The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1757-9880.htm

Online food
Consumers’ persuasion in online delivery
food delivery systems systems
Nefike Gunden, Cristian Morosan and Agnes L. DeFranco
Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, University of
Houston, Houston, Texas, USA 495
Received 8 October 2019
Revised 9 March 2020
Abstract 28 May 2020
Accepted 3 June 2020
Purpose – This study aims to develop and validate a conceptual model that explains consumers’ persuasion
by the information available on online food delivery systems (OFDS). The study validated consumers’ price
savings orientation as an antecedent of two types of browsing behaviors (utilitarian and hedonic). Browsing
and social influences were examined as predictors of persuasion.
Design/methodology/approach – A literature review was conducted to determine constructs that
constituted the best conceptual model for this study. To test the model, an online instrument was developed, and
data were collected with the help of a global marketing panel company from 333 consumers who have used OFDS.
Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used to test the hypotheses of the model.
Findings – The study found that consumers’ price savings orientation strongly influenced both types of
browsing. However, while utilitarian browsing did not influence consumers’ persuasion, hedonic browsing
and social influence were strong predictors of persuasion.
Research limitations/implications – Given the uniqueness of the study that stems from its task-
technology context and the type of product being purchased, this study advances the literature in hospitality
information technology, especially in the relatively neglected foodservice information technology area. The study
also provides implications for both restaurants and OFDS as critical stakeholders in this important area.
Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to examine consumers’
persuasion in a food-service online retail context. This study is also the first to examine both types of
browsing as distinct constructs in hospitality and to explain their differential role in persuasion.
Keywords Online food delivery systems, Persuasion, Browsing, Price savings orientation
Paper type Research paper

摘要
论在线送餐系统中的顾客劝服
摘要 – 研究目的 – 本论文提出和验证了在线送餐系统（OFDS）解释顾客劝服的理论模型。本论文
检测了顾客省钱心理作为两种浏览行为的动力（功利型和享乐型）。浏览行为和社会影响作为顾客
劝服的因子在本文中进行了检验。.

研究设计/方法/途径 – 本论文通过审阅文献以找到最佳模型。通过在线采样的方式, 与全球营销公

司合作, 搜集数据, 样本数量为333位使用过OFDS的顾客。分析方法为验证性因子分析和结构方程模
式以验证假设模型。.

研究结果 – 研究发现顾客省钱心理对两种浏览模式有着重大影响。然而, 功利型浏览行为并不影响

顾客劝服, 但是享乐型浏览和社会影响成为劝服的强烈动力。.

研究理论限制/意义 – 由于本论文的独特性在于其任务-科技背景和购买产品类别, 本论文对酒店信

息科技的文献有着延展性贡献, 特别是在较少关注的餐饮服务信息技术领域。本论文还对饭店和
OFDS, 两大在此领域重要利益相关者提供了启示。. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Technology
Vol. 11 No. 3, 2020
pp. 495-509
This research was conducted with the support of Hospitality Financial & Technology Professionals © Emerald Publishing Limited
1757-9880
(HFTP) DOI 10.1108/JHTT-10-2019-0126
JHTT 研究原创性/价值 – 本论文是首篇检测在线餐饮销售领域中的顾客劝服问题。此外, 本论文也是首篇
检测两种类别浏览行为, 以及检验其行为对顾客劝服的特别作用。.
11,3 关键词 – 在线送餐系统、劝服、浏览、省钱心理
文章类型 – 研究型论文

Introduction
In the food delivery arena, the development and popularity among consumers of shared
496 economy delivery models (e.g. consumers relying on parts of services delivered by other
consumers in exchange for monetary incentives) led to the development of increasingly
popular online food delivery systems (thereafter called OFDS). Recently, many participants
to the US restaurant industry subscribed to such distribution models, marking a significant
departure from their legacy distribution models, based on storefront website and phone
ordering (He et al., 2019). Concepts such as Uber Eats, FavorDelivery or DoorDash have
designed websites and mobile apps that aggregate supply from multiple restaurants and
offer consumers opportunities to browse, choose, order, and fulfill food orders (DoorDash,
2018). However, to be successful, OFDS must rely on high-quality retail interfaces, designed
to guide customers through effective and valuable purchasing.
Perhaps the most critical feature of any Web retail interface, including OFDS, is its ability to
persuade consumers (Kim and Fesenmaier, 2008). Persuasion represents a deliberated change
of individuals’ attitudes (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) and behaviors (Fogg, 2003) and has been
viewed as an important concept in marketing and consumer psychology. For OFDS and many
restaurants represented on OFDS to survive and thrive, persuasion may be the only answer to
the perennial challenge of aligning consumers’ goals with those of the marketers. While
persuasion has been discussed extensively in the general marketing literature (Cyr et al., 2018),
its understanding of hospitality is very limited (Morosan et al., 2014). However, no recent
literature discusses persuasion in foodservice, therefore marking a critical research gap. OFDS
can reflect a specific motivational set of circumstances because lead time is very short,
commoditization of food products sold on OFDS is high and most importantly food products
address a basic need. Addressing this gap could lead to advancing the general understanding
of the processes by which consumers make decisions in online foodservice environments.
Accordingly, this study’s purpose is to explicate consumer persuasion in OFDS
environments. Specifically, this study investigates what determines consumers to change their
behaviors (e.g. purchasing additional or different food items, or from a different restaurant than
originally intended) as a result of visiting OFDS. Grounded on persuasion theory – particularly
on Fogg’s (2003) notion of persuasive information on information system (IS) – this study
developed a conceptual model reflecting the interactions between consumers and persuasive
information presented online, which lead to consumer persuasion (Fogg, 2003). Specifically, this
study used online browsing – utilitarian and hedonic browsing (Zheng et al., 2019) – as critical
elements in influencing persuasion (Fogg, 2003). However, as OFDS decision-making has
several unique characteristics (e.g. products are highly perishable, the branding landscape is
highly fragmented), consumers are typically making purchasing decisions when they are
driven by unique motivational circumstances. Therefore, to reflect this unique retail
environment, the development of the conceptual model required the inclusion of additional
theoretical concepts without compromising parsimony.
First, considering consumers’ innate motivations for purchasing, this study adds consumers’
price savings orientation to the model. Price savings orientation is critical to OFDS as:

