13 Chapter3

CHAPTER 3
ANTECEDENTS AND DESCENDANTS OF

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION – ASSESSMENT
AND EVALUATION
Antecedents & Descendants of Customer Satisfaction - Assessment & Evaluation
The present chapter accomplishes the objectives of the study by analyzing
the primary data using various statistical tools. The data were collected from 555
respondents. This chapter is divided into six sections. The first section covers the
profile of samples which describe the demographic characteristics of the sample
respondents. The second section portrays the buying behavior of fast food
consumers. The third section discuss the various drivers that determine the selection
fast food restaurants. The fourth section considers the Perceived Value, Service
Quality aspect of fast food restaurants. The fourth section deals with Customer
Satisfaction and the fifth section deals with Customer Loyalty.
3.1 PROFILE OF SAMPLE RESPONDENTS
This section describes the demographic characteristics of respondents such as
gender, marital status, educational qualification, income, etc., of sample
respondents. Table 3.1 shows the classification of respondents on the basis of their
demographic characteristics.
Table 3.1
Classification of sample respondents on the basis of demographic Profile
Frequency Percentage
1 Gender
Male 341 61
Female 214 39
2 Area of Living
Urban 243 44
Semi-urban 224 40
Rural 88 16
61
Frequency Percentage
3 Age
Below 25 years 268 48
25-35 years 199 36
35-45 years 72 13
Above 45 years 16 3
4 Marital Status
Married 210 38
Unmarried 345 62
5 Educational Qualification
SSLC 22 4
Plus Two 42 8
Degree 293 53
Above Degree 193 35
6 Income
Below Rs. 25000 83 15
Rs. 25000- Rs. 50000 219 40
Above Rs. 50000 253 45
7 Occupation
Business 66 12
Government Employee 105 19
Private Sector Employee 180 32
Students 204 37
555 100
Source: Field survey N=555
62
Table 3.1 shows that 61 percent of sample respondents are male and 39
percent are females. Classification of respondents on the basis of living area shows
that 44 percent are from urban area, 40 percent from semi urban area and 16 percent
are from Rural Area.
According to age wise classification 48 percent of respondents belong to
‘Below 25’ age group, 36 percent in ‘25-35’ age group, 13 percent in ‘35-45’ age
group and 3 percent in ‘Above 45 year’s age group. Hence the majority of fast food
restaurant consumers belong to younger age groups of less than 35 years of age.
Regarding marital status, 62 percent are unmarried and 38 percent are
married. Another classification on the basis of educational qualification shows that
53 percent are Graduates and 35 percent are Post Graduates. 12 percent of
respondents belong to the less educated background of SSLC and Plus Two. Hence
the majority of the consumers of fast food restaurants are unmarried and well
educated.
With respect to monthly income 40 percent belong to Rs 25,000 – Rs 50,000
category, 45 percent of respondents belong to ‘Above Rs 50,000’ income category
and 15 percent belongs to less than Rs 25,000 income category. Hence the majority
of consumers are from relatively high income groups.
3.2 BUYING BEHAVIOR
The buying behavior of consumers is one of the relevant aspects of the study.
The buying behavior of consumers of fast food restaurant is examined in terms of
Preferred Companion, Amount Spend per visit, Preferred Time and Preferred Food
63
option. Table 3.2 shows the descriptive statistics of the buying behavior of fast food
consumers
Table 3.2
Buying Behavior of fast food restaurant consumers
Frequency Percent
One Visit 78 14.1
2-3 Visits 179 32.2

Frequency
of 4-5 Visits 195 35.1
Visit/Month
6-7 Visits 41 7.4
Above 7 Visits 62 11.2
1 Hour 233 42
2 Hour 204 36.7

Time
Spent/Visit 3 Hours 102 18.4
4 Hours 16 2.9
Up to Rs. 500 167 30.0
Rs 500 – Rs 1000 93 16.8

Amount
Rs 1000 – Rs 2000 124 22.3
Spent/Visit
Rs2000 – Rs 3000 116 20.9
Above Rs 3000 55 10.0
Break Fast 63 11.4
Snacks 176 31.7

Preferred
Food Option Lunch 112 20.2
Dinner 204 36.7
Cash 285 51.4

Preferred
Mode of Debit Card 210 37.8
64
Payment Credit Card 36 6.5
Others 24 4.3
Alone 71 12.8
Preferred Friends 324 58.4

Companion
Family 108 19.5
Colleagues 52 9.4
On the way to Office/ College 57 10.3
On the way Back from the 77 13.9

Office/ College
Preferred
Visiting Time In between Office/ College 60 10.8
Leisure Time with Friends/ 361 65.0

Family
Mc Donald’s 166 29.9
KFC 131 23.6
Domino’s Pizza 82 14.8

Preferred Fast
Food EFC 20 3.6
Restaurant
AFC 16 2.9
Chicking 80 14.4
Subway 60 10.8
Source: Field survey N=555
Table 3.2 shows the buying behavior of fast food restaurant consumers. 14.1
% of consumers visit FFRs once in month, 32% percent visit FFRs 2-3 times in a
month, and 35.1% visit FFRs 4-5 times in a month. With regard to the average
amount spent, 42% respondents spent up to one hour per visit, 36.7% spend around
2 hours per visit and 18.4% spent up to 3 hours per visit.
65
Regarding the average amount spent in a fast food restaurant per visit, 30 %
respondents spent up to Rs. 500, 16.8 % between Rs. 1,000, 22.3% between Rs
1,000 to Rs. 2,000, 20.9 % between Rs 2,000 to Rs. 3000 and 10% spent more than
Rs. 3,000.
36.7% of the consumers preferred food option is Dinner while 31.7 % prefer
Snacks, 20.2 prefer Lunch and only 11.4% prefers Breakfast.
With regard to the most preferred payment mode, 51.4% opined that Cash as
their preferred choice, while 37.8 percent prefer Debit cards, and 6.5% prefer Credit
cards.
Regarding the preferred Companion, 58.4% of the consumers prefer to visit
FFRs with friends, 19.5% with family, 12% prefer to go alone and 9.4% prefer to
colleagues as their companions to FFRs. 29.9% consumers preferred FFRs was
McDonald, 23.6% prefer KFC, 14.8% prefer Dominos, 14.4 %prefer Chicking and
10.8%prefer Subway. 65% of consumer prefer to visit FFRs during leisure time
whereas 13.9% preferred time to visit FFRs was on the way back from
college/office, 10.8% consumers prefer to visit FFRs in between college/office time
and 10.3% consumers prefer to visit FFRs on the way to Office/College.
3.3 DRIVERS THAT DETERMINE THE CHOICE OF FFRs
Drivers refer to the factors which influence consumers in choosing a fast
food restaurant. Through the review of literature, the researcher has identified 26
variables that are likely to induce a consumer towards a fast food restaurant. Three
variables were later removed during the phase of improving the measurement scale.
The Alpha Values indicating reliability improved significantly after deleting these
66
three variables. The decision to remove these variables was taken as it was observed
that such deletion would in no way affect the aspect being measured. The opinions
of experts were also considered in this regard.
In order to bring down the number of dimensions indicating the drivers,
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was adopted using Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation method. This combination is useful because
it considers both unique and common variances (Rao, 1964; Shlens, 2014). The
researcher also examined whether the data collected was adequate for factor
analysis. The sample adequacy test known as Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of
sampling adequacy (KMO- test) showed that the data was suitable for EFA. The
KMO value was .753 which is above the threshold limit of .05 (Leech 2011,
Anderson 1995). Moreover, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, test the strength of
relationship of variables, showed that the relationship was significant. The EFA
procedure brought out six factors which are labeled suitably and is presented in
Table 3.3.
67
Table 3.3
Drivers of Fast Food Restaurants – Exploratory Factor Analysis
Alpha
Factor
Codes Factors Mean SD (α )
loading
value
Factor 1 Promotional Measures
PR1 Advertisement is attractive 3.68 .919 .778
Sales Promotion schemes

PR2 offered like family packs, 3.82 .869 .639
discount etc. are effective
Presentation of food here is .739

PR3 3.70 .978 .575
excellent
Promotion
PR4 schemes/strategies are 4.00 .901 .769
attracting customers
Factor 2 Quality food at reasonable price
Food served here is hot and

Q1 4.15 .768 .703
fresh
Food safety standard

Q2 3.85 .840 .695
satisfactory
.722
Q3 Ingredients are nutritious 3.52 1.03 .709
Price charged here is

Q4 3.70 .872 .728
reasonable
Factor 3 Brand Image
This brand is well known

BI1 3.80 .852 .563
and prestigious
This brand have a

BI2 3.99 .695 .851
reputation for high quality
.861
BI3 This brand is trustworthy 3.98 .861 .625
I have a positive feeling for

BI4 this brand 3.89 .840 .626
68
Alpha
Factor
Codes Factors Mean SD (α )
loading
value
Factor 4 Convenience
C1 Amble parking facilities 3.91 .786 .464
C2 Convenient operating time 3.66 .872 .648
C3 Accessible location 3.67 .977 .648
Additional services .706

C4 provided by this outlets are 3.69 .885 .778
satisfactory
Staff of this outlet are well

C5 3.91 .825 .424
dressed
Factor 5 Environment
ET1 Menu variety is excellent 3.68 .834 .811
Overall ambience in the

