1003566

research-article20212021
SGOXXX10.1177/21582440211003566SAGE OpenJaved et al.

Original Research

SAGE Open

Combined Effects of Drivers and Impact

January-March 2021: 1­–18
© The Author(s) 2021
DOI: 10.1177/21582440211003566
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211003566

of Customer Satisfaction on Brand journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Loyalty: The Contingent Effect

of Social Trust

Sara Javed1, Md. Salamun Rashidin1 , Mingxia Zhu1, Zhexiao

Xu1 , Wang Jian1, and Siming Zuo1,2

Abstract
We strived to examine the combined effects of drivers and consequences of customers’ satisfaction particularly in quick-meal
restaurants besides examining the interaction effect of social trust on the association between customers’ satisfaction and
brand loyalty. Offline survey was conducted to approach the respondents of fast-food visitors. The valid data were assessed
and analyzed through structural equation modeling and moderation step-by-step approach. The findings demonstrate that
restaurant stimuli—food, service, atmosphere, location, price, and a variety of food—have robust effects on customers’
satisfaction and eventually on brand loyalty. Social trust has rigorous effect on the association between customers’ satisfaction
and brand loyalty. Customers with high social trust have a positive strong bonding with restaurants than those holding low
social trust. Theoretical and practical implications have been deliberated and offer some valuable recommendations along
for future scholars.

Keywords
customer satisfaction, brand loyalty, social trust, service quality, fast-food industry, step-by-step approach

Introduction potential impact of quality of food, quality of service, atmo-

sphere, price, as well as variety of food on customers’ satis-
Since 1980, the restaurant sector has grown substantially. faction regarding fast-food restaurants.
From 1980 to till to date, the sales of the restaurant industry Cultivating the brand loyalty attained paramount impor-
have increased drastically from US$42.8 billion to US$536.7 tance as far as the service sector is concerned, especially
billion (approx.), which is more than 10 times (Goyal et al., where service providers render services with minor distinc-
2019). Extant hospitality research has facilitated in getting tions and fight in turbulent environment, particularly in the
comprehensive understanding of the factors that lead to of fast-food industry (Santouridis & Trivellas, 2010). Earlier
customers’ satisfaction with hotels/cafeterias/restaurants studies have extensively focused on antecedents of loyalty,
(Ivkov et al., 2018). In some of these studies, researchers such as service quality (So et al., 2013), word of mouth
have focused extensively on the customers’ dining behavior, (WOM; Nikhashemi et al., 2015), customers’ engagement
because food is a vital element to comprehend one’s society (Rather & Sharma, 2017; Sharma & Rather, 2017), and cus-
or culture (Goyal et al., 2019; Konuk, 2019; Ryu & Han, tomers’ satisfaction (El-Adly & Amjad, 2018; Hwang et al.,
2010; Zhang et al., 2019), while other researchers have been 2019). However, very few studies have focused particularly
interested in identifying the important service dimensions of on indirect impact of drivers of customers’ satisfaction in
restaurant, which include menu, cleanliness, style, price, explaining customers’ repeat patronage (Konuk, 2019). Due
ambience, location (Prendergast & Man, 2002), chef, service
staff, and atmosphere (Emir, 2016). These service dimen- 1
University of International Business and Economics (UIBE), Beijing, China
sions determine the dining behavior and revisit intention of 2
Beijing Technology and Business University, China
the clientele. Moreover, the studies on restaurants (Namin,
2017) have reached to the conclusion that menu (ÖZDEMİR Corresponding Authors:
Mingxia Zhu and Md. Salamun Rashidin, School of International Trade and
& NEBİOĞLU, 2018) and atmosphere (Dutta et al., 2014) Economics, University of International Business and Economics (UIBE),
affect customers’ satisfaction. Based on the conclusion of No.10, Huixin Dongjie, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100029, China.
aforementioned studies, there is a need to comprehend the Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open

to paucity of studies in this field, a need has been felt regard- theoretical implications, limitations, and future directions for
ing the academic assessment of cues related to food with the forthcoming researchers.
purpose of elucidating customers’ repeat patronage in fast-
food restaurants from the theoretical as well as practical
viewpoint besides the role of facilitator of customers’ satis- Hypothetical Background and
faction among restaurant stimuli (drivers: food quality, ser- Formulation of Hypotheses
vice quality, atmosphere, price, and variety of food) and
brand loyalty. Moreover, numerous studies have examined
Food Quality
the impact of brand trust on consumers’ behavioral intentions Food quality is a distinct feature as far as experience of dining
(Alhaddad, 2015; Song et al., 2019), but researchers have in a restaurant is concerned (T. J. Lee et al., 2012; Serhan &
paid less attention to the impact of social trust on individual Carole, 2019). It pertains to those characteristics which sig-
behavior (Chen & Wan, 2020), though it has significant nificantly impact intentions of consumers’ behavior as regards
impact on consumers’ dealings with restaurants (Robbins, dining in a restaurant (Serhan & Carole, 2019). Presenting
2016). Therefore, understanding how social trust of the cus- quality food is particularly vital when it comes to pleasing the
tomers impacts their intentions of revisiting the restaurants target market. It increases the eternal achievement of the res-
offering fast food. taurant (Campbell & Fairhurst, 2016). Food quality is con-
Bearing in mind the collective viewpoints of cue utiliza- ceded as one of the determining factors of customer
tion theory, S-O-R theory, expectation disconfirmation philanthropy; therefore, it facilitates the business in increasing
theory, and dual entitlement source, this research study fun- the market share (Ryu & Han, 2011). Food quality is perceived
damentally aims at filling the slot in the existing body of to be a fundamental element in stipulating the accomplishment
literature by exploring the combined effects of drivers and of the restaurant industry (Rashidin, Javed, Liu, & Jian, 2020).
impact of customers’ satisfaction on brand loyalty in Mattila (2001) expressed three fundamental reasons for cus-
research models pertaining to setting of restaurants offering tomers to visit their marked restaurant, which include food
fast food. More specifically, this study has encompassed quality, service, and atmosphere. According to Truong et al.
the factors that bring back the customer to fast-food restau- (2017), quality of food was the most vital characteristic among
rants for another meal, the effect of factors on customers’ all restaurant dimensions offered to the customers and repre-
satisfaction, the direct impact of customers’ satisfaction on sents a pragmatic association with satisfaction of customers
the loyalty to the brand, the indirect outcome of factors on and their loyalty to the brand. In a restaurant setting, food
brand loyalty via customers’ satisfaction, and effect of quality is determined on the basis of its freshness, temperature,
social trust on the association among satisfaction and loy- and getting flawless food on every occasion (Andaleeb &
alty of patrons. Conway, 2006; Daries-Ramón et al., 2018).
Our research theoretically extends to the literature of hos- According to Olson (1972), concurring the cue utilization
pitality marketing and consumers’ behavior by examining theory, the clients utilize innate and adventitious cues for eval-
the combined effects of drivers and impact of customers’ uating worth of a particular product. Particularly, in case of
satisfaction on brand loyalty. In addition, the study validates foodstuff, the innate signs entail shape, look, and shade, in
the interactive effect of moderating variable social trust on addition to a structure that can be altered only by altering the
customers’ satisfaction, which helps strengthen the associa- physical characteristics of a food. On the other hand, adventi-
tion between customers’ satisfaction and brand loyalty. tious cues include brand, price, store name, origin of product,
Furthermore, the study extends current literature by demon- and nutritious value as well as production details rather than
strating that customers’ satisfaction mediates between drivers physical composition of a product (Teas & Agarwal, 2000). In
(food quality, service quality, restaurant atmosphere, price, addition, Namkung and Jang (2010) argued that criteria of the
and variety of food) and outcome variable (brand loyalty). quality of food entail fitness, freshness, flavor/deliciousness,
Moreover, the findings of this study offer suggestions to fast- as well as presentation of food.
food restaurateurs to devise some effective strategies to keep According to Jacoby (2002), the theory of stimulus-organ-
the customers satisfied by incessantly evaluating their feed- ism-response (S-O-R) accentuates that improvement in the
back. For government, this study offers insight that custom- assessment of internal procedure of the organism is elicited by
ers’ brand loyalty and customers’ satisfaction are influenced, an impetus that influences the reaction (Sandor Czellar, 2003).
to some extent, by societal trust; therefore, governments Referring to this theory, features of food entails shape, flavor,
need to devise some strategies to increase the individual’s and look act as impetus and are capable of influencing custom-
general trust of the society. ers’ innate assessments, and ultimately satisfaction of custom-
The remaining part of the study is presented as follows: ers and their loyalty to the brand.
The second section discusses the hypothetical background Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
and formulation of hypotheses. The third section presents the
adopted procedure, analysis, and major findings. The fourth Hypothesis 1 (H1): The quality of food bears a pragmatic
section provides the final discussion on results as well as impact on patron’s satisfaction with quick-meal restau-
draws the conclusion followed by outlining the practical and rants of Pakistan.
Javed et al. 3