the restaurant market is characterized by strong price fragmentation, indicating
that there are substantial segments of consumers that evoke price savings goals
when consuming food products; and

the restaurant industry uses price tactics such as discounting, therefore potentially Online food
stimulating consumers to seek price savings (Kotler et al., 2016). delivery
Second, recognizing the general social element of food product consumption, even in systems
consumers’ home environments, the concept of social influences has been added to the
conceptual model. While social influences have been used in the hospitality IS adoption
literature (Morosan and DeFranco, 2016), its role in influencing OFDS-related behaviors
remains unknown. 497

Review of literature
Theoretical framework for persuasion
Scholars have examined the concept of persuasion based on a variety of theoretical
foundations. For example, the popular elaboration likelihood model (Brinol and Petty, 2009)
proposes that an individual’s persuasion is influenced by message characteristics in addition to
consumers’ likelihood to elaborate (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). Moreover, while scholars have
traditionally concentrated on person-to-person persuasion (Campbell and Kirmani, 2000), recent
research presents evidence of the effectiveness of indirect persuasion, where consumers are
facing persuasion attempts through techniques that are rather subconscious and subtle (e.g.
framing, foot-in-the-door) (Gamliel and Herstein, 2012). Another recent insight illustrates
concepts such as self-persuasion, where consumers rely on self-generated information to
change their attitudes (Bernritter et al., 2017). Yet, regardless of the theoretical approach taken,
scholars tend to agree that individuals can be persuaded by well-designed persuasive
information, especially in the absence of person-to-person persuasion.
Persuasion remains an elusive concept to operationalize. While persuasion has been reflected
by measuring perceived persuasiveness of a message/information (Cesario et al., 2004), it is most
commonly measured using concepts that reflect the end state achieved by persuasion. Common
types of measures included attitudes toward a source of information, a message (Cyr et al., 2018;
Petty and Cacioppo, 1984) or a marketing tactic (Isaac and Grayson, 2016). However, given the
accuracy offered by behavioral measures, recent research has increasingly used behavioral
measures that ultimately evaluate persuasion. Notable examples include the utilization of
measures such as tipping amounts (Bernritter et al., 2017), purchasing intentions (Janssen et al.,
2016) and purchasing choices (Hornik et al., 2017) as a result of persuasion. Thus, following the
recent literature, this study operationalizes persuasion by tapping into the changes of choices
made by consumers as a result of interacting with the information available on OFDS websites
in the context of a complete purchase.
This study is founded on the thesis that IS can influence consumers to change initial
behaviors in a non-coerced manner by interacting with IS by making the change in behavior
easy to achieve (Fogg, 2003). The intended effects of persuasion online extend beyond
purchasing (e.g. engaging in healthy behaviors, etc.; Fogg, 2003). Most importantly, the
thesis postulates that persuasion occurs in an environment characterized by endogenous
intent, that is, embedded into the system’s design (Fogg, 2003). This thesis has been at the
foundation of a variety of studies (Kaptein et al., 2015), including in hospitality and tourism
(Atwood and Morosan, 2015) and represents the most appropriate theoretical foundation for
this study because OFDS are designed to facilitate purchasing based on a multitude of
information about foodservice products in a simple manner, therefore persuading
consumers by simplification, OFDS guides consumers through sequential processes of
purchasing, which could result guided persuasion and OFDS offer a variety of product
customizations, therefore further persuading consumers by increasing the relevance of the
end products (Fogg, 2003).
JHTT Price savings orientation
11,3 Price-saving orientation refers to the ability to obtain economic benefits (Escobar-Rodríguez
and Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014). The consumer behavior theory recognizes price-savings
orientation as a major motivator of consumers’ online purchasing (Jensen, 2012). This
important consideration is grounded in studies founded on neo-classic technology adoption
theories such as the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT; Venkatesh
498 et al., 2012). Such theoretical grounds also align with neoclassic economics theory (i.e. utility
maximization), postulating that consumers are always acting to maximize their economic
utility. Price-saving orientation is essential to enabling consumers to compare prices of
online products by browsing different websites while purchasing (Punj, 2012). Price-saving
orientation has been applied in a variety of contexts as a predictor of IS use (Gupta and
Arora, 2017), including in hospitality and tourism (Escobar-Rodríguez and Carvajal-Trujillo,
2014) and is highly relevant to OFDS.
Given the multitude of pricing tactics used by the restaurants to compensate for periods
of low demand (Dopson and Hayes, 2008), prices on OFDS may vary. Consumers use
platforms such as OFDS to compare food products based on price (Yeo et al., 2017) and other
attributes, which may trigger motivations to purchase products at a favorable price
whenever available (Ollila, 2011). To gain the knowledge necessary to find such products/
prices, consumers are likely to intensify their information searches to relevant areas of the
platform (Pirolli, 2009). The primary method of intensifying such searches is browsing. As
browsing can be divided based on two primary motivations – utilitarian and hedonic –
consumers are going to intensify both types of browsing. This is because consumers seek to
appropriate both utilitarian benefits (e.g. ease of use, comparable price) and hedonic benefits
(e.g. enjoyment, fun and best deal) while purchasing online (Bilgihan et al., 2015).
Accordingly, in OFDS, consumers are likely to engage in both utilitarian and hedonic Web
browsing, according to the following hypotheses:

