacity conceptualisation (Buchmann, Moore, & Fisher,2010; Chhabra, 2010; Chhabra et al., 2013b, 2013a; Jones, 2010). Thisnotion of theoplacity incorporates the key feature of the existentialapproach, that an individual's perception and interpretation of au-thenticity is privileged, yet also acknowledges the power of touredobjects or material things as the referential points of departure forachieving authenticity (Belhassen et al., 2008; Robinson & Clifford,2012). Theoplacity as a result is the outcome of the interaction betweenauthenticity of the Self and authenticity of the Other/the Thing. Fig. 1 de-picts the connotation of Authenticity of the Other/the Thing, Authenticityof the Self, and theoplacity as an outcome of the interaction.
The aforementioned philosophical approaches to authenticitymanifest in a situation where existing conceptualisations of authenticityhave mainly been developed in the context of tourism. However, lim-ited synthesis has been found in the literature of authenticity in diningexperiences. Moreover, authenticity in the extant literature has onlybeen studied from the dimensions of the cultural/ethnic theme dis-played, the food, and the servicescape (which also includes employees’ethnic characteristics and the presence of ethnic customers)(Beardsworth & Bryman, 1999; Cohen & Avieli, 2004; Ebster & Guist,2005; Turgeon & Pastinelli, 2002), so consequently lacks an integratedapproach towards understanding authenticity in dining experiences. Asa result, the following section presents the methodology to conduct anextensive review of authenticity articles in dining experiences with theaim of charting what is known about authenticity in dining experiences,what is yet to be known, and what needs to be explored further.
3. Methodology
3.1. A systematic quantitative approach
A systematic quantitative approach is a well-established methodwhich has recently been well-supported in health science research(Pickering & Byrne, 2014). This review approach is termed systematicbecause the review process is explicit, reproducible and structuredfollowing a series of clear steps to survey the literature and offers jus-tifications for article inclusion. The approach is quantitative because itquantifies and synthesises the literature patterns in terms of topics,locations, research methods, and variables, which in turn highlight theboundary of knowledge regarding the generalisations resulting from theliterature (Pickering, Grignon, Steven, Guitart, & Byrne, 2015). Theresearch gaps therefore are addressed more efficiently due to the
Fig. 1. Existing authenticity dimensions.
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
260
41
quantified and well-synthesised trends and patterns (Pickering & Byrne,2014). Since the conceptualisations of authenticity in the context oftourism have been considered as diverse and debatable, the quantita-tive and synthesised features are essential for mapping a more com-prehensive landscape of understandings of authenticity in dining ex-periences.
3.2. Process of the systematic review
The systematic quantitative approach employed in this paper isadapted from Pickering and Byrne (2014) and Pickering et al. (2015) tomap, analyse and synthesise the existing literature on authenticity indining experiences. A five-step process was employed, which closelyresembles the fifteen-stage process of systematic quantitative literaturereview developed by Pickering and Byrne (2014) and Pickering et al.(2015). This five-step process has been utilised in recent tourism sys-tematic quantitative review research (e.g. Khoo-Lattimore, Mura, &Yung, 2017; Yang et al., 2017; Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2017), con-sisting of: (1) defining the research aim and objectives; (2) identifyingsearched keywords, databases and establish literature selection criteria;(3) searching databases, screening searched outcomes against the se-lection criteria, and refining the inclusion and exclusion criteria; (4)extracting relevant materials from eligible searched outcomes andstructure a summary table; and (5) synthesising and presenting find-ings.
Specifically, publications were obtained using a variety of key da-tabases to ensure comprehensiveness of the systematic review. Theliterature selection criteria included articles in peer-reviewed academicjournals, written in English, and published as of December 2017. Non-journal publications (e.g book chapters, conference papers, book re-views, editorial notes and theses) were excluded to ensure a consistent
standard for analysis (Pickering et al., 2015). To capture studies ex-amining authenticity in dining experiences, multiple keywords wereused, in which the term authenticity and its related concepts were usedin conjunction with dining experiences and its related concepts. In par-ticular, authenticity's related concepts emerged from the theoreticalbackground section of authenticity, mainly from the tourism context,including otherness and its derivatives othering and othered. Dining ex-periences, on the other hand, yielded a number of alternatives includingrestaurants, eatery, food establishments, culinary establishments, food ex-periences, foodservice experiences, culinary experiences, and gastronomyexperiences. As a result, 36 (4 × 9) term combinations were searched inthe databases.
The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews andMeta-Analyses) flowchart adapted from Moher et al. (2010) wasadopted with some modifications to facilitate the efficiency of thesearching process (see Fig. 2). The 36 keyword combinations werefirstly searched in Google Scholar. Specifically, the combinations con-taining authenticity were searched first, followed by otherness, otheringand othered. The above procedure was repeated in another seven da-tabases (i.e. Scopus, EBSCO Host, Science Direct, Emerald, Web ofScience, ProQuest and Sage) and constant comparisons across the da-tabases were conducted to avoid duplicates. It was expected that thenumber of records identified in the additional seven databases wasdecreasing at this stage because most of the records had been found byGoogle Scholar. These subsequent seven databases therefore acted as areinforcing measure to make certain no records were missed during thesearching process in Google Scholar. As of December 2017, this mul-tiple-comparison process identified 269 records, which were exportedto Endnote® software for data management. 28 non-full-text recordsexcluded in the identification phase consisted of books, book chapters,conference papers, journal articles and duplicates retrieved from
Fig. 2. A PRISMA Flowchart.adapted from Moher et al., 2010
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
261
42
different online sources. After removing the non-full-text records, theremaining 241 records were screened against the selection criteria,where non-journal publications were excluded. The exclusion of non-journal publications has been a regular occurrence in systematic re-views (Kim & Cuskelly, 2017; Thomson et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2017).
The screening process resulted in 102 eligible full-text records in-cluded in the final analysis. After a closer examination of the full texts, afurther 17 records were justifiably discarded. The most common rea-sons for exclusion were the irrelevant focus concerning authenticity indining experiences and authenticity as research implications and sug-gestions for future research. For instance, Muniz, Harrington, Ogbeidea,and Seo (2017) examines the influence of background sounds and musicon arousal and avoidance behaviours on ethnic menu item selection andprice expectations. Although the ethnic dining setting suggests the ex-istent role of authenticity in this article, its focus is not on how theseexamined elements shape perceptions of authenticity, but how theyinfluence dish selection and price expectation. Another example was byVásquez and Chik (2015), who argue that foodies use online reviews asa means through which individuals can display their culinary capital toan audience, as they establish their expertise in certain matters (e.g.authenticity, taste, quality, and the perceived value of their diningexperiences). Although restaurants’ authenticity is mentioned in thisarticle, this concept is approached as a mean for online reviewers todemonstrate their culinary expertise, not to contribute to the overalldining experience (Vásquez & Chik, 2015), thus this article was alsoexcluded from the synthesis.
As a result, 85 articles were considered as eligible, and the referencelists of these articles were cross-checked to identify if there were anyadditional records overlooked. The list of 85 selected articles is docu-mented in Appendix A. These texts were then quantitatively assessed,categorised and structured so as to offer a comprehensive picture ofauthenticity literature in the context of dining experiences. It is ac-knowledged that the coding and categorisation performed in the reviewprocess were subject to the researchers’ linguistic background and in-terpretations. As a result, to minimise such effects, the coding and ca-tegorisation were conducted and revised after entering the first 10% ofarticles (Pickering & Byrne, 2014; Yang et al., 2017). The categorieswere then tested and revised for each subsequent 10% of articles en-tered until the 85 articles were all coded and categorised. Also, to en-sure consistency in the coding and categorisation, the categories werecross-checked among the research team which consists of one Asian andthree native English speaker researchers. Several aspects of each articlewere extracted and presented in the synthesis: (1) key academic dis-ciplines interested in authenticity studies and research contexts; (2)research methods, samplings and approaches; (3) key concepts in-vestigated in the literature in consideration of the presence of theore-tical foundations; (4) the relationships reported between authenticityand other concepts; and (5) emerging dimensions informing
authenticity in dining experiences. The descriptive findings are pre-sented as tables and figures and discussed throughout the next section,with the summary of key review findings and the discussion of researchdirections in the subsequent section.
4. Review findings
4.1. Journal fields and dining settings
The journal fields of the 85 articles are shown in Table 2. Since1994, the topic has evoked interest from various research fields (55journals across 6 major fields), with the majority coming from tourism,hospitality, and leisure. Research on authenticity in dining experiences,especially in the field of tourism, hospitality, leisure, has increasedrapidly since 2002. This trend is consistent with the evolution of con-ceptualisations of authenticity in the tourism context as previouslydiscussed, notably instigated by Wang's (1999, 2000) authenticity ty-pology. On the other hand, conceptualisations of authenticity in diningexperiences have also shifted to the field of general business manage-ment and organisation studies since 2009 (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009),and a further five articles were published since 2014 in this field(DeSoucey & Demetry, 2016; Kovács et al., 2017, 2014; Lehman,Kovacs, & Carroll, 2014; O'Connor et al., 2017). This research move-ment might echo the conceptualisation of authenticity offered byGilmore & Pine (2007) specifically targeting organisation dynamics andmarket offerings.
Table 3 outlines the dining settings of the extracted articles. Spe-cifically, authenticity was mostly examined in the setting of ethnic/local cuisine restaurants and ethnic-themed restaurants. The term ethniceatertainment is used as an alternative to ethnic-themed restaurants in anumber of articles, which were conducted in tourist destinations (e.g.Chhabra, Lee, & Zhao, 2013a; Mkono, 2011). This explains why thefocus on touristic experiences involved in the ethnic-themed settingswas higher despite there being fewer studies using ethnic-themed res-taurants as the research setting compared to the number using ethnic/local cuisine restaurants. Touristic dining experiences were mostly ex-amined in the setting of ethnic-themed restaurants and ethnic/localcuisine restaurants, suggesting the important role of local culture andauthentic cuisine in shaping the attractiveness of a tourist destination(Chang, Kivela, & Mak, 2011; Cohen & Avieli, 2004; Engeset &Elvekrok, 2015; Wijaya, King, Nguyen, & Morrison, 2013). There was asignificantly lower number of articles using the general restaurant in-dustry as the research setting (e.g. de Vries & Go, 2017; DeSoucey &Demetry, 2016; Giebelhausen, Chan, & Sirianni, 2016; Kovács et al.,2017, 2014; Lehman et al., 2014; O'Connor et al., 2017; Rezende &Silva, 2014), and even fewer investigating authenticity in the restaurantchain segment (Albrecht, 2011; DiPietro & Levitt, 2017; Zeng, Go, & deVries, 2012; Özdemir & Seyitoğlu, 2017). These patterns demonstrate
Table 2Journals by major contexts and major journals by year of publication.
Journal's Major Fields (No. of Journals) No. of Articles % 1994–1997 1998–2001 2002–2005 2006–2009 2010–2013 2014–2017
Tourism, Hospitality & Leisure (31) 60 70.6% 1 4 9 19 27No. 1: International Journal of Hospitality Management 11No. 2: Journal of Foodservice Business Research 6No. 3: Annals of Tourism Research 4No. 4: International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 3
International Journal of Culture, Tourism & Hospitality Research 3Tourist Studies 3
Sociology & Cultural Studies (8) 8 9.4% 1 1 1 1 4Food/Foodways/Food Science (5) 6 7.1% 1 1 1 3General Business Management & Organisation Studies (6) 6 7.1% 1 5Marketing & Consumer Behaviour (2) 2 2.4% 1 1Economics (2) 2 2.4% 1 1Multidisciplinary (1) 1 1.2% 1TOTAL (55) 85 100% 2 1 5 13 23 41
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
262
43
the substantial role of ethnic and ethnic-themed settings in the in-vestigation into authenticity in dining experiences. The existing litera-ture of authenticity in dining experiences has seemingly overlooked therole of authenticity in general dining settings, where the diners do notjust want to consume authenticity of local cuisines and other cultures,in sum, authenticity of the Other/the Thing, but they also seek authenticityof the Organisation, which is portrayed through the quest for authenticservice delivery (Giebelhausen et al., 2016; Kraak & Holmqvist, 2017),and authentic projections of the restaurant organisation's values(Albrecht, 2011; Carroll & Wheaton, 2009).
4.2. Research methods, sampling and approaches to authenticity
A breakdown of research methods utilised is depicted in Table 4,while Table 5 presents a cross-tabulation between approaches to au-thenticity and methods used and Table 6 presents a cross-tabulationbetween the research methods employed and the sources of data ana-lysed. The quantitative and qualitative approaches were equally re-presented, with less than one in ten articles using mixed-methods. Thispattern is in line with the development of authenticity conceptualisa-tions – that the concept has not been fully developed and still attractsdebatable viewpoints concerning what authenticity actually means andthe ways in which the concept can be assessed and measured (Belhassen
et al., 2008; Cohen & Cohen, 2012; Hwang & Seo, 2016; Mkono, 2012a;Reisinger & Steiner, 2006).
The most widely employed methods in quantitative studies werequestionnaires and experiments. The majority of quantitative studiesconsidered authenticity as a variable with the aim of examining itsrelationship with other constructs (e.g. consumer behaviour, food,servicescape, and organisation-related concepts). Only two quantitativestudies (Kovács et al., 2014; O'Connor et al., 2017) and one mixed-methods study (Muñoz, Wood, & Solomon, 2006) utilised surveys tocapture the meanings of authenticity. Interestingly, nearly all quanti-tative studies attempted to measure authenticity based on global au-thenticity statements and questions utilised in the previous literature.Further, it is worth mentioning that only three articles made a sys-tematic quantitative attempt to establish a scale for authenticity (onequantitative and two mixed-methods). Specifically, two articles offeredan empirical assessment of the verbal usages of various authenticityconceptions (Kovács et al., 2014; O'Connor et al., 2017), suggestingpossibilities for the operationalisation of the authenticity concept infuture research.
In contrast, qualitative studies employed an extensive range ofmethods. The majority attempted a triangulation of methods, mostly bycombining observation methods and interview techniques. Despite adownward trend in the use of qualitative methods which denotes the
Table 3Dining settings by types of cuisine and by touristic experiences.
Frequency % Types of Cuisine Most Examined (No. of Articles) Touristic Dining Experiences
Dining Settings∗ Ethnic/Local Cuisine Restaurants 46 54.1% Chinese (14)Zimbabwean (8)Korean (8)Thai (4)Mexican (4)
7
Ethnic Themed Restaurants/Ethnic Eatertainment 22 25.9% 9Restaurants in General 15 17.6% 4Restaurant Chains 5 5.9% Chinese (1)
Italian (1)Southern America (1)
1
Themed Food Festivals 2 2.4% –Nature-based Restaurants 1 1.2% 1
∗ The total frequency is > 85 as multiple settings can apply.
Table 4Methods used.
Approaches (No. of Articles) Frequency % 1994–1997 1998–2001 2002–2005 2006–2009 2010–2013 2014–2017
Quantitative Approach (39) 45.9% 1 2 4 5 27Questionnaires/Surveys 22Experiments 12Mixed Quantitative Methods 3
Experiments 3Quantitative Content Analysis 3Questionnaires 2
Quantitative Content Analysis 2Qualitative Approach (39) 45.9% 1 3 6 16 13Mixed Qualitative Methods 16
Observations 12Interviews 11Qualitative Content Analysis 4Anthropology Fieldwork 1Case Studies 1Netnography 1Personal Journals 1Pictorial Methodology 1Reviews 1
Netnography 8Case Studies 5Reviews 5Qualitative Content Analysis 3Interviews 2
Mixed-Methods Approach (7) 8.2% 1 3 2 1
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
263
44
saturation in generic understandings of authenticity, authenticity indining experiences has increasingly been studied qualitatively since2010, specifically by using the netnography (online ethnography)technique and qualitative content analysis. There are two notable leadauthors examining authenticity qualitatively including Mkono andChhabra. Mkono (e.g. Mkono, 2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b,2013d; Mkono, Markwell, & Wilson, 2013) examines how authenticityis projected onto cultural objects in restaurants located in a touristdestination via tourists' online reviews, and Chhabra (Chhabra et al.,2013a; 2013b) examines perceptions of authenticity in ethnic ea-tertainment experiences using restaurant online reviews. Mkono(2012b) believes netnography gives researchers access to highly per-sonal accounts of tourists’ lived experiences embedded in user-gener-ated content such as online reviews or blogs. Qualitative methods in theliterature were employed mostly to demonstrate how authenticity isprojected and constructed and to identify dimensions of authenticityportrayed and perceived. Qualitative methods are beneficial for suchpurposes because they facilitate the elaborations and elicit more in-depth analysis of authenticity construction (Aldredge, 2008; Lin et al.,2017; Wood & Muñoz, 2007).
As shown in Table 6, the data sources across the extracted articleswere highly diverse. Current diners or potential diners were the mostcommon researched subjects, followed by post-diners including user-generated content, and respondents recruited via panel providers andhousehold mail surveys. Notably, the supplier perspective was not ex-tensively considered (e.g. restaurant personnel and restaurant design).In addition, the already limited research on the supplier perspective hasbeen conducted using mainly qualitative approaches. Furthermore, itcan be seen that quantitative studies mostly examined authenticity fromthe perspective of potential or current diners, participants contacted bysurvey companies, and university students, whereas post-diners (i.e.user-generated content), restaurant-related data, and restaurant per-sonnel were more frequently the subject of investigation for qualitativestudies. As a result, despite the increasing trend of analysing onlinereviews in the age of e-commerce in the tourism and hospitality in-dustry, which has attracted academic attention since the turn of this
century (Lee & Hu, 2005; Schuckert, Liu, & Law, 2015; Zhong, Leung,Law, & Wu, 2013), there is a dearth of research that offers a systematicquantitative approach to authenticity in dining experiences using user-generated content, calling for greater research attention employing thispowerful type of data (Chhabra et al., 2013a; DiPietro, 2017; Tsao,Hsieh, Shih, & Lin, 2015; Viglia, Minazzi, & Buhalis, 2016; Zhang &Hanks, 2018).
In terms of the cultural perspective, most of the extracted articleswere Western-centric, even when the research was not conducted in aWestern geographical location. This finding is in accordance with mostconcepts investigated in tourism, hospitality and events (e.g. Baumet al., 2016; Winter 2009; Xu, Ding, & Packer, 2008; Yang et al., 2017).This is also in line with the majority of articles examining authenticityin dining experiences conducted in ethnic and ethnic-themed restau-rants as previously discussed. This may be because the meanings ofauthenticity are usually attached with the identification of minor eth-nicity (e.g. Asian countries) and the consumption of otherness (Chhabraet al., 2013a; Cohen & Avieli, 2004; Hirose & Pih, 2011). However, theterm otherness here was often used in relation to the Westernised opi-nions (Hirose & Pih, 2011), and authenticity is rather a cultural con-struct closely tied in to Western notions (Handler, 1986; Mkono,2013c), shaping non-Western countries into minor ethnicities, and theircuisines into ethnic cuisines. This helps explain why among the 85 ar-ticles, the majority of cuisines examined in the setting of ethnic andethnic-themed restaurants were non-Western (e.g. Chinese, Korean,Thai, and African) (see Table 3). The apparent absence of investigationon perceptions of authenticity from the non-Western perspectives istherefore evident, and even further research is needed to examine theprojection of authenticity among Western cuisine restaurants.
4.3. Theoretical foundations & key investigated concepts
The majority of existing authenticity studies in dining experiencesadopted models and theories from a range of literature (see Table 7)including (but not limited to):
Table 5Approaches to authenticity (AU).
Frequency % No. of Quant Studies No. of Qual Studies No. of Mixed Studies
Demonstrating How AU is Projected/Constructed 46 54.1% 13 27 6Assessing/Measuring AU By Statements/Questions 42 49.4% 36 1 5Identifying Types of AU Portrayed/Perceived 29 34.1% 2 22 5Testing Relationships with Other Concepts (AU as a Variable) 25 29.4% 23 2Defining AU 5 5.9% 2 2 1Establishing AU Dimensional Scale 4 4.7% 1 1 2
Table 6Source of data by primary/secondary and cultural perspectives.
Frequency % No. of Quant. Studies No. of Qual. Studies No. of Mixed Method
Source of Data Potential Diners/Current Diners (Contacted on Site) 31 36.5% 16 12 3User-Generated Content (Online Reviews, Blogs, Tweets) 18 21.2% 5 12 1TripAdvisor 8Yelp 6Participants Contacted by Survey Companies 14 16.5% 13 1Restaurant Personnel (including Managers) 13 15.3% 1 8 4University Students 11 12.9% 8 1 2Restaurant Design 11 12.9% 9 2Restaurant Websites 6 7.1% 4 2Newspapers and Other Publications 4 4.7% 4Tourists 3 3.5% 1 2Restaurant Professionals 2 2.4% 2
Cultural Perspective Anglo-Saxon 54 63.5%Other 15 17.6%Both Perspectives 10 11.8%Unspecified 6 7.1%
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
264
45
• psychology (e.g. Loewenstein's Information Gap Theory, Bottom-UpSpillover Theory, Expectancy-Disconfirmation Paradigm,Mehrabian-Russell Stimulus-Organism-Response Model, Gartner'sTypology of Image Formation Agents, Attitude–Intention–BehaviourModels, Adaptive Learning Model);
• branding (e.g. Aaker's Four Core Brand Equity Dimensions, Morhartet al.‘s Model of Perceived Brand Authenticity);
• management (e.g. Gilmore and Pine's Authenticity Model,Importance-Performance Analysis); and
• tourism (e.g. Quan and Wang's Structural Model of TouristExperiences, Cohen's Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences).
Some articles examined authenticity through a sociological lens andadopted a number of sociology-related paradigms and theories (e.g.orientalism, postcolonial theory, and practice and identity theory). Assuch, authenticity was discussed as a phenomenon of culture and eth-nicity, or constructed as a social process (Aldredge, 2008; Bardhi,Ostberg, & Bengtsson, 2010; Hirose & Pih, 2011; Khan & Oyewole,2014; Wu, Hsieh, & Fang, 2015).
The key concepts investigated across the extracted articles varied asoutlined in Table 8. The concepts were coded and classified into groupsand sub-groups to achieve a broader yet still comprehensive review ofthe extant literature. Most articles investigated more than one concept,and authenticity and related concepts appeared as the central re-searched concept in 65 articles. In the remaining 20 articles authenti-city was rather considered as a contributing factor of another construct.Among the 65 articles examining authenticity as a central phenomenon,nearly one third identified and discussed the roles and effects of au-thenticity markers in shaping authenticity in dining experiences. Re-search attention in authenticity, at least in dining experiences further-more, has not offered a comprehensive understanding of thedeterminants shaping consumers’ perceptions of authenticity, which inturn determines the criterion for the projection of authenticity amongrestaurateurs.
In particular, within the 65 articles studying authenticity as thecentral phenomenon, there were various key concepts that were ex-amined to support the investigation: food-related concepts (e.g. ethnicand local food/ethnic cuisine), and consumer behaviour (e.g. beha-vioural intentions, consumer perception and cognitive psychology,consumer satisfaction, and perceived value). Food-related concepts re-ceived more research attention than servicescape-related concepts (e.g.restaurant atmospherics, employee attributes). Similar to the patternsof source of data used in authenticity investigations, scholars paid muchless attention to marketing and organisation related concepts (e.g.
restaurant marketing strategies, branding, organisation strategies, or-ganisation-related attributes, and human resource management).Again, the emerging findings indicate the limited emphasis on thesupply perspective and on the authenticity of the organisation in thecontext of restaurant industry.
4.4. Relationships between authenticity and other concepts
In light of the important role of authenticity in influencing pur-chasing behaviour (Grayson & Martinec, 2004), it is crucial to under-stand how authenticity is related with other concepts in order tocomprehend the interrelationships between antecedent and descendantelements in the construction of authenticity. Among the quantitativeand mixed-methods studies, 27 articles examined relationships betweenauthenticity and other concepts and authenticity as a moderatingvariable affecting the relationships between various concepts. Table 9outlines the reported relationships between authenticity and otherconcepts (authenticity as an independent and dependent variable), andthe relationships affected by authenticity (authenticity as a moderatingvariable). In particular, authenticity was examined and recorded undera number of labels: general authenticity, food authenticity, atmo-spherics authenticity, existential authenticity, employee authenticity,staged authenticity, authentic menu offered, perceived ethnicity, andculture authenticity. Authenticity was also examined in terms of theinteraction effect with other concepts (e.g. level of cosmopolitanismand level of familiarity) (Wang & Mattila, 2015). No quantitative re-search has considered objective or constructive authenticity as a vari-able since it is difficult to determine whether authenticity of object orcuisine is objectively or constructively authenticated.
Nine dependent variables were examined in relation to authenticityand all were consumer behaviour related constructs, highlighting arecognition of the primary role authenticity plays in influencing con-sumer behaviour in dining experiences. This pattern is in line with theearlier finding depicted in Table 8, that consumer behaviour was thesecond most researched concept with respect to authenticity. The mostresearched dependant variables in consumer behaviour were beha-vioural intentions and customer satisfaction, usually found to be posi-tively related to authenticity (e.g. Jang & Ha, 2015; Kim, Youn, & Rao,2017; Liu & Jang, 2009; O'Connor et al., 2017; Tsai & Lu, 2012).Consumer value rating and perceived value were also found to posi-tively relate to authenticity (e.g. Kovács et al., 2014; Lehman et al.,2014; O'Connor et al., 2017). Insignificant relationships reported inthese articles were ascribed to the lack of control for customers' culturalfamiliarity (Jang, Ha, & Park, 2012), the absence of ethnic customers in
Table 7Theoretical foundations.
Theories (23 Articles) Frameworks & Models (17 Articles)
Sociological Theory (6) Mehrabian-Russell Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) Model (7)Organisational Theory (2) Cohen's Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences (2)Barthes's Semiotic Theory Importance–Performance Analysis (2)Barthes's Theory of Contemporary Myth Quan and Wang's Structural Model of The Tourist Experiences (2)Bottom-Up Spillover Theory Aaker's Four Core Brand Equity DimensionsBourdieu's Field Theory Adaptive Learning ModelCommunication Accommodation Theory Attitude–Intention–Behaviour ModelsConsumer Culture Theory Consumer Decision-Making ProcessExpectancy-Disconfirmation Theory Gartner's Typology of Image Formation AgentsGestalt Perceptions of Environmental Psychology Gilmore and Pine's Authenticity ModelHeidegger's Philosophy of Dasein Morhart et al.‘s Model of Perceived Brand AuthenticityLoewenstein's Information Gap Theory Wright's Persuasion Knowledge ModelMaslow's Hierarchy of Needs TheoryMulti-Attribute TheorySpeech Accommodation TheoryThe Three-Factor Theory of SatisfactionThe Traditional Demand TheoryTourism Consumption System TheoryWeberian Ideal TypeTOTAL ARTICLES REPORTING THE USE OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS (37)
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
26546
the sample (Wang & Mattila, 2015), and examining authenticity only inmid-scale restaurants (Jang, Liu, & Namkung, 2011). Lu, Gursoy, andLu (2015) found that brand awareness and brand image were positivelyrelated to existential authenticity, supporting the notion that authen-ticity can also be perceived via a sense of attachment with a brand(Giebelhausen et al., 2016; Rezende & Silva, 2014). By demonstratingthat brand equity dimensions can induce consumer perceptions of au-thenticity, Lu et al.‘s (2015) finding further supports the importance ofincorporating another dimension focusing on the restaurant as an or-ganisation, in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of au-thenticity in dining experiences.
The 27 articles also identified various concepts influencing au-thenticity (25 independent variables and two joint effects). Theseconcepts mostly comprised of food-related, organisation-related, servi-cescape-related, and customer characteristics. Specifically, food-relatedconcepts were the most commonly researched concepts, mostly in re-lation to food authenticity; these concepts were found to have positiveinfluences on authenticity. Servicescape-related concepts were thesecond most investigated, also positively related to authenticity (e.g.DiPietro & Levitt, 2017; Kim & Baker, 2017; Kim et al., 2017; Wang &Mattila, 2015; Youn & Kim, 2017). The two insignificant relationshipsexist (ethnic advertisers – general authenticity; ethnic-language signage– food authenticity) because people tend to be attracted by the ones
who are similar to them (ethnic advertiser's insignificant effect) (Kim &Jang, 2016), and the moderating effect of the level of acculturation onthe indication of authentic food among customers (Magnini, Miller, &Kim, 2011). Interestingly, organisation-related concepts (e.g. in-dependence, family-owned, number of institutions) were examinedwith respect to global concept of authenticity (general authenticity)only, yielding both positive (e.g. Giebelhausen et al., 2016; Kim & Jang,2016; Kovács et al., 2014; O'Connor et al., 2017) and negative re-lationships with authenticity (Kovács et al., 2014, 2017).
4.5. Existing and emerging dimensions informing authenticity in diningexperiences
Since 1994, authenticity research in dining experiences has echoedthe authenticity conceptualisations from 1970s mainly in the tourismcontext (Bell, Meiselman, Pierson, & Reeve, 1994; Lu & Fine, 1995),encompassing the two emerging authenticity dimensions so-called au-thenticity of the Other/the Thing and authenticity of the Self as shown inFig. 1. Table 10 presents a timeline for the emerging dimensions ofauthenticity and corresponding representative concepts to facilitateunderstanding of the evolution of the conceptualisation of authenticity.One pattern that emerged was that the majority of articles examinedauthenticity based on one single authenticity type. Only a few
Table 8Key concepts investigated.
Key Concepts Investigated In 85 Articles (No. of Articles) Frequency % Key Concepts Investigated In 65 Articles Focusing onAuthenticity (No. of Articles)
%∗
Authenticity & Related Concepts (65) 76.5% Food & Related Concepts (33) 50.8%Perceived Authenticity 61 Consumer Behaviour (31) 47.7%Authenticity Markers 20 Sociology & Culturalism (23) 35.4%Otherness 6 Servicescape & Related Concepts (13) 20.0%
Consumer Behaviour (49) 57.6% Marketing Related Concepts (13) 20.0%Consumer Behavioural Intentions 26 Organisation Related Concepts (12) 18.5%Consumer Perception 20 Restaurant Segments by Scale (8) 12.3%Consumer Psychology 19Consumer Satisfaction 13Consumer Perceived Value 12Consumer Expectations & Motivations 8
Food & Related Concepts (40) 47.1%Ethnic/Local/Religious Food/Cuisine 31Food/Culinary/Gastronomy 7Menu-Related Attributes (Descriptions, Stories of Origins, Food Variety, MenuLanguage)
7
Food/Culinary/Gastronomy Tourism 6Food-Related Attributes (Names & Ingredients) 4
Sociology & Culturalism (27) 31.8%Culture/Race/Ethnicity & Related Issues 24Social Processes/Politics & Related Issues 9
Servicescape & Related Concepts (21) 24.7%Restaurant Atmospherics 12Staff Attributes 8Other Customers' Ethnicity 3Restaurant Location 1Tour Guide 1
Marketing Related Concepts (17) 20.0%Restaurant Marketing/Advertisements 15Branding (Brand Equity Dimensions, Brand Personality) 4
Organisation Related Concepts (15) 17.6%Organisational Studies 6Strategies (Positioning, Expansion, Standardisation, Innovations) 5Organisation-Related Attributes (Identity, Structure, Institutional Categories, Self-Authenticity Claims, Success Factors)
3
Human Resource Management 3Organisation Perceived Image 2
Restaurant Segments by Scale (14) 16.5%Consumer Characteristics (6) 7.1%Types of Food Experiences (6) 7.1%Event Management (2) 2.4%Gentrification (2) 2.4%TOTAL ARTICLES (85) TOTAL ARTICLES (65)
∗ Percentage is calculated based on N = 65.
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
266
47
Table9
Rela
tions
hips
betw
een
auth
entic
ity(A
U)
and
othe
rco
ncep
ts.
∗The
num
ber
ofst
udie
syi
eldi
ngth
eas
soci
atio
n/re
latio
nshi
p.
AU
asan
Inde
pend
ent
Vari
able
Gen
eral
AU
Gen
eral
AU
X Hig
hCo
smop
olita
nism
Gen
eral
AU
X Hig
hCu
lture
Fam
iliar
ity
Stag
edA
UEx
iste
ntia
lAU
Perc
eive
dEt
hnic
ityFo
odA
UA
uthe
ntic
Men
uO
ffere
dA
tmos
pher
ics
AU
Empl
oyee
AU
Cons
umer
Valu
eRa
ting/
Perc
eive
dVa
lue
(⇉)
3∗(⇉
)1
(⇉)
2(⇉
)1
(−)
1Em
otio
ns(⇉
)1
(⇉)
2Be
havi
oura
lInt
entio
ns(⇉
)4
(−)
1(⇉
)1
(⇉)
5(⇉
)3
(−)
1(−
)1
Bran
dA
war
enes
s(⇉
)1
Bran
dIm
age
(⇉)
1Pe
rcei
ved
Qua
lity
(⇉)
1Cu
stom
erSa
tisfa
ctio
n(⇉
)2
(⇉)
3(⇉
)1
(⇉)
2(⇉
)1
Nee
dto
Belo
ng(⇆
)1
Nee
dto
beU
niqu
e(⇆
)1
AU
asa
Dep
ende
ntVa
riab
leG
ener
alA
UG
ener
alA
UX H
igh
Cosm
opol
itani
sm
Gen
eral
AU
X Hig
hCu
lture
Fam
iliar
ity
Stag
edA
UEx
iste
ntia
lAU
Perc
eive
dEt
hnic
ityFo
odA
UA
uthe
ntic
Men
uO
ffere
dA
tmos
pher
ics
AU
Empl
oyee
AU
Impo
rtan
ceof
Rest
aura
ntH
ygie
nea
(⇆)
1In
depe
nden
cea
(⇉)
1Fa
mily
-ow
ned
a(⇉
)1
Num
ber
ofIn
stitu
tions
a(⇆
)1
Self-
Aut
hent
icity
Clai
ms/
Adv
ertis
emen
ta
(⇆)
1(⇉
)1
Mar
ketin
gRe
late
dto
Loca
lCom
mun
itya
(⇉)
1Co
nfirm
edBr
and
Expe
ctat
ion
a(⇉
)1
Food
Know
ledg
e&
Expe
rien
ces
b(⇉
)1
Cultu
ralE
xper
ienc
es/F
amili
arity
b(⇉
)1
(⇉)
1(⇉
)2
Hig
hCo
smop
olita
nism
b(⇉
)1
Hig
hFa
mili
arity
b(⇉
)1
Aut
hent
icF
&B
c(⇉
)1
Aut
hent
icSe
rvic
esca
pec
(⇉)
1Fo
odTa
ste
c(⇉
)1
Unf
amili
arFo
odN
ame
c(⇉
)2
Ethn
icFo
odN
ame
c(⇉
)1
(⇉)
1U
nfam
iliar
Ingr
edie
nts
c(⇉
)2
Stor
yof
Ori
gina
lity/
Food
Ori
gins
c(⇉
)2
Unf
amili
arIn
gred
ient
sX
Stor
yof
Food
Ori
gins
c(⇉
)1
Pres
ence
ofEt
hnic
Staff
d(⇉
)4
(⇉)
1Et
hnic
Atm
osph
eric
sX
Ethn
icSt
affd
(⇉)
1Et
hnic
Déc
ord
(⇉)
1Et
hnic
Adv
ertis
erd
(−)
1Pr
esen
ceof
Ethn
icPa
tron
sd
(⇉)
1Et
hnic
-Lan
guag
eSi
gnag
ed
(−)
1Fr
onts
tage
Perc
eptio
n(⇉
)1
Back
stag
eVi
sibi
lity
(⇉)
1
(continuedon
nextpage
)
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
26748
exceptions examined more than one type at a time including Mkono'sexamination series of authenticity types in a cultural eatertainmentsetting, and Chhabra et al. (2013b) and Robinson and Clifford (2012),who attempted to establish a multi-dimensional scale of authenticitybased on authenticity markers. However, these articles hardly offered arigorous scale of authenticity types which depicts different authenti-cation markers or authenticity determinants that can be applied forfuture research in authenticity in dining experiences. By offering purelyqualitative and descriptive evidence of how authenticity was con-structed in a specific tourist destination, these articles lacked both ap-plicability and generalisability in establishing a valid constructed scalefor authenticity types in dining experiences. This was partly because inMkono's (2012b, 2013a) argument, perceiving authenticity is some-thing situated, which should be placed in specific contexts which dif-ferentiate sense of authenticity of one from another.
