| Literature DB >> 32276425 |
Yongping Zhong1, Hee Cheol Moon1.
Abstract
The fast-food service industry has been growing rapidly across China over the last few decades. In accordance with the rising consumption level in the country, Chinese customers care increasingly about their food choices. The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors that can influence customer satisfaction, loyalty, and happiness, with a particular focus on the moderating role of gender. Data were collected through an online survey completed by customers who visited Western fast-food restaurants (KFC, McDonalds, etc.) in China. The structural equation model was applied to test 12 hypotheses. Results showed that perceived price, food, service, and physical environment quality positively affected customer satisfaction. Perceived price can significantly influence customers' judgement of the quality dimensions of a restaurant. Moreover, customer satisfaction and happiness can lead to a sense of loyalty. Happiness functions as a mediator between satisfaction and loyalty. Nonetheless, our findings indicated that customers' perceptions of food quality based on price and satisfaction levels based on service quality differ significantly between the genders, which demonstrated that gender moderation exists in food consumption. This study will contribute to a better understanding of managerial and theoretical perspectives, which will be beneficial for subsequent research.Entities:
Keywords: food consumption; food quality; food service industry; happiness; loyalty; moderating role of gender; perceived price; physical environment quality; satisfaction; service quality
Year: 2020 PMID: 32276425 PMCID: PMC7230358 DOI: 10.3390/foods9040460
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Questionnaire and sources.
| Variable | Observed Variables | Items | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived Price (PP) | PP1 | The price of the fast food is reasonable. | Adapted from [ |
| PP2 | Based on the food, the price here is fair. | ||
| PP3 | The price of the fast food is affordable. | ||
| Food Quality (FQ) | FQ1 | The food smells good. | Adapted from [ |
| FQ2 | The food is delicious. | ||
| FQ3 | The food is fresh. | ||
| FQ4 | The food looks attractive to me. | ||
| Service Quality (SQ) | SQ1 | Staff members are friendly. | Adapted from [ |
| SQ2 | Staff members are very helpful. | ||
| SQ3 | Staff members serve quickly and promptly. | ||
| SQ4 | I feel comfortable with staff members’ service. | ||
| Physical Environment Quality (PQ) | PQ2 | The restaurant environment is clean. | Adapted from [ |
| PQ3 | The lighting in the restaurant is comfortable. | ||
| PQ4 | The temperature in the restaurant is comfortable. | ||
| Satisfaction (SA) | SA1 | The overall experience of this fast-food restaurant is satisfying. | Adapted from [ |
| SA2 | I think my decision to visit this restaurant was a wise one. | ||
| SA3 | This restaurant meets most of my expectations. | ||
| Loyalty (LY) | LY1 | I will continue to visit this restaurant. | Adapted from [ |
| LY2 | I will recommend this restaurant to others. | ||
| LY3 | I will say positive things about this restaurant to others. | ||
| Happiness (HA) | HA1 | I think visiting this fast-food restaurant will contribute to customer happiness. | Adapted from [ |
| HA2 | By visiting this restaurant, customers’ quality of life will be improved. | ||
| HA3 | This restaurant provides a happy and enjoyable dining experience for my family and friends. | Self-developed |
Sample profile.
