| Literature DB >> 36187884 |
Masoumeh Zibarzani1, Rabab Ali Abumalloh2, Mehrbakhsh Nilashi3,4, Sarminah Samad5, O A Alghamdi6, Fatima Khan Nayer7, Muhammed Yousoof Ismail8, Saidatulakmal Mohd3,9, Noor Adelyna Mohammed Akib3.
Abstract
Online reviews have been used effectively to understand customers' satisfaction and preferences. COVID-19 crisis has significantly impacted customers' satisfaction in several sectors such as tourism and hospitality. Although several research studies have been carried out to analyze consumers' satisfaction using survey-based methodologies, consumers' satisfaction has not been well explored in the event of the COVID-19 crisis, especially using available data in social network sites. In this research, we aim to explore consumers' satisfaction and preferences of restaurants' services during the COVID-19 crisis. Furthermore, we investigate the moderating impact of COVID-19 safety precautions on restaurants' quality dimensions and satisfaction. We applied a new approach to achieve the objectives of this research. We first developed a hybrid approach using clustering, supervised learning, and text mining techniques. Learning Vector Quantization (LVQ) was used to cluster customers' preferences. To predict travelers' preferences, decision trees were applied to each segment of LVQ. We used a text mining technique; Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), for textual data analysis to discover the satisfaction criteria from online customers' reviews. After analyzing the data using machine learning techniques, a theoretical model was developed to inspect the relationships between the restaurants' quality factors and customers' satisfaction. In this stage, Partial Least Squares (PLS) technique was employed. We evaluated the proposed approach using a dataset collected from the TripAdvisor platform. The outcomes of the two-stage methodology were discussed and future research directions were suggested according to the limitations of this study.Entities:
Keywords: Customer satisfaction; Machine learning; Segmentation; Social data analysis; Text mining
Year: 2022 PMID: 36187884 PMCID: PMC9513347 DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101977
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Technol Soc ISSN: 0160-791X
List of acronyms used in this study.
| Acronyms | Description |
|---|---|
| CART | Classification and Regression Tree |
| LDA | Latent Dirichlet Allocation |
| LVQ | Learning Vector Quantization |
| NLP | Natural Language Processing |
| PCA | Principal Component Analysis |
| PLS-SEM | Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling |
| SOM | Self-Organizing Map |
| SVM | Support Vector Machine |
| CV | Convergent Validity |
| IC | Internal Consistency |
| DV | Discriminant Validity |
| CR | Composite Reliability |
| AVE | Average Variance Extracted |
| CA | Cronbach's Alpha |
| CL | Cross-Loadings |
| FL | Fornell-Larcker |
| Q2 | Stone-Geisser's Q Square |
| R2 | Coefficients of Determination |
| SOR | Stimulus-Organism-Response |
Fig. 1The proposed method.
Cluster centroids.
| Attribute | Segment 1 (LVQ1 × 1: 828) | Segment 2 (LVQ2 × 1: 352) | Segment 3 (LVQ3 × 1: 978) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Food | 3.624396 | 4.275568 | 3.505112 |
| Service | 2.553140 | 2.579545 | 4.566462 |
| Value | 3.160628 | 4.573864 | 3.992843 |
| Atmosphere | 2.786232 | 4.477273 | 2.617587 |
LVQ segments, COVID-19 safety precautions and level of satisfaction.
| Customer Satisfaction Level | LVQ Segments | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Segment 1 | Segment 2 | Segment 3 | ||||
| COVID-19 Safety Precautions | No | Customer Satisfaction Level | High | 0 | 33 | 47 |
| Low | 350 | 39 | 192 | |||
| Moderate | 83 | 102 | 243 | |||
| Yes | Customer Satisfaction Level | High | 210 | 167 | 414 | |
| Low | 24 | 1 | 3 | |||
| Moderate | 161 | 10 | 79 | |||
Fig. 2CART analysis results.
Fig. 3Initial research model.
Demographic results of the participants (N = 1358).
| Feature | Item | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 670 | 49.34 |
| Male | 688 | 50.66 | |
| Age | 18–20 | 148 | 10.89 |
| 21–30 | 547 | 40.28 | |
| >30 | 663 | 48.82 | |
| Marital status | Married | 610 | 44.92 |
| Single | 748 | 55.08 | |
| Occupation | Employee | 525 | 38.66 |
| Employer | 350 | 25.77 | |
| Student | 165 | 12.15 | |
| Retired | 208 | 15.31 | |
| Others | 110 | 8.1 | |
| Usage of TripAdvisor for Booking Restaurants in the Last Six Months | 1-3 times | 450 | 33.14 |
| 4-6 times | 375 | 27.61 | |
| Over 6 times | 533 | 39.25 | |
| Mode of Travel | Family | 373 | 27.48 |
| Solo | 294 | 21.65 | |
| Friends | 337 | 24.81 | |
| Couples | 354 | 26.07 |
Constructs’ reliability and validity.