The findings of this systematic quantitative review reiterate theemergence of another authenticity dimension that can potentially aidthe comprehensiveness of authenticity conceptualisations in diningexperiences – authenticity of the Organisation – which denotes the or-ganisationally constructed state of authenticity (Carroll & Wheaton,2009) (Table 10). The key distinctive feature differentiating authenticityof the Organisation from authenticity of the Other/the Thing and authen-ticity of the Self is that the two latter dimensions focus on the consumer(consumer-focused), while the first one focuses on the organisation'sattributes (organisation-focused). Fig. 3 offers a theoretical summary ofthe review in terms of the overarching research scope, the context ofauthenticity investigation, and the authenticity understanding re-garding orientation, perspective and emerging authenticity dimensions.
Broadly speaking, authenticity in the context of dining experiencesfalls under the scope of tourism, hospitality and leisure as these re-present the potential contexts in which dining experiences take place.In addition, authenticity emerges as a consumer-oriented concept un-derpinned by the assumption that authenticity research is conductedwith the ultimate goal of understanding consumer behaviour. Withinthis broad consumer orientation, authenticity research can take twoperspectives to assist the pursuit of the overall aim of understandingand managing consumers' perceptions: a demand perspective, wherethe actual diners or potential diners are investigated with the aim ofcapturing their perceptions of authentic dining experiences; and asupply perspective, where restaurateurs are surveyed about how tocater to consumers’ demand of authenticity. In relation to how theseperspectives have been used in existing research, overall the former hasdominated the investigation of authenticity while the latter has at-tracted scholarly attention only very recently. Finally, as shown inTable 10, existing scholarly efforts have provided an uneven explora-tion of the different dimensions of authenticity. In both demand andsupply perspectives, current investigations have focused mainly onauthenticity of the Other/the Thing and authenticity of the Self. A limitednumber of studies (four articles presented in Table 10) have delved intothe authenticity of the Organisation from the demand perspective whileno research has attempted to investigate authenticity of the Organisationfrom the supplier perspective.
In spite of only being advanced in a few articles in recent years (e.g.Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Kovács et al., 2014; Kovács et al., 2017;Lehman et al., 2014; O'Connor et al., 2017), authenticity of the Organi-sation evidences its usefulness in understanding organisationally con-structed authenticity so as to generate tactics to respond to and managethe consumers' perceived authenticity towards business outputs. Orga-nisational management scholars argue that restaurants are an organi-sation or a business (Kovács et al., 2014; O'Connor et al., 2017), hence itis important to consider organisation's aspects in the investigation ofauthenticity of the dining experience – an output of the restaurant-or-ganisation. Also, consumers nowadays demand authenticity not onlythrough the service offerings, but also authenticity rendered throughoutthe internal organisation (Gilmore & Pine, 2007). As a result, the con-sumers not only consume the product – the experience, but alsoTa
ble9
(continued)
AU
asa
Mod
erat
ing
Vari
able
inth
eRe
latio
nshi
pbe
twee
nG
ener
alA
UEx
iste
ntia
lAU
Cultu
reA
UFo
odA
UEm
ploy
eeA
U
Ethn
icFo
odN
ame
&Be
havi
oura
lInt
entio
ns1
21
Unf
amili
arIn
gred
ient
s&
Beha
viou
ralI
nten
tions
1D
escr
iptio
nof
Ori
gina
lity
&Be
havi
oura
lIn
tent
ions
2
Empl
oyee
Ethn
icity
&Be
havi
oura
lInt
entio
ns1
11
Staff
Com
mun
icat
ion
with
Cust
omer
s&Em
otio
ns1
Satis
fact
ion
&O
vera
llQ
ualit
yof
Life
1Su
bjec
tive
Wel
l-bei
ng&
Ove
rall
Qua
lity
ofLi
fe1
Self-
Aut
hent
icity
Clai
ms
&Co
nsum
erVa
lue
Ratin
g1
(⇉):
posi
tivel
ysi
gnifi
cant
rela
tions
hip.
(⇆):
nega
tivel
ysi
gnifi
cant
rela
tions
hip.
(−):
not
sign
ifica
ntre
latio
nshi
p.Co
ncep
t1
XCo
ncep
t2:
join
teff
ect.
aor
gani
satio
n-re
late
dco
ncep
ts.
bcu
stom
erch
arac
teri
stic
s.c
food
-rel
ated
conc
epts
.d
serv
ices
cape
-rel
ated
conc
epts
.
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
268
49
consume the authentic projection of the organisation. It is imperativefor businesses today to learn to understand, manage and excel at ren-dering authenticity, and the strategies for managing consumer per-ceptions of authenticity thus become a primary source for offeringdifferentiation and increasing competitive advantage (Gilmore & Pine,2007). This argument is highly applicable to restaurant businesses, inwhich dining experiences are hosted and offered.
5. Discussion of gaps and directions for future research
Fig. 4 summarises the findings from the systematic quantitativereview according to the five aforementioned aspects. The major find-ings in terms of research gaps and directions for future research arehighlighted, which include journal fields and dining settings, researchmethods and sampling, and existing and emerging authenticity di-mensions. The following section elucidates the research gaps, andcorresponding directions for further investigation into authenticity indining experiences are proposed (Fig. 5).
5.1. Adopting a multi-dimensional approach for examining authenticity indining experiences
The systematic review of existing literature demonstrates that au-thenticity has been examined mostly in the context of ethnic and ethnic-themed restaurants, which potentially leads to the erroneous assump-tion that authenticity can only be considered in relation to this context.Nevertheless, there have been very few organisational managementscholars approaching authenticity in the restaurant industry, arguingthat “authenticity works best […] when it is organisationally con-structed” (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009, p. 256). These studies have sug-gested another emerging dimension when examining authenticity indining experiences, namely authenticity of the Organisation, calling foran integration of the three dimensions when conceptualising authenti-city in dining experiences (authenticity of the Other/the Thing, authenti-city of the Self, and authenticity of the Organisation).
The paucity of discussions about authenticity in dining experiencesadopting an integrated multi-dimensional approach was also portrayedthrough the overwhelming research focus on ethnic and ethnic-themed
Table 10Emerging dimensions of authenticity portrayed/examined by year of publication.
Emerging Dimension Representative Concept Frequency % 1994–1997 1998–2001 2002–2005 2006–2009 2010–2013 2014–2017
Authenticity of the Other/theThing
Constructive Authenticity 32 37.6% 1 3 6 10 12Objective Authenticity 9 10.6% 2 4 3
Authenticity of the Self Existential Authenticity 13 15.3% 2 6 5Theoplacitya 3 3.5% 3
Authenticity of the Organisation Organisationally ConstructedAuthenticity
4 4.7% 1 3
a Theoplacity is the outcome of the interaction between the two parent dimensions (Authenticity of the Other/the Thing & Authenticity of the Self), thus has nodimension label.
Fig. 3. Emerging authenticity dimensions in dining experiences: A summary of existing literature.
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
26950
5.3. Adopting a quantitative approach to authenticity using online reviews
In terms of methodology, there is a dearth of research using onlinerestaurant reviews to investigate authenticity in dining experiences.Recent studies examining consumer behaviour have highlighted thevitality of electronic word-of-mouth, specifically online restaurant re-views, in aiding consumers' selection of restaurants and driving diningpatterns (Chhabra et al., 2013a; DiPietro, 2017; Tsao et al., 2015; Vigliaet al., 2016; Zhang & Hanks, 2018). Chhabra et al. (2013a) assert thatonline restaurant reviews hold potential to mediate pre-dining per-ceptions of authenticity among other users or would-be buyers. In a
study among Yelp's users (Yelpers), it was found that Yelpers wereconsistently searching for the restaurants' food, atmosphere and eventhe ethnicity of employees (Gottlieb, 2015). Online restaurant reviewsare therefore considered as a means for individuals to exhibit theirculinary capital (e.g. authenticity, taste, quality and perceived value) toothers who have similar interests (Naccarato & LeBesco, 2013; Vásquez& Chik, 2015). Also, quantitative authenticity studies mostly employedexperiment and survey designs to investigate authenticity from theconsumer perspective, while very few have attempted to quantitativelyperform user-generated content analytics such as online restaurant re-views. It is somewhat contradictory to the increasing trend of online
Fig. 5. A theoretical model for conceptualising authenticity in dining experiences and directions for future research.
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
27152
review quantitative analysis in the age of e-commerce in tourism andhospitality industry, which has started to attract scholarly attentionsince the turn of the century (Lee & Hu, 2005; Zhong et al., 2013). Thelimited quantitative research using online reviews as a source of datacan also be explained by the lack of innovative methods in this field(Schuckert et al., 2015). Considering the crucial influence of eWOMs inshaping restaurant selections and dining behaviour and the particularinterest in authenticity among online reviewers, the potential for fur-ther quantitative research using online reviews is therefore warranted.
5.4. Examining perception of authenticity from the supplier perspective
The review of extant literature reveals that examining authenticityfrom the supplier perspective has received low scholarly attention, withthe majority investigating the dimension of authenticity of the Other/theThing. Further, no research has attempted to explore authenticity of theOrganisation from the supplier perspective (see Fig. 3). Future researchwill therefore benefit by conducting investigations into restaurateurs'perception of authenticity taking into account the integration of thethree authenticity dimensions. Authenticity studies from the supplyperspective therefore could encompass the restaurateurs' projection ofauthenticity and how the restaurateurs' understanding of authenticitycreates authentic offerings and facilitates consumers' perception ofauthenticity. The expected outcomes from this investigation will be abetter understanding of authenticity ‘catering logistics’ from the supplyside, which allows for the enhancement of customer satisfaction and re-purchase intention, hence increasing business profitability and sus-tainability.
5.5. Identifying gaps in perception of authenticity between consumer andsupplier perspectives
The lack of research in examining authenticity from the supplierperspective also leads to potential gaps in understanding betweensupplier and consumer perspectives. Addressing the gaps between thesupply and demand sides is vital to reduce and eliminate ‘myths’ amongcustomers and restaurateurs when it comes to authenticity, in order toachieve the ultimate goal of dining; that is, business sustainability andprofitability for restaurants; and memorable and satisfying experiencesfor customers. As a result, this review suggests significant potential forconducting a comprehensive investigation into restaurateurs' projectionof authenticity, thus providing more effective mechanisms to identifygaps in perceptions of authenticity between consumers and diningservice providers.
6. Limitations
While this review has provided insights into the current landscapeof authenticity research in dining experiences, it is bound by certainlimitations. Particularly, this systematic literature review only con-siders journal articles published in English and disregards non-journalpublications such as conference papers, editorial notes, book reviews,book chapters, books and dissertations. However, this limitation can beconsidered as a trade-off for the review to ensure the consistency andhigh quality of the findings. Also, while the systematic nature of thereview suggests reproducibility of the review process, it is strongly re-commended that any replicas should proceed with a high level ofconsideration (Yang et al., 2017). This is because the coding and ca-tegorising practices performed in this review were subject to the re-searchers’ linguistic backgrounds and interpretations. Nevertheless,these practices were clearly reported so as to facilitate future updates ifnecessary.
7. Theoretical and methodological implications
In light of increasing competitiveness in the restaurant industry and
homogeneity of materialised goods and services, authenticity presentsas a quality parameter that differentiates one market offering fromanother, and even one organisation from another. The extant literaturedemonstrates that authenticity is a complex concept. As a result, thissystematic review synthesises the diversity of views on authenticityapplied in the dining context and proposes that understanding au-thenticity by the integrated multi-dimensional approach is important,especially considering that consumers and suppliers co-create thedining experiences. The theoretical contribution is the proposition thatan integrated approach incorporating multiple dimensions of authen-ticity is fundamental for a deeper understanding of the concept andpoints to the need for further research in authenticity of dining ex-periences that aids the operationalisation of this multi-dimensionalconcept. The development of a multi-dimensional framework of au-thenticity can also be expanded to support the understanding of au-thenticity in other contexts apart from tourism, hospitality and leisure,as consumers decide to buy or not buy a product or an offering based onhow real they perceive the offering to be (Gilmore & Pine, 2007).Alongside this, a multi-dimensional approach towards authenticity es-tablishes a solid platform for investigating frameworks and modelswhich explore notions of perceived authenticity between the demandand supply perspective.
Additionally, with the acceleration of the readily available user-generated content in informing and depicting consumer behaviour,conducting user-generated content analytics is extremely useful forgaining a thorough understanding of consumers’ communication ofauthenticity, particularly in the online domain. The applications ofuser-generated content analytics in understanding authenticity will alsounblock opportunities to comprehend the understanding of othercomplex concepts using large amounts of user-generated data and textanalytics. The analytical techniques employed to analyse this type ofdata will also have a substantial contribution to the emerging yetfragmented development of social media analytics in the context oftourism, hospitality and leisure. Considering the accelerated advance-ment of technology and the adoption of big data applications in user-generated content and social media analytics, the powerful role of thistype of data in social sciences and in explaining consumer behaviour isabout to unveil.
8. Managerial implications
The observations which have emerged from this discussion provokepractical insights that motivate restaurateurs to understand what con-stitutes authenticity in dining experiences, as well as the interaction ofdeterminants creating an authentic dining experience. Customisingwhat diners want and what tangible elements induce authentic, thusmemorable experiences that make them long to return are crucial, andso are the underlying psychological factors of the consumers themselvesthat motivate repurchase intentions (Chhabra et al., 2013a; 2013b).The ability to interpret the concept of authenticity from the consumerperspective and to identify potential determinants shaping perceivedauthenticity are therefore prerequisites for organisation-value addingand business sustainability (Zeng et al., 2012). Gilmore and Pine (2007)assert that “business today, therefore, is all about being real” (p.1) asthe dining experience, in its simplest sense, is a business's output, withthe basic purpose of fulfilling a consumer's, at the very least, physio-logical needs. This paper posits that customers perceive authenticity notonly in the setting of ethnic dining and calls for further investigationinto certain determinants that restaurateurs in general can control andmanipulate diners' perceptions of authenticity within their establish-ments. As such, it will support the restaurateurs' understanding on howto have their business deemed genuinely authentic rather than pre-tentiously authentic, which subsequently leads to decreased trust-worthiness and customers' dissatisfaction (Gilmore & Pine, 2007).
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
272
53
Author contributions
Truc H. Le was responsible for the overall conception and con-struction of the paper. This includes collection of the relevant articles,analysis of the articles, interpretation of the emerged findings, anddevelopment of the first draft and rewriting subsequent drafts of thepapers.
Charles Arcodia was responsible for revising and editing drafts ofthe paper.
Margarida Abreu Novais was responsible for revising and editingdrafts of the paper.
Anna Kralj was responsible for revising and editing drafts of thepaper.
All authors contributed to the robustness of the conceptual direc-tions and ensured the comprehensiveness and the highest quality of thepaper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.02.012.
References
Abarca, M. E. (2004). Authentic or not, it's original. Food and Foodways, 12(1), 1–25.https://doi.org/10.1080/07409710490467589.
Adams, K. M. (1984). Come to Tana Toraja, “land of the heavenly kings”. Annals ofTourism Research, 11(3), 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(84)90032-X.
Albrecht, M. M. (2011). ‘When you’re here, you’re family’: Culinary tourism and the olivegarden restaurant. Tourist Studies, 11(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797611424938.
Aldredge, M. (2008). (Re) constructing and negotiating the South as other: southern foodrestaurants in New York City. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and HospitalityResearch, 2(2), 152–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506180810880719.
Andersson, T. D., & Mossberg, L. (2004). The dining experience: Do restaurants satisfycustomer needs? Food Service Technology, 4(4), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-5740.2004.00105.x.
Bardhi, F., Ostberg, J., & Bengtsson, A. (2010). Negotiating cultural boundaries: Food,travel and consumer identities. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 13(2), 133–157.https://doi.org/10.1080/10253860903562148.
Beardsworth, A., & Bryman, A. (1999). Late modernity and the dynamics of quasification:The case of the themed restaurant. The Sociological Review, 47(2), 228–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00171.
Belhassen, Y., & Caton, K. (2006). Authenticity matters. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3),853–856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.03.009.
Belhassen, Y., Caton, K., & Stewart, W. P. (2008). The search for authenticity in thepilgrim experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 668–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2008.03.007.
Bell, R., Meiselman, H. L., Pierson, B. J., & Reeve, W. G. (1994). Effects of adding anItalian theme to a restaurant on the perceived ethnicity, acceptability, and selectionof foods. Appetite, 22(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1994.1002.
Björk, P., & Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. (2016). Exploring the multi-dimensionality of tra-vellers' culinary-gastronomic experiences. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(12),1260–1280. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.868412.
Boorstin, D. J. (1964). The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York City, NY:Harper & Row.
Brown, S. M. (2001). Marketing: The retro revolution. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Bruner, E. M. (1991). Transformation of self in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2),
238–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(91)90007-X.Bruner, E. M. (1994). Abraham lincoln as authentic reproduction: A critique of post-
modernism. American Anthropologist, 96(2), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.2.02a00070.
Buchmann, A., Moore, K., & Fisher, D. (2010). Experiencing film tourism: Authenticity &fellowship. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.09.005.
Carroll, G. R., & Wheaton, D. R. (2009). The organizational construction of authenticity:An examination of contemporary food and dining in the U.S. Research InOrganizational Behavior, 29, 255–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.003.
Chang, R. C. Y., Kivela, J., & Mak, A. H. N. (2011). Attributes that influence the eva-luation of travel dining experience: When East meets West. Tourism Management,32(2), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.02.009.
Chhabra, D. (2008). Positioning museums on an authenticity continuum. Annals ofTourism Research, 35(2), 427–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2007.12.001.
Chhabra, D. (2010). Back to the past: A sub-segment of generation Y's perceptions ofauthenticity. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(6), 793–809. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.483280.
Chhabra, D., Lee, W., & Zhao, S. (2013a). Epitomizing the "other" in ethnic eatertainmentexperiences. Leisure. Journal of the Canadian Association for Leisure, 37(4), 361.
Chhabra, D., Lee, W., Zhao, S., & Scott, K. (2013b). Marketing of ethnic food experiences:Authentication analysis of Indian cuisine abroad. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 8(2–3),145–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2013.767816.
Chiu, H.-C., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Kuo, Y.-C. (2012). How to align your brand stories with yourproducts. Journal of Retailing, 88(2), 262–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.02.001.
Cohen, E. (2007). ‘Authenticity’ in tourism studies: Aprés la Lutte. Tourism RecreationResearch, 32(2), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2007.11081279.
Cohen, E., & Avieli, N. (2004). Food in tourism - attraction and impediment. Annals ofTourism Research, 31(4), 755–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.02.003.
Cohen, E., & Cohen, S. A. (2012). Authentication: Hot and cool. Annals of TourismResearch, 39(3), 1295–1314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.03.004.
DeSoucey, M., & Demetry, D. (2016). The dynamics of dining out in the 21st century:Insights from organizational theory: Dynamics of Dining Out in the 21st Century.Sociology Compass, 10(11), 1014–1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12417.
DiPietro, R., & Levitt, J. (2017). Restaurant and foodservice research. International Journalof Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(4), 1203–1234. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-01-2016-0046.
Duncan, J. S. (1978). The social construction of unreality: An interactionist approach tothe tourist's cognition of environment. Humanistic geography: Prospects and problems,269–282.
Ebster, C., & Guist, I. (2005). The role of authenticity in ethnic theme restaurants. Journalof Foodservice Business Research, 7(2), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1300/J369v07n02_04.
Eco, U. (1986). Travels in hyper reality: Essays. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Engeset, M. G., & Elvekrok, I. (2015). Authentic concepts: Effects on tourist satisfaction.
Journal of Travel Research, 54(4), 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514522876.
Frazier, B. N., Gelman, S. A., Wilson, A., & Hood, B. M. (2009). Picasso paintings, moonrocks, and hand-written Beatles lyrics: Adults' evaluations of authentic objects.Journal of Cognition and Culture, 9(1), 1–14.
Giebelhausen, M. D., Chan, E., & Sirianni, N. J. (2016). Fitting restaurant service style tobrand image for greater customer satisfaction. Cornell Hospitality Report, 16(9), 3–10.
Gottlieb, D. (2015). “Dirty, Authentic…Delicious”. Gastronomica, 15(2), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2015.15.2.39.
Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicalityand their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 31(2), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1086/422109.
Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J. (2007). Authenticity: what consumers really want. Boston, Mass:Harvard Business School Press.
Hall, C. M. (2007). Response to Yeoman et al: The fakery of ‘The authentic tourist’.Tourism Management, 28(4), 1139–1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.09.008.
Handler, R. (1986). Authenticity. Anthropology today, 2(1), 2–4.Hirose, A., & Pih, K. K.-H. (2011). 'No asians working here': Racialized otherness and
authenticity in gastronomical orientalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(9),1482–1501. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2010.550929.
Hwang, J., & Seo, S. (2016). A critical review of research on customer experience man-agement. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(10),2218–2246. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-04-2015-0192.
Jang, S., & Ha, J. (2015). The influence of cultural experience: Emotions in relation toauthenticity at ethnic restaurants. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 18(3),287–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2015.1051436.
Jang, S. S., Ha, J., & Park, K. (2012). Effects of ethnic authenticity: Investigating Koreanrestaurant customers in the U.S. International Journal of Hospitality Management,31(3), 990–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.12.003.
Jang, S., Liu, Y., & Namkung, Y. (2011). Effects of authentic atmospherics in ethnicrestaurants: Investigating Chinese restaurants. International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management, 23(5), 662–680. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111111143395.
Jones, S. (2010). Negotiating authentic objects and authentic selves: Beyond the decon-struction of authenticity. Journal of Material Culture, 15(2), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183510364074.
Kamler, B. (2008). Rethinking doctoral publication practices: Writing from and beyondthe thesis. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049236.
Kauppinen-Räisänen, H., Gummerus, J., & Lehtola, K. (2013). Remembered eating ex-periences described by the self, place, food, context and time. British Food Journal,115(5), 666–685. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701311331571.
Khan, M., & Oyewole, P. O. (2014). African Americans' image attributes and preferencesfor ethnic or international restaurants. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 17(3),161–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2014.926728.
Khoo-Lattimore, C., Mura, P., & Yung, R. (2017). The time has come: A systematic lit-erature review of mixed methods research in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–20.https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1406900.
Kim, K., & Baker, M. A. (2017). The Impacts of Service Provider Name, Ethnicity, andMenu Information on Perceived Authenticity and Behaviors. Cornell HospitalityQuarterly, 58(3), 312–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965516686107.
Kim, E., & Cuskelly, G. (2017). A systematic quantitative review of volunteer manage-ment in events. Event Management, 21(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.3727/152599517X14809630271195.
Kim, H., & Jamal, T. (2007). Touristic quest for existential authenticity. Annals of TourismResearch, 34(1), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.07.009.
Kim, J. H., & Jang, S. (2016). Determinants of authentic experiences: An extendedGilmore and Pine model for ethnic restaurants. International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management, 28(10), 2247–2266. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
273
54
2015-0284.Kim, J. H., Youn, H., & Rao, Y. (2017). Customer responses to food-related attributes in
ethnic restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 61, 129–139.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.11.003.
Kovács, B., Carroll, G. R., & Lehman, D. W. (2014). Authenticity and consumer valueratings: Empirical tests from the restaurant domain. Organization Science, 25(2),458–478. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0843.
Kovács, B., Carroll, G., & Lehman, D. (2017). The perils of proclaiming an authentic or-ganizational identity. Sociological Science, 4, 80–106. https://doi.org/10.15195/v4.a4.
Kraak, J. M., & Holmqvist, J. (2017). The authentic service employee: Service employees'language use for authentic service experiences. Journal of Business Research, 72,199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.182.
Lacy, J. A., & Douglass, W. A. (2002). Beyond authenticity: The meanings and uses ofcultural tourism. Tourist Studies, 2(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797602002001094.
Laxson, J. D. (1991). How “we” see “them” tourism and Native Americans. Annals ofTourism Research, 18(3), 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(91)90047-F.
Lee, C. C., & Hu, C. (2005). Analyzing hotel customers' E-complaints from an internetcomplaint forum. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17(2–3), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v17n02_13.
Lee, A., & Kamler, B. (2008). Bringing pedagogy to doctoral publishing. Teaching in HigherEducation, 13(5), 511–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510802334723.
Lehman, D. W., Kovacs, B., & Carroll, G. R. (2014). Conflicting social codes and organi-zations: Hygiene and authenticity in consumer evaluations of restaurants.Management Science, 60(10), 2602–2617. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1903.
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Kralj, A., & Abreu Novais, M. (2018). Proposing an Exploration ofAuthenticity and its Key Determinants in Dining Experiences. Paper presented atCAUTHE 2018: Get Smart: Paradoxes and Possibilities in Tourism, Hospitality and EventsEducation and Research held February 2018 at Newcastle Business School. The Universityof Newcastle.
Lin, P. M. C., Ren, L., & Chen, C. (2017). Customers’ Perception of the Authenticity of aCantonese Restaurant. Journal of China Tourism Research, 13(2), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2017.1359721.
Liu, Y., & Jang, S. (2009). Perceptions of Chinese restaurants in the U.S.: What affectscustomer satisfaction and behavioral intentions? International Journal of HospitalityManagement, 28(3), 338–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.10.008.
Lu, S., & Fine, G. A. (1995). The presentation of ethnic authenticity: Chinese food as asocial accomplishment. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(3), 535–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1995.tb00452.x.
Lu, A. C. C., Gursoy, D., & Lu, C. Y. (2015). Authenticity perceptions, brand equity andbrand choice intention: The case of ethnic restaurants. International Journal ofHospitality Management, 50, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.008.
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist set-tings. American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589–603. https://doi.org/10.1086/225585.
MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. University of CaliforniaPress.
Magnini, V. P., Miller, T., & Kim, B. (2011). The psychological effects of foreign-languagerestaurant signs on potential diners. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(1),24–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348010370753.
Martin, K. (2010). Living pasts: Contested tourism authenticities. Annals of TourismResearch, 37(2), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.11.005.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4),370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346.
Mays, N., Pope, C., & Popay, J. (2005). Systematically reviewing qualitative and quan-titative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field.Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 10(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308576.
Mkono, M. (2011). The othering of food in touristic eatertainment: A netnography. TouristStudies, 11(3), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797611431502.
Mkono, M. (2012a). Authenticity does matter. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1),480–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.06.004.
Mkono, M. (2012b). A netnographic examination of constructive authenticity in VictoriaFalls tourist (restaurant) experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management,31(2), 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.06.013.
Mkono, M. (2013a). African and Western tourists: Object authenticity quest? Annals ofTourism Research, 41, 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.01.002.
Mkono, M. (2013b). Augmenting foodservice experiences through cultural eatertainmentat tourist destinations. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 16(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2013.761019.
Mkono, M. (2013c). Contested authenticity in Zimbabwean tourist eatertainment. (PhD thesis)Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross University. Retrieved from http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1313&context=theses.
Mkono, M. (2013d). Existential authenticity in cultural restaurant experiences in victoriafalls, Zimbabwe: A netnographic analysis. International Journal of Culture, Tourism andHospitality Research, 7(4), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-03-2013-0010.
Mkono, M., Markwell, K., & Wilson, E. (2013). Applying quan and Wang's structuralmodel of the tourist experience: A Zimbabwean netnography of food tourism. TourismManagement Perspectives, 5, 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2012.10.007.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Preferred reporting items forsystematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journalof Surgery, 8(5), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007.
Muniz, R., Harrington, R. J., Ogbeidea, G.-C., & Seo, H.-S. (2017). The role of soundcongruency on ethnic menu item selection and price expectations. InternationalJournal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 18(3), 245–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2016.1276001.
Muñoz, C. L., Wood, N. T., & Solomon, M. R. (2006). Real or blarney? A cross-culturalinvestigation of the perceived authenticity of Irish pubs. Journal of ConsumerBehaviour, 5(3), 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.174.
Naccarato, P., & LeBesco, K. (2013). Culinary capital. Bloomsbury Publishing.van Nuenen, T. (2016). Here I am: Authenticity and self-branding on travel blogs. Tourist
Studies, 16(2), 192–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797615594748.O'Connor, K., Carroll, G. R., & Kovacs, B. (2017). Disambiguating authenticity:
Interpretations of value and appeal. PLoS One, 12(6), e0179187. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179187.
Özdemir, B., & Seyitoğlu, F. (2017). A conceptual study of gastronomical quests oftourists: Authenticity or safety and comfort? Tourism Management Perspectives, 23,1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.03.010.
Petticrew, M. (2001). Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: Myths and mis-conceptions. BMJ, 322(7278), 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7278.98.
Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2014). The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative lit-erature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. HigherEducation Research and Development, 33(3), https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841651.
Pickering, C., Grignon, J., Steven, R., Guitart, D., & Byrne, J. (2015). Publishing notperishing: How research students transition from novice to knowledgeable usingsystematic quantitative literature reviews. Studies in Higher Education, 40(10),1756–1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.914907.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & everybusiness a stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. J. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals ofTourism Research, 33(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.04.003.
Rezende, D. C. d., & Silva, M. A. R. (2014). Eating-out and experiential consumption: Atypology of experience providers. British Food Journal, 116(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-02-2012-0027.
Rickly-Boyd, J. M. (2012). Authenticity & aura. A benjaminian approach to tourism.Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.05.003.
Robinson, R. N. S., & Clifford, C. (2012). AUTHENTICITY AND FESTIVAL FOODSERVICEEXPERIENCES. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 571–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.06.007.
Rose, R. L., & Wood, S. L. (2005). Paradox and the Consumption of Authenticity throughReality Television. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1086/432238.
Schuckert, M., Liu, X., & Law, R. (2015). Hospitality and tourism online reviews: Recenttrends and future directions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(5), 608–621.https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2014.933154.
Silver, I. (1993). Marketing authenticity in third world countries. Annals of TourismResearch, 20(2), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(93)90057-A.
Spooner, B. (1986). Weavers and dealers: The authenticity of an oriental carpet. In A.Appadurai (Ed.). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 195-235). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steiner, C. J., & Reisinger, Y. (2006). Understanding existential authenticity. Annals ofTourism Research, 33(2), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.08.002.
Tasci, A. D. A., & Knutson, B. J. (2004). An argument for providing authenticity andfamiliarity in tourism destinations. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 11(1),85–109. https://doi.org/10.1300/J150v11n01_06.
Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Thomson, A., Cuskelly, G., Toohey, K., Kennelly, M., Burton, P., & Fredline, L. (2018).
Sport event legacy: A systematic quantitative review of literature. Sport ManagementReview, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j_smr.2018.06.011.
Tribe, J., & Mkono, M. (2017). Not such smart tourism? The concept of e-lienation. Annalsof Tourism Research, 66, 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.07.001.
Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Tsai, C.-T., & Lu, P.-H. (2012). Authentic dining experiences in ethnic theme restaurants.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(1), 304–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.04.010.
Tsao, W. C., Hsieh, M. T., Shih, L. W., & Lin, T. M. Y. (2015). Compliance with eWOM: Theinfluence of hotel reviews on booking intention from the perspective of consumerconformity. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.01.008.
Turgeon, L., & Pastinelli, M. (2002). 'Eat the world': Postcolonial encounters in QuebecCity's ethnic restaurants. Journal of American Folklore, 115(456), 247–268.
Vásquez, C., & Chik, A. (2015). “I Am not a foodie…”: Culinary capital in online reviewsof michelin restaurants. Food and Foodways, 23(4), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/07409710.2015.1102483.
Viglia, G., Minazzi, R., & Buhalis, D. (2016). The influence of e-word-of-mouth on hoteloccupancy rate. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(9),2035–2051. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2015-0238.
de Vries, H. J., & Go, F. M. (2017). Developing a common standard for authentic res-taurants. Service Industries Journal, 37(15–16), 1008–1028. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2017.1373763.
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of TourismResearch, 26(2), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00103-0.
Wang, N. (2000). Tourism and modernity: A sociological analysis (1st ed.). New
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
27455
York;Oxford;Amsterdam: Pergamon.Wang, C.-Y. (2011). The impact of servicescapes on the pre-consumption authenticity assess-
ments of ethnic-oriented services (Doctoral Thesis, the Pennsylvania StateUniversityPennsylvania, USA): Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Wang, C.-Y., & Mattila, A. S. (2015). The impact of servicescape cues on consumer pre-purchase authenticity assessment and patronage intentions to ethnic restaurants.Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 39(3), 346–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348013491600.
Warde, A., & Martens, L. (2000). Eating out: Social differentiation, consumption and pleasure.Cambridge University Press.
Wijaya, S., King, B., Nguyen, T.-H., & Morrison, A. (2013). International visitor diningexperiences: A conceptual framework. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,20, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2013.07.001.
Winter, T. (2009). Asian tourism and the retreat of anglo-western centrism in tourismtheory. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802220695.
Wood, N. T., & Muñoz, C. L. (2007). 'No rules, just right' or is it? The role of themedrestaurants as cultural ambassadors. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(3-4),242–255. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.thr.6050047.
Wu, C. H.-J., Hsieh, T., & Fang, Y.-W. (2015). The impacts of frontstage perception andbackstage visibility on staged authenticity in theme restaurant service. InternationalJournal of Mathematics and Computer Science, 5(5–6), 200.
Xie, P. F., & Wall, G. (2002). Visitors' perceptions of authenticity at cultural attractions inHainan, China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(5), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.385.
Xu, H., Ding, P., & Packer, J. (2008). Tourism research in China: Understanding theunique cultural contexts and complexities. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(6), 473–491.https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802475737.
Yang, E. C. L., Khoo-Lattimore, C., & Arcodia, C. (2017). A systematic literature review ofrisk and gender research in tourism. Tourism Management, 58, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.011.
Yang, L., & Wall, G. (2009). Authenticity in ethnic tourism: Domestic tourists' perspec-tives. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(3), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802406880.
Yeoman, I., Brass, D., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2007). Current issue in tourism: The au-thentic tourist. Tourism Management, 28(4), 1128–1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.09.012.
Youn, H., & Kim, J.-H. (2017). Effects of ingredients, names and stories about food originson perceived authenticity and purchase intentions. International Journal of HospitalityManagement, 63, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.01.002.
Yung, R., & Khoo-Lattimore, C. (2017). New realities: A systematic literature review onvirtual reality and augmented reality in tourism research. Current Issues in Tourism,1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1417359.
Zeng, G., Go, F., & de Vries, H. J. (2012). Paradox of authenticity versus standardization:Expansion strategies of restaurant groups in China. International Journal of HospitalityManagement, 31(4), 1090–1100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.01.006.
Zhang, L., & Hanks, L. (2018). Online reviews: The effect of cosmopolitanism, incidentalsimilarity, and dispersion on consumer attitudes toward ethnic restaurants.International Journal of Hospitality Management, 68, 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.10.008.
Zhong, L., Leung, D., Law, R., & Wu, B. (2013). eTourism in China: A review of theChinese-language literature. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 18(5), 464–482.https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2012.680974.
Zhou, Q., Zhang, H., Zhang, J., & Li, X. (2018). Is all authenticity accepted by tourists andresidents? The concept, dimensions and formation mechanism of negative authenti-city. Tourism Management, 67, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.12.024.
Truc H. Le. Truc Le is a PhD Candidate at the Departmentof Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management at GriffithUniversity, Australia. Truc Le has graduated from GriffithUniversity with Bachelor of Business (Hons I). Her researchfocus includes risks and risk perceptions in the cruise in-dustry, authenticity in dining experiences, user-generatedcontent analytics, and machine learning. Her work fromHonours Thesis has recently been published in InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management.
Charles Arcodia. Professor Charles Arcodia is an experi-enced tertiary educator having taught and researched in thetertiary sector for over 20 years. He has held leadershippositions in a variety of educational and business servicecontexts. Directly before he joined the higher educationsector he was directly involved in industry in a variety oforganisational and management roles. His primary areas ofteaching and research interest are in event management,tourism and hospitality education, and various tourism andrelated cultural issues. He is currently the Deputy Head ofthe Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Managementat Griffith University, Australia.
Margarida Abreu Novais. Dr Margarida Abreu Novais is aLecturer at the Department of Tourism, Sport and HotelManagement at Griffith University, Australia. Her mainareas of research include destination competitiveness,tourism spatiotemporal behaviour and experiential learningin tourism and hospitality education.