H1. Price-saving orientation is positively related to utilitarian Web browsing.

H2. Price-saving orientation is positively related to hedonic Web browsing.

Browsing
Browsing is referred to as the first step of online shopping that motivates consumers to
search for information and make a purchasing decision (Park et al., 2012). In an online
shopping context, browsing involves a process that allows consumers to gather information
and eliminate potential risks of online shopping (e.g. financial, security; Park et al., 2012).
Recently, scholars have increased their efforts to study both types of browsing, as browsing
is relevant to impulsive purchasing behavior (Rezaei et al., 2016). Both utilitarian and
hedonic browsing have been validated as motivation elements that reflect consumers’
shopping experiences (Zheng et al., 2019).

Utilitarian browsing
Utilitarian browsing reflects the characteristics of a website (e.g. easy to use and navigate),
which drives goal-oriented consumers to focus on task accomplishment (Bilgihan et al., 2015).
Consumers browse websites in a utilitarian way to obtain information related to products
(Zheng et al., 2019). When consumers perceive utilitarian value during browsing, they are likely
to purchase a specific product without exiting the site (Nusair et al., 2008). Grounded in general
technology adoption theory, utilitarian browsing has been validated as an antecedent of
consumers’ online shopping behaviors, including hospitality and tourism. The current study
considers utility as a characteristic of OFDS, which is likely to affect goal-directed consumers’ Online food
use of the information on such systems in their purchasing decisions. Specifically, OFDS delivery
provides special offers (e.g. discounts, various food items and detailed information about food
items) that may help consumers to accomplish their tasks. In general, OFDS provides such
systems
information to enhance consumers’ experience, and it can persuade consumers to use OFDS to
order. The following hypothesis was developed based on the discussion above:

H3. Utilitarian browsing is positively related to consumers’ persuasion when using 499
OFDS.

Hedonic browsing
In online shopping, consumers may experience various emotions (e.g. enjoyment while
seeking information) when they browse websites in a hedonic way (Park et al., 2012).
Hedonic Web browsing reflects consumers’ fulfillment of a desire for fun and delightful
shopping experience, even when the purchase is not necessarily completed (Moe, 2003).
More precisely, hedonic browsing reflects consumers’ hedonic motivations related to IS.
Hedonic motivations have been validated as predictors of IS use in a variety of IS contexts
and industries, as suggested by neoclassic IS adoption theories such as UTAUT2
(Venkatesh et al., 2012). Hedonic browsing has been recognized as an important concept in
hospitality and tourism. For example, hotel guests tend to be attracted by the online hotel
booking environment when they experience the hedonic aspects of websites (e.g. animated
images, appealing visual layouts; Ozturk et al., 2016). Similarly, in OFDS contexts, the
systems provide visual attractiveness (e.g. gamification, appealing food pictures) to fulfill
consumers’ desire to have a delightful experience. Thus, hedonic Web browsing may
persuade consumers when using OFDS, according to the following hypothesis:

H4. Hedonic browsing is positively related to consumers’ persuasion when using OFDS.

