This article was downloaded by: [University of Central Florida]On: 10 July 2015, At: 10:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,London, SW1P 1WG

Click for updates

Journal of Hospitality Marketing & ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm20

The Effect of Mutual Introductions and AddressingCustomers by Name on Tipping Behavior in RestaurantsJohn S. Seitera, Kayde D. Givensa & Harry Weger Jr.b

a Department of Languages, Philosophy, and Communication Studies, Utah State University,Logan, UTb Nicholson School of Communication, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FLAccepted author version posted online: 26 May 2015.

To cite this article: John S. Seiter, Kayde D. Givens & Harry Weger Jr. (2015): The Effect of Mutual Introductions andAddressing Customers by Name on Tipping Behavior in Restaurants, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, DOI:10.1080/19368623.2015.1040140

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2015.1040140

Disclaimer: This is a version of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a serviceto authors and researchers we are providing this version of the accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting,typesetting, and review of the resulting proof will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication ofthe Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect thecontent, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to this version also.

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

1

Running Head: TIPS

The Effect of Mutual Introductions and Addressing Customers by Name on Tipping Behavior in Restaurants John S. Seiter

Department of Languages, Philosophy, and Communication Studies, Utah State University, Logan, UT

Kayde D. Givens

Department of Languages, Philosophy, and Communication Studies, Utah State University, Logan, UT

Harry Weger, Jr.

Nicholson School of Communication, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL

John Seiter (Ph.D., University of Southern California) is a professor of communication at Utah State University, where Kayde Givens is a former graduate in communication studies. Harry Weger (Ph.D., University of Arizona) is an associate professor of communication studies at the University of Central Florida. All three authors are interested in studying the role of communication in the process of persuasion. Correspondence should be directed to John S. Seiter, Department of Languages, Philosophy, and Communication Studies, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-0720,

john.seiter@usu.edu

The authors thank Lori Truman and Debora Seiter for their assistance with this project.

Abstract

This study tested the effect of mutual introductions and calling customers by name on tipping

behavior in restaurants. We hypothesized that mutual introductions at the beginning of the

service encounter would result in larger tips. We also asked whether customer age would

moderate the effect of mutual introductions on tipping behavior. Two female food servers waited

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

2

on 194 customers and either facilitated mutual introductions (i.e., food servers introduced

themselves by name and then invited customers to do likewise) or did not. Then, servers either

used the customers’ names throughout the service interaction or did not. Finally, servers

estimated customers’ ages. Multiple regression analysis indicated that food servers received a

6% increase in tips when they invited introductions and addressed customers by name than when

they did not. However, customers’ estimated age was not associated with tipping behavior.

Keywords: tipping, restaurant, immediacy, hospitality, names

The Effect of Mutual Introductions and Addressing Customers by Name on Tipping Behavior in

Restaurants

Introduction

The study of tipping behavior is of interest for both applied and academic reasons. Indeed, from

an applied perspective, although employee retention is a major concern in the service industry,

costing billions of dollars each year (Lynn & McCall, 2009), food servers who earn larger tips

may be less likely to quit their jobs (Lin & Mattila, 2010; Lynn, 2003; Lynn & McCall, 2009).

As such, managers who are able to understand and leverage research on tipping behavior may be

able decrease turnover while benefitting employees who depend on gratuities to make their

living. In addition, Lynn and Latané (1984) suggested that understanding variables that influence

tipping behavior could help managers use such behavior as an indicator of customer satisfaction.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

3

From an academic standpoint, the study of tipping behavior holds value as well. As one

example, previous researchers have recognized the relevance of tipping behavior to the field of

persuasion (e.g., Cialdini & Goldstein, 2002). Specifically, because food servers’ actions are

known to influence tipping behavior, such actions can be conceptualized as persuasive in nature

(Seiter & Gass, 2005). While previous work has explained the ways in which principles of social

influence might be applied in hospitality contexts (e.g., see Cialdini & Goldstein, 2002), we

suggest that studying food servers’ behaviors might also inform the field of persuasion,

particularly with regard to theories that focus on the persuasive effects of immediacy.