Anna Kralj. Dr Anna Kralj is a Senior Lecturer at theDepartment of Tourism Sport and Hotel Management in theGriffith Business School at Griffith University. Anna's re-search interest is the tourism and hospitality workforce,with a particular interest in service management, organi-sational behaviour and human resources management.Before joining academia, Anna had an extensive career inthe hotel industry at a management level. Anna's profes-sional experience is primarily in food & beverage operationsand human resource management. Anna is widely pub-lished in leading hospitality & tourism academic journalsand has completed various industry-sponsored researchprojects.
T.H. Le, et al. Tourism Management 74 (2019) 258–275
27556
57
PART III. METHODOLOGY
Thus far, the literature review paper has presented a comprehensive landscape of the extant
literature and identified five research gaps and corresponding research directions. However,
considering the research scope and timeline of this thesis, only two of the gaps and directions
were specifically undertaken: (a) adopting a multi-dimensional approach for examining
authenticity in dining experiences, and (b) adopting a quantitative approach to authenticity
using online reviews. The remaining gaps therefore served as directions for future research.
In this third part of the thesis, the methodological direction (b) emerging from the review
paper was addressed in Paper 2 through the proposal of a systematic integrated learning
approach for online review analysis. This paper served as the methodological approach
employed in the subsequent empirical papers (Papers 3 and 4).
Paper 2 is a co-authored journal article. In accordance with the requirement of Griffith
University, the full bibliographic details and statement of contribution for the paper are
provided.
Paper 2
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (2020). Proposing a Systematic Approach
for Integrating Traditional Research Methods into Machine Learning in Text Analytics in
Tourism and Hospitality. Current Issues in Tourism, 1-16.
doi:10.1080/13683500.2020.1829568
The co-authors of this manuscript are my thesis supervisors, Prof. Charles Arcodia, Dr.
Margarida Abreu Novais, and Dr. Anna Kralj. My contribution to the paper involved: overall
conception and construction of the paper including development of the first draft and
rewriting subsequent drafts of the paper.
(Signed) ________ ____________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Truc Hoang Le
58
(Countersigned) _____ __________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Corresponding author of paper: Truc Hoang Le
(Countersigned) ___ _____ (Date) 21/07/2020
Principal Supervisor: Prof. Charles Arcodia
(Countersigned) _____ _________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Associate Supervisor: Dr. Margarida Abreu Novais
(Countersigned) _____ _____________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Associate Supervisor: Dr. Anna Kralj
76
Specifically, Phase 1 adopted a text mining approach to identify terms used to describe
authenticity and associated restaurant attributes. Phase 2 used traditional data collection and
analysis method (quota sampling and thematic analysis) in the examination of online reviews
to understand how consumers form authenticity perceptions in dining experiences. By
incorporating Phases 1 and 2, Paper 3 addressed the first and second research objectives of
the thesis. Building upon the results of Phases 1 and 2, Phase 3 applied integrated learning
which utilised the outcomes from proportionate random sampling and manual classification
to direct machine learning in classification modeling, in order to determine the multi-
dimensionality of authenticity in dining experiences. By incorporating Phases 1 and 3, Paper
4 addressed the first and third research objectives of the thesis.
Papers 3 and 4 are a co-authored manuscripts, which are currently under review in Tourism
Management. The formatting, spelling, and referencing style follows the requirements of the
respective journal. In accordance with the requirement of Griffith University, the full
bibliographic details and statement of contributions for the papers are provided.
77
Paper 3
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (under review). How Consumers Perceive
Authenticity in Restaurants: A Study of Online Reviews. Tourism Management.
The co-authors of this manuscript are my thesis supervisors, Prof. Charles Arcodia, Dr.
Margarida Abreu Novais, and Dr. Anna Kralj. My contribution to the paper involved: overall
conception and construction of the paper including collecting and analysing data, constructing
the framework, developing the first draft and rewriting subsequent drafts of the paper.
(Signed) _________ ____________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Truc Hoang Le
(Countersigned) ____ __________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Corresponding author of paper: Truc Hoang Le
(Countersigned) ___ _____ (Date) 21/07/2020
Principal Supervisor: Prof. Charles Arcodia
(Countersigned) ______ ________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Associate Supervisor: Dr. Margarida Abreu Novais
(Countersigned) ____ ______________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Associate Supervisor 3: Dr. Anna Kralj
78
Paper 4
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (under 2nd review). Exploring the Multi-
Dimensionality of Authenticity in Dining Experiences Using Online Reviews. Tourism
Management.
The co-authors of this manuscript are my thesis supervisors, Prof. Charles Arcodia, Dr.
Margarida Abreu Novais, and Dr. Anna Kralj. My contribution to the paper involved: overall
conception and construction of the paper including constructing the framework, collecting
and analysing data, developing the first draft and rewriting subsequent drafts of the paper.
(Signed) ______ ______________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Truc Hoang Le
(Countersigned) ___ ___________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Corresponding author of paper: Truc Hoang Le
(Countersigned) ____ ____ (Date) 21/07/2020
Principal Supervisor: Prof. Charles Arcodia
(Countersigned) ______ ________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Associate Supervisor: Dr. Margarida Abreu Novais
(Countersigned) ____ ______________ (Date) 21/07/2020
Associate Supervisor: Dr. Anna Kralj
79
How Consumers Perceive Authenticity in Restaurants: A Study of Online Reviews
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A.
ABSTRACT Investigations into the multi-dimensionality of authenticity as expressed in restaurant
contexts have been scarce. This study attempts to fill this gap by examining how consumers
perceive authenticity in restaurant experiences by analysing their authenticity judgements
from online reviews. An interpretive methodology, specifically quota sampling, is used to
select authenticity judgements from online reviews, and thematic analysis is performed to
map authenticity cues shaping such judgements. Findings demonstrate that consumers
evaluate the authenticity of the observed entity based on various cues reflected through the
entity itself, or through the consumers themselves and how they see their selves through the
entity. The study subsequently provides a demonstration of consumers’ authenticity
judgements, and provides implications for theory and practice. Findings suggest the very same
entity can be evaluated with respect to more than one dimension of authenticity, thus calling
for rigorous understanding of offerings among restaurateurs to project appropriate
authenticity cues that appeal to consumers.
Keywords
Authenticity, Perceptions, Authenticity Cues, Restaurants, Experiences, Online Reviews,
Multi-Dimensionality
80
1. Introduction
Authenticity has long been deemed a pertinent phenomenon in tourism and hospitality
research since it influences consumer motivation, as well as contributing to the memorability
of the experience (Cohen, 1988; MacCannell, 1973; Rickly & McCabe, 2017). The quest for
authentic experiences has been considered as one of the key trends in tourism (Kolar &
Zabcar, 2010; Vidon et al., 2018). In tourism research, although the mainstream efforts in
authenticity predominantly examined the authenticity of toured objects and otherness,
authenticity scholars have increasingly embraced a multi-dimensional view of authenticity in
understanding such experiences (Cohen, 2007; Le et al., 2019; Mkono, 2013a; Rickly-Boyd,
2012; Wang, 1999). The multi-dimensionality of authenticity responds to not only the
consumer quest for authenticity of toured objects, but also the realisation of the true self in
authentic experiences (Brown, 2013; Cohen, 1988; Wang, 1999).
The movement towards the study of authenticity as a multi-dimensional construct has been
noticed in the broad context of tourism and hospitality. However, this has not been the case
in the particular investigation of authenticity in the context restaurant since the majority of
authenticity examinations has focused solely on the presentation of the otherness (e.g. ethnic
culture, cuisine) (Le et al., 2018, 2019). The authenticity lens adopted in such research is
mainly constructivist in which authenticity is subject to social construction, facilitated by
various stereotyped, symbolic and media-shaped images of ethnic cuisines from the
consumers’ perspectives (e.g. Chhabra et al., 2013a; 2013b; Cohen & Avieli 2004; Kim et al.,
2019; Lu et al., 2015; Magnini et al., 2011). The existential state of ‘being’ (Wang, 1999) has
also been considered in the restaurant context, yet to a much lesser extent (see Chhabra et
al., 2013a, 2013b; Lu et al., 2015; Meng & Choi, 2017; Mkono, 2013b; Özdemir & Seyitoğlu,
2017). Failing to address the multi-dimensionality of authenticity may limit one’s
understanding of authenticity and determinants in the restaurant context, given that dining
out is increasingly seen as an experience rather than just a means to fulfil physiological needs
(Le et al., 2019). This paper, therefore, addresses this oversight by embracing the multi-
dimensional view in examining authenticity in restaurants from the consumers’ perspective.
81
Furthermore, the literature provides incomplete understanding of authenticity projected
through business-related cues, given that delivering authenticity in dining experiences has
now moved beyond the food and cultural elements, and progressively demands the producer-
organisation to reflect its own true identity and values to co-create authentic experiences
(Gilmore & Pine, 2007; Le et al, 2020a, 2020c; Lehman et al., 2018). There seem to be some
business-related perspectives overlooked in the extant literature, those that are useful to gain
a comprehensive picture of mechanisms shaping consumers’ perceptions of authenticity in
the restaurant context. This has been portrayed through limited research conducted to
identify potential cues shaping such perceptions of authentic businesses (e.g. Carroll &
Wheaton, 2009; O’Connor et al., 2017). This paper, therefore, addresses this paucity by
providing insights into some business-related cues that can be used to project authenticity of
the business from the consumers’ perspective.
Underpinned by the argument that instead of looking for the ultimate ideal state of
authenticity inherent in the object, it seems more appropriate to glean insights from
consumers’ views in order to cater to their expectations regarding authenticity. The purpose
of this research therefore is to determine how consumers form authenticity perceptions in
restaurant experiences. To do this, this paper analyses consumers’ judgements about
authenticity in restaurants, and attempts to understand how such judgements are formed in
the consumers’ mind. Online restaurant reviews are used to represent consumers’
judgements in this investigation since they are readily available, provided on a purely
voluntary basis, and offer rich insights about consumers’ experiences and perceptions
(Chhabra et al., 2013a; Le et al., 2019; Zhang & Hanks, 2018). The examination of such
authenticity judgements is also useful to determine the relevance of the three-dimensionality
of authenticity emerging from a systematic literature review of authenticity in dining
experiences between 1994 and 2017 conducted by Le et al. (2019). In their review, Le et al.
(2019) posit that authenticity is a three-dimensional concept which consists of authenticity of
the Thing, authenticity of the Self, and authenticity of the Organisation.
The paper is divided into four sections. Firstly, existing literature on authenticity in restaurant
experiences is reviewed, followed by a discussion of understanding authenticity through
consumer judgements. A detailed overview of the methodological approach is subsequently
82
given including a pre-study that identifies authenticity judgements in online restaurant
reviews, quota sampling, and thematic analysis for the main study. Research findings with key
themes are then presented and discussed. The final section draws together all threads of the
research, and in doing so confirms some theoretical advancement in authenticity as well as
offering key practical implications for restaurateurs in enhancing consumers’ perceptions of
authenticity.
83
2. Related Work
2.1. Authenticity in Restaurant Experiences
Many studies have examined authenticity and attempted to operationalise this complex
debatable concept in several ways (i.e. Kolar & Zabcar, 2010; Kovács et al., 2014; Lehman et
al., 2019; Muskat et al., 2019; Rodríguez-López et al., 2019). Being extensively studied since
the 1970s by tourism researchers MacCannell (1973, 1976) and Cohen (1979), authenticity
has become a prevalent topic particularly in restaurant research, considering the influence of
culture and ethnicity on determining cuisines in various different restaurant segments
(Rodríguez-López et al., 2019). Extant literature in this field has started considering dining
experiences as a product in contrast with the food alone, which directs research attention to
the backstage role of the producer-organisation, that is, the restaurant in constructing
authenticity cues (Demetry, 2019; Lehman et al., 2018, 2019; Le et al., 2020a). Rendering
authenticity in restaurants has moved beyond the core product itself (the food), and the role
of producer-organisation is increasingly sought to project its own true qualities to co-
construct authentic experiences (Lehman et al., 2018; Gilmore & Pine, 2007), so-called
authenticity of the organisation (Le et al., 2019).
It is important though to note that authenticity in restaurant experiences has been extensively
studied specifically for ethnic restaurants (Le et al., 2019; Rodríguez-López et al., 2019).
However, Rodríguez-López et al. (2019) note in their bibliometric analysis of restaurant
research (2000-2018), that compared to other concepts, there have been many fewer
scientific outputs about authenticity. This might be due to the ongoing debates on the
conceptualisation of authenticity which creates more ambiguity than clarity, and ultimately
rendering authenticity too challenging to be operationalised robustly (Belhassen & Caton,
2006; Robinson & Clifford, 2012). Further, since the majority of authenticity studies were
conducted in ethnic restaurants which focus specifically on delivering the otherness in culture
and cuisines (Le et al., 2018, 2019), the role of the producer-organisation in constructing
authenticity cues has been largely neglected. Also, authenticity projected in such ethnic
restaurants is usually regarded as socially constructed, which is subject to the stereotyped,
symbolic and media-shaped images of ethnic cuisines from the diner’s perspective (Chhabra
et al., 2013a; 2013b; Cohen & Avieli, 2004; Kim et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2015; Magnini et al.,
84
2011). Overall, authenticity research in the restaurant context has comprised mostly of how
closely the cuisine and cultural elements resemble the cuisine and culture of the host country.
Interestingly, some other research while still focusing on authenticity in ethnic restaurants,
has started to embrace the potential for new business-related cues in constructing authentic
experiences, that is, the relationship between authenticity perception and brand equity
(Phung et al., 2019), ownership type as the antecedent of perceived authenticity (Kim et al.,
2019), and the coherence between the restaurant atmosphere and the food on offer (Luca et
al., 2018). The need for a more holistic comprehension of authenticity in restaurant
experiences is hereby evident, one that encompasses not only the core product of dining out
(the food), the delivery of cultural and ethnic elements (where relevant), the diners
themselves, but also the contribution of the producer-organisation (Le et al., 2020a). Although
there are a number of authenticity typologies and conceptualisations adopted in the previous
studies and specifically deeply-rooted in the tourism literature, this paper uses online reviews
to suggest some potential insights for enhancing authenticity understanding in restaurant
experiences. These potential insights will embrace values, characteristics and goals of the
underlying producers in co-creating these experiences.
2.2. Understanding Authenticity through Consumer Judgements
2.2.1. Authenticity Conceptualisations in Tourism
Authenticity research in the restaurant context usually adopts conceptualisations that are
directed by three key schools of thought: objectivism, constructivism, and existentialism
(Chhabra et al., 2013a, 2013b; Mkono, 2013a; Le et al., 2019). Appendix A outlines detailed
definitions of authenticity contextualised within tourism and are divided into the different
schools of thought. Apart from the aforementioned schools of thoughts, Appendix A also
depicts postmodernism, which is not discussed in detail in this study (advocates for
postmodernism can be found in Appendix A). This is because the deconstruction of the
authenticity concept (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006) is not relevant in the development of
consumers’ authenticity judgements. It is important to acknowledge however, that this
omission does not imply any irrelevance of postmodernism to underpin authenticity
conceptions in other domains. There have also been transitional and negotiated approaches
to authenticity which characterise the interaction of the authentic objects and the
85
experiences of the self, notably via the notion of theoplacity (Bellhassen et al., 2008) and
performative authenticity (Knudsen & Waade, 2010) (see Appendix A for further details).
These notions, however are primarily investigated in the pilgrimage and tourism context due
to the high engagement required with locals and tourism activities to create a sense of
communal belonging (Knudsen & Waade, 2010; Rickly-Boyd, 2012).
Authenticity following objectivist perspective usually refers to characteristics readily inherent
in an object/experience of Other such as origins, genuineness, flow of life, real thing, or
accurate presentation or replication of the past or traditions (Grayson & Martinec, 2004;
MacCannell, 1976; McIntosh & Prentice, 1999; Peterson, 2005). Cohen and Cohen (2012),
Jones (2010), and MacCannell and MacCannell (1993) further argue a positivistic set of criteria
from an authority or powerful party is needed to validate an object’s genuineness.
Constructivists however, argue that, even when a set of genuineness attributes of an object
has been agreed by a group of people in a society through the passage of time, it may well be
in the past that, those attributes did not unveil authenticity, or even in the most extreme case,
inauthenticity (Cohen, 1988). As a result, there is no absolute and static original on which the
authenticity of the originals can rely (Bruner, 1994). Authenticity hereby is ultimately an
output of how one sees things through one’s perspectives and interpretations (Wang, 1999).
Existentialists, on the other hand, support the realisation of true self. Although there have
been several connotations for this existential state, the most common sense terms observed
in the tourism literature are “tourists are not merely searching for authenticity of the Other”,
“they also search for the authenticity of, and between, themselves” (Wang, 1999, p. 364).
Authenticity in this sense denotes, for example, a sense of “self-discovery” (Cary, 2004, p. 63),
of having a hedonistic good time (Brown, 1996), of actively being involved in tourism activities
(Knudsen & Wade, 2010), a sensation of being “true to oneself” (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006, p.
299), and of an immediate relationship with others which helps culminate a sense of
communal belonging (Cary, 2004).
86
2.2.2. Consumer-Oriented Approach to Authenticity
Given the fact that authenticity in consumer research often reflects upon consumer
judgements (Hicks et al., 2019; Kolar & Zabcar, 2010; Kovács, 2019), would the fact that
whether the observed object/entity is objectively or constructively authentic be primary in
shaping consumer judgements? Consumer judgements about authenticity are influenced by
not only the objective properties of the thing (Kolar & Zabcar, 2010) or the person, but also
the consumers’ expertise and expectations (Belk & Costa, 1998) and their goals (Beverland &
Farrelly, 2009). As Kovács et al. (2014) puts it: “authenticity is ultimately not about facts per
se but rather about interpretations regarding those facts” (p. 460). Therefore, instead of
looking for the ultimate ideal state of authenticity inherent in the object, it seems more
appropriate to glean insights from consumers’ views in order to cater to their expectations
regarding authenticity.
One notable consumer-oriented approach to authenticity in tourism is adopted by Kolar and
Zabcar (2010), who propose a consumer-based model of authenticity in which the influences
and consequences of authentic experiences are investigated by taking into account two key
types of authenticity (object-based and existential authenticity). Although Kolar and Zabcar’s
model allows for examining the relatedness of authenticity by treating both types of perceived
authenticity as an evaluative judgement, it does not explain how, and in what ways consumers
form authenticity judgements. Further, the model only depicts how the antecedent and
consequential factors of authenticity are investigated based on questionnaire items that are
determined by preconceptions and expectations. These preconceptions and expectations
therefore may overlook important insights and dimensions informed by authenticity
judgements such as business-related cues in shaping authenticity perceptions. This paper
addresses this limitation, while supporting Kolar and Zabcar’s (2010) and Le et al.’s (2019)
argument about the consumer-oriented approach, that in consumer research, authenticity is
considered as a consumer-oriented concept because its research is implemented with the
ultimate goal of understanding consumer behaviour. Not only is this approach useful to
understand the demand perspective (how tourists perceive and express demand for
authenticity), but also to understand the supplier perspective (how practitioners realise and
fulfil consumers’ expectations of authenticity).
87
Other studies that embrace the consumer-oriented approach to inform authenticity
assessments in the general restaurant context (irrespective of ethnic background) have been
conducted by organisational management scholars (i.e. Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Demetry,
2019; Kovács et al., 2014, 2017; Kovács, 2019; Lehman et al., 2018, 2019; O’Connor et al.,
2019). Notably, Kovács (2019) uses the term “lay associations to authenticity” (p. 32) to
describe meanings and words considered authentic by laypeople – the consumers. In this
sense, the consumer-oriented approach remains closer to the raw data – the literal
interpretations of text and language to articulate the idea of authenticity from the consumer
viewpoint (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Kovács et al., 2014). This consumer-oriented approach
is applicable to authenticity studies regardless of the involvement of ethnic cuisines and
cultural elements. Following this approach, an entity is considered as authentic not only based
on the extent to which it conforms or connects to a cultural trait but also the degree to which
the entity reflects its inherent qualities (Kovács, 2019; Lehman et al., 2019). Among these
studies, only Demetry (2019) attempts to understand consumer-oriented authenticity from
the supplier perspective – the restaurant, more specifically, to examine how restaurants can
claim and project authenticity in a way that aligns with their customers’ varied understandings
and expectations.
Focusing on different meanings of authenticity to consumers, Carroll and Wheaton (2009) and
Carroll (2015) propose a conceptual framework that incorporates the organisational
construction in shaping consumers’ perceived authenticity, drawing inferences from food and
restaurant contexts. The authors argue that in modern societies, conformity with historical
usage and cultural elements is not by itself enough to arouse perceived authenticity and thus
does not deliver the strongest advantage for restaurant businesses. Four meanings of
authenticity were put forward: (1) type authenticity, where the concern involves whether an
entity is true to its associated type or category; (2) craft authenticity, which derives from type
authenticity and involves whether something is made using appropriate techniques and
ingredients; (3) moral authenticity, which refers to the generation of moral meaning about
the values and choices embedded in the object, implying that an organisation would be
authentic to the extent that it embodies the chosen values of its founders or owners; and (4)
idiosyncratic authenticity, which emerges from moral authenticity, and concerns whether
there is a commonly recognised quirkiness to the product or place. Carroll and Wheaton
88
(2009) argue, depending on which of the four meanings of authenticity is effective, the
attributes influencing the meanings will vary.
From a psychological point of view, Newman and Smith (2016) propose that authenticity
assessments can be classified into three typologies: historical, categorical, and values
authenticity. Specifically, historical authenticity is formed when an entity is believed to
physically connect or to possess the essence of a specific valued source, a person, or place.
Categorical authenticity refers to the evaluations in which an entity is seen to fit consumers’
existing beliefs or knowledge about a specific class or type. Finally, values authenticity is
associated with the degree to which the external expressions of an entity is consistent with
its internal state (Newman & Smith, 2016; Newman, 2019). As a result, when evaluating values
authenticity, consumers are less likely to attend to the immediate and physical properties of
the object or the experience, rather, they assess it in relation to the values, characteristics,
goals, and intentions of the producer (Hahl, 2016; Mazutis & Slawinski, 2015).
The aforementioned authors (Carroll, 2015; Carroll & Wheaton, 2009; Newman, 2019;
Newman & Smith, 2016) have attempted to converge numerous different authenticity
conceptualisations (including conceptualisations in tourism) in a more streamlined and
manageable set of typologies and incorporate the role of the producer-organisation in
constructing perceived authenticity (thus authenticity judgements). It is still unclear, however,
how and in what ways these authenticity typologies and meanings are formed in consumers’
mind. Understanding the mechanisms and attributes that attract consumers’ attention to
establish authenticity judgements of an entity, specifically contextualised within the
restaurant experiences, will offer significant insights on how certain authenticity dimensions
are formed. This will also help inform any emerging aspects of authenticity overlooked in the
existing literature. By adopting a consumer-oriented approach to authenticity, the purpose of
the paper is to examine how consumers form perceptions of authenticity by analysing
authenticity judgements.
89
3. Methodology
Considering the key focus of this paper is consumer judgements and how they inform
perceived authenticity, this study used online restaurant reviews as the data source to
represent consumer judgements. Indeed, adopting the consumer-oriented approach to
authenticity highlights the importance of staying closer to consumer-generated data (the
evaluations that reflect their perceived authenticity). Conventional consumer evaluation
surveys in restaurants often provide little insight into consumer dining experiences, not to
mention the response bias if consumers are in proximity with the service deliverer at the time
of completing the surveys (Mkono, 2012). Online restaurant reviews on the other hand appear
to be a readily available data source provided on a purely voluntary basis and offer rich
insights about consumers’ experiences and perceptions (Chhabra et al., 2013a; Le et al., 2019;
Zhang & Hanks, 2018). For this paper, consumer judgements about authenticity were
identified by capturing key terms describing authenticity and associated restaurant attributes
contained in the reviews. Using authenticity terms to detect authenticity judgements in online
reviews has been implemented in several restaurant studies (e.g. Kovács et al., 2014, 2017;
Lehman et al., 2014, 2018, 2019; O’Connor et al., 2017). The following section illustrates the
identification of authenticity judgements in online restaurant reviews conducted by a pre-
study, from which the detected judgements were used for data sampling and analysis in the
current paper.
3.1. Pre-Study: Identification of Authenticity Judgements
Prior to this paper’s primary data sampling and analysis, a dataset of 1,048,575 online
restaurant reviews was scraped from Zomato, a popular restaurant review platform in
Australia. The challenge of identifying authenticity judgements in online reviews is that they
can be expressed using different authenticity terms, and these terms are usually mentioned
in relation to different restaurant attributes (so-called AU-RA pairs). As a result, to identify an
extensive list of authenticity terms and associated restaurant attributes (thus AU-RA pairs)
used by consumers in online restaurant reviews, an integrated learning approach proposed
by Le et al. (2020b, 2020d) was employed. The identification of authenticity terms and
associated restaurant attributes (and AU-RA pairs) have generated 88 authenticity terms (see
Table 1) and eight restaurant attributes identified in the dataset (i.e. Ambience &
90
Atmosphere; Establishment Type; Ethnicity & Destination; Experience; Food & Drink; Other
Customers; Restaurant Business; and Service). It should be noted that the identification of
authenticity terms also included all derivatives.
Table 1. List of Authenticity Terms.
amateurish ambitious artful artificial artisan assuming authentic bogus careful caring cheat classic conventional crafted craftsmanship creative deadset deceitful
deceptive dinky-di ersatz ethical ethnic exotic expert extroverted fair-dinkum faithful faked false feigned forgery fusion genuine heartfelt historical
hoax home-made home-style homey honest house-made humbug iconic idiosyncratic imitation impostor inspiring inspired integrity inventive legitimate master chef misleading
mistakable modern moral native offbeat old-fashioned original orthodox outlandish peculiar phony pretentious professional pure quack quirky quintessential real
replicate ridgy-didge scam sham sincere skilful skilled specialty traditional true-blue truthful typical unique usual wholesome workmanship
Reviews in the dataset were subsequently split into sentences. Corresponding words for the
eight restaurant attributes were searched within review sentences containing authenticity
terms (rather than the entire review) to minimise the probability of too many restaurant
attributes being picked up at a time. Review sentences containing authenticity terms and
restaurant attributes (AU-RA pairs) therefore were considered as authenticity judgements.
The scanning process resulted in 704 AU-RA pairs contained in 679,310 review sentences
which were used to represent authenticity judgements. A list of pairs containing the
authenticity term and the restaurant attribute category (AU-RA Pairs). The reviews were
stored concurrently with their corresponding sentences to obtain deeper insights when
needed and these sentences/authenticity judgements now serve as the data for the current
paper.
91
3.2. Quota Sampling and Thematic Analysis
The research was based on an interpretivist paradigm that suggests reality and knowledge
are constructed and reproduced through communication, interaction and practice (Tracy,
2013). Within the interpretive paradigm, researchers can understand the subjects' social
world and broaden knowledge of phenomena through their varied interpretations,
experiences, and different social perspectives (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This is also in line with
the consumer-oriented approach to authenticity adopted in this study which emphasises the
interpretations of text and languages to articulate the idea of authenticity from the consumer
viewpoint. A qualitative approach was therefore employed to attain a rich and comprehensive
understanding of consumers’ perceived authenticity in restaurants, and to capture the
mechanisms developing their perceptions of authenticity by using authenticity judgements
identified in online restaurant reviews.
Following the adoption of the qualitative approach, quota sampling was employed, in which
the subjects – the authenticity judgements were selected non-randomly according to a fixed
quota based on specific characteristics (Coleman & Multon, 2018). Accordingly, the quota is
based on the proportion of subclasses in the population. In this study, quota sampling was
conducted as follows: (a) divide 679,310 review sentences (which were identified in the 4.1
Pre-study section) into subclasses according to the contained AU-RA pairs; (b) determine the
proportion for each subclass (AU-RA pair) in 679,310 review sentences; (c) choose a sample
size of roughly 33,966 review sentences (5% of the whole dataset); (d) calculate the quota for
each subclass (AU-RA pair) that was proportional to 679,310 review sentences; and (e) select
the review sentences until the quotas were completed and data saturation was achieved. It
should be noted that the chosen sample size was only for estimation purposes because the
sampling was stopped as soon as recurrent themes and dimensions were identified and
saturated (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Thematic analysis was subsequently conducted on the selected review sentences to identify
recurrent patterns (Baumgartner & Schneider, 2010; Braun & Clarke, 2006; Floersch et al.,
2010; Gupta & Levenburg, 2010). This independent qualitative approach is mainly described
as a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) emerging from the
data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis consisted of three steps as follows: (1) the
92
review sentences were read and reread to help familiarise with the themes in the data; (2)
manual coding was used including generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing
themes, and defining and naming themes; and (3) illustrative quotes were highlighted for
theme reference and supportive evidence in the discussion of findings (Note: In the discussion
of findings, quotations were provided as they appeared on the restaurant review site, and
were not edited for typographical and/or grammatical errors. This was done to avoid the
possibility of misrepresenting consumers’ judgements.)
For instance, from the 5% of the 679,310 review sentences, the quota for each of the 704 AU-
RA pairs was calculated using the frequency of these AU-RA pairs in the 679,310 review
sentences. The quota for some most common AU-RA pairs include authentic - Food & Drink
(737), honest - Food & Drink (526), genuine – Service (667), unique - Ambience & Atmosphere
(210), and authentic - Ambience & Atmosphere (180). Once quota for all AU-RA pairs was
computed, the review sentences containing each AU-RA pairs were examined carefully and
the researcher will determine when to stop browsing the review sentences and then finalise
the quota for that pair once data saturation was achieved. This means that the sampling and
thematic analysis process were co-occurring and the quota was not finalised until there had
been a saturated number of themes recorded for that particular AU-RA pair.
4. Findings and Discussion
Through the examination of online reviews, judgements about authenticity were formed by
evaluating the observed entity through different authenticity cues, as illustrated in Table 2.
These authenticity cues were classified into six groups including: (1) connecting with histories,
events, valued places and persons; (2) conforming to the standards of existing knowledge
about categories and types; (3) deviated from the existing knowledge/belief; (4) reflecting
inherent qualities and characteristics of the observed entity; (5) reflecting values, intentions
and goals of the observed entity; and (6) reflecting the consumer’s self and connectedness.
Through the close examination of consumers’ authenticity judgements, three interesting
findings emerged. First, when evaluating the authenticity of an object, consumers use existing
knowledge as a point of comparison, which either results in conforming to normal norms and
knowledge of existing categories and types, or deviations from existing knowledge. Second,
93
by highlighting these deviations, consumers imply a convergence between deviations and
knowledge of existing categories and types, as well as between deviations and inherent
qualities and characteristics of the observed entity in shaping authenticity judgements. Third,
these deviations often may serve as catalysts for the realisation of self. These findings will be
subsequently discussed in the relevant following sub-sections.
Table 2. Themes emerging from data.
Dimension Authenticity Cue
Authenticity of the Other* Connection with Histories, Events, Valued Places & Persons
Conformity to Existing Knowledge of Categories & Types
Deviations from Existing Knowledge of Categories & Types**
Authenticity of the Producer* Reflection of Inherent Qualities & Characteristics
Reflection of Values, Intentions & Goals
Authenticity of the Self Reflection of One’s Self
* New/Modified dimension from data; ** New/Modified authenticity cue from data.
4.1. Connection with Histories, Events, Valued Places and Persons
Consumers from the review sample develop authenticity judgements based on an entity’s
connection with histories, events, origins, valued places and persons. Evaluating authenticity
through an entity’s connection with some of these cues is considered as strongest evidence
for the existence of objective authenticity (Wang, 1999). However, the connections can be
physical or symbolic; the more physical the connection is, the more objective the evaluation
will be in the objectivism spectrum (Wang, 1999).
Consumers appreciate connections to valued past and historical events when asserting
authenticity judgements. Interestingly, these authenticity cues are not concerned much with
food or ethnic cuisines the restaurant delivers, but with the restaurant surrounding and
design, the founding history, and the story of its name associated with a valued
event/timeline in the past. Some statements also link the event/timeline with valued persons
that make the connections more comprehendible and credible. For example:
This unique vantage point, the original home of the Borogegal people, was early sourced
by the British colonists in the 19th century for defence of Sydney Harbour… Way back,
94
after the arrival of Governor Macquarie, he commenced a farm here under the charge
of Bungaree...
The connection with valued persons that founded the establishment or whom the
establishment was named after is used as a tool to assert authenticity judgements. These
connections are verifiable and therefore highly objective as it can be observed in a reviewer’s
comment:
The origins of the iconic Dymocks Building dates back to 1879 when young William
Dymock opened a bookstore in nearby Market Street. The Dymocks Family then bought
the site of the current building and created the art deco masterpiece that stands today.
Another reviewer connected a valued person with the restaurant’s name:
The name pays tribute to the origin of the building and homage to the patron Martyr
Saint of cobblers.
Also, the restaurant surroundings is considered as an authenticity cue when the location has
physical connections with valued persons e.g. “This was Charles Henry James home and is the
iconic location for Theo Krambias ode to the man. Mr James was somewhat of a Melbourne
socialite, spruiking the potential and vision for the northern suburbs during Melbourne halcyon
gold rush years”; or with valued places e.g. “The Moores Building is a recognised historical
landmark in Western Australia, a merchant business owned by William Moore operated from
the site in 1868”. There is also a case that exhibits a high level of objective authenticity thus
can be related to cool authentication (Cohen & Cohen, 2012). The reviewer in this case was
aware of a formal certification granted to the restaurant as a result of meeting certain
predetermined standards or qualifications (Morrison et al., 1992):
DOC Mornington is the peninsula outpost of the Carlton original restaurant … DOC is an
Italian certification of origin and location (like you can only make 'Champagne' in that
region - anything else is 'Sparkling').
These connections have a factual and spatiotemporal link with the cues (Grayson & Martinec,
2004) which are often presented by the restaurant in the background story and are verifiable.
In some cases, reviewers were found to perceive authenticity in restaurants that show a
strong connection to the localness (Cohen & Avieli, 2004; Sims, 2009; Skinner et al., 2020),
thus asserting objective authenticity judgement e.g. “The focus on localness extends beyond
95
the food and into the interiors of the venue, with native Australian plants adorning the original
sandstone walls”. One reviewer associated the presence of Aboriginals as strong evidence for
the ‘Aussieness’; “Aboriginal youth is trained and employed by this Fitzroy gem that
specializes on truly Aussie ingredients for their mainly grill menu”. The objectivity of these
judgements however cannot be compared with the previous physical connections, which can
be verified by historical documents.
Often the authenticity cues portrayed in the restaurant do not guarantee positive experiences
because its naming story is related to a controversial event:
I have been putting off dining in this restaurant despite very positive reviews, mainly
because it takes its name (and iconic imagery) from the notorious sister-in-law and wife
of the brothers who ran South Vietnam and brutally oppressed majority Buddhists in the
1960s (Google her name and you'll see what I mean).
This connection, however, is rather symbolic, that is, even though the restaurant may not
have anything to do with the event, it still creates a strong sense of connection with the event
due to the adverse effect of insensitive associations. Some other symbolic forms of
connections reflect a true replication/resemblance of origins (Grayson & Martinec, 2004),
possessing many traditions (Beverland et al., 2008; Tasci & Knutson, 2004) or show signs of
preserving original and heritage features (Bruner, 1994). These connections, unsurprisingly,
are deemed more challenging to verify with confidence:
Exposed brick walls are stencilled with murals depicting Hahndorf's historical German
past.
Love this place so much, not least because of its beautiful story based around Nagaland's
tradition of sharing a community feast to celebrate.
Valued persons were also used to inform symbolic connections (Bruner 1994, Grayson &
Martinec, 2004):
The restaurant is located on the site of the first Government house in Australia, this
historical link is reflected in both the menu and the decor… Working with a colonial
gastronomer, Chef Adler has been able to creatively weave certain elements from days
of Governor Arthur Phillip into the menu.
96
One may classify this as constructive authenticity or symbolic authenticity (Culler, 1981) since
the elements match the observer’s expectations of how certain items from Governor Arthur
Phillip’s days should look. However, the restaurant’s historical location (“the first Government
house in Australia”) which has physical connection with Governor Arthur Phillip make it more
challenging to put this assessment as entirely constructive. The blurred line between
objective and constructive authenticity can further be emphasised through a valued person
who has nothing to do with historical events; “It's a special and unique tea room and is
connected to the Jane Austen society”. In this case, the connection with the valued person
takes a most symbolic form since this is not a tearoom created by Jane Austen, but themed
based on Jane Austen’s characters:
The rooms are beautiful and are themed after Austen's favorite characters including
Emma and Mr Darcy. What makes the Austen Tea room different is Eileen the owner. A
Jane Austen enthusiasts she knows everything there is to know about Austen's history
and 5 minutes alone with her and you are transported to a time and place long
forgotten.
