| Literature DB >> 34925185 |
Muhammad Asghar Ali1, Ding Hooi Ting1, Muhammad Ahmad-Ur-Rahman2, Shoukat Ali3, Falik Shear2, Muhammad Mazhar1.
Abstract
This study is aimed to identify the relative (direct) effect of online review ratings and perceived crowding on purchase intentions of a consumer. Our study also investigated the contingent effect of gender and perceived crowding between the relationship of exogenous and endogenous variables. This study was conducted in the Malaysian restaurant industry. We applied the purposive sampling technique to identify respondents, the mall intercept survey method was used for data collection. Smart PLS software was applied for data analysis (200 respondents). This study demonstrates through its results that online review ratings and perceived crowding have a positive effect on purchase intentions of a consumer. Moreover, if a consumer perceives crowding at a restaurant, this has a positive contingent effect on the relationship between review ratings and purchase intentions. This demonstrates that the consumer is more inclined to choose a restaurant with a high online review rating and has high perceived crowding at some unfamiliar place. Lastly, no evidence is found for the gender difference between review rating and purchase intentions; however, gender shows contingent effect and results confirmed that males preferred more crowded restaurants as compared to females. There are theoretical and practical implications for managers in the findings of this study.Entities:
Keywords: crowding; gender; online review; perceived crowdedness; purchase intentions; review rating; situational cues
Year: 2021 PMID: 34925185 PMCID: PMC8674202 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.780863
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Conceptual framework.
Information of the participants.
| Respondents’ profile | Percentage% |
| Gender | |
| Males | 59 |
| Females | 41 |
| Age | |
| Between 15 and 29 | 36.5 |
| Between 30 and 39 | 31.5 |
| Between 40 and 59 | 31.5 |
| Between 50 and 60 | 0.5 |
| Nationality | |
| Malaysian | 100 |
| Others | 0 |
| Race | |
| Malay | 69.5 |
| Chinese | 30.0 |
| Indian | 0.5 |
| Education | |
| Certificate | 18.5 |
| Diploma Degree | 46.5 |
| Masters | 29.5 |
| Ph.D. | 5.5 |
| Monthly Income | |
| RM 3000 to RM 3900 | 11.3 |
| RM 4000 to RM 4900 | 28.2 |
| RM 5000 to RM 5900 | 37.0 |
| RM 6000 and above | 23.5 |
| Marital Status | |
| Single | 65.5 |
| Married | 34.5 |
Reflective measurement model.
| Items | Outer loadings | VIF | p-Value | C. B. α | CR | AVE |
| Review Rating | ||||||
| (RR1) The ratings helped me to learn about this restaurant. | 0.802 | 1.36 | 0 | 0.779 | 0.871 | 0.69 |
| (RR2) The ratings improved my understanding of the quality of this restaurant’s features. | 0.834 | 1.95 | 0 | |||
| (RR3) The ratings were useful to evaluate the quality of this restaurant specifications/features. | 0.859 | 1.95 | 0 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Perceived Crowding | ||||||
| (Crd1) There was much traffic at the restaurant. | 0.915 | 3.34 | 0 | 0.93 | 0.949 | 0.82 |
| (Crd2) There were a lot of people at the restaurant | 0.929 | 4.04 | 0 | |||
| (Crd3)The restaurant was a little too busy | 0.876 | 3.54 | 0 | |||
| (Crd4) The restaurant seems very crowded to me | 0.909 | 3.72 | 0 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Purchase Intentions | ||||||
| (PI1) I prefer to purchase from this restaurant | 0.823 | 3.29 | 0 | 0.894 | 0.913 | 677 |
| (PI2) I am willing to purchase from this restaurant | 0.887 | 4.04 | 0 | |||
| (PI3) I will make an effort to purchase from this restaurant | 0.742 | 2.1 | 0 | |||
| (PI4) I would patronise this restaurant | 0.855 | 2.81 | 0 | |||
| (PI5) I expect to purchase from this restaurant | 0.8 | 2.29 | 0 | |||
Fornell-Larcker criterion.
| Crowdedness | Purchase intentions | R. rating | |
| Crowdedness | 0.823 | ||
| Purchase Intentions | 0.339 | 0.902 | |
| Review rating | 0.467 | 0.274 | 0.832 |
Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT).
| Crowdedness | Purchase intentions | R. rating | |
| Crowdedness | |||
| Purchase Intentions | 0.404 | ||
| Review rating | 0.546 | 0.306 |
Structural model assessment.
| Hypothesis | STD coefficient (β) | SE | f2 Effect Size | t-values | P Value | 95% confidence intervals | R2 | Q2 | Results |
| H1:Crowding→ Purchase intentions | 0.283 | 0.067 | 0.104 | 4.567 | 0.00 | [0.172,0.414] | 0.292 | 0.154 | Accepted |
| H2:Review Rating→ Purchase intentions | 0.389 | 0.048 | 0.198 | 8.022 | 0.00 | [0.312,0.504] | Accepted | ||
| H3:Crowding*Review rating | 0.13 | 0.022 | 2.307 | 0.00 | [0.113,0.272] | 0.311 | Accepted | ||
| H4:Crowding*Gender | 0.215 | 0.155 | 2.160 | 0.03 | [0.115,0.307] | 0.644 | Accepted | ||
| H5:Review rating*Gender | 0.128 | 0.054 | 0.122 | 0.51 | [−0.040,0.180] | Rejected |
FIGURE 2Moderation graph.
FIGURE 3Moderation graph: IV = perceived crowding.