Service Quality Daries-Ramón et al., 2018). The perceived atmosphere draws

cognitive responses, which further influences the patron
Basing on the field wherein it is utilized, one can define ser- beliefs about a place, services, staff, and products (Bitner,
vice in a variety of ways. Kotler and Keller (2009, p. 789) 1992). Moreover, if the opinion of a customer is high about
explained service as “any intangible act or performance that the atmosphere of the restaurant, his or her hopes about the
one party offers to another that does not result in the owner- service could also be high (Daries-Ramón et al., 2018). The
ship of anything.” It is also defined as total features and the perception about the restaurant services cape directly influ-
attributes of the product and services that satisfy the real or ences customers’ satisfaction (W. G. Kim & Moon, 2009).
implied needs of the customers (Kotler et al., 2002). The According to Longart et al. (2018), in a restaurant setting,
quality of service is described “as a perception of the custom- after food quality, variety of food, and price, atmosphere is
ers about the services which may meet or exceed his/her considered as a major element that differentiates one service
expectations” (Zeithamal et al., 1996, pp. 31–46). It is consid- provider from another. Thus, we can say that the atmosphere
ered as a momentous feature of restaurant dining. Service has become really essential in restaurant settings, because
quality is equally important as food quality (Bujisic et al., customers tend to be provoked by atmospheric stimuli, such
2014) and plays a vital role in building up the perception to as lights, ambiance, style, cleanliness, comfortable seats, aes-
re-patronage (Pantelidis, 2010). Regarding the restaurant set- thetic elements, music, and noise (C.-H. S. Liu et al., 2014;
ting, studies have emphasized that service quality is an imper- Pei & Ayub, 2015), which subsequently increases the behav-
ative determinant of customers’ satisfaction (Ivkov et al., ioral intention or repeat patronage (Wakefield & Blodgett,
2018) and re-patronage (Weiss et al., 2004). In turbulent mar- 1994). Furthermore, Daries-Ramón et al. (2018) and Rashidin,
ket environments, service quality is identified as a decisive Javed, Liu, and Jian (2020) endorsed that perception about
element for the success of fast-food restaurants as it has a physical surroundings is a direct marker of a customer’s satis-
remarkable impact on consumers’ behavior because it induces faction. In this manner, customer’s satisfaction is directly
either satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Wong & Fong, 2010). linked with the facets of constructive behaviors.
Hence, improvement in service quality helps fast-food opera- Consistent with the S-O-R theory, environmental factor is
tors compete, retain the existing customers, and attract new an impetus which prompts innate responses of individuals to
customers (Zeithaml & Bitner, 1996). Earlier researches have that ambience. As far as a service setting is concerned, atmo-
accentuated the role of service for determining patron’s satis- spheric features serve as incitements for customers’ reactions
faction, which customer encounters at the restaurant setting (Lin & Mattila, 2010). As regards the organism, the clients
(dimensions: friendly staff, courteous, quick service line, come across three diverse kinds of emotional situations:
waiting time, etc.; Bujisic et al., 2014), in addition to the con- dominance, excitement, and pleasure. Nevertheless, merely
sumer’s behavioral intention to revisit (Kandampully et al., the passionate condition of satisfaction of the customers was
2015). Thus, we can extrapolate from previous findings that explored in this research study. Thus, we hypothesize the
enhanced service quality results in a contented customer following:
(Meesala & Paul, 2018), which leads to brand loyalty.
In the light of S-O-R theory, service quality traits like Hypothesis 3 (H3): The atmosphere of restaurants has
friendly staff, courteous, quick service line, and waiting time pragmatic impact on patron’s satisfaction with quick-
as stimulus may affect their associated internal evaluations meal restaurants of Pakistan.
(customers’ satisfaction) and external responses (brand loy-
alty). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Price
Hypothesis 2 (H2): The quality of service bears a prag- Price has been perceived as an imperative factor in elucidat-
matic impact on patron’s satisfaction with quick-meal res- ing the behavior of the customers. It can be defined as “what
taurants of Pakistan. the customer paid to get the product or services” (Zeithaml,
1988). It is an influential and persuasive tool to attract cus-
tomers to buy from a particular brand. Similarly, Rao and
Atmosphere
Monroe (1989) considered price as a tool that tells the cus-
In restaurant industry, atmosphere is perceived as a very cru- tomers about the worth of the product. Customers usually
cial element (Kivela et al., 1999; Qin & Prybutok, 2009), estimate the value of the product or services offered via price
because it influences a customer’s emotions, expectations (Javed et al., 2018).
(Kranzbühler et al., 2018; Wall & Berry, 2007), and dining Customers’ perception about the price is explained by
experience (Dutta et al., 2014). According to Bitner (1990) equity theory as “parties involved in social exchanges com-
and Daries-Ramón et al. (2018), customers initially look upon pare the ratios of their inputs into the exchange to their conse-
the atmosphere to take any services; the buildup perception quences from the exchange” (Bechwati et al., 2009, p. 2009).
about the services may affect the customer’s reaction to Alternative hypothetical basis of price is the principle of dual
the services delivered in the restaurants (Bitner, 1990; entitlement. According to this principle, “in an economic
4 SAGE Open

transaction, the buyer is entitled to a fair price, and the seller is or service (Hoyer & Ridgway, 1984). Consistent with the
entitled to a fair profit” (Haws & Bearden, 2006, p. 304). optimal stimulation level theory, thanks to repeat product
According to this principle, by ignoring the one party’s pre- procurement, direct diversity-seeking conduct ensues with
rogative, the perception of inequitableness comes to the light the purpose of diminishing monotony as well as to increase
(Bolton et al., 2003). Furthermore, when purchasers’ reference the level of stimulation. The accessibility of a variety of
price is less than the retail price, they may ultimately appraise products/services got paramount importance particularly in
this price as discriminating (Xia et al., 2004). In this research the restaurant industry (S. Lee et al., 2020; Thomas, 2013).
study, the equity theory and principle of dual entitlement have In the context of hospitality sector, it is recognized as diver-
been utilized as a hypothetical base to comprehend clients’ sat- sity in menu (Josiam et al., 2014). It is in line with Huang
isfaction with price of fast-food items. Hence, referring to et al. (2015) study, wherein he viewed the significance of
these theories, the mentioned price of the food items will be variety-seeking in the service sector. Zandstra et al. (2000)
considered satisfactory if it delivers reasonable gains to the conducted a study on the consumption of meat sauce at din-
enterprise. Moreover, compliant with the S-O-R theory, realis- ner time at home that lasts for almost 10 weeks at dinner
tic, according to clients’ internal assessment, adequate and time. The results indicated that as the days passed, it became
rational costs of food may govern clients’ satisfaction as well the cause of boredom among the family members and dimin-
as brand loyalty with fast-food restaurants. ished their consumption. Another research study undertaken
In the restaurant industry, the price of the items on the by Lähteenmäki and van Trijp (1995) revealed that sand-
menu varies from restaurant to restaurant. Due to intense wiches with diverse stuffing are expected to bring some
competition in the restaurant industry, the customers may diversity to the flavor. In addition, the study involving con-
develop internal reference prices (Campbell & Fairhurst, sumption of eight sandwiches having different stuffing indi-
2016). The price embedded in the customer’s mind works as cated that it would provide extreme diversity to the customers
a base for comparing the real prices with the expected prices as far as taste is concerned. Numerous studies pointed out
(Grewal et al., 1998). The restaurant must charge for the that variety of food (Park, 2004) greatly influences a patron’s
services offered in accordance with what the people are perception about the restaurant setting (Meesala & Paul,
willing to pay, or provide the services at competitive prices 2018), which consequently influences the customers’ satis-
bearing in mind the customers’ expectations (Saul et al., faction and repeat-restaurant patronage (Nield et al., 2000).
2018; Yuksel & Yuksel, 2002). Empirical studies examined Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
the association between price and customers’ satisfaction
and behavioral intentions of re-patronage. Oliver and Swan Hypothesis 5 (H5): Variety of food bears a pragmatic
(1989) considered the price as an antecedent of customers’ influence on the satisfaction of the customers in fast-food
satisfaction. They also identified that the customer makes a industry of Pakistan.
comparison of his or her existing payment with the expecta-
tion, assessing whether the actual compensation is higher or
Brand Loyalty
lower than what he or she contemplates is essential. If he or
she observes a balance in price / value trade off, he or she The notion of brand loyalty has transformed with the passage
tends to be gratified by the amenities offered by the restau- of time (Ahn & Back, 2018). Earlier, it was considered a uni-
rant. Klassen et al. (2015) conducted a study, wherein they variate measure in terms of repeated buying behavior
found that 62% of the students believed that price is the (Cunningham, 1961). Subsequently, it was felt as a complex
most imperative reason for making a decision to dine out multidimensional construct (Alfian et al., 2019). It is eluci-
from a particular restaurant. In addition to this, Bolton and dated as “a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patron-
Lemon (1999) found a direct link of price with customers’ ize a preferred product/service consistently in the future,
satisfaction. Once customers are certain that they are getting thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set
paramount quality of product or service, they tend to be purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing
loyal in the long run. It is in line with this prediction. efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior”
Therefore, we hypothesize the following: (Oliver, 1999). Moreover, the present study measured the
brand loyalty by the suggested three dimensions of brand
Hypothesis 4 (H4): In Pakistan fast-food industry, price loyalty, which are behavioral loyalty, affective loyalty, and
bears pragmatic effects with customer satisfaction. attitudinal loyalty. The first approach to brand loyalty is
affective loyalty as admiration or conformity propensity,
which is comprehensively manifested in favor of a brand
Variety of Food than rival brands in the market. The second approach of
Diversity-seeking conduct is part and parcel of human nature brand loyalty is cognitive/evaluative loyalty with brand. It
when it comes to consumption of any product or service refers to the positive evaluation of a specific brand by the
(Ratner et al., 1999). Customers are frequently in search of a customer on the set criteria (Rather, 2017; Rather et al.,
wide range of alternatives when it comes to a product 2018). The third approach to brand loyalty represents
Javed et al. 5