Thus for the above reviewer, the Austen Tea Room reflects a true and trustworthy
presentation of Jane Austen’s history and society, hence can be considered as a form of
constructive authenticity judgement (Bruner, 1994). However, postmodernists can argue the
themes and Austen history background in the tearoom are not real since they are born from
imagination, thus hyperreal (Eco, 1986). Does the judgement become more objectively
authentic if the tearoom has physical connection with Jane Austen, or is it still a hyper-reality
because of the fictional characters? The attempt of separating theoretical distinctions here
tends to become problematic and they contradict the entity’s ‘realness’ in the consumer’s
eyes. The distinction between physical and symbolic connections seems also not apparent
enough to distinguish objective from constructive authenticity, rather, being more or less
verifiable would be more appropriate to evaluate the objectivity of the cues. The physical
and/or symbolic connections in these excerpts are mentioned in relation with the external
references (i.e. histories, events, valued places and persons), therefore shaping authenticity
of the Other, which is external to the consumers themselves.
97
4.2. Conformity to Existing Knowledge of Categories and Types
Authenticity judgements in the sample can also be formed by assessing the observed essence
of an entity against the consumer’s knowledge about a category or type such as the
cuisine/ethnicity in question. Specifically, the reviewers used their knowledge and social
norms about the target cuisine/ethnicity as a point of comparison. Evaluating authenticity in
such way can be considered as constructive authenticity (Wang, 1999), type authenticity
(Carroll & Wheaton, 2009), and categorical authenticity (Newman & Smith, 2016). The notion
that authenticity is pluralistic, relative to individuals’ backgrounds and experiences who may
have their own way of assessing and interpreting authenticity (Littrell et al, 1993; Pearce &
Moscardo, 1985) demonstrates applicability in this type of judgement. These constructive
authenticity judgements tend to be concerning with a cuisine, a type of dish, the ethnic
appearance of staff, customers and décor.
Reviewers often evaluated the essence of a dish or a restaurant with that of the original in
the country of origin. The level of perceived authenticity varied upon individuals’ experiences
and knowledge of that type. For instance, one reviewer put that:
So unlike a few other reviews I’ve seen here, I’m going to attempt to avoid any
comparisons of authenticity with those in Japan (an absolute baseless exercise, because
in case one has not noticed, Minashima is in Melbourne for starters)...
Another reviewer commented on the authenticity of a Spanish restaurant outside of Spain:
It's the closest to being authentic outside of Spain and for the price, quality, service and
general vibe of the place...
These reviewers placed a significant emphasis on the restaurant location as the strongest
authenticity cue. To them, restaurants outside the country of origin should not be considered
as authentic, e.g. “an absolute baseless exercise”, or alternatively, it should only be “the
closest to being authentic”. Another reviewer was in doubt about their authenticity
judgement due to her/his lack of experiences; “But seriously this is a great casual Japanese
option it feels authentic (but I haven't been to Japan so what do I know?)”. Some others
formed authenticity assessments of a dish by comparing it with the original they had in the
host country; “Nobody Japanese would like this ramen, and it doesn't taste anything like
authentic ramen from anywhere I've been to in Japan”; or simply comparing with the
98
authentic version they had before; “Szechuan pork mince was average because I've had the
authentic version before and had felt like the corn topped the mince instead”. The prior
experiences with the country of origin and the authentic version (or at least they perceive it
to be) therefore shape certain standards of how a dish or a restaurant should appear to be
evaluated as authentic. These individual experiences tend to add more weight to the
objectivity and trustworthy of the constructive authenticity judgements.
Some other reviewers formed authenticity judgements based on certain ethnic elements a
restaurant portrayed regarding a particular cuisine type as supported by Carroll and Wheaton
(2009). These reflections are indeed iconic (Grayson & Martinec, 2004) and fit with social
norms and expectations of the cuisine type in terms of taste, e.g. “The lobak, very nice and
flavoursome, taste like the Malaysian type, like the crispy skin”, and cooking method, e.g.
“Some of the yakitori was offering tare or salt which was a good touch and a sign of
authenticity”. Staff appearance was also a strong authenticity cue in ethnic restaurants: “The
people working in the restaurant are all Thai people- that makes it authentic”. The clientele,
e.g. “Most of the diners were speaking in Italian which surely is testament to the authenticity
of this venue!”, and ethnic décor, e.g. “Terracotta walls, red-and-white checked table cloths,
green vines and white-washed statues all add to its authentic feel”, appear as common
authenticity cues as evidenced in the existing literature (Chhabra et al., 2013b; Cohen & Avieli,
2004; Kim & Baker, 2017; Wang & Mattila, 2015).
Often, the authenticity of an ethnicity was evaluated based on how well the observed entity
fitted with symbolic, stereotypical images and values shaped by individual beliefs or mass
media (Bruner, 1991; Culler, 1981). For instance, being authentically Italian means “staying
true to authentic Italian principles of good quality, well cooked food, friendly service and
simple décor” or being authentically Cantonese carries symbolic meaning of being casual and
cheap eats, sometimes less hygienic e.g. “If you want "authentic" Cantonese identified with a
cheap eat and oil stained walls - go to Chinatown”. In regard to the later, oiliness (or even
dirtiness) has been commonly symbolised as an essential feature of good and authentic
Chinese restaurants (Hirose & Pih, 2011; Moufakkir, 2017) that might inhibit perceived
authenticity in many fine-dining Chinese establishments.
99
However, not every category or type examined was concerned with ethnicity. As long as the
observed essence conformed to the consumer’s expectations of the type, it could be
considered as authentic e.g. “Inside and out, the place has a cool vibe - very authentic hipster”.
This reviewer therefore assessed the authenticity of the vibe by acknowledging the
conformity to the social norms of how hipster subculture should look like. In another example,
a vibe could be associated with a place/city that turn the place/city into a type e.g. “For the
space alone, it's worth taking guests from out of town to get an authentic Melbourne vibe
from one place alone”. As a result, the consumer perceives the vibe as authentic if it fits the
consumer’s expectations of the Melbourne vibe. These expectations and beliefs about
existing types and categories that are external to consumers characterise the representation
of the otherness, thus shaping authenticity of the Other.
4.3. Deviations from Existing Knowledge of Categories and Types
Using existing knowledge about categories and types as a point of comparison, consumers in
the sample recognised there were times that the observed essence did not conform to any
expectations and knowledge of a category or type. This state of being unusual however does
not imply a lack of authenticity of the entity, rather, it implies a uniqueness/distinctiveness
that is necessary to differentiate the establishment with other competitors. The
uncommonness acknowledged by consumers emerge with several variations, with the
observed entity reflects abnormal essence that departs from people’s commonly accepted
standards, thus is also considered as shaping authenticity of the Other.
The first and obvious level of abnormality is that the essence possessed by the observed entity
does not fit any expectations of any existing types, hence cannot be labelled or related to any
category e.g. “The wine list is restricted in size and idiosyncratic in style (read not a choice of
grapes/styles to suit all palates)”. In this review, the observed entity was the wine list, while
the essence in consideration was the style. Sometimes reviewers went further to commend
this strangeness highly e.g. “The atmosphere is fab too...intimate and a little bit quirky...a
much needed addition to the Docklands”. This strangeness was also considered as essential
for fulfilling the diversity in taste; “…St James has been open to create something truly unique
and to ensure that they cater to all different tastes and dietary requirements”. It can be seen
from these excerpts that the notion of strangeness/unusualness mentioned by the consumers
100
is abstract, relative, unverifiable and shaped by their own subjective opinions and experiences
they have with the entity.
The state of being unusual can also emerge once consumers observe the entity and compare
it with the other existing versions of the same type. These judgements therefore tend to be
more observant and relational to the consumers’ existing experiences and knowledge of a
type or category e.g. “It still had that unique Beatbox Kitchen flavour to it that stands out from
a lot of other burger places around”. Authenticity judgements in the sample often evidenced
how the observed entity had unusual features that departed from normal norms and
standards of a type e.g. “I ordered an offbeat burger - made of Tempura fried soft shell crab,
and tempered with wasabi mayo and seaweed slaw”.
Further, the uncommon feature of an entity could eventually become popular and conforms
to socially constructed beliefs of an existing category e.g. “However with the minimalistic
interior design (I expected the brilliantly outlandishness and tackiness common to African
establishments) and the triple J soundtrack doesn't help”, or become the repeated unusual
features of a suburb/city e.g. “I particularly like bringing friends and family from out of state
because this place depicts the quirky, eccentric atmosphere of Fitzroy perfectly!”, which turns
them into a standard/common characteristic that is usually referred to when people try to
classify an entity. This pattern seems to align with Cohen’s (1988) emergent authenticity, a
gradual authentication process in which something regarded as inauthentic at a certain point
in the past, but eventually becomes authentic or iconic as a result of social construction. The
key difference is that, the deviations from social norms and standards do not necessarily
appear to be inauthentic (as emerges in the notion of emergent authenticity), rather, they
are beneficial to help the establishments ‘stand out from the crowd’.
Often, these deviations were also referred to as inherent characteristics of the entity by
reviewers; “A colleague suggested this place because of quirkiness, service quality and variety
and quality of food”. This quirkiness/unusualness was implied as a characteristic of the place,
which has been or will be accepted as a common norm of the place: “They can be slow and
the place has just its own idiosyncrasies”. The convergence between the deviations from usual
norms and the perceived inherent characteristics of the entity was more apparent when it
101
comes to acknowledging the entity’s quirkiness. The quirkiness can come from staff
personality, e.g. “Friendly Italian staff that all seem to be a bit older and quirky”, restaurant
vibe, e.g. “The quirky, organic vibe of Boy has changed - its now taken on the vibe of its hipster
sister Lazerpig”; or restaurant surroundings, e.g. “Idiosyncratic and cosy shopfront restaurant,
we heard about it on the grapevine, for its breakfasts”. This link suggests the unconformity of
the observed entity perceived by consumers might also be considered as the feature
possessed by the entity itself. This feature over time can become a distinctive character of
the entity and helps the entity distinguish itself from the other sameness. This no doubt plays
an important role in determining the authenticity of any entity/object.
4.4. Reflection of Inherent Qualities and Characteristics
Reviewers in the sample also asserted the importance of the entity portraying its inherent
qualities and characteristics as a cue to inform authenticity judgements. These judgements
once again are subjective from the consumer’s observation and viewpoint; however, the
judgements are formed only if the essence is believed to depict an honest or true reflection
of the entity. In other words, the observed entity exemplifies features and qualities that
makes it appear ‘true to itself’ (Gilmore & Pine, 2007), that is the consistency between its
internal state and the external expressions (Newman, 2019). Due to the dominant
examination of consistency, the judgements derived from this type of evaluation can be
considered as authenticity of the producer. The producer here denotes the observed entity
possessing the inherent/internal state and generating (or producing) the external
expressions.
As mentioned earlier, the observed entity (or the producer) here is not limited to the
restaurant itself, but also includes the food, atmosphere, staff, and the service. For instance,
one reviewer commented about the honesty of the food; “Don't come here looking for
gourmet, cos what you get is honest simple tasty food at a good price”. Another one used
unpretentiousness as a quality for honest good food; “The food here is not only delicious but
it was honest without the pretentious elements to make it look like what it is not”.
In these cases, the food itself portrays the honesty in production which makes it appear
authentic, not by the fact that it represents a cuisine or is prepared by a particular traditional
102
method. In another instance, one asserted; “I had the pork belly which despite a grandiose
description turned out to be an uninspired bowl of pork beans and spinach”, indicating an
inauthentic/inconsistent appearance that does not align with the description. This type of
authenticity can be referred to as expressive authenticity (Dutton, 2003) and aligns with
Gilmore and Pine’s (2007) principles of authenticity: “Is the offering what it says it is?” (p. 97).
The simplicity, e.g. “it was a good, honest dish without being anything too fancy”, and
consistency of food, e.g. “this small little restaurant succeeded thru the fact they were always
fresh, full of flavour and authentic” appeared to be commonly used qualities to inform
authenticity judgements in restaurants. In contrast, the present inconsistency can cause a
negative impression for consumers e.g. “They should change the name of the restaurant now
and not spoil the name that was remembered for quality and home made cooking”.
Human elements in restaurants appeared to be the most frequently observed entity used to
assess if there is a true reflection of inherent qualities and characteristics. These included
staff, owner and service in the establishments. For example, one defined authenticity as:
"Authentic" comes to mind, which could equally be a word to describe the down-to-earth
nature of the restaurant owner and staff itself.
Some other reviewers regarded the authenticity of staff as being unpretentious, genuine and
sincere e.g. “Awesome crew who are down to earth and unpretentious”, and service e.g.
“Service is unobtrusive and genuine”. Indeed, the genuine and sincere service has been
mentioned in the hospitality literature as a way to improve authenticity thus customer
satisfaction (Bujisic et al., 2014; Grandey et al., 2015); however, little has been done to
incorporate sincerity in service to conceptualise authenticity in restaurant experiences.
Sincerity is also considered as an example of authenticity in the objectivist approach
(Beverland, 2006; Taylor, 2001), yet, the sincerity here is subject to the consumer’s belief and
observation, thus is not entirely objective (to put it correctly, objective in the consumer’s
mind). Consumers also assert authenticity judgements through the reflected genuine
enthusiasm of the owners e.g. “Its owned by Renton Carlyle-Taylor, Neil Mills and Phil Gijsbers
who bring a wealth of hospitality experience to the venture, along with a genuine passion for
good beer”.
103
Apart from the sincerity in service, consumers in the sample also assessed authenticity via the
consistency between the internal state and external expression of the entity. This consistency
can be assessed through consumers’ subjective feelings for the establishment, through which
the establishment is not staged, nor does it pretend to be something else e.g. “Came in for
Saturday brunch with some friends and was blown away by the originality of this place”. The
“originality” mentioned here has nothing to do with any traditions or cuisines but reflects the
care and genuine element possessed by the owner that is not interfered with by
pretentiousness or predominant financial motives. As one reviewer put it; “Since the change
of management the place has lost it's authentic feel. The new owner seems very fake and
money hungry”. The owner’s pretentiousness or alleged monetary motives detected by the
consumers in this case can also be considered as a failure to project the owner’s (or the
producer’s) true self/identity, and as an attempt to conceal their true intentions of
maximising profits.
4.5. Reflection of Values, Intentions and Goals
Sometimes, reviewers in the sample were less likely to attend to the immediate properties or
characteristics of the entity and are more likely to evaluate it in relation to values and goals
of the producer when developing authenticity judgements. This type of judgement therefore
reflects strongly the perception of authenticity of the producer. This can be moral and ethical
values portrayed by the establishment:
I love the ethical part of their business especially the support for the MS society each
year and rotating local art exhibitions;
or through sustainability practices of the business:
I love everything Monk Bodhi Dharma stands for: ethical, sustainable food with soul,
brilliant coffee and tea;
or the expression of ethical values from the offerings:
With an environmentally conscious twist, Small Print is a unique pizza joint that places
special emphasis on utilising whole ingredients, minimising waste and recycling pizza
boxes.
These examples can be related to the notion of moral authenticity as the attention to
“whether the decisions behind the enactment and operation of an entity reflect sincere
104
choices (i.e., choices true to one’s self)” (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009, p. 255). When assessing
moral authenticity, consumers are likely to consider whether the producer establishment
seems genuinely committed to their offering by reflecting moral and ethical values (Beverland
et al., 2008). Such judgements are based on consumers’ experiences with the establishment’s
practices, for example:
I am a Seniors card holder in NSW…This practice must be stopped and this institution
made accountable for its actions and either supply seniors with a true discount on
regular dishes or be honest about what it is actually doing which is making profit out of
seniors by supplying smaller helpings.
Such assessments exemplify how the establishments’ offerings accurately represent the
implicitly or explicitly stated sets of values, thus can be considered as values authenticity
(Newman & Smith, 2016). These judgements still are relative and laid in the eyes of consumers
(despite convincing evidence provided), since it is hard to determine if the values and the
consistency perceived by the consumers simply reflect an effective marketing strategy or they
are indeed the sincerity of morals. Often, if the moral and ethical values are practised by
establishments of a same ethnic type (e.g. Mexican, Japanese), these values tend to become
socially constructed norms for that type of restaurant. For example, for restaurants delivering
the same ethnic cuisine, the one with more ethical values and practices becomes a benchmark
for the others:
Overall, good Mexican takeaway - perhaps just behind GYG and Zambrero because of
their lack of apparent ethical and social outreach (I.e. free-range chicken available at
GYG, and Zambrero offers free meals to the disadvantaged).
Apart from evaluating the consistency between producers’ values and their practices,
authenticity judgements are also formed through the acknowledgement of sincere efforts
and intentions that the producers put into the offerings. One reviewer commented:
Sarmic has a great appreciation for flavour balance - supported by home made relishes,
sauces and jams.
The producer’s passion and care were also acknowledged through consumers’ judgements of
authenticity:
105
A lot of thought and care is put into the dish and I noticed Chef Gokan making an effort
to come out of the kitchen where possible to mingle with guests which is perfect in terms
of the way many in the area like to connect with their favorite food place.
Further, consumers assert authenticity judgements through the careful choices and high level
of detail that goes into the preparation of the dishes that shows the “care” element:
It is a delicate, well balanced, throughly thought-out, and carefully constructed dish,
that delivers on flavour and texture.
The deviation elements were also mentioned in relation to the intentions of the producer:
So much attention to detail in plating, play around with different elements and creating
something unique;
however, such intentions sometimes can cause criticism:
The flavours were weird like it was trying too hard to be "unique".
Their idea is probably trying to be unique in what they do by offering a selection of
flavours, but gelato is something else.
This pattern suggests that when evaluating the authenticity of restaurant experiences,
consumers also pay attention to the producers’ intentions and values and how these are
reflected through the business practices, apart from solely focusing on how closely the food,
the cuisine or the restaurant décor resemble the culture and cuisine they claim to deliver.
4.6. Reflection of One’s Self and Connectedness
Not only do consumers in the sample observe the entity to make authenticity judgements
about the otherness or the producer, they also make judgements about themselves. This can
be informed through the reflection of the consumer’s self or through the perceived
connectedness when observing the entity that is external to the consumer. The realisation of
true self and the sense of connectedness have been extensively examined and illustrated in
the existing literature through intrapersonal and interpersonal existential authenticity (Cary,
2004; Rickly-Boyd, 2012; Wang, 1999). For instance, intrapersonal authenticity achieved
through bodily feelings and perceptive spatial-temporal transition was illustrated in the
following reviews:
106
This unique abode is a snug escape from the bustling energy of Glenferrie Road and the
displayed collection of photographed travel conquests will have you daydreaming about
other worlds.
This unique dining experience gives guests the opportunity to not only enjoy stunning
city views through ceiling high window but also imagine themselves dining as Van Gogh
did in the South of France.
It's white brick walls and hanging plants fill me with a sense of pure contentedness and
bliss not unlike the feeling you get when you stargaze or watch ducks slowly paddle in a
pond.
These judgements express a state of existential inauthenticity or alienation (Rickly-Boyd,
2012), which is both spiritual and bodily. The body in these excerpts has altered “its routine
existence and enters an alternative, yet intensified, experiential state”, which denotes
authenticity in the existential sense (Wang, 1999, p. 362), or so-called authenticity of the self.
The self-realisation is also demonstrated through the acknowledgement of the uniqueness
that consumers cannot find in everyday lives, or at least in their monotonous experiences,
something that they have been yearning for:
In Melbourne I always find myself searching for more.. for an atmosphere that I only
usually discover in Greece or Italy...for a uniqueness that absorbs me.. I have found
exactly what I thought was simply impossible here.
I absolutely adore this place it reminds me of everything I yearn for that I simply have
not found anywhere else.. nor here in Melbourne nor in Perth.
These examples exemplify an emerging pattern in that deviations or abnormality might act as
trigger points for the existential state of ‘being’. Further, authenticity as nostalgia (Berger,
1973) where people are supposed to be freer, more innocent and truer to themselves was
presented:
The food is authentic and so so so delicious, the atmosphere makes me feel like I'm
backpacking in Poland again and the bar... oh my God.
These nostalgic judgements associated with the consumer’s experiences with object or the
otherness suggest the realisation of the self can be triggered by the consumption of the object
107
or the otherness (Belhassen et al., 2008; Jones, 2010; Kolar & Zabcar, 2010; Reisinger &
Steiner, 2006).
Not only intrapersonal, but also interpersonal authenticity was portrayed in consumers’
judgements. This was shown via the consumers’ emotional bonds with the restaurant that
makes them feel intimacy, such as in family ties, as put forward by Wang (1999) or as a sense
of belonging (Belhassen et al.; 2008; Buchmann et al., 2010; Rickly-Boyd, 2012):
If you go often you become family and feel like you are stepping into you own little Italian
getaway.
Eating the meal felt like an instant trip to somewhere in Ireland; like sitting in front of a
fireplace on a rainy day, eating an Irish granny's dish cooked with love and very generous
handfuls of everything.
These reviewers therefore perceived a sense of connectedness with the restaurant, which can
be triggered through the acknowledgement of the restaurant’s sincere service and genuine
personality; in other words, by recognising authenticity of the producer.
5. Conclusion and Implications
This paper assists in understanding how consumers perceive authenticity in restaurant
experiences by examining online restaurant reviews containing authenticity judgements. In
doing so, the research demonstrates that consumers’ perception of authenticity is
communicated as a form of authenticity judgements, in which various entities in the
restaurant are observed and evaluated against six criteria concerning with: (1) connection
with histories, events, valued places and persons; (2) conformity to existing knowledge of
categories and types; (3) deviations from existing knowledge of categories and types; (4)
reflection of inherent qualities and characteristics of the observed entity; (5) reflection of
values, intentions and goals of the observed entity; and (6) reflection of the consumer’s self
and connectedness. By incorporating these authenticity cues in consumers’ assessment of
authenticity, Figure 1 depicts a demonstration of consumers’ authenticity judgements in
restaurant experiences.
108
As mentioned earlier, this research adopts a consumer-oriented approach to authenticity to
examine consumers’ authenticity judgements using online reviews. These judgements
therefore are initiated by the consumers observing various entities in the restaurant setting.
The entity being observed are the restaurant attributes (as identified in the pre-study) that
are external from the consumer’s self. These entities can include the food, the experience, or
the establishment/restaurant, the service provider (e.g. waiter/waitress, chef, manager, and
owner). Often consumers observe not only the entity but also the essence possessed by the
entity considering an entity can possess different essences reflecting different authenticity
cues. For instance, ‘food’ is an entity that can either reflect an essence of a type (e.g. Mexican
food), or possess an inherent characteristic observed by the consumer (e.g. honest simple
food). The same can be applied to ‘service’, which can be either classified as a type (e.g. old-
fashioned service) or perceived as an intrinsic feature (e.g. genuine service). It means that the
very same entity could be evaluated with respect to more than one dimension (Newman,
2019). The essence observed is subsequently determined if it fits any of the cues.
Among the six authenticity cues emerging from the data, deviations departing from existing
knowledge of categories and types appears as a new indicator shaping authenticity
perceptions in restaurant experiences, and can be seen as an extended version of emergent
authenticity – a gradual authentication process over the course of time (Cohen, 1988).
Although associations between deviations with other authenticity cues can and do exist due
to their temporal relativity (i.e. deviations can become more well-known at a certain point in
time as a result of social construction), deviations can also exist independently, that is, the
extreme abnormality does not fit any expectations of any existing types, hence cannot be
labelled or related to any category. Any observed essences concerning deviations, conformity
to existing knowledge of categories and types, and physical versus symbolic connections will
form perceptions of authenticity of the Other, considering the external verification, external
references (i.e. the otherness, category or type), and existing knowledge and expectations are
required to form such judgements.
110
On the other hand, if the observed essence is believed to reflect inherent qualities and
characteristics of the entity, or values, intentions and goals of the owner or the restaurant
itself, the judgement will inform perceptions of authenticity of the producer. The term
‘producer’ here is not only limited to only the human element or the establishment, but also
can signify the observed entity which portrays its external expressions that are true (and/or
consistent) with its internal state. This consistency is aligned with the overarching definition
of authenticity across the literature, that is, “authenticity encapsulates what is genuine, real,
and/or true” (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010, p. 839). This dimension of authenticity also reflects
Gilmore and Pine’s (2007) principles of rendering authenticity in businesses: (1) “Is the
offering true to itself”; and (2) “Is the offering what it says it is” (p. 97), considering the
restaurant experience is the business offering (Le et al., 2019, 2020a).
During the observation, the entity/essence being observed can also trigger an existential state
of ‘being’, which is achieved through the realisation of consumer’s self and a sense of
connectedness, indicating the formation of authenticity of the self. The research also
concludes that the deviations from existing knowledge of categories and types can prompt
the realisation of true self – the existential state of ‘being’ that consumers cannot find in
everyday lives and in their monotonous experiences, something that they have been yearning
for. It can be seen from the illustrated excerpts that in some cases, there is more than one
authenticity cue mentioned in the judgements, and when considering authenticity of an
entity, one authenticity cue does tend to be emphasised more strongly than another. It may
also be the case that the consumer is evaluating the authenticity of the entity itself and
subsequently associates it with the self.
This research contributes to the existing literature on understanding authenticity perceptions
in restaurants by classifying consumers’ authenticity judgements of the observed entity based
on different authenticity cues. Following this, the research outlines a demonstration of
consumers’ judgements about authenticity in restaurant experiences. The framework
suggests that different types of authenticity cues can potentially form different dimensions
of authenticity. In doing so, this paper also empirically supports the emergence of authenticity
of the organisation proposed by Le et al. (2019), thus further embracing the multi-
dimensionality of authenticity in the restaurant context. The study offers a pragmatic
111
approach to ‘quantify’ authenticity from the consumers’ viewpoint by assessing consumers’
observations to what extent an entity fits with the authenticity cues.
Furthermore, through the emergence of deviations departing from existing knowledge of
categories and types, this study contributes to the better understanding of authenticity, that
certain uncommonly known features and qualities of an entity can gradually become inherent
feature possessed by the entity and can be perceived as authentic through the eyes of
consumers. This also advances the understanding of emergent authenticity (Cohen, 1988), in
which there might be a period of time that took place before the formation of emergent
authenticity, in which there were no preconceptions/existing beliefs of a particular category
that consumers can use as a base to assess authenticity of an entity. This authenticity cue, as
a result, will be particularly useful in examining associations and conversion between different
authenticity cues observed in restaurants, thus allowing a deeper understanding of
consumers’ authenticity assessments.
Application of these findings of this research offers restaurateurs ways to enhance
consumers’ perceptions of authenticity in the overall restaurant experience. For example,
considering different consumers have different expectations of authenticity that focus on
different entities, restaurateurs may identify and segment their consumers based on the
authenticity cues the consumers use. By doing this, they can accommodate specific demands
and in turn enhance consumer satisfaction and retention. Throughout the illustration and
discussion of online restaurant reviews in the study, consumers tend to have different
expectations about authenticity for different types of establishments (e.g. ethnic restaurant,
café, pubs), thus not every authenticity cue are considered as equal in an establishment. As a
result, it is imperative for restaurateurs to identify their own strengths and amalgamate
business resources to promote the appropriate authenticity cues (and subsequently project
the appropriate authenticity dimension) that appeal to consumers. To a certain extent, this
paper also raises awareness among restaurateurs that staging authenticity (or trying too hard
or being pretentiousness) can put restaurants at risk of being disclosed by consumers, thus
resulting in decreased trustworthiness and consumer loyalty. Considering the increasing
powerful role of online reviews in determining consumer behaviour and specifically dining
112
intentions (DiPietro 2017; Zhang & Hanks, 2018), such negative judgements about the
authenticity of the business can lead to damage of public image and business sustainability.
It will also be useful for restaurateurs to conduct an authenticity-related SWOT analysis, or if
a SWOT analysis has already been conducted, they can incorporate an authenticity
assessment based on this framework to identify their strengths and the various forms of
authentic offerings that they make i.e. post-modern, playful, adherence to tradition, deviation
from existing knowledge, reflection of consumers’ selves, and reflection of inherent qualities,
values, intentions and goals. It should be noted that the authenticity dimensions and cues
identified in this paper might not be applicable to all restaurants, some will be more dominant
for fine dining restaurants, some are more applicable to ethnic restaurants, or even fast food
restaurant chains. Although this discussion of authenticity cues and dimensions are relevant
to the restaurant context, they are also applicable to a wider range of discussions about the
nature of authenticity that can prompt further thought-provoking agendas for future
authenticity research. As a result, this paper provides some potential insights for authenticity
scholars to look more specifically at these less attended authenticity cues and dimensions in
the literature, as well as providing some managerial implications for restaurateurs that strive
to be unique, to differentiate themselves among the competitors, and to cater more precisely
to customers’ needs and wants when it comes to authenticity.
This research adopts a qualitative approach that aims to provide a rich description of
consumers’ authenticity perceptions in restaurants using online reviews. Future studies
therefore, can conduct quantitative research to examine consumers’ perceptions of
authenticity in the restaurant context using these authenticity cues and attempt to test the
validity of the potential authenticity dimensions presented in this study, as well as determine
the importance of such dimensions mentioned by consumers in online reviews. Also,
considering deviations departing from existing knowledge of categories and types appear to
be a relatively new indicator shaping consumers’ perceived authenticity, more empirical
evidence is required to highlight the emergence of deviations by using different methods and
data triangulation. The associations between deviations and other authenticity cues such as
inherent characteristics of the producer, conformity to existing knowledge, and realisation of
the self should further be hypothetically tested and confirmed with greater confidence.
113
References
Baumgartner, M. S., & Schneider, D. E. (2010). Perceptions of Women in Management: A
Thematic Analysis of Razing the Glass Ceiling. Journal of Career Development, 37(2), 559-
576.
Belhassen, Y., & Caton, K. (2006). Authenticity Matters. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3),
853-856.
Belhassen, Y., Caton, K., & Stewart, W. P. (2008). The search for authenticity in the pilgrim
experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 668-689.
Belk, R. W., & Costa, J. A. (1998). The Mountain Man Myth: A Contemporary Consuming
Fantasy. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 218-240.
Berger, P. L. (1973). Sincerity and authenticity in modern society. The Public Interest, 31, 81.
Beverland, M. (2006). The ‘real thing’: Branding authenticity in the luxury wine trade.
Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 251-258.
Beverland, M. B., Lindgreen, A., & Vink, M. W. (2008). Projecting Authenticity Through
Advertising: Consumer Judgments of Advertisers' Claims. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 5-
15.
Beverland, Michael B., & Farrelly, Francis J. (2009). The Quest for Authenticity in
Consumption: Consumers’ Purposive Choice of Authentic Cues to Shape Experienced
Outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 838-856.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Bruner, E. M. (1991). Transformation of self in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2),
238-250.
Bruner, E. M. (1994). Abraham Lincoln as Authentic Reproduction: A Critique of
Postmodernism. American Anthropologist, 96(2), 397-415.
Buchmann, A., Moore, K., & Fisher, D. (2010). Experiencing Film Tourism: Authenticity &
Fellowship. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 229-248.
Bujisic, M., Wu, L., Mattila, A., & Bilgihan, A. (2014). Not all smiles are created equal.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(2), 293-306.
114
Carroll, G. R. (2015). Authenticity: Attribution, value, and meaning. In R. Scott & S. Kosslyn
(Eds.), Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary,
Searchable, and Linkable Resource (pp. 1-13). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Carroll, G. R., & Wheaton, D. R. (2009). The organizational construction of authenticity: An
examination of contemporary food and dining in the U.S. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 29, 255-282.
Cary, S. H. (2004). The Tourist Moment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 61-77.
Chhabra, D., Lee, W., & Zhao, S. (2013a). Epitomizing the "other" in ethnic eatertainment
experiences. Leisure : Journal of the Canadian Association for Leisure, 37(4), 361-378.
Chhabra, D., Lee, W., Zhao, S., & Scott, K. (2013b). Marketing of ethnic food experiences:
authentication analysis of Indian cuisine abroad. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 8(2-3), 145-
157.
Cohen, E. (1979). A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology, 13(2), 179-201.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
15(3), 371-386.
Cohen, E. (2007). ‘Authenticity’ in Tourism Studies: Aprés la Lutte. Tourism Recreation
Research, 32(2), 75-82.
Cohen, E., & Avieli, N. (2004). Food in tourism - Attraction and impediment. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31(4), 755-778.
Cohen, E., & Cohen, S. A. (2012). Authentication: Hot and cool. Annals of Tourism Research,
39(3), 1295-1314.
Coleman, J. S. M., & Multon, K. D. (2018). Quota Sampling. In B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE
encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 1357-1358).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Culler, J. D. (1981). The pursuit of signs: semiotics, literature, deconstruction. Ithaca, N.Y:
Cornell University Press.
Demetry, D. (2019). How Organizations Claim Authenticity: The Coproduction of Illusions in
Underground Restaurants. Organization Science, 30(5), 937-960.
DiPietro, R. (2017). Restaurant and foodservice research. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(4), 1203-1234.
Dutton, D. (2003). Authenticity in art. In J. Levinson (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of aesthetics
(pp. 258–274). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
115
Eco, U. (1986). Travels in hyper reality: Essays: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Floersch, J., Longhofer, J. L., Kranke, D., & Townsend, L. (2010). Integrating Thematic,
Grounded Theory and Narrative Analysis: A Case Study of Adolescent Psychotropic
Treatment. Qualitative Social Work, 9(3), 407-425.
Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J. (2007). Authenticity: what consumers really want. Boston, Mass:
Harvard Business School Press.
Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J., & Sideman, L. A. (2005). Is “service
with a smile” enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(1), 38-55.
Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer Perceptions of Iconicity and Indexicality and
Their Influence on Assessments of Authentic Market Offerings. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31(2), 296-312. doi:10.1086/422109
Gupta, V., & Levenburg, N. (2010). A Thematic Analysis of Cultural Variations in Family
Businesses: The CASE Project. Family Business Review, 23(2), 155-169.
doi:10.1177/089448651002300205
Hahl, O. (2016). Turning Back the Clock in Baseball: The Increased Prominence of Extrinsic
Rewards and Demand for Authenticity. Organization Science, 27(4), 929-953.
Hicks, J. A., Schlegel, R. J., & Newman, G. E. (2019). Introduction to the Special Issue:
Authenticity: Novel Insights Into a Valued, Yet Elusive, Concept. Review of General
Psychology, 23(1), 3-7.
Hirose, A., & Pih, K. K.-H. (2011). 'No Asians working here': racialized otherness and
authenticity in gastronomical Orientalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(9), 1482-1501.
Jones, S. (2010). Negotiating Authentic Objects and Authentic Selves: Beyond the
Deconstruction of Authenticity. Journal of Material Culture, 15(2), 181-203.
Kim, J.-H., Song, H., & Youn, H. (2019). The chain of effects from authenticity cues to
purchase intention: The role of emotions and restaurant image. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 102354.
Kim, K., & Baker, M. A. (2017). The Impacts of Service Provider Name, Ethnicity, and Menu
Information on Perceived Authenticity and Behaviors. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 58(3),
312-318.
Knudsen, B. T., & Waade, A. M. (2010). Performative authenticity in tourism and spatial
experience: Rethinking the relations between travel, place and emotion. In B. T. Knudsen
116
& A. M. Waade (Eds.), Re-Investing Authenticity: Tourism, Place and Emotions (pp. 1-20).
Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications.
Kolar, T., & Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or the
foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tourism Management, 31(5), 652-664.
Kovács, B. (2019). Authenticity Is in the Eye of the Beholder: The Exploration of Audiences’
Lay Associations to Authenticity Across Five Domains. Review of General Psychology,
23(1), 32-59.
Kovács, B., Carroll, G. R., & Lehman, D. W. (2014). Authenticity and Consumer Value Ratings:
Empirical Tests from the Restaurant Domain. Organization Science, 25(2), 458-478.
Kovács, B., Carroll, G., & Lehman, D. (2017). The Perils of Proclaiming an Authentic
Organizational Identity. Sociological Science, 4, 80-106.
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Kralj, A., & Abreu Novais, M. (2018). Proposing an Exploration of
Authenticity and its Key Determinants in Dining Experiences Paper presented at CAUTHE
2018: Get Smart: Paradoxes and Possibilities in Tourism, Hospitality and Events Education
and Research held February 2018 at Newcastle Business School: The University of
Newcastle.
