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-

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

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-
ing the academic assessment of cues related to food with the
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-
faction among restaurant stimuli (drivers: food quality, ser-
vice quality, atmosphere, price, and variety of food) and
brand loyalty. Moreover, numerous studies have examined
the impact of brand trust on consumers’ behavioral intentions
(Alhaddad, 2015; Song et al., 2019), but researchers have
paid less attention to the impact of social trust on individual
behavior (Chen & Wan, 2020), though it has significant
impact on consumers’ dealings with restaurants (Robbins,
2016). Therefore, understanding how social trust of the cus-
tomers impacts their intentions of revisiting the restaurants
offering fast food.
Bearing in mind the collective viewpoints of cue utiliza-
tion theory, S-O-R theory, expectation disconfirmation
theory, and dual entitlement source, this research study fun-
damentally aims at filling the slot in the existing body of
literature by exploring the combined effects of drivers and
impact of customers’ satisfaction on brand loyalty in
research models pertaining to setting of restaurants offering
fast food. More specifically, this study has encompassed
the factors that bring back the customer to fast-food restau-
rants for another meal, the effect of factors on customers’
satisfaction, the direct impact of customers’ satisfaction on
the loyalty to the brand, the indirect outcome of factors on
brand loyalty via customers’ satisfaction, and effect of
social trust on the association among satisfaction and loy-
alty of patrons.
Our research theoretically extends to the literature of hos-
pitality marketing and consumers’ behavior by examining
the combined effects of drivers and impact of customers’
satisfaction on brand loyalty. In addition, the study validates
the interactive effect of moderating variable social trust on
customers’ satisfaction, which helps strengthen the associa-
tion between customers’ satisfaction and brand loyalty.
Furthermore, the study extends current literature by demon-
strating that customers’ satisfaction mediates between drivers
(food quality, service quality, restaurant atmosphere, price,
and variety of food) and outcome variable (brand loyalty).
Moreover, the findings of this study offer suggestions to fast-
food restaurateurs to devise some effective strategies to keep
the customers satisfied by incessantly evaluating their feed-
back. For government, this study offers insight that custom-
ers’ brand loyalty and customers’ satisfaction are influenced,
to some extent, by societal trust; therefore, governments
need to devise some strategies to increase the individual’s
general trust of the society.
The remaining part of the study is presented as follows:
The second section discusses the hypothetical background
and formulation of hypotheses. The third section presents the
adopted procedure, analysis, and major findings. The fourth
section provides the final discussion on results as well as
draws the conclusion followed by outlining the practical and
theoretical implications, limitations, and future directions for
forthcoming researchers.
Hypothetical Background and
Formulation of Hypotheses
Food Quality
Food quality is a distinct feature as far as experience of dining
in a restaurant is concerned (T. J. Lee et al., 2012; Serhan &
Carole, 2019). It pertains to those characteristics which sig-
nificantly impact intentions of consumers’ behavior as regards
dining in a restaurant (Serhan & Carole, 2019). Presenting
quality food is particularly vital when it comes to pleasing the
target market. It increases the eternal achievement of the res-
taurant (Campbell & Fairhurst, 2016). Food quality is con-
ceded as one of the determining factors of customer
philanthropy; therefore, it facilitates the business in increasing
the market share (Ryu & Han, 2011). Food quality is perceived
to be a fundamental element in stipulating the accomplishment
of the restaurant industry (Rashidin, Javed, Liu, & Jian, 2020).
Mattila (2001) expressed three fundamental reasons for cus-
tomers to visit their marked restaurant, which include food
quality, service, and atmosphere. According to Truong et al.
(2017), quality of food was the most vital characteristic among
all restaurant dimensions offered to the customers and repre-
sents a pragmatic association with satisfaction of customers
and their loyalty to the brand. In a restaurant setting, food
quality is determined on the basis of its freshness, temperature,
and getting flawless food on every occasion (Andaleeb &
Conway, 2006; Daries-Ramón et al., 2018).
According to Olson (1972), concurring the cue utilization
theory, the clients utilize innate and adventitious cues for eval-
uating worth of a particular product. Particularly, in case of
foodstuff, the innate signs entail shape, look, and shade, in
addition to a structure that can be altered only by altering the
physical characteristics of a food. On the other hand, adventi-
tious cues include brand, price, store name, origin of product,
and nutritious value as well as production details rather than
physical composition of a product (Teas & Agarwal, 2000). In
addition, Namkung and Jang (2010) argued that criteria of the
quality of food entail fitness, freshness, flavor/deliciousness,
as well as presentation of food.
According to Jacoby (2002), the theory of stimulus-organ-
ism-response (S-O-R) accentuates that improvement in the
assessment of internal procedure of the organism is elicited by
an impetus that influences the reaction (Sandor Czellar, 2003).
Referring to this theory, features of food entails shape, flavor,
and look act as impetus and are capable of influencing custom-
ers’ innate assessments, and ultimately satisfaction of custom-
ers and their loyalty to the brand.
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): The quality of food bears a pragmatic
impact on patron’s satisfaction with quick-meal restau-
rants of Pakistan.
Javed et al.
Service Quality
Basing on the field wherein it is utilized, one can define ser-
vice in a variety of ways. Kotler and Keller (2009, p. 789)
explained service as “any intangible act or performance that
one party offers to another that does not result in the owner-
ship of anything.” It is also defined as total features and the
attributes of the product and services that satisfy the real or
implied needs of the customers (Kotler et al., 2002). The
quality of service is described “as a perception of the custom-
ers about the services which may meet or exceed his/her
expectations” (Zeithamal et al., 1996, pp. 31–46). It is consid-
ered as a momentous feature of restaurant dining. Service
quality is equally important as food quality (Bujisic et al.,
2014) and plays a vital role in building up the perception to
re-patronage (Pantelidis, 2010). Regarding the restaurant set-
ting, studies have emphasized that service quality is an imper-
ative determinant of customers’ satisfaction (Ivkov et al.,
2018) and re-patronage (Weiss et al., 2004). In turbulent mar-
ket environments, service quality is identified as a decisive
element for the success of fast-food restaurants as it has a
remarkable impact on consumers’ behavior because it induces
either satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Wong & Fong, 2010).
Hence, improvement in service quality helps fast-food opera-
tors compete, retain the existing customers, and attract new
customers (Zeithaml & Bitner, 1996). Earlier researches have
accentuated the role of service for determining patron’s satis-
faction, which customer encounters at the restaurant setting
(dimensions: friendly staff, courteous, quick service line,
waiting time, etc.; Bujisic et al., 2014), in addition to the con-
sumer’s behavioral intention to revisit (Kandampully et al.,
2015). Thus, we can extrapolate from previous findings that
enhanced service quality results in a contented customer
(Meesala & Paul, 2018), which leads to brand loyalty.
In the light of S-O-R theory, service quality traits like
friendly staff, courteous, quick service line, and waiting time
as stimulus may affect their associated internal evaluations
(customers’ satisfaction) and external responses (brand loy-
alty). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): The quality of service bears a prag-
matic impact on patron’s satisfaction with quick-meal res-
taurants of Pakistan.
Atmosphere
In restaurant industry, atmosphere is perceived as a very cru-
cial element (Kivela et al., 1999; Qin & Prybutok, 2009),
because it influences a customer’s emotions, expectations
(Kranzbühler et al., 2018; Wall & Berry, 2007), and dining
experience (Dutta et al., 2014). According to Bitner (1990)
and Daries-Ramón et al. (2018), customers initially look upon
the atmosphere to take any services; the buildup perception
about the services may affect the customer’s reaction to
the services delivered in the restaurants (Bitner, 1990;
3
Daries-Ramón et al., 2018). The perceived atmosphere draws
cognitive responses, which further influences the patron
beliefs about a place, services, staff, and products (Bitner,
1992). Moreover, if the opinion of a customer is high about
the atmosphere of the restaurant, his or her hopes about the
service could also be high (Daries-Ramón et al., 2018). The
perception about the restaurant services cape directly influ-
ences customers’ satisfaction (W. G. Kim & Moon, 2009).
According to Longart et al. (2018), in a restaurant setting,
after food quality, variety of food, and price, atmosphere is
considered as a major element that differentiates one service
provider from another. Thus, we can say that the atmosphere
has become really essential in restaurant settings, because
customers tend to be provoked by atmospheric stimuli, such
as lights, ambiance, style, cleanliness, comfortable seats, aes-
thetic elements, music, and noise (C.-H. S. Liu et al., 2014;
Pei & Ayub, 2015), which subsequently increases the behav-
ioral intention or repeat patronage (Wakefield & Blodgett,
1994). Furthermore, Daries-Ramón et al. (2018) and Rashidin,
Javed, Liu, and Jian (2020) endorsed that perception about
physical surroundings is a direct marker of a customer’s satis-
faction. In this manner, customer’s satisfaction is directly
linked with the facets of constructive behaviors.