behavioral loyalty for an explicit brand which deals with the well as the literature review, the established theoretical
upbeat reaction for buying as well as consumption activities framework exhibited in Figure 1 discovered that quality of
(Chaudhary et al., 2018; Rather et al., 2019). From behav- food, service, price, atmosphere, location, and variety of
ioral perspective, in the case of restaurant setting, loyalty food are modeled as drivers of customers’ satisfaction, and
demonstrates the number of visits (Rather & Hollebeek, brand loyalty is the outcome.
2020).
The concept of brand loyalty is relatively more impor-
The Moderating Role of Social Trust
tant for services sector, especially for those who provide
services with minor distinctions and contend on dynamic The earlier literature studied brand trust and its impact on
environment, particularly in fast-food industry (Khorasani individual intentions to make purchase (Rather et al., 2019;
& Almasifard, 2018). In fact, the loyal customers are Rather & Hollebeek, 2019). It is referred as customer’s
willing to expend chunks of money for the foodstuffs or “confidence on exchange partner’s reliability and integrity”
amenities offered by the restaurant without giving due con- (Morgan & Hunt, 1994) and is acknowledged as an associa-
sideration to the price. This cohesive bonding between cus- tion to the pragmatic attributes, such as brand proficiency,
tomer and restaurant places a positive impact on its reliability, trustworthiness, restraint, and objectivity (Morgan
profitability (Flavián & Guinalíu, 2006). That is why res- & Hunt, 1994). It impacts their subsequent loyalty as well as
taurants use defensive marketing strategies to grab more commitment as it represents the actor’s aspiration to pursue
market share and profits by establishing the brand loyalty the affiliation (Martínez & Rodríguez del Bosque, 2013).
(Ergün & Kitapci, 2018). Scholars have gradually become more concerned about the
influence of social trust on individual’s behavior (Chen &
Wan, 2020). It fosters everyday interactions, exchanges,
Customers’ Satisfaction and transactions (Robbins, 2016). This term is referred as
Customers’ satisfaction is among the fundamental concepts “general conviction about the honesty, truthfulness, and faith
being utilized to elucidate consumers’ conduct. In line with in the people.” It does not suggest that an individual places
theory of expectation disconfirmation, customers’ satisfac- trust on others because they know each other personally, but
tion is abstracted as “the psychological state resulting when it signifies a broader spectrum how people can be trusted in
the emotion surrounding disconfirmed expectations is cou- general, and without trust, social bonding is unfeasible
pled with the consumer’s prior feelings about the consump- (Chalabi, 1996).
tion experience” (Oliver & Swan, 1989, p. 29). Consistent Numerous service organizations (in the context of restau-
with this definition, when customers’ prospects are met, sat- rant setting) are operating in the society. There are two clas-
isfaction ensues, else disappointment arises (Namkung & sical schools of thought who viewed social trust differently;
Jang, 2007). Customers’ satisfaction has cognitive as well as the social psychological thought believes in individualism,
affective elements (Bigné et al., 2008). Cognitive element while the societal school of thought believes in collectivism.
entails rational valuation of the acquired product, while the According to social-psychological school of thought, trust is
affective element entails sentiments, for example, cheerful- an essential element of an individual’s personality traits
ness and pleasure, causing the fulfillment of the anticipations (Liang & Ju, 2016), because an individual’s learning about
(Yu & Dean, 2001). Empirical studies have reached to the trust starts from his or her home, and this childhood social-
conclusion that customers’ satisfaction is a resilient fore- ization changes with the passage of time as the experience is
caster of revisit intentions (Javed et al., 2018; Rather et al., gained (Uslaner, 2000). Moreover, social trust is reliant not
2018). Particularly in the hospitality context, customers’ sat- only on the reciprocity of experience, but is also closely
isfaction has a positive impact on customers’ revisit inten- associated with the subjective feelings and the kind of the
tions (Otto et al., 2020; Rather, 2017). Bearing in mind the personality that an individual has (Uslaner, 1999). Scholarly
theory of expectation disconfirmation and S-O-R paradigm, studies found that individual’s “belief in just world” is greatly
it is foreseen that exceedingly contended clienteles are more associated with interpersonal trust and subjective well-being
probable to visit the restaurant again and again. Therefore, (Enache & Dumitrof, 2017). Faith in people and faith in the
we hypothesize the following: world are primary features of “belief in just world.” The
societal school of thought viewed that trust is not the charac-
Hypothesis 6 (H6): Customers’ satisfaction has a positive teristic of an individual but that of a society (Mahdavi &
influence on brand loyalty. Daryaei, 2017). The focus of this approach is on how people
evaluate the society, wherein they live, rather than their per-
As debated earlier, the current study employed four theories sonality. Moreover, it is the top-bottom phenomenon that is
as theoretical foundation which provide base for hypotheses: developed by society and daily experience that recommends
theory of S-O-R paradigm, theory of cue utilization (Olson acting in a credulous and distrusting way (Abdul Shukor
& Jacoby, 1972), theory of expectation disconfirmation, and et al., 2019). Consumer who has been deceived in shops,
source of dual entitlement. Capitalizing on these theories as exploited at workplace, served unjustly, betrayed, or lied by
6 SAGE Open

Social trust * customer

Food quality satisfaction
. .369*** .410***

Service
quality. . .266** .389***
.306***
Atmosphere Customer
Brand Loyalty
.264*** Satisfaction
. .
Price
. . .244***

Variety

Figure 1. Proposed framework.

acquaintances on daily basis (Hardin, 1998) has low social Hypothesis 8 (H8): Social trust significantly moderates
trust and infers that people cannot be trusted in general, the effect of customers’ satisfaction on brand loyalty
which will ultimately affect his or her specific trust (use pre- when it is high (vs. low).
existent schemas) (Brewer, 2008). It is in line with earlier
studies that generalized trust and specific trust are causally
interrelated (Freitag & Traunmüller, 2009; Newton & Zmerli, Method
2011). Measurements
Applying this notion in the perspective of current research
study, we argue that low-trust clientele remains satisfied Bearing in mind the perspective of current study, slight mod-
with a restaurant when restaurant has failed to meet some ifications were made in the scale of the indicators of extant
standard of honesty once. But, if this happens more than studies, which include food quality, service quality, restau-
once, he or she might switch the restaurant, and this “moral rant atmosphere, price, variety of food, customers’ satisfac-
yardstick” further decreases his or her social trust (Boix & tion, brand loyalty, and social trust. A three-item scale was
Daniel, 1998; Krammer, 2019). However, the decision could used to measure perceived food quality, perceived service
be different if the customer possesses some personality quality, perceived restaurant atmosphere, price, and custom-
traits, such as high tolerance level, faith on people, coopera- ers’ satisfaction (Trafialek et al., 2020). A two-item scale was
tive, optimistic, and forgiver nature. In addition, Tone et al. used to measure variety of food (Trafialek et al., 2020; Xi &
(2019) found that specific personality traits are strongly Shuai, 2009). Moreover, a six-item scale was used to mea-
associated to an individual’s behavior. To this edge, in case sure brand loyalty (Sunaryo, 2019) and further conceptual-
of any negligence, a customer fully cooperates with a res- ized into three dimensions such as behavioral, affective, and
taurateur and does not get disappointed immediately with cognitive loyalty. Regarding the social trust, standard survey
the services (Thielmann et al., 2020). The customer is still question was asked in this study to measure the individuals’
satisfied with the restaurant setting and plans for repurchase trustworthiness about society around them (Javed et al.,
and talks favorably about the restaurant with others. Thus, 2018; Newton, 2001; Rashidin, Javed, Chen, & Jian, 2020).
we deduce that customer who possesses this sort of person- The question stated, “By and large, are you of the opinion
ality is less affected by the prevailing societal factors that that you can trust majority of the people or you can’t be so
lower the social trust of an individual, but still believes that cautious while making a deal with the people?” (Delhey &
people can be trusted in general (His/her relational trust is Newton, 2003). Moreover, the scale was adapted in the con-
less affected by his/her general trust) (Robbins, 2016). This text of restaurant, drawn from societal school of thought and
trust could ultimately lead toward long-term commitment, social psychological school of thought: the role of individu-
greater share of wallet, and positive WOM. Complementing al’s personality traits and the role of society/social system in
the aforementioned arguments and literature, we can state building individual’s general trust. First, the role of individu-
that consumer having high social trust further strengthens al’s personality traits in building trust on society was gauged
the association between customers’ satisfaction (i.e., satis- by proposed two-item scale adapted from Delhey and
faction with restaurant stimuli) and loyalty with restaurant Newton (2003), a two-item scale of tolerance adapted from
than having low social trust. Consequently, we assume the Delhey and Newton (2003), and a two-item scale of general
ensuing hypothesis: faith on people adapted from Rosenberg (1957), whereas the
Javed et al. 7

role of social system in building trust (Restaurants are oper- Try to explain your experience with the fast-food restaurant
ating in society/part of society) was measured by proposed performance as you recall it.” This question aimed at receiv-
two-item scale on perception about current societal condi- ing the descriptions of consumers’ experiences with fast-
tions adapted from Delhey and Newton (2003) and a pro- food restaurants. The data collection took place between
posed two-item scale of social network of individuals January and February 2020, and completing a questionnaire
adapted from Delhey and Newton (2003). took approximately 15 to 20 min. Out of total 475 question-
naires, the respondents returned 432 questionnaires, which
represents a response rate of 90%. The incomplete question-
Scale Validation
naires were discarded, resulting in a total of 400 usable
We certified our scales and measurement model using mul- responses. For utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM)
tiple methods. First, according to Bloemer et al. (1999), we method, Black et al. (2020) suggested that a sample must
implemented exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to endorse consist of 100 respondents, whereas Kline (2005) considered
the fundamental factors with the help of varimax rotation and a sample of 200 respondents to be sufficient. Thus, the
extricated eight features: food quality (FQ), service quality sample of our study meets this threshold for vindicating the
(SQ), restaurant atmosphere (RA), price (PR), variety of utilization of SEM.
food (VR), customers’ satisfaction (CS), brand loyalty (BL), Data collection involved the convenience sampling.
and social trust (ST). Majority of the factor loadings (FLs) Although there are some concerns about sampling technique
were greater than 0.80 apart from SQ3 (FL = 0.521), related regarding generalizing the results, this technique has been
to service quality “courteous staff,” which was consequently used for data collection in prior studies (Javed et al., 2018;
excluded for further proceedings. Moreover, eigenvalues, Rashidin, Javed, Liu, & Jian, 2020; Rather, 2017; Rather
that is, 2.366, 1.524, 1.616, 3.242, 3.920, 2.451, 2.323, and et al., 2018). However, convenience sampling is applicable
3.125, of factors progressively elucidated 72.434% of the under two conditions: for fact-finding studies, and when
total variance. The scale utilized for measuring the abstract measurement objects pertain to the applicants (Elbeltagi &
variables was 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 Agag, 2016). The authors made use of measurement items
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In addition, two pertaining to the respondents; therefore, this research study
professors of hospitality warranted the face and content satisfies the prerequisites to validate the use of convenience
validity of the scale items. Besides, we undertook a pilot sampling.
study by collecting data from 100 respondents who fre-
quently visit restaurants. The resulting Cronbach’s alpha (α)
values were FQ = 0.880, SQ = 0.790, RA = 0.777, PR =
Data Analysis and Outcomes
0.832, VR = .880, CS = .843, BL = .865, and ST = .784. Background information of the respondents. Table 1 illustrates
The Cronbach’s alpha (α) test revealed all scores over and the background information of the respondents. Majority of
above 0.70 that verified adequate reliability. In a nutshell, respondents is male. The sample entails 400 people, consist-
statistical method has been used for drawing all our results, ing of 176 (44.0%) women and 224 (56.0%) men. The repre-
consequently building our confidence regarding the findings sentation of age group 18 to 30 years was 48.5%, which was
along with their generalizability. greater than that of the other age groups: 31–45 years (34.5%)
The questionnaire contained two sections entailing four and above 45 years (17%). The percentage of 18 to 30 years
close-ended questions. The first section took care of the age group is higher than that of other two groups because
demographic characteristics of the respondents. The second majority of this age group was employed or connected with
section tackled the research paradigms comprising 35 close- the businesses as evident from the collected data. As regards
ended questions. the profession, service respondents had major proportion
(30.50%) in comparison to business (28.25%), students
(26.0%), unemployed (8.25%), and others (7.00%). Respon-
Survey and Sampling Procedures
dents were also asked about the restaurants they visit fre-
The data were collected on convenient basis. The partici- quently. Three possible options were given to them, that is,
pants were approached at McDonald, KFC, and others fast- McDonalds, KFC, and others (local/national). The results
food restaurants located in four big cities of Punjab province indicated that majority of the respondents visited restaurants
(i.e., Islamabad, Lahore, Multan, and Faisalabad). Five doc- other than (locals/nationals) McDonalds and KFC with a
toral candidates were trained for conducting the survey. In higher percentage of 45.5%, while the remaining 29.5% and
line with the critical incident method on the basis of the sur- 25.0% of the respondents visited McDonalds and KFC,
vey research of Seckler et al. (2015), an open-ended question respectively. Moreover, the findings also revealed that over
was put at the start of the structured questionnaire that urged half percentage (68.0%) of Pakistani inhabitants have low
the respondents to first of all go through a statement prior to trust on the society around them (need to be careful), fol-
filling out the questionnaire: “Please think a moment that lowed by 32.0% having high social trust (e.g., high general-
you are feeling satisfied when you visit fast-food restaurant. ized trust on society).
8 SAGE Open