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (2019). What we know and do not know
about authenticity in dining experiences: A systematic literature review. Tourism
Management, 74, 258-275. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2019.02.012
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (2020a). Proposing a conceptual
framework for authenticity in co-created experiences. Paper presented at the Paper
presented at CAUTHE 2020: 20: 20 Vision: New Perspectives on the Diversity of
Hospitality, Tourism and Events, Auckland, New Zealand.
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Anna, K. (2020b). Using combined-learning to
conceptualise constructs in tourism and hospitality. Paper presented at the Paper
presented at CAUTHE 2020: 20: 20 Vision: New Perspectives on the Diversity of
Hospitality, Tourism and Events, Auckland, New Zealand.
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (2020c). Producing authenticity in
restaurant experiences: interrelationships between the consumer, the provider, and the
experience. Tourism Recreation Research, 1-13. doi: 10.1080/02508281.2020.1805932
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (2020d). Proposing a Systematic Approach
for Integrating Traditional Research Methods into Machine Learning in Text Analytics in
117
Tourism and Hospitality. Current Issues in Tourism, 1-16.
doi:10.1080/13683500.2020.1829568
Lehman, D. W., Kovács, B., & Carroll, G. R. (2018). The Beholder’s Eyes: Audience Reactions
to Organizational Self-claims of Authenticity. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic
World, 4, 237802311879303.
Lehman, D. W., O’Connor, K., & Carroll, G. R. (2019). Acting on Authenticity: Individual
Interpretations and Behavioral Responses. Review of General Psychology, 23(1), 19-31.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications.
Littrell, M. A., Anderson, L. F., & Brown, P. J. (1993). What makes a craft souvenir authentic?
Annals of Tourism Research, 20(1), 197-215.
Lu, A. C. C., Gursoy, D., & Lu, C. Y. (2015). Authenticity perceptions, brand equity and brand
choice intention: The case of ethnic restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 50, 36-45.
Luca, A., Marzia, I., Stefania, C., Pietro, C., Giuseppe, S., Ana, V., & Simona, B. (2018). Pasta
experience: Eating with the five senses—a pilot study. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 3(4),
493-520.
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist
Settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589-603.
MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class: Univ of California Press.
MacCannell, D., & MacCannell, J. F. (1993). Social class in postmodernity. Forget Baudrillard,
124-145.
Magnini, V. P., Miller, T., & Kim, B. (2011). The Psychological Effects of Foreign-Language
Restaurant Signs on Potential Diners. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(1),
24-44.
Mazutis, D. D., & Slawinski, N. (2015). Reconnecting Business and Society: Perceptions of
Authenticity in Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(1), 137-
150.
McIntosh, A. J., & C. Prentice, R. (1999). Affirming authenticity: Consuming cultural heritage.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 589-612.
Meng, B., & Choi, K. (2017). Theme restaurants’ servicescape in developing quality of life:
The moderating effect of perceived authenticity. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 65, 89-99.
118
Mkono, M. (2012). A netnographic examination of constructive authenticity in Victoria Falls
tourist (restaurant) experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2),
387-394.
Mkono, M. (2013a). Contested authenticity in Zimbabwean tourist eatertainment. (PhD
Thesis), Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW. Retrieved from
http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1313&context=theses
Mkono, M. (2013b). Existential authenticity in cultural restaurant experiences in Victoria
Falls, Zimbabwe: a netnographic analysis. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 7(4), 353-363.
Moufakkir, O. (2017). The liminal gaze: Chinese restaurant workers gazing upon Chinese
tourists dining in London’s Chinatown. Tourist Studies, 1468797617737998.
Muskat, B., Hörtnagl, T., Prayag, G., & Wagner, S. (2019). Perceived quality, authenticity, and
price in tourists’ dining experiences: Testing competing models of satisfaction and
behavioral intentions. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 25(4), 480-498.
Newman, G. E. (2019). The Psychology of Authenticity. Review of General Psychology, 23(1),
8-18.
Newman, G. E., & Smith, R. K. (2016). Kinds of Authenticity. Philosophy Compass, 11(10),
609-618.
O'Connor, K., Carroll, G. R., & Kovacs, B. (2017). Disambiguating authenticity: Interpretations
of value and appeal. PLoS One, 12(6), e0179187.
Özdemir, B., & Seyitoğlu, F. (2017). A conceptual study of gastronomical quests of tourists:
Authenticity or safety and comfort? Tourism Management Perspectives, 23, 1-7.
Pearce, P. L., & Moscardo, G. M. (1985). The relationship between travellers' career levels
and the concept of authenticity. Australian Journal of Psychology, 37(2), 157-174.
Peterson, R. A. (2005). In Search of Authenticity. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5),
1083-1098.
Phung, M. T., Ly, P. T. M., & Nguyen, T. T. (2019). The effect of authenticity perceptions and
brand equity on brand choice intention. Journal of Business Research, 101, 726-736.
Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. J. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 33(1), 65-86.
119
Rickly, J. M., & McCabe, S. (2017). Authenticity for Tourism Design and Experience. In D. R.
Fesenmaier & Z. Xiang (Eds.), Design Science in Tourism: Foundations of Destination
Management (pp. 55-68). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Rickly-Boyd, J. M. (2012). ‘Through the magic of authentic reproduction’: tourists’
perceptions of authenticity in a pioneer village. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 7(2), 127-
144.
Robinson, R. N. S., & Clifford, C. (2012). Authenticity and Festival Foodservice Experiences.
Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 571-600.
Rodríguez-López, M. E., Alcántara-Pilar, J. M., Del Barrio-García, S., & Muñoz-Leiva, F.
(2019). A review of restaurant research in the last two decades: A bibliometric analysis.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 102387.
Selvanathan, E. A., Selvanathan, S., & Keller, G. (2014). Business statistics: Australia / New
Zealand (6. ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria: Cengage Learning.
Sims, R. (2009). Food, place and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism
experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 321-336.
Skinner, H., Chatzopoulou, E., & Gorton, M. (2020). Perceptions of localness and authenticity
regarding restaurant choice in tourism settings. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
37(2), 155-168.
Steiner, C. J., & Reisinger, Y. (2006). Understanding existential authenticity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 33(2), 299-318.
Tasci, A. D. A., & Knutson, B. J. (2004). An Argument for Providing Authenticity and
Familiarity in Tourism Destinations. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 11(1), 85-
109.
Taylor, J. P. (2001). Authenticity and sincerity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1),
7-26.
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
communicating impact (1st ed.). Chichester, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell.
Vidon, E. S., Rickly, J. M., & Knudsen, D. C. (2018). Wilderness state of mind: Expanding
authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 73, 62-70.
Wang, C.-Y., & Mattila, A. S. (2015). The Impact of Servicescape Cues on Consumer
Prepurchase Authenticity Assessment and Patronage Intentions to Ethnic Restaurants.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 39(3), 346-372.
120
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research,
26(2), 349-370.
Zhang, L., & Hanks, L. (2018). Online reviews: The effect of cosmopolitanism, incidental
similarity, and dispersion on consumer attitudes toward ethnic restaurants. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 68, 115-123.
121
Appendix A. An Overview of Authenticity Definitions in Tourism Literature and Their Advocates.
Definition of Authenticity Advocates School of Thoughts
As origin As 'origins': “whether objects of art are what they appear to be or are claimed to be, and therefore worth the price that is asked for them or… worth the admiration they are being given”; the term borrowed from the language and practices of museumology; its antonym is 'falsification'
Bruner (1994); Cohen (1988); Littrell et al. (1993); Taylor (2001); Trilling (1972, p. 93)
Objectivism
As ‘place of origin’: which includes an artifact’s properties such as being handmade by members of an ethnic group, made of natural materials, and not manufactured in the market
Asplet & Cooper (2000); Cohen (1988, 1993); MacCannell (1976)
As an original site, well-known persons, events, local brand names, or even festivals
Prentice (2001)
As traditional culture and origin, or possessing many traditions Littrell, et al. (1993); MacCannell, (1976); Sharpley (1994); Smith & Duffy (2003); Tasci & Knutson (2004)
As genuineness As 'genuineness': means genuine, unadulterated, or the real thing; its antonym is 'surrogate'
McIntosh & Prentice (1999); Theobald (1998)
As 'pristinity': an unadulterated state, particularly of nature, such as in 'pristine tropical paradise'; its antonym is 'despoliation'
Cohen (1988, p. 105); Tasci & Knutson (2004)
As flow of life As 'flow of life’: is utterly unmarked, not interfered with by the 'framing' of sights, sites, objects and events for touristic purposes, by various overt or covert markers; it has not been modified by the processes of modernization or commodification; however it does not need to be 'pristine’
Cohen (1995, p. 134); Smith & Duffy (2003)
As officially validated As an objective and measurable attribute inherent in the material fabric, form and function of artefacts and monuments, and a positivist set of research methods and criteria have evolved to test their genuineness
Jones (2010); Kates (2004)
As the authority or power which certifies and legally validates any of these forms of authenticity (as extrinsically determined)
Bruner (1994)
As an outcome of ‘cool authentication’ Cohen & Cohen (2012) As an agreed-on and objectively defined entity that can be obtained but is seldom shown to the tourist in a pure sense
MacCannell (1992)
As indexicality/ non-copies
As ‘indexicality’: which distinguishes “the real thing” from its copies – ‘indexical authenticity’
Benjamin (1969); Goodman (1976); Grayson & Martinec (2004); Kingston (1999)
122
As accurate presentation/
replication
As revolving generally around anonymous authorship and skill or accuracy in the replication of something used functionally by members of a given society
Daniel (1996)
As the accurate presentation of the past through the conservation of its relics and features, which are derived from the objects being conserved.
Ashworth & Tunbridge (1990); Bruner (1994); Taylor (2001); Waitt (2000)
As sincerity As 'sincerity': particularly in human relationships, like in the expression of feelings, as in the “sincere welcome” extended to guests, or in “sincerely yours” ... in the conventional ending of a letter; its antonym is ‘disingenuousness’
Taylor (2001, p. 8); Beverland (2006)
As creativity As ‘creativity’: particularly in cultural production, as in the work of artists, musicians and dancers; its antonym is 'copy', when the imitation is overt, and 'fake,' if it is covert
Weiss (2011)
As socially/ culturally constructed and
contextually dependent
As not inherent in the object; rather, it is a quality, a judgement or value that is culturally constructed, even by powers, and varies according to who is observing the object and in what context
Beverland (2006); Beverland et al. (2008); DeLyser (1999); Grayson & Martinec (2004); Handler & Linnekin (1984); Jones (2010); Lanfant (1989); Moscardo & Pearce (1999); Rose & Wood (2005); Spooner (1986); Stebbins (1996); Taylor (2001); Thompson et al. (2006); Walle (1996); Wang (1999); Weiler & Hall (1992); Wood (1993); Xie & Wall (2000)
Constructivism
As “a struggle, a social process, in which competing interests argue for their own interpretation of history”
Bruner (1994, p. 408)
As relative, negotiable, contextually determined, and even ideological Cohen (1988); Salamone (1997); Silver (1993) As well recognized, widely used, collectively agreed upon by sets of people, and culturally contingent and historically situated
Carroll (2015)
As individually constructed
As pluralistic, relative to each tourist type who may have their own way of definition, experience, and interpretation of authenticity
Cole (2007); Littrell et al. (1993); Moscardo & Pearce (1999); Pearce & Moscardo (1985, 1986); Redfoot (1984)
As real in tourist’s own right, no matter whether experts may propose an opposite view from an objective perspective
Cohen (1988)
As iconicity As something whose physical manifestation resembles something that is indexically authentic – ‘iconic authenticity’
Bruner (1994); Crang (1996); Grayson & Martinec (2004); Peterson (1997)
As exoticness As newness, strangeness, and exoticness from the perspective of a cultural outsider
Heldke (2001)
As stereotyped projections of Others
As a projection of tourists’ own beliefs, expectations, preferences, stereotyped images, dreams, and consciousness onto toured objects, particularly onto toured Others
Adams (1984); Bruner (1991); Culler (1981); Duncan (1978); Laxson (1991); Silver (1993)
123
As a projection from Western consciousness, which is closely related to the impact of modernity
Bruner (1991); Britton (1979); Handler (1986); Schouton (2006)
As ‘symbolic authenticity’ Culler (1981); Wang (1999) As emerging process
transforming inauthenticity to
authenticity through time
As an emerging process: something can initially be inauthentic or artificial, it may subsequently become ‘emergent authenticity’ with the passage of time
Cohen (1988); Graburn (1976); Pearce (2007)
As no reference point As ‘hyperreality’: which is born out of fantasy and imagination as there is no original that can be used as a reference
Eco (1986)
Postmodernism
As ‘simulacrum’: “today’s world is a simulation which admits no originals, no origins, no real referent but the metaphysic of the code”
Baudrillard (1983, p. 116,122,103)
As “the feeling of authenticity despite an absence of its absolute existence” Vidon et al. (2018, p. 64) As well-staged scenes As matters of technique: “reality depends on how convincing the presentation
is, how well the staged authenticity works” Selwyn (1996); McCrone et al. (1995, p. 46)
As transient, enduring and contextually
dependent
As transient, not enduring, and not conforming to a type; it changes from moment to moment; there is no authentic self; one can only momentarily be authentic in different situations
Steiner & Reisinger (2006)
As no single concept or term for the authenticity of all tourism objects, postmodern tourists are not concerned with authenticity and the origins of attractions as long as they enjoy them
Cohen (1995); Reisinger & Steiner (2006)
As good time As hedonistic good time Brown (1996)
Existentialism
As being true to oneself, a state that is inhibited in modern public roles
As a special state of Being: in which one is true to oneself, and acts as a counterdose to the loss of true self in public roles and public spheres in modern Western society
Berger (1973)
As the cure for ‘alienation’
Being authentic is the means to recover oneself from the alienation involved in allowing one’s own life to be dictated by the world
Heidegger (1962); Xue et al. (2014)
Alienation and authenticity are two sides of the same coin Baxter (1982); Rae (2010) As seeing the self in relation to objects
As how people see themselves in relation to objects Reisinger & Steiner (2006)
As connectedness of the individual to the world
and the community
As ‘Being’ Heidegger (1962) As derived from the object, the self and the community Pearce & Moscardo (1986) As the property of connectedness of the individual to the perceived, everyday world and environment, and the processes that created it and the consequences of one’s engagement with it
Dovey (1985); Hall (2007)
124
As subjective feelings
As personal or intersubjective feelings activated by the liminal process of tourist activities: ‘intrapersonal and interpersonal existential authenticity’
Cary (2004); Wang (1999)
As an outcome of ‘hot authentication’ Cohen & Cohen (2012) As ‘nostalgia’: the ways of life in which people are supposed as freer, more innocent, more spontaneous, purer, and truer to themselves than usual As ‘romanticism’: the ways of life that accent the naturalness, sentiments, and feelings in response to the increasing self-constraints by reason and rationality in modernity
Berger (1973)
As a catalyst for existential change
As the moments of tourism experience that not only induce spontaneous, heightened emotional states but also act as a catalyst for existential change
Brown (2013)
As a feeling of closeness created by collective
participation
As participation in a collective ritual, where strangers get together in a cultural production to share a feeling of closeness or solidarity
Belhassen et al. (2008); Buchmann et al. (2010); Fine & Speer (1997); Rickly-Boyd (2012a)
As a relative, dynamic, and four-dimensional
concept
Level of authenticity varies during a vacation across four dimensions of human existence: Umwelt, Mitwelt, Eigenwelt, and Uberwelt
Kirillova & Lehto (2015)
As adding indexical elements to the
experiences
As ‘self-referential hyper-authenticity’: consumers blend fantastic elements of programming with indexical elements connected to their lived experiences
Rose & Wood (2005)
Transitional & Negotiated
As the interaction between objects and the
experiences of the self
As ‘theoplacity’: the materiality of objects embodies the past experiences and relationships that they have been part of, and facilitates some kind of ineffable contact with those experiences and relationships, thus establishing the authenticity of the self
Bellhassen et al. (2008); Jones (2010)
As transitional and transformative
authenticating processes
As ‘performative authenticity’: transitional and transformative processes inherent in the authentication action between the object-related and subject-related modes of authenticity: “meanings and feelings of self and place are both constructed and lived through the sensuous body”
Knudsen & Waade (2010, p. 1)
As a process co-created by consumers and
suppliers
As a jointly constructed process (a mutually negotiated process): in which different paradigmatic approaches are taken by both the tourists and the suppliers. In other words, it is the locals who commodify consumer culture by reproducing their identity to meet the western preoccupation with ‘primitive otherness’
Adams (1996); Ateljevic & Doome (2005); Chhabra (2005)
As cool and hot authenticity
As ‘knowledge’ – ‘cool authenticity’ As ‘alienation-smashing feeling’ – ‘hot authenticity’
Selwyn (1976); Selwyn (1996); Smith & Duffy (2003)
125
As an integration between the Other/the Thing, the Self, and the
Organisation
As an integration of three dimensions: ‘authenticity of the Other/the Thing’, ‘authenticity of the Self’, and ‘authenticity of the Organisation’
Le et al. (2019)
126
Exploring the Multi-Dimensionality of Authenticity in Dining Experiences Using Online Reviews
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A.
ABSTRACT
The quest for authenticity in dining experiences has become increasingly important. This
paper explores authenticity dimensions that are of value to customers in dining experiences,
and by that gains a multi-dimensional understanding of authenticity in this context. Following
an integrated learning approach using text mining and classification techniques, this paper
explores and confirms different dimensions of authenticity by identifying and classifying
authenticity judgements in online restaurant reviews. The results suggest that authenticity is
a multi-dimensional concept encompassing Authenticity of the Other, Authenticity of the
Producer, and Authenticity of the Self as first-level dimensions. Additionally, besides historical
and categorical authenticity which have been previously explored in the literature, a new type
of authenticity - Deviated Authenticity - emerged as a second-level dimension falling under
Authenticity of the Other. This paper enhances existing conceptualisations of authenticity and
establishes avenues for exploring the multi-dimensionality of other consumer research
concepts using user-generated content.
Keywords
Authenticity, Restaurant, User-Generated Content (UGC), Text Mining, Integrated Learning,
Human-Machine Learning, Machine Learning, Classification
127
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Dining out is firmly positioned in the experience economy (Pine and Gilmore 1999), in which
businesses provide memorable experiences for their consumers and that experience turns
into the product. This indicates the vitality of understanding authenticity in consideration of
the various elements of the dining experience, i.e. food, social, place, service and time
dimensions (Andersson and Mossberg 2004; Björk and Kauppinen-Räisänen 2016; Kauppinen-
Räisänen et al. 2013). To date, however, not only limited research has investigated these
elements altogether with an authenticity lens, but also very few studies have been conducted
to explore different dimensions of authenticity emerging from dining experiences (Le et al.,
2019). This suggests a need for a comprehensive investigation into which authenticity
dimensions in the dining context are of importance to customers, and to determine if there
is any overlooked dimension, which in turn support the multi-dimensionality of authenticity
in dining. The investigation into different authenticity dimensions is also useful to determine
the relevance of the three-dimensionality of authenticity emerging from a systematic
literature review of authenticity in dining experiences between 1994 and 2017 conducted by
Le et al. (2019). In their review, Le et al. (2019) posit that authenticity is a three-dimensional
concept which consists of authenticity of the Thing, authenticity of the Self, and authenticity
of the Organisation. This examination of authenticity in dining experiences will also be critical
for restaurateurs to focus on enhancing those dimensions that are important to customers
and thus generates value for the business (Kovacs et al. 2014).
Previous authenticity examinations in dining experiences have investigated authenticity from
the diners’ perspective. Research in consumer behaviour however has increasingly
emphasised the importance of online restaurant reviews in determining consumers’
restaurant visitation and dining behaviour (DiPietro 2017; Zhang and Hanks 2018), as well as
pre-dining authenticity perceptions (Chhabra et al. 2013a). In addition to offering users’ post-
visit insights about food, service, overall experiences, online restaurant reviews have also
been used as a platform for ‘foodies’ to share their culinary knowledge with other users with
similar interests (Naccarato and LeBesco 2012; Vásquez and Chik 2015). Online reviews have
opened a myriad of research possibilities for further understanding dining experiences (see
Rodríguez-López et al. 2019). Surprisingly, authenticity, which has the power to motivate
128
purchasing behaviour and to convey quality in dining experiences, has not been sufficiently
explored by using data gathered from online reviews (Le et al. 2019). The gap in using online
reviews to explore authenticity dimensions in the dining context and its usefulness are
therefore evident.
In order to explore authenticity dimensions emerging from online restaurant reviews, this
paper adopts the integrated learning proposed by Le et al. (2020d). To date, in tourism and
hospitality, there have been very few studies employing machine learning which enhance
understanding of multi-dimensional concepts (c.f. Duan et al. 2016; Hu and Chen 2016; Ma et
al. 2018; Xiang et al. 2018; Xu and Li 2016). Further, the role of human learning in guiding and
aiding machine learning is not fully asserted, and no evidence is provided to establish the
validity and reliability of human learning (Le et al. 2020b, 2020d). Also, in tourism and
hospitality contexts, very few studies using machine learning models have reported robust
performance measures to evaluate trained models (Kirilenko et al. 2018). With this in mind,
the paper overcomes these shortcomings by firstly conducting more reliable and scientific
human learning to complement and inform machine learning to analyse online restaurant
reviews. Secondly, the validity and rigor for machine learning outputs is confirmed by testing
trained models using performance measures (i.e. precision, recall, F1-measures). The model
containing different labels for authenticity dimensions with best performance based on
performance measures is chosen to inform different authenticity dimensions emerging from
online restaurant reviews, which in turn supports the multi-dimensionality of authenticity in
the dining context.
In sum, the purpose of this research is to explore authenticity dimensions that are of value in
dining experiences through the examination of authenticity dimensions underpinning
consumer judgements in online restaurant reviews, and by that to understand the multi-
dimensionality of authenticity in the dining context. To achieve this, authenticity studies in
dining experiences and conceptualisations in various disciplines including tourism,
management studies, and psychology are reviewed to understand the shortcomings of each
conceptualisation. Following this, the methodology adopts an integrated learning approach
in analysing online restaurant reviews and consists of three stages. Stage 1 identifies
authenticity judgements embedded in online restaurant reviews. Stage 2 explores different
129
authenticity dimensions mentioned in online restaurant reviews. Stage 3 confirms the validity
of those authenticity dimensions emerging from the manual classification in Stage 2. The
results of the classification models and the multi-dimensionality of authenticity are presented
and discussed. Finally, research implications and contributions are provided, followed by
limitations and directions for future research.
2.0 RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Authenticity in Dining Experiences
Many studies have examined authenticity and attempted to operationalise this complex
concept in several ways. Despite being extensively examined since the 1970s by tourism
researchers MacCannell (1973, 1976) and Cohen (1979), scholarly interest in authenticity has
still been prevalent in hospitality and tourism research (Rodríguez-López et al. 2019).
The systematic review of authenticity research in restaurant experiences conducted by Le et
al. (2019) suggests there has been an uneven examination of various authenticity dimensions.
Authenticity in dining experiences has been mostly examined using Wang’s (1999, 2000)
typology (i.e. objective, constructive, and existential authenticity). Since most authenticity
studies were conducted in ethnic restaurants which focus specifically on delivering the
otherness in culture and cuisines, constructive authenticity is reported as a dominant concept
examined in the restaurant context (Le et al. 2018, 2019). Authenticity projected in such
ethnic restaurants is usually regarded as socially constructed, which is subject to the
stereotyped, symbolic and media-shaped images of ethnic cuisines from the diner’s
perspective (e.g. Chhabra et al. 2013a; 2013b; Cohen and Avieli 2004; Kim et al. 2019; Lu et
al. 2015; Magnini et al. 2011). Existential and objective authenticity, however, have received
much less attention in the dining context. This finding suggests that Wang’s (1999, 2000)
typology may not be entirely applicable in the dining context, and thus calls for further
exploration of other authenticity dimensions in dining experiences. A discussion of Wang’s
typology will be presented in the subsequent section (Section 2.2).
In addition to delivering the “otherness” in culture and cuisines, existing literature specifically
in restaurant research has started considering dining experiences as a product, which directs
research attention to the backstage role of the producer (e.g. the service provider/restaurant
130
providing the meal or the service) in contributing to an authentic dining experience (Demetry
2019; Lehman et al. 2018, 2019), so-called authenticity of the producer (Le et al., 2019).
Specifically, some other research while still choosing ethnic restaurants as the research
setting, has started to embrace the potential for new business-related cues in constructing
authentic experiences, that is, the relationship between authenticity perception and brand
equity (Phung et al. 2019), ownership type as the antecedent of perceived authenticity (Kim
et al. 2019), and the coherence between the restaurant atmosphere and the food on offer
(Luca et al. 2018). The need for a more holistic comprehension of authenticity dimensions in
the context of restaurant experiences is therefore evident, one that encompasses not only
the core product of dining out (the food), the delivery of cultural and ethnic elements, the
diners themselves, but also the contribution of the producer/service provider. Although there
are several authenticity typologies and conceptualisations adopted in previous studies and
specifically deeply-rooted in the tourism literature, a more holistic framework that outlines
different authenticity dimensions in dining experiences is needed to also embrace the values,
characteristics and goals of the underlying producer in co-creating authentic dining
experiences (Le et al. 2020c).
In terms of methodology, quantitative and qualitative approaches have been equally utilised
in previous authenticity studies in restaurant experiences, suggesting that the construct has
yet been fully established and continuously attracts scholarly attention (and debates) in terms
of conceptualisation and operationalisation (Le et al. 2019). While qualitative research has
been used to demonstrate how authenticity is displayed in the restaurant and to identify
authenticity dimensions perceived by diners, quantitative research has mainly included
questionnaires and experiments in testing relationships between authenticity and other
constructs. Very few studies have started to examine the literal meanings of authenticity (i.e.
Kovács et al. 2014; Muñoz et al. 2006; O'Connor et al. 2017). Only Kovács et al. (2014) and
O'Connor et al. (2017) conduct empirical investigations to consider words describing
authenticity, which are then used to denote different authenticity conceptions. These two
studies are of very few studies employing online reviews to examine how authenticity is
defined and expressed from a customer perspective.
131
2.2. Authenticity Conceptualisations in Tourism
The systematic review of authenticity research in the restaurant context conducted by Le et
al. (2019) suggests the dominant conceptualisations within tourism is influenced by three key
schools of thought, namely objectivism, constructivism, and existentialism. Several
authenticity conceptualisations have been proposed and underpinned by those
aforementioned schools of thought. Of the various conceptualisations of authenticity, Wang’s
(1999, 2000) typology (i.e. objective, constructive, and existential authenticity) has been the
most influential (e.g. Chhabra et al. 2013a, 2013b; Cohen and Cohen 2012; Le et al. 2018,
2019; Mkono 2012, 2013b) given its straightforward and accessible approach (Mkono 2013a)
and effective communication (Belhassen and Caton 2006). Apart from Wang’s (1999, 2000)
typology which supports the conceptualisation of authenticity robustly, there have also been
postmodernist approaches which are characterised strongly by the deconstruction of the
authenticity concept (Reisinger and Steiner, 2006). This call to deconstruct authenticity has
received substantial criticisms considering the ongoing awareness of authenticity among
certain types of tourists (Belhassen and Caton 2006). Since this paper fully embraces the
multi-dimensionality of authenticity, which support strongly the conceptualisation of
authenticity (rather than deconstruction), postmodernist approaches will not be considered
as a suitable lens for this paper. It is important to acknowledge however, that this omission
does not imply any irrelevance of postmodernism to underpin authenticity conceptions in
other domains. The following sections briefly outlines Wang’s (1999, 2000) typology of
authenticity.
Objectivists describe authenticity as origins or genuineness (Grayson and Martinec 2004;
MacCannell 1976; McIntosh and Prentice 1999). The judgement of objective authenticity is
based on the traditional methods of production validated by the locals or the authority
(Bruner, 1994; Mkono, 2013). Cohen and Cohen (2012), Jones (2010), and MacCannell and
MacCannell (1993) further argue that an objective set of criteria from an authority is required
to authorise an object’s authenticity. However, constructivists argue that, although a set of
accurate attributes of an object has been formed by a group of people in a society through
the course of time, it may well be in the past that such attributes did not reveal authenticity,
or worse, presented inauthenticity (Cohen 1988). Bruner (1994, 460) puts that since “we all
enter society in the middle, and culture is always in process”, no absolute original exists, on
132
which the definite authenticity of the originals is based on. Constructive authenticity, as a
result, is ultimately an output of how an individual perceive things through their viewpoint
and interpretation (Wang 1999, 2000). Wang (1999, 2000) considers objective and
constructive authenticity as object-related authenticity, and Le et al. (2019) later consider
them as authenticity of the other/the thing ultimately because they consider the
authentication of the object.
Existentialists, on the other hand, support the notion of existential authenticity which
originates from “the property of connectedness of the individual to the perceived, everyday
world and environment, and the processes that created it and the consequences of one’s
engagement with it” (Hall 2007, 1140). This notion suggests that authenticity is not something
derived from the Other but can be equally experienced by the individual self (Cary 2004;
Rickly-Boyd 2012). As a result, existential authenticity is considered as activity-related
authenticity activated by tourist activities (Wang 1999, 2000). Since existential authenticity
lies upon the authentication of one’s self, it can also be considered as authenticity of the self
(Le et al. 2019).
Supporting the belief that objectivity in authenticity is more challenging than a constructivist
or existentialist viewpoint (Hall 2007), Mkono (2013a) suggested that objective authenticity
is perhaps the least favourable and thus the least popular among the three types of
authenticity (i.e. Wang’s typology) because of the objectivity required to create such objective
claims. The current discussion points to a limitation in the conceptualisation of authenticity
in the context of tourism is that despite its usefulness in understanding authenticity originally
rooted in the tourist’s perspective, the conceptualisation seems profoundly anchored in the
blurred lines of objective and constructive authenticity.
Given that authenticity in consumer research often reflects upon consumer judgements
(Hicks et al. 2019; Kovács 2019), does it really matter if the observed entity is objectively or
constructively authentic? Consumer judgements about authenticity are determined by the
objective properties of the entity as well as the consumers’ viewpoint when making the
judgement (Sidali and Hemmerling 2014), their expertise and expectations (Belk and Costa
1998), and their goals (Beverland and Farrelly 2009). Kovács et al. (2014, 460) therefore put
133
it: “authenticity is ultimately not about facts per se but rather about interpretations regarding
those facts”. Therefore, instead of looking for the ultimate ideal state of authenticity, it would
seem better to listen to consumers’ thoughts and to cater to their expectations regarding
authenticity.
2.3. Authenticity Conceptualisations in other Disciplines
The conceptualisation of authenticity has not only inspired tourism scholars but researchers
from other disciplines including sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and
management studies (Carroll and Wheaton 2009; Kovács et al. 2014; Kovács 2019; Newman
2019; Newman and Smith 2016). Although the existing literature on authenticity in general
has proposed many different conceptualisations of the term, there appears to be a striking
degree of convergence across them when examined as a whole (Belhassen and Caton 2006;
Newman and Smith 2016). This paper discusses two streams of conceptualisations which
target the contributing role of the producer (i.e. the service provider or the restaurant in the
current paper) in co-constructing product authenticity, including Carroll and Wheaton’s
(2009) four-dimensional and Newman and Smith’s (2016) three-dimensional
conceptualisations. These frameworks have proved useful in examining authenticity in dining
experiences.
2.3.1. Carroll and Wheaton’s (2009) Conceptualisation
Through a qualitative analysis of restaurant reviews, Carroll and Wheaton (2009) and Carroll
(2015) propose a framework for assessing authenticity in management studies. Four types
(meanings) of authenticity emerge: (1) type authenticity, in which the focus lies upon whether
the entity meets the criteria to be classified as a specific type or category (e.g. whether a dish
is classified as Mexican or Indian cuisine); (2) craft authenticity, which derives from type
authenticity and lies upon whether the entity is made using relevant techniques and
ingredients; (3) moral authenticity, in which the focus lies upon whether there are moral
values and choices embedded/reflected in the entity (e.g. an organisation would be authentic
to the extent that it represents ethical and moral values possessed by its founders or owners);
and (4) idiosyncratic authenticity, which emerges from moral authenticity, and is concerned
with whether there is a commonly recognised (usually historical) quirkiness to the product or
place. However, only the two key typologies including type and moral authenticity have
134
become more conceptually and empirically viable, and consequently been more common in
recent management studies (i.e. Lehman et al. 2018, 2019; O’Connor et al. 2017;
Radoynovska and King 2019). O’Connor et al. (2017) and Lehman et al. (2018, 2019) are
conducted specifically in the restaurant domain, thus implying the typologies’ usefulness in
examining authenticity in dining experiences.
2.3.2. Newman and Smith’s (2016) Conceptualisation
Within the discipline of psychology, by identifying overlapping aspects of the existing
typologies (including the conceptualisations in tourism), Newman and Smith (2016) propose
that authenticity assessments can be classified into three typologies: historical, categorical,
and values authenticity. Historical authenticity refers to the evaluations through an entity’s
history and its link to a valued person, place or event (e.g. the restaurant is located at a
historical British building) (Newman and Smith 2016). Newman and Smith (2016) consider
historical authenticity as equivalent to Wang’s (1999) objective authenticity. However,
Newman and Smith’s (2016) reflection upon the convergence between historical and
objective authenticity is criticised by Newman himself in his later study. Indeed, while
historical authenticity is assessed through physical connections and produces a binary
judgement (i.e. did the entity have contact with X or not?), there has been emerging literature
suggesting the need for sensitivity in recognising other forms of connection that are more
symbolic or iconic (Newman 2019) (e.g. products are valued more highly if they were
produced at the firm’s original factory; or Aboriginal crafts are perceived as more authentic if
they had more contact with Aboriginal people). Constructivists certainly can argue that
symbols and icons can be shaped and stereotyped differently across cultures and societies,
and thus do not necessarily represent the ‘fact’ (Grayson and Martinec 2004; Rickly-Boyd
2012; Silver 1993). As a result, perception of historical authenticity is not totally objectively
authentic, and thus can also include more symbolic or iconic connections to the valued objects
(Newman 2019).
Categorical authenticity refers to the evaluations of whether an entity fits people’s existing
beliefs or knowledge about criteria of a specific class or type it claims to be (e.g. whether a
dish is classified as Mexican or Indian cuisine) (Newman and Smith 2016). In the literature,
this has been regarded as type authenticity (Carroll and Wheaton 2009), constructive
135
authenticity (Wang 1999), and iconic authenticity (Grayson and Martinec 2004). In contrast
with historical authenticity, categorical authenticity is evaluated using the criteria from the
person (e.g. a person’s subjective beliefs about what Thai food should be like), rather than
from an external source of reference (e.g. certificates, historical records, expert evaluation).
The convergence between categorical and constructive authenticity however is deemed more
convincing than historical and objective authenticity, since the former relates specifically to
categories of objects or types. When expectations for a category are seen as a form of
emergent authenticity (Cohen 1988), this implies an emerging social process that becomes
authentic in time. Conversely, when expectations are formed from learned authenticity
(Prentice 2001), authenticity construction comes from perceptions of the ‘expert’ opinion of
tour guides or other authorities and one’s own interpretations. In the former, the judgement
is based upon category fit, not about the contexts and processes in which its expectations and
consensus are formed.
A third way for interpreting authenticity judgements is through an examination of values,
specifically, the consistency between the internal states and the external expressions of an
entity, thus values authenticity (e.g. a waitress is considered as authentic when she
thoroughly enjoys the job she is doing and does not pretend to be nice) (Newman 2019). This
type of authenticity has been regarded closely as moral authenticity (Carroll and Wheaton
2009), or expressive authenticity (Dutton 2003). When evaluating values authenticity, people
are less inclined to be based on the direct and physical properties of the object/experience,
rather, they assess it in relation to the values, characteristics, goals, and intentions of the
producer (Hahl 2016; Mazutis and Slawinski 2015). Values authenticity also arises when
observing the meaning or values connected with products (e.g. food) or experiences (e.g.
dining experiences). The recognition of consistency in process or certification are also related
to values authenticity as these mirror the extent to which the product or experience is an
honest and accurate reflection of the entity (Newman and Smith 2016). One important
question posed, however, is who determines the level of honesty and accuracy of that
reflection, if the observer is indeed not the entity, considering the judgement is from the
observer? Values authenticity therefore, despite its conceptual viability, challenges the
applicability since the ‘truth’ might not be confirmed, or worse, staged for financial gain.
