• Open access
  • Published: 04 June 2020

Satisfaction and revisit intentions at fast food restaurants

  • Amer Rajput 1 &
  • Raja Zohaib Gahfoor 2  

Future Business Journal volume  6 , Article number:  13 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

185k Accesses

62 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

This study is to identify the positive association of food quality, restaurant service quality, physical environment quality, and customer satisfaction with revisit intention of customers at fast food restaurants. Additionally, word of mouth is investigated as moderator on the relationship of customer satisfaction with revisit intentions of customers at fast food restaurants. Data were collected through a questionnaire survey from 433 customers of fast food restaurants through convenience sampling. Hypotheses of proposed model were tested using structural equation modeling with partial least squares SEM-PLS in SMART PLS 3. The results confirmed the positive association of food quality, restaurant service quality, physical environment quality, and customer satisfaction with revisit intentions of customers at fast food restaurants. However, word of mouth does not positively moderate the relationship of customer satisfaction with revisit intentions of customers at fast food restaurants. This study emphasizes the importance of revisit intention as a vital behavioral reaction in fast food restaurants. This study reveals revisit intention’s positive association with food quality, restaurant service quality, physical environment quality, and customer satisfaction based on stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) theory. Furthermore, it is identified that social conformity theory does not hold its assumption when consumers experience quality and they are satisfied because word of mouth does not moderate the relationship of customer satisfaction with revisit intention of customer.

Introduction

Background of the study.

Hospitality industry is observing diversified changes in highly competitive environment for restaurants [ 1 ]. Consumers are becoming conscious of food quality (FQ), restaurant service quality (RSQ), and physical environment quality (PEQ) of the fast food restaurants. Consumers switch easily in case of just one evasive experience [ 2 , 3 ]. Fast food restaurants must attract new customers and retain the existing customers. There is a growing trend in Pakistani culture to dine out at fast food restaurants with family, friends, and colleagues [ 4 ]. Restaurants focus to provide a dining experience by combining tangible and intangible essentials [ 5 ]. Decisive objective is to achieve customer satisfaction (CS), word of mouth (WOM), and future revisit intention (RVI) at fast food restaurant.

Restaurants differ in offerings, appearance, service models, and cuisines; this classifies restaurants as downscale and upscale [ 6 , 7 ]. Revisit intention is the willingness of a consumer to revisit a place due to satisfactory experience. Customer satisfaction generates a probability to revisit in presence or absence of an affirmative attitude toward the restaurant [ 8 ]. Revisit intention is a substantial topic in hospitality research [ 8 , 9 , 10 ]. To date there has been little agreement on that word of mouth can affect revisit intention after experience of customer satisfaction. For instance, when a customer is satisfied at a fast food restaurant experience, however, the customer’s family and friends do not share the same satisfying experience. Will this word of mouth affect the customer’s revisit intention? Food quality is acknowledged as a basic component of the restaurant’s overall experience to affect consumer revisit intention. Fast food quality is substantially associated with customer satisfaction and it is an important predictor of behavioral intention [ 11 ]. Service quality is an essential factor to produce consumers’ revisit intentions [ 12 ]. Furthermore, physical environment quality affects behavior of consumers at restaurants, hotels, hospitals, retail stores, and banks [ 13 ]. Physical environment quality is a precursor of customer satisfaction [ 9 ]. This suggests that customer satisfaction is associated with fast food quality, restaurant service quality, physical environment quality, and revisit intention.

Aims of the study

This study is to investigate the association of fast food quality, restaurant service quality, physical environment quality with customer’s revisit intention through mediation of customer satisfaction using S-O-R theory and moderation of word of mouth on the relationship of customer satisfaction with revisit intention based on social conformity theory. This study empirically tests a conceptual research framework based on S-O-R and social conformity theory adding value to the knowledge. Objectives of the study are given below.

To investigate the association of fast food quality, restaurant service quality, and physical environment quality with revisit intention through customer satisfaction based on S-O-R theory in the context of Pakistani fast food restaurants.

To investigate moderation of WOM on relationship of customer satisfaction with revisit intention based on social conformity theory in the context of Pakistani fast food restaurants.

Furthermore, little empirical evidence is present about customer satisfaction with respect to fast food restaurant service quality [ 14 ]. Customer satisfaction is a post-consumption assessment in service industry. Customer satisfaction acts as the feedback mechanism to boost consumer experience [ 15 ]. Customer satisfaction brings competitive advantage to the firm and produces positive behavioral revisit intention [ 16 ]. Marketing literature emphasizes customer satisfaction in anticipation of positive word of mouth, revisit intention, and revisit behavior [ 5 ]. Behavioral intention is assessed through positive WOM, and it is important in service industry [ 15 ], whereas social influence in shape of WOM affects the behavior of individuals toward conformity leading to a driving effect based on social conformity theory [ 17 ].

  • Food quality

Food quality plays a central role in the restaurant industry. Food quality is essential to satisfy consumer needs. Food quality is a substantial condition to fulfill the needs and expectations of the consumer [ 18 ]. Food quality is acknowledged as a basic component of the restaurant’s overall experience. Food quality is a restaurant selection’s most important factor, and it is considerably related to customer satisfaction [ 11 ]. Food quality affects customer loyalty, and customer assesses the restaurant on the basis of food quality [ 19 ]. Food quality entails food taste, presentation, temperature, freshness, nutrition, and menu variety. Food quality influences customers’ decisions to revisit the restaurant [ 20 ]. Academic curiosity is increasing in the restaurant’s menus, as variety of menu items is considered the critical characteristic of food quality [ 11 ]. Taste is sensual characteristic of food. Taste is assessed after consumption. Nonetheless, customers foresee taste before consumption through price, quality, food labels, and brand name. Taste of food is important to accomplish customer satisfaction. Presentation of food enhances dining customer satisfaction [ 21 , 22 ]. Customer’s concerns of healthy food substantially affect customer’s expectations and choice of a restaurant [ 23 ]. Freshness is assessed with the aroma, juiciness, crispness, and fresh posture of the food. Food quality enhances customer satisfaction [ 24 ].

  • Restaurant service quality

Quality as a construct is projected by Juran and Deming [ 25 , 26 ]. Service quality is comparatively a contemporary concept. Service quality assesses the excellence of brands in industry of travel, retail, hotel, airline, and restaurant [ 27 ]. Restaurant service quality affects dining experiences of customers. Service quality creates first impression on consumers and affects consumers’ perception of quality [ 28 ]. Service industry provides good service quality to the customers to attain sustainable competitive advantage. Customer satisfaction depends on quality of service at the restaurant [ 29 ]. Service quality entails price, friendliness, cleanliness, care, diversity, speed of service, and food consistency according to menu. Customer satisfaction also depends on communication between restaurant’s personnel and the customers [ 30 ]. Consumer’s evaluation of service quality is affected by level of friendliness and care. Service quality leads to positive word of mouth, customer satisfaction, better corporate image, attraction for the new customers, increase revisits, and amplified business performance. Service quality increases revisits and behavioral intentions of customers in hospitality industry [ 12 ].

  • Physical environment quality

PEQ is a setting to provide products and services in a restaurant. Physical environment quality contains artifacts, decor, spatial layout, and ambient conditions in a restaurant. Customers desire dining experience to be pleasing; thus, they look for a physical environment quality [ 31 ]. Physical environment quality satisfies and attracts new customers. PEQ increases financial performance, and it creates memorable experience for the customers [ 9 ]. Consumers perceive the quality of a restaurant based on cleanliness, quirky, comfortable welcoming, physical environment quality, and other amenities that create the ambiance [ 32 ]. Effect of physical environment quality on behaviors is visible in service businesses such as restaurants, hotels, hospitals, retail stores, and banks [ 33 ]. Physical environment quality is an antecedent of customer satisfaction [ 34 ]. Thus, restaurants need to create attractive and distinctive physical environment quality.

  • Customer satisfaction

Customer satisfaction contains the feelings of pleasure and well-being. Customer satisfaction develops from gaining what customer expects from the service. Customer satisfaction is broadly investigated in consumer behavior and social psychology. Customer satisfaction is described “as the customer’s subjective assessment of the consumption experience, grounded on certain associations between the perceptions of customer and objective characteristics of the product” [ 35 ]. Customer satisfaction is the extent to which an experience of consumption brings good feelings. Customer satisfaction is stated as “a comparison of the level of product or service performance, quality, or other outcomes perceived by the consumer with an evaluative standard” [ 36 ]. Customer satisfaction constructs as a customer’s wholesome evaluation of an experience. Customer satisfaction is a reaction of fulfilling customer’s needs.

Customer satisfaction brings escalated repeat purchase behavior and intention to refer [ 37 ]. Dissatisfied consumers are uncertain to return to the place [ 38 ]. Satisfactory restaurant experience can enhance revisit intention of the consumer. Positive WOM is generated when customers are not only satisfied with the brand but they demand superior core offering and high level of service [ 15 ].

  • Word of mouth

Word of mouth is described as “person-to-person, oral communication between a communicator and receiver which is perceived as a non-commercial message” [ 39 ]. WOM is also defined as “the informal positive or negative communication by customers on the objectively existing and/or subjectively perceived characteristics of the products or services” [ 40 ]. Moreover, [ 41 ] defines it as “an informal person to person communication between a perceived non-commercial communicator and a receiver regarding a brand, a product, an organization or a service”. WOM is described as a positive or negative statement made by probable, actual or former customers about a product or a company, which is made available through offline or online channels [ 42 , 43 ]. WOM is an important and frequent sensation; it is known for long time that people habitually exchange their experiences of consumptions with others. Consumers complain about bad hotel stays, talk about new shoes, share info about the finest way of getting out tough stains, spread word about experience of products, services, companies, restaurants, and stores. Social talks made more than 3.3 billion of brand impressions per day [ 44 ].