Table 1. Background Information of Respondents. We employed confirmatory factor analysis for evaluating
the dependability and legitimacy of the unobserved vari-
Demographic profile of participants
ables. The output generated by confirmatory factor analysis
Gender signposts a better model fitness (χ2/df = 1.874, root mean
Female 44.00% square residual [RMR] = 0.05, incremental fit index [IFI] =
Male 56.00% .943, Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .95, comparative fit index
Age [CFI] = 0.960, parsimony CFI [PCFI] = .830, parsimony
18–30years 48.50% normed fit index [PNFI] = .810; root mean square error of
31–45years 34.50% approximation [RMSEA] = 0.034) (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Above 45 17.00% The fit indices illustrate that the unobserved variables are
Profession perfectly measured by their items. Reliability was tested
Student 26.00%
using the scores of Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliabil-
Service 30.50%
ity (CR). Table 2 shows that all unobserved constructs’ CR
Business 28.25%
scores range from 0.82 to 0.95, and they are above the cutoff
Unemployed 8.25%
level of .70 (Hair et al., 2011). The α scores too exceed the
Others 7.00%
Facility
recommended threshold level of 0.70. They range from
McDonalds 29.50% 0.808 to 0.950. With regard to the convergent validity, we
KFC 25.00% followed Fornell and Larcker (1981) approach. The factor
Others (local/national) 45.50% loading score of all items must be above 0.70 as well as sig-
Social trust nificant. The table vividly exhibits that all items have factor
Most people can be trusted 32.00% loadings above 0.70 with loadings ranging from 0.701***
Need to be careful 68.00% to 0.984*** and are significant at p < .001. The average
variance extracted (AVE) are above the suggested threshold
>0.50 with values ranging from 0.586 to 0.87 (Fornell &
Common Method Bias Larcker, 1981), consequently establishing the convergent
validity (Hair et al., 2010). Moreover, the discriminant valid-
Due to collection of date involving only a single source, ity was ensured by employing two tests. First, the square root
using common method bias (CMB) might not be appropriate. of average variance extracted or diagonal value must exceed
Harman’s single-factor test has been employed (Podsakoff the correlation among the constructs at the resultant rows and
et al., 2003) for the purpose of identifying dubious amount of columns (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Second, the correlation
covariance among the variables. The score of EFA demon- midst the variables should not exceed 0.85. Table 3 exhibits
strates that first factor explained variance of 22.324%. that square root of average variance extracted/diagonal val-
Therefore, factor test exhibited the dearth of any single con- ues is above correlations between variables at subsequent
struct that can profess bulk of the shared variance. For a rows and columns, and the correlations values are below the
sturdy CMB, the authors made use of common latent factor recommended value, thus we got discriminant validity.
(CLF) method recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003). We
supplemented a common variable and connected it to all the
pragmatic variables (i.e., exogenous and endogenous) in the Structural Model
fundamental associations. The values devoid of common The results of measurement model indicate a good model
factor and involving common factor acknowledged irrele- fitness. The structural model was tested by SPSS Amos
vant variances among the comparative models. The CLF Graphics version 21.0. The results of structural model dem-
method established the poor corroboration of CMB issue in onstrate goodness of fit (χ2/df = 1.524 CFI = 0.95; NFI =
accordance with the prior test. 0.93; IFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.97; AGFI = 0.86; PCFI = 0.83;
RMSEA = 0.04; SRMR = 0.04). The fit indices are in rea-
Measurement Model sonable and acceptable range (Schreiber, 2008; Zulfiqar
et al., 2019). Thus, these results demonstrate that structure of
The study performed statistical analysis by using SPSS Amos proposed research model efficiently illustrate the association
Graphics version 21. We followed two-stage procedure of between latent constructs (Sinkovics et al., 2016).
Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) for statistical analysis in
SEM. By employing this approach, we initially evaluated the Hypotheses testing (path analysis). SEM technique with
dependability and legitimacy using measurement model. maximum likelihood estimation has been employed to
Afterward, we executed path analysis by the structural model. evaluate the assumed association. After following first step
The basic premise behind using this approach is prior testing of Anderson and Gerbing (1988) approach of statistical
of the structural association between constructs. We initially analysis, we carried out second step and executed the path
assessed the reliability and validity of latent constructs. analysis by the structural model. Accordingly, we first plaid
Javed et al. 9

Table 2. Measurement Model.

Constructs Items Statements SFL

Please rate the following constructs; food quality, service quality, restaurant location, restaurant atmosphere, price and variety of food of
your favorite restaurants.
Food quality α = .929, CR = .87, AVE = .69 F1 Taste 0.763***
√AVE =.830 F2 Fresh and rich flavor 0.958***
F3 Nutritional content 0.761***
Service quality α = .808, CR =. 82, AVE = SQ1 Quickness of service line 0.804***
.67, √AVE = .808 SQ2 Order fulfillment time 0.854***
Restaurant atmosphere α = .831, CR = RA1 Cleanliness 0.789***
.898, AVE = .746, √AVE = .863 RA2 Comfortable environment 0.951***
RA3 Layout 0.844***
Price α = .908, CR = .93, AVE = .82, P1 Good value for the price charged 0.942***
√AVE = .905 P2 Appropriate portion size 0.905***
P3 Reasonable price item 0.865***
Variety of food α = .881, CR = .88, AVE = V1 Food choices (menu) 0.872***
.79, √AVE = .888 V2 Ready to deliver (in stock) 0.906***
Customer satisfaction α = .837, CR = .935 CS1 I’m satisfied with restaurant atmosphere. 0.951***
AVE = .827, √AVE = .909 CS2 I’m satisfied with restaurant location. 0.932***
CS3 I’m satisfied with the price range of restaurant. 0.843***
Brand loyalty α = .874, CR = .894, AVE = BL1 I have been with my favorite fast-food restaurant for 0.756***
.586, √AVE = .765 a long time.
BL2 I am planning to continue relying on my favorite fast 0.716***
-food restaurants for a longer period.
ALI Once I get used to a fast-food restaurant, I hate to 0.777***
switch
AL2 I have developed some sort of emotional connection 0.719***
with my favorite fast-food restaurant
CL1 When I decide to stay with a fast-food restaurant, I 0.866***
make sure that it is a competent one.
CL2 Client loyalty in fast-food restaurants is based on 0.751***
good experiences.
Social trust α = .932, CR = .942, AVE = In general, do you think that higher numbers of customers can trusting or not
.619, √AVE = .786 sincere with others customer for the dealing purpose?
Per1 When I face any problem in restaurant, it couldn’t 0.796***
influence me negatively.
Per2 When I face any problem in restaurant, it couldn’t 0.984***
lead me to untrustworthiness.
T1 I can tolerate if restaurant doesn’t meet standard of 0.723***
honesty once.
T2 I can tolerate if restaurant doesn’t meet its 0.796***
delivered service promise once.
F1 I believe, today’s restaurants are more inclined to 0.742***
accommodate their customers/co-operative.
F2 I am careful when dealing with fast-food operators 0.778***
SC1 I am satisfied with safety standards (security) 0.701***
SC2 I feel safe when I dine in my restaurant. 0.754***
SN1 I mostly visit restaurants recommended by my 0.745***
friends.
SN2 My trust on restaurant is affected by my friend 0.818***
opinion.

Note. CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; SFL = standard factorized loading.
10 SAGE Open

Table 3. Discriminant Validity.

Constructs M SD VIF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FQ 3.80 1.01 1.054 .830
SQ 3.90 0.991 1.237 .635** .808
RA 3.63 1.11 1.364 .783** .594** .863
PR 3.90 0.936 1.095 .268** .233** .210** .905
VR 3.64 1.04 1.031 .177** .136** .159** .150** .888
CS 3.71 0.935 1.013 .358** .344** .138** .157** .201** .909
BL 3.43 0.638 1.091 .225** .172** .128** .121** .368** .322** .765
ST 3.39 0.838 1.077 –.039 –.097 .032 –.015 –.040 .033 –.141** .786

Note. VIF = variance inflation factor; FQ = food quality; SQ = service quality; RA = restaurant atmosphere; PR = price; VR = variety of food; CS =
customers’ satisfaction; BL = brand loyalty; ST = social trust.
Bold-faced value showing discriminant validity.

Table 4. Directly and Moderating Effects.

Model fit value Paths Standardized estimates t-stat R2 Relationship

χ /df =1.874,
2
H1: Food quality → Customer Satisfaction .369*** 4.986 .76 Supported
RMR = 0.05, H2: Service quality → Customer Satisfaction .266** 2.396 .73 Supported
IFI = .943, TLI = .95, H3: Restaurant Atmosphere → Customer Satisfaction .306*** 4.358 .53 Supported
CFI = 0.960, H4: Price → Customer Satisfaction .264*** 3.635 .36 Supported
PCFI =.830, H5: Variety → Customer Satisfaction .244*** 3.545 .62 Supported
PNFI =.810;
H6: Customer Satisfaction → Brand Loyalty .389*** 6.436 .28 Supported
RMSEA = 0.034
H7: Customer Satisfaction × Social Trust → Brand .410*** 8.755 N/A Supported
Loyalty