Consistent with the S-O-R theory, environmental factor is
an impetus which prompts innate responses of individuals to
that ambience. As far as a service setting is concerned, atmo-
spheric features serve as incitements for customers’ reactions
(Lin & Mattila, 2010). As regards the organism, the clients
come across three diverse kinds of emotional situations:
dominance, excitement, and pleasure. Nevertheless, merely
the passionate condition of satisfaction of the customers was
explored in this research study. Thus, we hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): The atmosphere of restaurants has
pragmatic impact on patron’s satisfaction with quick-
meal restaurants of Pakistan.
Price
Price has been perceived as an imperative factor in elucidat-
ing the behavior of the customers. It can be defined as “what
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
Monroe (1989) considered price as a tool that tells the cus-
tomers about the worth of the product. Customers usually
estimate the value of the product or services offered via price
(Javed et al., 2018).
Customers’ perception about the price is explained by
equity theory as “parties involved in social exchanges com-
pare the ratios of their inputs into the exchange to their conse-
quences from the exchange” (Bechwati et al., 2009, p. 2009).
Alternative hypothetical basis of price is the principle of dual
entitlement. According to this principle, “in an economic
4 SAGE Open
transaction, the buyer is entitled to a fair price, and the seller is
entitled to a fair profit” (Haws & Bearden, 2006, p. 304).
According to this principle, by ignoring the one party’s pre-
rogative, the perception of inequitableness comes to the light
(Bolton et al., 2003). Furthermore, when purchasers’ reference
price is less than the retail price, they may ultimately appraise
this price as discriminating (Xia et al., 2004). In this research
study, the equity theory and principle of dual entitlement have
been utilized as a hypothetical base to comprehend clients’ sat-
isfaction with price of fast-food items. Hence, referring to
these theories, the mentioned price of the food items will be
considered satisfactory if it delivers reasonable gains to the
enterprise. Moreover, compliant with the S-O-R theory, realis-
tic, according to clients’ internal assessment, adequate and
rational costs of food may govern clients’ satisfaction as well
as brand loyalty with fast-food restaurants.
In the restaurant industry, the price of the items on the
menu varies from restaurant to restaurant. Due to intense
competition in the restaurant industry, the customers may
develop internal reference prices (Campbell & Fairhurst,
2016). The price embedded in the customer’s mind works as
a base for comparing the real prices with the expected prices
(Grewal et al., 1998). The restaurant must charge for the
services offered in accordance with what the people are
willing to pay, or provide the services at competitive prices
bearing in mind the customers’ expectations (Saul et al.,
2018; Yuksel & Yuksel, 2002). Empirical studies examined
the association between price and customers’ satisfaction
and behavioral intentions of re-patronage. Oliver and Swan
(1989) considered the price as an antecedent of customers’
satisfaction. They also identified that the customer makes a
comparison of his or her existing payment with the expecta-
tion, assessing whether the actual compensation is higher or
lower than what he or she contemplates is essential. If he or
she observes a balance in price / value trade off, he or she
tends to be gratified by the amenities offered by the restau-
rant. Klassen et al. (2015) conducted a study, wherein they
found that 62% of the students believed that price is the
most imperative reason for making a decision to dine out
from a particular restaurant. In addition to this, Bolton and
Lemon (1999) found a direct link of price with customers’
satisfaction. Once customers are certain that they are getting
paramount quality of product or service, they tend to be
loyal in the long run. It is in line with this prediction.
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 4 (H4): In Pakistan fast-food industry, price
bears pragmatic effects with customer satisfaction.
Variety of Food
Diversity-seeking conduct is part and parcel of human nature
when it comes to consumption of any product or service
(Ratner et al., 1999). Customers are frequently in search of a
wide range of alternatives when it comes to a product
or service (Hoyer & Ridgway, 1984). Consistent with the
optimal stimulation level theory, thanks to repeat product
procurement, direct diversity-seeking conduct ensues with
the purpose of diminishing monotony as well as to increase
the level of stimulation. The accessibility of a variety of
products/services got paramount importance particularly in
the restaurant industry (S. Lee et al., 2020; Thomas, 2013).
In the context of hospitality sector, it is recognized as diver-
sity in menu (Josiam et al., 2014). It is in line with Huang
et al. (2015) study, wherein he viewed the significance of
variety-seeking in the service sector. Zandstra et al. (2000)
conducted a study on the consumption of meat sauce at din-
ner time at home that lasts for almost 10 weeks at dinner
time. The results indicated that as the days passed, it became
the cause of boredom among the family members and dimin-
ished their consumption. Another research study undertaken
by Lähteenmäki and van Trijp (1995) revealed that sand-
wiches with diverse stuffing are expected to bring some
diversity to the flavor. In addition, the study involving con-
sumption of eight sandwiches having different stuffing indi-
cated that it would provide extreme diversity to the customers
as far as taste is concerned. Numerous studies pointed out
that variety of food (Park, 2004) greatly influences a patron’s
perception about the restaurant setting (Meesala & Paul,
2018), which consequently influences the customers’ satis-
faction and repeat-restaurant patronage (Nield et al., 2000).
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 5 (H5): Variety of food bears a pragmatic
influence on the satisfaction of the customers in fast-food
industry of Pakistan.
Brand Loyalty
The notion of brand loyalty has transformed with the passage
of time (Ahn & Back, 2018). Earlier, it was considered a uni-
variate measure in terms of repeated buying behavior
(Cunningham, 1961). Subsequently, it was felt as a complex
multidimensional construct (Alfian et al., 2019). It is eluci-
dated as “a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patron-
ize a preferred product/service consistently in the future,
thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set
purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing
efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior”
(Oliver, 1999). Moreover, the present study measured the
brand loyalty by the suggested three dimensions of brand
loyalty, which are behavioral loyalty, affective loyalty, and
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
than rival brands in the market. The second approach of
brand loyalty is cognitive/evaluative loyalty with brand. It
refers to the positive evaluation of a specific brand by the
customer on the set criteria (Rather, 2017; Rather et al.,
2018). The third approach to brand loyalty represents
Javed et al.
behavioral loyalty for an explicit brand which deals with the
upbeat reaction for buying as well as consumption activities
(Chaudhary et al., 2018; Rather et al., 2019). From behav-
ioral perspective, in the case of restaurant setting, loyalty
demonstrates the number of visits (Rather & Hollebeek,
2020).
The concept of brand loyalty is relatively more impor-
tant for services sector, especially for those who provide
services with minor distinctions and contend on dynamic
environment, particularly in fast-food industry (Khorasani
& Almasifard, 2018). In fact, the loyal customers are
willing to expend chunks of money for the foodstuffs or
amenities offered by the restaurant without giving due con-
sideration to the price. This cohesive bonding between cus-
tomer and restaurant places a positive impact on its
profitability (Flavián & Guinalíu, 2006). That is why res-
taurants use defensive marketing strategies to grab more
market share and profits by establishing the brand loyalty
(Ergün & Kitapci, 2018).
Customers’ Satisfaction
Customers’ satisfaction is among the fundamental concepts
being utilized to elucidate consumers’ conduct. In line with
theory of expectation disconfirmation, customers’ satisfac-
tion is abstracted as “the psychological state resulting when
the emotion surrounding disconfirmed expectations is cou-
pled with the consumer’s prior feelings about the consump-
tion experience” (Oliver & Swan, 1989, p. 29). Consistent
with this definition, when customers’ prospects are met, sat-
isfaction ensues, else disappointment arises (Namkung &
Jang, 2007). Customers’ satisfaction has cognitive as well as
affective elements (Bigné et al., 2008). Cognitive element
entails rational valuation of the acquired product, while the
affective element entails sentiments, for example, cheerful-
ness and pleasure, causing the fulfillment of the anticipations
(Yu & Dean, 2001). Empirical studies have reached to the
conclusion that customers’ satisfaction is a resilient fore-
caster of revisit intentions (Javed et al., 2018; Rather et al.,
2018). Particularly in the hospitality context, customers’ sat-
isfaction has a positive impact on customers’ revisit inten-
tions (Otto et al., 2020; Rather, 2017). Bearing in mind the
theory of expectation disconfirmation and S-O-R paradigm,
it is foreseen that exceedingly contended clienteles are more
probable to visit the restaurant again and again. Therefore,
we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 6 (H6): Customers’ satisfaction has a positive
influence on brand loyalty.
As debated earlier, the current study employed four theories
as theoretical foundation which provide base for hypotheses:
theory of S-O-R paradigm, theory of cue utilization (Olson
& Jacoby, 1972), theory of expectation disconfirmation, and
source of dual entitlement. Capitalizing on these theories as
5
well as the literature review, the established theoretical
framework exhibited in Figure 1 discovered that quality of
food, service, price, atmosphere, location, and variety of
food are modeled as drivers of customers’ satisfaction, and
brand loyalty is the outcome.