| Construct | CA | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atmosphere | 0.762 | 0.811 | 0.518 |
| COVID-19 Safety Precautions | 0.743 | 0.836 | 0.56 |
| Customer Satisfaction | 0.766 | 0.863 | 0.679 |
| Food | 0.767 | 0.838 | 0.512 |
| Service | 0.816 | 0.873 | 0.579 |
| Value | 0.868 | 0.902 | 0.648 |
Fornell-larcker criterion.
| Construct | Atmosphere | COVID-19 Safety Precautions | Customer Satisfaction | Food Quality | Services | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atmosphere | ||||||
| COVID-19 Safety Precautions | 0.541 | |||||
| Customer Satisfaction | 0.72 | 0.423 | ||||
| Food Quality | 0.595 | 0.68 | 0.618 | |||
| Services | 0.545 | 0.748 | 0.486 | 0.694 | ||
| Value | 0.618 | 0.633 | 0.437 | 0.648 | 0.767 |
Path coefficient result (N = 1358).
| Hypotheses | Link | β | t-value | p-value | Supported |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.336 | 11.252 | 0 | Yes | |
| Service - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.224 | 6.979 | 0 | Yes | |
| Value - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.259 | 7.466 | 0 | Yes | |
| Atmosphere - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.734 | 31.012 | 0 | Yes | |
| Moderating Effect 1 - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.098 | 4.802 | 0 | Yes | |
| Moderating Effect 2 - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.092 | 3.893 | 0 | Yes | |
| Additional | COVID-19 Safety Precautions - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.218 | 7.22 | 0 | Yes |
Fig. 4Final research model.
The Moderating Impact
Fig. 5The moderating impact of COVID-19 safety precautions.
The Subgroups Analysis
Path coefficient result of subgroups.
| Group | Hypotheses | Link | β | t-value | p-value | Supported |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 (N = 294) Solo | Food - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.308 | 4.523 | 0 | Yes | |
| Service - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.217 | 2.69 | 0.007 | Yes | ||
| Value - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.276 | 3.675 | 0 | Yes | ||
| Atmosphere- > Customer Satisfaction | 0.757 | 15.621 | 0 | Yes | ||
| Moderating Effect 1 - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.101 | 1.906 | 0.057 | No | ||
| Moderating Effect 2 - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.076 | 1.304 | 0.193 | No | ||
| Additional | COVID-19 Safety Precautions - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.198 | 2.834 | 0.005 | Yes | |
| Group 2 (N = 354) Couples | Food - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.33 | 5.635 | 0 | Yes | |
| Service - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.201 | 3.03 | 0.003 | Yes | ||
| Value - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.213 | 2.999 | 0.003 | Yes | ||
| Atmosphere - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.706 | 14.401 | 0 | Yes | ||
| Moderating Effect 1 - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.109 | 2.578 | 0.01 | Yes | ||
| Moderating Effect 2 - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.123 | 2.7 | 0.007 | Yes | ||
| Additional | COVID-19 Safety Precautions - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.208 | 3.482 | 0.001 | Yes | |
| Group 3 (N = 373) Families | Food - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.351 | 6.03 | 0 | Yes | |
| Service - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.286 | 4.35 | 0 | Yes | ||
| Value - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.346 | 5.571 | 0 | Yes | ||
| Atmosphere - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.755 | 17.616 | 0 | Yes | ||
| Moderating Effect 1 - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.086 | 2.252 | 0.025 | Yes | ||
| Moderating Effect 2 - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.07 | 1.608 | 0.108 | No | ||
| Additional | COVID-19 Safety Precautions - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.232 | 3.948 | 0 | Yes | |
| Group 4 (N = 337) Friends | Food - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.334 | 5.563 | 0 | Yes | |
| Service - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.184 | 2.462 | 0.014 | Yes | ||
| Value - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.193 | 2.621 | 0.009 | Yes | ||
| Atmosphere - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.721 | 15.569 | 0 | Yes | ||
| Moderating Effect 1 - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.099 | 2.341 | 0.02 | Yes | ||