ET2 3.97 .807 .671
outlets excellent
.744
Exterior of the premises is
ET3 instantly appealing clear & 3.85 .717 .606
consistent branding
Factor 6 Staff service
Service of staff were

SS1 3.98 .749 .644
courteous and helpful
High speed in order

SS2 3.66 1.02 .813 .751
delivery
SS3 Excellent staff service 3.92 .891 .420
Source: Field Survey N=555
Table 3.3 shows the six factors extracted through the EFA procedure. The
factors that drive consumers towards fast food restaurants are named as Promotional
Measures, Quality of food at reasonable price, Brand Image, Convenience,
69
Environment and staff service. The reliability value calculated using Cronbach
Alpha is above the threshold limit of 0.7 indicating the internal consistency of data.
The relative influence of these factors/drivers in choosing a fast food
restaurant is presented below in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4
Drivers that influence the choice of fast food restaurants
Drivers Mean SD
Promotional Measures 3.800 .686
Quality of food at reasonable price 3.804 .653
Brand Image 3.915 .684
Convenience 3.768 .591
Environment 3.835 .641
Staff service 3.852 .649
Table shows that the most prominent driver that determine the choice of fast
food restaurant is Brand Image (Mean = 3.916), followed by Staff Service (3.852),
Environment (3.835), Quality of Food at reasonable Price (3.804), Promotional
Measures (3.800), and Convenience (3.768). The result is also presented in
Figure 3.1.
70
Figure 3.1 Drivers that influence the choice of fast food restaurants
Testing of Hypotheses – Drivers
The relative influence of drivers may vary according to the demographic
characteristics of consumers. In order to see whether consumers significantly differ
according to their demographic profile, the collected data were analyzed using
appropriate statistical tools. The testing of hypotheses revealed whether or not the
drivers that determine fast food restaurants differ in terms of consumer’s
demographic profile.
Gender and Drivers
Gender is one of the important attributes that influence the consumers buying
decision. The drivers may influence male and female consumers differently. Here an
71
attempt has been made to see whether gender has any influence on drivers. For this
purpose following hypothesis was formulated and tested with independent sample t
test.
Ho1: There is no significant difference between male and female consumers with
regard to various drivers that determine the choice of fast food restaurants.
H11: There is significant difference between male and female consumers with regard
to various drivers that determine the choice of fast food restaurants.
Table 3.5
Gender and Drivers
Drivers Gender Mean t value df P value
Male 3.88
Promotional Measures 3.55 553 <.001
Female 3.67
Male 3.91
Quality food at reasonable price 5.39 553 .<001
Female 3.61
Male 4.04
Brand Image 6.67 553 <.001
Female 3.67
Male 3.77
Convenience .404 553 .687
Female 3.75
Male 3.90
Environment 3.33 553 <.001
Female 3.71
Male 4.02
Staff service 8.20 553 <.001
Female 3.58
Source: Field survey N = 555
72
Table 3.5 Presents the result of hypothesis test. As the P value of drivers
such as‘ Promotional Measures, Quality food at reasonable price, Brand Image,
Environment and Staff service’ is less than .05, the null hypothesis was rejected in
favor of alternative hypothesis. The mean score of male consumers are significantly
higher for Environment factor (Male = 3.90, Female = 3.71), staff service (Male =
4.02, Female = 3.58), Brand Image (Male = 4.04, Female = 3.67), quality food at
reasonable price (Male = 3.91, Female = 3.61). Therefore, the influence of drivers is
significantly more for males than females with regard to Environment, staff service,
Brand Image, quality food at reasonable price. However, P value of the driver
‘Convenience’ is greater than .05, hence it was failed to reject the null hypothesis in
respect of Convenience. It is concluded that Convenience is independent of drivers.
Area of living and Drivers
Geographical location can have an influence on the behavior of consumers.
The consumers with rural background are likely to behave differently from
consumers with urban background. Since majority of India’s population resides in
rural areas, an understanding of the difference in consumer behavior may be useful
to all stakeholders. In order to examine whether the area of living cause any
difference in choosing of fast food restaurants, the following hypotheses were
formulated and tested using One Way ANOVA.
Ho2: There is no significant difference among consumers living in rural, semi urban
and urban areas with regard to various drivers that determine the choice of fast
food restaurants.
73
H12: There is significant difference among consumers living in rural, semi urban and
urban areas with regard to various drivers that determine the choice of fast food
restaurants.
Table 3.6
Area of living and Drivers
Area of F
Drivers Mean df P value
living value
Urban 3.67
Promotional
Semi- Urban 3.97 12.2 2,552 <.001
Measures
Rural 3.71
Urban 3.70
Quality food at
Semi- Urban 3.93 7.59 2,552 <.001
reasonable price
Rural 3.73
Urban 3.81
Brand Image Semi- Urban 4.12 19.58 2,552 <.001
Rural 3.67
Urban 3.71
Convenience Semi- Urban 3.72 8.81 2,552 <.001
Rural 4.00
Urban 3.79
Environment Semi- Urban 3.83 1.22 2,552 .295
Rural 3.92
Urban 3.71
Staff service Semi- Urban 3.97 9.98 2,552 <.001
Rural 3.90
74
Table 3.6 presents the result of hypothesis test using One Way ANOVA. As
the P value of the driver ‘Environment’ is greater than .05 it was failed to reject the
null hypothesis. It was concluded that the driver, the restaurant Environment is
independent of residential area of consumers. As the P value of drivers ‘Promotional
Measures, Quality food at reasonable price, Brand Image, Convenience and Staff
service’ is less than .05, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of alternative
hypothesis. Thus there is a significant difference among people residing in rural,
urban and semi urban areas regarding the drivers such as ‘Promotional Measures’,
‘Quality food at reasonable price’, ‘Brand Image’, ‘Convenience’ and ‘Staff
service’. To identify the groups that are significantly different, Post Hoc test was
conducted using Tukey HSD. The results show the drivers that vary according to
area of living.
With regard to Promotional Measures, there is significant difference between
semi urban and urban consumers and also between semi urban and rural consumers.
However, no significant difference was observed between urban and rural
consumers. The influence of Promotional Measures is significantly more among
semi urban consumers (M= 3.97) than the urban consumers (M= 3.67) and rural
consumers (M= 3.71). Hence it can be inferred that the influence of Promotional
Measures is more among semi urban consumers than the urban and rural consumers.
The test result with regard to ‘quality of food at reasonable price’ revealed
that there is significant difference between urban and semi urban consumers and also
between rural and semi urban consumers. The influence of Quality of food at
reasonable price is significantly more for semi urban consumers (M= 3.93) than
urban consumers (M= 3.70) and rural consumers (M= 3.73). Hence it can be
75
concluded that the influence of quality of food at reasonable price is significantly
more for semi urban consumers than the urban and rural consumers.
The test result with regard to the driver ‘Convenience’ shows that there is
significant difference between urban and rural consumers and also between semi
urban and rural consumers. However, no significant difference was observed
between urban and semi urban consumers. The influence of Convenience is
significantly higher for rural consumers (M= 4.00) than urban (M=3.71) and semi
urban consumers (M= 3.72). Hence it can be concluded that the influence of
Convenience is significantly more for rural consumers than urban and semi
consumers.
The test result with regard to ‘staff service’ shows that there is significant
different between urban and rural consumers and between urban and semi urban
consumers. No significant difference was observed between rural and semi urban
consumers. The driver staff service is significantly more for semi urban consumers
(M= 3.97) than urban (M= 3.71) consumers. Similarly, the driver staff service is
significantly more for rural consumers (M= 3.90) than urban consumers (M=3.71).
Hence it can be concluded that the staff service is significantly more for semi urban
consumers and rural consumers compared to urban consumers.
Marital status and Drivers
Marital status is one of the important demographic variables which can have
an influence on purchase behavior. Married consumers may behave differently from
unmarried consumers. Married consumers are generally busy with family
responsibilities and find less time for leisure, whereas, the unmarried people are
rather free and can visit fast food restaurants more frequently and spend more time
76
there. In this context, we want to explore the influence of marital status on various
drivers of choosing fast food restaurants. For this, the following hypothesis was
formulated and tested with the help of Independent sample t test.
Ho3: There is no significant difference between married and unmarried consumers
with regard to various drivers of choosing fast food restaurants.
H13: There is significant difference between married and unmarried consumers with
regard to various drivers of choosing fast food restaurants.
Table 3.7
Marital status and Drivers
Drivers Marital Status Mean t value df P value
Married 3.78
Promotional Measures .509 553 .611
Unmarried 3.81
Married 3.79
Quality food at reasonable price .302 553 .763
Unmarried 3.81
Married 3.85
Brand Image Unmarried 3.95 1.70 553 .089
Unmarried 3.63
Married 3.99
Convenience 7.23 553 <.001
Unmarried 3.63
Married 3.84
Environment .236 553 .813
Unmarried 3.82
Married 3.76
Staff service 2.39 553 .017
Unmarried 3.90
Source: Field Survey N = 555
77
Table 3.7 presents the result of hypothesis tested. As the P value drivers such
as ‘Convenience’ and ‘Staff service’ is less than 0.05 the null hypothesis is rejected
in favor of alternative hypothesis. It was concluded that there is significant
difference between married and unmarried consumers in choosing fast food
restaurants regarding staff service and Convenience. The mean score of married
consumers (Mean = 3.99) is significantly higher for the driver ‘Convenience’ than
the unmarried (Mean = 3.63).Whereas the mean score of unmarried (Mean = 3.90)
consumers are higher for the driver ‘staff service’ than the married (Mean = 3.76)
consumers. Therefore, it can be inferred that married consumers give more
importance to Convenience and unmarried consumers give more importance to staff
service.
The P value of the drivers ‘Promotional Measure’, ‘Quality food at
reasonable price’, ‘Brand Image’, ‘Environment’ is greater than .05, hence it was
failed to reject the null hypothesis in respect of Promotional Measures’, ‘Quality
food at reasonable price’, ‘Brand Image’ and ‘Environment’. Hence, it is concluded
that drivers Promotional Measures’, ‘Quality food at reasonable price’, ‘Brand
Image’, ‘Environment is independent of marital status of consumers.
Educational qualification and Drivers
Consumer behavior is influenced by one’s educational qualification. Hence,
the researcher was interested in knowing whether there is any significant difference
among consumers with different educational background in choosing a fast food
outlet. For this purpose the following hypothesis was formulated and tested with
One Way ANOVA
78
Ho4: There is no significant difference among consumers of different educational
background with regard to various drivers that determine the choice of fast food
restaurants.
H14: There is significant difference among consumers of different educational
background with regard to various drivers that determine the choice of fast food
restaurants.
Table 3.8
Educational qualification and Drivers
Educational F P
Drivers Mean df
qualification value value
SSLC 4.40
Plus two 4.08