WOM has substantial impact on consumer’s purchasing decision; therefore, a vital marketing strategy is to initiate positive WOM [ 45 ]. However, negative WOM is more informative and diagnostic where customers express their dissatisfaction [ 38 ]. Word of mouth communications are more informative than traditional marketing communications in service sector. WOM is more credible than advertisement when it is from friends and family [ 46 ]. WOM is a vital influencer in purchase intention. WOM escalates affection that enhances commitment of consumer purchase intention. WOM is generated before or after the purchase. WOM helps the consumers to acquire more knowledge for the product and to reduce the perceived risk [ 47 ]. WOM in the dining experience is very important. People tend to follow their peers’ opinions when they are to dine out.

  • Revisit intention

To predicting and to explain human behavior is the key determination of consumer behavior research. Consumer needs differ and emerge frequently with diverse outlooks. Revisit intention is to endorse “visitors being willing to revisit the similar place, for satisfactory experiences, and suggest the place to friends to develop the loyalty” [ 48 ]. Consumer forms an attitude toward the service provider based on the experience of service. This attitude can be steady dislike or like of the service. This is linked to the consumer’s intention to re-patronize the service and to start WOM. Repurchase intention is at the core of customer loyalty and commitment. Repurchase intention is a significant part of behavioral and attitudinal constructs. Revisit intention is described as optimistic probability to revisit the restaurant. Revisit intention is the willingness of a consumer to visit the restaurant again. Furthermore, the ease of visitors, transportation in destination, entertainment, hospitability, and service satisfaction influence visitor’s revisit intention.

Consumer behavior encircles the upcoming behavioral intention and post-visit evaluation. Post-visit evaluation covers perceived quality, experience, value, and the satisfaction. Restaurant managers are interested to understand the factors of consumer revisit intention, as it is cost effective to retain the existing customers in comparison with attract new customers [ 49 ]. Substantial consideration is prevailing in literature for the relationship among quality attributes, customer satisfaction, and revisit intention. There is a positive association between customer satisfaction and revisit intention. Indifferent consumer, accessibility of competitive alternatives and low switching cost can end up in a state where satisfied consumers defect to other options [ 2 ]. Consumer behavior varies for choice of place to visit, assessments, and behavioral intentions [ 50 ]. The assessments are about the significance perceived by regular customers’ satisfactions. Whereas, future behavioral intentions point to the consumer’s willingness to revisit the similar place and suggest it to the others [ 51 ].

S-O-R model is primarily established on the traditional stimulus–response theory. This theory explicates individual’s behavior as learned response to external stimuli. The theory is questioned for oversimplifying ancestries of the behaviors and ignoring one’s mental state. [ 52 ] extended the S-O-R model through integrating the notion of organism between stimulus and response. S-O-R concept is embraced to reveal individual’s affective and cognitive conditions before the response behavior [ 53 ]. S-O-R framework considers that environment comprises stimuli (S) leading changes to the individual’s internal conditions called organism (O), further leading to responses (R) [ 52 ]. In S-O-R model, the stimuli comprise of various components of physical environment quality, organism indicates to internal structures and processes bridging between stimuli and final responses or actions of a consumer [ 9 ]. Behavioral responses of an individual in a physical environment quality are directly influenced by the physical environment quality stimulus [ 54 ]. S-O-R framework is implemented in diverse service contexts to examine how physical environment quality affects customer’s emotion and behavior [ 55 ]. The effect of stimulation in an online shopping environment on impulsive purchase is investigated through S-O-R framework [ 56 ]. The effects of background music, on consumers’ affect and cognition, and psychological responses influence behavioral intentions [ 57 ]. Perceived flow and website quality toward customer satisfaction affect purchase intention in hotel website based on S-O-R framework [ 58 ]. Therefore, this study conceptualizes food quality, restaurant service quality, and physical environment quality as stimuli; customer satisfaction as organism; and revisit intention as response.

Moreover, social conformity theory (SCT) is to support the logical presence of WOM in the conceptual framework as a moderator on the relationship of customer satisfaction and revisit intention. Social conformity influences individual’s attitudes, beliefs and behaviors leading to a herding effect [ 17 , 59 ]. Thus, social influence (WOM) moderates the relationship of customer satisfaction and revisit intention. Following hypotheses are postulated, see Fig.  1 .

figure 1

Conceptual research framework

Food quality is positively associated with customer satisfaction in fast food restaurant.

Restaurant service quality is positively associated with customer satisfaction in fast food restaurant.

Physical environment quality is positively associated with customer satisfaction in fast food restaurant.

Customer satisfaction is positively associated with revisit intention of customer in fast food restaurant.

Customer satisfaction mediates between food quality and revisit intention of customer in fast food restaurant.

Customer satisfaction mediates between restaurant service quality and revisit intention of customer in fast food restaurant.

Customer satisfaction mediates between physical environment quality and revisit intention of customer in fast food restaurant.

WOM positively moderates the relationship between customer satisfaction and revisit intention of customer in fast food restaurant.

There are two research approaches such as deductive (quantitative) and inductive (qualitative). This study utilized the quantitative research approach as it aligns with the research design and philosophy. Quantitative research approach mostly relies on deductive logic. Researcher begins with hypotheses development and then collects data. Data are used to determine whether empirical evidence supports the hypotheses [ 60 ]. The questionnaires survey is used. This study chose the mono-method with cross-sectional time horizon of 6 months. Deductive approach is utilized in this study. Cross-sectional time horizon also known as “snapshot” is used when investigation is related with the study of a specific phenomenon at a particular time [ 61 ]. Questionnaire survey is mostly used technique for data collection in marketing research due to its effectiveness and low cost [ 62 ]. Data are collected through self-administered questionnaires. Following the footsteps of Lai and Chen [ 63 ] and Widianti et al. [ 64 ] convenience sampling is applied. Famous fast food restaurants in twin cities (Rawalpindi and Islamabad) of Pakistan were chosen randomly. Furthermore, 650 questionnaires (with consideration of low response rate) were distributed to the customers at famous fast food restaurants. Moreover, researchers faced difficulty in obtaining fast food restaurant’s consumers data.

It yielded a response rate of 68.92% with 448 returned questionnaires. Fifteen incomplete questionnaires are not included; thus, 433 responses are employed for data analysis from fast food restaurant customers. The obtained number of usable responses was suitable to apply structural equation modeling [ 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 ].

Sample characteristics describe that there are 39.7% females and 60.3% males. There are 31.4% respondents of age group 15–25 years, 48.3% of age group 26–35, 12.2% of age ranges between 36 and 45, 6.7% of age ranges between 46 and 55, and 1.4% of age group is above 56 years. The educational level of the respondents indicates that mostly respondents are undergraduate and graduate. Occupation of respondents reflects that 28.6% work in private organizations and 24.9% belong to student category. Monthly income of 29.3% respondents ranges between Rupees 20,000 and 30,000 and 25.6% have monthly income of Rupees 41,000–50,000. Average monthly spending in fast food restaurants is about Rupees 3000–6000, see Table  1 .

Measures of the constructs

Food quality is adopted from measures developed by [ 69 ]. Food quality contains six items such as: food presentation is visually attractive, the restaurant offers a variety of menu items, and the restaurant offers healthy options. Restaurant service quality is adopted with six items [ 70 ]. This construct contains items such as: efficient and effective process in the welcoming and ushering of the customers, efficient and effective explanation of the menu, efficient and effective process in delivery of food. Physical environment quality is adopted with four items [ 71 ], and one item is adopted from measures developed by [ 70 ]. The items are such as: the restaurant has visually striking building exteriors and parking space, the restaurant has visually eye-catching dining space that is comfortable and easy to move around and within, and the restaurant has suitable music and/or illumination in accordance with its ambience. Revisit intention is measured through four adapted items [ 8 ]; such as: I would visit again in the near future and I am interested in revisiting again. Customer satisfaction is measured by three adopted items [ 29 ]; such as: I am satisfied with the service at this restaurant, and the restaurant always comes up to my expectations. Word of mouth is measured with four adopted items such as: my family/friends mentioned positive things I had not considered about this restaurant, my family/friends provided me with positive ideas about this restaurant [ 72 ]. Each item is measured on 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = uncertain, and 5 = strongly agree.

Results and discussion

Validity and reliability.

Validity taps the ability of the scale to measure the construct; in other words, it means that the representative items measure the concept adequately [ 73 ]. The content validity is executed in two steps; firstly, the items are presented to the experts for further modifications; secondly, the constructive feedback about understanding of it was acquired by few respondents who filled the questionnaires. Each set of items is a valid indicator of the construct as within-scale factor analysis is conducted.

The factor analyses allotted the items to their respective factor. Fornell and Lacker’s [ 74 ] composite reliability p is calculated for each construct using partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling and Cronbach’s coefficient α [ 75 ]. Cronbach’s α is used to evaluate the reliability of all items that indicates how well the items in a set are positively related to one another. Each Cronbach’s α of the instrument is higher than .7 (ranging from .74 to .91); see Table  2 .

Common method bias

Same measures are used to collect data for all respondents; thus, there can be common method bias [ 76 ]. Firstly, questionnaire is systematically constructed with consideration of study design. Secondly, respondents were assured for the responses to be kept anonymous [ 77 ]. Common method bias possibility is assessed through Harman’s single factor test [ 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 ]. Principal axis factor analysis on measurement items is exercised. The single factor did not account for most of the bias and it accounted for 43.82% variance that is less than 50%. Thus, common method bias is not an issue [ 80 , 81 ].

SEM-PLS model assessment

Survey research faces a challenge to select an appropriate statistical model to analyze data. Partial least squares grounded structural equation modeling (SEM-PLS) and covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) are generally used multivariate data analysis methods. CB-SEM is based on factor analysis that uses maximum likelihood estimation. PLS-SEM is based on the principal component concept; it uses the partial least squares estimator [ 84 ]. PLS-SEM is considered appropriate to examine complex cause–effect relationship models. PLS-SEM is a nonparametric approach with low reservations on data distribution and sample size [ 84 ].

Measurement model assessment

To evaluate convergent validity measurement model (outer model) is assessed that includes composite reliability (CR) to evaluate internal consistency, individual indicator reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE) [ 85 ]. Indicator reliability explains the variation in the items by a variable. Outer loadings assess indicator reliability; a higher value (an item with a loading of .70) on a variable indicates that the associated measure has considerable mutual commonality [ 85 ]. Two items RSQ 14 and PEQ 24 are dropped due to lower value less than .60 [ 86 ]. Composite reliability is assessed through internal consistency reliability. CR values of all the latent variables have higher values than .80 to establish internal consistency [ 85 ]; see Table  2 .