Social influence
Social influence is defined as the extent to which an individual perceives the confirmation of
certain behaviors from his/her peers (Venkatesh et al., 2012). Social influence has been
viewed as fundamental to IS adoption theory (e.g. UTAUT and UTAUT2; Venkatesh et al.,
2003; Venkatesh et al., 2012), where it was validated as an antecedent of intentions to use
various IS (Karahanna et al., 1999). Social influence is highly relevant to OFDS for three
main reasons. First, the consumption of food products ordered via OFDS is mostly done in a
social environment. That is, consumers reconstruct the dining experience at their
residences/offices, in the presence of their family/friends/coworkers. Second, OFDS enables
consumers to compare restaurants and food products based on various ratings. Consumers
could be persuaded or continue with an original choice based on the evaluation of other
consumers (e.g. star rating, reviews; Kupor et al., 2018). This logic aligns with the
technological determinism theory of persuasion, where the medium becomes the persuasive
message (McLuhan and Fiore, 1967). Finally, persuasion knowledge theory postulates that
persuasion relies on multiple types of information about persuasion attempts, which
consumers have or learn during persuasion (Friestad and Wright, 1994). Therefore, it is
expected that the social influence of important referents influences consumers’ persuasion
when using OFDS, according to the following hypothesis:

H5. Social influence is positively related to consumers’ persuasion when using OFDS.
JHTT This study’s conceptual model is illustrated in Figure 1.
11,3
Methodology
Instrument development
An online instrument was developed based on established scales found in the relevant literature.
Price saving-orientation was measured using three items adapted from Tomas Escobar-
500 Rodríguez and Carvajal-Trujillo (2013). The scales for both utilitarian Web browsing (five items)
and hedonic Web browsing (four items) were adapted from Park et al. (2012). The scale for social
influence (four items) was adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2012). In addition, the scale for
persuasion was measured by using six items that were adapted from Atwood and Morosan
(2015). The items were adapted to reflect the type of persuasion that could manifest on OFDS
(e.g. changing the original food order choice and reduce the use of alternative ordering methods).
All items were measured on a five-point Likert-type rating scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 =
strongly agree). In addition, the study collected information on the respondents’ gender, age,
income, education, frequency of dining out and spending for each person when dining.

Instrument administration
The instrument was published on Qualtrics, an online survey platform. It included an initial
screening question to confirm whether respondents have eaten in a restaurant within a
period of 12 months prior to the study. A scenario was given respondents, which included
the basic description of OFDS (e.g. that they are technology systems, such as websites or
mobile applications [apps]) and an explanation of how OFDS work. The scenario also
discussed that consumers can review their order information, such as menu items, pricing
and estimated delivery time and that once payment is confirmed, the order is placed.

Browsing
utilitarian
H1
H3
Price
savings
orientation H2
Browsing H4
Persuasion
hedonic

H5

Social
Figure 1.
Conceptual model
and hypotheses
The data were collected upon hiring a global marketing panel company, which had access to Online food
panels of consumers who are representative of the US general population. In line with the delivery
sample size requirements for these types of structural analyses, a target sample size of 300 was
systems
deemed appropriate (Hair et al., 2009). A pilot test was conducted with a subsample of 50
respondents from the same population to identify issues with the design of the instrument in
terms of the clarity of the questions and the flow of the survey before the actual data were
collected. In March 2019, the marketing panel company sent out invitations to their panels until 501
this sample size was achieved and slightly exceeded. A secondary screening question was
used – whether or not the respondents had used an OFDS. Only the respondents who have
used an OFDS where retained in the current data set, resulting in a final sample size of 333.

Results
Preliminary analyses
The preliminary analysis indicated that the sample was relatively balanced between males and
females (55.2% females) and that the age groups reflected the structure of the general
population of the USA (Census, 2013). Specifically, the 30–49 age group was the largest,
accounting for almost half of the data. In terms of income, most respondents were situated
between $50,000 and $100,000, while most of them had high school and bachelor degrees
completed (Table 1). As for dining behavior, most respondents dined out 1–9 times per month,
with a spending level of less than $19 per person. Generally, the spending per person of less
than $40 accounted for the majority of the respondents (Table 2).

Validation of the conceptual model

The analysis continued with an evaluation of the measurement model, using the structural
equation modeling software Mplus 8.0 (Muthèn and Muthèn, 2017). The evaluation was

Characteristics n (%)

Gender
Male 147 44.8
Female 181 55.2
Age
24 or under 45 13.5
25–29 55 16.5
30–49 166 49.9
50–59 34 10.2
60 or over 33 9.9
Income (annual per household)
$50,000 or less 118 36.5
$50,001–$100,000 124 38.4
$100,001–$150,000 52 16.1
$150,001–$200,000 21 6.5
Over $200,000 8 2.5
Education (degrees completed)
High school or equivalent 122 36.7 Table 1.
Bachelors or equivalent 113 33.9 Demographic
Graduate (masters, doctorates, law, medicine) 82 24.6 characteristics of
Others 16 4.8 respondents
JHTT Characteristics n (%)
11,3
Frequency of dining out per month
1–9 times 200 63.5
10–19 times 42 13.3
20–29 times 28 8.9
30–50 times 45 14.3
502
Spending per person
$19 or less 107 33.1
Table 2. $20–$39 87 26.9
Behavioral $40–$59 40 12.4
characteristics of $60–$99 49 15.2
respondents $100 or more 40 12.4