Promotional Measures 12.37 3,551 <.001
Graduation 3.67
Above Graduation 3.85
SSLC 3.60
Quality food at Plus two 3.77

5.41 3,551 <.001
reasonable price Graduation 3.72
SSLC 4.45
Plus two 4.19
Brand Image 10.96 3,551 <.001
Graduation 3.79
SSLC 4.38
Plus two 3.92
Convenience 12.59 3,551 <.001
Graduation 3.67
79
Educational F P
Drivers Mean df
SSLC 4.31
Environment Plus two 4.09

9.31 3,551 <.001
Graduation 3.73
SSLC 4.19
Staff service Plus two 4.07

5.05 3,551 .002
Graduation 3.78
Table 3.8 shows the result of hypothesis test. As the P value of all drivers is
less than 0.05, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of alternative hypothesis.
Hence, it is clear that there is significant difference among consumers of different
educational background in choosing fast food restaurants. To identify which group is
significantly different Post Hoc Tukey HSD test was administered on the collected
data.
The result of the test with regard to ‘Promotional Measures’ revealed that
there is significant difference between the SSLC group & graduates, SSLC group &
above graduates, plus two group &graduates and also between graduates &above
graduation. The influence of driver ‘Promotional Measures’ is significantly more for
SSLC groups (M= 4.40) than Graduates (M= 3.67) and above graduates (M= 3.85).
Similarly influence of driver ‘Promotional Measures’ is significantly more for plus
two groups (M= 4.08) than graduate groups (M= 3.67). The influence of driver
‘Promotional Measures’ is significantly high for above graduates (M= 3.85) than
80
graduate groups (M= 3.67). Hence it can be concluded that the Promotional
Measures is relatively more influential for less educated groups.
The result of the test with regard to ‘Quality of food at reasonable price’
revealed that there is significant difference between graduates &above graduate
groups. The difference is significantly more for above graduate group (M= 3.98)
than graduate groups (M= 3.72). The quality of food at reasonable price is relatively
more for highly educated group.
The test result with regard to Brand Image showed that there is significant
difference between SSLC group and graduates, between SSLC group and above
graduates, between plus two groups and graduates and also between graduates &
above graduates. The influence of ‘Brand Image’ is significantly more for SSLC
groups (M= 4.45) and plus two groups (4.19) than Graduates (M= 3.79) &above
graduates (M= 3.97). The influence Brand Image is significantly more for above
graduates (M= 3.79) than graduate groups (M= 3.73). Hence we can conclude that
the influence of Brand Image is relatively more for less educated and also for
relatively high educated group.
The test result with regard to driver ‘Convenience’ showed that there is
significant difference between SSLC and plus two, between SSLC and graduation,
between SSLC & above graduation, between Plus two &graduation. The influence
of driver Convenience is significantly more for SSLC group (M= 4.38) than plus
two group (M= 3.92), graduate (M= 3.67) and above graduate groups (M =
3.80).Similarly the influence of driver Convenience is significantly more for plus
two groups (M= 3.92) than graduates (M= 3.67). Hence the influence of driver
Convenience is significantly more among less educated group.
81
There was significant difference regarding the driver ‘Environment’ among
consumers with different educational background. The significant difference is
between ‘SSLC and graduation’ and also between ‘Plus two and graduation’. The
influence of the driver Environment is significantly more for SSLC groups
(M= 4.31) & plus two groups (M= 4.09) than graduate group (M= 3.73). Hence the
influence of driver, Environment is significantly more for less educated group.
There is significant difference among consumers from different educational
background regarding the driver ‘staff service’. The significant difference is between
‘SSLC and Graduate group’ and between ‘Plus Two and Graduate group’. The
influence of driver staff service is significantly more for SSLC group (M= 4.19) and
Plus two group (M = 4.07) than graduate groups (M= 3.78) regarding staff service
aspect’. Hence staff service is significantly more for low educated groups.
Occupation and Drivers
The occupation of an individual may influence the drivers for choosing fast
food restaurants. Hence the researcher in this study was interested to know whether
occupation influence the consumers in choosing a fast food outlet. For this purpose
following hypothesis was formulated and tested with one way ANOVA.
Ho5: There is no significant difference among consumers belonging to different
occupational background with regard to various drivers that influence the
selection of fast food restaurants.
H15: There is significant difference among consumers belonging to different
occupational background with regard to various drivers that influence the
selection of fast food restaurants.
82
Table 3.9
Occupation and Drivers
Drivers Occupation Mean F value Df P value
Business 3.97
Government job 3.90
Promotional Measures 3.48 3,551 .016
Private job 3.71
Students 3.76
Business 3.68
Quality food at Government job 3.88

1.34 3,551 .260
reasonable price Private job 3.81
Students 3.71
Business 3.96
Government job 3.85
Brand Image 6.50 3,551 <.001
Private job 4.08
Students 3.78
Business 3.74
Government job 4.02
Convenience 48.86 3,551 <.001
Private job 4.00
Students 3.43
Business 3.79
Government job 3.91
Environment 8.73 3,551 <.001
Private job 3.98
Students 3.66
Business 3.79
Government job 3.97
Staff service 1.92 3,551 .125
Private job 3.79
Students 3.85
83
Table 3.9 presents the result of hypothesis test. As the P value of drivers
‘Promotional Measures, Brand Image, Environment and Convenience’ is less than
.05, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of alternative hypothesis. The P value
of driver ‘Quality of food at reasonable price’ and ‘staff service’ is greater than .05;
hence the null hypothesis was failed to reject. Thus it was concluded that there is
significant difference among consumers with different occupational background in
choosing fast food restaurants regarding Promotional Measures, Brand Image,
Environment and Convenience.
To identify the groups that are significantly different post hoc test was
conducted and test result with regard to promotional measure revealed that there is
significant difference between ‘Business and Private Employee’s groups. The
influence of Promotional Measures is significantly more for business group
(M= 3.97) consumers than Private Employee group (M= 3.71).
The post hoc test result with regard to Brand Image revealed that there is
significant difference between ‘Government Employees and Private Employee’s
group’ and also between ‘Private Employee group and Students Group. Influence of
the driver Brand Image is significantly more for Private Employee group (M= 4.08)
than government employee group (M= 3.85). The influence of driver Brand Image is
more for Private Employee group (M= 4.08) than Students group (M= 3.78).
The test result with regard to Convenience shows that there is significant
difference between ‘Business and Government Employees group’, between
‘Business and Private Employee group’, between ‘Business and Student group’,
between ‘Government Employees and Student group’, between ‘Private Employees
and Student group’. Influence of the driver Convenience is significantly more for
84
government employee group (M= 4.02) and Private Employee group (M= 4.00) than
business group (M= 3.74). The influence of Convenience is significantly more for
business group (M= 3.74), Private Employee group (M= 4.00) and for Government
Employees group (M= 4.02) than Students group (M= 3.43). The driver
Convenience is significantly more for employed group than Students group.
The test result with regard to Environment revealed that there is significant
difference between ‘Government Employees and Student groups and also between
‘Private Employees and Students group. The influence of Environment is
significantly more for Government Employees (M = 3.91) and for Private
Employees group (M= 3.98) than Students group (M= 3.66). Therefore the driver
Environment is significantly more for employed group than students group.
Age and Drivers
Aim of the researcher here, is to identify the extent of influence of age in
selecting a fast food restaurant. For this purpose the following hypothesis was
formulated and tested with one way ANOVA.
Ho6: There is no significant difference among different age groups with regard to
various drivers in the selection of fast food restaurants.
H16: There is significant difference among different age groups with regard to
various drivers in the selection of fast food restaurant.
85
Table 3.10
Age and Drivers
F P
Drivers Age Mean df
value value
Below 25 years 3.84
25-35 years 3.71
Promotional Measures 7.61 3,551 <.001
35-45 years 3.72
45 years &above 4.50
Below 25 years 3.84
Quality food at 25-35 years 3.78