Immediacy behaviors are verbal and nonverbal actions that promote relational closeness

with other people (Andersen, 2009). According to the direct effects model (Andersen, 2004),

people who signal immediacy are better liked, more trusted, and, in turn, more persuasive than

people who do not signal immediacy. In contrast, cognitive valence theory (Andersen, 1998)

suggests that, in some settings (e.g., professional or non-intimate relationships), immediacy

displays can be perceived as inappropriate. By way of example, although Andersen (2009) noted

that using first names is “a powerful, unobtrusive immediacy behavior” (p. 502), one group of

service training veterans (Kirkham, Weiss, & Crawford, 2002) advises wait staff in restaurants to

never address customers by their first names. This advice is echoed in training manuals that

admonish restaurant employees to respect status differences between themselves and customers

through polite, formal, and less personal behaviors (e.g., Arduser & Brown, 2005; Kirkham et

al., 2002). Nonetheless, some evidence suggests that customers respond favorably when food

servers call them by name. Indeed, a handful of studies (see review of literature below) indicate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

4

that food servers receive larger tips when they call their customers by name than when they do

not.

Considering such discrepancies alongside the sparse amount of research on this topic, one

objective of our study was to explore further the effect of using customers’ names on tipping

behavior in restaurants. In doing so, this study extends previous research by testing the effect of a

novel approach to food service. Specifically, in a recent case study involving a single food

server, the server was observed enacting several behaviors, including the facilitation of mutual

introductions (Seiter, 2014). That is, the server introduced herself, asked customers to introduce

themselves, and then used customers’ names throughout the service interaction. Although many

of the server’s actions violated the author’s expectations, he perceived them as effective

nonetheless.

It is our opinion, as it was George and Bennett’s (2005), that case studies and statistical

approaches to research are often complementary. Among their rich contributions, case studies

can be used to identify variables that might be explored later through statistical procedures,

controlled experiments, and the analysis of a larger number of cases. With that in mind, this

study builds on Seiter’s (2014) observations by presenting the first exploratory field experiment

testing the effect of mutual introductions on tipping behavior in restaurant contexts. In addition,

the study examines the effect of customers’ estimated ages on tipping behavior.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

5

Review of Literature

Previous research indicates that food servers’ appearances and behaviors influence the

tips they receive (for a detailed review, see Lynn, 2011). For example, servers earned larger tips

when they wore cosmetics (Jacob, Guéguen, Boulbry, & Ardiccioni, 2010), hair ornamentation

(Jacob, Guéguen, & Delfosse, 2012), or certain colors (Guéguen & Jacob, 2014) than when they

did not. The authors of such studies often mention food servers’ attractiveness as an explanatory

mechanism for their results.

More relevant to our study, a number of research projects support the predictions of the

direct effects model (Andersen, 2004), even though their authors do not always point explicitly

to immediacy as an explanation for their results. Examples of such studies indicate that food

servers who touched (Hubbard, Tsuji, Williams, & Seatriz, 2002) or complimented diners

(Seiter, 2007; Seiter & Weger, 2010), stood at closer distances (Jacob & Guéguen, 2010), or

squatted at eye level with customers (Lynn & Mynier, 1993) earned larger tips then those who

did not. Moreover, food servers earned larger tips when they mimicked customers’ behavior (van

Baaren, 2005) or left personalized messages on checks (Seiter & Gass, 2005) than when they did

not.

Even more pertinent to our study, two research projects explored the effect of

introductions in server-diner interactions. Both examined the role of unilateral introductions in

which servers but not customers, demonstrated immediacy by introducing themselves by name.