conducted using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), as suggested by Hair et al. (2009). Given
the multivariate non-normality of the data, the estimator that was robust to multivariate
normality violations was used in the CFA and subsequent analysis (Muthèn and Muthèn,
2017). The measurement model had a chi-squared of 312.921 and df of 178, corresponding to a
normed chi-squared of 1.75, thus indicating a good fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1992). Several
relative and absolute fit indexes were calculated, as follows: comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.958,
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.950 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) =
0.049 (confidence interval for RMSEA was [0.040; 0.058]). Overall, all of these fit measures
indicated that the model fit the data well (Toh et al., 2006).
First, the reliability of the instrument was assessed by examining the composite construct
reliabilities (CCRs) of each latent construct. With values exceeding 0.8, all of the latent
constructs’ measurements were deemed reliable (Hair et al., 2009). Convergent validity was
examined by calculating the factor loadings for each item in the model. As each item in the
model had a loading of at least 0.685, convergent validity was established. An additional
measure of convergent validity required the calculation of the average variance extracted
(AVE) from each latent construct. With the lowest value being 0.540, all the latent constructs
have demonstrated appropriate convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Finally,
discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the square in the construct correlations with
the AVE scores corresponding to each construct. Discriminant validity is established when the
correlation of two constructs is lower than those constructs’ AVE scores (Hair et al., 2009). In
this study, the AVE scores exceeded their corresponding inter-construct correlations, therefore
confirming appropriate discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2009; Tables 3 and 4).
The analysis continued with a structural equation modeling approach (Muthèn and
Muthèn, 2017). The analysis yielded the following fit indexes: chi-squared = 368.261 and
df = 182, corresponding to a normed chi-squared of 2.02. CFI was 0.941, TLI was 0.932 and
RMSEA was 0.057 (with a confidence interval between 0.049 and 0.066). Overall, these
measures indicated a good fit for the structural model, making it appropriate to test the
hypotheses of this model (Hair et al., 2009; Figure 2). The analysis confirmed consumers’
price savings orientation as a significant predictor of both utilitarian and hedonic browsing.
However, while both effects were strong, consumers’ price savings orientation had a
stronger impact on hedonic browsing ( b = 0.827, p < 0.001) than on utilitarian browsing
( b = 0.686, p < 0.001). Of the three hypothesized predictors of persuasion, utilitarian
browsing was not validated as a significant predictor of persuasion. Yet, hedonic browsing
was a strong predictor of persuasion (b = 0.443, p < 0.001), whereas social influence had a
 CCRs
Online food
Constructs and items (Loadings) delivery
systems
Price-saving orientation (Escobar-Rodríguez and Carvajal-Trujillo, 2013) 0.814
PSO1: I can save money by examining the prices of different restaurants listed on online
food delivery systems 0.730
PSO2: I like to search for cheap deals from different restaurants listed on online food
delivery systems 0.767 503
PSO3: Restaurant list in offer better value for my money 0.811
Utilitarian Web browsing (Park et al., 2012) 0.898
BROUTI1: I browse websites to buy better items in value 0.816
BROUTI2: I browse websites to gather information about products 0.753
BROUTI3: I look around websites to comparison shop 0.779
BROUTI4: I browse websites in order to get additional value as much as possible 0.816
BROUTI5: I browse for efficient shopping online 0.829
Hedonic Web browsing (Park et al., 2012) 0.824
BROHED1: While Web browsing I am able to feel relaxed 0.700
BROHED2: During Web browsing, I am very excited, like playing 0.781
BROHED3: I enjoy Web browsing enough to forget a time out 0.743
BROHED4: I look around at items on the Internet just for fun 0.712
Social influence (Venkatesh et al., 2012) 0.922
SOC1: People who influence my behavior think that I should use online food delivery
systems 0.894
SOC2: People who are important to me think that I should use online food delivery
systems 0.905
SOC4: People whose opinions that I value prefer that I use online food delivery systems
to order food 0.88
Persuasion (Atwood and Morosan, 2015) 0.890
PERSU1: The information available on the system persuaded me to change my original
restaurant choice 0.781
PERSU2: The information available on the system persuaded me to change my original
food item(s) choice(s) 0.815
PERSU3: The information available on the system persuaded me to change my original
delivery choice (for example, from delivery to pickup) 0.796
PERSU4: The information available on the system made me interested in trying out a
new food item or restaurant sooner than I originally planned 0.779
PERSU5: The information available on the system caused me to reduce my use of
Table 3.
alternative ordering methods (for example, ordering by phone, in person) 0.687
PERSU6: Using online food ordering system caused me to reduce the number of times I Reliability and
actually dined in a restaurant 0.684 validity

AVE/squared Price savings Utilitarian Hedonic Social

correlations orientation browsing browsing influence Persuasion

Price savings
orientation 0.593
Utilitarian browsing 0.402 0.639
Hedonic browsing 0.508 0.500 0.540
Social influence 0.370 0.133 0.411 0.798
Persuasion 0.513 0.171 0.464 0.536 0.576 Table 4.
Notes: The values on the diagonal (italic) represent the average variance extracted from each latent Reliability and
construct. The values under the diagonal represent the squared inter-construct correlations validity results
JHTT R 2 = 0.48
11,3
Browsing
0.686 utilitarian

n.s.
504 Price
savings R 2 = 0.61
orientation 0.827 R 2 = 0.69

Browsing 0.443
Persuasion
hedonic

0.498

Social

Figure 2.
Model testing results
Notes: χ2 = 368.261; df = 182; Normed; χ2 = 2.02; CFI = 0.941; TLI = 0.932; RMSEA = 0.057

stronger impact on persuasion ( b = 0.498, p < 0.001). The independent variables explained
substantial portions of the variance in the dependent variables. Specifically, price savings
orientation explained 48% of the variance in utilitarian browsing and 69% of the variance in
hedonic browsing. Finally, the predictors of persuasion explained 61% of the variance of
persuasion, indicating that this model is appropriate for the examination of persuasion on
OFDS (Table 5).