| Variable | Frequency | Percent % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 126 | 41.3 |
| Female | 179 | 58.7 | |
| Age | 20 and under | 40 | 13.1 |
| 21–30 | 192 | 63.0 | |
| 31–40 | 62 | 20.3 | |
| 41–50 | 10 | 3.3 | |
| above 50 | 1 | 0.3 | |
| Education | below high school | 13 | 4.3 |
| high school/vocational school/technical school | 31 | 10.2 | |
| junior college | 39 | 12.8 | |
| undergraduate | 155 | 50.8 | |
| graduate and above | 67 | 22.0 | |
| Frequency of Visiting Fast-Food Restaurants | 1–2 times every 6 months | 63 | 20.6 |
| 2 times every 3 months | 40 | 13.1 | |
| once a month | 58 | 19.0 | |
| 2–3 times a month | 80 | 26.2 | |
| 1–3 times a week | 49 | 16.1 | |
| more than 3 times a week | 15 | 4.9 | |
| Monthly Income | less or equal to 1000 RMB | 29 | 9.5 |
| 1001–1500 RMB | 32 | 10.5 | |
| 1501–2000 RMB | 30 | 9.8 | |
| 2001–3000 RMB | 21 | 6.9 | |
| 3001–5000 RMB | 72 | 23.6 | |
| 5001–8000 RMB | 74 | 24.3 | |
| more than 8000 RMB | 47 | 15.4 | |
| total | 305 | 100.0 | |
Outer loading, construct reliability, and validity results.
| Variables | Outer Loadings (CFA) | Cronbach’s Alpha | rho_A | Composite Reliability | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| perceived price | PP1 | 0.868 | 0.852 | 0.853 | 0.91 | 0.771 |
| PP2 | 0.884 | |||||
| PP3 | 0.883 | |||||
| food quality | FQ1 | 0.827 | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.899 | 0.69 |
| FQ2 | 0.863 | |||||
| FQ3 | 0.799 | |||||
| FQ4 | 0.832 | |||||
| service quality | SQ1 | 0.804 | 0.846 | 0.851 | 0.896 | 0.684 |
| SQ2 | 0.849 | |||||
| SQ3 | 0.821 | |||||
| SQ4 | 0.832 | |||||
| physical environment quality | PQ2 | 0.844 | 0.791 | 0.793 | 0.878 | 0.706 |
| PQ3 | 0.861 | |||||
| PQ4 | 0.815 | |||||
| satisfaction | SA1 | 0.859 | 0.822 | 0.824 | 0.894 | 0.738 |
| SA2 | 0.882 | |||||
| SA4 | 0.835 | |||||
| loyalty | LY1 | 0.835 | 0.825 | 0.826 | 0.895 | 0.741 |
| LY2 | 0.884 | |||||
| LY4 | 0.862 | |||||
| happiness | HA1 | 0.876 | 0.854 | 0.855 | 0.911 | 0.774 |
| HA2 | 0.880 | |||||
| HA3 | 0.885 | |||||
Discriminant validity.
| FQ | HA | LY | PP | PQ | SA | SQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| food quality | 0.831 | ||||||
| happiness | 0.615 | 0.88 | |||||
| loyalty | 0.591 | 0.696 | 0.861 | ||||
| perceived price | 0.525 | 0.513 | 0.458 | 0.878 | |||
| physical environment quality | 0.594 | 0.533 | 0.539 | 0.365 | 0.84 | ||
| satisfaction | 0.669 | 0.692 | 0.71 | 0.546 | 0.613 | 0.859 | |
| service quality | 0.609 | 0.51 | 0.544 | 0.411 | 0.506 | 0.566 | 0.827 |
Hypotheses test results.
| Hypotheses | β | STDEV | T Statistics | Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | perceived price → satisfaction | 0.228 | 0.054 | 4.255 | 0.000 | accepted |
| H2 | food quality → satisfaction | 0.288 | 0.068 | 4.253 | 0.000 | accepted |
| H3 | service quality → satisfaction | 0.155 | 0.058 | 2.663 | 0.008 | accepted |
| H4 | physical environment quality → satisfaction | 0.280 | 0.054 | 5.209 | 0.000 | accepted |
| H5 | perceived price → food quality | 0.525 | 0.052 | 10.037 | 0.000 | accepted |
| H6 | perceived price → service quality | 0.411 | 0.053 | 7.809 | 0.000 | accepted |
| H7 | perceived price → physical environment quality | 0.365 | 0.046 | 7.942 | 0.000 | accepted |
| H8 | satisfaction → loyalty | 0.438 | 0.061 | 7.178 | 0.000 | accepted |
| H9 | satisfaction → happiness | 0.692 | 0.03 | 23.138 | 0.000 | accepted |
| H10 | happiness → loyalty | 0.393 | 0.065 | 6.063 | 0.000 | accepted |
Note: STDEV: Standard Deviation
Figure 1PLS-SEM (Partial least squares - structural equation modeling) whole group results (note: ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001).