In one study (Lynn & McCall, 2009), current and former food servers completed an online

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

6

survey asking them to indicate how frequently they engaged in several activities, including

introducing themselves by name. In addition, servers estimated how their own tips compared to

those earned by their coworkers. Results indicated a negative association between tip size and

introducing oneself by name. In contrast, the only field experiment on this topic found that food

servers increased the size of their tips when they introduced themselves by name (Garrity &

Degelman, 1990).

As for research examining the effects of calling customers by name, we know of only three

studies. The first (Lynn & McCall, 2009), mentioned above, found that food servers who

demonstrated immediacy by using customers’ names reported receiving higher tips than food

servers who did not use names. The two other studies (Rodrigue, 1999; Seiter & Weger, 2013)

were field experiments in which servers used customers’ names near the conclusion of the

service interaction. Specifically, at the time of payment, food servers learned customers’ names

by reading them on credit cards. Some of the customers were addressed by name (e.g., “Thank

you Mr./Ms. X. I hope you enjoyed your meal.”), while some were not. Both studies found that

servers received significantly higher tips when they called customers by name than when they

did not. In addition, Seiter and Weger (2013) found that, although all diners responded favorably

to being addressed by name, their ages made a difference in what name they preferred. In

particular, older diners preferred being addressed more formally (i.e., by their titles plus last

names rather than by their first names) than did younger diners.

From an applied standpoint, it is clear that the approaches examined in the field experiments led

to larger tips and could therefore be useful to servers who depend on such tips to make a living.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

7

Even so, these approaches are not without drawbacks. For example, unilateral introductions do

not provide servers an opportunity to learn and potentially benefit from learning customers’

names. Moreover, using credit cards to learn names presents several practical limitations. First,

not all customers pay with credit cards, so the food server cannot rely on cards to learn all

customers’ names. Second, if there are several diners in a party, the server can only address one

of them by name (i.e., the one paying). Third, credit cards do not always provide information

about customers’ preferences or name pronunciations (e.g., Robert Smith may prefer “Bob” or

“Mr. Smith.” Plus, how do you pronounce Saoirse Hough?). Finally, credit cards generally

permit servers to use a customer’s name only once and only at the conclusion of the service

interaction, even though people tend to make decisions early in interactions about how much

they like another person (e.g., Sunnafrank & Ramirez, 2004). As Lin and Mattila (2010) noted,

customers usually begin evaluating their dining experience as soon as they interact with the

service staff.

With these limitations in mind, this study tested the effectiveness of an alternative approach that

relies on mutual introductions. Based on previous theory and research suggesting that immediacy

behaviors lead to larger tips (see above), we proposed the following hypothesis:

H: Food servers will earn larger tips when they invite mutual introductions and address

customers by name than when they do not.

More than looking simply at mutual introductions, we also attempt to replicate previous

research by examining the potential moderating role of customer age in the relationship between

mutual introductions and tipping behavior. Previous inquiries found that older customers react

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

8

differently than younger customers to a server’s use of their name rather than more formal forms

of address (e.g., Mr., Ms., sir, madam). For example, Goodwin and Smith’s (1990) review of

trade and popular periodical essays on the topic of address forms used in customer service

encounters noted that many customers who define themselves as “senior” or “mature” will resent

being called by their first names. In the only study to directly test this possibility, Seiter and

Weger (2013) found that at about the age of 40, customers’ average tips began to decline when

servers used customers’ first name. Research outside of restaurant encounters, on the other hand,

found that age did not necessarily influence the forms of address that people use in the United

States (Brown & Ford, 1961; Slobin, Miller, & Porter, 1968). With that in mind, we ask the

following research questions:

RQ: Does the relationship between mutual introductions and customer tipping behavior depend

on customer’s age?

Method

Participants and Locations

A total of 194 diners (from 90 parties), eating dinner at two restaurants in the northwest United

States were the participants for this study. One of the restaurants is an independently owned

Italian restaurant. The other is a steak house that is part of a chain. Both are considered casual.