Discussion
Consumers’ price savings orientation was found to be a strong predictor of both hedonic and
utilitarian browsing. This could be explained by the fact that in OFDS, consumers are
generally looking for value, given that by design, OFDS are presenting consumers a variety

Hypotheses Path Coefficient p-value Information

H1 Price-savings orientation ! Utilitarian 0.686 p < 0.001 Supported

Web browsing
H2 Price-savings orientation ! Hedonic 0.827 p < 0.001 Supported
Web browsing
H3 Utilitarian Web browsing ! n.s. p > 0.001 Not supported
Table 5. Persuasion
Hypothesis testing H4 Hedonic Web browsing ! Persuasion 0.443 p < 0.001 Supported
results H5 Social influence ! Persuasion 0.498 p < 0.001 Supported
of options from which to choose the one that makes them appropriate the highest economic Online food
value. The fact that price savings orientation is a stronger predictor of hedonic browsing delivery
than of utilitarian browsing indicates that consumers are always looking for economic value
and are willing to spend extra time to learn more about available products, even though
systems
such information may not necessarily result in an immediate purchase. In addition, the
relationship between price savings orientation and utilitarian browsing can be explained by
the utilitarian views in consumer behavior (Babin et al., 1994), according to which
consumers seek to optimize their purchasing experience (including browsing for desired 505
products) by optimizing the time spent searching for such products.
An interesting, yet surprising finding is the non-significant relationship between
utilitarian browsing and persuasion. This could be explained by the fact that consumers
may be so strongly motivated to complete a task that they would ignore all the persuasive
information available on OFDS and proceed with their predetermined task. For example, a
consumer may be motivated to buy a cheap pizza will only browse the system until he finds
that cheap pizza, and will place the order without hesitation or without even considering
other offers available online. Such behaviors can be also explained by the unique nature of
the products to be purchased on OFDS. This finding emphasizes the strength of the
utilitarian motivations that guide the consumers to make purchases online and shows that
even with regard to unique hospitality products or systems, consumers retain the strong
motivational structure that guides them to this purchasing environment in the first place.
The most interesting finding is the strong impact of hedonic browsing on persuasion.
This could be explained by the fact that consumers view OFDS in a similar manner to other
electronic commerce websites or retail environments, where they can take their time to
browse the system for various products and allow themselves to change their mind vis-à-vis
purchasing those products. The importance of this finding is underlined by the fact that
hedonic browsing can be associated with a change in attitudes, which eventually changes
the behavior of consumers online. Such change can stimulate hedonic browsing behaviors in
consumers who have a price savings orientation, as they are continuously looking for value,
yet they do not know exactly where to find the value unless they browse. Therefore, a
typical scenario could be illustrated by consumers who are price savings oriented and do not
feel pressed by time to engage in hedonic browsing until they find a product that is valuable.
Finally, it is critical to recognize the strong role of social influence on persuasion. This
finding reinforces the notion that the social environment of a consumer plays a critical role in
changing the consumer’s attitudes when the consumer is immersed in a retail environment
online. While this finding was true in the context of high-value products, such as visiting a
destination, the study shows that such influences are also motivating consumers in relatively
low-value purchases, such as in OFDS. Moreover, this finding can be explained by the fact that
the consumption of products purchased on OFDS sometimes involves social consumption, and
that some orders may need the input of multiple consumers, not just the consumer who is
browsing, during the broad process of decision-making.

Contributions
Theoretical contributions
The primary contribution is the examination of persuasion in the context of OFDS. As these
systems are becoming adopted enthusiastically by the consumers, examining persuasion on
OFDS systems represents an important step forward in understanding the role of technology in
modern foodservice. Despite the unique characteristics of online foodservice retail, OFDS can
exercise persuasion on consumers. Additionally, this study takes a step forward and
conceptualizes persuasion as the extent to which consumers change their minds while visiting
JHTT the system with respect to the orders that they place. As the end behaviors resulting from
11,3 persuasion in the study are actual behaviors (e.g. customers actually used OFDS and made
purchases as a result of persuasion), this study occupies a unique position in the literature,
which relies predominantly on attitudinal measures (Brinol and Petty, 2009).
The second important contribution is the conceptualization of browsing behaviors as two
distinct behaviors, namely, utilitarian and hedonic. As most of the literature recognizes
506 browsing as a unified construct, the study provides evidence that the two constructs can be
regarded as conceptually distinct. This finding helps position the study uniquely in the
hospitality literature and provides a blueprint for further conceptualizations of browsing
behavior on other systems and industries. The third important contribution is the validation
of the relationship between consumers’ price savings orientation and the two types of
browsing behaviors. This is important as:
(1) consumers looking for price savings will intensify their utilitarian searches for
information that will result in a good deal; and
(2) price savings orientation will also influence hedonic browsing, with a direct impact
on persuasion.

