Factors influencing food consumption satisfaction and purchase decisions of restaurant consumers

Abstract

This research examined how multi-sensory dimensions like sight, sound, and smell would influence customer attitudes toward quick-service restaurants, restaurant patronage intentions, food purchasing decisions, food consumption satisfaction, restaurant attachment, repurchase intention, and positive word of mouth in South African quick-service restaurants. The research embraced a quantitative approach. An online questionnaire was used to collect data from restaurant customers in the Bloemfontein metropolitan. The hypotheses were analysed by applying structural equation modelling. The results uncovered that the study variables were significantly associated and surprisingly, restaurant attachment had a negative and insignificant effect on positive word of mouth. This research adds new fresh knowledge to the established body of knowledge in the context of restaurant food consumption behaviour. This area has little research attention in developing African countries like South Africa.

Key innovation abilities on capability and the performance of women entrepreneurs: the role of entrepreneurial education and proactive personality

“…As such, a sufficient level of discriminating validity was revealed by all the variables. These results have generally provided evidence of acceptable levels of reliability of the research scale (Chinomona & Chinomona, 2013;Maziriri, Mashapa, Nyagadza, & Mabuyana, 2023). Field (2013) states that discriminant validity refers to items measuring different concepts.…”

Habitual Facebook use as a prognosticator for life satisfaction and psychological well-being: social safeness as a moderator

“…In terms of discriminant validity, all the correlation coefficients of this study fell below 0.70, thereby confirming the theoretical uniqueness of each variable in this research (Field, 2013). In addition, discriminant validity was evaluated using the HTMT criterion (Table 4), despite recommendations from previous studies (Henseler, Hubona, & Ray, 2016; Verkijika & De Wet, 2018; Maziriri, Rukuni, & Chuchu, 2021), indicating that HTMT is more suitable to evaluate discriminant validity than Fornell-Larcker's commonly used criteria. When taking a more conservative position, discriminant validity is reached when the HTMT value is below 0.9 or 0.85 (Verkijika & De Wet, 2018; Neneh, 2019; Maziriri et al.…”

“…, 2021), discriminant validity was evaluated using the HTMT criterion (Table 4). Discriminant validity is achieved when the HTMT value is less than 0.9 or 0.85 when using a more conservative approach (Verkijika, & De Wet, 2018; Neneh, 2019; Maziriri et al. , 2021).…”

“…In addition, discriminant validity was evaluated using the HTMT criterion (Table 4), despite recommendations from previous studies (Henseler, Hubona, & Ray, 2016;Verkijika & De Wet, 2018;Maziriri, Rukuni, & Chuchu, 2021), indicating that HTMT is more suitable to evaluate discriminant validity than Fornell-Larcker's commonly used criteria. When taking a more conservative position, discriminant validity is reached when the HTMT value is below 0.9 or 0.85 (Verkijika & De Wet, 2018;Neneh, 2019;Maziriri et al, 2021). According to Table 4, the highest obtained HTMT value is 0.724, which is less than the conservative value of 0.85.…”

“…In terms of discriminant validity, all the correlation coefficients in this study fell below 0.70, confirming the theoretical uniqueness of each variable in this study (Field, 2013). Furthermore, despite previous research indicating that HTMT is more appropriate for evaluating discriminant validity than Fornell-Larcker's commonly used criteria (Henseler, Hubona, & Ray, 2016;Verkijika & De Wet, 2018;Maziriri et al, 2021), discriminant validity was evaluated using the HTMT criterion (Table 4). Discriminant validity is achieved when the HTMT value is less than 0.9 or 0.85 when using a more conservative approach (Verkijika, & De Wet, 2018;Neneh, 2019;Maziriri et al, 2021).…”