Note. RMR = root mean square residual; IFI = incremental fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; PCFI = parsimony CFI;
PNFI = parsimony normed fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

multicollinearity in SPSS, which is an important assump- bias-corrected method with 95% confidence interval (CI) for
tion prior to test the research model in SEM. Table 4 desig- mediation effects (Hayes, 2013). The findings of indirect
nates that all prognosticator variables had variance inflation effect is present particularly when the confidence interval
factor (VIF) ranging 1.013 to 1.237. It shows that no multi- doesn’t overlap with 0. Food quality significantly indirectly
collinearity exists among the predictor variables as they affects brand loyalty (βFQ→CS→BL = 0.0157, [CI: 0.0050,
satisfy the suggested criteria of <3. The path coefficients 0.0291]) via customers’ satisfaction. Moreover, the indirect
have been displayed in Figure 1. The results of hypothe- effect of service quality affects brand loyalty (βSQ→CS→BL
sized relationship have been presented in Table 4. Table 4 = 0.0177, [CI: 0.0058, 0.0330] via customers’ satisfaction.
demonstrates that food worth has a pragmatic effect on cus- Price significantly indirectly affects brand loyalty
tomers’ satisfaction (β = 0.369, t = 4.986, p < .001); (βPR→CS→BL = 0.0704, [CI: 0.0153, 0.1691]) via cus-
therefore, we accepted H1. Service quality has profound tomers’ satisfaction. Moreover, the indirect effect of restau-
significant impact on customers’ satisfaction (β = .266, t = rant atmosphere affects brand loyalty (βRA→CS→BL =
2.396, p < .01), as a result we accepted H2. Restaurant 0.0779, [CI: 0.0178, 0.1803] via customers’ satisfaction.
atmosphere has gained support as it has positive significant Variety of food significantly indirectly affects brand loyalty
impact on satisfaction of customers (β = 0.306, t = 4.358, (βVR→CS→BL = 0.075, [CI: 0.012, 0.167] via customers’
p < .001), so we accepted H3. Price (β = 0.264, t = 3.635, satisfaction. Thus, these results confirm the mediating role of
p < .001) and variety (β = 0.244, t = 3.545, p < .001) customers’ satisfaction in fast-food cues (i.e., food quality,
exert a pragmatic significant effect on satisfaction of cus- service quality, restaurant atmosphere, price, and variety of
tomers, so H4 and H5 gained support. Customers’ satisfac- food) and customers’ loyalty with fast-food restaurants.
tion exerts robust consequence on brand loyalty (β = 0.389, The predictive power of R2 explained that the total vari-
t = 6.436, p < .001); therefore, H6 is supported. ance in outcome variable is due to predictor variables. The
Moreover, according to Taheri et al. (2019), PROCESS results show that variance in customers’ satisfaction is due to
macro 3.2 was employed for SPSS 23.0. We employed restaurant stimuli (FQ: 0.76, SQ: 0.73, RA: 0.53, PR: 0.36,
Model 4 stipulating 5,000 bootstraps samples on a VR: 0.62). The results also show 28.4% variance in brand
Javed et al. 11

loyalty. Our R2 results are greater than the recommended customers decide about either re-patronage or discontinuity.
threshold level of Falk and Miller (1992) > 10%. Moreover, the findings revealed that customers’ satisfaction
acts as a strong mediator between restaurant stimuli and con-
Moderating effects. To test the contingent effects of social sumers’ behavioral intentions. Any negligence in aforemen-
trust through interaction effects, we used IBM SPSS version tioned stimuli hurts the customers’ satisfaction and ultimately
23.0. Using the moderation step-by-step, we initially exam- brand loyalty with restaurants. In addition to this, results
ined the direct impact of prognosticator variable on resultant demonstrate that (β = 0.389***) 38.9% satisfied customers
variable and then main direct effects of interaction of contin- become brand loyal. Furthermore, we explored the indirect
gent with predictor variable on outcome variable. We found impact of customers’ satisfaction on the association among
that direct effects of customers’ satisfaction on brand loyalty the restaurant stimuli (i.e., food quality, service quality, res-
are positively significant (F = 128.098, p < .001), and main taurant atmosphere, price, and variety of food) and brand
direct effects of customers’ satisfaction and social trust (cus- loyalty. We found that customers’ satisfaction significantly
tomers’ satisfaction × social trust) on brand loyalty are also and positively affects the association between restaurant
positively significant (β = .410, t = 8.7755, p < .01). More- stimuli (i.e., food quality, service quality, restaurant atmo-
over, after getting the substantial interaction impacts, sug- sphere, price, and variety of food) and loyalty to the brand.
gestions of Aiken et al. (1991) were followed to examine the This finding is in harmony with prior research studies
nature of interactions by allocating the data of contingents in (Konuk, 2019; Segson & Tan, 2018).
two groups—high and low—with the help of mock variable. Finally, our last results deal with social trust. They reveal
We observed the simple main impacts of customers’ satisfac- that Pakistani inhabitants’ social trust is not so high, as
tion on brand loyalty at both high and low level of social greater percentage (72%) of the people believes that they
trust. We found that customers’ satisfaction has positive sig- need to be careful while dealing with others, and only 28%
nificant impact on brand loyalty when customers’ social trust people believe that people can be trusted in general. This
is high (β = 0.203, t = 4.048, p < .001), and customers’ finding is consistent with World Value Survey Report, which
satisfaction has an insignificant impact on brand loyalty indicated that only 22.2% Pakistani citizens believe that peo-
when customers’ societal trust is low (β = .106, t = 2.881, p ple can be trusted in general, whereas 73.8% respondents
> .01). Therefore, social trust positively moderates the rela- believe that people need to be careful while dealing with oth-
tionship at higher level of social trust; thus, we accepted H7. ers (World Values Survey (WVS)). Moreover, our results
about moderating variable social trust suggest that consum-
ers’ social trust positively moderates the relationship at
Discussion and Conclusion higher level between customers’ satisfaction and brand loy-
Prior studies on restaurant setting have conferred that cus- alty. Consumers rely on their preexistent schemas of having
tomers’ satisfaction is a vital determinant of brand loyalty beliefs about the general trustworthiness of people; thus, the
(S. M. Lee et al., 2019). In the context of fast-food industry general trust (social trust) has an impact on their specific and
(Naderi et al., 2018), the restaurant-induced stimuli play a relational trust (Brewer, 2008; Costa et al., 2018; Robbins,
crucial role in creating customers’ satisfaction (Segson & 2016) about their restaurants. It is in line with Robbins
Tan, 2018), which in turn establishes brand loyalty (Y. Liu & (2016) who stated that social trust is central to the develop-
Jang, 2009). In Pakistan, fast-food industry is rapidly grow- ment and maintenance of specific/relational trust. Based on
ing over the last decade. Fast food restaurants are found in the conceptualizations of societal school of thought, findings
every nook and corner. In the salad day of millennium, brand suggest that the consumers who possess low social trust hold
loyalty is a big challenge for fast food operators. Thus, this a view that people cannot be trusted in general and tend to
study on brand loyalty adds noteworthy value to the restau- switch to other restaurants easily in case they get dissatisfied
rant industry. The study examined the combined effects of once or twice with the services rendered by a particular res-
drivers and impact of outcome of customers’ satisfaction on taurant. For example, applying this notion in the context of
brand loyalty drawn from previous literature. restaurant sector, customers may have come across diverse
Our findings suggest that restaurant-induced stimuli, for experiences from different sources like friends sharing a pic
instance, restaurant atmosphere, food quality, service quality, with a bug in food and news or TV channels breaking a news
price, and variety of food, have profound repercussions on that a particular restaurant is being sealed due to providing
satisfaction of clients. These outcomes commensurate with unhygienic food, using sub-standard products (dead meat,
(Dutta et al., 2014; Ryu & Han, 2010) empirical studies. It poor quality oil, etc.), and untidy kitchen (cockroaches and
demonstrates that these fast-food cues are very crucial for mouse are found there). Such experiences affect already built
fast food restaurant customers and have paramount impact up specific/relational trust (faith on people) on quick-meal
on their satisfaction. Our study findings also validate that restaurants (operating in society), consequently affecting
customers’ satisfaction significantly influences brand loy- their satisfaction and brand loyalty with their mostly visited
alty. This result also completely agrees with prior empirical restaurants. As far as social psychological school of thought
research findings (S. M. Lee et al., 2019). At this point, is concerned, customers respond to diverse scenarios, such as
12 SAGE Open

mistakenly threw a drink/food on customer or a bug is found loyalty. Referring to expectation disconfirmation and S-O-R
in food. Such situations are dealt differently depending on theory, we can conclude that extremely gratified clienteles
the customer’s personality traits (tolerance, understanding, thanks to their innate assessment are more probable to do
cooperative, optimistic, low anxiety, forgiver nature etc.) that repeat patronage than less satisfied customers.
sequentially impacts loyalty to the brand (J. Kim et al., Fourth, the mediation analysis established a fractional
2008). Thus, the response to any situation in a restaurant set- intermediary stimulus of customers’ satisfaction among res-
ting is decided by customer’s personality traits (Possessing taurant stimuli (i.e., food quality, service quality, restaurant
these positive personality traits leads to high generalized atmosphere, price, and variety of food) and brand loyalty.
trust) along with the trust gained from the society (Uslaner, This result seems to be in line with previous studies (Konuk,
1999). Our findings suggest that customers who hold posi- 2019; Segson & Tan, 2018). This mechanism implies that
tive social trust have strong bonding with restaurants and enhancing FQ, SQ, RA, PR, and VR can influence CS, which
make maximum effort that their relational trust is less in turn increases brand loyalty. Finally, we pay to literature
affected by their general trust. by evaluating the impact of social trust with regard to fast-
food industries because prior literature recognized that it
fosters everyday interactions, exchanges, and transactions
Implications
(Robbins, 2016). With its significance in behavioral dynam-
Theoretical Implications ics (Chen & Wan, 2020), the present study took an initiative
and verified the regulating role of social trust in customers’
From a theoretical standpoint, it is the first research study to satisfaction and brand loyalty. This study extends the effect
experimentally evaluate the combined repercussions of driv- of social trust as a moderating variable, interactions with
ers and impact of customers’ satisfaction on brand loyalty. customers’ satisfaction, to add significantly to the existing
The extant literature has comprehensively examined the literature of social trust. The findings imply that consumer’s
drivers of customers’ satisfaction (Costa et al., 2018; Dutta social trust (generalized trust) affects his or her connection
et al., 2014) and fundamental indicator of economic success with restaurant (specific trust), because customer’s moral
i.e., brand loyalty (Alkhawaldeh & Eneizan, 2018; S. M. Lee yardstick of general trust on society affects his or her specific
et al., 2019; Trafialek et al., 2020). Numerous studies have trust with restaurant. It is in line with previous cited articles
been conducted in the context of fast-food industry loyalty (Freitag & Traunmüller, 2009; Newton & Zmerli, 2011). The
(Namin, 2017), but the combined effects had not been present study reinforces to the literature by assessing the
explored yet. Hence, this research study adds to the existing interaction effect of social trust and customer satisfaction in
literature by understanding the potential influence of restau- strengtheing the bonding with brand loyalty.
rant stimuli (food quality, service quality, atmosphere, price,
and variety of food) on customers’ satisfaction and brand
loyalty through customers’ satisfaction (indirect effect). Practical Implications
Overall, the results imply that quality of food and service, This research study educes valuable insights to restaurant
restaurant atmosphere, price, as well as variety of food have managers and government with discernible offers.
significant influence on customers’ satisfaction because cus- The findings of the present research testified the vital role
tomers’ satisfaction with these cues plays a critical role in of food quality. Referring to the cue utilization theory, clients
explaining the repeat patronage. Second, as far as S-O-R utilize intrinsic (visual attractiveness) as well as extrinsic
theory is concerned, an extrinsic impetus (food quality, ser- cues (nutritional content) with the purpose of judging the
vice quality, and restaurant atmosphere) affects organism quality of a distinct product. Consequently, it is worth men-
(customers’ satisfaction) which in turn influences response tioning that taste, nutritional content, oblivious attraction,
(brand loyalty). Consequently, this study adds to the friendli- and cheekiness must be enhanced. Thus, fresh as well as deli-
ness as well as customer conduct literature by investigating cious menus must be provided in the hotels/restaurants. Eye-
the collective impacts of drivers and clients’ satisfaction on catching food demonstrations of the menus must not be
brand loyalty to bestow more understanding into the level to overlooked. For instance, serving skillfully garnished food
which theories supplement each other in elucidating repeat on appealing crockery has the potential to augment the
patronage. graphic presence of the menus or list. This can also enhance
Third, this article fosters the comprehension of customer clients’ professed food quality. Furthermore, fast-food res-
conduct in fast-food restaurant setting. It discloses the taurants can indicate the nourishment principles of the food
impact of customers’ satisfaction as a result of fast-food on the menu/list board with the purpose of persuading the
cues on the loyalty to the brand. The findings of current healthiness of the food items. In the same way, brochures
article confirmed the positive effect of customers’ satisfac- offering information regarding food production standards
tion on loyalty to the brand. It is in line with earlier cited may be made available on the tables with the aim of increas-
articles (Lu et al., 2015; Otto et al., 2020), verifying that ing clients’ know-how of the food items. Intrinsically, cli-
customers’ satisfaction is an important predictor of brand ents’ professed quality estimations could be heightened. In
Javed et al. 13