The Moderating Role of Social Trust
The earlier literature studied brand trust and its impact on
individual intentions to make purchase (Rather et al., 2019;
Rather & Hollebeek, 2019). It is referred as customer’s
“confidence on exchange partner’s reliability and integrity”
(Morgan & Hunt, 1994) and is acknowledged as an associa-
tion to the pragmatic attributes, such as brand proficiency,
reliability, trustworthiness, restraint, and objectivity (Morgan
& Hunt, 1994). It impacts their subsequent loyalty as well as
commitment as it represents the actor’s aspiration to pursue
the affiliation (Martínez & Rodríguez del Bosque, 2013).
Scholars have gradually become more concerned about the
influence of social trust on individual’s behavior (Chen &
Wan, 2020). It fosters everyday interactions, exchanges,
and transactions (Robbins, 2016). This term is referred as
“general conviction about the honesty, truthfulness, and faith
in the people.” It does not suggest that an individual places
trust on others because they know each other personally, but
it signifies a broader spectrum how people can be trusted in
general, and without trust, social bonding is unfeasible
(Chalabi, 1996).
Numerous service organizations (in the context of restau-
rant setting) are operating in the society. There are two clas-
sical schools of thought who viewed social trust differently;
the social psychological thought believes in individualism,
while the societal school of thought believes in collectivism.
According to social-psychological school of thought, trust is
an essential element of an individual’s personality traits
(Liang & Ju, 2016), because an individual’s learning about
trust starts from his or her home, and this childhood social-
ization changes with the passage of time as the experience is
gained (Uslaner, 2000). Moreover, social trust is reliant not
only on the reciprocity of experience, but is also closely
associated with the subjective feelings and the kind of the
personality that an individual has (Uslaner, 1999). Scholarly
studies found that individual’s “belief in just world” is greatly
associated with interpersonal trust and subjective well-being
(Enache & Dumitrof, 2017). Faith in people and faith in the
world are primary features of “belief in just world.” The
societal school of thought viewed that trust is not the charac-
teristic of an individual but that of a society (Mahdavi &
Daryaei, 2017). The focus of this approach is on how people
evaluate the society, wherein they live, rather than their per-
sonality. Moreover, it is the top-bottom phenomenon that is
developed by society and daily experience that recommends
acting in a credulous and distrusting way (Abdul Shukor
et al., 2019). Consumer who has been deceived in shops,
exploited at workplace, served unjustly, betrayed, or lied by
6 SAGE Open
Food quality
. .369***
Service
quality. . .266**
.306***
Atmosphere Customer
.264*** Satisfaction
. .
Price
. . .244***
Variety
Figure 1. Proposed framework.
acquaintances on daily basis (Hardin, 1998) has low social
trust and infers that people cannot be trusted in general,
which will ultimately affect his or her specific trust (use pre-
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,
2011).
Applying this notion in the perspective of current research
study, we argue that low-trust clientele remains satisfied
with a restaurant when restaurant has failed to meet some
standard of honesty once. But, if this happens more than
once, he or she might switch the restaurant, and this “moral
yardstick” further decreases his or her social trust (Boix &
Daniel, 1998; Krammer, 2019). However, the decision could
be different if the customer possesses some personality
traits, such as high tolerance level, faith on people, coopera-
tive, optimistic, and forgiver nature. In addition, Tone et al.
(2019) found that specific personality traits are strongly
associated to an individual’s behavior. To this edge, in case
of any negligence, a customer fully cooperates with a res-
taurateur and does not get disappointed immediately with
the services (Thielmann et al., 2020). The customer is still
satisfied with the restaurant setting and plans for repurchase
and talks favorably about the restaurant with others. Thus,
we deduce that customer who possesses this sort of person-
ality is less affected by the prevailing societal factors that
lower the social trust of an individual, but still believes that
people can be trusted in general (His/her relational trust is
less affected by his/her general trust) (Robbins, 2016). This
trust could ultimately lead toward long-term commitment,
greater share of wallet, and positive WOM. Complementing
the aforementioned arguments and literature, we can state
that consumer having high social trust further strengthens
the association between customers’ satisfaction (i.e., satis-
faction with restaurant stimuli) and loyalty with restaurant
than having low social trust. Consequently, we assume the
ensuing hypothesis:
Social trust * customer
satisfaction
.410***
.389***
Brand Loyalty
Hypothesis 8 (H8): Social trust significantly moderates
the effect of customers’ satisfaction on brand loyalty
when it is high (vs. low).
Method
Measurements
Bearing in mind the perspective of current study, slight mod-
ifications were made in the scale of the indicators of extant
studies, which include food quality, service quality, restau-
rant atmosphere, price, variety of food, customers’ satisfac-
tion, brand loyalty, and social trust. A three-item scale was
used to measure perceived food quality, perceived service
quality, perceived restaurant atmosphere, price, and custom-
ers’ satisfaction (Trafialek et al., 2020). A two-item scale was
used to measure variety of food (Trafialek et al., 2020; Xi &
Shuai, 2009). Moreover, a six-item scale was used to mea-
sure brand loyalty (Sunaryo, 2019) and further conceptual-
ized into three dimensions such as behavioral, affective, and
cognitive loyalty. Regarding the social trust, standard survey
question was asked in this study to measure the individuals’
trustworthiness about society around them (Javed et al.,
2018; Newton, 2001; Rashidin, Javed, Chen, & Jian, 2020).
The question stated, “By and large, are you of the opinion
that you can trust majority of the people or you can’t be so
cautious while making a deal with the people?” (Delhey &
Newton, 2003). Moreover, the scale was adapted in the con-
text of restaurant, drawn from societal school of thought and
social psychological school of thought: the role of individu-
al’s personality traits and the role of society/social system in
building individual’s general trust. First, the role of individu-
al’s personality traits in building trust on society was gauged
by proposed two-item scale adapted from Delhey and
Newton (2003), a two-item scale of tolerance adapted from
Delhey and Newton (2003), and a two-item scale of general
faith on people adapted from Rosenberg (1957), whereas the
Javed et al.
role of social system in building trust (Restaurants are oper-
ating in society/part of society) was measured by proposed
two-item scale on perception about current societal condi-
tions adapted from Delhey and Newton (2003) and a pro-
posed two-item scale of social network of individuals
adapted from Delhey and Newton (2003).
Scale Validation
We certified our scales and measurement model using mul-
tiple methods. First, according to Bloemer et al. (1999), we
implemented exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to endorse
the fundamental factors with the help of varimax rotation and
extricated eight features: food quality (FQ), service quality
(SQ), restaurant atmosphere (RA), price (PR), variety of
food (VR), customers’ satisfaction (CS), brand loyalty (BL),
and social trust (ST). Majority of the factor loadings (FLs)
were greater than 0.80 apart from SQ3 (FL = 0.521), related
to service quality “courteous staff,” which was consequently
excluded for further proceedings. Moreover, eigenvalues,
that is, 2.366, 1.524, 1.616, 3.242, 3.920, 2.451, 2.323, and
3.125, of factors progressively elucidated 72.434% of the
total variance. The scale utilized for measuring the abstract
variables was 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In addition, two
professors of hospitality warranted the face and content
validity of the scale items. Besides, we undertook a pilot
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 =
0.832, VR = .880, CS = .843, BL = .865, and ST = .784.
The Cronbach’s alpha (α) test revealed all scores over and
above 0.70 that verified adequate reliability. In a nutshell,
statistical method has been used for drawing all our results,
consequently building our confidence regarding the findings
along with their generalizability.
The questionnaire contained two sections entailing four
close-ended questions. The first section took care of the
demographic characteristics of the respondents. The second
section tackled the research paradigms comprising 35 close-
ended questions.
Survey and Sampling Procedures
The data were collected on convenient basis. The partici-
pants were approached at McDonald, KFC, and others fast-
food restaurants located in four big cities of Punjab province
(i.e., Islamabad, Lahore, Multan, and Faisalabad). Five doc-
toral candidates were trained for conducting the survey. In
line with the critical incident method on the basis of the sur-
vey research of Seckler et al. (2015), an open-ended question
was put at the start of the structured questionnaire that urged
the respondents to first of all go through a statement prior to
filling out the questionnaire: “Please think a moment that
you are feeling satisfied when you visit fast-food restaurant.
7
Try to explain your experience with the fast-food restaurant
performance as you recall it.” This question aimed at receiv-
ing the descriptions of consumers’ experiences with fast-
food restaurants. The data collection took place between
January and February 2020, and completing a questionnaire
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-
naires were discarded, resulting in a total of 400 usable
responses. For utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM)
method, Black et al. (2020) suggested that a sample must
consist of 100 respondents, whereas Kline (2005) considered
a sample of 200 respondents to be sufficient. Thus, the
sample of our study meets this threshold for vindicating the
utilization of SEM.
Data collection involved the convenience sampling.
Although there are some concerns about sampling technique
regarding generalizing the results, this technique has been
used for data collection in prior studies (Javed et al., 2018;
Rashidin, Javed, Liu, & Jian, 2020; Rather, 2017; Rather
et al., 2018). However, convenience sampling is applicable
under two conditions: for fact-finding studies, and when
measurement objects pertain to the applicants (Elbeltagi &
Agag, 2016). The authors made use of measurement items
pertaining to the respondents; therefore, this research study
satisfies the prerequisites to validate the use of convenience
sampling.