Managers at both restaurants agreed to let us conduct the study as long as participants were not

asked their real ages or bothered with filling out surveys. After each party left, servers recorded

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

9

the estimated age and sex (males = 72%; females = 28%) of the person who paid, the total

amount of the check, and the total amount tipped. The average estimated age for the customer

paying the check was 40.45 (SD = 15.6) and did not differ significantly between the two

restaurants, t(88)=1.88, p = .07. To ensure the restaurants were roughly equivalent in price, we

analyzed the price of main entrées as well as their sandwich items. Neither difference for entrées

t(16) = 1.34, p=.18, nor for sandwich items, t(7) = 1.04, p=.33, varied systematically.

Procedure and Experimental Stimuli

Two female university students collected the data while serving dinner guests. Both were 21

years old and worked as part-time food servers. They were instructed to treat their customers no

differently than they normally would during regular server duties, except when inviting

introductions and using customers’ names in the “name condition.” Specifically, two conditions

were included, one in which customers’ names were learned and used (n = 49 dining parties),

and one in which no names were learned or used (n = 41 dining parties). For practical purposes

(i.e., learning and using too many names might have proven difficult or awkward), data

collection was limited to parties of three or fewer diners.

Following Seiter and Weger (2013), before approaching tables, servers flipped a coin in order to

insure that customers’ assignment to conditions was random. If the coin showed heads, servers

invited introductions and used their customers’ names. Specifically, when the servers first

approached the table, they introduced themselves and asked the customers their names. They

then used their customers’ names three times: when serving drinks, entrees, and when saying

goodbye at the end of the service encounter (e.g., “Here is your coke, Bob.” “Here is your ribeye,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

10

Sally. Enjoy!” “Bob and Sally, thanks for coming in tonight. I hope you both have a wonderful

evening.”). If the coin showed tails, the servers treated their customers the same as in the first

condition but did not learn or use customers’ names. Mutual introductions and use of customer

names (name condition) versus usual service without introduction or use of names (i.e., no name

condition) served as the independent variable.

Dependent Variable

The amount of the tip as a percentage of the customer’s total bill served as the dependent

variable in the analysis. See Table 1 for a summary of descriptive statistics for tip percentages

across server, customer sex, and experimental condition. Across servers and conditions, the

overall mean tip size was 20.71 (SD = 8.88) with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 53.28.

Males and females did not differ in tip size statistically, t(84) = .24, p = .81. There was no

statistical difference between servers in overall tip size either, t(88) = .51, p = .61 (Server 1 M =

21.02, SD = 7.39; Server 2 M = 19.98, SD = 11.79). Because the servers worked at different

restaurants, this result also suggests that the restaurants themselves exerted little, if any,

influence on tip size.

Results

To address the hypothesis and research question, a hierarchical multiple regression

analysis was conducted (Table 2). The experimental condition and customer age were entered on

the first step of the equation. The model fit the data well, adjusted R2 = .11, F(2,87) = 6.37, p =

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

11

.003. The condition variable emerged as a significant predictor of tip size, b = 6.08, p = .001 (no

mutual introduction condition, n = 41, M = 17.32, SD = 6.74; mutual introduction condition, n =

49, M = 23.55, SD = 9.50). The unstandardized regression coefficient indicates that a change in

condition results in about a 6% increase in the tip size when using the customers’ names

compared to not doing so. Customer age did not emerge as a significant predictor of tip size, b =

.04, p = .52. To examine the effect of age, the interaction term, computed by multiplying

condition and customer age, was entered on the second step of the equation. The addition of the

interaction term did not increase the fit of the model, R2 = .002, F(1,86) = .22, p = .64, which

indicates the interaction is not significant in predicting tip size.