Pakistan, as more people are tending to al fresco, dynami- restaurateurs must regularly keep track of the satisfaction of
cally communicating product offerings to the clients and their clienteles. In case of any dissatisfaction, restaurateurs
delivering food as assured to retain the variety-seeking con- should resolve the issues. Appropriate complaint manage-
sumers represent a realistic strategy of fast-food restaurants. ment procedure will definitely facilitate in enhancing clients’
Patron’s acuities associated to food prices must be given satisfaction and inspire revisit intentions as well as brand
due consideration while fixing the menu prices. Thus, while loyalty. Moreover, surveys can aid in comprehending the
fixing the prices of the food items, the prices of same food consumers’ perceived food quality, service quality, price, and
items of other restaurants in the same area must be given due atmosphere regarding fast-food restaurant. In addition, cus-
consideration. Henceforth, alike price levels will result in tomers’ recommendations must be gathered to arouse their
increasing customers’ perceptions of the menu prices. To put repeat patronage.
it another way, when clients’ professed food quality is great, With regard to social trust, our findings imply that fast-
and if they find that food menu prices are very reasonable, food operators should ensure the safety standards of foods,
they will be definitely convinced that the selected menu is disclose the menu information, and permit to often visit the
worth buying. This conclusion will bring about high gratifi- kitchen, which will strengthen their specific as well as gen-
cation and ultimately augment brand loyalty. Moreover, if eral trust. The study also gives insights to the government
restaurants want to increase the price of food menu, it is about the social trust that has a momentous influence on con-
acceptable to increase the price of food menus. As far as the sumers or customers’ connections with a particular restau-
dual entitlement principle is concerned, the adequate details rant. In the context of the restaurant, the government can
must be elucidated to the clients regarding the increase in augment the customers’ general trust toward the society by
price with the purpose of gaining the confidence of the con- activating the Pakistan Food Testing Authority to constantly
sumers. Moreover, judicious price advertisings in fast-food regulate the food safety standards in restaurants and perma-
menus can facilitate in enhancing the perceptions of the con- nently close those restaurants that play with the health of
sumers and can bring about higher customers’ satisfaction. people by using substandard products.
Moreover, advertising proposals, like rebate as well as
vouchers, also have the potential to inspire clienteles to visit Limitations and Future Directions
fast-food restaurants again and again.
The findings highlighted that service quality has attained No study exists without limitations. Our study underlies the
paramount importance. Referring to S-O-R theory, service following limitations and offers directions to future
quality attributes, such as friendly staff, courteous, quick ser- researchers. First, the study has made use of random sample
vice line, and waiting time, act as stimulus for customers’ data. The forthcoming investigators can employ elongated
internal evaluations (customers’ satisfaction). Therefore, res- data or use another design like experimental design. Second,
taurant should provide good services and reduce time this study’s context is general. The future study could cat-
between order placement and order fulfillment with an aim egorize restaurants into upscale, medium scale, and low
of providing quick service. In service setting, atmospheric scale restaurants and assess the differences. Third, future
features serve as impetuses for customers’ reactions (Lin & research studies can include other emerging constructs
Mattila, 2010). Our findings imply that restaurant’s atmo- investigated in restaurant contexts, which include restau-
spheric elements have contributed significantly to the satis- rant-based customer engagement, value co-creation, ser-
faction of the consumers. Thus, heightened cleanliness, vice innovation, service value, and customer or consumer
layout, and comfortable environment should be provided. experience, with the purpose of examining the analytical
Particularly, restaurant cleanliness and food safety matter a capability of the model (Hollebeek et al., 2019; Rather
lot after Covid 19. Today, customers are more concerned et al., 2019; Rather & Hollebeek, 2020). Fourth, the study
about how their food is handled. It means that customers will used only social trust as a contingent. The future scholars
have less patience for workers who are not using gloves, mis- can consider WOM (positive and negative WOM) as a con-
handling of food as well as other cleanliness indicators. tingent to investigate how it influences the association amid
Therefore, restaurants should implement strict sanitary regu- satisfaction of the customers and loyalty to the brand. To
lation to protect both workers and customers, acknowledging cut a long story short, the present research study is restricted
that the safety of their customers is their first priority. In to the fast-food enterprise. The upcoming research studies
addition, restaurants should make their environment more may explore other service enterprises, such as hotel indus-
charming by concentrating on interior as well as exterior try, to augment the robustness of the model.
look. Similarly, sound and serene environment may enhance
the customers’ perceived quality evaluation. Acknowledgments
The findings of present study emphasized the pivotal role The first and second author are thankful to University of International
of customers’ satisfaction for keeping lasting associations Business and Economics (UIBE) authorities for the research fund
among the restaurants and their clienteles. Henceforth, and financial support during PhD research studies.
14 SAGE Open

Ethical Approval Bechwati, N. N., Sisodia, R. S., & Sheth, J. N. (2009). Developing
a model of antecedents to consumers’ perceptions and evalua-
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants
tions of price unfairness. Journal of Business Research, 62(8),
were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional
761–767.
and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki dec-
Bigné, J. E., Mattila, A. S., & Andreu, L. (2018). The impact of
laration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
experiential consumption cognitions and emotions on behav-
ioral intentions. Journal of Services Marketing, 22, 303–315.
Informed Consent Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants of physical surroundings and employee responses. Journal of
included in the study. Marketing, 54(2), 69–82.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical sur-
Declaration of Conflicting Interests roundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing,
56, 57–71.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
Black, N., Johnston, M., Michie, S., Hartmann-Boyce, J., West,
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
R., Viechtbauer, W., Eisma, M. C., Scott, C., & de Bruin, M.
(2020). Behaviour change techniques associated with smoking
Funding cessation in intervention and comparator groups of randomized
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support controlled trials: A systematic review and meta-regression.
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Addiction, 115, 2008–2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15056
Supported by “the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Bloemer, J., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (1999). Linking per-
Universities” the Belt and Road research database construction ceived service quality and service loyalty: A multi-dimensional
project of UIBE (TS4-10). perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 33(11–12),
1082–1106. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569910292285
ORCID iDs Boix, C., & Daniel, N. P. (1998). Social capital: Explaining its ori-
Salamun Rashidin https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1273-8494 gins and effects on government performance. British Journal
Zhexiao Xu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3480-9863 of Political Science, 28, 686–693.
Bolton, L. E., Warlop, L., & Joseph, A. (2003). Consumer percep-
Reference tions of price (un) fairness. Journal of Consumer Research, 29,
474–491.
Abdul Shukor, S., Johari, F., Abd Wahab, K., Kefeli, @., Zulkefli, Bolton, R. N., & Lemon, K. N. (1999). A dynamic model of cus-
Z., Ahmad, N., Haji Alias, M., Abdul Rahman, A., Mohd tomers’ usage of services: Usage as an antecedent and conse-
Orip, N. M., Ibrahim, P., & Abu-Hussin, M. F. (2019). Trust quence of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2),
on Awqaf institutions: Evidence from Malaysia. Journal of 171–186.
Islamic Marketing, 10(2), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Brewer, M. B. (2008). Depersonalized trust and ingroup coopera-
JIMA-05-2017-0054
tion. In J. I. Krueger (Ed.), Rationality and social responsibility
Ahn, J., & Back, K.-J. (2018). Influence of brand relationship on
(pp. 215–232). Psychology Press.
customer attitude toward integrated resort brands: A cogni-
Bujisic, M., Hutchinson, J., & Parsa, H. (2014). The effects of
tive, affective, and conative perspective. Journal of Travel &
restaurant quality attributes on customer behavioral inten-
Tourism Marketing, 35(4), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/1
tions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
0548408.2017.1358239
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and Management, 26(8), 1270–1291. https://doi.org/10.1108/
interpreting interactions. Sage. IJCHM-04-2013-0162
Alfian, G., Ijaz, M. F., Syafrudin, M., Syaekhoni, M. A., Fitriyani, Campbell, J., & Fairhurst, A. (2016). Reducing the intention-to-
N. L., & Rhee, J. (2019). Customer behavior analysis using behaviour gap for locally produced foods purchasing: The
real-time data processing: A case study of digital signage-based role of store, trust, and price. International Journal of Retail
online stores. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, & Distribution Management, 44(5), 508–523. https://doi.
31(1), 265–290. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2018-0088 org/10.1108/IJRDM-08-2015-0121
Alhaddad, A. A. (2015). The effect of advertising awareness on Chalabi, M. (1996). Sociology of order. Ney Publishing.
brand equity in social media. International Journal of e-Educa- Chaudhary, M., Ghouse, S. M., & Durrah, O. (2018). Young Arab
tion, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 5(2), 73–84. consumers: An analysis of family buying process in Oman.
Alkhawaldeh, A., & Eneizan, B. M. (2018). Factors influencing Young Consumers, 19(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/
brand loyalty in durable goods market. International Journal YC-07-2017-00720
of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(1), Chen, X., & Wan, P. (2020). Social trust and corporate social
326–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3128145 responsibility: Evidence from China. Corporate Social
Andaleeb, S. S., & Conway, C. (2006). Customer satisfaction in the Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27, 485–500.
restaurant industry: An examination of the transaction-specific https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1814
model. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(1), 3–11. Costa, A. C., Fulmer, C. A., & Anderson, N. R. (2018). Trust in
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation work teams: An integrative review, multilevel model, and
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step future directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39,
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2213
Javed et al. 15