| Moderating Effect 2 - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.093 | 1.877 | 0.061 | No | ||
| Additional | COVID-19 Safety Precautions - > Customer Satisfaction | 0.221 | 3.297 | 0.001 | Yes |
LVQ segments, COVID-19 safety precautions and level of satisfaction in four groups
| Customer Satisfaction Level | Travel Type | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Travelled as a couple | Travelled solo | Travelled with family | Travelled with friends | ||||||||||||
| LVQ Segments | |||||||||||||||
| Segment 1 | Segment 2 | Segment 3 | Segment 1 | Segment 2 | Segment 3 | Segment 1 | Segment 2 | Segment 3 | Segment 1 | Segment 2 | Segment 3 | ||||
| COVID-19 Safety Precautions | No | Customer Satisfaction Level | High | 0 | 5 | 9 | 0 | 7 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 20 | 23 |
| Low | 62 | 6 | 41 | 65 | 8 | 26 | 47 | 5 | 26 | 176 | 20 | 99 | |||
| Moderate | 12 | 11 | 48 | 12 | 18 | 29 | 17 | 16 | 44 | 42 | 57 | 122 | |||
| Yes | Customer Satisfaction Level | High | 0 | 0 | 0 | 140 | 117 | 305 | 40 | 34 | 71 | 30 | 16 | 38 | |
| Low | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| Moderate | 0 | 0 | 0 | 121 | 8 | 60 | 28 | 2 | 9 | 12 | 0 | 10 | |||
Survey items
| Construct | Indicators | Research Items | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atmosphere | AT1 | The appearance of the employees is neat. | [ |
| AT2 | The interior design of the restaurant is attractive. | ||
| AT3 | The temperature of the restaurant is acceptable. | ||
| AT4 | The layout allows easy movement around. | ||
| Food Quality | FO1 | The restaurant served good quality food. | [ |
| FO2 | The restaurant served food that meets the hygiene measures. | ||
| FO3 | The restaurant served food based on social distancing measures. | ||
| FO4 | The restaurant served tasty food. | ||
| FO5 | Dining at this restaurant looks safe to me. | ||
| COVID-19 Safety Precautions | CSP1 | Only immunized people are allowed to enter the restaurant. | From the Online Reviews |
| CSP2 | Workers wear masks all the time. | ||
| CSP3 | Workers sanitize surfaces frequently. | ||
| CSP4 | Hand sanitizers are available. | ||
| Satisfaction | SAT1 | I am satisfied with this restaurant. | [ |
| SAT2 | My satisfaction with this restaurant is high. | ||
| SAT3 | I am glad that I selected this restaurant. | ||
| Service | SE1 | The restaurant presents comfortable utilities. | [ |
| SE2 | Service is provided at an acceptable time. | ||
| SE3 | The services are presented quickly. | ||
| SE4 | The provided services met my expectations | ||
| SE5 | The presented services are of high quality. | ||
| Value | VA1 | The price meets the provided services. | [ |
| VA2 | The food deserves the price I paid. | ||
| VA3 | The restaurant provides a worthy value of money. | ||
| VA4 | Overall, the restaurant deserves the price I paid. | ||
| VA5 | The served food worth's the presented prices |
Cross-loadings Test
| Atmosphere | COVID-19 Safety Precautions | Customer Satisfaction | Food Quality | Services | Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AT1 | 0.674 | 0.445 | 0.289 | 0.437 | 0.43 | 0.513 |
| AT2 | 0.682 | 0.479 | 0.316 | 0.404 | 0.455 | 0.578 |
| AT3 | 0.71 | 0.571 | 0.332 | 0.462 | 0.496 | 0.587 |
| AT4 | 0.857 | 0.296 | 0.806 | 0.452 | 0.346 | 0.35 |
| CSP1 | 0.3 | 0.761 | 0.267 | 0.474 | 0.632 | 0.381 |
| CSP2 | 0.258 | 0.791 | 0.265 | 0.481 | 0.602 | 0.374 |
| CSP3 | 0.322 | 0.724 | 0.293 | 0.546 | 0.488 | 0.44 |
| CSP4 | 0.626 | 0.715 | 0.396 | 0.512 | 0.585 | 0.618 |
| FO1 | 0.471 | 0.568 | 0.383 | 0.727 | 0.699 | 0.65 |
| FO2 | 0.389 | 0.585 | 0.351 | 0.723 | 0.493 | 0.393 |
| FO3 | 0.428 | 0.476 | 0.458 | 0.797 | 0.463 | 0.431 |
| FO4 | 0.281 | 0.467 | 0.265 | 0.606 | 0.372 | 0.341 |
| FO5 | 0.504 | 0.426 | 0.621 | 0.781 | 0.482 | 0.447 |
| SAT1 | 0.806 | 0.296 | 0.857 | 0.452 | 0.346 | 0.35 |
| SAT2 | 0.555 | 0.376 | 0.854 | 0.527 | 0.444 | 0.376 |
| SAT3 | 0.483 | 0.4 | 0.758 | 0.578 | 0.436 | 0.364 |
| SE1 | 0.44 | 0.5 | 0.346 | 0.546 | 0.784 | 0.694 |
| SE2 | 0.485 | 0.556 | 0.355 | 0.55 | 0.815 | 0.741 |
| SE3 | 0.347 | 0.672 | 0.374 | 0.51 | 0.728 | 0.381 |
| SE4 | 0.309 | 0.664 | 0.373 | 0.486 | 0.688 | 0.367 |
| SE5 | 0.489 | 0.516 | 0.39 | 0.541 | 0.805 | 0.735 |
| VA1 | 0.545 | 0.54 | 0.447 | 0.617 | 0.739 | 0.863 |
| VA2 | 0.456 | 0.524 | 0.261 | 0.469 | 0.509 | 0.764 |
| VA3 | 0.443 | 0.473 | 0.307 | 0.49 | 0.513 | 0.783 |
| VA4 | 0.5 | 0.503 | 0.259 | 0.436 | 0.49 | 0.749 |
| VA5 | 0.534 | 0.522 | 0.416 | 0.554 | 0.742 | 0.858 |