5.21 3,551 <.001
reasonable price 35-45 years 3.60
Below 25 years 3.92
25-35 years 3.83
Brand Image 4.98 3,551 .002
35-45 years 3.96
Below 25 years 3.65
25-35 years 3.76
Convenience 27.57 3,551 <.001
35-45 years 4.02
Below 25 years 3.82
25-35 years 3.75
Environment 7.61 3,551 <.001
35-45 years 3.92
Below 25 years 3.88
25-35 years 3.77
Staff service 7.03 3,551 <.001
35-45 years 3.77
45 years & above 4.50
86
Table 3.10 presents the result of hypothesis test. The P values of all drivers
are less than 0.05 and hence the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of alternative
hypothesis. Hence it was concluded that there is significant difference among
different age groups in choosing fast food restaurants.
In order to identify which group has the significant difference, Post Hoc test
was conducted. It was found that influence of ‘Promotional Measures’ is
significantly more between the groups ‘Below 25 age group and Above 45 group’,
between ‘25- 35 age group and Above 45 group’ and between 35- 45 age group and
Above 45 age group. It was found that the influence of promotional measure is
significantly more for the Above 45 years group (M= 4.50) than Below 25 years age
group (M=3.84), 25 – 35 age group (M=3.71) and 35 – 45 age group (M=3.72). It
can be concluded promotional measure is relatively high for older age group than
young and middle aged group.
The influence of ‘quality food at reasonable price’ is significantly different
between the age groups of ‘Below 25 years age group and 35- 45 years group’,
between 25- 35 years age group and Above 45 years group’ and between ‘35- 45
years age group and Above 45 years age group. The influence of driver quality of
food at reasonable price is significantly more for the age group of Below 25 years
(M= 3.84) than the age group of 35- 45 years (M=3.60). Similarly the influence of
this driver is significantly more among the age group of Above 45 years (M =4.25)
than 25 – 35 years age group (M = 3.78) and 35 – 45 age groups (M =3.60). It can
be concluded that quality food at reasonable price is highly influential on younger
and older age group.
87
The influence of ‘Brand Image’ is significantly different between the age
groups of ‘Below 25 age group and Above 45 group’, between ‘25- 35 years and
Above 45 group’ and between ‘35- 45 year and Above 45 age group . It was found
that the influence of Brand Image is significantly more for the age group of Above
45 years (M=4.50) than Below 25 age group (M= 3.92), 25- 35 years age group
(M=3.83) and 35- 45 years age group (M= 3.96). It can be concluded Brand Image is
highly influential on older age group.
The influence of ‘Convenience’ is significantly different between ‘Below 25
Years age group and above 45 age group, between ‘25- 35 age group and Above 45
and also between ‘35- 45 & Above 45 age group. The influence of Convenience is
significantly more for Above 45 years age group (M= 4.50) than other groups.
Hence it was concluded that Convenience is highly influential among older age
groups than younger age groups.
The influence of ‘Environment’ is significantly different between ‘Below 25
age group and Above 45 age group, between ‘25- 35 and Above 45 age group’ and
between ‘35-45 and Above 45 years age group’. The influence of driver
Environment is significantly more for older age group (M = 4.50) than other age
groups.
The influence of ‘staff service’ is significantly different between ‘Below 25
years age group and Above 45 years group, between ‘25- 35 years and Above 45
year group’ and between ‘35- 45 and Above 45 years age group’. The influence of
driver staff service is significantly more for above 45 years age group (M = 4.50)
than Below 25 years age group (M= 3.88), 25- 35 years age group (M=3.77) and 35-
88
45 years age group (M=3.77). The influence of driver staff service is significantly
more for older age groups.
Income and Drivers
An individual’s income determines the type and quality of the products
he/she buys. Generally, people with high earnings may spend more for shopping and
dining out. So the study focused on the influence of income on selecting fast food
restaurants for dining. For this purpose the following hypothesis was formulated and
tested with one way ANOVA.
Ho7: There is no significant difference among consumers with different income
background with regard to various drivers in selection of fast food restaurant.
H17: There is significant difference among consumers with different income
background with regard to various drivers in selection of fast food restaurant.
Table 3.11
Income and Drivers
F P
Drivers Income Mean df
value value
<Rs. 25,000 3.85
Promotional Measures Rs. 25,000-Rs. 50,000 3.81 .584 2,552 .558
<Rs. 50,000 3.76
<Rs. 25,000 3.90

Quality food at
Rs. 25,000-Rs. 50,000 3.79 1.19 2,552 .302
reasonable price
<Rs. 50,000 3.77
<Rs. 25,000 3.87
Brand Image Rs. 25,000-Rs. 50,000 3.91 .144 2,552 .866
<Rs. 50,000 3.92
89
<Rs. 25,000 3.86
Convenience Rs. 25,000-Rs. 50,000 3.75 1.36 2,552 .255
<Rs. 50,000 3.74
<Rs. 25,000 3.97
Environment Rs 25,000-Rs. 50,000 3.87 4.45 2,552 .012
<Rs. 50,000 3.75
<Rs. 25,000 3.87
Staff service Rs25,000-Rs. 50,000 3.86 .212 2,552 .809
<Rs. 50,000 3.83
Table 3.11 presents the result of hypothesis test. There is significant
difference among different income groups in choosing fast food restaurant according
to the Environment they provide. The P value of the driver Environment is less than
0.05; hence the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of alternative hypothesis. In
order to identify the income group which is significantly different a post hoc test
was conducted. It was found that income group below Rs 25,000 (M= 3.97) and
above Rs 50,000 (M= 3.75) are significantly different. It was found that customers
with income Below Rs 25,000 groups have significantly more influence on the
driver ‘Environment’. The P values of all other driver are greater than 0.05 and
hence it was failed to reject null hypothesis. Hence it was concluded that the drivers
‘Promotional Measures’, ‘Quality food at reasonable food’, ‘Brand Image’,
‘Convenience’ and ‘Staff service’ are independent of income of consumers.
90
Table 3.12
Summary of Hypothesis Test – Drivers
Demographic
Constructs Hypothesis Testing
profile
Gender H0 rejected
Area of Living H0 rejected
Marital status H0 failed to rejected
Promotion Educational Qualification H0 rejected
Occupation H0 rejected
Income H0 failed to rejected
Age H0 rejected
Gender H0 rejected

Quality food at
Educational Qualification H0 rejected
reasonable price
Age H0 rejected
Gender H0 rejected

Brand Image
Occupation H0 failed to rejected
Age H0 rejected
91
Demographic
Constructs Hypothesis Testing
profile
Gender H0 failed to rejected
Marital status H0 rejected
Convenience Educational Qualification H0 rejected
Age H0 rejected
Gender H0 rejected
Area of Living H0 failed to rejected
Environment Educational Qualification H0 rejected
Income H0 rejected
Age H0 rejected
Gender H0 rejected
Staff service Educational Qualification H0 rejected
Occupation H0 failed to rejected
Age H0 failed to rejected
92
3.4. SERVICE QUALITY
Service Quality is a prominent determinant of satisfaction of customers in the
restaurant industry. Service Quality can be measured using SERVPERF, a model
propounded by Cronin and Taylor (1992). Cronin and Taylor provided empirical
evidences to support the superiority of the model across four industries including
fast food. Here the researcher adapted SERVPERF to determine the consumer
perception about Service Quality of branded fast food restaurants considering its
simplicity and wider acceptability among researchers.
Table 3.13
Service Quality Measurement Scale: Descriptives
Std. Cronbach
Variables Mean
Deviation Alpha
TN1 This fast food outlet has

modern looking equipment 3.94 .778
and fixtures
TN2 This outlet has clean,
attractive and convenient 4.00 .781
physical facilities
TN3 The layout of this outlet .782
makes it easier for customers 4.00 .694
to move around conveniently
TN4 This outlet ensures good
quality bags and provides
3.86 .640
utmost care to carry the
goods home
RE1 Employees in the outlet have
the knowledge to answer 3.75 .806
consumer’s questions
RE2 This outlet receives
suggestions with due respect 3.57 .953 .761
from the customers
RE3 The overall service at this

3.93 .740
outlet is good
93
Std. Cronbach
Variables Mean
Deviation Alpha
RE5 This outlet has more

payment counters favoring 3.58 1.035
speedy disposal of customers
RP1 Employees in this outlet are

consistently courteous with 3.91 .751
customers
RP2 Employees in this outlet are

never too busy to respond to 3.80 .983
customers request
.790
RP3 Employees of this outlet are
able to handle customer’s
3.89 .887
complaints directly and
immediately
RP4 Employees in this store tell

the customers about the 3.86 .787
service exactly rendered
AS1 Employees are readily

3.74 .794
helpful to the customers
AS2 Employees of this store are
co-operative and customer 3.86 .763
friendly
.778
AS3 Whenever the customer has a
problem, this outlet shows 3.76 .823
sincere interest in solving it
AS4 Bills for the products are
3.78 .930
given promptly
EP1 Updating the prices are done

by the outlet at the 3.82 .713
appropriate time
EP2 The items stated in the

promotion catalogue are the .738
3.78 .672
same as offered by the
departmental store
EP3 This outlet accepts all major