Cunningham, R. M. (1961). Customer loyalty to store and brand. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed
Harvard Business Review, 39(6), 127–137. a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Daries-Ramón, N., Cristóbal, E., Ferrer-Rosell, B., & Mariné- 19(2), 139–151.
Roig, E. (2018). Behaviour of culinary tourists: A segmenta- Hardin, R. (1998). Trust in government. In V. Braithwaite & M.
tion study of diners at top-level restaurants. Intangible Capital, Levi (Eds.), Trust and governance (pp. 9–27). Russell Sage
14(2), 332–355. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1090 Foundation.
Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2003). Who trusts? The origins of social Haws, K. L., & Bearden, W. O. (2006). Dynamic pricing and con-
trust in seven societies. European Societies, 5(2), 93–137. sumer fairness perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research,
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461669032000072256 33(3), 304–311.
Dutta, K., Parsa, H. G., Parsa, R. A., & Bujisic, M. (2014). Change Hayes, A. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences.
in consumer patronage and willingness to pay at different levels Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional pro-
of service attributes in restaurants: A study in India. Journal of cess analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 15(2), 149–174. Hollebeek, L. D., Sprott, D. E., Andreassen, T. W., Costley, C.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1528008x.2014.889533 Klaus, P., Kuppelwieser, V., . . .Rather, R. A. (2019). Customer
El-Adly, M. I., & Amjad, A. E. S. (2018). Guest-based hotel equity: engagement in evolving technological environments: Synopsis
Scale development and validation. Journal of Product & Brand and guiding propositions. European Journal of Marketing,
Management, 27(6), 615–633. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM- 53(9), 2018–2023.
09-2017-1570 Hoyer, W. D., & Ridgway, N. M. (1984). Variety seeking as an
Elbeltagi, I., & Agag, G. (2016). E-retailing ethics and its impact explanation for exploratory purchase behavior: A theoretical
on customer satisfaction and repurchase intention: A cultural model. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research
and commitment-trust theory perspective. Internet Research, (pp. 114–119). Association for Consumer Research.
26(1), 288–310. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-10-2014-0244 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
Emir, O. (2016). A study of the relationship between service atmo- in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria ver-
sphere and customer loyalty with specific reference to struc- sus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
tural equation modelling. Economic Research-ekonomska Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080
Istraživanja, 29(1), 706–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/13316 /10705519909540118
77X.2016.1195276 Huang, Y.-A., Lin, C., & Phau, I. (2015). Idol attachment and
Enache, R. G., & Dumitrof, C. B. (2017). Research on correla- human brand loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 49(7–8),
tions between personality traits and prosocial behavior of the 1234–1255. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2012-0416
young people. Romanian Journal of Experimental Applied Hwang, E., Baloglu, S., & Tanford, S. (2019). Building loyalty
Psychology, 8, 285–290. through reward programs: The influence of perceptions of fair-
Ergün, G. S., & Kitapci, O. (2018). The impact of cultural dimen- ness and brand attachment. International Journal of Hospitality
sions on customer complaint behaviours: An exploratory study Management, 76, 19–28.
in Antalya/Manavgat tourism region. International Journal Ivkov, M., Blešić, I., Simat, K., Demirović, D., & Božić, S. (2018).
of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 12(1), 59–79. Innovations in the restaurant industry—An exploratory study.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-01-2017-0010 Economics of Agriculture, 63(4), 1169–1186. https://doi.
Falk, F., & Miller, N. (1992). PsycNET record display—PsycNET. org/10.5937/ekoPolj1604169I
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-98610-000 Jacoby, J. (2002). Stimulus-organism-response reconsidered: An
Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2006). Consumer trust, perceived evolutionary step in modeling (consumer) behavior. Journal of
security and privacy policy: Three basic elements of loyalty to Consumer Psychology, 12, 51–57.
a web site. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(5–6), Javed, S., Rashidin, S., & Jian, W. (2018). What really matters? A
601–620. triumph of brand extension: Evidence from Engro Corporation.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equa- Journal of Politics, Economy and Management, 1(2), 1–16.
tion models with unobservable variables and measurement Josiam, B., Foster, C., Malave, R., & Baldwin, W. (2014). Assessing
error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https:// quality of food, service and customer experience at a restau-
doi.org/10.2307/3151312 rant: The case of a student run restaurant in the USA. Journal
Freitag, M., & Traunmüller, R. (2009). Spheres of trust: An empiri- of Service Research, 14(1), 49–73.
cal analysis of the foundations of particularised and generalised Kandampully, J., Zhang, T., & Bilgihan, A. (2015). Customer loy-
trust. European Journal of Political Research, 48(6), 782–803. alty: A review and future directions with a special focus on the
Goyal, A., Bhagtani, R., Singh, U. P., & Natchimuthu, N. (2019). hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary
A study on impact of consumer reviews on consumer behav- Hospitality Management, 27(3), 379–414. https://doi.
ior with reference to restaurants in Bengaluru. RESEARCH org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2014-0151
REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary, 4(2), Khorasani, S. T., & Almasifard, M. (2018). The development of a
532–538. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2580240 green supply chain dual-objective facility by considering dif-
Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effect of ferent levels of uncertainty. Journal of Industrial Engineering
price comparison advertising on buyers perception of acquisi- International, 14, 593–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-
tion value, transition value and behavioral intentions. Journal 017-0245-3
of Marketing, 62, 46–59. Kim, J., Morris, J. D., & Swait, J. (2008). Antecedents of true brand
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). loyalty. Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 99–117. https://doi.
Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall. org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367370208
16 SAGE Open

Kim, W. G., & Moon, Y. J. (2009). Customers’ cognitive, emo- evaluation approach. International Journal of Hospitality
tional, and actionable response to the servicescape: A test of Management, 43, 53–64.
the moderating effect of the restaurant type. International Liu, Y., & Jang, S. (2009). Perceptions of Chinese restaurants in
Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), 144–145. the U.S.: What affects customer satisfaction and behavioral
Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R., & Reece, J. (1999). Consumer research in intentions? International Journal of Hospitality Management,
the restaurant environment, part 1: A conceptual model of din- 28(3), 338–348.
ing satisfaction and return patronage. International Journal of Longart, P., Wickens, E., & Bakir, A. (2018). An investigation
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(5), 205–222. into restaurant attributes: A basis for a typology. International
Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 19(1), 95–
Wong, I. Y. F., & Georgiou, T. (2015). Exploring the validity of 123. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2017.1305314
a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries. Contemporary Lu, L., Chi, C. G., & Liu, Y. (2015). Authenticity, involvement,
Educational Psychology, 34(1), 67–76. and image: Evaluating tourist experiences at historic district.
Kline, R. B. (2005). PsycNET record display—PsycNET. http:// Tourism Management, 50, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-03476-000 tourman.2015.01.026
Konuk, F. A. (2019). The influence of perceived food quality, Mahdavi, G., & Daryaei, A. A. (2017). Factors affecting the audit
price fairness, perceived value and satisfaction on customers’ process and social theories. Corporate Governance, 17(4),
revisit and word-of-mouth intentions towards organic food 770–786. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2016-0079
restaurants. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, Martínez, P., & Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2013). CSR and customer
103–110. loyalty: The roles of trust, customer identification with the
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J., & Wong, V. (2002). company and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality
Principle of marketing (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall. Management, 35, 89–99.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). Marketing management (13th Mattila, A. S. (2001). Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty.
ed.). Pearson Education. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(6),
Krammer, S. M. S. (2019). Greasing the wheels of change: Bribery, 73–79.
institutions, and new product introductions in emerging mar- Meesala, A., & Paul, J. (2018). Service quality, consumer satisfac-
kets. Journal of Management, 45(5), 1889–1926. https://doi. tion and loyalty in hospitals: Thinking for the future. Journal of
org/10.1177/0149206317736588 Retailing and Consumer Services, 40(C), 261–269.
Kranzbühler, A.-M., Kleijnen, M. H., Morgan, R. E., & Teerling, M. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory
(2018). The multilevel nature of customer experience research: of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38.
An integrative review and research agenda. International Naderi, I., Paswan, A. K., & Guzman, F. (2018). Beyond the shadow
Journal of Management Reviews, 20, 433–456. https://doi. of a doubt: The effect of consumer knowledge on restaurant
org/10.1111/ijmr.12140 evaluation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 45,
Lähteenmäki, L., & van Trijp, J. C. M. (1995). Hedonic responses, 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.09.004
variety seeking tendency and expressed variety in sandwich Namin, A. (2017). Revisiting customers’ perception of service qual-
choices. Appetite, 24, 139–152. ity in fast food restaurants. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Lee, S., Chua, B.-L., & Han, H. (2020). Variety-seeking moti- Services, 34, 70–81.
vations and customer behaviors for new restaurants: An Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. (2007). Does food quality really matter in
empirical comparison among full-service, quick-casual, and restaurants? Its impact on customer satisfaction and behavioral
quick-service restaurants. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism intentions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31(3),
Management, 43, 220–231. 387–409.
Lee, S. M., Kim, S. Y., Yoo, S., & Song, T. H. (2019). The cross- Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. C. (2010). Effects of perceived service
buying effect in a multi-vendor loyalty program in Korea. Asian fairness on emotions, and behavioral intentions in restaurants.
Business & Management. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-019- European Journal of Marketing, 44(9/10), 1233–1259.
00088-w Newton, K. (2001, September). Social trust and political disaffection:
Lee, T. J., Cho, H., & Ahn, T.-H. (2012). Senior citizen satisfac- Social capital and democracy [Conference session]. EURESCO
tion with restaurant service quality. Journal of Hospitality Conference on Social capital, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Marketing & Management, 21(2), 215–226. Newton, K., & Zmerli, S. (2011). Three forms of trust and their
Liang, Y., & Ju, W. (2016). Interpersonal trust and ability of elderly association. European Political Science Review, 3(2), 169–
victims to perform activities of daily living in the Ya’an 200. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000330
earthquake reconstruction area, China. Disaster Medicine Nield, K., Kozak, M., & LeGrys, G. (2000). The role of food ser-
and Public Health Preparedness, 10(5), 739–745. https://doi. vice in tourist satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality
org/10.1017/dmp.2015.179 Management, 19(4), 375–384.
Lin, I. Y., & Mattila, A. S. (2010). Restaurant servicescape, ser- Nikhashemi, S. R., Paim, L., Osman, S., & Sidin, S. (2015). The
vice encounter, and perceived congruency on customers’ emo- significant role of customer brand identification towards brand
tions and satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & loyalty development: An empirical study among Malaysian
Management, 19(8), 819–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/193686 hypermarkets customer. Procedia—Social and Behavioral
23.2010.514547 Sciences, 207, 182–188.
Liu, C.-H. S., Su, C.-S., Gan, B., & Chou, S.-F. (2014). Effective Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence customer loyalty? Journal of
restaurant rating scale development and a mystery shopper Marketing, 63, 33–44.
Javed et al. 17

Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Consumer perceptions of of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31, 1432–1451.
interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transactions: A field https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2017-0627
survey approach. Journal of Marketing, 53, 21–35. https://doi. Rather, R. A., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2020). Experiential market-
org/10.2307/1251411 ing for tourism destinations. In The Routledge handbook of
Olson, J. C. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality perception tourism experience management and marketing. Routledge.
process: A cognitive model and an empirical test [Doctoral https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/experiential-market-
dissertation]. Purdue University. ing-tourism-destinations-raouf-ahmad-rather-linda-hollebee
Olson, J. C., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality per- k/e/10.4324/9780429203916-24
ception process. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Convention of Rather, R. A., Hollebeek, L. D., & Islam, J. U. (2019). Tourism-
the Association for Consumer Research, 2(17), 167–179. based customer engagement: The construct, antecedents,
Otto, A. S., Szymanski, D. M., & Varadarajan, R. (2020). Customer and consequences. The Service Industries Journal, 39,
satisfaction and firm performance: Insights from over a quar- 519–540.
ter century of empirical research. Journal of the Academy of Rather, R. A., & Sharma, J. (2017). Customer engagement for
Marketing Science, 48, 543–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/ evaluating customer relationships in hotel industry. European
s11747-019-00657-7 Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation, 8(1).
ÖZDEMİR, B., & NEBİOĞLU, O. (2018). Use of menu design Rather, R. A., Tehseen, S., & Parrey, S. H. (2018). Promoting cus-
techniques: Evidences from menu cards of restaurants in tomer brand engagement and brand loyalty through customer
Alanya. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research, 6(2), brand identification and value congruity. Spanish Journal of
205–227. https://doi.org/10.30519/ahtr.440123 Marketing—ESIC, 22(3), 319–337.
Pantelidis, I. S. (2010). Electronic meal experience: A content Ratner, R. K., Kahn, B. E., & Kahneman, D. (1999). Choosing
analysis of online restaurant comments. Cornell Hospitality less—Preferred experiences for the sake of variety. Journal of
Quarterly, 51(4), 483–491. Consumer Research, 26, 1–15.
Park, C. (2004). Efficient or enjoyable? Consumer values of eating- Robbins, B. G. (2016). From the general to the specific: How social
out and fast food restaurant consumption in Korea. International trust motivates relational trust. Social Science Research, 55,
Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(1), 87–94. 16–30.
Pei, K., & Ayub, A. (2015). Measuring customer satisfaction Rosenberg, M. (1957). Misanthropy and attitudes towards interna-
towards cafeteria services in primary health care setting: A tional affairs. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1, 340–345.
cross-section study among patients and health care providers Ryu, K., & Han, H. (2010). Influence of the quality of food, service,
in Bintulu, Sarawak. Open Access Library Journal, 2, 1–11. and physical environment on customer satisfaction and behav-
https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1101361 ioral intention in quick-casual restaurants: Moderating role of
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, Y., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). perceived price. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
Common method biases in behavioral research: A criti- 34(3), 310–329.
cal review of the literature and recommended remedies. Ryu, K., & Han, H. (2011). New or repeat customers: How does
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi. physical environment influence their restaurant experience?
org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3),
Prendergast, G., & Man, H. W. (2002). The influence of store image 599–611.
on store loyalty in Hong Kong’s quick service restaurant indus- Sandor Czellar. (2003). Consumer attitude toward brand extensions:
try. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 5(1), 45–59. An integrative model and research propositions. International
Qin, H., & Prybutok, V. (2009). Service quality, customer satis- Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(1), 97–115.
faction, and behavioral intentions in fast-food restaurants. Santouridis, I., & Trivellas, P. (2010). Investigating the impact of
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(1), service quality and customer satisfaction on customer loyalty
78–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566690910945886 in mobile telephony in Greece. The TQM Journal, 22(3), 330–
Rao, A., & Monroe, K. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and 343. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542731011035550
store name on buyers’ perceptions of product quality: An inte- Saul, R. J. S., Lee, C. W., Otto, R. P., & Jusni, M. P. (2018).
grative review. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 351–357. Identification of customer loyalty determinants in service
Rashidin, M. S., Javed, S., Chen, L., & Jian, W. (2020). Assessing industry. Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 6(4),
the competitiveness of Chinese multinational enterprises 171–178. https://doi.org/10.12691/jbms-6-4-5
development: Evidence from electronics sector. SAGE Open, Schreiber, J. B. (2008). Core reporting practices in structural
10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019898214 equation modeling. Research in Social and Administrative
Rashidin, M. S., Javed, S., Liu, B., & Jian, W. (2020). Ramifications Pharmacy, 4(2), 83–97.
of households’ nonfarm income on agricultural productivity: Seckler, M., Heinz, S., Forde, S., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2015).
Evidence from a rural area of Pakistan. SAGE Open, 10(1). Trust and distrust on the web: User experiences and website
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020902091 characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 39–50.
Rather, R. A. (2017). Investigating the impact of customer brand Segson, U., & Tan, C. C. (2018). Application of Stimulus-
identification on hospitality brand loyalty: A social identity organism-response (S-o-r) theory to study consumer behavior
perspective. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, of upscale restaurants in Northern Thailand. In Proceeding of
27(5), 487–513. the 6th AASI (pp. 701–708). http://aasic.org/proc/aasic/article/
Rather, R. A., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2019). Exploring and validat- view/422
ing social identification and social exchange-based driv- Serhan, M., & Carole, S. (2019). The impact of food service attri-
ers of hospitality customer loyalty. International Journal butes on customer satisfaction INA Rural University campus
18 SAGE Open

environment. International Journal of Food Science, 2019, Uslaner, E. M. (1999). Democracy and social capital. In M.
2154548. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2154548 Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 121–150). Cambridge
Sharma, J., & Rather, R. A. (2017, January 5–7). Investigating University Press.
the role of customer engagement in hospitality sector [Paper Uslaner, E. M. (2000). Producing and consuming trust. Political
presentation]. Annual Conference of Emerging Markets Science Quarterly, 115(4), 569–590.
Conference Board 2017: Reaching Consumers in Emerging Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1994). The importance of
Markets, Lucknow, India. services capes in leisure service settings. Journal of Services
So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B., & Wang, Y. (2013). The influ- Marketing, 8(3), 66–76.
ence of customer brand identification on hotel brand evaluation Wall, E. A., & Berry, L. L. (2007). The combined effects of the
and loyalty development. International Journal of Hospitality physical environment and employee behavior on customer
Management, 34, 31–41. perception of restaurant service quality. Cornell Hotel and
Song, H., Wang, J., & Han, H. (2019). Effect of image, satisfaction, Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 59–69.
trust, love, and respect on loyalty formation for name-brand cof- Weiss, R., Feinstein, A. H., & Dalbor, M. (2004). Customer satisfac-
fee shops. International Journal of Hospitality Management, tion of theme restaurant attributes and their influence on return
79, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.12.011 intent. Journal of Food Service Business Research, 7(2), 23–24.
Sunaryo, I. (2019). Effects of food quality, service quality, Wong, I. A., & Fong, V. H. I. (2010). Examining casino service
price, environment, and location towards customer loyalty quality in the Asian Las Vegas: An alternative approach.
of Indonesia’s local fast food industry. J@ti Undip: Jurnal Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19(8),
Teknik Industri, 14(3), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.14710/ 842–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2010.514553
jati.14.3.119-128 Xi, L., & Shuai, Z. (2009). Investigation of customer satisfaction in
Taheri, B., Gannon, M. J., & Kesgin, M. (2019). Visitors’ perceived student food service: An example of student cafeteria in NHH.
trust in sincere, authentic, and memorable heritage experi- International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(1),
ences. Service Industries Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/026 113–124.
42069.2019.1642877 Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Cox, J. L. (2004). The price is unfair! A
Teas, R. K., & Agarwal, S. (2000). The effects of extrinsic prod- conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. Journal of
uct cues on consumers’ perceptions of quality, sacrifice, and Marketing, 68(4), 1–15.
value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), Yu, Y., & Dean, A. (2001). The contribution of emotional satis-
278–290. faction to consumer loyalty. International Journal of Service
Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020). Personality and Industry Management, 12(3), 234–250.
prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Yuksel, A., & Yuksel, F. (2002). Market segmentation based on
Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 30–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/ tourists’ dining preferences. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
bul0000217 Research, 26(4), 315–331.
Thomas, S. (2013). Linking customer loyalty to customer satis- Zandstra, E. H., De Graaf, C., & Van Trijp, H. C. M. (2000). Effects
faction and store image: A structural model for retail stores. of variety and repeated in-home consumption on product
Decision, 40, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-013- acceptance. Appetite, 35(2), 113–119.
0007-z Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and
Tone, E. B., Nahmias, E., Bakeman, R., Kvaran, T., Brosnan, S. F., value: A means and model and synthesis of evidence. Journal
Fani, N., & Schroth, E. A. (2019). Social anxiety and social of Marketing, 52, 2–22.
behavior: A test of predictions from an evolutionary model. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behav-
Clinical Psychological Science, 7(1), 110–126. https://doi. ioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing,
org/10.1177/2167702618794923 60, 31–46.
Trafialek, J., Czarniecka-Skubina, E., Kulaitiené, J., & Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (1996). Services marketing.
Vaitkevičienė, N. (2020). Restaurant’s multidimensional McGraw-Hill.
evaluation concerning food quality, service, and sustainable Zhang, T., Chen, J., & Hu, B. (2019). Authenticity, quality, and
practices: A cross-national case study of Poland and Lithuania. loyalty: Local food and sustainable tourism experience.
Sustainability, 12, 234. Sustainability, 11(12), 1–18.
Truong, N., Nisar, T., Knox, D., & Prabhakar, G. (2017). The Zulfiqar, S., Sarwar, B., Aziz, S., Ejaz Chandia, K., & Khan,
influences of cleanliness and employee attributes on per- M. K. (2019). An analysis of influence of business simula-
ceived service quality in restaurants in a developing country. tion games on business school students’ attitude and inten-
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality tion toward entrepreneurial activities. Journal of Educational
Research, 11(4), 608–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR Computing Research, 57(1), 106–130. https://doi.org/10.1177
-11-2016-0111 /0735633117746746