136
The following section presents the methodology for this paper. As mentioned earlier, this
paper employs online restaurant reviews to explore important authenticity dimensions in
dining experiences, which supports the multi-dimensionality of authenticity in this context.
While this paper is exploratory in nature, it aims to enhance the rigour and generalisability of
the findings by using traditional research methods (human learning) to direct machine
learning to analyse online reviews. In this way, key findings are generated during different
stages of analysis, which serve as a prerequisite or foundation for the subsequent stage.
3.0 METHODOLOGY AND PROPOSED FRAMEWORK
A dataset of 1,048,575 online reviews was scraped from Zomato - a popular restaurant review
platform, using Selenium and Node.js web scraping (Smart Proxy 2019). The dataset
contained review texts of all establishments in five metropolitan cities of Australia, including
Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, Brisbane, and Adelaide. The collected data were sampled and
analysed using an integrated learning approach (Le et al. 2020b, 2020d). This integrated
approach combines more reliable human learning with machine learning in the analysis of
textual data such as online reviews. While the use of online reviews to gain a deeper
understanding of a concept is not new in consumer research, analysing a vast number of
reviews to explore a complex multi-dimensional concept such as authenticity is novel. The
challenge of identifying authenticity judgements is that they can be expressed using different
authenticity terms, and these terms are usually mentioned in relation to different elements
in the dining experiences. To explore which authenticity judgements signify which
authenticity dimensions in online reviews, it is therefore important to encapsulate these
judgements into small manageable phrases, in this case, authenticity term - restaurant
attribute category pairs (AU-RA pairs) were used to represent authenticity judgements.
This paper follows a mixed-method approach and consists of three stages that build upon one
another. Stage 1 aims to identify authenticity judgements embedded in online restaurant
reviews. To do so, Stage 1 identified pairs containing terms used to describe authenticity and
restaurant attribute categories associated with authenticity terms. Stage 2 explores different
authenticity dimensions mentioned in online restaurant reviews. To do so, Stage 2 manually
classified those authenticity judgments identified in Stage 1 into different authenticity
137
dimensions, using existing dimensions of authenticity in the literature (Section 2.0) as a guide.
This manual classification technique can be considered as manual content analysis since it
involves human knowledge and interpretation to identify key themes emerging from the data.
At the end of Stage 2, a framework containing different authenticity dimensions emerging
from the data was proposed; this framework was used as a basis for the machine learning
task in Stage 3. Stage 3 aims to confirm the validity of those authenticity dimensions (thus the
proposed framework) emerging from the manual classification. To achieve this, Stage 3
utilised classification algorithms to train and evaluate the classification model to confirm the
authenticity dimensions based on the proposed framework, and by that suggesting the multi-
dimensionality of authenticity in online restaurant reviews.
3.1. STAGE 1 – Identification of Authenticity Judgements: Authenticity Term – Restaurant
Attribute Category (AU-RA) Pairs
First, an initial list of authenticity terms (Existing AU Terms) compiled from Kovács et al. (2014)
and O’Connor et al. (2017) was utilised to direct machine learning. This list could be
considered as a typical example of human learning, where the learning output was created
by employing conventional research techniques, in this case, through dictionary search and
survey techniques. Nevertheless, it was necessary to expand the list since it was not
considered as exhaustive (a limitation imposed by human learning). To identify both
authenticity terms and restaurant attribute categories, four steps were followed (see Figure
1). Since restaurant attribute categories of interest were referred to in relation to authenticity
terms, all authenticity terms were identified and finalised prior to the identification of
associated restaurant attribute categories.
3.1.1. Authenticity Terms
As shown in Figure 1, Step 1 involved the manual identification of new authenticity terms
different from Existing AU Terms (Potential New AU Terms). 2000 reviews were sampled using
purposive sampling; only reviews that contained either the terms in Existing AU Terms or the
indirect authenticity expressions were used (Le et al., 2020d). Since the purpose of this first
step was to identify new authenticity terms, employing a random sample would not
necessarily increase the chance of identifying new terms. In other words, if a random sample
was employed (where only reviews with Existing AU Terms were picked up), purposive
138
sampling would still be subsequently implemented to identify new authenticity terms within
the review sample, which would take more time than just conducting purposive sampling in
the first place. Following this, these Potential New AU Terms were determined with regards
to context appearing in the review; each term was put to the list of keywords for later
evaluation and validation (Le et al., 2020d). In Step 2, the Potential New AU Terms were
browsed across the entire dataset, and by training the Word2Vec model, the top ten most
highly associated terms were created for each existing authenticity term. Word2Vec is an
embedded word technique that helps establish a semantic map of the text in a corpus based
on context (Shuai et al. 2018), thus discovering closely related terms for a given authenticity
term. The outputs created from Word2Vec model included Misspelled and Derivatives of
Existing AU Terms (e.g. “authetic” for “authentic”; “authenticity” for “authentic”) and Words
Used in Similar Contexts. In Step 3, the Potential New AU Terms generated in Step 1 were
cross-checked with the Words Used in Similar Context identified by Word2Vec model in Step
2: if a new term was highly associated with Existing AU Terms, it was related to Existing AU
Terms. For example, because “heartfelt” is highly associated with “sincere” and fair-dinkum”
is highly associated with “genuine”, “heartfelt” and “fair-dinkum” are considered as new
authenticity terms emerging from the reviews (see Table 1). In Step 4, the Verified New AU
Terms were merged with Existing AU Terms to generate a more concise list of authenticity
terms (Final List of AU Terms) (Le et al., 2020d). This final list contained 88 authenticity terms
in total (see Table 1).
3.1.2. Restaurant Attribute Categories
For restaurant attributes, Step 1 identified restaurant attributes related to authenticity terms
in the dataset (Predetermined Word List of RAs). 2000 reviews containing terms in Final List
of AU Terms were selected by purposive sampling. Two rules were created to overcome issues
arising during the identification of restaurant attribute related to authenticity term: (i) if more
than one restaurant attribute appeared in the same sentence with the same authenticity
term, select the restaurant attribute with the shortest distance (the fewest number of words
in between) to the authenticity term (this was underpinned by Hsiao et al. (2017) that the
two terms are deemed to be more highly associated if the distance between them is shorter);
(ii) if more than one restaurant attribute had the same distance to the authenticity term,
select all attributes, because the machine is not able to decide the suitability of one term to
139
the other. Steps 2 and 3 in this section were implemented using the same Word2Vec and
validation procedure in authenticity terms. In Step 4, the Verified New RAs (created from Step
3) and Predetermined Word List of RAs (created from Step 1) were classified into eight
categories. These included Ambience & Atmosphere (e.g. interior, music, feel); Establishment
Type (e.g. restaurant, take-away, pub); Ethnicity & Destination (e.g. Mexican, European;
France); Experience (e.g. experience, fare); Food & Drink; Customer; Restaurant Business (e.g.
owner, business, family-owned); and Service (e.g. service, staff, waitress). The classification
was implemented based on a comprehensive review of extant research in food and dining as
well as key restaurant attributes. The output created from Step 4 was a list of eight restaurant
attribute categories with corresponding words (RA Categories with Word List).
141
3.1.3. Authenticity Term – Restaurant Attribute Category (AU-RA) Pairs
As mentioned before, in order to be considered as authenticity judgements that are
meaningful for later classification, reviews need to contain both authenticity term and
restaurant attribute. Reviews in the dataset were split into sentences and corresponding
words for the eight restaurant attribute categories were searched within sentences
containing authenticity terms (instead of the entire review). This was implemented to prevent
many restaurant attributes being detected at the same time, which would potentially reduce
the accuracy of classification models in Stage 2. For example, “authentic” and “staff” (which
falls under Service category) are selected from the following review sentence ‘Friendly staff
and authentic!’. The search was implemented using the same selection rule for restaurant
attributes (underpinned by Hsiao et al.’s (2017) notion of term occurrence) (section 3.1.2).
Although Hsiao et al.’s (2017) term co-occurrence also computes association score for each
pair containing an authenticity term and a restaurant attribute category (AU-RA Pairs), this
paper only utilises AU-RA Pairs’ frequencies in each review sentence and the review
sentences containing the pairs, which were subsequently stored for later classification.
Table 1. Final List of Authenticity Terms. Note: Bolded terms are new terms that did not appear in the Existing AU Terms generated from Kovács et al.’s (2014) and O’Connor et al.’s (2017) studies. amateurish ambitious artful artificial artisan assuming authentic bogus careful caring cheat classic conventional crafted craftsmanship creative deadset deceitful
deceptive dinky-di ersatz ethical ethnic exotic expert extroverted fair-dinkum faithful faked false feigned forgery fusion genuine heartfelt historical
hoax home-made home-style homey honest house-made humbug iconic idiosyncratic imitation impostor inspiring inspired integrity inventive legitimate master chef misleading
mistakable modern moral native offbeat old-fashioned original orthodox outlandish peculiar phony pretentious professional pure quack quirky quintessential real
replicate ridgy-didge scam sham sincere skilful skilled specialty traditional true-blue truthful typical unique usual wholesome workmanship
142
3.2. STAGE 2 – Manual Classification
At the end of Stage 1, a population of 679,310 review sentences containing approximately
704 AU-RA pairs (88 authenticity terms x 8 restaurant attribute categories) was generated. To
facilitate the manual classification in Stage 2, a sample size of 33,966 review sentences (5%
of 679,310 review sentences) was drawn using proportionate random sampling (Selvanathan
et al. 2014). Proportionate random sampling for each AU-RA pair was computer-generated.
The sampled sentences containing each AU-RA pair were then stored separately for
classification.
AU-RA pair in each sampled review sentences was subsequently classified based on existing
dimensions of authenticity in the related literature (Section 2.0). The discussion of the existing
conceptualisations of authenticity in various disciplines has pinpointed several shortcomings
and suggested some potentials to improve the understanding of authenticity and overcome
the limitations of each conceptualisation. With this in mind, AU-RA pairs were manually
classified into several convergent dimensions in Wang’ (1999, 2000), Newman and Smith’s
(2016), and Le et al. (2019) at the same time (i.e. objective versus historical authenticity;
constructive versus categorical authenticity; authenticity of the producer versus values
authenticity; values authenticity versus authenticity of the self; values authenticity versus
existential authenticity). Carroll and Wheaton’s (2009) conceptualisation (i.e. type, craft,
moral and idiosyncratic) was not utilised in this classification because the convergence of
these dimensions and the others has not yet been established (except type versus categorical
authenticity and moral versus values authenticity). This multi-classification step was
conducted to determine which dimensions were deemed applicable in underpinning most
authenticity judgements in the sampled review sentences.
Consequently, the manual classification identified six authenticity dimensions that have
already been mentioned in the existing literature, including authenticity of the other,
authenticity of the producer, authenticity of the self, historical authenticity, categorical
authenticity, and values authenticity (Le et al. 2019; Newman and Smith 2016). Wang’s (1999,
2000) conceptualisation (i.e. objective and constructive authenticity) did not appear to be
widely applicable in the online restaurant review sample because of the blurred lines of
objective and constructive authenticity. Also, not every emerging dimension had equal
144
observer observes the external entity (i.e. the producer/service provider/restaurant).
Authenticity of the Self therefore is also a special case of values authenticity. As a result,
Authenticity of the Self in conjunction with Authenticity of the Producer are subordinates of
values authenticity. Nevertheless, Authenticity of the Producer should be treated cautiously
in relation to values authenticity since whether the producer is authentic is subject to the
observer’s beliefs, hence not guaranteeing the true essential values and intentions to the
producer’s profession or craft. They can still violate and stage the commitments for financial
gain.
When making judgements about the Authenticity of the Other, the observer evaluates the
authenticity of an entity via its connection with histories, valued persons, place or events
(thus historical authenticity), or via its conformity to people’s knowledge about existing
categories or types (thus categorical authenticity). As a result, historical and categorical
authenticity (Newman and Smith 2016) are considered as second-level dimensions and fall
under the first-level Authenticity of the Other. Particularly, these second-level dimensions
denote the evaluations based on the beliefs that the entity embodies some sort of essence
that can be authenticated by external reference (the otherness).
Also, during the manual classification process, a dimension emerged that was informed by
several AU-RA pairs that did not quite fit in with any existing authenticity dimensions. This
emergent dimension was described as the state of being unusual of an object/entity/person
that departs from people’s commonly accepted standards. This was named Deviated
Authenticity. Deviated Authenticity is thus related to categorical authenticity since the
observer’s beliefs and knowledge are socially constructed, and through the passage of time it
can eventually become more common and thus be classified into a category. Deviated
Authenticity therefore was considered as a third dimension emerging from the manual
classification and was incorporated in the framework (as a subordinate of Authenticity of the
Other) beside historical and categorical authenticity. Figure 2 depicts various authenticity
dimensions emerging from the online reviews and suggests a multi-dimensional structure of
authenticity emerging from online restaurant reviews. This framework therefore was used as
a basis for the machine learning task in Stage 3.
145
3.3. STAGE 3 – Classification Modeling
To confirm the proposed framework in Figure 2, a classification model was trained and tested
using the review sentences containing AU-RA pairs identified in Stage 1. Classification of
documents using some features of selected key terms is one of the common aspects of text
mining (Hashimi et al. 2015; Xiang et al. 2015). As a novel feature selection, AU-RA pairs were
used to classify review sentences into the authenticity dimensions. Supervised machine
learning algorithms are used to respond to the classification tasks. In order to maximise the
accuracy of classification, either a training/test set or a cross validation scheme is used (Toral
et al. 2018). This study utilised the training/test set generated from human learning (manual
classification) to direct and evaluate the classification model.
3.3.1. Creating a training/test set
The training/test set was created during the manual classification in Stage 2 as follows. Each
sampled sentence containing a given AU-RA pair was manually classified into the dimensions
of authenticity depicted in Figure 1. A review sentence containing a given pair signified at
least one first-level dimension of authenticity (i.e. 1 if signifying one dimension; 0.5 each if
signifying two dimensions; and 0.33 each if signifying three dimensions). To establish the
second-level dimensions, it was proposed that if a review sentence contained a pair which
signified Authenticity of the Other, it also signified historical/categorical authenticity, or
Deviated Authenticity. Table 2 presents a classification output sample for the training/test
set. As shown in Table 2, for a given AU-RA pair, the percentage of sampled sentences Poriginal
signifying a dimension X was interpreted as follows:
(1) Poriginal (Historical/Categorical) + Poriginal (Deviated) = 1 (second-level)
E.g. 0.8 (Historical/Categorical) + 0.2 (Deviated) = 1
(2) Historical/Categorical and Deviated Authenticity are subordinates of
Authenticity of the Other.
(3) Poriginal (Other) + Poriginal (Producer) + Poriginal (Self) = 1 (first-level)
where Poriginal (X) is the percentage of X in the training/test set
E.g. 0.6 (Other) + 0.3 (Producer) + 0.1 (Self) = 1
It is important to emphasise that the objective of this paper is not to empirically test the
conceptual and empirical distinction between historical and categorical authenticity
146
considering they have been tested and confirmed by Newman (2019). Accordingly, in order
to reduce the length of the machine learning task, those two dimensions were combined. This
aggregation did not affect the final multi-dimensional structure of authenticity since historical
and categorical authenticity are considered as subordinates of Authenticity of the Other.
Specifically, the aggregation helped reduce one dimension from the classification model
training (i.e. Poriginal (Historical/Categorical) instead of Poriginal (Historical) + Poriginal
(Categorical)), thus reducing the time and effort spent in training the model.
For ease of analysis, prior to the machine learning task, the output for the training/test set
was converted as follows:
From (1), (2) and (3) in the above section, we call:
Poriginal (Historical/Categorical) = P (Historical/Categorical) * scale
Poriginal (Deviated) = P (Deviated) * scale
where scale = 1𝑃𝑃 (𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻/𝐶𝐶𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻) + 𝑃𝑃 (𝐷𝐷𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷)
Therefore,
P (Historical/Categorical) + P (Deviated) + P (Producer) + P (Self) = 1
This means that there were only four dimensions needed for classification: Historical/
Categorical, Deviated, Producer, and Self.
147
Table 2. Output Sample for the Training/Test Set. For ease of interpretation, this table presents the output in percentage (%). For the second-level dimensions, the percentage means that for a given pair, how many sampled sentences that signify Authenticity of the Other (first level) also signify Historical/Categorical Authenticity and/or Deviated Authenticity.
SECOND LEVEL FIRST LEVEL
AU-RA Pair Historical/ Categorical
Authenticity
Deviated Authenticity
Authenticity of the Other
Authenticity of the Producer
Authenticity of the Self
Authentic - Food & Drink 100.00% 0.00% 98.17% 0.81% 1.02%
Honest - Food & Drink 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Creative - Food & Drink 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Careful - Food & Drink 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 99.59% 0.41%
Inspired - Food & Drink 100.00% 0.00% 66.36% 33.64% 0.00%
Careful - Service 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 99.85% 0.15%
Genuine - Service 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Old-fashioned - Service 100.00% 0.00% 71.30% 28.70% 0.00%
Quirky - Service 0.00% 100.00% 56.67% 43.33% 0.00%
Creative - Service 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Sincere - Service 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Expert - Service 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Modern - Ambience & Atmosphere 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Unique - Ambience & Atmosphere 3.85% 96.15% 90.57% 7.79% 1.64%
Authentic - Ambience & Atmosphere 99.82% 0.18% 78.24% 17.91% 3.86%
Quirky - Ambience & Atmosphere 2.15% 97.85% 81.50% 18.50% 0.00%
Homey - Ambience & Atmosphere 100.00% 0.00% 98.21% 0.00% 1.79%
Assuming - Ambience & Atmosphere 0.00% 100.00% 1.79% 98.21% 0.00%
Authentic - Other Customers 100.00% 0.00% 64.29% 35.71% 0.00%
Traditional - Other Customers 100.00% 0.00% 96.00% 2.00% 2.00%
Pretentious - Other Customers 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 95.45% 0.00%
Caring - Other Customers 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Authentic - Ethnicity & Destination 99.98% 0.02% 99.85% 0.11% 0.04%
Fusion - Ethnicity & Destination 99.70% 0.30% 98.22% 1.78% 0.00%
Pretentious - Ethnicity & Destination 100.00% 0.00% 47.50% 52.50% 0.00%
Native - Ethnicity & Destination 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Original - Restaurant Business 100.00% 0.00% 51.72% 48.28% 0.00%
Unique - Restaurant Business 0.00% 100.00% 56.00% 44.00% 0.00%
Creative - Restaurant Business 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Ethical - Restaurant Business 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Modern - Establishment Type 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Authentic - Establishment Type 100.00% 0.00% 90.98% 7.38% 1.64%
Inspired - Establishment Type 100.00% 0.00% 53.57% 46.43% 0.00%
Unique - Experience 3.28% 96.72% 95.31% 3.13% 1.56%
Authentic - Experience 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Honest - Experience 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%
Traditional - Experience 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Genuine - Experience 100.00% 0.00% 16.67% 83.33% 0.00%
148
3.3.2. Training classification models
Before training classification models, the data were transformed to meet the analytical
requirements. Specifically, the input data in text format (Sentence, AU, RA) were transformed
into vector using pre-trained BERT transformer (Devlin et al. 2018) and fastText Word2Vec
(Bojanowski et al. 2017). Artificial Neural Network (ANN) with a two-layer net (Svozil et al.
1997) was then applied. ANN is a machine learning model, which enables the machine to learn
the function that maps the input data (a row/sentence data) to the desired values (the
percentage for each dimension) (Ciresan et al. 2012; Gurney 1997). The simplest form of ANN
has only one hidden layer, and two-layer neural network is an ANN with two hidden layers. A
two-layer net was chosen because a single-layer can only learn a linear function, while a multi-
layer is necessary to enable learning more complex functions (Gurney 1997). Nevertheless,
stacking too many layers would make the model suffer from overfitting, when the model
performs very well on the training data but not on the test set (Ciresan et al. 2012).
One-label classification and one multi-label classification were then trained and tested. For
the one-label classification model, given the input data, it responded to the question “Which
class do the data belong to?”, while the question for the multi-label classification was “Which
classes?” instead of “Which class?”. Since the output for the training/test set depicted several
rows that were labelled with more than one dimension (see Table 2), it is essential to train
and compare both one-label and multi-label classifications to determine which model
performs best. The model with best validation accuracy was then selected using three
performance measures: precision (percentage of identified positives), recall (percentage of
identified negatives), and F1-score (a multiplicative combination of precision and recall)
(Kirilenko et al. 2018; Tan et al. 2005).
149
4.0 RESULTS
4.1. Classification Models and Performance Measures
The frequency of dimensions labelled in training/test set (from manual classification) was as
follows:
Historical/Categorical: 3560 (number of rows labelled as Historical/Categorical)
Deviated: 758 (number of rows labelled as Deviated)
Producer: 3565 (number of rows labelled as Producer)
Self: 51 (number of rows labelled as Self)
Imbalanced training data (specifically on Self and Deviated dimensions) could make the
trained model less accurate. To overcome this challenge, the data were duplicated as follows:
Deviated label duplicated 5 times, and Self label duplicated 70 times. The training/test set was
split with the ratio 9:1. After training and evaluating the two models, the multi-label model
was chosen for this paper since it gives better results on all the performance measures. Table
3 reports performance measures for the two classification models.
Table 3. Performance Measures for One-Label and Multi-Label Models on Test Set.
Precision Recall Micro-F1 Macro-F1 One-Label Classification 0.8462 0.9536 0.8991 0.6182 Multi-Label Classification 0.9647 0.9581 0.9581 0.7685
To determine the relevance of the dimensions in the classification (i.e. whether all dimensions
were independent to each other thus there was no redundant dimension), the information
gain ratio (Shalizi 2006) was computed for each pair of authenticity dimensions
(Historical/Categorical, Deviated, Producer, and Self). Information gain is inspired by
techniques for finding functional dependencies in tabular dataset (Mandros 2017).
Specifically, information gain was calculated as follows:
Firstly,
we checked if these was a tuple of (X1, X2, ...) which determines Y;
where Xi ,Y ∈ {Historical/Categorical, Deviated, Producer, Self}; 𝑌𝑌 ∉ 𝑋𝑋𝐻𝐻;
for the ease of illustration, let [0, 1, 2, 3] represent [Historical/Categorical, Deviated,
Producer, Self] respectively.
Secondly,
150
we considered the classification result on each sentence and AU-RA pairs;
we had the percentage for each sentence and AU-RA pairs on four dimensions, from which
we took the absolute values (e.g. P = [0.2, 0.7, 0.9, 0.4] => Pi = [0, 1, 1, 0]).
Therefore,
Pi had only two values 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 = did not signify that dimension, 1 = signified that
dimension).
Thirdly,
we considered the whole test data;
for each X, Y pairs, we computed the information gain:
𝐼𝐼(𝑋𝑋,𝑌𝑌) = 𝐻𝐻(𝑋𝑋) − 𝐻𝐻(𝑋𝑋|𝑌𝑌) = 𝐻𝐻(𝑋𝑋) + 𝐻𝐻(𝑌𝑌) − 𝐻𝐻(𝑋𝑋𝑌𝑌)
where 𝐻𝐻(𝑋𝑋) is the entropy of X;
Pi can only be 0 and 1, so 0 <= 𝐼𝐼(𝑋𝑋,𝑌𝑌) <= 1.
Therefore,
if 𝐼𝐼(𝑋𝑋,𝑌𝑌) = 0, then Y is determined by X, then Y is not relevant for the classification;
if 𝐼𝐼(𝑋𝑋,𝑌𝑌) = 1, then Y is not determined by X, then Y is relevant for the classification.
Table 4 outlines all possible cases of X and Y (i.e. Historical/Categorical, Deviated, Producer,
and Self). Since there was no information gain in zero value, all dimensions were relevant for
the classification. Nevertheless, there were several cases (see bolded lines in Table 4) in which
the information gain values were very close to zero. This is because there were too little data
classified to dimension 3 (Self) compared to the other dimensions on the training and test
sets (see Table 2). Consequently, H(Self) was very low leading 𝐼𝐼(𝑋𝑋,𝑌𝑌) = H(X) + H(Self) -
H(X Self) close to zero, indicating that Authenticity of the Self can be determined by the other
dimensions.
151
Table 4. Relevance Test among Classified Dimensions using Information Gain. Note: Lines in bold depict potential relationships between examined dimensions.
X Y Information Gain X Y Information Gain (0,) 1 0.012151056 (0, 2) 1 0.085446723 (0,) 2 0.450885761 (0, 2) 3 0.000509317 (0,) 3 4.67E-05 (0, 3) 1 0.012152376 (1,) 0 0.012151056 (0, 3) 2 0.451348389 (1,) 2 0.026533295 (1, 2) 0 0.509799189 (1,) 3 3.30E-06 (1, 2) 3 0.000404666 (2,) 0 0.450885761 (1, 3) 0 0.012195764 (2,) 1 0.026533295 (1, 3) 2 0.026934659 (2,) 3 0.000377631 (2, 3) 0 0.451017447 (3,) 0 4.67E-05 (2, 3) 1 0.026560329 (3,) 1 3.30E-06 (0, 1, 2) 3 0.000641481 (3,) 2 0.000377631 (0, 1, 3) 2 0.5247749 (0, 1) 2 0.524181428 (0, 2, 3) 1 0.085578886 (0, 1) 3 4.80E-05 (1, 2, 3) 0 0.510036004
0 represents Historical/Categorical Authenticity 1 represents Deviated Authenticity 2 represents Authenticity of the Producer 3 represents Authenticity of the Self
4.2. The Multi-Dimensionality of Authenticity
Due to page limits, the full output generated from the classification modeling is put in
Appendix A. This output follows the same format from the output sample for the training/test
set. From this full output, AU-RA pairs that signified each dimension were retrieved. The AU-
RA pairs signifying strongly each dimension and their cut-off points for significance were
selected based on the indicative percentage for each dimension (column C to G). These pairs
are subsequently illustrated and discussed in more detail in the following sub-sections.
4.2.1. First-Level Dimensions
Figure 3 and Figure 4 detail sets of authenticity terms signifying strongly the three dimensions,
their corresponding number of AU-RA pairs signifying the dimension compared to the total
number of AU-RA pairs identified in the dataset, and their percentage signifying the
dimension on average. Overall, the multi-label model identified and classified 506 AU-RA pairs
into the three first-level dimensions namely Authenticity of the Other, Authenticity of the
Producer, and Authenticity of the Self. There were 79 authenticity terms paired with eight
restaurant attribute categories that were found to signify strongly those three dimensions.
152
Specifically, the values at the 60th percentile were used as the cut-off points for AU-RA pairs
to signify strongly a dimension (65% and above for Authenticity of the Other and Authenticity
of the Producer, and 1.05% and above for Authenticity of the Self).
The dominant dimension emerging from the dataset was Authenticity of the Producer, which
was signified by 59 terms and 315 AU-RA pairs, followed by Authenticity of the Other with 24
terms and 129 AU-RA pairs. As shown in Figure 3, there were four authenticity terms that
were used to signify solely Authenticity of the Other (meaning that all AU-RA pairs in the
dataset containing these four terms were found to signify Authenticity of the Other) including
iconic, modern, historical, and quintessential. These were so-called ‘absolute terms’. For
Authenticity of the Producer, a total number of 35 ‘absolute terms’ were found, ranging from
bogus, hoax, to faithful and sincere (from left to right in Figure 3).
The sets of authenticity terms signifying strongly Authenticity of the Other and Authenticity of
the Producer were distinctive to each other. As shown in Figure 3, the only four mutual terms
signifying both these dimensions included inspired, orthodox, genuine, and real. Examples for
genuine and real signifying strongly Authenticity of the Other through “Ethnicity &
Destination” can be: ‘Cute family run place with genuine Cantonese food’ and ‘Would not
recommend if you are after real Mexican food’. Both judgements signify the otherness of the
food (i.e. ethnicity of the cuisine), thus signify Authenticity of the Other. Inspired and orthodox
on the other hand were used to signify Authenticity of the Producer only through “Restaurant
Business” and “Service”. In this case, inspired and orthodox were used to signify Authenticity
of the Producer when the observed essence was mentioned to reflect the characteristics and
values attached with the restaurant business (e.g. ‘The breakfast menu has changed to
something inspired by the owner's or chefs trip to Canada’) and the service element (e.g. ‘…we
grew used to [the waitress’] unorthodox personality and she cracked a joke or two…’).
As mentioned in the information gain ratio, it was expected that the set of terms signifying
strongly Authenticity of the Self was not distinctive to that of the other two dimensions and
tended to be determined by the other dimensions. As a result, the terms that were found to
signify strongly this dimension (as shown in Figure 4) were accompanied by a dominant
dimension (i.e. Authenticity of the Other or Authenticity of the Producer between square
153
brackets). Out of 17 terms signifying strongly Authenticity of the Self, seven most regular
terms (based on the number of AU-RA pairs signifying) were used in the dominant dimension
to trigger Authenticity of the Self (i.e. home-style, homey, replicate, real, authentic, home-
made, and inspired).
154
Note:
Mutual AU Terms Restaurant Attribute Categories Signifying Authenticity of the Other* Restaurant Attribute Categories Signifying Authenticity of the Producer*
inspired Ethnicity & Destination Ambience & Atmosphere Food & Drink Restaurant Business Service
orthodox Food & Drink Ambience & Atmosphere Service
genuine Ethnicity & Destination Restaurant Business Service Other Customers Establishment Type Ambience & Atmosphere Experience Food & Drink
real Ethnicity & Destination Restaurant Business Service Other Customers Establishment Type Ambience & Atmosphere Experience Food & Drink
*The restaurant attribute categories signifying each dimension were listed in a descending order regarding the percentage of the corresponding pairs signifying the dimension.
Figure 3. Sets of Authenticity Terms Signifying Strongly Authenticity of the Other and Authenticity of the Producer.
155
The result of the first-level dimensions suggested the multi-dimensionality of authenticity in
dining experiences, which encompasses Authenticity of the Other, Authenticity of the
Producer, and Authenticity of the Self as first-level dimensions. As shown in Figure 4 for
instance, home-style, which was used to signify absolutely Authenticity of the Producer, was
also used to trigger Authenticity of the Self (e.g. ‘A real home-style place where I feel like a
friend as well as a customer’; ‘…is a wonderful home style Hungarian restaurant that reminds
me of the food my aunties and uncles cooked for me in Hungary’). In another instance,
authentic, which signified absolutely Authenticity of the Other, was used to trigger
Authenticity of the Self (e.g. ‘An authentic and classy decor made us feel like we weren't in
Melbourne anymore’; ‘Definitely a truly authentic and delicious dish, well rounded in flavours
and served in a well-presented yet nostalgic dish’).
4.2.2. Second-Level Dimensions
Figure 5 details sets of authenticity terms signifying strongly these second-level dimensions,
their corresponding number of AU-RA pairs signifying the dimension compared to the total
Figure 4. Sets of Authenticity Terms Signifying Strongly Authenticity of the Self.
156
number of AU-RA pairs identified in the dataset, and their percentage signifying the
dimension on average. Overall, the multi-label model identified and classified 34 AU-RA pairs
into the two second-level authenticity dimensions namely historical/categorical authenticity
and Deviated Authenticity. Specifically, 28 terms and 139 pairs were found to signify strongly
historical/categorical authenticity while Deviated Authenticity was strongly signified by six
terms and 33 pairs. Specifically, 50% and above was used as the cut-off percentage for AU-RA
pairs to signify strongly these second-level dimensions at the rate of 50% and above signifying
the first-level Authenticity of the Other.
Deviated Authenticity is confirmed as a third sub-dimension of Authenticity of the Other,
alongside historical and categorical authenticity. These three sub-dimensions therefore are
considered as second-level dimensions of authenticity. As shown in Figure 5, the sets of
authenticity terms signifying historical/categorical authenticity and Deviated Authenticity
were distinctive to each other, suggesting a clear theoretical distinction between these
dimensions. Indeed, there were 14 ‘absolute terms’ solely used to signify
historical/categorical authenticity (ranging from iconic to ridgy-didge from left to right) (e.g.
‘…the decor is old movie posters and lots of 80's, 90's iconic culture references’; ‘…the Prophet
Figure 5. Sets of Authenticity Terms Signifying Strongly Historical/Categorical Authenticity and Deviated Authenticity.
157
delivered a genuine old fashioned service…’; ‘So my curries I make aren't ridgy didge Indian
curries’). There were four ‘absolute terms’ signifying Deviated Authenticity including quirky
(e.g. ‘Quirky decor and fun friendly staff’; ‘Our waitress was very quirky and friendly…’), unique
(e.g. ‘Right behind the cafe is the Bowden train station, this is quite unique for Adelaide’; ‘…the
French fries douced in black onion were unique and yet stunningly flavorful’), peculiar (e.g.
‘the girl who poured them had the most peculiar technique’; ‘…I found the place really
peculiarly snotty for something located in an Innaloo strip mall’), exotic (e.g. ‘Definitely will
come back again, so many exotic dishes to try’; ‘The location is to die for, the building hints at
romance and a touch of the exotic’), and offbeat (e.g. ‘Really quaint and offbeat atmosphere
with good service’; ‘I ordered an offbeat burger - made of Tempura fried soft shell crab, and
tempered with wasabi mayo and seaweed slaw’). It was apparent that all terms used to signify
Deviated Authenticity denoted the state of being unusual of an object/entity/person that
departs from people’s commonly accepted standards.
The sole exception was idiosyncratic, which was only used to signify Deviated Authenticity
through “Establishment Type” (e.g. ‘…this place is so full of idiosyncratic additions that I will
not give any more away‘). Apart from that, idiosyncratic was mainly used to signify
Authenticity of the Producer through “Service” (e.g. ‘…the staff are sometimes too distracted
by their own idiosyncrasies to attend to you!‘), “Food & Drink” (e.g. ‘I've written elsewhere
about their incredible cakes, which are beautifully and idiosyncratically decorated…‘), and
“Ambience & Atmosphere” (e.g. ‘The idiosyncratic decor and furniture recycled form industrial
material…‘). A similar case to idiosyncratic was outlandish, despite its uncommonness notion,
was only used to signify Authenticity of the Producer through “Ambience & Atmosphere” (e.g.
‘The environment was agreeable, nothing too outlandish or fancy‘) and “Food & Drink” (e.g.
‘They don't come in any crazy outlandish flavours but if you, like I, are happy with the generics
then these will be sure to please‘). These examples showed that, when an observed essence
was perceived as unusual and rare, it can result from its deviation from commonly accepted
standards (thus Deviated Authenticity), or that deviation of the observed essence was the
inherent value/characteristics of that object/entity/person (thus Authenticity of the
Producer), or both.
158
5.0 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The findings revealed several authenticity dimensions through the analysis of consumers’
judgements communicated in online restaurant reviews, thus warranting the notion that
authenticity as a multi-dimensional concept. An integrated learning approach was adopted to
overcome various challenges emerging from the methodology: (1) to identify an extensive list
of authenticity terms, (2) to identify different elements in dining experiences that are
attached with authenticity terms and combine the pairs, (3) to classify the pairs into proposed
authenticity dimensions, (4) to identify any emerging dimensions overlooked in the proposed
framework, and (5) to confirm if the classifications reflect the proposed framework. Also, by
using a proportionate random sampling strategy to create the training/test set, this study has
distinguished itself from other machine learning studies by inputting more rigorous and
scientific human learning to aid machine learning. This study, therefore, responds to the gap
addressed by Le et al. (2020b) that limited studies in consumer research that utilise machine
learning have attempted to improve validity and reliability of human learning outputs.
Overall, there were 26 additional authenticity terms found in the dataset, some of which were
part of Australian colloquialisms (i.e. deadset, dinky-di, fair-dinkum, ridgy-didge, and true-
blue). This can be explained by the fact that data were collected from an Australian restaurant
review platform, while Kovács et al.’s (2014) and O’Connor et al.’s (2017) studies were
conducted in the USA. Terms describing authenticity therefore are culturally bounded, thus
the use of integrated learning is critical to detect such colloquialisms since machines cannot
understand the context and nuanced meanings in different cultures (Ansari et al. 2018; Le et
al. 2020b).
The evaluation of the two classification models showed that the multi-label model
outperformed the one-label model on the test set. The multi-label model suggested that
while there were specific AU-RA pairs signifying solely one authenticity dimension (226 pairs),
the majority of identified AU-RA pairs signified more than one dimension (280 pairs). This
indicates that the very same entity (or, same type of entity) could be evaluated with respect
to more than one dimension (Newman 2019). This also indicates the importance of
contextualising authenticity terms to gain a more comprehensive understanding of indicative
159
dimensions (and potential relationships between them) to which the terms are referring. This
supports the critical role of pinpointing the right contexts in conceptualising complex
consumer behaviour constructs through consumer expressions (Toral et al. 2018).