Discussion, Implications, and Limitations

In his classic book How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie (1936)

noted that competent communicators understand the importance and effectiveness of learning

and using other peoples’ names. That said, most related research has focused on name

stereotypes (e.g., Harari & McDavid, 1973) or expectations about formal and informal forms of

address (e.g., Brown & Ford, 1961), while neglecting to examine the potential benefits of calling

people by name. This study is one exception. Its results are congruent with the few previous

studies on this topic that indicate that calling customers by name is positively associated with

tipping behavior. Moreover, this study provides theoretical contributions to the field of social

influence. Specifically, its findings are more congruent with the direct effects model (Andersen,

2004), which suggests that immediacy displays significantly enhance persuasive effects, than

with cognitive valence theory (Andersen, 1998) (see above).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

12

In addition to supporting research and theory, the results of this study are relevant to other issues.

Lynn and McCall (2009), for instance, argued that an issue for future researchers to consider is

an inconsistency regarding the association between tipping behavior and food servers

introducing themselves by name. As noted earlier, one study found that food servers who

introduced themselves earned higher tips than food servers who did not (Garrity & Degelman,

1990), while another found just the opposite (Lynn & McCall, 2009). In light of this, we note

that the approach used by food servers in the present study included self-introductions. Because

such introductions were not a stand-alone condition, however, we can do little more than

speculate that they were not detrimental to the tips food servers earned. Because this and the

Garrity and Degelman study were field experiments while the Lynn and McCall study was not, it

is also possible that methodology played a role in producing different results across studies.

Future research should explore this possibility.

This study also found that, regardless of age, customers tipped higher when their names were

used than when their names were not used. It is interesting to note that although previous

research (Seiter & Weger, 2013) suggests that older customers desire immediate behavior to be

tempered by greater formality (i.e., older customers left higher tips when addressed by their title

plus last name, while younger customers left higher tips when addressed by their first name), in

the present study, all customers, regardless of age, introduced themselves and/or their

companions by their first names. Perhaps this apparent discrepancy is the result of expectations

due to status differences. Specifically, in the same way that it might seem appropriate for a boss

to invite a subordinate to behave less formally (e.g., “Feel free to call me by my first name.”) but

not vice versa, perhaps older customers find it presumptuous for food servers to initiate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

13

informality, but are fine if they are the ones to define boundaries themselves. Future research

should examine this explanation.

In addition, future research should consider other issues. For example, there are a number of

contingent effects that were not tested in this study, including the type of restaurant (e.g., formal

versus casual), the social or economic class of customers, the age and gender of food servers, and

the geographical location of the restaurants. Moreover, future research should correct for

limitations. Specifically, the food servers in this study were not blind to conditions. Although

they were instructed to treat customers in both conditions identically (except for when using or

not using names), and although both servers reported that they were able to do so, there is always

the chance that servers behaved differently having known the conditions. Finally, because our

data was collected in the field and we did not want to intrude on customers by asking their real

ages, there is no way to know whether our food servers’ estimates were accurate.

Despite these limitations and in addition to supporting existing research, this study should be

useful in applied contexts. First, previous work indicates that customers’ satisfaction is positively

related to interactions with employees (Kim & Boo, 2011; Lin & Mattila, 2010; Ma, Qu, &

Eliwa, 2014). However, as Kang and Hyun (2012) noted, although restaurant managers and

owners may understand the importance of developing communication skills in service providers,

and although they may be under significant pressure to promote such skills, they often do not

have practical guidelines for doing so. Interestingly, Lynn and McCall (2009) found that a

majority of food servers never or only sometimes called their customers by name. This suggests

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

14

that food servers are not being trained to use their customers’ names, forget to do so, or choose

not to do so.

With that in mind, it is our hope that this study, alongside others, is useful in helping managers

understand that mutual introductions and addressing customers by name seem to constitute best

practices in services interactions. As noted earlier, this study investigated an approach that, to

our knowledge, has not yet been tested in restaurant settings. Although it is not meant to replace

approaches that have been examined in previous studies, it offers an alternative that is easy to

teach and learn while overcoming some of the constraints in previously tested approaches.