Data Analysis and Outcomes
Background information of the respondents. Table 1 illustrates
the background information of the respondents. Majority of
respondents is male. The sample entails 400 people, consist-
ing of 176 (44.0%) women and 224 (56.0%) men. The repre-
sentation of age group 18 to 30 years was 48.5%, which was
greater than that of the other age groups: 31–45 years (34.5%)
and above 45 years (17%). The percentage of 18 to 30 years
age group is higher than that of other two groups because
majority of this age group was employed or connected with
the businesses as evident from the collected data. As regards
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-
dents were also asked about the restaurants they visit fre-
quently. Three possible options were given to them, that is,
McDonalds, KFC, and others (local/national). The results
indicated that majority of the respondents visited restaurants
other than (locals/nationals) McDonalds and KFC with a
higher percentage of 45.5%, while the remaining 29.5% and
25.0% of the respondents visited McDonalds and KFC,
respectively. Moreover, the findings also revealed that over
half percentage (68.0%) of Pakistani inhabitants have low
trust on the society around them (need to be careful), fol-
lowed by 32.0% having high social trust (e.g., high general-
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-
tion prior to test the research model in SEM. Table 4 desig-
nates that all prognosticator variables had variance inflation
factor (VIF) ranging 1.013 to 1.237. It shows that no multi-
collinearity exists among the predictor variables as they
satisfy the suggested criteria of <3. The path coefficients
have been displayed in Figure 1. The results of hypothe-
sized relationship have been presented in Table 4. Table 4
demonstrates that food worth has a pragmatic effect on cus-
tomers’ satisfaction (β = 0.369, t = 4.986, p < .001);
therefore, we accepted H1. Service quality has profound
significant impact on customers’ satisfaction (β = .266, t =
2.396, p < .01), as a result we accepted H2. Restaurant
atmosphere has gained support as it has positive significant
impact on satisfaction of customers (β = 0.306, t = 4.358,
p < .001), so we accepted H3. Price (β = 0.264, t = 3.635,
p < .001) and variety (β = 0.244, t = 3.545, p < .001)
exert a pragmatic significant effect on satisfaction of cus-
tomers, so H4 and H5 gained support. Customers’ satisfac-
tion exerts robust consequence on brand loyalty (β = 0.389,
t = 6.436, p < .001); therefore, H6 is supported.
Moreover, according to Taheri et al. (2019), PROCESS
macro 3.2 was employed for SPSS 23.0. We employed
Model 4 stipulating 5,000 bootstraps samples on a
bias-corrected method with 95% confidence interval (CI) for
mediation effects (Hayes, 2013). The findings of indirect
effect is present particularly when the confidence interval
doesn’t overlap with 0. Food quality significantly indirectly
affects brand loyalty (βFQ→CS→BL = 0.0157, [CI: 0.0050,
0.0291]) via customers’ satisfaction. Moreover, the indirect
effect of service quality affects brand loyalty (βSQ→CS→BL
= 0.0177, [CI: 0.0058, 0.0330] via customers’ satisfaction.
Price significantly indirectly affects brand loyalty
(βPR→CS→BL = 0.0704, [CI: 0.0153, 0.1691]) via cus-
tomers’ satisfaction. Moreover, the indirect effect of restau-
rant atmosphere affects brand loyalty (βRA→CS→BL =
0.0779, [CI: 0.0178, 0.1803] via customers’ satisfaction.
Variety of food significantly indirectly affects brand loyalty
(βVR→CS→BL = 0.075, [CI: 0.012, 0.167] via customers’
satisfaction. Thus, these results confirm the mediating role of
customers’ satisfaction in fast-food cues (i.e., food quality,
service quality, restaurant atmosphere, price, and variety of
food) and customers’ loyalty with fast-food restaurants.
The predictive power of R2 explained that the total vari-
ance in outcome variable is due to predictor variables. The
results show that variance in customers’ satisfaction is due to
restaurant stimuli (FQ: 0.76, SQ: 0.73, RA: 0.53, PR: 0.36,
VR: 0.62). The results also show 28.4% variance in brand
Javed et al.
loyalty. Our R2 results are greater than the recommended
threshold level of Falk and Miller (1992) > 10%.
Moderating effects. To test the contingent effects of social
trust through interaction effects, we used IBM SPSS version
23.0. Using the moderation step-by-step, we initially exam-
ined the direct impact of prognosticator variable on resultant
variable and then main direct effects of interaction of contin-
gent with predictor variable on outcome variable. We found
that direct effects of customers’ satisfaction on brand loyalty
are positively significant (F = 128.098, p < .001), and main
direct effects of customers’ satisfaction and social trust (cus-
tomers’ satisfaction × social trust) on brand loyalty are also
positively significant (β = .410, t = 8.7755, p < .01). More-
over, after getting the substantial interaction impacts, sug-
gestions of Aiken et al. (1991) were followed to examine the
nature of interactions by allocating the data of contingents in
two groups—high and low—with the help of mock variable.
We observed the simple main impacts of customers’ satisfac-
tion on brand loyalty at both high and low level of social
trust. We found that customers’ satisfaction has positive sig-
nificant impact on brand loyalty when customers’ social trust
is high (β = 0.203, t = 4.048, p < .001), and customers’
satisfaction has an insignificant impact on brand loyalty
when customers’ societal trust is low (β = .106, t = 2.881, p
> .01). Therefore, social trust positively moderates the rela-
tionship at higher level of social trust; thus, we accepted H7.
Discussion and Conclusion
Prior studies on restaurant setting have conferred that cus-
tomers’ satisfaction is a vital determinant of brand loyalty
(S. M. Lee et al., 2019). In the context of fast-food industry
(Naderi et al., 2018), the restaurant-induced stimuli play a
crucial role in creating customers’ satisfaction (Segson &
Tan, 2018), which in turn establishes brand loyalty (Y. Liu &
Jang, 2009). In Pakistan, fast-food industry is rapidly grow-
ing over the last decade. Fast food restaurants are found in
every nook and corner. In the salad day of millennium, brand
loyalty is a big challenge for fast food operators. Thus, this
study on brand loyalty adds noteworthy value to the restau-
rant industry. The study examined the combined effects of
drivers and impact of outcome of customers’ satisfaction on
brand loyalty drawn from previous literature.
Our findings suggest that restaurant-induced stimuli, for
instance, restaurant atmosphere, food quality, service quality,
price, and variety of food, have profound repercussions on
satisfaction of clients. These outcomes commensurate with
(Dutta et al., 2014; Ryu & Han, 2010) empirical studies. It
demonstrates that these fast-food cues are very crucial for
fast food restaurant customers and have paramount impact
on their satisfaction. Our study findings also validate that
customers’ satisfaction significantly influences brand loy-
alty. This result also completely agrees with prior empirical
research findings (S. M. Lee et al., 2019). At this point,
11
customers decide about either re-patronage or discontinuity.
Moreover, the findings revealed that customers’ satisfaction
acts as a strong mediator between restaurant stimuli and con-
sumers’ behavioral intentions. Any negligence in aforemen-
tioned stimuli hurts the customers’ satisfaction and ultimately
brand loyalty with restaurants. In addition to this, results
demonstrate that (β = 0.389***) 38.9% satisfied customers
become brand loyal. Furthermore, we explored the indirect
impact of customers’ satisfaction on the association among
the restaurant stimuli (i.e., food quality, service quality, res-
taurant atmosphere, price, and variety of food) and brand
loyalty. We found that customers’ satisfaction significantly
and positively affects the association between restaurant
stimuli (i.e., food quality, service quality, restaurant atmo-
sphere, price, and variety of food) and loyalty to the brand.
This finding is in harmony with prior research studies
(Konuk, 2019; Segson & Tan, 2018).