Further, the result from the information gain ratio revealed that all authenticity dimensions
were relevant for the classification. More importantly, the sets of AU-RA pairs signifying
strongly the first-level authenticity dimensions suggested that Authenticity of the Other was
distinctive from Authenticity of the Producer, thus supporting both Le et al.’s (2019) and
Newman and Smith’s (2016) multi-dimensionality argument. The results generated from the
classification model indicated that Authenticity of the Producer was the dominant dimension
emerging from the dataset, followed by Authenticity of the Other. This is in accordance with
Newman’s (2019) assertion that when individuals consider a specific kind of entity, one
dimension of authenticity appears to be more noticeable than others. The findings suggested
that when evaluating authenticity of dining experiences, consumers also pay attention to
authentic performances/projection of the servicescape, the backstage role of the
producer/the restaurant rather than solely focusing on how closely the food, the cuisine or
the restaurant décor resemble the culture and cuisine they claim to deliver. This pattern
therefore is in line with Gilmore and Pine’s (2007, 97) principles of rendering authenticity in
businesses: (1) “Is the offering true to itself”; and (2) “Is the offering what it says it is”,
considering the overall dining experience is the business offering (Le et al. 2019). This line of
argument focuses more on how the essence reflects the values and characteristics possessed
by the underlying producer of the entity, rather than the true replication or close connection
of the entity with the external references (i.e. the otherness, valued persons or places) when
it comes to authenticity judgements.
Also, since there were too little data labelled as Authenticity of the Self compared to that of
the other dimensions, Authenticity of the Self was found to be influenced by Authenticity of
the Other and Authenticity of the Producer as confirmed through the results of the first-level
dimensions. Notwithstanding the small amount of data gathered on this point, this pattern is
in line with existing research about existential authenticity in that the realisation of the self
tends to be triggered through the consumption of the object or the other (Belhassen et al.
2008; Jones 2010; Kolar and Zabcar 2010; Reisinger and Steiner 2006) (i.e. signified through
160
the pairs containing authentic and inspired). Also, the feeling of nostalgia can be a source for
existential authenticity and self-authentication (Berger 1973) since people can relate to past
experiences, pleasantness (Brown 1996) or connectedness (Rickly-Boyd 2012) when they
perceive something as home-style, homey, home-made, or even things that can replicate their
familiarities (terms used to signify strongly Authenticity of the Producer).
The human learning inputs directing machine learning suggested the existence of Deviated
Authenticity as a third sub-dimension of Authenticity of the Other, beside historical and
categorical authenticity. This suggestion was confirmed in the multi-label classification model,
supporting and advances Newman and Smith’s (2016) conceptualisation. Deviated
Authenticity denoted the state of being unusual of an entity that departs from the commonly
accepted standards. The notion of Deviated Authenticity as an entity perceived as rare and
unusual that departs from normally accepted norms was also confirmed through the set of
terms that signified strongly this dimension (i.e. quirky, unique, peculiar, exotic, and offbeat).
Once the object/entity is believed to conform to the existing beliefs, it thus transforms into
categorical authenticity.
Deviated Authenticity can also be seen as an extended version of Cohen’s (1988) emergent
authenticity over the course of time. The key difference between Deviated Authenticity and
emergent authenticity is a matter of timeline: the former denotes the rare/uncommon quality
of an entity that can eventually become popular and conforms to socially constructed beliefs
of a category, while the later denotes something already regarded as inauthentic at a certain
point in the past, but now becomes authentic or iconic. Through Deviated Authenticity, this
paper argues that there is a period of time that takes place before the formation of Cohen’s
emergent authenticity, in which there are no preconceptions/existing beliefs of a particular
category (unknown/unclassified category) that people can use as a base to assess the
authenticity of an entity. Therefore, emergent authenticity is only triggered when there are
sufficient conceptions to form social norms and expectations for that particular category to
judge the object/entity as inauthentic (see Figure 6). Since it is socially constructed by social
norms and expectations, Deviated Authenticity together with historical and categorical
authenticity are considered as second-level dimensions and fall under the first-level
Authenticity of the Other. These second-level dimensions denote the evaluations based on
161
the beliefs that the entity embodies some sort of essence that can be authenticated by
external reference (the otherness).
It is also important to note the two exceptions: of idiosyncratic and outlandish as outlined in
the results section, highlighted how the rareness and quaintness of the observed entity can
be viewed in two ways: (1) whether the entity is perceived as unusual and unfamiliar due to
the observer’s socially and individually constructed beliefs and knowledge about a category
(thus Deviated Authenticity), or (2) whether the entity is believed to reflect the characteristics
possessed by the producer itself (thus Authenticity of the Producer). Apparently, the same can
happen between categorical authenticity and Authenticity of the Producer. However, when
people have a certain level of knowledge about a category, they tend to assess the observed
essence as if it conforms to the existing beliefs of that category, thus the judgements tend to
relate to categorical authenticity (or Deviated Authenticity if the entity is unusual and
strange). On the other hand, for the same category, if the observer recognises any deceitful
intentions or practices of the producer in representing the true category, the judgement will
relate to Authenticity of the Producer. This also explains why authenticity terms such as cheat,
misleading, deceptive, scam, deceitful, feigned, humbug, quack, hoax, and bogus were found
to solely relate to Authenticity of the Producer. This observation is also in line with several
studies which report that business self-proclamations of authenticity appear to have the
opposite of the intended effect on perceptions of authenticity (Gilmore and Pine 2007; Holt
2002; Kovács et al. 2017; Lehman et al. 2018). Restaurateurs therefore must consider carefully
how much authenticity they can safely claim without incurring a backlash from their
consumers (Demetry 2019).
Emergent Authenticity
Deviated Authenticity
Trigger Point Inauthenticity
Authenticity
Figure 6. Timeline for Deviated Authenticity and Emergent Authenticity.
Unknown
162
6.0 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
6.1. Theoretical Contributions
The exploration and confirmation of several authenticity dimensions emerging from online
restaurant reviews highlights key dimensions that are of value to the customers. This plays
an important role in establishing a more nuanced understanding of authenticity in the context
of restaurant experiences, where authenticity is usually perceived from the eye of the
customers rather than ‘verified facts’ of objects. The multi-dimensionality of authenticity
confirmed in this paper also warrants further examination of the multi-dimensionality of this
concept, especially when authenticity research in the restaurant context mostly focuses on
solely one authenticity dimension (Le et al., 2019). The dimensions explored and confirmed
in this paper also calls for more scholarly attention to the role of producer/service provider in
influencing consumers’ perceptions of authenticity.
Secondly, the conceptualisation proposed and confirmed in this paper has advanced the
conceptualisation of authenticity and overcome some current limitations. Specifically, this
conceptualisation of authenticity lessens the intense focus on the debatable objectivity of
authenticity assessments in the conceptualisations in tourism (Wang’s objective versus
constructive authenticity). To do this, this conceptualisation redirects the root of authenticity
assessments from studying the ‘fact’ itself to studying the ‘interpretation’ of the observer.
Authenticity studies in consumer research, therefore, would be more effective by considering
consumers’ thoughts and catering to their expectations regarding authenticity instead of
determining the ultimate ideal state of authenticity.
Thirdly, by proposing a two-levelled structure for multi-dimensionality of authenticity, this
paper advances the conceptualisations proposed by Newman and Smith (2016). Indeed, the
proposed conceptualisation overcomes the challenges of producers staging values and
characteristics for monetary purposes as an obstacle to assessing values authenticity
(Newman 2019; Newman and Smith 2016). At the end, the assessment which matters most
is the consumers’ assessment. If they think the observed essence reflects the characteristics
possessed by the producer, the assessment and subsequent judgement therefore relates to
Authenticity of the Producer. This conceptualisation also suggests the emergence of Deviated
163
Authenticity, which denotes something perceived as unusual and unfamiliar can also be
considered as a form of authenticity.
6.2. Methodological Contributions
Firstly, this paper contributes to the research problem of identifying terms expressing the
meanings of complex and multi-dimensional concepts, following an integrated learning
approach based on text mining and classification techniques. Previous studies employed
survey techniques to examine terms expressing authenticity (Kovács 2019; Kovács et al. 2014;
O’Connor et al. 2017). It is worth to note that these studies recruited participants based in
the USA, and two studies sampled participants from university students (Kovács et al. 2014;
O’Connor et al. 2017) thus limiting generalisations of these findings. This paper enhances
substantially the generalisability of the identified terms, since they emerged from a vast
amount of user-generated content (over a million reviews) through the integration of human
and machine learning.
Secondly, this analysis contributes to the growing use of integrated learning in consumer
research. Despite human’s limited ability to analyse and interpret such large volumes of data,
human learning was systematically added in the study methodology to fulfil several
objectives: to detect errors and ‘noise’ in data to enhance its accuracy prior to data training;
to confirm highly associated terms identified by machine learning (as the machine did not
concern with the context and culture factors); to facilitate the validation of outputs that needs
field expertise (which had yet been presented in machine learning); and to guide the machine
learning procedure and overcome the limitation emerging from machine learning’s
automated independent nature. By demonstrating a methodological approach combining
systematic and rigorous human learning to machine learning, this paper therefore heightens
the important complementary role of human learning in the era of more prevalent machine
learning and big data analytics (Alaei et al. 2019; Le et al., 2020d; Xiang et al. 2017), and
ascertains avenues for using integrated learning to conceptualise multi-dimensional concepts
in consumer research.
164
6.3. Practical Contributions
The dimensions in the multi-dimensional structure of authenticity explored and confirmed in
this paper have important implications not only for restaurateurs, but also for business
owners and managers in service-based organisations. Specifically, restaurants and other
service-based businesses would be able to identify and segment their customers based on
their assessments and expectations of authenticity. By doing this, they can target and cater
for specific demand and expectations of authenticity for each customer segment, which in
turn increases their customers’ satisfaction and loyalty (Chhabra et al. 2013a, 2013b; Gilmore
and Pine 2007). This further enhances brand equity if the business is heavily attached and
influenced by its brand (Lu et al. 2015; Pinto et al. 2019) and reinforces business sustainability
(Zeng et al. 2012, 2019).
More importantly, the authenticity terms paired with restaurant attribute categories also
provide practical insights encouraging restaurateurs to comprehend what shapes authenticity
in the dining context and the interaction of restaurant attributes creating an authentic dining
experience (Le et al. 2019). Customising the diners’ quest of authenticity, and which tangible
and intangible elements induce authentic experiences are vital. This paper also raises
awareness among businesses that staging authenticity can put businesses at risk of being
disclosed by customers, which subsequently may lead to decreased trust, dissatisfaction (Le
et al. 2019, 2020a), or worse, business boycott. It is best for businesses to project their values
and characteristics genuinely, considering the fine line between being authentic and being
pretentiously authentic (Gilmore and Pine 2007).
The new dimension Deviated Authenticity emerging from the data also offers useful
implications for restaurateurs. Deviated Authenticity suggests a state of non-conformity of
the entity in which the customer cannot classify it into a class or type. This state of being
unusual however does not imply a lack of authenticity of the entity, rather, it implies a
uniqueness/distinctiveness that is necessary to differentiate the business with other
competitors. This observation is highlighted especially when there is a link between Deviated
Authenticity and Authenticity of the Producer, in which an entity (or its characteristics) is
perceived as unusual and rare (Deviated Authenticity), that deviation can also be perceived
as the inherent value/characteristics of that entity/person (thus Authenticity of the Producer).
165
This observation therefore has an important implication for restaurateurs who strive to
establish a competitive advantage through creating a sense of uniqueness/distinctiveness
among customers. This will not only have positive impacts on enhancing memorability of the
dining experience, but also on increasing revisit intention and customer loyalty.
6.4. Research Limitations and Future Research
The first limitation of this study is that the data were limited to the Zomato review site, which
means other review sites such as TripAdvisor or Yelp can be used and replicate the
methodological approach to understand cross-cultural meanings of authenticity. Future
studies can be conducted in other geographical locations to compare the terms used to
express authenticity and identify any cultural differences in perceptions of authenticity.
Moreover, it is useful to know if there are differences in perceptions and assessments of
authenticity in Eastern countries, considering perceptions of authenticity are usually
Western-centric and thus associated with minor ethnicities (e.g. Asian countries) and the
consumption of otherness (Le et al. 2019).
Regarding the methodology, integrated learning cannot detect the difference between the
use of ethnicity terms as authenticity terms, and ethnicity terms as ethnicity-related
restaurant attributes. Future empirical research adopting integrated learning approaches
therefore can propose a way forward to address this limitation and enhance the applicability
of this approach in different sets of data investigating different concepts.
Also, considering the possible influence of Authenticity of the Other and Authenticity of the
Producer on Authenticity of the Self, future studies can examine how and to what extent the
judgements signifying these two dimensions can trigger perceptions of Authenticity of the
Self. These studies can certainly utilise online reviews and an integrated learning approach to
contribute to the prevalence of text mining and machine learning in the era of big data
analytics (Alaei et al. 2019).
Finally, it should be noted that the current conceptualisation of authenticity has only been
empirically tested in the context of dining experiences. The dimensions identified and
proposed in this paper therefore might not be applicable in other contexts. As a result, the
166
authenticity dimensions should be further empirically examined using different data sources
in different contexts of tourism and hospitality to warrant the generalisability of this
authenticity conceptualisation.
7.0 CONCLUSION
This research explores several authenticity dimensions emerging from online restaurant
reviews, thus supporting the multi-dimensionality of authenticity in the context of dining
experiences. It does this by adopting an integrated learning approach based on text mining
and classification techniques. Results reveal that perceptions of authenticity in dining
experiences do evolve beyond the core product such as the food and the culture delivered
(Authenticity of the Other) and focus more on the true projection of the producer-
organisation’s internal values and characteristics (Authenticity of the Producer). Authenticity
of the Self was found to be triggered by these two dimensions as suggested in the recent
literature. Also, by identifying Deviated Authenticity as a third sub-dimension of Authenticity
of the Other, this paper suggests consumers perceive a state of rareness of an entity that
departs from the commonly accepted standards. This research also identifies different sets of
authenticity terms that were used to signify each authenticity dimension. Practitioners
therefore can employ these sets of terms to segment and understand various groups of
customers with different expectations and demand of authenticity via consumers’
judgements, not only in the context of restaurants but also in various service-based
businesses.
167
REFERENCES
Alaei, Ali Reza, Susanne Becken, and Bela Stantic. 2019. "Sentiment Analysis in Tourism:
Capitalizing on Big Data." Journal of Travel Research 58 (2):175-191.
Andersson, Tommy D., Lena Mossberg. 2004. "The dining experience: do restaurants satisfy
customer needs?" Food Service Technology 4 (4):171-177.
Ansari, Fazel, Selim Erol, and Wilfried Sihn. 2018. "Rethinking Human-Machine Learning in
Industry 4.0: How Does the Paradigm Shift Treat the Role of Human Learning?" Procedia
Manufacturing 23:117-122.
Belhassen, Yaniv, and Kellee Caton. 2006. "Authenticity Matters." Annals of Tourism
Research 33 (3):853-856.
Belhassen, Yaniv, Kellee Caton, and William P. Stewart. 2008. "The search for authenticity in
the pilgrim experience." Annals of Tourism Research 35 (3):668-689.
Belk, Russell W., and Janeen Arnold Costa. 1998. "The Mountain Man Myth: A
Contemporary Consuming Fantasy." Journal of Consumer Research 25 (3):218-240.
Berger, Peter L. 1973. "Sincerity and authenticity in modern society." The Public Interest
31:81.
Beverland, Michael B., Francis J. Farrelly. 2009. "The Quest for Authenticity in Consumption:
Consumers’ Purposive Choice of Authentic Cues to Shape Experienced Outcomes."
Journal of Consumer Research 36 (5):838-856.
Björk, Peter, and Hannele Kauppinen-Räisänen. 2016. "Exploring the multi-dimensionality of
travellers' culinary-gastronomic experiences." Current Issues in Tourism 19 (12):1260-
1280.
Bojanowski, Piotr, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2017. "Enriching
Word Vectors with Subword Information." Transactions of the Association for
Computational Linguistics 5:135-146.
Brown, D. 1996. “Genuine Fakes.” In The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism,
edited by Tom Selwyn, 33-47. Chichester: Wiley.
Bruner, Edward M. 1994. "Abraham Lincoln as Authentic Reproduction: A Critique of
Postmodernism." American Anthropologist 96 (2):397-415.
Carroll, Glenn R. 2015. "Authenticity: Attribution, value, and meaning." In Emerging Trends
in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable
168
Resource, edited by R. Scott and S. Kosslyn, 1-13. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley &
Sons.
Carroll, Glenn R., and Dennis Ray Wheaton. 2009. "The organizational construction of
authenticity: An examination of contemporary food and dining in the U.S." Research in
Organizational Behavior 29:255-282.
Cary, Stephanie Hom. 2004. "The Tourist Moment." Annals of Tourism Research 31 (1):61-
77.
Chhabra, Deepak, Woojin Lee, and Shengnan Zhao. 2013a. "Epitomizing the "other" in
ethnic eatertainment experiences." Leisure: Journal of the Canadian Association for
Leisure 37 (4):361-378.
Chhabra, Deepak, Woojin Lee, Shengnan Zhao, and Karla Scott. 2013b. "Marketing of ethnic
food experiences: authentication analysis of Indian cuisine abroad." Journal of Heritage
Tourism 8 (2-3):145-157.
Cireşan, Dan, Ueli Meier, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2012. "Multi-column deep neural
networks for image classification." arXiv preprint arXiv:1202.2745.
Cohen, Erik, and Nir Avieli. 2004. "Food in tourism - Attraction and impediment." Annals of
Tourism Research 31 (4):755-778.
Cohen, Erik, and Scott A. Cohen. 2012. "Authentication: Hot and cool." Annals of Tourism
Research 39 (3):1295-1314.
Cohen, Erik. 1979. "A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences." Sociology 13 (2):179-201.
Cohen, Erik. 1988. "Authenticity and commoditization in tourism." Annals of Tourism
Research 15 (3):371-386.
Demetry, Daphne. 2019. "How Organizations Claim Authenticity: The Coproduction of
Illusions in Underground Restaurants." Organization Science 30 (5):937-960.
Devlin, Jacob, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. "BERT: Pre-
training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding."
arXiv:1810.04805v2.
DiPietro, Robin. 2017. "Restaurant and foodservice research." International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 29 (4):1203-1234.
Duan, Wenjing, Yang Yu, Qing Cao, and Stuart Levy. 2016. "Exploring the Impact of Social
Media on Hotel Service Performance: A Sentimental Analysis Approach." Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly 57 (3):282-296.
169
Dutton, Denis. 2003. "Authenticity in art." The Oxford handbook of aesthetics:258-274.
Gelman, S. A. 2004. "Psychological essentialism in children." Trends Cogn Sci 8 (9):404-9.
Grayson, Kent, and Radan Martinec. 2004. "Consumer Perceptions of Iconicity and
Indexicality and Their Influence on Assessments of Authentic Market Offerings." Journal
of Consumer Research 31 (2):296-312.
Gurney, Kevin. 2014. An introduction to neural networks. London: CRC Press.
Hahl, Oliver. 2016. "Turning Back the Clock in Baseball: The Increased Prominence of
Extrinsic Rewards and Demand for Authenticity." Organization Science 27 (4):929-953.
Hall, C. Michael. 2007. "Response to Yeoman et al: The fakery of ‘The authentic tourist’."
Tourism Management 28 (4):1139-1140.
Hashimi, Hussein, Alaaeldin Hafez, and Hassan Mathkour. 2015. "Selection criteria for text
mining approaches." Computers in Human Behavior 51:729-733.
Haslam, Nick, and Jennifer Whelan. 2008. "Human Natures: Psychological Essentialism in
Thinking about Differences between People." Social and Personality Psychology
Compass 2 (3):1297-1312.
Hicks, Joshua A., Rebecca J. Schlegel, and George E. Newman. 2019. "Introduction to the
Special Issue: Authenticity: Novel Insights Into a Valued, Yet Elusive, Concept." Review
of General Psychology 23 (1):3-7.
Holt, Douglas B. 2002. "Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer
Culture and Branding." Journal of Consumer Research 29 (1):70-90.
Hsiao, Yu-Hsiang, Mu-Chen Chen, and Wei-Chien Liao. 2017. "Logistics service design for
cross-border E-commerce using Kansei engineering with text-mining-based online
content analysis." Telematics and Informatics 34 (4):284-302.
Hu, Ya-Han, and Kuanchin Chen. 2016. "Predicting hotel review helpfulness: The impact of
review visibility, and interaction between hotel stars and review ratings." International
Journal of Information Management 36 (6):929-944.
Jones, Siân. 2010. "Negotiating Authentic Objects and Authentic Selves: Beyond the
Deconstruction of Authenticity." Journal of Material Culture 15 (2):181-203.
Kauppinen-Räisänen, Hannele, Johanna Gummerus, and Katariina Lehtola. 2013.
"Remembered eating experiences described by the self, place, food, context and time."
British Food Journal 115 (5):666-685.
170
Kim, Jong-Hyeong, Hanqun Song, and Hyewon Youn. 2019. "The chain of effects from
authenticity cues to purchase intention: The role of emotions and restaurant image."
International Journal of Hospitality Management:102354.
Kirilenko, Andrei P., Svetlana O. Stepchenkova, Hany Kim, and Xiang Li. 2018. "Automated
Sentiment Analysis in Tourism: Comparison of Approaches." Journal of Travel Research
57 (8):1012-1025.
Kolar, Tomaz, and Vesna Zabkar. 2010. "A consumer-based model of authenticity: An
oxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing?" Tourism Management 31
(5):652-664.
Kovács, B., G. R. Carroll, and D. W. Lehman. 2014. "Authenticity and Consumer Value
Ratings: Empirical Tests from the Restaurant Domain." Organizational Science 25
(2):458-478.
Kovács, Balázs, Glenn Carroll, and David Lehman. 2017. "The Perils of Proclaiming an
Authentic Organizational Identity." Sociological Science 4:80-106.
Kovács, Balázs. 2019. "Authenticity Is in the Eye of the Beholder: The Exploration of
Audiences’ Lay Associations to Authenticity Across Five Domains." Review of General
Psychology 23 (1):32-59.
Le, Truc H., Charles Arcodia, Anna Kralj, and Margarida Abreu Novais. 2018. "Proposing an
Exploration of Authenticity and its Key Determinants in Dining Experiences." In CAUTHE
2018: Get Smart: Paradoxes and Possibilities in Tourism, Hospitality and Events
Education and Research.
Le, Truc H., Charles Arcodia, Margarida Abreu Novais, and Anna Kralj. 2019. "What we know
and do not know about authenticity in dining experiences: A systematic literature
review." Tourism Management 74:258-275.
Le, Truc H., Charles Arcodia, Margarida Abreu Novais, and Anna Kralj. 2020a. “Proposing a
Conceptual Framework for Authenticity in Co-Created Experiences”. In CAUTHE 2020:
20:20 Vision: New Perspectives on the diversity of Hospitality, Tourism and Events.
Le, Truc H., Charles Arcodia, Margarida Abreu Novais, and Anna Kralj. 2020b. “Using
Combined-Learning to Conceptualise Constructs in Tourism and Hospitality”. In CAUTHE
2020: 20:20 Vision: New Perspectives on the diversity of Hospitality, Tourism and Events.
Le, Truc H., Charles Arcodia, Margarida Abreu Novais, and Anna Kralj. 2020c. "Producing
Authenticity in Restaurant Experiences: Interrelationships between the Consumer, the
171
Provider, and the Experience." Tourism Recreation Research. doi:
10.1080/02508281.2020.1805932.
Le, Truc H., Charles Arcodia, Margarida Abreu Novais, and Anna Kralj. 2020d. "Proposing a
Systematic Approach for Integrating Traditional Research Methods into Machine
Learning in Text Analytics in Tourism and Hospitality." Current Issues in Tourism. doi:
10.1080/13683500.2020.1829568.
Lehman, David W., Balázs Kovács, and Glenn R. Carroll. 2018. "The Beholder’s Eyes:
Audience Reactions to Organizational Self-claims of Authenticity." Socius: Sociological
Research for a Dynamic World 4:237802311879303.
Lehman, David W., Kieran O’Connor, and Glenn R. Carroll. 2019. "Acting on Authenticity:
Individual Interpretations and Behavioral Responses." Review of General Psychology 23
(1):19-31.
Lu, A. C. C., D. Gursoy, and C. Y. Lu. 2015. "Authenticity perceptions, brand equity and brand
choice intention: The case of ethnic restaurants." International Journal of Hospitality
Management 50:36-45.
Luca, Altamore, Ingrassia Marzia, Chironi Stefania, Columba Pietro, Sortino Giuseppe,
Vukadin Ana, and Bacarella Simona. 2018. "Pasta experience: Eating with the five
senses—a pilot study." AIMS Agriculture and Food 3 (4):493-520.
Ma, Yufeng, Zheng Xiang, Qianzhou Du, and Weiguo Fan. 2018. "Effects of user-provided
photos on hotel review helpfulness: An analytical approach with deep leaning."
International Journal of Hospitality Management 71:120-131.
MacCannell, Dean, and Juliet Flower MacCannell. 1993. "Social class in postmodernity."
Forget Baudrillard:124-45.
MacCannell, Dean. 1973. "Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist
Settings." American Journal of Sociology 79 (3):589-603.
MacCannell, Dean. 1976. The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. London: Univ of
California Press.
Magnini, Vincent P., Todd Miller, and BeomCheol Kim. 2011. "The Psychological Effects of
Foreign-Language Restaurant Signs on Potential Diners." Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research 35 (1):24-44.
172
Mandros, Panagiotis, Mario Boley, and Jilles Vreeken. 2017. "Discovering reliable
approximate functional dependencies." In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD
International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ACM.
Mazutis, Daina D., and Natalie Slawinski. 2015. "Reconnecting Business and Society:
Perceptions of Authenticity in Corporate Social Responsibility." Journal of Business
Ethics 131 (1):137-150.
McIntosh, Alison J., and Richard C. Prentice. 1999. "Affirming authenticity: Consuming
cultural heritage." Annals of Tourism Research 26 (3):589-612.
Mkono, Muchazondida. 2012. "A netnographic examination of constructive authenticity in
Victoria Falls tourist (restaurant) experiences." International Journal of Hospitality
Management 31 (2):387-394.
Mkono, Muchazondida. 2013a. "Contested authenticity in Zimbabwean tourist
eatertainment." PhD diss., Southern Cross University.
Mkono, Muchazondida. 2013b. "Existential authenticity in cultural restaurant experiences in
Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe: a netnographic analysis." International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research 7 (4):353-363.
Naccarato, Peter, and Kathleen LeBesco. 2013. Culinary capital. London: Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Newman, George E. 2019. "The Psychology of Authenticity." Review of General Psychology
23 (1):8-18.
Newman, George E., and Rosanna K. Smith. 2016. "Kinds of Authenticity." Philosophy
Compass 11 (10):609-618.
O'Connor, K., G. R. Carroll, and B. Kovacs. 2017. "Disambiguating authenticity:
Interpretations of value and appeal." PLoS One 12 (6):e0179187.
Phung, Minh Tuan, Pham Thi Minh Ly, and Tin Trung Nguyen. 2019. "The effect of
authenticity perceptions and brand equity on brand choice intention." Journal of
Business Research 101:726-736.
Pine, B. Joseph, and James H. Gilmore. 1999. The experience economy: work is theatre &
every business a stage. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
Gilmore, James H., and B. Joseph Pine. 2007. Authenticity: what consumers really want.
Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
173
Pinto, Filipa Rosado, Sandra Loureiro, and Ricardo Godinho Bilro. 2019. "Insights into brand
authenticity and customer engagement in a restaurant setting: a text mining approach."
In 48th Annual European Marketing Academy conference-EMAC.
Prentice, Deborah A., and Dale T. Miller. 2007. "Psychological Essentialism of Human
Categories." Current Directions in Psychological Science 16 (4):202-206.
Prentice, Richard. 2001. "Experiential cultural tourism: Museums & the marketing of the
new romanticism of evoked authenticity." Museum Management and Curatorship 19
(1):5-26.
Radoynovska, Nevena, and Brayden G. King. 2019. "To Whom Are You True? Audience
Perceptions of Authenticity in Nascent Crowdfunding Ventures." Organization Science
30 (4):781-802.
Reisinger, Yvette, and Carol J. Steiner. 2006. "Reconceptualizing object authenticity." Annals
of Tourism Research 33 (1):65-86.
Rickly-Boyd, Jillian M. 2012. "Authenticity & aura. A benjaminian approach to tourism."
Annals of Tourism Research 39 (1):269-289.
Rodríguez-López, M. Eugenia, Juan Miguel Alcántara-Pilar, Salvador Del Barrio-García, and
Francisco Muñoz-Leiva. 2019. "A review of restaurant research in the last two decades:
A bibliometric analysis." International Journal of Hospitality Management:102387.
Selvanathan, E. Antony, Saroja Selvanathan, and Gerald Keller. 2014. Business statistics:
Australia / New Zealand. 6th ed. South Melbourne, Victoria: Cengage Learning.
Shalizi, Cosma R. 2006. “Methods and Techniques of Complex Systems Science: An
Overview”. In Complex Systems Science in Biomedicine, edited by Thomas S. Deisboeck
and J. Yasha Kresh, 33-114. New York: Springer.
Shuai, Q., Y. Huang, L. Jin, and L. Pang. 2018. "Sentiment Analysis on Chinese Hotel Reviews
with Doc2Vec and Classifiers." 2018 IEEE 3rd Advanced Information Technology,
Electronic and Automation Control Conference, Chongqing, China.
Sidali, Katia Laura, and Sarah Hemmerling. 2014. "Developing an authenticity model of
traditional food specialties." British Food Journal 116 (11):1692-1709.
Silver, Ira. 1993. "Marketing authenticity in third world countries." Annals of Tourism
Research 20 (2):302-318.
Smart Proxy. (2019). “Selenium Scraping with Node.Js.” https://smartproxy.com/what-is-
web-scraping/selenium-scraping-with-node-js (accessed December 30, 2019).
174
Svozil, Daniel, Vladimír Kvasnicka, and Jirí̂ Pospichal. 1997. "Introduction to multi-layer feed-
forward neural networks." Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 39 (1):43-
62.
Tan, P.-N., M. Steinbach, and V. Kumar. 2005. Introduction to Data Mining. Boston, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Toral, S. L., M. R. Martínez-Torres, and M. R. Gonzalez-Rodriguez. 2018. "Identification of
the Unique Attributes of Tourist Destinations from Online Reviews." Journal of Travel
Research 57 (7):908-919.
Vásquez, Camilla, and Alice Chik. 2015. "“I Am Not a Foodie…”: Culinary Capital in Online
Reviews of Michelin Restaurants." Food and Foodways 23 (4):231-250.
Wang, Ning. 1999. "Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience." Annals of Tourism
Research 26 (2):349-370.
Wang, Ning. 2000. Tourism and modernity: a sociological analysis. 1st ed. New York:
Pergamon.
Xiang, Zheng, Qianzhou Du, Yufeng Ma, and Weiguo Fan. 2017. "A comparative analysis of
major online review platforms: Implications for social media analytics in hospitality and
tourism." Tourism Management 58:51-65.
Xiang, Zheng, Qianzhou Du, Yufeng Ma, and Weiguo Fan. 2018. "Assessing reliability of
social media data: lessons from mining TripAdvisor hotel reviews." Information
Technology & Tourism 18 (1):43-59.
Xiang, Zheng, Zvi Schwartz, John H. Gerdes, and Muzaffer Uysal. 2015. "What can big data
and text analytics tell us about hotel guest experience and satisfaction?" International
Journal of Hospitality Management 44:120-130.
Xu, Xun, and Yibai Li. 2016. "The antecedents of customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction
toward various types of hotels: A text mining approach." International Journal of
Hospitality Management 55:57-69.
Zeng, Guojun, Frank Go, and Henk J. de Vries. 2012. "Paradox of authenticity versus
standardization: Expansion strategies of restaurant groups in China." International
Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (4):1090-1100.
Zeng, Guojun, J. De Vries Henk, and Frank M. Go. 2019. Restaurant Chains in China: The
Dilemma of Standardisation versus Authenticity. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
175
Zhang, L., and L. Hanks. 2018. "Online reviews: The effect of cosmopolitanism, incidental
similarity, and dispersion on consumer attitudes toward ethnic restaurants."
International Journal of Hospitality Management 68:115-123.
176
PART V. CONCLUSION
1. Introduction
This thesis is structured as a series of papers where the traditional chapters on literature
review, methodology, and empirical findings are presented as discreet manuscripts. The
literature review paper in Part II offered a synopsis of existing knowledge and research gaps
in authenticity in dining experiences. Directed by the review outcomes, Part III presented a
methodological paper proposing a systematic approach that integrates traditional research
methods into machine learning in the analysis of online reviews to enhance conceptual
understanding and theory development of multi-dimensional concepts. Following this, a
three-phase research design was conducted, and the findings were presented in two
empirical papers in Part IV. This final part (Part V) brings together the objectives, the
interrelationships between the papers, and the empirical outcomes to address the
overarching proposition of the thesis. This part now revisits the research objectives and
process, summarises the main findings from the papers, and suggests the contributions of
these findings to theory, methodology, practice, and future research.
2. Revisiting the Research Objectives and Process
In response to the limited research underpinning the multi-dimensionality of authenticity in
the context of dining experiences, the increasing attention to the backstage role of the
producer-organisation in constructing authenticity cues, and the usefulness of online
restaurant reviews in offering insights about consumers’ experiences and perceptions, this
thesis examined consumers’ communications and perceptions of authenticity in dining
experiences using online reviews. This thesis put forward the overarching proposition that
authenticity in dining experiences is multi-dimensional, encompassing Authenticity of the
Other, Authenticity of the Self, and Authenticity of the Producer. To address this proposition,
three interrelated research objectives were developed:
1. To identify terms used to describe authenticity and restaurant attributes associated
with authenticity (Paper 3 & 4).
2. To understand how consumers form judgements about authenticity in dining
experiences (Paper 3).
178
dimensional approach to authenticity in dining experiences) reinforced the overarching
proposition and research objectives proposed in the thesis. This review paper also suggested
a methodological direction of adopting a quantitative approach to authenticity using online
reviews, which guided the succeeding paper (Paper 2). Paper 2, therefore, served as the
methodological approach employed in the subsequent papers (Paper 3 and Paper 4),
proposing a systematic approach that integrates traditional research methods with machine
learning in the analysis of online reviews, with the aim to enhance conceptual understanding
and theoretical development of complex concepts. Reflecting the utility of the
methodological approach proposed in Paper 2, Paper 3 fulfilled the first and second research
objectives. Paper 4 was built upon the outcomes of Paper 3 and responded to the first and
third research objective. The following sections summarise the mapping of current knowledge
undertaken as part of this thesis followed by a synopsis of the methodology taken, as well as
the specific methods employed to address each research objective and the key empirical
findings.
3. Mapping the State of Knowledge and Future Directions
In order to better understand the state of knowledge on authenticity in dining experiences,
the existing literature was critically examined and synthesised by adopting a systematic
quantitative review approach. The review analysed 85 journal articles and enabled the
identification of major gaps of knowledge and the proposal of research directions. Specifically,
five main gaps and corresponding directions for future research were proposed.
The first of these was concerned with the lack of multi-dimensional understanding among
authenticity literature in dining experiences. The review demonstrated that authenticity has
been examined mostly in the context of ethnic and ethnic-themed restaurants, which
potentially leads to the erroneous assumption that authenticity can only be considered in
relation to this context. The existing literature, therefore, has overlooked the critical role of
authentic business characteristics in shaping consumers’ perceptions of authenticity (Kovács
et al., 2014). The authenticity portrayed through business characteristics has been
approached by organisational management scholars with the argument that “authenticity
works best […] when it is organisationally constructed” (Carroll & Wheaton, 2009, p. 256).
179
Future research as a result can explore authenticity portrayed by the producer-organisation
and henceforth employ a multi-dimensional approach to authenticity. An integration of three
dimensions when conceptualising authenticity in dining experiences was then suggested,
which combined Authenticity of the Other/the Thing (thereafter revised as Authenticity of the
Other), Authenticity of the Self, with Authenticity of the Organisation (thereafter revised as
Authenticity of the Producer). This research direction hereby reinforced the ground for the
overarching proposition in this thesis.