Convergent validity is the extent to which a measure correlates positively with alternative measures of the same variable. Convergent validity is ensured through higher values than .50 of AVE [ 74 ], see Table  2 . Discriminant validity is the degree to which a variable is truly distinct from other variables. Square root of AVE is higher than the inter-construct correlations except customer satisfaction to hold discriminant validity [ 74 ]. Additional evidence for discriminant validity is that indicators’ individual loadings are found to be higher than the respective cross-loadings, see Table  3 .

Structural model assessment

Structural model is assessed after establishing the validity and reliability of the variables. Structural model assessment includes path coefficients to calculate the importance and relevance of structural model associations. Model’s predictive accuracy is calculated through R 2 value. Model’s predictive relevance is assessed with Q 2 , and value of f 2 indicates substantial impact of the exogenous variable on an endogenous variable in PLS-SEM [ 85 ]. SEM is rigueur in validating instruments and testing linkages between constructs [ 87 ]. SMART-PLS produces reports of latent constructs correlations, path coefficients with t test values. The relationships between six constructs of food quality, restaurant service quality, physical environment quality, customer satisfaction, word-of-mouth, and revisit intention are displayed in Fig.  2 after bootstrapping. Bootstrapping is a re-sampling approach that draws random samples (with replacements) from the data and uses these samples to estimate the path model multiple times under slightly changed data constellations [ 88 ]. Purpose of bootstrapping is to compute the standard error of coefficient estimates in order to examine the coefficient’s statistical significance [ 89 ].

figure 2

Bootstrapping and path coefficients

Food quality is positively associated to customer satisfaction in fast food restaurant; H 1 is supported as path coefficient = .487, T value = 8.349, P value = .000. Restaurant service quality is positively associated with customer satisfaction; H 2 is supported as path coefficient = .253, T value = 4.521, P value = .000. Physical environment quality is positively associated with customer satisfaction in fast food restaurant; H 3 is supported as path coefficient = .149, T value = 3.518, P value = .000. Customer satisfaction is positively associated with revisit intention of customer in fast food restaurant; H 4 is supported as path coefficient = .528, T value = 11.966, P value = .000. WOM positively moderates the relationship between customer satisfaction and revisit intention of customer in fast food restaurant; H 8 is not supported as path coefficient = − .060, T value = 2.972, P value = .003; see Table  4 .

Assessing R 2 and Q 2

Coefficient of determination R 2 value is used to evaluate the structural model. This coefficient estimates the predictive precision of the model and is deliberated as the squared correlation between actual and predictive values of the endogenous construct. R 2 values represent the exogenous variables’ mutual effects on the endogenous variables. This signifies the amount of variance in endogenous constructs explained by total number of exogenous constructs associated to it [ 88 ]. The endogenous variables customer satisfaction and revisit intention have R 2  = .645 and .671, respectively, that assures the predictive relevance of structural model. Further the examination of the endogenous variables’ predictive power has good R 2 values.

Blindfolding is to cross-validate the model’s predictive relevance for each of the individual endogenous variables with value of Stone–Geisser Q 2 [ 90 , 91 ]. By performing the blindfolding test with an omission distance of 7 yielded cross-validated redundancy Q 2 values of all the endogenous variables [ 88 ]. Customer satisfaction’s Q 2  = .457 and RVI’s Q 2  = .501; this indicates large effect sizes. PLS structural model has predictive relevance because values of Q 2 are greater than 0, see Table  5 .

Assessing f 2

Effect size f 2 is the measure to estimate the change in R 2 value when an exogenous variable is omitted from the model. f 2 size effect illustrates the influence of a specific predictor latent variable on an endogenous variable. Effect size f 2 varies from small to medium for all the exogenous variables in explaining CS and RVI as shown Table  6 .

Additionally, H 5 : CS mediates between food quality and RVI is supported as CS partially mediates between FQ and RVI. Variation accounted for (VAF) value indicates that 70% of the total effect of an exogenous variable FQ on RVI is explained by indirect effect. Therefore, the effect of FQ on RVI is partially mediated through CS. Similarly, the VAF value indicates that 70% of the total effect of an exogenous variable RSQ and 35% VAF of PEQ on RVI is explained by indirect effect. Therefore, the effects of RSQ and PEQ on RVI are also partially mediated through CS. H 6 is supported as the effect of CS is partially mediated between RSQ and RVI of customer in fast food restaurant. H 7 is supported as the effect of CS is partially mediated between PEQ and RVI of customer in fast food restaurant, see Table  7 . This clearly indicates that customer satisfaction mediates between all of our exogenous variables (food quality, restaurant service quality and physical environment quality) and dependent variable revisit intention of customer in fast food restaurant [ 88 , 92 ] (Additional files 1 , 2 and 3 ).

This is interesting to note that food quality, restaurant service quality, physical environment quality, and customer satisfaction are important triggers of revisit intention at fast food restaurants. However, surprisingly, word of mouth does not moderate the relationship of customer satisfaction with revisit intention of customer at fast food restaurant. The results of the study correspond with some previous findings [ 15 , 29 , 32 , 69 , 93 ]. Positive relationship between customer satisfaction and revisit intention is consistent with the findings of the previous studies [ 5 , 8 , 94 , 95 , 96 ]. Food quality is positively associated with revisit intention; this result as well corresponds to a previous study [ 24 ]. Furthermore, interior and amusing physical environment is an important antecedent of revisit intention at a fast food restaurant; this finding is congruent with previous findings [ 29 , 70 , 97 , 98 ] and contrary to some previous studies [ 9 , 15 ].

Intensified competition, industry’s volatile nature, and maturity of the business are some challenges that fast food restaurants face [ 5 ]. Amid economic crunch, competition becomes even more evident, driving fast food restaurants to look for unconventional ways to appeal the customers. In fact, these findings somehow show that significance of physical environment quality in creating revisit intention is probably lower in comparison with food quality and restaurant service quality. Nonetheless, fast food restaurant’s management should not underrate the fact that physical environment quality considerably affects the revisit intention. Due to this, the importance of physical environment quality must not be overlooked when formulating strategies for improving customer satisfaction, revisit intention and creating long-term relationships with customers.

Managerial implications

The results imply that restaurant management should pay attention to customer satisfaction because it directly affects revisit intention. Assessing customer satisfaction has become vital to successfully contest in the modern fast food restaurant business. From a managerial point of view, the results of this study will help restaurant managers to better understand the important role of food quality, restaurant service quality and physical environment quality as marketing tool to retain and satisfy customers.

Limitations

There are certain limitations with this study. This study is cross sectional, and it can be generalized to only two cities of Pakistan. Scope of research was limited as the data were collected from two cities of Pakistan (Islamabad and Rawalpindi) using convenience sampling.

Future research

A longitudinal study with probability sampling will help the researchers to comprehensively investigate the relationships among the constructs. Moreover, it would be useful for future research models to add information overload as an explanatory variable and brand image as moderating variable in the research framework. Additionally, moderation of WOM can be investigated in other relationships of conceptual model.

The study encircles the key triggers of customer satisfaction and revisit intention in fast food restaurants. It also offers a model that defines relationships between three factors of restaurant offer (food quality, restaurant service quality, and physical environment quality), customer satisfaction, word of mouth, and revisit intention at fast food restaurants. The model specially focuses the revisit intention as dependent variable of conceptual model despite behavior intentions. The findings suggest the revisit intention is positively associated with customer satisfaction, food quality, restaurant service quality, and physical environment quality in a fast food restaurant.

However, contrary to the findings of a previous study [ 99 ], WOM do not positively moderate between the relationship of customer satisfaction and revisit intention. The empirical findings confirm the significant impact of food quality, restaurant service quality, physical environment quality, and customer satisfaction which are important antecedents of revisit intention at fast food restaurant through mediation of customer satisfaction. Moreover, findings of the research support the assumptions of SOR theory strengthening our conceptual model which states the external stimuli (FQ, RSQ, PEQ) produced internal organism (CS) which led to the response (RVI). However; assumption of social conformity theory failed to influence the satisfied customer. In other words, customer satisfaction plays dominating role over social influence (i.e. WOM) in making revisit intention. Therefore, WOM was not able to influence the strength of relationship of CS and RVI.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Social conformity theory

Stimulus-organism-response

Structural equation modeling with partial least squares

Rhou Y, Singal M (2020) A review of the business case for CSR in the hospitality industry. Int J Hosp Manag 84:102330

Google Scholar  

Berezina K, Cobanoglu C, Miller BL, Kwansa FA (2012) The impact of information security breach on hotel guest perception of service quality, satisfaction, revisit intentions and word-of-mouth. Int J Hosp Manag 24(7):991–1010

Shariff SNFBA, Omar MB, Sulong SNB, Majid HABMA, Ibrahim HBM, Jaafar ZB, Ideris MSKB (2015) The influence of service quality and food quality towards customer fulfillment and revisit intention. Can Soc Sci 11(8):138–144

Rana M, Lodhi R, Butt G, Dar W (2017) How determinants of customer satisfaction are affecting the brand image and behavioral intention in fast food industry of Pakistan. J Tour Hospit 6(316):2167-0269

Marinkovic V, Senic V, Ivkov D, Dimitrovski D, Bjelic M (2014) The antecedents of satisfaction and revisit intentions for full-service restaurants. Mark Intell Plan 32(3):311–327

Harun A, Prybutok G, Prybutok VR (2018) Insights into the antecedents of fast-food purchase intention and the relative positioning of quality. Qual Manag J 25(2):83–100

Qin H, Prybutok VR (2009) Service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in fast-food restaurants. Int J Qual Serv Sci 1(1):78–95

Chen JV, Htaik S, Hiele TM, Chen C (2017) Investigating international tourists’ intention to revisit Myanmar based on need gratification, flow experience and perceived risk. J Qual Assur Hosp Tour 18(1):25–44