Finally, our last results deal with social trust. They reveal
that Pakistani inhabitants’ social trust is not so high, as
greater percentage (72%) of the people believes that they
need to be careful while dealing with others, and only 28%
people believe that people can be trusted in general. This
finding is consistent with World Value Survey Report, which
indicated that only 22.2% Pakistani citizens believe that peo-
ple can be trusted in general, whereas 73.8% respondents
believe that people need to be careful while dealing with oth-
ers (World Values Survey (WVS)). Moreover, our results
about moderating variable social trust suggest that consum-
ers’ social trust positively moderates the relationship at
higher level between customers’ satisfaction and brand loy-
alty. Consumers rely on their preexistent schemas of having
beliefs about the general trustworthiness of people; thus, the
general trust (social trust) has an impact on their specific and
relational trust (Brewer, 2008; Costa et al., 2018; Robbins,
2016) about their restaurants. It is in line with Robbins
(2016) who stated that social trust is central to the develop-
ment and maintenance of specific/relational trust. Based on
the conceptualizations of societal school of thought, findings
suggest that the consumers who possess low social trust hold
a view that people cannot be trusted in general and tend to
switch to other restaurants easily in case they get dissatisfied
once or twice with the services rendered by a particular res-
taurant. For example, applying this notion in the context of
restaurant sector, customers may have come across diverse
experiences from different sources like friends sharing a pic
with a bug in food and news or TV channels breaking a news
that a particular restaurant is being sealed due to providing
unhygienic food, using sub-standard products (dead meat,
poor quality oil, etc.), and untidy kitchen (cockroaches and
mouse are found there). Such experiences affect already built
up specific/relational trust (faith on people) on quick-meal
restaurants (operating in society), consequently affecting
their satisfaction and brand loyalty with their mostly visited
restaurants. As far as social psychological school of thought
is concerned, customers respond to diverse scenarios, such as
12
mistakenly threw a drink/food on customer or a bug is found
in food. Such situations are dealt differently depending on
the customer’s personality traits (tolerance, understanding,
cooperative, optimistic, low anxiety, forgiver nature etc.) that
sequentially impacts loyalty to the brand (J. Kim et al.,
2008). Thus, the response to any situation in a restaurant set-
ting is decided by customer’s personality traits (Possessing
these positive personality traits leads to high generalized
trust) along with the trust gained from the society (Uslaner,
1999). Our findings suggest that customers who hold posi-
tive social trust have strong bonding with restaurants and
make maximum effort that their relational trust is less
affected by their general trust.
Implications
Theoretical Implications
From a theoretical standpoint, it is the first research study to
experimentally evaluate the combined repercussions of driv-
ers and impact of customers’ satisfaction on brand loyalty.
The extant literature has comprehensively examined the
drivers of customers’ satisfaction (Costa et al., 2018; Dutta
et al., 2014) and fundamental indicator of economic success
i.e., brand loyalty (Alkhawaldeh & Eneizan, 2018; S. M. Lee
et al., 2019; Trafialek et al., 2020). Numerous studies have
been conducted in the context of fast-food industry loyalty
(Namin, 2017), but the combined effects had not been
explored yet. Hence, this research study adds to the existing
literature by understanding the potential influence of restau-
rant stimuli (food quality, service quality, atmosphere, price,
and variety of food) on customers’ satisfaction and brand
loyalty through customers’ satisfaction (indirect effect).
Overall, the results imply that quality of food and service,
restaurant atmosphere, price, as well as variety of food have
significant influence on customers’ satisfaction because cus-
tomers’ satisfaction with these cues plays a critical role in
explaining the repeat patronage. Second, as far as S-O-R
theory is concerned, an extrinsic impetus (food quality, ser-
vice quality, and restaurant atmosphere) affects organism
(customers’ satisfaction) which in turn influences response
(brand loyalty). Consequently, this study adds to the friendli-
ness as well as customer conduct literature by investigating
the collective impacts of drivers and clients’ satisfaction on
brand loyalty to bestow more understanding into the level to
which theories supplement each other in elucidating repeat
patronage.
Third, this article fosters the comprehension of customer
conduct in fast-food restaurant setting. It discloses the
impact of customers’ satisfaction as a result of fast-food
cues on the loyalty to the brand. The findings of current
article confirmed the positive effect of customers’ satisfac-
tion on loyalty to the brand. It is in line with earlier cited
articles (Lu et al., 2015; Otto et al., 2020), verifying that
customers’ satisfaction is an important predictor of brand
SAGE Open
loyalty. Referring to expectation disconfirmation and S-O-R
theory, we can conclude that extremely gratified clienteles
thanks to their innate assessment are more probable to do
repeat patronage than less satisfied customers.
Fourth, the mediation analysis established a fractional
intermediary stimulus of customers’ satisfaction among res-
taurant stimuli (i.e., food quality, service quality, restaurant
atmosphere, price, and variety of food) and brand loyalty.
This result seems to be in line with previous studies (Konuk,
2019; Segson & Tan, 2018). This mechanism implies that
enhancing FQ, SQ, RA, PR, and VR can influence CS, which
in turn increases brand loyalty. Finally, we pay to literature
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
(Robbins, 2016). With its significance in behavioral dynam-
ics (Chen & Wan, 2020), the present study took an initiative
and verified the regulating role of social trust in customers’
satisfaction and brand loyalty. This study extends the effect
of social trust as a moderating variable, interactions with
customers’ satisfaction, to add significantly to the existing
literature of social trust. The findings imply that consumer’s
social trust (generalized trust) affects his or her connection
with restaurant (specific trust), because customer’s moral
yardstick of general trust on society affects his or her specific
trust with restaurant. It is in line with previous cited articles
(Freitag & Traunmüller, 2009; Newton & Zmerli, 2011). The
present study reinforces to the literature by assessing the
interaction effect of social trust and customer satisfaction in
strengtheing the bonding with brand loyalty.
Practical Implications
This research study educes valuable insights to restaurant
managers and government with discernible offers.
The findings of the present research testified the vital role
of food quality. Referring to the cue utilization theory, clients
utilize intrinsic (visual attractiveness) as well as extrinsic
cues (nutritional content) with the purpose of judging the
quality of a distinct product. Consequently, it is worth men-
tioning that taste, nutritional content, oblivious attraction,
and cheekiness must be enhanced. Thus, fresh as well as deli-
cious menus must be provided in the hotels/restaurants. Eye-
catching food demonstrations of the menus must not be
overlooked. For instance, serving skillfully garnished food
on appealing crockery has the potential to augment the
graphic presence of the menus or list. This can also enhance
clients’ professed food quality. Furthermore, fast-food res-
taurants can indicate the nourishment principles of the food
on the menu/list board with the purpose of persuading the
healthiness of the food items. In the same way, brochures
offering information regarding food production standards
may be made available on the tables with the aim of increas-
ing clients’ know-how of the food items. Intrinsically, cli-
ents’ professed quality estimations could be heightened. In
Javed et al.
Pakistan, as more people are tending to al fresco, dynami-
cally communicating product offerings to the clients and
delivering food as assured to retain the variety-seeking con-
sumers represent a realistic strategy of fast-food restaurants.
Patron’s acuities associated to food prices must be given
due consideration while fixing the menu prices. Thus, while
fixing the prices of the food items, the prices of same food
items of other restaurants in the same area must be given due
consideration. Henceforth, alike price levels will result in
increasing customers’ perceptions of the menu prices. To put
it another way, when clients’ professed food quality is great,
and if they find that food menu prices are very reasonable,
they will be definitely convinced that the selected menu is
worth buying. This conclusion will bring about high gratifi-
cation and ultimately augment brand loyalty. Moreover, if
restaurants want to increase the price of food menu, it is
acceptable to increase the price of food menus. As far as the
dual entitlement principle is concerned, the adequate details
must be elucidated to the clients regarding the increase in
price with the purpose of gaining the confidence of the con-
sumers. Moreover, judicious price advertisings in fast-food
menus can facilitate in enhancing the perceptions of the con-
sumers and can bring about higher customers’ satisfaction.
Moreover, advertising proposals, like rebate as well as
vouchers, also have the potential to inspire clienteles to visit
fast-food restaurants again and again.
The findings highlighted that service quality has attained
paramount importance. Referring to S-O-R theory, service
quality attributes, such as friendly staff, courteous, quick ser-
vice line, and waiting time, act as stimulus for customers’
internal evaluations (customers’ satisfaction). Therefore, res-
taurant should provide good services and reduce time
between order placement and order fulfillment with an aim
of providing quick service. In service setting, atmospheric
features serve as impetuses for customers’ reactions (Lin &
Mattila, 2010). Our findings imply that restaurant’s atmo-
spheric elements have contributed significantly to the satis-
faction of the consumers. Thus, heightened cleanliness,
layout, and comfortable environment should be provided.
Particularly, restaurant cleanliness and food safety matter a
lot after Covid 19. Today, customers are more concerned
about how their food is handled. It means that customers will
have less patience for workers who are not using gloves, mis-
handling of food as well as other cleanliness indicators.
Therefore, restaurants should implement strict sanitary regu-
lation to protect both workers and customers, acknowledging
that the safety of their customers is their first priority. In
addition, restaurants should make their environment more
charming by concentrating on interior as well as exterior
look. Similarly, sound and serene environment may enhance
the customers’ perceived quality evaluation.
The findings of present study emphasized the pivotal role
of customers’ satisfaction for keeping lasting associations
among the restaurants and their clienteles. Henceforth,
13
restaurateurs must regularly keep track of the satisfaction of
their clienteles. In case of any dissatisfaction, restaurateurs
should resolve the issues. Appropriate complaint manage-
ment procedure will definitely facilitate in enhancing clients’
satisfaction and inspire revisit intentions as well as brand
loyalty. Moreover, surveys can aid in comprehending the
consumers’ perceived food quality, service quality, price, and
atmosphere regarding fast-food restaurant. In addition, cus-
tomers’ recommendations must be gathered to arouse their
repeat patronage.