3.77 .668
credit cards
94
Std. Cronbach
Variables Mean
Deviation Alpha
EP4 This outlet provides door

3.57 1.058
delivery facility on request
EP5 The behavior of employees in

this outlet instills confidence 3.79 .658
in customers
Testing of hypotheses- Service Quality
An assessment of how well a service conforms to the customer determines
the degree of Service Quality provided to consumers. The perception of consumers
about the Service Quality may differ according to one's demographic background,
such as gender, marital status, occupation etc. The testing of hypothesis using the
appropriate statistical tools are discussed below
Gender and Service Quality
In this study researcher is interested to find out the impact of gender on
Service Quality. For this purpose following hypothesis was formulated and tested
using independent sample t test.
Ho8: There is no significant difference between male and female regarding Service
Quality.
H18: There is significant difference between male and female regarding Service
Quality.
95
Table 3.14
Gender and Service Quality
Service Quality Gender Mean t value df P value
Male 4.04
Tangibility 5.17 553 <.001
Female 3.78
Male 3.72
Reliability 7.94 553 .427
Female 3.67
Male 3.91
Responsiveness 2.30 553 .021
Female 3.78
Male 3.78
Assurance .203 553 .839
Female 3.79
Male 3.71
Empathy 2.01 553 .044
Female 3.80
Table 3.14 presents the result of hypothesis test. As P value of Service
Quality dimensions such as ‘tangibility’, ‘responsiveness’, and ‘empathy’ is less
than .05, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of alternative hypothesis. The
mean score of male consumers are significantly higher for tangibility (Male = 4.04,
Female = 3.78) and responsiveness (Male = 3.91, Female = 3.78). Therefore, the
Service Quality dimensions tangibility and responsiveness is significantly more for
males than females. However the Empathy aspect is significantly higher for female
consumers (M= 3.80) than male consumers (Male = 3.71) However, P value of the
Service Quality dimensions ‘reliability’ and ‘assurance’ is greater than .05, hence it
was failed to reject the null hypothesis in respect of reliability and assurance.
96
Area of living and Service Quality
Here the researcher attempted to find the impact of area of residence of
consumers on service quality of branded fast food restaurants. For this purpose
following hypothesis was formulated and tested using one way ANOVA.
Ho9: There is no significant difference among people residing in urban, semi urban
and rural area regarding Service Quality.
H19: There is significant difference among people residing in urban, semi urban and
rural area regarding Service Quality.
Table 3.15
Area of living and Service Quality
Service Quality Area of living Mean F value df P value

Urban 3.76
Tangibility Semi- Urban 4.07 21.97 552 <.001
Rural 4.09
Urban 3.59
Reliability Semi- Urban 3.70 11.93 552 <.001
Rural 4.00
Urban 3.82
Responsiveness Semi- Urban 3.87 .797 552 .451
Rural 3.92
Urban 3.65
Assurance Semi- Urban 3.87 9.97 552 <.001
Rural 3.93
Urban 3.70
Empathy Semi- Urban 3.70 8.67 552 <.001
Rural 3.96
97
Table 3.15 presents the result of hypothesis test. As the P value of Service
Quality aspect ‘tangibility’, ‘reliability’, ‘assurance’ and ‘empathy’ is less than .05,
the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of alternative hypothesis. Thus there is a
significant difference among people residing in rural, urban and semi urban areas
regarding the tangibility, reliability, assurance and empathy aspects of Service
Quality.
To identify the groups that are significantly different Post Hoc test was
conducted using Tukey and test revealed that there is significant different between
urban, rural and semi urban consumers regarding Service Quality. The Service
Quality dimension tangibility is significantly more among semi urban consumers
(M=4.07) than the urban consumers (M= 3.76). It was also found that there is
significant difference between urban and rural consumers. The tangibility is
significantly more for rural consumers (M=4.09) than urban consumers (M= 3.76).
Hence it can be inferred that the tangibility aspect is more for rural and semi urban
consumers than the urban consumers.
It was revealed that there is significant different between urban, rural and
semi urban consumers with regard to assurance aspect of Service Quality. The
assurance is significantly more among semi urban consumers (M= 3.87) than the
urban consumers (M= 3.65). It was also found that there is significant difference
between urban and rural consumers. The assurance aspect is significantly more for
rural consumers (M=3.93) than urban consumers (M= 3.65). Hence it can be
inferred that the assurance aspect is more for rural consumers and semi urban
consumers than urban consumers.
98
It was identified that there is significant different between urban, rural and
semi urban consumers regarding the reliability aspect of Service Quality. The
reliability is significantly more among rural consumers (M= 4.00) than the urban
consumers (M= 3.59). It was also found that there is significant difference between
semi urban and rural consumers. The influence of reliability is significantly more for
rural consumers (M=4.00) than semi urban consumers (M= 3.70). Hence it can be
inferred that the reliability is more for rural consumers than urban and semi urban
consumers.
It was found that there is significant difference between urban, rural and semi
urban consumers regarding empathy aspect of Service Quality. The empathy aspect
is significantly more among rural consumers (M= 3.96) than the urban consumers
(M= 3.70). Hence it can be inferred that the empathy is significantly more for rural
consumers than urban consumers.
Marital status and Service Quality
In order to ascertain the influence of marital status on Service Quality, the
researcher has formulated following hypothesis and tested using Independent sample
t test.
H010: There is no significant difference between married and unmarried regarding
Service Quality.
H110: There is significant difference between married and unmarried regarding
Service Quality.
99
Table 3.16
Marital status and Service Quality
Service Quality Marital Status Mean t value df P value
Married 4.03
Tangibility 2.97 .003
Unmarried 3.88
Married 3.87
Reliability 4.57 <.001
Unmarried 3.60
Married 3.92
Responsiveness 1.67 .095
Unmarried 3.82
Married 3.92
Assurance 4.02 <.001
Unmarried 3.70
Married 3.88
Empathy 4.95 <.001
Unmarried 3.66
Table 3.16 presents the result of hypothesis tested. As the P value of various
dimensions of Service Quality such as ‘Tangibility’, ‘Reliability’, ‘Assurance’ and
‘Empathy’ is less than 0.05 the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of alternative
hypothesis. It was concluded that there is a significant difference between married
and unmarried consumers in the quality of service provided by fast food restaurants.
The mean score of married consumers is significantly higher for the ‘tangibility’
(Married = 4.03, Unmarried = 3.88), ‘Reliability’ (Married = 3.87, Unmarried =
3.60), ‘Assurance’ (Married = 3.92, Unmarried = 3.70) and ‘Empathy (Married =
3.88, Unmarried = 3.66). Thus it can be concluded that the Service Quality aspects
Tangibility’, ‘Reliability’, ‘Assurance’ and ‘Empathy’ is significantly higher for
married consumers than unmarried consumers. However the P value of
100
Responsiveness is greater than 0.05, hence it was failed to reject the null hypothesis
in respect of responsiveness.
Educational qualification and Service Quality
In this study the researcher is interested to know the impact of education on
Service Quality. For this purpose following hypothesis was formulated and tested
with one way ANOVA.
background regarding Service Quality.
Table 3.17
Educational qualification and Service Quality
Educational
Service Quality Mean F value df P value
qualification
SSLC 4.23
Plus two 3.97
Tangibility 2.29 3,551 .077
Graduation 3.94
SSLC 4.13
Plus two 3.82
Reliability 8.33 3,551 <.001
Graduation 3.76
SSLC 3.77
Plus two 4.10
Responsiveness 5.06 3,551 .002
Graduation 3.77
101
Educational
Service Quality Mean F value df P value
qualification
SSLC 3.45
Plus two 3.94

Assurance 3.11 3,551 .026
Graduation 3.80
SSLC 3.69
Plus two 3.80

Empathy 4.84 3,551 .002
Graduation 3.67
Quality aspect such as ‘Reliability’, ‘Assurance’, ‘Responsiveness’ and ‘Empathy’ is
less than .05, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of alternative hypothesis.
Thus there is a significant difference among consumers of different educational
background regarding reliability, assurance and empathy aspects of Service Quality.
However, P value of the driver ‘Tangibility’ is greater than .05, hence it was failed
to reject the null hypothesis in respect of tangibility.
conducted using Tukey and test revealed that there is significant difference among
different educational groups regarding reliability, responsiveness, and assurance and
empathy aspects of Service Quality. The reliability aspect of Service Quality is
significantly more for SSLC group consumers (M= 4.13) than the graduate
graduate and above graduate consumers regarding reliability aspect. The reliability
102
aspect is significantly more for graduate group consumers (M=3.76) than above
graduate group consumers (M= 3.53). Hence it can be inferred that the reliability is
significantly more for less educated group of consumers than highly educated group
of consumers.
There is significant difference between plus two group consumers and
graduate consumers. The responsiveness aspect is significantly more among plus
two group consumers (M= 4.10) than the graduate consumers (M= 3.77). It was also
found that there is significant difference between graduate and above graduate
consumers regarding the reliability aspect. The responsiveness aspect is significantly
more for the above graduate group consumers (M=3.95) than graduate group
consumers (M= 377). Hence it can be inferred that the responsiveness aspect is
significantly more for less educated group and highly educated group of consumers
There is significant difference between plus two group consumers and SSLC
group consumers with respect to assurance aspect of Service Quality. The assurance
aspect is significantly more for plus two group consumers (M= 3.80) than the SSLC
group consumers (M= 3.45). Hence it can be inferred that assurance is significantly
more for high educated group of consumers than low educated group of consumers.
There is significant difference between graduate group consumers and above
graduate group consumers regarding empathy aspect of Service Quality. The
empathy aspect is significantly more among above graduate group consumers
(M= 3.85) than graduate group consumers (M= 3.67). Hence it can be inferred that
the empathy is significantly more for highly educated group of consumers.
103
Occupation and Service Quality
Occupation is considered as an important factor for measuring service
quality. The researcher is interested to find the influence of occupation on Service
Quality. For this purpose the following hypothesis was formulated and tested using
one way ANOVA.
Ho12: There is no significant difference among consumers with different
occupational background regarding Service Quality.
H112: There is significant difference among consumers with different occupational
Table 3.18
Occupation and Service Quality
Service Quality Occupation Mean F value Df P value
Business 3.97
Government job 3.90