Finally, this study links social influence to persuasion, which advances the hospitality
marketing literature. While social influences have been proven to influence behavior (Wang
et al., 2019), they have been validated as antecedents of targeted behaviors. In contrast, this
study shows that social influence is likely to impact the way consumers make spontaneous
behavioral choices as a result of interacting with an IS, and likely to lay the foundation for
research on spontaneous purchasing in foodservice.

Practical contributions
Because of the intermediary character of OFDS, the implications stemming from this study
are valuable especially to restaurants as suppliers and OFDS as platform operators. To
assist consumers in making their food product choices and have a positive ordering
experience, it is important for restaurants and OFDS to cooperate and share information.
The entire ordering experience with OFDS should be viewed in its entirety after the food
products are delivered and received by the consumers. Restaurants need to understand that
although OFDS are not their employees, their platforms and drivers are extensions of the
restaurants. OFDS operators can be the eyes and ears of restaurants to relate both positive
and negative information from the consumers back to the restaurants.
This study confirmed that consumers’ price savings orientation was a significant
predictor of both utilitarian and hedonic browsing. Thus, consumers wishing to save on
food orders are likely to engage in extensive browsing on OFDS. Therefore, to stimulate
browsing, both restaurants and OFDS need to emphasize the price savings that could be
realized by ordering using OFDS, relative to the legacy systems. Marketing campaigns
focusing on price savings can also be developed to attract consumers to visit OFDS.
Moreover, using analytics, both restaurants and OFDS can be provided an accurate picture
of the products that are discounted and how consumers see those products online, and then
restaurants and OFDS can adjust the manner in which such products are merchandized.
A third important practical contribution is the role of hedonic browsing. To stimulate
hedonic browsing, restaurants can provide a variety of information that accompanies and
describes the products offered online. Specifically, the origin of ingredients, history of
specific dishes, methods of preparation, popularity indexes, modifications from original
recipes can all be presented to consumers in an enticing manner, allowing the consumers to
spend extra time learning about the products that are being ordered. Moreover, OFDS can
provide comparisons among multiple products from multiple restaurants, allowing Online food
consumers to make choices based on the attributes that they find relevant through hedonic delivery
browsing. This type of browsing is important as it directly facilitates the extent to which
consumers are persuaded to switch from one product to another in the course of ordering.
systems

Limitations and directions for further research

The first limitation of the study is the broad conceptualization of persuasion. This study used 507
this broad conceptualization to understand the overarching types of behaviors that can result
from browsing and exposure to persuasive information on OFDS. A second limitation is the
general use of the OFDS term. Given that this was the first study conducted in the USA, the
OFDS term was chosen to be broad. Given that this study is the initial step in understanding
how consumers are persuaded on OFDS, there are several important additional opportunities
for further research. Specifically, researchers can add multiple system-related variables to
conceptual models to determine how consumers’ perceptions of various system attributes
influence persuasion. Moreover, mediation effects were not constructed as part of the model for
this current study. As OFDS is a platform of online retail, there may be factors that could
mediate consumers’ persuasion on OFDS such as system perceptions, age, gender, or
behavioral characteristics such as frequency of dining out.