With regard to social trust, our findings imply that fast-
food operators should ensure the safety standards of foods,
disclose the menu information, and permit to often visit the
kitchen, which will strengthen their specific as well as gen-
eral trust. The study also gives insights to the government
about the social trust that has a momentous influence on con-
sumers or customers’ connections with a particular restau-
rant. In the context of the restaurant, the government can
augment the customers’ general trust toward the society by
activating the Pakistan Food Testing Authority to constantly
regulate the food safety standards in restaurants and perma-
nently close those restaurants that play with the health of
people by using substandard products.
Limitations and Future Directions
No study exists without limitations. Our study underlies the
following limitations and offers directions to future
researchers. First, the study has made use of random sample
data. The forthcoming investigators can employ elongated
data or use another design like experimental design. Second,
this study’s context is general. The future study could cat-
egorize restaurants into upscale, medium scale, and low
scale restaurants and assess the differences. Third, future
research studies can include other emerging constructs
investigated in restaurant contexts, which include restau-
rant-based customer engagement, value co-creation, ser-
vice innovation, service value, and customer or consumer
experience, with the purpose of examining the analytical
capability of the model (Hollebeek et al., 2019; Rather
et al., 2019; Rather & Hollebeek, 2020). Fourth, the study
used only social trust as a contingent. The future scholars
can consider WOM (positive and negative WOM) as a con-
tingent to investigate how it influences the association amid
satisfaction of the customers and loyalty to the brand. To
cut a long story short, the present research study is restricted
to the fast-food enterprise. The upcoming research studies
may explore other service enterprises, such as hotel indus-
try, to augment the robustness of the model.
Acknowledgments
The first and second author are thankful to University of International
Business and Economics (UIBE) authorities for the research fund
and financial support during PhD research studies.
14
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants
were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional
and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki dec-
laration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants
included in the study.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
Supported by “the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities” the Belt and Road research database construction
project of UIBE (TS4-10).
ORCID iDs
Salamun Rashidin https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1273-8494
Zhexiao Xu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3480-9863
Reference
Abdul Shukor, S., Johari, F., Abd Wahab, K., Kefeli, @., Zulkefli,
Z., Ahmad, N., Haji Alias, M., Abdul Rahman, A., Mohd
Orip, N. M., Ibrahim, P., & Abu-Hussin, M. F. (2019). Trust
on Awqaf institutions: Evidence from Malaysia. Journal of
Islamic Marketing, 10(2), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JIMA-05-2017-0054
Ahn, J., & Back, K.-J. (2018). Influence of brand relationship on
customer attitude toward integrated resort brands: A cogni-
tive, affective, and conative perspective. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 35(4), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/1
0548408.2017.1358239
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Sage.
Alfian, G., Ijaz, M. F., Syafrudin, M., Syaekhoni, M. A., Fitriyani,
N. L., & Rhee, J. (2019). Customer behavior analysis using
real-time data processing: A case study of digital signage-based
online stores. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
31(1), 265–290. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2018-0088
Alhaddad, A. A. (2015). The effect of advertising awareness on
brand equity in social media. International Journal of e-Educa-
tion, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 5(2), 73–84.
Alkhawaldeh, A., & Eneizan, B. M. (2018). Factors influencing
brand loyalty in durable goods market. International Journal
of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(1),
326–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3128145
Andaleeb, S. S., & Conway, C. (2006). Customer satisfaction in the
restaurant industry: An examination of the transaction-specific
model. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(1), 3–11.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
SAGE Open
Bechwati, N. N., Sisodia, R. S., & Sheth, J. N. (2009). Developing
a model of antecedents to consumers’ perceptions and evalua-
tions of price unfairness. Journal of Business Research, 62(8),
761–767.
Bigné, J. E., Mattila, A. S., & Andreu, L. (2018). The impact of
experiential consumption cognitions and emotions on behav-
ioral intentions. Journal of Services Marketing, 22, 303–315.
Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects
of physical surroundings and employee responses. Journal of
Marketing, 54(2), 69–82.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical sur-
roundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing,
56, 57–71.
Black, N., Johnston, M., Michie, S., Hartmann-Boyce, J., West,
R., Viechtbauer, W., Eisma, M. C., Scott, C., & de Bruin, M.
(2020). Behaviour change techniques associated with smoking
cessation in intervention and comparator groups of randomized
controlled trials: A systematic review and meta-regression.
Addiction, 115, 2008–2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15056
Bloemer, J., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (1999). Linking per-
ceived service quality and service loyalty: A multi-dimensional
perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 33(11–12),
1082–1106. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569910292285
Boix, C., & Daniel, N. P. (1998). Social capital: Explaining its ori-
gins and effects on government performance. British Journal
of Political Science, 28, 686–693.
Bolton, L. E., Warlop, L., & Joseph, A. (2003). Consumer percep-
tions of price (un) fairness. Journal of Consumer Research, 29,
474–491.
Bolton, R. N., & Lemon, K. N. (1999). A dynamic model of cus-
tomers’ usage of services: Usage as an antecedent and conse-
quence of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2),
171–186.
Brewer, M. B. (2008). Depersonalized trust and ingroup coopera-
tion. In J. I. Krueger (Ed.), Rationality and social responsibility
(pp. 215–232). Psychology Press.
Bujisic, M., Hutchinson, J., & Parsa, H. (2014). The effects of
restaurant quality attributes on customer behavioral inten-
tions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 26(8), 1270–1291. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJCHM-04-2013-0162
Campbell, J., & Fairhurst, A. (2016). Reducing the intention-to-
behaviour gap for locally produced foods purchasing: The
role of store, trust, and price. International Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management, 44(5), 508–523. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJRDM-08-2015-0121
Chalabi, M. (1996). Sociology of order. Ney Publishing.
Chaudhary, M., Ghouse, S. M., & Durrah, O. (2018). Young Arab
consumers: An analysis of family buying process in Oman.
Young Consumers, 19(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/
YC-07-2017-00720
Chen, X., & Wan, P. (2020). Social trust and corporate social
responsibility: Evidence from China. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27, 485–500.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1814
Costa, A. C., Fulmer, C. A., & Anderson, N. R. (2018). Trust in
work teams: An integrative review, multilevel model, and
future directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39,
169–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2213
Javed et al.
Cunningham, R. M. (1961). Customer loyalty to store and brand.
Harvard Business Review, 39(6), 127–137.
Daries-Ramón, N., Cristóbal, E., Ferrer-Rosell, B., & Mariné-
Roig, E. (2018). Behaviour of culinary tourists: A segmenta-
tion study of diners at top-level restaurants. Intangible Capital,
14(2), 332–355. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1090
Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2003). Who trusts? The origins of social
trust in seven societies. European Societies, 5(2), 93–137.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461669032000072256
Dutta, K., Parsa, H. G., Parsa, R. A., & Bujisic, M. (2014). Change
in consumer patronage and willingness to pay at different levels
of service attributes in restaurants: A study in India. Journal of
Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 15(2), 149–174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1528008x.2014.889533
El-Adly, M. I., & Amjad, A. E. S. (2018). Guest-based hotel equity:
Scale development and validation. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 27(6), 615–633. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-
09-2017-1570
Elbeltagi, I., & Agag, G. (2016). E-retailing ethics and its impact
on customer satisfaction and repurchase intention: A cultural
and commitment-trust theory perspective. Internet Research,
26(1), 288–310. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-10-2014-0244
Emir, O. (2016). A study of the relationship between service atmo-
sphere and customer loyalty with specific reference to struc-
tural equation modelling. Economic Research-ekonomska
Istraživanja, 29(1), 706–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/13316
77X.2016.1195276
Enache, R. G., & Dumitrof, C. B. (2017). Research on correla-
tions between personality traits and prosocial behavior of the
young people. Romanian Journal of Experimental Applied
Psychology, 8, 285–290.
Ergün, G. S., & Kitapci, O. (2018). The impact of cultural dimen-
sions on customer complaint behaviours: An exploratory study
in Antalya/Manavgat tourism region. International Journal
of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 12(1), 59–79.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-01-2017-0010
Falk, F., & Miller, N. (1992). PsycNET record display—PsycNET.
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-98610-000
Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2006). Consumer trust, perceived
security and privacy policy: Three basic elements of loyalty to
a web site. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(5–6),
601–620.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equa-
tion models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://
doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Freitag, M., & Traunmüller, R. (2009). Spheres of trust: An empiri-
cal analysis of the foundations of particularised and generalised
trust. European Journal of Political Research, 48(6), 782–803.
Goyal, A., Bhagtani, R., Singh, U. P., & Natchimuthu, N. (2019).
A study on impact of consumer reviews on consumer behav-
ior with reference to restaurants in Bengaluru. RESEARCH
REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary, 4(2),
532–538. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2580240
Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effect of
price comparison advertising on buyers perception of acquisi-
tion value, transition value and behavioral intentions. Journal
of Marketing, 62, 46–59.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010).
Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
15
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed
a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
19(2), 139–151.
Hardin, R. (1998). Trust in government. In V. Braithwaite & M.
Levi (Eds.), Trust and governance (pp. 9–27). Russell Sage
Foundation.
Haws, K. L., & Bearden, W. O. (2006). Dynamic pricing and con-
sumer fairness perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research,
33(3), 304–311.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences.
Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional pro-
cess analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Hollebeek, L. D., Sprott, D. E., Andreassen, T. W., Costley, C.,
Klaus, P., Kuppelwieser, V., . . .Rather, R. A. (2019). Customer
engagement in evolving technological environments: Synopsis
and guiding propositions. European Journal of Marketing,
53(9), 2018–2023.
Hoyer, W. D., & Ridgway, N. M. (1984). Variety seeking as an
explanation for exploratory purchase behavior: A theoretical
model. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research
(pp. 114–119). Association for Consumer Research.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria ver-
sus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080
/10705519909540118
Huang, Y.-A., Lin, C., & Phau, I. (2015). Idol attachment and
human brand loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 49(7–8),
1234–1255. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2012-0416
Hwang, E., Baloglu, S., & Tanford, S. (2019). Building loyalty
through reward programs: The influence of perceptions of fair-
ness and brand attachment. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 76, 19–28.
Ivkov, M., Blešić, I., Simat, K., Demirović, D., & Božić, S. (2018).
Innovations in the restaurant industry—An exploratory study.
Economics of Agriculture, 63(4), 1169–1186. https://doi.
org/10.5937/ekoPolj1604169I
Jacoby, J. (2002). Stimulus-organism-response reconsidered: An
evolutionary step in modeling (consumer) behavior. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 12, 51–57.
Javed, S., Rashidin, S., & Jian, W. (2018). What really matters? A
triumph of brand extension: Evidence from Engro Corporation.
Journal of Politics, Economy and Management, 1(2), 1–16.
Josiam, B., Foster, C., Malave, R., & Baldwin, W. (2014). Assessing
quality of food, service and customer experience at a restau-
rant: The case of a student run restaurant in the USA. Journal
of Service Research, 14(1), 49–73.
Kandampully, J., Zhang, T., & Bilgihan, A. (2015). Customer loy-
alty: A review and future directions with a special focus on the
hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 27(3), 379–414. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2014-0151
Khorasani, S. T., & Almasifard, M. (2018). The development of a
green supply chain dual-objective facility by considering dif-
ferent levels of uncertainty. Journal of Industrial Engineering
International, 14, 593–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-
017-0245-3
Kim, J., Morris, J. D., & Swait, J. (2008). Antecedents of true brand
loyalty. Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 99–117. https://doi.
org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367370208
16
Kim, W. G., & Moon, Y. J. (2009). Customers’ cognitive, emo-
tional, and actionable response to the servicescape: A test of
the moderating effect of the restaurant type. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), 144–145.
Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R., & Reece, J. (1999). Consumer research in
the restaurant environment, part 1: A conceptual model of din-
ing satisfaction and return patronage. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(5), 205–222.
Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S.,
Wong, I. Y. F., & Georgiou, T. (2015). Exploring the validity of
a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 34(1), 67–76.
Kline, R. B. (2005). PsycNET record display—PsycNET. http://
psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-03476-000
Konuk, F. A. (2019). The influence of perceived food quality,
price fairness, perceived value and satisfaction on customers’
revisit and word-of-mouth intentions towards organic food
restaurants. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50,
103–110.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J., & Wong, V. (2002).
Principle of marketing (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). Marketing management (13th
ed.). Pearson Education.
Krammer, S. M. S. (2019). Greasing the wheels of change: Bribery,
institutions, and new product introductions in emerging mar-
kets. Journal of Management, 45(5), 1889–1926. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206317736588
Kranzbühler, A.-M., Kleijnen, M. H., Morgan, R. E., & Teerling, M.
(2018). The multilevel nature of customer experience research:
An integrative review and research agenda. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 20, 433–456. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ijmr.12140
Lähteenmäki, L., & van Trijp, J. C. M. (1995). Hedonic responses,
variety seeking tendency and expressed variety in sandwich
choices. Appetite, 24, 139–152.
Lee, S., Chua, B.-L., & Han, H. (2020). Variety-seeking moti-
vations and customer behaviors for new restaurants: An
empirical comparison among full-service, quick-casual, and
quick-service restaurants. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 43, 220–231.
Lee, S. M., Kim, S. Y., Yoo, S., & Song, T. H. (2019). The cross-
buying effect in a multi-vendor loyalty program in Korea. Asian
Business & Management. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-019-
00088-w
Lee, T. J., Cho, H., & Ahn, T.-H. (2012). Senior citizen satisfac-
tion with restaurant service quality. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 21(2), 215–226.
Liang, Y., & Ju, W. (2016). Interpersonal trust and ability of elderly
victims to perform activities of daily living in the Ya’an
earthquake reconstruction area, China. Disaster Medicine
and Public Health Preparedness, 10(5), 739–745. https://doi.
org/10.1017/dmp.2015.179
Lin, I. Y., & Mattila, A. S. (2010). Restaurant servicescape, ser-
vice encounter, and perceived congruency on customers’ emo-
tions and satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 19(8), 819–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/193686
23.2010.514547
Liu, C.-H. S., Su, C.-S., Gan, B., & Chou, S.-F. (2014). Effective
restaurant rating scale development and a mystery shopper
SAGE Open
evaluation approach. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 43, 53–64.
Liu, Y., & Jang, S. (2009). Perceptions of Chinese restaurants in
the U.S.: What affects customer satisfaction and behavioral
intentions? International Journal of Hospitality Management,
28(3), 338–348.
Longart, P., Wickens, E., & Bakir, A. (2018). An investigation
into restaurant attributes: A basis for a typology. International
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 19(1), 95–
123. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2017.1305314
Lu, L., Chi, C. G., & Liu, Y. (2015). Authenticity, involvement,
and image: Evaluating tourist experiences at historic district.
Tourism Management, 50, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2015.01.026
Mahdavi, G., & Daryaei, A. A. (2017). Factors affecting the audit
process and social theories. Corporate Governance, 17(4),
770–786. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2016-0079
Martínez, P., & Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2013). CSR and customer
loyalty: The roles of trust, customer identification with the
company and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 35, 89–99.
Mattila, A. S. (2001). Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(6),
73–79.
Meesala, A., & Paul, J. (2018). Service quality, consumer satisfac-
tion and loyalty in hospitals: Thinking for the future. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 40(C), 261–269.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory
of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38.
Naderi, I., Paswan, A. K., & Guzman, F. (2018). Beyond the shadow
of a doubt: The effect of consumer knowledge on restaurant
evaluation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 45,
221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.09.004
Namin, A. (2017). Revisiting customers’ perception of service qual-
ity in fast food restaurants. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 34, 70–81.
Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. (2007). Does food quality really matter in
restaurants? Its impact on customer satisfaction and behavioral
intentions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31(3),
387–409.
Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. C. (2010). Effects of perceived service
fairness on emotions, and behavioral intentions in restaurants.
European Journal of Marketing, 44(9/10), 1233–1259.
Newton, K. (2001, September). Social trust and political disaffection:
Social capital and democracy [Conference session]. EURESCO
Conference on Social capital, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Newton, K., & Zmerli, S. (2011). Three forms of trust and their
association. European Political Science Review, 3(2), 169–
200. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000330
Nield, K., Kozak, M., & LeGrys, G. (2000). The role of food ser-
vice in tourist satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 19(4), 375–384.
Nikhashemi, S. R., Paim, L., Osman, S., & Sidin, S. (2015). The
significant role of customer brand identification towards brand
loyalty development: An empirical study among Malaysian
hypermarkets customer. Procedia—Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 207, 182–188.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence customer loyalty? Journal of
Marketing, 63, 33–44.
Javed et al.
Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Consumer perceptions of
interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transactions: A field
survey approach. Journal of Marketing, 53, 21–35. https://doi.
org/10.2307/1251411
Olson, J. C. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality perception
process: A cognitive model and an empirical test [Doctoral
dissertation]. Purdue University.
Olson, J. C., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality per-
ception process. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Convention of
the Association for Consumer Research, 2(17), 167–179.
Otto, A. S., Szymanski, D. M., & Varadarajan, R. (2020). Customer
satisfaction and firm performance: Insights from over a quar-
ter century of empirical research. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 48, 543–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11747-019-00657-7
ÖZDEMİR, B., & NEBİOĞLU, O. (2018). Use of menu design
techniques: Evidences from menu cards of restaurants in
Alanya. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research, 6(2),
205–227. https://doi.org/10.30519/ahtr.440123
Pantelidis, I. S. (2010). Electronic meal experience: A content
analysis of online restaurant comments. Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, 51(4), 483–491.
Park, C. (2004). Efficient or enjoyable? Consumer values of eating-
out and fast food restaurant consumption in Korea. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(1), 87–94.