Ali F, Amin M, Ryu K (2016) The role of physical environment, price perceptions, and consumption emotions in developing customer satisfaction in Chinese resort hotels. J Qual Assur Hosp Tour 17(1):45–70

Pareigis J, Edvardsson B, Enquist B (2011) Exploring the role of the service environment in forming customer’s service experience. Int J Qual Serv Sci 3(1):110–124

Ozdemir B, Caliskan O (2015) Menu design: a review of literature. J Foodserv Bus Res 18(3):189–206

Sadeghi M, Zandieh D, Mohammadi M, Yaghoubibijarboneh B, Nasrolahi Vosta S (2017) Investigating the impact of service climate on intention to revisit a hotel: the mediating role of perceived service quality and relationship quality. Int J Manag Sci Eng Manag 12(1):12–20

Blackston M, Lebar E (2015) Constructing consumer-brand relationships to better market and build businesses. In: Fournier S, Breazeale M, Avery J (eds) Strong brands, strong relationships. Routledge, Abingdon, p 376

Malik SA, Jaswal LH, Malik SA, Awan TM (2013) Measuring service quality perceptions of the customers of restaurant in Pakistan. Int J Qual Res 7(2):187–200

Sivadas E, Jindal RP (2017) Alternative measures of satisfaction and word of mouth. J Serv Mark 31(2):119–130

Ha Y, Im H (2012) Role of web site design quality in satisfaction and word of mouth generation. J Serv Manag 23(1):79–96

Zhang W, Yang J, Ding X-Y, Zou X-M, Han H-Y, Zhao Q-C (2019) Groups make nodes powerful: Identifying influential nodes in social networks based on social conformity theory and community features. Expert Syst Appl 125:249–258

Peri C (2006) The universe of food quality. Food Qual Prefer 17(1):3–8

Susskind AM, Chan EK (2000) How restaurant features affect check averages: a study of the Toronto restaurant market. Cornell Hotel Restaurant Adm Q 41(6):56–63

Jin N, Lee S, Huffman L (2012) Impact of restaurant experience on brand image and customer loyalty: moderating role of dining motivation. J Travel Tour Mark 29(6):532–551

Carins JE, Rundle-Thiele S, Ong DL (2020) Keep them coming back: the role of variety and aesthetics in institutional food satisfaction. Food Qual Prefer 80:103832

Josiam BM, Monteiro PA (2004) Tandoori tastes: perceptions of Indian restaurants in America. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 16(1):18–26

Choi J, Zhao J (2010) Factors influencing restaurant selection in south florida: Is health issue one of the factors influencing consumers’ behavior when selecting a restaurant? J Foodserv Bus Res 13(3):237–251

Ryu K, Han H (2010) Influence of the quality of food, service, and physical environment on customer satisfaction and behavioral intention in quick-casual restaurants: moderating role of perceived price. J Hosp Tour Res 34(3):310–329

Deming WE (1982) Quality, productivity, and competitive position. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge

Juran JM, Gryna FM, Bingham RS (1974) Quality control handbook. McGraw-Hill, Michigan

Dabholkar PA (2015) How to improve perceived service quality by increasing customer participation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1990 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) annual conference

Lai IK (2015) The roles of value, satisfaction, and commitment in the effect of service quality on customer loyalty in Hong Kong–style tea restaurants. Cornell Hosp Q 56(1):118–138

Jalilvand MR, Salimipour S, Elyasi M, Mohammadi M (2017) Factors influencing word of mouth behaviour in the restaurant industry. Mark Intell Plan 35(1):81–110

Wall EA, Berry LL (2007) The combined effects of the physical environment and employee behavior on customer perception of restaurant service quality. Cornell Hotel Restaurant Adm Q 48(1):59–69

Yuksel A, Yuksel F, Bilim Y (2010) Destination attachment: effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tour Manag 31(2):274–284

Adam I, Adongo CA, Dayour F (2015) International tourists’ satisfaction with Ghanaian upscale restaurant services and revisit intentions. J Q Assur Hosp Tour 16(2):181–201

Baek E, Choo HJ, Yoon S-Y, Jung H, Kim G, Shin H, Kim H (2015) An exploratory study on visual merchandising of an apparel store utilizing 3D technology. J Global Fashion Mark 6(1):33–46

Wu H-C, Ko YJ (2013) Assessment of service quality in the hotel industry. J Qual Assur Hosp Tour 14(3):218–244

Pizam A, Shapoval V, Ellis T (2016) Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality enterprises: a revisit and update. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 28(1):2–35

Westbrook RA, Oliver RL (1991) The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction. J Consum Res 18(1):84–91

Prayag G, Hosany S, Muskat B, Del Chiappa G (2017) Understanding the relationships between tourists’ emotional experiences, perceived overall image, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. J Travel Res 56(1):41–54

Alegre J, Garau J (2010) Tourist satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Ann TTour Res 37(1):52–73

Arndt J (1967) Word of mouth advertising: a review of the literature. Advertising Research Foundation, New York

Bayus BL (1985) Word of mouth-the indirect effects of marketing efforts. J Advert Res 25(3):31–39

Harrison-Walker LJ (2001) The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. J Serv Res 4(1):60–75

Curina I, Francioni B, Hegner SM, Cioppi M (2020) Brand hate and non-repurchase intention: a service context perspective in a cross-channel setting. J Retail Consum Serv 54:102031

Hennig-Thurau T, Gwinner KP, Walsh G, Gremler DD (2004) Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? J Interact Mark 18(1):38–52

Berger J, Schwartz EM (2011) What drives immediate and ongoing word of mouth? J Mark Res 48(5):869–880

Moliner-Velázquez B, Ruiz-Molina M-E, Fayos-Gardó T (2015) Satisfaction with service recovery: moderating effect of age in word-of-mouth. J Consum Mark 32(6):470–484

Royo-Vela M, Casamassima P (2011) The influence of belonging to virtual brand communities on consumers’ affective commitment, satisfaction and word-of-mouth advertising: the ZARA case. Online Inf Rev 35(4):517–542

Dhillon J (2013) Understanding word-of-mouth communication: a case study of banking sector in India. J Bus Manag 9(3):64–72

Chien M (2017) An empirical study on the effect of attractiveness of ecotourism destination on experiential value and revisit intention. Appl Ecol Environ Res 15(2):43–53

Abubakar AM, Ilkan M, Al-Tal RM, Eluwole KK (2017) eWOM, revisit intention, destination trust and gender. J Hosp Tour Manag 31:220–227

Chen C-F, Tsai D (2007) How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tour Manag 28(4):1115–1122

Allameh SM, Khazaei Pool J, Jaberi A, Salehzadeh R, Asadi H (2015) Factors influencing sport tourists’ revisit intentions: the role and effect of destination image, perceived quality, perceived value and satisfaction. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 27(2):191–207

Mehrabian A, Russell JA (1974) The basic emotional impact of environments. Percept Motor Skills 38(1):283–301

Zhang KZK, Benyoucef M (2016) Consumer behavior in social commerce: a literature review. Decision Support Syst 86:95–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.04.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Lee H-J, Yun Z-S (2015) Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and cognitive and affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions toward organic food. Food Qual Prefer 39:259–267

Yeh C-H, Wang Y-S, Li H-T, Lin S-Y (2017) The effect of information presentation modes on tourists’ responses in Internet marketing: the moderating role of emotions. J Travel Tour Mark 34(8):1018–1032

Lim SH, Lee S, Kim DJ (2017) Is online consumers’ impulsive buying beneficial for e-commerce companies? An empirical investigation of online consumers’ past impulsive buying behaviors. Inf Syst Manag 34:85–100

Wang L, Baker J, Wakefield K, Wakefield R (2017) Is background music effective on retail websites? J Promot Manag 23(1):1–23

Ali F (2016) Hotel website quality, perceived flow, customer satisfaction and purchase intention. J Hosp Tour Technol 7(2):213–228

Wang Z, Du C, Fan J, Xing Y (2017) Ranking influential nodes in social networks based on node position and neighborhood. Neurocomputing 260:466–477

Saunders MN (2011) Research methods for business students, 5/e. Pearson Education India, Bengaluru

Flick U (2015) Introducing research methodology: a beginner’s guide to doing a research project. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Zikmund WG, Babin BJ, Carr JC, Griffin M (2013) Business research methods. Cengage Learning, Boston

Lai W-T, Chen C-F (2011) Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers—the roles of service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement. Transp Policy 18(2):318–325

Widianti T, Sumaedi S, Bakti IGMY, Rakhmawati T, Astrini NJ, Yarmen M (2015) Factors influencing the behavioral intention of public transport passengers. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 32(7):666–692

Hair JF Jr, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, Kuppelwieser VG (2014) Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. Eur Bus Rev 26(2):106–121

Krejcie RV, Morgan DW (1970) Determining sample size for research activities. Educ Psychol Measur 30(3):607–610

Rahi S, Alnaser FM, Ghani MA (2019) Designing survey research: recommendation for questionnaire development, calculating sample size and selecting research paradigms. In: Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings, pp 1157–1169

Wahab S, bin Mohamad Shah MF, Faisalmein SN (2019) The relationship between management competencies and internal marketing knowledge towards internal marketing performance. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Regional Conference on Science, Technology and Social Sciences (RCSTSS 2016)

Namkung Y, Jang S (2007) Does food quality really matter in restaurants? Its impact on customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. J Hosp Tour Res 31(3):387–409

Liu C-H, Chou S-F, Gan B, Tu J-H (2015) How “quality” determines customer satisfaction: evidence from the mystery shoppers’ evaluation. TQM J 27(5):576–590

Meng JG, Elliott KM (2008) Predictors of relationship quality for luxury restaurants. J Retail Consum Serv 15(6):509–515

Cham TH, Lim YM, Aik NC, Tay AGM (2016) Antecedents of hospital brand image and the relationships with medical tourists’ behavioral intention. Int J Pharm Healthc Mark 10(4):412–431

Sekaran U (2006) Research methods for business: a skill building approach. Wiley, New York

Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3):297–334

Simonin BL (1999) Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strateg Manag J 20(7):595–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199907)20:7%3c595:aid-smj47%3e3.0.co;2-5

Robson MJ, Katsikeas CS, Bello DC (2008) Drivers and performance outcomes of trust in international strategic alliances: the role of organizational complexity. Organ Sci 19(4):647–665. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0329

Greene CN, Organ DW (1973) An evaluation of causal models linking the received role with job satisfaction. Adm Sci Q 18(1):95–103

Konrad AM, Linnehan F (1995) Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating equal employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices? Acad Manag J 38(3):787–820

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Podsakoff PM, Organ DW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J Manag 12(4):531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408

Scott SG, Bruce RA (1994) Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad Manag J 37(3):580–607

Simonin BL (2004) An empirical investigation of the process of knowledge transfer in international strategic alliances. J Int Bus Stud 35(5):407–427

Lowry PB, Gaskin J (2014) Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 57(2):123–146

Hair JF Jr, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M (2016) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York

Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau M-C (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 4(1):7

Hair J (2013) Using the SmartPLS software. Kennesaw State University. Powerpoint presentation/lecture

Vinzi VE, Chin WW, Henseler J, Wang H (2010) Handbook of partial least squares: concepts, methods and applications. Springer, Berlin

Geisser S (1974) A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika 61(1):101–107

Stone M (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodol) 36:111–147

Carrión GC, Nitzl C, Roldán JL (2017) Mediation analyses in partial least squares structural equation modeling: guidelines and empirical examples. In: Latan H, Noonan R (eds) Partial least squares path modeling. Springer, Berlin, pp 173–195

Lockyer T (2003) Hotel cleanliness—How do guests view it? Let us get specific. A New Zealand study. Int J Hosp Manag 22(3):297–305

Ha J, Jang SS (2010) Perceived values, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: the role of familiarity in Korean restaurants. Int J Hosp Manag 29(1):2–13

Ryu K, Han H, Jang S (2010) Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 22(3):416–432

Ryu K, Lee H-R, Gon Kim W (2012) The influence of the quality of the physical environment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 24(2):200–223

Jang S, Liu Y, Namkung Y (2011) Effects of authentic atmospherics in ethnic restaurants: investigating Chinese restaurants. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 23(5):662–680

Martín-Ruiz D, Barroso-Castro C, Rosa-Díaz IM (2012) Creating customer value through service experiences: an empirical study in the hotel industry. Tour Hosp Manag 18(1):37–53

Kuo Y-F, Hu T-L, Yang S-C (2013) Effects of inertia and satisfaction in female online shoppers on repeat-purchase intention: the moderating roles of word-of-mouth and alternative attraction. Manag Serv Qual Int J 23(3):168–187

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the conducive research environment support provided by Department of Management Sciences at COMSATS University Islamabad, Wah Campus and Higher Education Commission Pakistan for provision of free access to digital library.

The authors declare that there was no source of funding for this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad, Wah Campus, G. T. Road, Wah Cantt., 47040, Pakistan

Amer Rajput

Management Sciences, Riphah International University, Al-Mizan IIMCT Complex, 274-Peshawar Road, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Raja Zohaib Gahfoor

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RG conceptualized the study while corresponding author AR furnished the data analysis and finalized the manuscript for the submission. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript..

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amer Rajput .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1..

PLS Algorithm.

Additional file 2.

Bootstrapping.

Additional file 3.

Blindfolding.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rajput, A., Gahfoor, R.Z. Satisfaction and revisit intentions at fast food restaurants. Futur Bus J 6 , 13 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00021-0

Download citation

Received : 18 October 2019

Accepted : 26 February 2020

Published : 04 June 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00021-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

research proposal on customer satisfaction in restaurants

Information

  • Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

  • Active Journals
  • Find a Journal
  • Proceedings Series
  • For Authors
  • For Reviewers
  • For Editors
  • For Librarians
  • For Publishers
  • For Societies
  • For Conference Organizers
  • Open Access Policy
  • Institutional Open Access Program
  • Special Issues Guidelines
  • Editorial Process
  • Research and Publication Ethics
  • Article Processing Charges
  • Testimonials
  • Preprints.org
  • SciProfiles
  • Encyclopedia

sustainability-logo

Article Menu

  • Subscribe SciFeed
  • Recommended Articles
  • Google Scholar
  • on Google Scholar
  • Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The effects of fast food restaurant attributes on customer satisfaction, revisit intention, and recommendation using dineserv scale.

research proposal on customer satisfaction in restaurants

1. Introduction

2. research background, 2.1. service quality, 2.2. food quality, 2.3. atmosphere, 2.5. customer satisfaction, 2.6. revisit intention and recommendation, 3. research model and methodology, 3.1. research model.

  • Research Question 1: Which institutional DINESERV factors will have greater impacts on customer satisfaction?
  • Research Question 2: Which institutional DINESERV factors will have greater impacts on revisit intention?
  • Research Question 3: Which institutional DINESERV factors will have greater impacts on recommendations?
  • Research Question 4: Do DINESERV factors and the customers’ overall satisfaction levels differ with respect to different restaurants (between global restaurants and local restaurants)?
  • Research Question 5: Are there any significant relationships among customer satisfaction, revisit intention, and likelihood of recommendation?

3.2. Data Collection and Methods

4. results of the study and implications, 4.1. demographic profile of respondents, 4.1.1. frequency of visits of respondents to fast food restaurants, 4.1.2. comparison of mean for each item ( t -test), 4.2. factor analysis, 4.3. factors affecting customer satisfaction, revisit intention, and recommendation, 4.3.1. customer satisfaction, 4.3.2. revisit intention, 4.3.3. recommendation, 4.3.4. comparison of two restaurants, 4.4. the relationship between customer satisfaction, revisit intention, and recommendation, 4.5. discussion and implications, 5. conclusions, author contributions, conflicts of interest.

  • Grand View Research. Fast Food & Quick Service Restaurant Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report by Type (Chain, Independent), by Cuisine (American, Turkish & Lebanese), by Region, and Segment Forecasts, 2020–2027. Available online: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/fast-food-quick-service-restaurants-market (accessed on 6 August 2020).
  • Abdelkafi, N.; Täuscher, K. Business Models for Sustainability from a System Dynamics Perspective. Organ. Environ. 2015 , 29 , 74–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Gupta, S.; McLaughlin, E.; Gomez, M. Guest Satisfaction and Restaurant Performance. In The Next Frontier of Restaurant Management: Harnessing Data to Improve Guest Service and Enhance the Employee Experience ; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 33–53. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mongolian Business Sectors. Available online: http://www.mse.mn/uploads/files/mongolian%20business%20sectors%201_compressed.pdf (accessed on 6 August 2020).
  • Mongolia GDP Growth Rate YoY. Available online: https://tradingeconomics.com/mongolia/gdp-growth (accessed on 6 August 2020).
  • Zhu, Z. Burger King Opens in Mongolia, Bringing Burgers to Their Birthplace. Available online: https://asiamattersforamerica.org/articles/burger-king-opens-in-mongolia-bringing-burgers-to-their-birthplace (accessed on 6 August 2020).
  • Great Food Comes First. Available online: http://www.burgerking.mn (accessed on 6 August 2020).
  • Yonhap, S. Korean Fast-Food Chain Lotteria Opens in Mongolia. Available online: http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20180625000515 (accessed on 6 August 2020).
  • Gikonyo, L.; Berndt, A.; Wadawi, J. Critical Success Factors for Franchised Restaurants Entering the Kenyan Market. SAGE Open 2015 , 5 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
  • Markovic, S.; Raspor, S.; Sergaric, K. Does restaurant performance meet customers’ expectations? An assessment of restaurant service quality using a modified DINESERV approach. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2010 , 16 , 81–195. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L. SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. J. Retail. 1988 , 64 , 12–40. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Stevens, P.; Knutson, B.; Patton, M. Dineserv: A Tool for Measuring Service Quality in Restaurants. Cornell Hotel. Restaur. Adm. Q. 1995 , 36 , 56–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Qu, H. Determinant Factors and Choice Intention for Chinese Restaurant Dining. J. Restaur. Foodserv. Mark. 1997 , 2 , 35–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Pettijohn, L.S.; Pettijohn, C.E.; Luke, R.H. An Evaluation of Fast Food Restaurant Satisfaction. J. Restaur. Foodserv. Mark. 1997 , 2 , 3–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Rashid, I.; Abdullah, M. The impact of service quality and customer satisfaction on customer’s loyalty: Evidence from Fast Food restaurant of Malaysia. Int. J. Inf. Bus. Manag. 2015 , 7 , 784–793. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Brady, M.K.; Cronin, J.J. Customer Orientation. J. Serv. Res. 2001 , 3 , 241–251. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Namin, A. Revisiting customers’ perception of service quality in fast food restaurants. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017 , 34 , 70–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Namkung, Y.; Jang, S. Does Food Quality Really Matter in Restaurants? Its Impact on Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2007 , 31 , 387–409. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Ha, J.; Jang, S. The effects of dining atmospherics on behavioral intentions through quality perception. J. Serv. Mark. 2012 , 26 , 204–215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Ryu, K.; Han, H. Influence of the Quality of Food, Service, and Physical Environment on Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention in Quick-Casual Restaurants: Moderating Role of Perceived Price. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2009 , 34 , 310–329. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Peri, C. The universe of food quality. Food Qual. Prefer. 2006 , 17 , 3–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Kumar, I.; Garg, R.; Rahman, Z. Influence of retail atmospherics on customer value in an emerging market. Great Lakes Her. 2010 , 4 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Banerjee, S.; Singhania, S. Determinants of Customer Satisfaction, Revisit Intentions and Word of Mouth in the Restaurant Industry–Study Conducted In Selective Outlets of South Kolkata. Int. J. Bus. Manag. Invent. 2018 , 6 , 63–72. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Andaleeb, S.S.; Conway, C. Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: An examination of the transaction-specific model. J. Serv. Mark. 2006 , 20 , 3–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Oliver, R.L. A Cognitive Model of the Ancedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. J. Mark. Res. 1980 , 17 , 460–469. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Fornell, C. A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience. J. Mark. 1992 , 56 , 6–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Yan, X.; Wang, J.; Chau, M. Customer revisit intention to restaurants: Evidence from online reviews. Inf. Syst. Front. 2013 , 17 , 645–657. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Oh, H. Diners’ Perceptions of Quality, Value, and Satisfaction. Cornell Hotel. Restaur. Adm. Q. 2000 , 41 , 58–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Weiss, R.; Feinstein, A.H.; Dalbor, M. Customer Satisfaction of Theme Restaurant Attributes and Their Influence on Return Intent. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2004 , 7 , 23–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Chen, P.-T.; Hu, H.-H. How determinant attributes of service quality influence customer-perceived value: An empirical investigation of the Australian coffee outlet industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2010 , 22 , 535–551. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Kim, K.-J.; Choi, K. Bridging the Perception Gap between Management and Customers on DINESERV Attributes: The Korean All-You-Can-Eat Buffet. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 5212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
  • Markovic, S.; Komsic, J.; ve Stifanic, M. Measuring Service Quality in City Restaurant Settings Using DINESERV Scale. 2013. Available online: http://www.wseas.us/elibrary/conferences/2013/Dubrovnik/MATREFC/MATREFC-27.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2017).
  • Adeinat, I. Measuring Service Quality Efficiency Using Dineserv. Int. J. Qual. Res. 2019 , 13 , 591–604. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Knutson, B.J.; Stevens, P.; Patton, M. DINESERV. J. Hosp. Leis. Mark. 1996 , 3 , 35–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Kim, H.J.; McCahon, C.; Miller, J. Assessing Service Quality in Korean Casual-Dining Restaurants Using DINESERV. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2003 , 6 , 67–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Bougoure, U.-S.; Neu, M.-K. Service Quality in the Malaysian Fast Food Industry: An Examination Using DINESERV. Serv. Mark. Q. 2010 , 31 , 194–212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Wang, C.H.; Lin, I.H.; Tsai, J.Y. Combining fuzzy integral and GRA method for evaluating the service quality of fast-food restaurants. J. Interdiscip. Math. 2018 , 21 , 447–456. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Keith, N.K.; Simmers, C.S. Measuring Service Quality Perceptions of Restaurant Experiences: The Disparity Between Comment Cards and DINESERV. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2011 , 14 , 20–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Polyorat, K.; Sophonsiri, S. The influence of service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction and customer loyalty in the chain restaurant context: A Thai case. J. Glob. Bus. Technol. 2010 , 6 , 64–76. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hansen, K.V. Development of SERVQUAL and DINESERV for Measuring Meal Experiences in Eating Establishments. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2014 , 14 , 116–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Kukanja, M.; Planinc, T. Toward cost-effective service excellence: Exploring the relationship between managers’ perceptions of quality and the operational efficiency and profitability of restaurants. Qual. Manag. J. 2020 , 27 , 95–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Kim, W.G.; Ng, C.Y.N.; Kim, Y.-S. Influence of institutional DINESERV on customer satisfaction, return intention, and word-of-mouth. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009 , 28 , 10–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Tan, Q.; Oriade, A.; Fallon, P. Service quality and customer satisfaction in Chinese fast food sector: A proposal for CFFRSERV. Adv. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2014 , 2 , 30–53. [ Google Scholar ]
  • DiPietro, R. Restaurant and foodservice research. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017 , 29 , 1203–1234. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Marinković, V.; Senic, V.; Mimovic, P.M. Factors affecting choice and image of ethnic restaurants in Serbia. Br. Food J. 2015 , 117 , 1903–1920. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Oyewole, P. Multiattribute Dimensions of Service Quality in the All-You-Can-Eat Buffet Restaurant Industry. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2013 , 22 , 1–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Wu, H.-C.; Mohi, Z. Assessment of Service Quality in the Fast-Food Restaurant. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2015 , 18 , 358–388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
  • Ulkhaq, M.M.; Nartadhi, R.L.; Akshinta, P.Y. Evaluating Service Quality of Korean Restaurants: A Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Approach. Ind. Eng. Manag. Syst. 2016 , 15 , 77–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]