Tangibility 3.48 3,551 .016
Private job 3.71
Students 3.76
Business 3.68
Government job 3.88

Reliability 1.34 3,551 .260
Private job 3.81
Students 3.71
Business 3.96
Government job 3.85

Responsiveness 6.50 3,551 <.001
Private job 4.08
Students 3.78
104
Service Quality Occupation Mean F value Df P value
Business 3.74
Government job 4.02

Assurance 48.86 3,551 <.001
Private job 4.00
Students 3.43
Business 3.79
Government job 3.91

Empathy 8.73 3,551 <.001
Private job 3.98
Students 3.66
Table 3.18 presents the result of hypothesis test. As the P value of
‘Tangibility’, ‘Responsiveness’, ‘Assurance’ and ‘Empathy’ is less than .05, the null
hypothesis was rejected in favor of alternative hypothesis. Thus there is a significant
difference among different occupational group regarding the tangibility, reliability,
assurance and empathy aspects of Service Quality. However, P value of the driver
‘Reliability’ is greater than .05, hence it was failed to reject the null hypothesis in
respect of Reliability.
conducted using Tukey and the test revealed that there is significant different among
different occupational group regarding tangibility, responsiveness, assurance and
empathy aspects of Service Quality. Tangibility is significantly more among
business class consumers (M= 3.97) than the Student group of consumers (M=
3.76). It was also found that there is significant difference between government
105
employee group consumers and Student group consumers regarding the tangibility
aspect. The tangibility aspect is significantly more for government employee group
consumers (M=3.90) than Student group consumers (M= 3.76). There is significant
difference between Private Employee group consumers and Student group
consumers regarding tangibility aspect. The tangibility aspect is significantly more
for Students group consumers (M=3.76) than Private Employee group consumers
(M= 3.71). Hence it can be inferred that the tangibility aspect is more for employed
group than Students.
Responsiveness is significantly more among business class consumers
(M= 3.96) than the Student group consumers (M= 378). It was also found that there
is significant difference between government employee group consumers and
Private Employee’s group consumers regarding responsiveness aspect. The
responsiveness aspect is significantly more for Private Employee group consumers
(M= 4.08) than government employee group consumers (M= 3.85). There is
significant difference between Private Employee group consumers and Student
group consumers regarding responsiveness aspect. The responsiveness is
significantly more for Private Employee group consumers (M=4.08) than Student
group consumers (M=3.78). Hence it can be inferred that the responsiveness aspect
is more for employed group of consumers than Students group of consumers.
The assurance aspect is significantly more for Private Employee group (M=
4.00) than business group consumers (M= 3.74). It was also found that there is
significant difference between business class group consumers and Student group
regarding assurance aspect. The assurance aspect is significantly more for business
class group consumers (M= 3.74) than Student group consumers (M= 3.43). Hence
106
it can be inferred that the assurance aspect is more for employed group of
consumers.
The empathy aspect is significantly more among business class consumers
(M= 3.79) than the Student group consumers (M= 3.66). It was also found that there
is significant difference between government employee group consumers and
Student group regarding empathy aspect. The empathy aspect is significantly more
for government employee group consumers (M= 3.91) than Student group
consumers (M= 3.66). There is significant difference between Private Employee
group consumers and Student group regarding empathy aspect. The empathy aspect
is significantly more for Private Employee group consumers (M= 3.98) than Student
group consumers (M= 3.66).Hence it can be inferred that the empathy aspect is more
for employed group of consumers than Students.
Income and Service Quality
The researcher attempted to find the influence of level of income on service
quality. For this purpose following hypothesis was formulated and tested using one
way ANOVA.
Ho13: There is no significant difference among consumers of different income
H113: There is significant difference among consumers of different income
107
Table 3.19
Income and Service Quality
Service
Income Mean F value df P value
Quality
< Rs. 25,000 3.98
Tangibility Rs. 25,000-Rs. 50,000 3.94 .354 2,552 .702
< Rs. 50,000 3.92
< Rs. 25,000 3.77
Reliability Rs. 25,000-Rs. 50,000 3.74 1.88 2,552 .153
< Rs. 50,000 3.64
< Rs. 25,000 3.90
Responsiveness Rs. 25,000-Rs. 50,000 3.90 1.24 2,552 .288
< Rs. 50,000 3.81
< Rs. 25,000 3.90
Assurance Rs. 25,000-Rs. 50,000 3.84 5.18 2,552 .060
< Rs. 50,000 3.69
< Rs. 25,000 3.80
Empathy Rs. 25,000-Rs. 50,000 3.76 1.18 2,552 .307
< Rs. 50,000 3.71
Table 3.19 presents the result of hypothesis test. As the P value of all aspects
of Service Quality is greater than .05, it was failed to reject the null hypothesis in
respect of tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. Hence it
was concluded that Service Quality is independent of income group of the
consumers.
108
Age and Service Quality
Age may influence the quality of service provided by fast food restaurants. In
this study researcher made an attempt to find the influence of age on Service
Quality. For this purpose following hypothesis was formulated and tested with one
way ANOVA.
Ho14: There is no significant difference among different age group consumers
regarding Service Quality.
H114: There is significant difference among different age group consumers regarding
Service Quality.
Table 3.20
Age and Service Quality
Service Quality Age Mean F value Df P value
Below 25 years 3.96
25-35 years 3.91

Tangibility 6.27 3,551 <.001
35-45 years 3.82
Below 25 years 3.62
25-35 years 3.71

Reliability 9.54 3,551 .002
35-45 years 3.80
Below 25 years 3.85
25-35 years 3.85

Responsiveness 5.09 3,551 .002
35-45 years 3.81
109
Service Quality Age Mean F value Df P value
Below 25 years 3.75
25-35 years 3.89

Assurance 16.34 3,551 <.001
35-45 years 3.45
Below 25 years 3.64
25-35 years 3.82

Empathy 13.69 3,551 <.001
35-45 years 3.77
Quality aspect such as ‘Tangibility’, ‘Reliability’, ‘Assurance’, ‘responsiveness’ and
‘Empathy’ is less than .05, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of alternative
hypothesis. Thus there is a significant difference among different age group
regarding the tangibility, reliability, assurance and empathy aspects of Service
Quality.
110
Table 3.21
Summary of Hypothesis Test - Service Quality
Constructs Demographic Profile Hypothesis Testing
Gender H0 rejected
Tangibility Educational Qualification H0 failed to reject
Income H0 failed to reject
Age H0 rejected
Gender H0 failed to reject
Reliability Educational Qualification H0 rejected
Occupation H0 failed to reject
Age H0 rejected
Gender H0 rejected
Area of Living H0 failed to reject
Marital status H0 failed to reject

Responsiveness
H0 rejected
Age
111
Constructs Demographic Profile Hypothesis Testing

Assurance
Age H0 rejected
Gender H0 rejected

Empathy
Age H0 rejected
3.5. PERCEIVED VALUE
Perceived Value is defined as a comparison between the expected benefits of
a product and the sacrifices that a consumer would have to make in order to
guarantee those benefits (Monroe & Krishnan, 1985).
112
Table 3.22
Measurement Scale for Perceived Value - Descriptive Statistics
Std. Cronbach’
Code Variables Mean
Deviation Alpha
PV 1 Fast food restaurants are reasonably

3.49 .926
priced
PV 2 I Feel good at fast food restaurant 3.71 .800 .724
PV 3 Visiting fast food restaurants as to