Pei, K., & Ayub, A. (2015). Measuring customer satisfaction
towards cafeteria services in primary health care setting: A
cross-section study among patients and health care providers
in Bintulu, Sarawak. Open Access Library Journal, 2, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1101361
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, Y., & Podsakoff, N. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A criti-
cal review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Prendergast, G., & Man, H. W. (2002). The influence of store image
on store loyalty in Hong Kong’s quick service restaurant indus-
try. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 5(1), 45–59.
Qin, H., & Prybutok, V. (2009). Service quality, customer satis-
faction, and behavioral intentions in fast-food restaurants.
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(1),
78–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566690910945886
Rao, A., & Monroe, K. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and
store name on buyers’ perceptions of product quality: An inte-
grative review. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 351–357.
Rashidin, M. S., Javed, S., Chen, L., & Jian, W. (2020). Assessing
the competitiveness of Chinese multinational enterprises
development: Evidence from electronics sector. SAGE Open,
10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019898214
Rashidin, M. S., Javed, S., Liu, B., & Jian, W. (2020). Ramifications
of households’ nonfarm income on agricultural productivity:
Evidence from a rural area of Pakistan. SAGE Open, 10(1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020902091
Rather, R. A. (2017). Investigating the impact of customer brand
identification on hospitality brand loyalty: A social identity
perspective. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management,
27(5), 487–513.
Rather, R. A., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2019). Exploring and validat-
ing social identification and social exchange-based driv-
ers of hospitality customer loyalty. International Journal
17
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31, 1432–1451.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2017-0627
Rather, R. A., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2020). Experiential market-
ing for tourism destinations. In The Routledge handbook of
tourism experience management and marketing. Routledge.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/experiential-market-
ing-tourism-destinations-raouf-ahmad-rather-linda-hollebee
k/e/10.4324/9780429203916-24
Rather, R. A., Hollebeek, L. D., & Islam, J. U. (2019). Tourism-
based customer engagement: The construct, antecedents,
and consequences. The Service Industries Journal, 39,
519–540.
Rather, R. A., & Sharma, J. (2017). Customer engagement for
evaluating customer relationships in hotel industry. European
Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation, 8(1).
Rather, R. A., Tehseen, S., & Parrey, S. H. (2018). Promoting cus-
tomer brand engagement and brand loyalty through customer
brand identification and value congruity. Spanish Journal of
Marketing—ESIC, 22(3), 319–337.
Ratner, R. K., Kahn, B. E., & Kahneman, D. (1999). Choosing
less—Preferred experiences for the sake of variety. Journal of
Consumer Research, 26, 1–15.
Robbins, B. G. (2016). From the general to the specific: How social
trust motivates relational trust. Social Science Research, 55,
16–30.
Rosenberg, M. (1957). Misanthropy and attitudes towards interna-
tional affairs. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1, 340–345.
Ryu, K., & Han, H. (2010). Influence of the quality of food, service,
and physical environment on customer satisfaction and behav-
ioral intention in quick-casual restaurants: Moderating role of
perceived price. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
34(3), 310–329.
Ryu, K., & Han, H. (2011). New or repeat customers: How does
physical environment influence their restaurant experience?
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3),
599–611.
Sandor Czellar. (2003). Consumer attitude toward brand extensions:
An integrative model and research propositions. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(1), 97–115.
Santouridis, I., & Trivellas, P. (2010). Investigating the impact of
service quality and customer satisfaction on customer loyalty
in mobile telephony in Greece. The TQM Journal, 22(3), 330–
343. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542731011035550
Saul, R. J. S., Lee, C. W., Otto, R. P., & Jusni, M. P. (2018).
Identification of customer loyalty determinants in service
industry. Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 6(4),
171–178. https://doi.org/10.12691/jbms-6-4-5
Schreiber, J. B. (2008). Core reporting practices in structural
equation modeling. Research in Social and Administrative
Pharmacy, 4(2), 83–97.
Seckler, M., Heinz, S., Forde, S., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2015).
Trust and distrust on the web: User experiences and website
characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 39–50.
Segson, U., & Tan, C. C. (2018). Application of Stimulus-
organism-response (S-o-r) theory to study consumer behavior
of upscale restaurants in Northern Thailand. In Proceeding of
the 6th AASI (pp. 701–708). http://aasic.org/proc/aasic/article/
view/422
Serhan, M., & Carole, S. (2019). The impact of food service attri-
butes on customer satisfaction INA Rural University campus
18
environment. International Journal of Food Science, 2019,
2154548. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2154548
Sharma, J., & Rather, R. A. (2017, January 5–7). Investigating
the role of customer engagement in hospitality sector [Paper
presentation]. Annual Conference of Emerging Markets
Conference Board 2017: Reaching Consumers in Emerging
Markets, Lucknow, India.
So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B., & Wang, Y. (2013). The influ-
ence of customer brand identification on hotel brand evaluation
and loyalty development. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 34, 31–41.
Song, H., Wang, J., & Han, H. (2019). Effect of image, satisfaction,
trust, love, and respect on loyalty formation for name-brand cof-
fee shops. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
79, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.12.011
Sunaryo, I. (2019). Effects of food quality, service quality,
price, environment, and location towards customer loyalty
of Indonesia’s local fast food industry. J@ti Undip: Jurnal
Teknik Industri, 14(3), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.14710/
jati.14.3.119-128
Taheri, B., Gannon, M. J., & Kesgin, M. (2019). Visitors’ perceived
trust in sincere, authentic, and memorable heritage experi-
ences. Service Industries Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/026
42069.2019.1642877
Teas, R. K., & Agarwal, S. (2000). The effects of extrinsic prod-
uct cues on consumers’ perceptions of quality, sacrifice, and
value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2),
278–290.
Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020). Personality and
prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 30–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/
bul0000217
Thomas, S. (2013). Linking customer loyalty to customer satis-
faction and store image: A structural model for retail stores.
Decision, 40, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-013-
0007-z
Tone, E. B., Nahmias, E., Bakeman, R., Kvaran, T., Brosnan, S. F.,
Fani, N., & Schroth, E. A. (2019). Social anxiety and social
behavior: A test of predictions from an evolutionary model.
Clinical Psychological Science, 7(1), 110–126. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2167702618794923
Trafialek, J., Czarniecka-Skubina, E., Kulaitiené, J., &
Vaitkevičienė, N. (2020). Restaurant’s multidimensional
evaluation concerning food quality, service, and sustainable
practices: A cross-national case study of Poland and Lithuania.
Sustainability, 12, 234.
Truong, N., Nisar, T., Knox, D., & Prabhakar, G. (2017). The
influences of cleanliness and employee attributes on per-
ceived service quality in restaurants in a developing country.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 11(4), 608–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR
-11-2016-0111
SAGE Open
Uslaner, E. M. (1999). Democracy and social capital. In M.
Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 121–150). Cambridge
University Press.
Uslaner, E. M. (2000). Producing and consuming trust. Political
Science Quarterly, 115(4), 569–590.
Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1994). The importance of
services capes in leisure service settings. Journal of Services
Marketing, 8(3), 66–76.
Wall, E. A., & Berry, L. L. (2007). The combined effects of the
physical environment and employee behavior on customer
perception of restaurant service quality. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 59–69.
Weiss, R., Feinstein, A. H., & Dalbor, M. (2004). Customer satisfac-
tion of theme restaurant attributes and their influence on return
intent. Journal of Food Service Business Research, 7(2), 23–24.
Wong, I. A., & Fong, V. H. I. (2010). Examining casino service
quality in the Asian Las Vegas: An alternative approach.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19(8),
842–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2010.514553
Xi, L., & Shuai, Z. (2009). Investigation of customer satisfaction in
student food service: An example of student cafeteria in NHH.
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(1),
113–124.
Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Cox, J. L. (2004). The price is unfair! A
conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. Journal of
Marketing, 68(4), 1–15.
Yu, Y., & Dean, A. (2001). The contribution of emotional satis-
faction to consumer loyalty. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 12(3), 234–250.
Yuksel, A., & Yuksel, F. (2002). Market segmentation based on
tourists’ dining preferences. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 26(4), 315–331.
Zandstra, E. H., De Graaf, C., & Van Trijp, H. C. M. (2000). Effects
of variety and repeated in-home consumption on product
acceptance. Appetite, 35(2), 113–119.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and
value: A means and model and synthesis of evidence. Journal
of Marketing, 52, 2–22.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behav-
ioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing,
60, 31–46.
Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (1996). Services marketing.
McGraw-Hill.
Zhang, T., Chen, J., & Hu, B. (2019). Authenticity, quality, and
loyalty: Local food and sustainable tourism experience.
Sustainability, 11(12), 1–18.
Zulfiqar, S., Sarwar, B., Aziz, S., Ejaz Chandia, K., & Khan,
M. K. (2019). An analysis of influence of business simula-
tion games on business school students’ attitude and inten-
tion toward entrepreneurial activities. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 57(1), 106–130. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0735633117746746