Moreover, because previous research suggests that customers might become desensitized to

some server practices (Kinard & Kinard, 2013), studies such as this that point to the continued

effectiveness of certain server practices should be desirable. Indeed, being called by name might

increase customers’ satisfaction, which has been shown to affect their decisions about whether or

not to return to a restaurant (Bowden & Dagger, 2011).

Finally, the findings from this study should be of practical interest to the nearly two million

people in the United States (1 percent of the nation’s adult population) who work as food servers

(Lynn, 2011) and depend on tips for much of their income. The approach examined should be

simple to implement while leading to significant increases in tips earned.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

15

References

Andersen, P. A. (1998). The cognitive valence theory of intimate communication. In M.

T. Palmer & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences: Vol. 14. Mutual

influence in interpersonal communication: Theory and research in cognition, affect, and

behavior (pp. 39-72). Stamford, CT: Ablex.

Andersen, P. A. (2004). Influential actions: Nonverbal communication and persuasion.

In J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (Eds.), Readings in persuasion, social influence, and compliance

gaining (pp. 165-180). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Andersen, P. A. (2009). Immediacy. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of

Communication Theory: Vol. 1 (pp. 501-503). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Arduser, L., & Brown, D. R. (2005). The waiter and waitress and waitstaff training handbook: A

complete guide to the proper steps in service for food and beverage

employees. Ocala, FL: Atlantic Publishing Group.

Bowden, J. L. H., & Dagger, T. S. (2011). To delight or not to delight? An investigation

of loyalty formation in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing

& Management, 20, 501-524. doi:10.1080/19368623.2011.570637

Brown, R., & Ford, M. (1961). Address in American English. Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology, 62, 375-386. doi:10.1037/h0042862

Carnegie, D. (1936). How to win friends and influence people. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

16

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2002). The science and practice of persuasion.

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43, 40-50. doi:10.1016/s0010-

8804(02)80030-1

Garrity, K., & Degelman, D. (1990). Effect of server introduction on restaurant

tipping. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 168-172. doi:10.1111/j.1559-

1816.1990.tb00405.x

George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social

sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Goodwin, C., & Smith, K. L. (1990). Courtesy and friendliness: Conflicting goals for the

service providers. Journal of Services Marketing, 4, 5-20.

Guéguen, N., & Jacob, C. (2014). Clothing color and tipping: Gentlemen patrons

give more tips to waitresses with red clothes. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism

Research, 38, 275-280. doi:10.1177/1096348012442546

Harari, H., & McDavid, J. W. (1973). Name stereotypes and teachers’ expectations,

Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 222-225. doi:10.1037/h0034978

Hubbard, A. S. E., Tsuji, A., Williams, C., & Seatriz, V. (2003). Effects of touch on

gratuities received in same-gender and cross-gender dyads. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 33, 2427-2438. doi:10.111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01893.x

Jacob, C., & Guéguen, N. (2010). The effect of physical distance between patrons

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

17

and servers on tipping. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36, 25-31.

doi:10.1177/1096348010388660

Jacob, C., Guéguen, N., Boulbry, G., & Ardiccioni, R. (2010). Waitresses’ facial

cosmetics and tipping: A field study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 188-

190. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.04.003

Jacob, C., Guéguen, N., & Delfosse, C. (2012). She wore something in her hair: The

effect of ornamentation on tipping. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &

Management, 21, 414-420. doi:10.1080/19368623.2012.624296

Kang, J., & Hyun, S. S. (2012). Effective communication styles for the customer-

oriented service employee: Inducing dedicational behaviors in luxury restaurant patrons.