3.50 .997
my prestige and status
Source: Field Survey
Table 3.22 shows the descriptive statistics of the measurement scale adopted
for the assessment of Perceived Value. The internal consistency of the measurement
scale was ascertained using Cronbach’ Alpha and it was found to cross the threshold
limit of .70.indicating the reliability of the measurement scale adopted.
Testing of hypothesis- Perceived Value
The Perceived Value means the consumer’s overall assessment of the utility
of a product or service based on the comparison of perceived benefits from a
restaurant and the actual cost paid. The assessment about the utility of food and
other incidental services, may differ according to consumer’s demographic
background. The researcher made an attempt to examine whether the Perceived
Value or utility differ or not, according to demographic features of the consumers,
by testing hypotheses with appropriate statistical tools.
Gender and Perceived Value
Male and female may have different perception regarding perceived value.In
the study researcher is interested to know the impact of gender on Perceived Value.
113
For this following hypothesis was formulated and tested using independent sample t
test.
H015: There is no significant difference between male and female regarding
Perceived Value
H115: There is significant difference between male and female regarding Perceived
Value
Table 3.23:
Gender and Perceived Value
Variable Gender Mean t value df P value
Male 3.52
Perceived Value 1.86 .063
Female 3.64
Table 3.23 Present the result of hypothesis test. As P value of ‘Perceived
Value’, is less than .05, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of alternative
hypothesis. The mean score of female consumers are significantly higher for
Perceived Value aspect (Male = 3.52, Female = 3.64). Therefore, the perception
about Perceived Value is significantly more for females than males.
Area of living and Perceived Value
Perceived value about fast food restaurants may differ according to the area
of residence. Here the researcher is interested to find out the impact of urban, semi
urban and rural consumers towards Perceived Value aspects of FFRs.
For this purpose the following hypothesis was formulated and tested using
one way ANOVA.
114
H016: There is no significant difference among people residing in urban, semi
urban and rural consumers regarding Perceived Value
H116: There is significant difference among people residing in urban, semi urban
and rural consumers regarding Perceived Value
Table 3.24
Area of living and Perceived Value
Construct Area of living Mean F value df P value
Urban 3.49
Perceived Value Semi- Urban 3.48 16.95 <.001
Rural 3.97
Table 3.24 presents the result of hypothesis test. As the P value of ‘Perceived
Value’ is less than .05, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of alternative
hypothesis. Thus there is a significant difference among people residing in rural,
urban and semi urban areas regarding the Perceived Value.
conducted using Tukey and test revealed that there is significant different among
urban, rural and semi urban consumers regarding the Perceived Value of fast food
restaurants. The Perceived Value is significantly more among rural consumers (M=
3.97) than the urban consumers (M= 3.49). It was also found that there is significant
difference between semi urban and rural consumers. The Perceived Value is
significantly more for rural consumers (M=3.97) than semi urban consumers
(M= 3.48). Hence it can be inferred that the Perceived Value is more for rural
consumers than the urban and semi urban consumers.
115
Marital status and Perceived Value
The study examines the impact of marital status on Perceived Value of FFRs.
For this purpose the researcher formulated following hypothesis
H017: There is no significant difference between married and unmarried regarding
Perceived Value
H017: There is significant difference between married and unmarried regarding
Perceived Value
Table 3.25
Marital status and Perceived Value
Variable Marital Status Mean t value df P value
Married 3.78
Perceived Value Unmarried 3.43 5.47 553 <.001
Unmarried 3.81
Table 3.25 presents the result of hypothesis test. As P value of ‘Perceived
Value’, is less than .05, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of alternative
hypothesis. The mean score of married consumers are significantly higher for
Perceived Value aspect (Married = 3.78, unmarried= 3.43). Therefore, the
perception about Perceived Value is significantly more for married consumers than
unmarried consumers.
Educational Qualification and Perceived Value
Education enhances one’s ability to identify & assimilate relevant
information. Generally less educated consumers may consider the perceived value as
an important aspect of buying behavior. In the study the researcher is interested to
116
know the impact of education on Perceived Value of FFRs. For this purpose
background regarding Perceived Value
Table 3.26 Educational Qualification &Perceived Value
Drivers Educational qualification Mean F value Df P value
SSLC 3.96
Plus two 3.80

Perceived
7.46 3,551 <.001
Value Graduation 3.61
hypothesis. Thus there is a significant difference among people with different
educational background regarding the Perceived Value.
different educational groups regarding Perceived Value. The Perceived Value is
significantly more among SSLC group consumers (M= 3.96) than above graduate
graduate and above graduate consumers regarding Perceived Value. It is
117
significantly more for graduate group consumers (M=3.61) than above graduate
group consumers (M= 3.40). There is significant difference between plus two and
above graduate consumers regarding Perceived Value. It is significantly more for
plus two group consumers (M=3.80) than above graduate group consumers
(M= 3.40). Hence it can be inferred that the Perceived Value aspect is significantly
more for low educated group of consumers than highly educated group of
consumers.
Occupation and Perceived Value
The perceived value predominantly exist in the mind of consumers. It may
vary according to the occupational background of consumers. The researcher is
interested to find the influence of occupation on Perceived Value aspect of FFRs.
For this purpose following hypothesis was formulated and tested using one way
ANOVA.
Ho19: There is no significant difference among consumers of different occupational
groups regarding Perceived Value
H119: There is significant difference among consumers of different occupational
groups regarding Perceived Value
118
Table 3.27
Occupation and Perceived Value
Occupation Mean F value df P value
Business 3.55
Government job 3.82

Perceived Value 9.81 3,551 <.001
Private job 3.64
Students 3.37
Value’ and ‘Product Quality’ is less than .05, the null hypothesis was rejected in
favor of alternative hypothesis. Thus there is a significant difference among
consumers of different occupational background regarding the Perceived Value.
different occupational groups regarding Perceived Value. The Perceived Value is
significantly more for Government Employees group consumers (M= 3.82) than the
Student group of consumers (M= 3.37).It was also found that there is significant
difference between Private Employee group consumers and Student group
consumers regarding Perceived Value aspect. The Perceived Value is significantly
more for Private Employee group consumers (M=3.64) than Student group
consumers (M= 3.37). Hence it can be inferred that the Perceived Value aspect is
significantly more for employed group of consumers than Students.
119
Income and Perceived Value
The researcher is tried to find the influence of level of income on Perceived
Value and Product Quality aspects of FFRs. For this purpose following hypothesis
was formulated and tested using one way ANOVA.
Table 3.28
Income and Perceived Value
Drivers Income Mean F value df P value
< Rs. 25,000 3.51

Perceived
Rs. 25,000-Rs. 50,000 3.64 2.15 2,552 .117
Value
< Rs. 50,000 3.51
Table 3.28 Present the results of hypothesis test. The P value of ‘Perceived
Value’ is greater than .05, it was failed to reject the null hypothesis and it was
concluded that Perceived Value is independent of different income group.
Age and Perceived Value
In this study researcher made an attempt to find the influence of age on
Perceived Value and Product Quality aspects of FFRs. For this purpose following
hypothesis was formulated and tested with one way ANOVA.
Ho21: There is no significant difference among different age group consumers
regarding Perceived Value
120
H121: There is significant difference among different age group consumers regarding
age on Perceived Value
Table 3.29
Age and Perceived quality
Drivers Age Mean F value df P value
Below 25 years 3.44
25-35 years 3.57

Perceived Value 10.28 3,551 <.001
35-45 years 3.95
hypothesis. Thus there is a significant difference among different age groups
regarding the Perceived Value and Product Quality.
conducted using Tukey test and it was revealed that there is significant different
among different income groups regarding Perceived Value. The Perceived Value is
significantly more for 35-45 age group consumers (M= 3.95) than below 25 age
group consumers (M= 3.44). It was also found that there is significant difference
between 25-35 age group consumers and 35-45 age group consumers regarding
Perceived Value aspect. The Perceived Value is significantly more for 35-45 age
group consumers (M=3.95) than 25-35 age group consumers (M= 3.57). Hence it
can be inferred that the Perceived Value aspect is more for middle aged group of
consumers than younger age group.
121
Table 3.30
Summary of Hypothesis Test - Perceived Value
Construct Demographic Profile Hypothesis Testing
Perceived Value Educational Qualification H0 rejected
Age H0 rejected
3.6 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Customer satisfaction is at the heart of marketing. Customer Satisfaction
significantly influences Customer Loyalty and the rate of consumption or usage. In
order to measure Customer Satisfaction, the researcher considered six variables
which were derived through the review of extant literature relating to satisfaction of
branded fast food customers. The descriptive statistics of the measurement scale is
presented in Table 3.31
122
Table 3.31
Measurement Scale to assess Customer Satisfaction – Descriptive Statistics
Cronbach’s
Code Customer Satisfaction Mean SD
Alpha
CS1 The performance of restaurant exceed

my expectation, will bring me 3.94 .778
satisfaction
CS2 I am satisfy with the restaurant

3.97 .775
atmosphere
CS3 I have really enjoyed myself in the

restaurant once I am satisfy with the 4.00 .781
restaurant’s performance
.866
CS4 My dining experience was pleasing if I
4.00 .694
am satisfy with the restaurant
CS5 If I am satisfy, I will feel that I have

got what I wanted when I leave the 4.04 .725
restaurant
CS6 I have always had a good impression of

3.88 .772
the restaurant once I am satisfy with it
Table 3.31 shows the descriptive statistics of the items in the measurement
scale. The Cronbach’s Alpha is well above the threshold limit of .70 indicating the
internal consistency or reliability of the scale being used to assess Customer
Satisfaction.
Testing of hypotheses – Customer Satisfaction
In the present scenario, Customer Satisfaction is the primary and most
important factor in the survival and growth of any organization. Customer
Satisfaction is a significant determinant to repeat sales, positive word-of-mouth.
Satisfied customers return and buy more, and they tell other people about their
experiences (Fornell et al., 1996). Hence the researcher is interested to find out the
123
impact of Customer Satisfaction in FFRs. The satisfaction of consumers about the
may differ according to one's demographic background, such as gender, marital
status, occupation etc. The testing of hypothesis using the appropriate statistical
tools are discussed below
Gender and Customer Satisfaction
Customer characteristics such as gender have a great impact on the level of
Customer Satisfaction (Bryant and Jaesung, 1996; Mittal et al., 2001). In this study
the researcher attempts to find out the impact of gender on Customer Satisfaction.
For this purpose the following hypothesis was formulated and tested using t test.
Ho22: There is no significant difference between male and female regarding
Customer Satisfaction
H122: There is significant difference between male and female regarding Customer
Satisfaction
Table 3.32
Gender and Customer Satisfaction
Gender Mean t value df P value
Customer Satisfaction Male 4.07