Click here to enlarge figure

FactorsItemsSources
Food qualityTaste of food[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Freshness of food
Menu variety
Good portions
Service qualityKindness[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Good attitude
Quick service response
Well trained
Chef’s knowledge
AtmosphereGood interior and decoration[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Clean dining areas and restroom
Comfortable seats
Comfortable temperature
Music and pleasant feeling
PriceValuable price[ ]
[ , ]
Discount
SatisfactionOverall satisfaction[ ]
RevisitRevisit[ , ]
RecommendationRecommendation[ ]
ItemsFrequencyPercent
Country of residenceMongolia9059.6%
South Korea6140.4%
GenderMale7046.4%
Female8153.6%
Age18–256442.4%
26–407851.7%
41–6096%
61 and above00%
Marital statusMarried6140.4%
Single9059.6%
OccupationStudent6140.4%
Civil servant127.9%
Private sector6140.4%
Others1711.3%
Income
(tugruk)
<500,000127.9%
500,000–1,000,0004026.5%
1,000,000–1,500,0004127.2%
>1,500,0005838.4%
Frequency of VisitBurger KingBerlin Burger
No. of RespondentsPercentNo. of RespondentsPercent
Once a week2722.5467.3
Once every two weeks3213.21610.6
Once a month6637.11130.5
Total12572.87348.3
System (missing)2627.27851.7
Total151100151100
FactorsItemsBurger King vs. Berlin Burger
Residence (Mongolia)
n = 90
Residence (Korea)
n = 61
Total
n = 151
Food qualityTaste of food3.4889 vs. 2.6556 *3.6721 vs. 3.3443 **3.5629 vs. 2.9338 *
Freshness3.4111 vs. 2.6111 *3.5410 vs. 3.2787 ***3.4636 vs. 2.8808 *
Menu variety3.2360 vs. 2.8000 *3.6885 vs. 3.3770 **3.4200 vs. 3.0331 *
Good Portions3.1910 vs. 2.8000 **3.6885 vs. 3.3607 **3.3933 vs. 3.0265 *
Service qualityKindness3.4889 vs. 2.6222 *3.6230 vs. 2.9836 *3.5430 vs. 2.7682 *
Good attitude3.4778 vs. 2.6333 *3.6393 vs. 3.0000 *3.5430 vs.2.7815 *
Quick service3.3778 vs. 2.6111 *3.5902 vs. 3.0656 *3.4636 vs. 2.7947 *
Well trained3.4000 vs. 2.6333 *3.6066 vs. 2.9508 *3.4834 vs. 2.7616 *
Chef’s knowledge3.3778 vs. 2.6556 *3.5738 vs. 3.0000 *3.4570 vs. 2.7947 *
AtmosphereInterior/decoration3.4000 vs. 2.5111 *3.6885 vs. 3.0000 *3.5166 vs. 2.7086 *
Clean dining areas3.3556 vs. 2.5333 *3.6230 vs. 2.9016 *3.4636 vs. 2.6821 *
Comfortable seats3.4444 vs. 2.5333 *3.6885 vs. 3.0328 *3.5430 vs. 2.7351 *
Temperature3.4889 vs. 2.7111 *3.7213 vs. 3.0164 *3.5828 vs. 2.8344 *
Music and feeling3.2333 vs. 2.4000 *3.6721 vs. 2.9016 *3.4106 vs. 2.6026 *
PriceValuable price3.0222 vs. 2.7333 **3.6230 vs. 3.1311 *3.2649 vs. 2.8940 *
Discount2.7333 vs. 2.3333 *3.5246 vs. 2.7705 *3.0530 vs. 2.5099 *
Satisfaction3.2111 vs. 2.5111 *3.5410 vs. 3.0000 *3.3444 vs. 2.7086 *
Revisit intention3.1444 vs. 2.4333 *3.6557 vs. 3.1148 *3.3510 vs. 2.7086 *
Recommendation3.0333 vs. 2.3000 *3.5574 vs. 3.0000 *3.2450 vs. 2.5828 *
ItemsFactors
Service Quality (SQ)Atmosphere
(A)
Food Quality (FQ)Price
(P)
Cronbach’s Alpha
Well trained (SQ4)
Attitude (SQ2)
Availability (SQ3)
Staff knowledge (SQ5)
Kindness (SQ1)
0.8230.3790.2820.2100.977
0.8080.3960.2450.257
0.8050.3750.3110.216
0.7950.3120.3380.227
0.7760.3670.3040.250
Temperature (A4)
Comfortable seats (A3)
Interior (A1)
Cleanliness (A2)
Music (A5)
0.3310.7960.3920.1590.969
0.3830.7830.3510.218
0.4280.7710.2240.252
0.3970.7520.2630.316
0.4030.7210.2350.3610.931
Fresh (FQ2)
Tasty (FQ1)
Variety of menus (FQ3)
Good portions (FQ4)
0.3010.4060.7670.175
0.4410.3460.7360.196
0.2830.2770.7040.429
0.2980.1990.6930.457
Discount (P2)
Value (P1)
0.2460.2870.2640.8390.897
0.2950.3020.3620.757
KMO0.942
Bartlett’s Test of SphericityChi-square3368.902
df (sig.)120 (0.000)
ItemsComponent
Service Quality (SQ)Atmosphere
(A)
Food Quality (FQ)Price
(P)
Cronbach’s Alpha
Staff knowledge (SQ5)0.7790.3580.3180.3290.983
Availability (SQ3)0.7760.3510.4020.240
Attitude (SQ2)0.7740.3880.3730.202
Well trained (SQ4)0.7550.3740.4270.242
Kindness (SQ1)0.7330.3890.4500.202
Variety of menu (FQ3)0.3620.8420.2660.1800.968
Tasty (FQ1)0.3340.7980.3400.240
Good portions (FQ4)0.3320.7820.3290.243
Fresh (FQ2)0.3400.7650.3460.288
Music (A5)0.3810.2110.7790.3020.967
Comfortable seats (A3)0.3390.4380.7690.208
Cleanliness (A2)0.4180.3350.7420.250
Interior (A1)0.4060.4260.7250.232
Temperature (A4)0.4250.3890.6210.304
Discount (P2)
Value (P1)
0.2710.2590.4280.7670.871
0.3660.4890.2440.687
KMO0.941
Bartlett’s Test of SphericityChi-square3964.552
df (sig.)120(0.000)
FactorsCustomer Satisfaction
Unstandardized
Coefficient
Standardized Coefficientst-ValueSig.
BStd. ErrorBeta
Constant3.3470.041 82.217 *0.000
Food quality0.5430.0410.45713.295 *0.000
Service quality0.3940.0410.3329.646 *0.000
Atmosphere0.6530.0410.55015.989 *0.000
Price0.5390.0410.45413.205 *0.000
FactorsCustomer Satisfaction
Unstandardized
Coefficient
Standardized
Coefficients
t-ValueSig.
BStd. ErrorBeta
Constant2.7090.044 61.204 *0.000
Food quality0.4980.0440.44111.217 *0.000
Service quality0.5660.0440.50212.752 *0.000
Atmosphere0.4680.0440.41510.544 *0.000
Price0.4460.0440.39510.042 *0.000
FactorsRevisit Intention
Unstandardized
Coefficient
Standardized Coefficientst-ValueSig.
BStd. ErrorBeta
Constant3.3530.051 65.243 *0.000
Food quality0.5020.0520.4079.730 *0.000
Service quality0.3390.0520.2756.567 *0.000
Atmosphere0.5850.0520.47511.352 *0.000
Price0.6510.0520.52812.624 *0.000
FactorsRevisit Intention
Unstandardized
Coefficient
Standardized Coefficientst-ValueSig.
BStd. ErrorBeta
Constant2.7090.050 54.321 *0.000
Food quality0.4840.0500.4169.674 *0.000
Service quality0.6020.0500.51712.024 *0.000
Atmosphere0.4390.0500.3778.767 *0.000
Price0.4480.0500.3858.953 *0.000
FactorsCustomer Recommendation
Unstandardized
Coefficient
Standardized Coefficientst-ValueSig.
BStd. ErrorBeta
Constant3.2470.048 67.590 *0.000
Food quality0.4980.0480.40610.324 *0.000
Service quality0.3710.0480.3027.689 *0.000
Atmosphere0.5690.0480.46411.804 *0.000
Price0.6760.0480.55214.028 *0.000
FactorsCustomer Recommendation
Unstandardized
Coefficient
Standardized Coefficientst-ValueSig.
BStd. ErrorBeta
Constant2.5830.054 47.645 *0.000
Food quality0.4600.0540.3968.455 *0.000
Service quality0.5390.0540.4649.907 *0.000
Atmosphere0.4140.0540.3567.617 *0.000
Price0.4960.0540.4279.120 *0.000
ModelBurger King (p-Value)Berlin Burger (p-Value)
Customer SatisfactionRevisit
Intention
Customer
Recommendation
Customer SatisfactionRevisit
Intention
Customer
Recommendation
Constant3.3473.3533.2472.7092.7092.583
Food
Quality
13.295 *
(0.000)
9.730 *
(0.000)
10.324 *
(0.000)
11.217 *
(0.000)
9.674 *
(0.000)
8.455 *
(0.000)
Service Quality9.646 *
(0.000)
6.567 *
(0.000)
7.689 *
(0.000)
12.752 *
(0.000)
12.024 *
(0.000)
9.907 *
(0.000)
Atmosphere15.989 *
(0.000)
11.352 *
(0.000)
11.804 *
(0.000)
10.544 *
(0.000)
8.767 *
(0.000)
7.617 *
(0.000)
Price13.205 *
(0.000)
12.624 *
(0.000)
14.028 *
(0.000)
10.042 *
(0.000)
8.953 *
(0.000)
9.120 *
(0.000)
PairsBurger King
(p-Value)
Berlin Burger
(p-Value)
Customer satisfaction vs. revisit intention (r1)0.907 *(0.000)0.919 *(0.000)
Customer satisfaction vs. recommendation (r2)0.909 *(0.000)0.913 *(0.000)
Recommendation vs. revisit intention (r3)0.884 *(0.000)0.915 *(0.000)