PLS-SEM multigroup analysis results.
| Hypotheses | Path Coefficients (β) | STDEV | Path Coefficients-Diff | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (F) | (M) | (F) | (M) | (F) | (M) | |||
| H1 | perceived price → satisfaction | 0.222 | 0.224 | 0.000 | 0.012 | 0.058 | 0.089 | 0.980 |
| H2 | food quality → satisfaction | 0.329 | 0.230 | 0.000 | 0.036 | 0.083 | 0.111 | 0.465 |
| H3 | service quality → satisfaction | 0.071 | 0.283 | 0.332 | 0.002 | 0.073 | 0.090 | 0.064 * |
| H4 | physical environment quality → satisfaction | 0.340 | 0.209 | 0.000 | 0.015 | 0.071 | 0.089 | 0.247 |
| H5 | perceived price → food quality | 0.414 | 0.631 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.065 | 0.067 | 0.024 * |
| H6 | perceived price → service quality | 0.347 | 0.503 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.064 | 0.076 | 0.118 |
| H7 | perceived price → physical environment quality | 0.343 | 0.403 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.064 | 0.061 | 0.512 |
| H8 | satisfaction → loyalty | 0.520 | 0.341 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.085 | 0.079 | 0.139 |
| H9 | satisfaction → happiness | 0.668 | 0.721 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.041 | 0.044 | 0.390 |
| H10 | happiness → loyalty | 0.321 | 0.479 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.080 | 0.095 | 0.207 |
Note: * p < 0.1; STDEV: Standard Deviation; F = female, M = male.
Figure 2PLS-SEM results for female and male customers (note: *p < 0.1; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; F = female; M = male).
Mediating effect results.
| Group | Stage | Effects | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st (SA→HA) | 2nd (HA→LY) | Indirect Effects | Direct Effects | Total Effects | |
| whole group | 0.692 *** | 0.393 *** | 0.272 *** | 0.438 *** | 0.710 *** |
| female | 0.668 *** | 0.321 *** | 0.215 *** | 0.520 *** | 0.735 *** |
| male | 0.721 *** | 0.479 *** | 0.345 *** | 0.341 *** | 0.686 *** |
Note: *** p < 0.001.
(a)
| KMO and Bartlett’s Test | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy | Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity | ||
| 0.944 | Approx. Chi-Square | Df | Sig. |
| 4095.278 | 253 | 0.000 | |
(b)
| Rotated Component Matrix a | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Component | |||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
| SQ1 | 0.782 | ||||||
| SQ3 | 0.757 | ||||||
| SQ2 | 0.683 | ||||||
| SQ4 | 0.682 | ||||||
| PP1 | 0.828 | ||||||
| PP2 | 0.816 | ||||||
| PP3 | 0.788 | ||||||
| FQ1 | 0.761 | ||||||
| FQ4 | 0.707 | ||||||
| FQ2 | 0.682 | ||||||
| FQ3 | 0.546 | ||||||
| HA2 | 0.782 | ||||||
| HA3 | 0.666 | ||||||
| HA1 | 0.657 | ||||||
| PQ3 | 0.757 | ||||||
| PQ4 | 0.741 | ||||||
| PQ2 | 0.721 | ||||||
| LY1 | 0.752 | ||||||
| LY4 | 0.630 | ||||||
| LY2 | 0.610 | ||||||
| SA4 | 0.663 | ||||||
| SA2 | 0.661 | ||||||
| SA1 | 0.639 | ||||||
| Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Equamax with Kaiser Normalization. | |||||||
Note: Df: degrees of freedom; Sig.: Significance. Factor loadings below 0.5 were not shown. a Rotation converged in 15 iterations.