References
Atwood, M. and Morosan, C. (2015), “An investigation of the persuasive effects of firm-consumer
communication dyads using Facebook”, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 7
No. 3, pp. 295-313.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-656.
Bernritter, S.F., van Ooijen, I. and Müller, B.C.N. (2017), “Self-persuasion as marketing technique: the
role of consumers’ involvement”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 Nos 5/6, pp. 1075-1090.
Bilgihan, A., Nusair, K., Okumus, F. and Cobanoglu, C. (2015), “Applying flow theory to booking
experiences: an integrated model in an online service context”, Information and Management,
Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 668-678.
Brinol, P. and Petty, R.E. (2009), “Source factors in persuasion: a self-validation approach”, European
Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 49-96.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1992), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, Sociological Methods
and Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 230-258.
Campbell, M.C. and Kirmani, A. (2000), “Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: the effects of
accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 69-83.
Census, U.S. (2013), “Age and sex composition in the United States 2012”, (accessed May 1, 2015),
available at: www.census.gov/population/age/data/2012comp.html
Cesario, J., Grant, H. and Higgins, E.T. (2004), “Regulatory fit and persuasion: transfer from ‘feeling
right”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 388-404.
Cyr, D., Head, M., Lim, E. and Stibe, A. (2018), “Using the elaboration likelihood model to examine
online persuasion through website design”, Information and Management, Vol. 55 No. 7,
pp. 807-821.
DoorDash (2018), “DoorDash”, www.doordash.com/: DoorDash.
Dopson, L. and Hayes, D. (2008), Food and Beverage Cost Control, 6th ed. New York, NY: John Wiley
and Sons.
JHTT Escobar-Rodríguez, T. and Carvajal-Trujillo, E. (2013), “Online drivers of consumer purchase of website
airline tickets”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 32, pp. 58-64.
11,3
Escobar-Rodríguez, T. and Carvajal-Trujillo, E. (2014), “Online purchasing tickets for low cost carriers:
an application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 43, pp. 70-88.
Fogg, B.J. (2003), Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do, San
Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
508
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Friestad, M. and Wright, P. (1994), “The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with
persuasion attempts”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, p. 31.
Gamliel, E. and Herstein, R. (2012), “Effects of message framing and involvement on price deal
effectiveness null”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 1215-1232.
Gupta, A. and Arora, N. (2017), “Understanding determinants and barriers of mobile shopping
adoption using behavioral reasoning theory”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 36, pp. 1-7.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.B. and Anderson, R.E. (2009), Multivariate Data Analysis, (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prenticel Hall.
He, Z., Han, G., Cheng, T.C.E., Fan, B. and Dong, J. (2019), “Evolutionary food quality and location
strategies for restaurants in competitive online-to-offline food ordering and delivery markets: an
agent-based approach”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 215, pp. 61-72.
Hornik, J., Ofir, C. and Rachamim, M. (2017), “Advertising appeals, moderators, and impact on
persuasion”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 305-318.
Isaac, M.S. and Grayson, K. (2016), “Beyond skepticism: Can accessing persuasion knowledge bolster
credibility?”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Janssen, L., Fransen, M.L., Wulff, R. and van Reijmersdal, E.A. (2016), “Brand placement disclosure
effects on persuasion: the moderating role of consumer self-control”, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 503-515.
Jensen, J.M. (2012), “Shopping orientation and online travel shopping: the role of travel experience”,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 56-70.
Kaptein, M., Markopoulos, P., de Ruyter, B. and Aarts, E. (2015), “Personalizing persuasive
technologies: explicit and implicit personalization using persuasion profiles”, International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 77, pp. 38-51.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W. and Chervany, N.L. (1999), “Information technology adoption across time:
a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 183-213.
Kim, H. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2008), “Persuasive design of destination web sites: an analysis of first
impression”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Kotler, P.T., Bowen, J.T., Makens, J. and Baloglu, S. (2016), Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism, (7th
ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Kupor, D., Tormala, Z., Morwitz, V. and Shavitt, S. (2018), “When moderation fosters persuasion: the
persuasive power of deviatory reviews”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 48, pp. 151-160.
McLuhan, M. and Fiore, Q. (1967), The Medium is the Message, London: Allen Lane.
Moe, W.W. (2003), “Buying, searching, or browsing: differentiating between online shoppers using in-
store navigational clickstream”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 Nos 1, pp. 29-39.
Morosan, C. and DeFranco, A. (2016), “It’s about time: revisiting UTAUT2 to examine consumers’
intentions to use NFC mobile payments in hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 53, pp. 17-29.
Morosan, C., Bowen, J.T. and Atwood, M. (2014), “The evolution of marketing research”, International Online food
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 706-726.
delivery
Muthèn, L.K. and Muthèn, B.O. (2017), Mplus User’s Guide, 8th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and
Muthén. systems
Nusair, K., Yoon, H.J. and Parsa, H.G. (2008), “Effect of utilitarian and hedonic motivations on consumer
satisfaction with traavel websites”, Information Technology and Tourism, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 75-89.
Ollila, S. (2011), Consumer Attitudes toward Food Prices, University of Helsinki.
509
Ozturk, A.B., Nusair, K., Okumus, F. and Hua, N. (2016), “The role of utilitarian and hedonic values on
users’ continued usage intention in a mobile hotel booking environment”, International Journal
of Hospitality Management, Vol. 57, pp. 106-115.
Park, E.J., Kim, E.Y., Funches, V.M. and Foxx, W. (2012), “Apparel product attributes, web browsing,
and e-impulse buying on shopping websites”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 11,
pp. 1583-1589.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1984), “Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of
persuasion”, Advances on Consumer Research, pp. 668-672.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to
Attitude Change, New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Pirolli, P. (2009), “An elementary social information foraging model”, in The 27th International
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Punj, G. (2012), “Income effects on relative importance of two online purchase goals: saving time versus
saving money?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 634-640.
Rezaei, S., Ali, F., Amin, M. and Jayashree, S. (2016), “Online impulse buying of tourism products”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 60-83.
Toh, R.S., Lee, E. and Hu, M.Y. (2006), “Social desirability bias in diary panels is evident inpanelists’
behavioral frequency”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 322-334.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y. and Xu, X. (2012), “Consumer acceptance and use of information technology:
extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 157-178.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, pp. 425-478.
Wang, D., Li, Z. and Xiao, B. (2019), “Social influence in first-time and upgrade adoption”, Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 34.
Yeo, V.C.S., Goh, S.K. and Rezaei, S. (2017), “Consumer experiences, attitude and behavioral intention
toward online food delivery (OFD) services”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 35,
pp. 150-182.
Zheng, X., Men, J., Yang, F. and Gong, X. (2019), “Understanding impulse buying in mobile commerce:
an investigation into hedonic and utilitarian browsing”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 48, pp. 151-160.

Corresponding author
Nefike Gunden can be contacted at: ngunden@central.uh.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com