The second gap was concerned with the overwhelming research focus on measuring
perceptions of authenticity solely based on global measures utilised in the extant literature,
while approaches to authenticity remained unidimensional with only a few exceptions
investigating more than one dimension at a time. The development of a multi-dimensional
scale of authenticity therefore was recommended to identify determinants shaping different
dimensions of authenticity and to aid the operationalisation of this complex concept.
The third gap was concerned with the limited research using online restaurant reviews to
examine authenticity in dining experiences. Online restaurant reviews are considered as a
means for individuals to exhibit their culinary capital to others who have similar interests
(Naccarato & LeBesco, 2013; Vásquez & Chik, 2015). Quantitative authenticity studies mostly
employed experiment and survey designs to investigate authenticity from the consumer
perspective, while very few have attempted to perform advanced analytic techniques on
online reviews. A methodological direction was thus put forward to call for more rigorous
attempts to quantitatively analyse online reviews using advanced analytics in the examination
of authenticity in dining experiences.
The fourth gap identified in this review related to examining authenticity perceptions from a
supplier perspective while the fifth gap addressed the perceptual gaps between supplier and
consumer perspectives in consideration of the multi-dimensional approach to authenticity.
While this systematic review presented a comprehensive landscape of the extant literature
and identified various research gaps and corresponding research directions, considering the
research scope and timeline of this thesis, only the first and third gaps and directions were
180
specifically undertaken. The second, fourth and fifth gaps therefore remain as directions for
future research.
The methodological direction (the third gap respectively) emerging in this review paper was
addressed through the proposal of a systematic integrated learning approach for online
review analysis presented in Part III. Part III illustrated the methodological approach
employed in the subsequent empirical research (Part IV). The following section summarises
the systematic integrated learning approach proposed in Part III, as well as highlights the
respective methods utilised for the three phases of the research design.
4. Employing Integrated Learning for Online Review Analysis
Informed by the methodological gap identified in the review paper and the need for advanced
techniques to analyse a vast amount of online reviews to fulfil the three research objectives,
this thesis proposed and adopted an integrated learning approach for online review analysis.
A synopsis of tourism and hospitality studies that combine machine learning and traditional
research methods to analyse online textual data revealed that most machine learning
applications requiring human-generated knowledge thus far, have only incorporated
traditional methodologies in an unsystematic and rather superficial manner that lack
methodical documentation and justification. Adding to this, there has been a dearth of
research that attempts to use machine learning to understand tourism and hospitality
concepts; specifically those that are complex and multi-dimensional. To overcome these
theoretical and methodological challenges, a systematic framework was put forward to depict
the integration of machine learning and traditional research methods in the analysis of online
reviews. The goal of the framework was to facilitate research that aims to enhance conceptual
understanding and contribute to theoretical development of social science phenomena
through the use of integrated learning. This integrated learning framework was subsequently
incorporated in the three-phase research design of this thesis, as an attempt to demonstrate
the framework’s utility (see Figure 2).
182
Figure 2 above summarises the process of how integrated learning was applied in the three-
phase research design of the thesis, the specific methods and outcomes in each phase. For
the ease of illustration and reference, the ‘traditional research methods’ mentioned in the
integrated learning approach was labelled as ‘human learning’ in the research design (hence
in the methodology section of Paper 3 and Paper 4). The key emphasis here is that ‘human
learning’ mentioned in this thesis does not refer to typical human inputs for machine learning
approaches (i.e. in supervised and semi-supervised learning) but traditional data collection
and analysis techniques such as customer surveys, interviews, focus groups, and manual and
statistical content analysis. This emphasis was also made explicit in Paper 2.
5. Addressing the Research Objectives
The empirical findings of the thesis were presented and responded to the three research
objectives. This section summarises the empirical findings in relation to these three research
objectives, thus addressing the overarching proposition.
Research Objective 1: To identify terms used to describe authenticity and restaurant
attributes associated with authenticity (Paper 3 & 4).
Informed by the need of comprehending how consumers communicate and express
authenticity in online restaurant reviews to present authenticity judgements, the first
research objective sought to capture an extensive list of authenticity terms and associated
restaurant attributes from online reviews, which was then used to represent authenticity
judgements. This objective was underpinned by the challenge of identifying authenticity
judgements, in which the judgements were expressed using different authenticity terms, and
these terms were usually mentioned in relation to different elements of the dining
experience. The authenticity judgements therefore were encapsulated into small manageable
phrases, specifically, the pairs containing authenticity terms and restaurant attributes (AU-RA
pairs) were used to represent authenticity judgements.
There were 88 authenticity terms (see Table 1) and eight restaurant attributes identified in
the dataset (i.e. Ambience & Atmosphere; Establishment Type; Ethnicity & Destination;
Experience; Food & Drink; Other Customers; Restaurant Business; and Service). Compared to
the authenticity terms created by Kovács et al. (2014) and O’Connor et al. (2017), the current
183
thesis had identified 26 additional authenticity terms, some of which were part of Australian
colloquialisms (i.e. deadset, dinky-di, fair-dinkum, ridgy-didge, and true-blue). This can be
explained by the fact that data were collected from an Australian restaurant review platform,
while Kovács et al.’s (2014) and O’Connor et al.’s (2017) studies were conducted in the USA.
Terms describing authenticity are culturally bounded, thus integrated learning has evidenced
its usefulness in detecting such colloquialisms considering machines cannot understand the
context and nuanced meanings in different cultures (Ansari et al. 2018; Le et al. 2020b).
As aforementioned, the identified authenticity terms and associated restaurant attributes
were then combined to create AU-RA pairs to represent authenticity judgements in online
reviews. These authenticity judgements were subsequently examined to fulfil the following
research objectives.
Table 1. Final List of Authenticity Terms Terms in bold are new terms that did not appear in the Existing AU Terms created from Kovács et al.’s (2014) and O’Connor et al.’s (2017) studies. amateurish ambitious artful artificial artisan assuming authentic bogus careful caring cheat classic conventional crafted craftsmanship creative deadset deceitful
deceptive dinky-di ersatz ethical ethnic exotic expert extroverted fair-dinkum faithful faked false feigned forgery fusion genuine heartfelt historical
hoax home-made home-style homey honest house-made humbug iconic idiosyncratic imitation impostor inspiring inspired integrity inventive legitimate master chef misleading
mistakable modern moral native offbeat old-fashioned original orthodox outlandish peculiar phony pretentious professional pure quack quirky quintessential real
replicate ridgy-didge scam sham sincere skilful skilled specialty traditional true-blue truthful typical unique usual wholesome workmanship
184
Research Objective 2: To understand how consumers form judgements about authenticity
in dining experiences (Paper 3).
In response to the gaps identified in the literature review regarding the lack of multi-
dimensional understanding of authenticity in dining experiences, this thesis proceeded to
explore how consumers form judgements about authenticity in dining experiences while
embracing the multi-dimensional approach to authenticity. It was found that perceptions of
authenticity were communicated as a form of authenticity judgements. Through the close
examination of consumers’ authenticity judgements, various entities in the dining experience
were observed and evaluated against six criteria concerning with: (1) connection with
histories, events, valued places and persons; (2) conformity to existing knowledge of
categories and types; (3) deviations from existing knowledge of categories and types; (4)
reflection of inherent qualities and characteristics of the observed entity; (5) reflection of
values, intentions and goals of the observed entity; and (6) reflection of the consumer’s self
and connectedness. Figure 3 summarises the key empirical findings of this thesis.
By incorporating these cues in consumers’ assessment of authenticity, Paper 3 put forward a
demonstration of consumers’ authenticity judgements in dining experiences (see Figure 3).
Accordingly, authenticity judgements were initiated by consumers observing various entities
in the dining setting. The entities being observed were the associated restaurant attributes
that were external to the consumer’s self. Often, consumers observed not only the entity but
also the essence possessed by the entity, considering an entity can possess different essences
reflecting different authenticity cues. This indicated that the very same entity could be
evaluated with respect to more than one dimension (Newman, 2019). This is because the
essence observed from the entity was determined if it fitted any of the cues, which
subsequently reflected the corresponding dimension.
Among the six authenticity cues emerging from the data, deviations departing from existing
knowledge of categories and types appeared as a new cue shaping authenticity perception in
dining experiences (the corresponding dimension was subsequently tested and confirmed in
Paper 4). Associations between deviations with other authenticity cues could and did exist
due to its temporal relativity (i.e. deviations can become more well-known at a certain point
in time as a result of social construction). Further, deviations could also exist independently,
185
that was, the extreme abnormality did not fit any expectations of any existing types, hence
could not be labelled or related to any category. Any observed essences concerning
deviations, conformity to existing knowledge of categories and types, and physical versus
symbolic connections would potentially form perceptions of Authenticity of the Other,
considering the external verification, external references, and existing knowledge and
expectations were required to develop such judgements.
If the observed essence was believed to reflect inherent qualities and characteristics of the
entity, or values, intentions and goals of the owner or the restaurant itself, the judgement
would potentially inform perceptions of Authenticity of the Producer. The term ‘producer’
here was not only limited to the human element or the establishment, but also could signify
the observed entity which portrayed its external expressions that were true (and/or
consistent) with its internal state. Furthermore, the entity/essence being observed could also
trigger an existential state of ‘being’, which was achieved through the realisation of
consumer’s self and a sense of connectedness, indicating the formation of Authenticity of the
Self. The deviations from existing knowledge of categories and types was sometimes found to
prompt the realisation of true self. It could also be the case that there was more than one
authenticity cue mentioned in the judgement, and when considering authenticity of an entity,
one authenticity cue tended to be emphasised more strongly than another.
In fulfilling the second research objective, the qualitative findings in Paper 3 has led to the
three-dimensional outcomes of authenticity, which specifically resulted from the
demonstration of authenticity judgements. These outcomes included Authenticity of the
Other, Authenticity of the Self, and Authenticity of the Producer, thus supporting the
overarching proposition of the thesis. The three-dimensional outcomes were then used to
inform the theoretical framework proposed and tested in Paper 4.
187
Research Objective 3: To determine the multi-dimensionality of authenticity in dining
experiences (Paper 4).
In response to the gap identified in the literature review regarding the adoption of a multi-
dimensional approach to authenticity, this thesis proposed and validated a framework
conceptualising the multi-dimensionality of authenticity based on the three dimensional
outcomes and the demonstration of authenticity judgements emerging from the qualitative
phase (Paper 3). The development of this multi-dimensional framework has also reinforced
the overarching proposition of this thesis fully, which in turn suggested authenticity was a
multi-dimensional concept, encompassing Authenticity of the Other, Authenticity of the
Producer, and Authenticity of the Self (see Figure 3).
The authenticity model tested and confirmed revealed that while there were specific AU-RA
pairs (authenticity judgements) signifying solely one authenticity dimension, most identified
AU-RA pairs signified more than one dimension. This illustrated that the very same entity (or,
same type of entity) could be assessed in consideration of more than one dimension
(Newman, 2019). Further, Authenticity of the Producer was found to be a dominant dimension
and distinctive from Authenticity of the Other. This finding signified that when evaluating
authenticity of dining experiences, consumers also pay attention to authentic
performances/projection of the servicescape, the backstage role of the producer-
organisation rather than solely focusing on how closely the food, the cuisine or the restaurant
décor resemble the culture and cuisine they claim to deliver. This pattern was in line with
Gilmore and Pine’s (2007, p. 97) principles of rendering authenticity in businesses: (1) “Is the
offering true to itself”; and (2) “Is the offering what it says it is”, considering the overall dining
experience the business is offering (Le et al., 2019). Also, Authenticity of the Self was found to
be influenced by Authenticity of the Other and Authenticity of the Producer. This pattern was
in line with existing research about existential authenticity in that the realisation of the self
tends to be triggered through the consumption of the object or the other (Belhassen et al.,
2008; Jones, 2010; Kolar & Zabcar, 2010; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006).
Furthermore, this thesis suggested the existence of Deviated Authenticity falling under
Authenticity of the Other, beside historical and categorical authenticity (see Figure 3).
Deviated Authenticity denoted the state of quirkiness of an entity that departs from the
188
commonly accepted standards. Once the object/entity was believed to conform to the
existing beliefs, it thus transformed into categorical authenticity. The dimension of Deviated
Authenticity was thus informed by the authenticity cue concerning with deviations from
existing knowledge of categories and types, which also has suggested the potential
connection of this cue with conformity to existing knowledge of categories and types.
Deviated Authenticity can also be seen as an extended version of Cohen’s (1988) emergent
authenticity over the course of time. Through Deviated Authenticity, this thesis indicated that
there was a period of time that took place before the formation of Cohen’s emergent
authenticity, in which there were no preconceptions/existing beliefs of a particular category
(unknown/unclassified category) that people could use as a base to assess the authenticity of
an entity. Therefore, emergent authenticity was only triggered when there were sufficient
conceptions to form social norms and expectations for that particular category to judge the
object/entity as inauthentic.
This thesis also highlighted that when people had a certain level of knowledge about a
category, they tended to assess the observed essence as if it conformed to the existing beliefs
of that category, thus the judgements tended to relate to categorical authenticity (or Deviated
Authenticity if the entity was unusual and strange). On the other hand, for the same category,
if the observer recognised any deceitful intentions or practices of the producer in
representing the true category, the judgement would relate to Authenticity of the Producer.
This indication was also in line with several studies which report that business self-
proclamations of authenticity appear to have the opposite of the intended effect on
perceptions of authenticity (Gilmore & Pine, 2007; Holt, 2002; Kovács et al., 2017; Lehman et
al., 2018). Restaurateurs therefore must consider carefully how much authenticity they can
safely claim without incurring a backlash from their consumers (Demetry, 2019).
6. Contributions
6.1. Theoretical Contributions
This thesis has contributed to the research on authenticity in dining experiences in several
ways. First, the study has offered an extensive review of the current state of knowledge on
the topic, which led to the identification of major gaps and directions where a multi-
189
dimensional approach to authenticity was recommended for the area. This review has laid
the foundations for future research in the conceptualisation, determinants and
operationalisation of authenticity in dining experiences. In particular, an integrated approach
incorporating multiple dimensions of authenticity has been considered as fundamental for a
deeper understanding of the concept and has pointed to the need for further research in
authenticity of dining experiences that aids the operationalisation of this multi-dimensional
concept.
Adding to this, developing a multi-dimensional framework for authenticity can be valuable in
exploring which determinants inform which dimension of authenticity, and whether any
dominant authenticity dimensions emerged. This multi-dimensional framework can also be
expanded to support the understanding of authenticity in other contexts apart from tourism,
hospitality and leisure, as consumers decide to buy or not buy a product or an offering based
on how real they perceive the offering to be (Gilmore & Pine, 2007). Alongside this, a multi-
dimensional approach for authenticity can help establish a solid platform for investigating
frameworks and models which explore notions of perceived authenticity between demand
and supply perspectives.
Second, this thesis has provided a more nuanced understanding of authenticity
communications and expressions among consumers in the online domain by proposing an
extended list of authenticity terms, which in turn informed consumers’ judgments of
authenticity in dining experiences. The key contribution of this extended list is that it was
identified and refined from a large user-generated content dataset (i.e. over one million
online reviews), which enhances substantially the comprehensiveness of the list and the
generalisability of the identified terms. Future research examining authenticity using
consumers’ communications and expressions of the concept therefore can utilise this
comprehensive list to facilitate the subsequent research.
In addition to the identification of authenticity terms, the thesis has also contributed to means
to identify consumers’ authenticity judgements in a vast amount of online restaurant reviews,
in which they can be expressed using different authenticity terms, and these terms are usually
mentioned in relation to different elements in the dining setting. The thesis achieved this by
190
encapsulating authenticity judgements into small manageable phrases, specifically, using
authenticity term - restaurant attribute pairs (AU-RA pairs) to represent authenticity
judgements. This approach has been extremely useful in condensing and detecting
authenticity judgements in online textual data such as online reviews in the current study.
This is important not only for allowing a deeper understanding of authenticity using the
authenticity judgements, but also for other areas of research using similar approaches to
encapsulate and detect consumers’ judgements of a concept in the online domain.
Third, through the analysis of authenticity judgements identified from online reviews, this
thesis has contributed to the existing literature on understanding authenticity perceptions
and identifying authenticity cues in dining experiences. By classifying consumers’ authenticity
judgements of the observed entity based on different authenticity cues, the thesis has
outlined a demonstration of consumers’ judgements about authenticity in dining experiences.
The demonstration suggested that different types of authenticity cues could potentially form
different dimensions of authenticity, supporting the multi-dimensionality of authenticity in
dining experiences. The research has offered a pragmatic approach to ‘quantifying’
authenticity from the consumers’ viewpoint by assessing their observations to what extent
an entity fits with the authenticity cues, thus contributing to the operationalisation of this
complex concept.
Fourth, this thesis has contributed to the conceptualisation of authenticity. The multi-
dimensionality of authenticity in this thesis has advanced the existing conceptualisation of
authenticity and overcome some of its current limitations. The proposed framework has
attenuated the intensity of the focus on the debatable objectivity of current authenticity
assessments in tourism and hospitality contexts (objective versus constructive authenticity).
To do this, this framework redirected the root of authenticity assessments from studying the
‘fact’ itself, to studying the ‘interpretation’ of the observer. Authenticity studies in consumer
research, therefore, would be more effective by considering consumers’ thoughts and
catering to their expectations regarding authenticity instead of determining the ultimate ideal
state of authenticity. This framework has also improved authenticity conceptualisations
proposed by tourism scholars by capturing the underlying element of the producer in
constructing authenticity and consumers’ perceptions of authenticity.
191
Lastly, by proposing a two-levelled structure for multi-dimensionality of authenticity, the
thesis has advanced the authenticity conceptualisation proposed by psychology scholars (i.e.
Newman, 2019; Newman & Smith, 2016). The framework has overcome the challenges of
producers staging values and characteristics for financial purposes as an obstacle to assessing
authenticity of the producers. At the end, the assessment which matters most is the
consumers’ assessment. If they think the observed essence reflects the characteristics
possessed by the producer, the assessment and subsequent judgement therefore relates to
Authenticity of the Producer.
The two-levelled structure for multi-dimensionality of authenticity has also revealed the
emergence of Deviated Authenticity, which denotes something perceived as unusual and
unfamiliar, and can also be considered as a form of authenticity. By recognising Deviated
Authenticity, this thesis has argued there is a period of time that takes place before the
formation of emergent authenticity, in which there are no preconceptions or existing beliefs
of a particular category (unknown or unclassified category) that people can use as a base to
assess the authenticity of an entity. Emergent authenticity hereby is only triggered when
there are sufficient conceptions to form social norms and expectations for that particular
category to judge the object/entity as inauthentic. Deviated Authenticity, as a result, will be
particularly useful in examining associations and conversion between authenticity dimensions
not only in dining experiences, but also other research areas to better understand consumers’
authenticity perceptions.
6.2. Methodological Contributions
This thesis has also contributed to the broadening of the continuum of research approaches
utilised in tourism and hospitality research, particularly in relation to the emerging use of
user-generated content. First, the thesis has proposed a systematic approach that integrates
traditional research methods into machine learning in the analysis of online reviews, with the
goal to enhance conceptual understanding and theory development. This proposed approach
is not only to overcome the limitations of both machine learning and traditional research
methods in the analysis of online reviews, but also to raise greater attention to well-
documented and more systematic integrated learning approaches in text analytics. By
192
proposing and exemplifying this approach in the study of authenticity in dining experiences,
the thesis has reaffirmed there is always room for improvement in human knowledge about
complex multi-dimensional phenomena in tourism and hospitality. This is particularly relevant
when there is a need for further validation and observation from other sources of data to
understand the phenomenon fully. This systematic approach is considered as a preliminary
effort to make machine learning applications more approachable in tourism and hospitality
text analytics, as well as offering a useful starting point from which to develop more effective
integration of traditional research methods and big data analytics.
Second, the thesis has contributed to the growing use of integrated learning in consumer
research. Despite human inability to analyse and interpret such large amounts of data,
traditional research methods were systematically added in the research design to fulfil four
purposes: (1) to diagnose errors and detect ‘noise’ in data to improve accuracy before training
the data; (2) to validate highly associated terms detected by machine learning that did not
take into consideration the context and cultural differences; (3) to aid the decision-making of
important outputs that requires substantial field expertise which has not been mapped in
machine learning; and (4) to direct the machine learning process and overcome the limitation
generated by the automated independent nature of machine learning. By exemplifying a
methodological approach combining rigorous traditional research methods with machine
learning, this thesis has heightened the important complementary role of traditional methods
in the era of more prevalent machine learning and big data analytics (Alaei et al., 2019; Xiang
et al., 2017), and ascertained avenues for using integrated learning to conceptualise multi-
dimensional concepts in consumer research.
6.3. Practical Contributions
Further to these contributions to the existing body of knowledge and methodological
approaches on the topic, this thesis has generated several practical implications. First, the
authenticity terms paired with restaurant attributes have also provided practical insights
encouraging restaurateurs to understand what constitutes authenticity in dining experiences,
as well as the interaction of restaurant attributes that create an authentic dining experience.
Customising what diners want and what tangible elements induce authentic, thus memorable
experiences that make them long to return are crucial, and so are the underlying
193
psychological factors of the consumers themselves that motivate repurchase intentions
(Chhabra et al., 2013a, 2013b).
Second, with respect to the identified authenticity cues in dining experiences, the thesis has
suggested that consumers tend to have different expectations about authenticity for different
types of establishments (e.g. ethnic restaurant, café, pubs), thus not every authenticity cue
are considered as equal in an establishment. As a result, it is imperative for restaurateurs to
identify their own strengths and amalgamate business resources to promote the appropriate
authenticity cues (and subsequently project the appropriate authenticity dimension) that
appeal to consumers. The ability to interpret the concept of authenticity from the consumer
perspective and to identify potential determinants shaping perceived authenticity are
therefore prerequisites for organisation-value adding (Zeng et al., 2012).
It will also be useful for restaurateurs to conduct an authenticity-related SWOT analysis, or if
a SWOT analysis has already been conducted, they can incorporate an authenticity
assessment based on this framework to identify their strengths and the various forms of
authentic offerings that they make i.e. post-modern, playful, adherence to tradition, deviation
from existing knowledge, reflection of consumers’ selves, and reflection of inherent qualities,
values, intentions and goals. It should be noted that the authenticity dimensions and cues
identified in this paper might not be applicable to all restaurants, some will be more dominant
for fine dining restaurants, some are more applicable to ethnic restaurants, or even fast food
restaurant chains.
Third, the multi-dimensionality of authenticity confirmed in the thesis has generated
important implications not only for restaurateurs, but also for business owners and managers
in service-based organisations. Specifically, restaurants and other service-based businesses
would be able to identify and segment their customers based on their assessments and
expectations of authenticity. By doing this, they can target and cater for specific demand and
expectations of authenticity for each customer segment, which in turn increases their
customers’ satisfaction and loyalty (Chhabra et al., 2013a, 2013b; Gilmore & Pine, 2007). This
further enhances brand equity if the business is heavily attached and influenced by its brand
and reinforces business well-being (Lu et al., 2015; Pinto et al., 2019; Zeng et al., 2019).
194
Finally, by highlighting Authenticity of the Producer emerging from the dataset, the thesis has
the potential to help businesses understand that staging authenticity (or trying too hard or
being pretentious) can put them at risk of being disclosed by customers, which subsequently
may lead to decreased trust, dissatisfaction (Le et al., 2019, 2020a), or worse, business
boycott. Considering the increasing powerful role of online reviews in determining consumer
behaviour and specifically dining intentions (DiPietro, 2017; Zhang & Hanks, 2018), such
negative judgements about the authenticity of the business can lead to damage of public
image and business sustainability. As a result, it may be best for businesses to project their
values and characteristics genuinely considering the fine line between being authentic and
being pretentiously authentic (Gilmore & Pine, 2007).
The new dimension Deviated Authenticity emerging from the data also offers useful
implications for restaurateurs. Deviated Authenticity suggests a state of non-conformity of
the entity in which the customer cannot classify it into a class or type. This state of being
unusual however does not imply a lack of authenticity of the entity, rather, it implies a
uniqueness/distinctiveness that is necessary to differentiate the business with other
competitors. This observation is highlighted especially when there is a link between Deviated
Authenticity and Authenticity of the Producer, in which an entity (or its characteristics) is
perceived as unusual and rare (Deviated Authenticity), that deviation can also be perceived
as the inherent value/characteristics of that entity/person (thus Authenticity of the
Producer). This observation therefore has an important implication for restaurateurs who
strive to establish a competitive advantage through creating a sense of
uniqueness/distinctiveness among customers. This will not only have positive impacts on
enhancing memorability of the dining experience, but also on increasing revisit intention and
customer loyalty.
7. Limitations of the Thesis
This thesis is subject to several limitations. The first is concerned with the systematic process
conducted in the literature review (Paper 1). In particular, despite providing a comprehensive
landscape of authenticity research in dining experiences, the review only considered journal
195
articles published in English and disregarded non-journal publications such as conference
papers, editorial notes, book reviews, book chapters, books and dissertations. However, this
limitation can be considered as a trade-off for the review to ensure the consistency and high
quality of the findings. Also, while the systematic nature of the review suggests reproducibility
of the review process, it is strongly recommended that any replicas should proceed with a
high level of consideration (Yang et al., 2017). This is because the coding and categorising
practices performed in this review were subject to the researchers’ linguistic backgrounds
and interpretations. Nevertheless, these practices were clearly reported to facilitate future
updates if necessary.
The second limitation is concerned with the research context in which the data collection was
conducted. Specifically, the data were limited to Zomato in Australia, indicating that the
generalisability of the results to different geographical contexts should be treated with
caution. The results therefore may not be readily applicable to other countries, especially
when online reviews are culturally embedded through the use of language. Also, the
generalisability of the results should be contemplated considering the availability of other
online review platforms such as Yelp and TripAdvisor. Future studies can use these platforms
to replicate the methodological approach in other geographical locations in order to
understand cross-cultural meanings of authenticity and identify any cultural differences in
authenticity perceptions. Moreover, it may be useful to know if there are differences in
perceptions and assessments of authenticity in Eastern countries, considering perceptions of
authenticity are usually Western-centric and thus attached with the identification of minor
ethnicities (e.g. Asian countries) and the consumption of otherness (Le et al. 2019).
The final limitation is concerned with the text mining techniques used to identify authenticity
terms and restaurant attributes employed in Phase 1 of the research design. In particular,
integrated learning employed in this phase cannot detect the difference between the use of
ethnicity terms as authenticity terms, and ethnicity terms as ethnicity-related restaurant
attributes. Future empirical research adopting integrated learning therefore can propose a
way forward to address this limitation and enhance the applicability of this approach in
different sets of data investigating different concepts.
196
8. Future Research
Apart from the directions for future research emerging from the limitations, the results from
the thesis has also generated several research avenues. Regarding the methodology, this
thesis calls for greater attention to well-documented and more systematic integrated learning
approaches of text analytics. This thesis serves as preliminary effort to render machine
learning applications more approachable in tourism and hospitality text analytics, as well as
offers a useful starting point from which to develop more effective integration of traditional
research methods and big data analytics. Future research therefore can consider applying the
proposed systematic framework to improve conceptualisation of complex concepts in
tourism and hospitality while continuing to utilise integrated learning to further aid
operationalisation of such concepts.
Secondly, deviations from existing knowledge of categories and types appeared to be a new
cue shaping consumers’ perceived authenticity. More empirical evidence therefore is
required to highlight the emergence of deviations by using different methods and data
triangulation. The associations between deviations and other authenticity cues such as
inherent characteristics of the producer, conformity to existing knowledge, and realisation of
the self should further be hypothetically tested and confirmed with greater confidence in
future research.
Thirdly, given the possible influence of Authenticity of the Other and Authenticity of the
Producer on Authenticity of the Self, future studies can examine how and to what extent the
judgements signifying these two dimensions can trigger perceptions of Authenticity of the
Self. These studies can certainly utilise online reviews and an integrated learning approach to
contribute to the prevalence of text mining and machine learning in the era of big data
analytics (Alaei et al., 2019).
Although this discussion of authenticity cues and dimensions are relevant to the restaurant
context, they are also applicable to a wider range of discussions about the nature of
authenticity that can prompt further thought-provoking agendas for future authenticity
research. As a result, this paper provides some potential insights for authenticity scholars to
197
base upon to look at more specifically at these less attended authenticity cues and dimensions
in the literature, as well as providing some managerial implications for restaurateurs that
strive to be unique, to differentiate themselves among the competitors, and to cater more
precisely customers’ needs and wants when it comes to authenticity.
Finally, as aforementioned, the fourth and fifth gap identified in the systematic literature
review were not examined due to the research scope and limited timeline of the thesis. These
gaps henceforth remain as directions for future research and encompass examining
authenticity perceptions from a supplier perspective and addressing the perceptual gaps
between suppliers and consumers in consideration of the multi-dimensional approach to
authenticity. Addressing the gaps between the supply and demand sides is vital in order to
reduce and eliminate ‘myths’ among customers and restaurateurs when it comes to
authenticity, in order to achieve the ultimate goal of dining; that is, business sustainability
and profitability for restaurants; and memorable and satisfying experiences for customers.
9. Concluding Remarks
This thesis presents the findings of a study that sought to understand and conceptualise the
multi-dimensionality of authenticity in dining experiences using online restaurant reviews.
This thesis has advanced existing knowledge on authenticity not only in dining experiences
but also in the context of tourism and hospitality at large. The findings corresponding to the
three research objectives cumulatively demonstrate that in dining experiences, authenticity
is a multi-dimensional concept encompassing Authenticity of the Other, Authenticity of the
Producer, and Authenticity of the Self. Through the analysis of over one million online reviews,
this thesis has proposed and demonstrated the usefulness of a systematic approach that
integrates traditional research methods with machine learning in the analysis of online
reviews, with the goal of enhancing conceptual understanding and theory development. As a
result, the findings emerging from this thesis not only broaden the existing knowledge of the
topic, but also contribute to the advanced analytic techniques of user-generated content in
tourism and hospitality research. Furthermore, the findings offer useful practical implications
for restaurateurs, business owners and managers in service-based organisations.
198
This thesis does not touch point with the deconstruction of the authenticity concept which
has been well-supported by postmodernist approaches. While this thesis fully embraces the
multi-dimensionality of authenticity which supports strongly the conceptualisation of
authenticity (rather than deconstruction), there is evidence from the existing literature that
(some) consumers are less concerned about authenticity, that they embrace and even
celebrate fakeness. The concept therefore has been becoming redundant for at least some
experiences, and the question put forward is that “Are they also including some kinds of
restaurant experience?” With the fusion of cultures and people in a globalised world, to what
extent is authenticity-of the producer, the self, the other-relevant to the dining context, and
to other contexts? It is hoped to see more thought-provoking discussions related to
postmodernism in contemporary dining experiences in future research to further elaborate
this matter.
199
References
Alaei, A. R., Becken, S., & Stantic, B. (2019). Sentiment Analysis in Tourism: Capitalizing on
Big Data. Journal of Travel Research, 58(2), 175-191.
Ansari, F., Erol, S., & Sihn, W. (2018). Rethinking Human-Machine Learning in Industry 4.0:
How Does the Paradigm Shift Treat the Role of Human Learning? Procedia
Manufacturing, 23, 117-122.
Belhassen, Y., Caton, K., & Stewart, W. P. (2008). The search for authenticity in the pilgrim
experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 668-689.
Carroll, G. R., & Wheaton, D. R. (2009). The organizational construction of authenticity: An
examination of contemporary food and dining in the U.S. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 29, 255-282.
Chhabra, D., Lee, W., & Zhao, S. (2013a). Epitomizing the "other" in ethnic eatertainment
experiences. Leisure: Journal of the Canadian Association for Leisure, 37(4), 361-378.
Chhabra, D., Lee, W., Zhao, S., & Scott, K. (2013b). Marketing of ethnic food experiences:
authentication analysis of Indian cuisine abroad. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 8(2-3),
145-157.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
15(3), 371-386.
Demetry, D. (2019). How Organizations Claim Authenticity: The Coproduction of Illusions in
Underground Restaurants. Organisation Science, 30(5), 937-960.
DiPietro, R. (2017). Restaurant and foodservice research. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(4), 1203-1234.
Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J. (2007). Authenticity: what consumers really want. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Holt, D. B. (2002). Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture
and Branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70-90.
Jones, S. (2010). Negotiating Authentic Objects and Authentic Selves: Beyond the
Deconstruction of Authenticity. Journal of Material Culture, 15(2), 181-203.
Kolar, T., & Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or the
foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tourism Management, 31(5), 652-664.
200
Kovács, B., Carroll, G., & Lehman, D. (2017). The Perils of Proclaiming an Authentic
Organizational Identity. Sociological Science, 4, 80-106.
Kovács, B., Carroll, G. R., & Lehman, D. W. (2014). Authenticity and Consumer Value Ratings:
Empirical Tests from the Restaurant Domain. Organisation Science, 25(2), 458-478.
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (2019). What we know and do not know
about authenticity in dining experiences: A systematic literature review. Tourism
Management, 74, 258-275.
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Kralj, A. (2020a). Proposing a conceptual
framework for authenticity in co-created experiences. Paper presented at CAUTHE
2020: 20: 20 Vision: New Perspectives on the Diversity of Hospitality, Tourism and
Events, Auckland, New Zealand.
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Abreu Novais, M., & Anna, K. (2020b). Using combined-learning to
conceptualise constructs in tourism and hospitality. Paper presented at CAUTHE 2020:
20: 20 Vision: New Perspectives on the Diversity of Hospitality, Tourism and Events,
Auckland, New Zealand.
Lehman, D. W., Kovács, B., & Carroll, G. R. (2018). The Beholder’s Eyes: Audience Reactions
to Organizational Self-claims of Authenticity. Socius: Sociological Research for a
Dynamic World, 4, 237802311879303.
Lu, A. C. C., Gursoy, D., & Lu, C. Y. (2015). Authenticity perceptions, brand equity and brand
choice intention: The case of ethnic restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 50, 36-45.
Naccarato, P., & LeBesco, K. (2013). Culinary capital. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Newman, G. E. (2019). The Psychology of Authenticity. Review of General Psychology, 23(1),
8-18.
Newman, G. E., & Smith, R. K. (2016). Kinds of Authenticity. Philosophy Compass, 11(10),
609-618.
O'Connor, K., Carroll, G. R., & Kovacs, B. (2017). Disambiguating authenticity: Interpretations
of value and appeal. PLoS One, 12(6), e0179187.
Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. J. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 33(1), 65-86.
Vásquez, C., & Chik, A. (2015). “I Am Not a Foodie…”: Culinary Capital in Online Reviews of
Michelin Restaurants. Food and Foodways, 23(4), 231-250.
201
Xiang, Z., Du, Q., Ma, Y., & Fan, W. (2017). A comparative analysis of major online review
platforms: Implications for social media analytics in hospitality and tourism. Tourism
Management, 58, 51-65.
Yang, E. C. L., Khoo-Lattimore, C., & Arcodia, C. (2017). A systematic literature review of risk
and gender research in tourism. Tourism Management, 58, 89-100.
Zeng, G., Go, F., & de Vries, H. J. (2012). Paradox of authenticity versus standardization:
Expansion strategies of restaurant groups in China. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 31(4), 1090-1100.
Zhang, L., & Hanks, L. (2018). Online reviews: The effect of cosmopolitanism, incidental
similarity, and dispersion on consumer attitudes toward ethnic restaurants.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 68, 115-123.
202
Appendix 1. Ethical Clearance
GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS REVIEW
April 27, 2018
Dear Miss Truc Le
I write further to the additional information provided in relation to the provisional approval
granted to your application for ethical clearance for your project "NR: Authenticity and its
Key Determinants in Dining Experiences: A Study of Online Review Communities" (GU Ref
No: 2018/354).
This is to confirm that this response has addressed the comments and concerns of the HREC.
The ethics reviewers resolved to grant your application a clearance status of "Fully
Approved".
Consequently, you are authorised to immediately commence this research on this basis.
Regards
Dr Gary Allen
Senior Policy Officer
Office for Research
Bray Centre, Nathan Campus
Griffith University
ph: 3735 5585
fax: 5552 9058
email: [email protected]
203
Appendix 2. Griffith University Thesis Guidelines
204
205