Share and Cite

Chun, S.-H.; Nyam-Ochir, A. The Effects of Fast Food Restaurant Attributes on Customer Satisfaction, Revisit Intention, and Recommendation Using DINESERV Scale. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 7435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187435

Chun S-H, Nyam-Ochir A. The Effects of Fast Food Restaurant Attributes on Customer Satisfaction, Revisit Intention, and Recommendation Using DINESERV Scale. Sustainability . 2020; 12(18):7435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187435

Chun, Se-Hak, and Ariunzaya Nyam-Ochir. 2020. "The Effects of Fast Food Restaurant Attributes on Customer Satisfaction, Revisit Intention, and Recommendation Using DINESERV Scale" Sustainability 12, no. 18: 7435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187435

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

MDPI

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center

paper cover thumbnail

A Research Proposal: The Effects of Restaurant Environment on Consumer Behavior

Profile image of Himanshu Sanga

Related Papers

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

Robert Inbakaran

research proposal on customer satisfaction in restaurants

Rédouan Ainous

this article aims to reinforce the theoretical and empirical presentation of the impact of restaurant atmosphere on consumer behavior. As that of the objectives of this study is to contribute to a better understanding the impact of restaurant atmosphere on consumer behavior variables. We look into the literature review of this topic. We indicate the restaurant atmosphere variables and present a conceptual model that can help to analyze this impact between restaurant atmosphere, emotional reaction, and consumer behavior. It's a part of the scientific method based fundamentally on the facts reinforced and previous studies. We finished our article by an empirical study to test our model and confirm the hypothesis; we perform the exploratory method to study by a questionnaire, divided into nine scales. It was distributed over the sample composed of 30 persons in same-restaurant of Tlemcen city. We used the structural equation model " SEM " in Analyze data with SmartPLS v 3.0. The validity and the reliability of the questionnaire are confirmed. The scales' analysis is assured with Cronbach's alpha. The coefficient of music scale 0.841, the coefficient of design scale 0.840, the coefficient of the crowd scale 0.841, coefficient of PAD scale 0.839, the coefficient of implication scale 0.842 and coefficient of consumer behavior scales 0.815, all coefficients are significant. According to the result, the restaurant atmosphere has not the direct impact on consumer behavior, its mean; we have a significant relationship of mediation variable means the emotional reaction" PAD" and this last has a significant relationship with consumer behavior. The path coefficients of the relationship between the restaurant atmosphere variables (music, design and crowd) and the emotional state " PAD" are Consecutive, 0.573, 0.476, -0.537, and The path coefficient of the relationship between the emotional state " PAD" and consumer behavior is 0.631.

Mick Chaikritsirikul

Journal of Service Research

The purpose of the paper is to explore the relationship between restaurant attributes and consumers’ willingness to patronize. Current research shows that the most common factors affecting restaurant guests while making this decision are: food quality, service quality and overall restaurant environment. The present paper explores these three factors and their affect on consumers’ willingness to pay and their willingness to patronize when these factors are modified from low to high and vice versa. A dynamic comparison method using scenario-based experimental primary research has been used for the current study. It is a 2 x 2 x 3 experiment with two types of restaurants (full-service and quick service), two levels of performance (high and low) and three major attributes (food quality, service and ambience). Ccontrary to the commonly held notion in economic literature that the relationship between consumers’ willingness to pay and the elasticity (intention to patronize) for restaurants...

Prestige International Journal of Management &amp; IT - Sanchayan

Sher Singh Bhakar

Kandappan Balasubramanian

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research

International Journal of …

Innovative Infomedia

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Joanna Dziadkowiec

Miyoung Jeong

Muhammad Yasir Rafiq

Gagic Snjezana

M. N. Ikhsan M. Sefian

International Journal of Hospitality Management

Gökhan Yılmaz

Frank B Acheampong

Cogent Business & Managemen

Tinashe Chuchu , Prof. Eugine T Maziriri , Tarisai Rukuni

burçin cevdet çetinsöz

Numtip Trakulmaykee

jeffril padernos

Siti Nur'Afifah Jaafar

SRIWIJAYA INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

jalaludin sayuti

Food Service Technology

L. Mossberg

Journal of Management and Business

erna andajani

Boo Ho Voon

Revista de Turism: Studii si Cercetari in Turism

Advances in Consumer Research

Yogesh Upadhyay

  •   We're Hiring!
  •   Help Center
  • Find new research papers in:
  • Health Sciences
  • Earth Sciences
  • Cognitive Science
  • Mathematics
  • Computer Science
  • Academia ©2024

Rusmania

  • Yekaterinburg
  • Novosibirsk
  • Vladivostok

research proposal on customer satisfaction in restaurants

  • Tours to Russia
  • Practicalities
  • Russia in Lists
Rusmania • Deep into Russia

Out of the Centre

Savvino-storozhevsky monastery and museum.

Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery and Museum

Zvenigorod's most famous sight is the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, which was founded in 1398 by the monk Savva from the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, at the invitation and with the support of Prince Yury Dmitrievich of Zvenigorod. Savva was later canonised as St Sabbas (Savva) of Storozhev. The monastery late flourished under the reign of Tsar Alexis, who chose the monastery as his family church and often went on pilgrimage there and made lots of donations to it. Most of the monastery’s buildings date from this time. The monastery is heavily fortified with thick walls and six towers, the most impressive of which is the Krasny Tower which also serves as the eastern entrance. The monastery was closed in 1918 and only reopened in 1995. In 1998 Patriarch Alexius II took part in a service to return the relics of St Sabbas to the monastery. Today the monastery has the status of a stauropegic monastery, which is second in status to a lavra. In addition to being a working monastery, it also holds the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum.