International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, 772-785. doi:10.1016/j.iijhm.2011.09.014

Kim, J., & Boo, S. (2011). Influencing factors on customers’intention to complain in a

franchise restaurant. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20, 217-

237. doi: 10.1080/19368623.2010.514559

Kinard, B. R., & Kinard, J. L. (2013). The effect of receipt personalization on tipping

behavior. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12, 280-284. doi: 10.1002/cb.1410

Kirkham, M., Weiss, P., & Crawford, B. (2002). The waiting game: The essential guide

for wait staff. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

Lin, I. Y., & Mattila, A. S. (2010). Restaurant servicescape, service encounter, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

18

perceived congruency on customers’ emotions and satisfaction. Journal of

Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18, 819-841. doi: 10.1080/19368623.2010.514547

Lynn, M. (2003). Tip levels and service: An update, extension and reconciliation.

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44, 139-148. doi:10.1016/S0010-

8804(03)90118-2

Lynn, M., & Latané, B. (1984). The psychology of restaurant tipping. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 14, 549-561. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1984.tb02259.x

Lynn M., & McCall, M. (2009). Techniques for increasing servers’ tips: How

generalizable are they? Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 50, 198-208. doi:

10.1177/1938965509334221

Lynn, M., & Mynier, K. (1993). Effect of server posture on restaurant tipping. Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 678-685. doi: 10.111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01109.x

Lynn, W. M. (2011). Mega tips 2: Twenty tested techniques to increase your tips. Cornell

Hospitality Tools, 2, 4-22. Retrieved from

http://tippingresearch.com/uploads/CHRmegatips2.pdf on August 29, 2014.

Ma, E., QU, H., & Eliwa, R. A. (2014). Customer loyalty with find dining: The

moderating role of gender. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management,

23, 513-535. doi: 10.1080/19368623.2013.835250

Rodrigue, K. M. (1999). Tipping tips: The effects of personalization on restaurant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

19

gratuity. Unpublished master’s thesis, Emporia State University.

Seiter, J. S. (2007). Ingratiation and gratuity: The effect of complimenting customers

on tipping behavior in restaurants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37,

478-485. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00169.x

Seiter, J. S. (2014). Beyond expectations: The influence of food servers’ nonverbal

Behavior in service interactions. In C. J. Liberman (Ed.), Casing persuasive

Communication (pp. 263-273). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Seiter, J. S. & Gass, R. H. (2005). The effect of patriotic messages on restaurant

tipping. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1197-1205. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-

1816.2005.tb02166.x

Seiter, J. S., & Weger, H. (2010). The effect of generalized compliments, sex of server,

and size of dining party on tipping behavior in restaurants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

40, 1-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00560.x

Seiter, J. S., & Weger, H. (2013). Does a customer by any other name tip the same?:

The effect of forms of address and customers’ age on gratuities given to food servers in the

United States. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1592-1598. doi:10.1111/jasp.12110

Slobin, D. I., Miller, S. H., & Porter, L. W. (1968). Forms of address and social relations

in a business organization. Journal of Personality and Social Pscychology, 8, 289-293.

doi:10.1037/h0025657

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

20

Sunnafrank, M., and Ramirez, A., Jr. (2004). At first sight: Persistent relational effects

of get acquainted conversations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 361-379.

doi:10.1177/0265407504042837

van Baaren, R. B. (2005). The parrot effect: How to increase tip size. Cornell Hospitality

Quarterly, 46, 79-84. doi: 10.1177/0010880404270062

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

21

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics, n = 90

M SD

Tip percentage

Overall 20.71 8.88

Male customer 20.93 8.85

Female customer 20.43 9.10

Sever 1 21.02 7.39

Server 2 19.98 11.79

Experimental condition 23.55 9.50

Control condition 17.32 6.74

Estimated customer age 40.45 15.60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

22

Table 2 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Table Predicting Tip Size from Experimental Condition, Customer Age, and Condition X Customer Age, n = 90 dining parties.

Variable R2∆ b SE b β p

Step 1 .11*

Condition 6.08 1.79 .34 .001

Customer Age .04 .06 .07 .52

Step 2 .002

Condition X Customer Age -.06 .12 -.18 .64

Total R2 .12*

* p < .01

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

entr

al F

lori

da]

at 1

0:06

10

July

201

5