Belfry and Neighbouring Churches

research proposal on customer satisfaction in restaurants

Located near the main entrance is the monastery's belfry which is perhaps the calling card of the monastery due to its uniqueness. It was built in the 1650s and the St Sergius of Radonezh’s Church was opened on the middle tier in the mid-17th century, although it was originally dedicated to the Trinity. The belfry's 35-tonne Great Bladgovestny Bell fell in 1941 and was only restored and returned in 2003. Attached to the belfry is a large refectory and the Transfiguration Church, both of which were built on the orders of Tsar Alexis in the 1650s.  

research proposal on customer satisfaction in restaurants

To the left of the belfry is another, smaller, refectory which is attached to the Trinity Gate-Church, which was also constructed in the 1650s on the orders of Tsar Alexis who made it his own family church. The church is elaborately decorated with colourful trims and underneath the archway is a beautiful 19th century fresco.

Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral

research proposal on customer satisfaction in restaurants

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is the oldest building in the monastery and among the oldest buildings in the Moscow Region. It was built between 1404 and 1405 during the lifetime of St Sabbas and using the funds of Prince Yury of Zvenigorod. The white-stone cathedral is a standard four-pillar design with a single golden dome. After the death of St Sabbas he was interred in the cathedral and a new altar dedicated to him was added.

research proposal on customer satisfaction in restaurants

Under the reign of Tsar Alexis the cathedral was decorated with frescoes by Stepan Ryazanets, some of which remain today. Tsar Alexis also presented the cathedral with a five-tier iconostasis, the top row of icons have been preserved.

Tsaritsa's Chambers

research proposal on customer satisfaction in restaurants

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is located between the Tsaritsa's Chambers of the left and the Palace of Tsar Alexis on the right. The Tsaritsa's Chambers were built in the mid-17th century for the wife of Tsar Alexey - Tsaritsa Maria Ilinichna Miloskavskaya. The design of the building is influenced by the ancient Russian architectural style. Is prettier than the Tsar's chambers opposite, being red in colour with elaborately decorated window frames and entrance.

research proposal on customer satisfaction in restaurants

At present the Tsaritsa's Chambers houses the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum. Among its displays is an accurate recreation of the interior of a noble lady's chambers including furniture, decorations and a decorated tiled oven, and an exhibition on the history of Zvenigorod and the monastery.

Palace of Tsar Alexis

research proposal on customer satisfaction in restaurants

The Palace of Tsar Alexis was built in the 1650s and is now one of the best surviving examples of non-religious architecture of that era. It was built especially for Tsar Alexis who often visited the monastery on religious pilgrimages. Its most striking feature is its pretty row of nine chimney spouts which resemble towers.

research proposal on customer satisfaction in restaurants

Location approximately 2km west of the city centre
Website Monastery - http://savvastor.ru Museum - http://zvenmuseum.ru/

Plan your next trip to Russia

Ready-to-book tours.

Your holiday in Russia starts here. Choose and book your tour to Russia.

REQUEST A CUSTOMISED TRIP

Looking for something unique? Create the trip of your dreams with the help of our experts.

COMMENTS

  1. PDF Customer satisfaction for restaurants

    customer satisfaction in the restaurant business in general. 1.2 Structure of thesis The study consists of five chapters. The literature review, presented in chapter 2, includes scientific data on customer satisfaction, its' importance and measurement, and customer satisfaction in the restaurant business.

  2. (PDF) Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in Dining Restaurants

    Examples of topics discovered in this parameter include investigation of using robots in the food and beverage industry to overcome the lack of workers [182], evaluating the quality of services ...

  3. (PDF) Customer Satisfaction Towards Immersive Dining Experiences

    2. Customer Satisfaction Towards Immersi ve Dining Experiences: Assessing. Modern Restaurant Tren ds. Abstract: Technological advancements in Food and Beverage Services (FBS) operations have ...

  4. Satisfaction and revisit intentions at fast food restaurants

    Revisit intention is the willingness of a consumer to revisit a place due to satisfactory experience. Customer satisfaction generates a probability to revisit in presence or absence of an affirmative attitude toward the restaurant [ 8 ]. Revisit intention is a substantial topic in hospitality research [ 8, 9, 10 ].

  5. PDF Customer Satisfaction in Restaurant Services

    Number of pages and appendix pages 37+ 4 pages. The thesis is based upon the way of inspecting about how the customer satisfaction is im-proved in restaurant service. To collect the information's about it the research was focused in a restaurant which is situated in Helsinki.

  6. Customer satisfaction with Restaurants Service Quality during COVID-19

    Ratings of hotels, restaurants and the like could shed light directly on the levels of customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction, as well as their causes [51], providing restaurant quality-improvement hints [52]. There are earlier works that determine customer satisfaction that rely on ratings (e.g. Refs. [53, 54]). However, the majority of ...

  7. PDF Operational Efficiency And Customer Satisfaction of Restaurants ...

    E-ISSN 2350-8442. apjmr.comDate Received: December 21, 2016; Date Revised: January 25, 2017Abstract - Restaurants' primary objective is to provide comfort and satisfactio. to guest without compromising the operational efficiency of the business. This research aimed to determine the operational efficiency and customer.

  8. The Effects of Fast Food Restaurant Attributes on Customer Satisfaction

    The fast food restaurant business is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world. International and local restaurant chains are trying to satisfy the demands of customers for a variety of products and services. Along with changing market trends, customers are now becoming more sophisticated and demanding. Customer satisfaction is an essential business issue, as entrepreneurs have ...

  9. PDF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN RESTAURANT BUSINESS

    customer satisfaction. Similarly, second part will be theoretical background which also includes views regarding different customer satisfaction related terms such as customer satisfaction and loyalty, company profit, service gap and dissatisfaction and so on. All the related terms are discussed, and

  10. PDF The Effects of Fast Food Restaurant Attributes on Customer Satisfaction

    2.5. Customer Satisfaction Customer satisfaction is becoming a common goal for businesses. Customer satisfaction, as defined by Oliver [25], is the after-purchase judgment or evaluation of a product or service. It is also frequently described as the extent to which the chosen product meets or exceeds consumer expectations.

  11. A Research Proposal: The Effects of Restaurant Environment on Consumer

    Abstract. The purpose of this research proposal is to investigate the effects of restaurant environment on. consumer behavior. Five journals that are relevant to the relationship between restaurant. environment and the behavioral intentions of consumers are delved into this paper. The self-.

  12. (PDF) Restaurant Quality and Customer Satisfaction

    [email protected]. ABSTRACT. This study aimed to explore the impact of restaurant quality on customer satisfaction. Restaurant quality was measured using 11 dimensions related to. halal, food ...

  13. Factors influencing food consumption satisfaction and purchase

    Abstract. This research examined how multi-sensory dimensions like sight, sound, and smell would influence customer attitudes toward quick-service restaurants, restaurant patronage intentions, food purchasing decisions, food consumption satisfaction, restaurant attachment, repurchase intention, and positive word of mouth in South African quick-service restaurants.

  14. A Research Proposal: The Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and

    Abstract. The purpose of this research is to study the relationship between customer satisfaction. and consumer loyalty and apply its relationship into all the market industries including. products and services, particularly in financial institutions. Preliminary sample data.

  15. Market Research Proposal For AVR

    The document proposes a market research project to examine factors influencing customer satisfaction at Annapurani Vegetarian Restaurant (AVR) chains. An 8-member student group from ISB&M will conduct quantitative and qualitative research through surveys of 600 customers to identify models for improving consistent customer satisfaction and experience across AVR outlets. The research will ...

  16. PDF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN RESTAURANT SERVICE

    eir friends and families to the restaurant. The clients' satisfaction, has a. wed the restaurant to increase its worth. The growth and competitive advantage of the business is significantly influenced. y strong and high-quality customer service. With an increased level of sales push, customer contentment aids the.

  17. Research Proposal

    This research proposal aims to measure customer satisfaction and loyalty in the hotel industry. It identifies quality services, quality foods, and a clean environment as independent variables that influence customer satisfaction and loyalty as dependent variables. The proposal outlines a literature review on this topic and hypotheses that greater service/food quality and a clean environment ...

  18. Study: What restaurants have the best customer satisfaction?

    Customer satisfaction with restaurants has increased overall, though some eateries fared better than others, a recent study shows. Chick-fil-A edged out other fast food chains, taking the top spot ...

  19. (PDF) Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: An examination

    Purpose To determine the factors that explain customer satisfaction in the full service restaurant industry. Design/methodology/approach Secondary research and qualitative interviews were used to ...

  20. These restaurants rank among best for customer satisfaction ...

    Customer satisfaction with restaurants has increased overall, though some eateries fared better than others, a recent study shows. Chick-fil-A edged out other fast food chains, taking the top spot ...

  21. THE 10 BEST Restaurants in Elektrostal (Updated June 2024)

    Noginsk. Warm comfort with smoldering birch fires. Отличная атмосфера, нам помогли с организацией сложного мероприятия и со звуком, видео было все в порядке. 4. Sloboda Cafe. 21 reviews Closed Now. European, Russian $$ - $$$. 6.1 mi. Pavlovsky Posad.

  22. PEKIN, Elektrostal

    17 reviews. #12 of 28 Restaurants in Elektrostal $$ - $$$, Asian. Lenina Ave., 40/8, Elektrostal 144005 Russia. +7 495 120-35-45 + Add website + Add hours Improve this listing. See all (5)

  23. (PDF) A Research Proposal: The Effects of Restaurant Environment on

    Restaurants will be able to use this research proposal to find the appropriate ways to improve consumers' satisfaction and also to increase profits. Keywords: restaurant environment, atmospherics, consumer behavior, effects RESTAURANT ENVIRONMENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR 3 Statement of Problem What appeals to consumers' preferences are not only ...

  24. Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery and Museum

    Zvenigorod's most famous sight is the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, which was founded in 1398 by the monk Savva from the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, at the invitation and with the support of Prince Yury Dmitrievich of Zvenigorod. Savva was later canonised as St Sabbas (Savva) of Storozhev. The monastery late flourished under the reign of Tsar ...

  25. CAFE ANTRESOLE, Elektrostal

    104 reviews. #3 of 28 Restaurants in Elektrostal $$ - $$$, European, Russian. Yuzhny Ave., 12, Elektrostal 144004 Russia. +7 926 755-20-17 + Add website. Open now 8:00 AM - 12:00 AM. Improve this listing.