556 553 <.001
Female 3.80
Table 3.32 shows the result of hypothesis test. As P value is less than 0.05
the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of alternative hypothesis and it was inferred
that there is significant difference among male and female regarding Customer
Satisfaction. The Customer Satisfaction is significantly more for male consumers
(M= 4.07) than female consumers (M= 3.80).
124
Area of living and Customer Satisfaction
There is a general assumption that urban consumers dine out more than rural
consumers. Here the researcher examined the impact of urban and rural consumers
towards branded fast food. For this purpose following hypothesis was formulated
and tested using one way ANOVA.
Ho23: There is no significant difference among people residing in urban, semi
urban and rural area regarding Customer Satisfaction.
H123: There is significant difference among people residing in urban, semi urban
and rural area regarding Customer Satisfaction
Table 3.33
Area of living and Customer Satisfaction
Area of living Mean t value df P value
Urban 3.79
Customer Satisfaction
Semi- Urban 4.09 22.29 2,552 <.001
Rural 4.13
As the P value is less than 0.05 regarding Customer Satisfaction, the null
hypothesis was rejected in favor of alternative hypothesis. Hence there is difference
among rural, urban and semi urban consumers regarding Customer Satisfaction. To
identify groups that are significantly different ‘Post Hoc’ test was conducted. The
result shows that two groups are significantly different. The first group is urban
(M= 3.79) and semi urban (M= 4.09). The Customer Satisfaction is significantly
higher for semi urban consumers than urban consumers. The second group is urban
125
(M=3.79) and rural consumers (M= 4.13). Here the Customer Satisfaction is
significantly more for rural consumers than urban consumers.
Marital status and Customer Satisfaction
There is a general assumption that youth prefers fast food more than others.
Here the researcher analyzed the impact of marital status on customer satisfaction
with framing the following hypothesis and testing it using t test.
regarding Customer Satisfaction.
H124: There is significant difference between married and unmarried consumers
Table 3.34
Marital status and Customer Satisfaction
Marital Status Mean t value df P value
Customer Satisfaction Married 4.04

2.34 553 .019
Unmarried 3.92
Table 3.34 shows the result of hypothesis test. The P value is less than 0.05 ;
the null hypothesis was rejected in favour of alternative hypothesis. It is concluded
that there is significant difference among married and unmarried regarding
Customer Satisfaction. The Customer Satisfaction is more significant for married
(M= 4.04) consumers than unmarried consumers (M= 3.92)
126
Educational qualification and Customer Satisfaction
Here the researcher is interested to find the influence of education on
Customer Satisfaction. For this purpose following hypothesis was formulated and
tested using one way ANOVA.
background regarding Customer Satisfaction.
Table 3.35
Educational qualification and Customer Satisfaction
Educational F P
Mean df
SSLC 3.96
Customer
Satisfaction Plus two 3.93
.314 551 .815
Graduation 3.99
Table 3.35 shows the result of hypothesis test. The P value is greater than
0.05 and hence failed to reject the null hypothesis. From this it is clear that there is
there is no significant difference among consumers of different educational
Occupation and Customer Satisfaction
It is found in past studies that different types occupation affect perception
and expectations of customers when they have a meal in a restaurant (Wilson &
127
Gilligan, 2005). Hence the researcher is interested to find the influence of
occupation on Customer Satisfaction. For this purpose the following hypothesis was
formulated and tested using one way ANOVA.
Table 3.36
Occupation and Customer Satisfaction
Business 4.04
Customer Satisfaction Government job 3.96

10.78 551 <.001
Private job 4.13
Students 3.80
Table 3.36 represents the result of hypothesis test. The P value is less than
0.05; the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of alternative hypothesis. Hence it was
concluded that there is significant difference among consumers with different
occupational background regarding Customer Satisfaction. To identify the groups
that are significantly different ‘Post Hoc’ test was conducted. The result shows that
two groups are significantly different. The first group is consumers with business
background (M=4.04) and Students group (M= 3.80). The Customer Satisfaction is
more significant for business group than Students. The second group is Private
128
Employees (M= 4.13) and Student groups (M= 3.80). Hence it is concluded that
Customer Satisfaction is more for employed groups than Students groups.
Age and Customer Satisfaction
American Customer Satisfaction Survey Index which proves that the
satisfaction of older consumer is higher than young consumers (Siddiqui, 2011
Hence the researcher is tried to find the influence of age on satisfaction towards
branded fast food. For this purpose following hypothesis was formulated and tested
using one way ANOVA.
Ho27: There is no significant difference among consumers of different age groups
H127: There is significant difference among consumers different age groups
Table 3.37
Age and Customer Satisfaction
Age Mean F value df P value
< 25 years 3.99
Customer Satisfaction 25-35 years 4.00

12.93 3,551 0.05
35-45 years 3.64
45years & Above 4.50
Table 3.37 represents the result of hypothesis test. Since, the P value is less
than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected in favour of alternative hypothesis. It was
concluded that there is significant difference among different age groups regarding
Customer Satisfaction. To identify the pair of age groups that are significantly
129
different ‘Post Hoc’ test was conducted. The result shows that there significant
difference among different age groups.
Significant difference was observed between the age groups of ‘Below 25’
and ‘25-35’and ‘Below 25’and ‘Above 45’. The mean score is significantly higher
for ‘25 – 35’ (M= 4.00) and ‘above 45’ age group (M =4.50) than ‘below 25’ years
age group (M = 3.99). Therefore, Customer Satisfaction is significantly higher for
older age groups than young age groups.
It was found that there is significant difference between ‘25-35’age group
and ‘35-45’age group and between ‘25-35’ age group and ‘Above 45’age groups.
Here the mean score is higher for the age group between ‘25- 35’ (M= 4.00) when
compared with ‘35- 45’ age group (M=3.64). The mean score of above 45 year age
group(M= 4.50) is higher than 25 -35 age group.
There was significant difference between ‘35-45’age group and ‘Above 45
years’ age group’. The mean score is higher for Above 45 years age group (M=
4.50).Hence it can be concluded that satisfaction higher for older age groups.
Income and Customer Satisfaction
Income may influence customer satisfaction. Generally high income group
prefer branded restaurants to dine out than low income group.Hence the researcher is
interested to find the influence of level of income on Customer Satisfaction. For this
purpose following hypothesis was formulated and tested using one way ANOVA.
130
Table 3.38
Income and Customer Satisfaction
Income Mean F value df P value
Customer < Rs. 25,000 4.06

Satisfaction
Rs. 25,000-Rs. 50,000 3.99 2.06 2,552 .128
< Rs. 50,000 3.92
Table 3.38 represents the result of hypothesis test. The P value is greater than
0.05, hence failed to reject null hypothesis. It was concluded that there is no
significant difference among different income groups regarding Customer
Satisfaction.
Table 3.39
Summary of Hypothesis Test = Customer Satisfaction
Gender H0 rejected

Customer
Educational Qualification H0 failed to reject
Satisfaction
Age H0 rejected
131
3.7 CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Customer Loyalty is customer patronage for the same brand. In the study
researcher is interested to know the extent of Customer Loyalty among consumers of
branded fast food restaurants. In this study the researcher has tried to assess the
customers Customer Loyalty towards branded fast food restaurants. In order to
assess the Customer Loyalty, six variables emerged through the review of literature
were considered. Table 3.40 shows the descriptive statistics and the reliability of the
measurement scale adopted here.
Table 3.40
Descriptive Statistics - Measurement Scale to Assess Customer Loyalty
Cronbch’s
Code Customer Loyalty Mean SD
Alpha
I will buy my preferred brand fast food even

CL1 3.90 .963
if competitive brand offer cheaper price
I recommend my preferred brand to friends

CL2 3.90 .755
and family
I am loyal towards my preferred brand of

CL3 3.80 .855
fast food
.826
I have favorable attitude towards my
CL4 3.94 .713
preferred brand
I am familiar about my preferred brand of

CL5 3.81 .778
fast food
I have an intention to visit my preferred

CL6 3.94 .696
brand fast food outlet again
The table 3.47shows the descriptive statistics of the measurement scale
adopted for the assessment of Customer Loyalty. The internal consistency of the
measurement scale was measured using Cronbach’ Alpha and it was found to cross
the threshold limit of .70.indicating the reliability of the measurement scale adopted.
132
Testing of Hypothesis - Customer Loyalty
The loyalty of consumers about the Service Quality may differ according to
one's demographic background, such as gender, marital status, occupation etc. The
testing of hypothesis using the appropriate statistical tools are discussed below
Gender and Customer Loyalty
Gender differences in Customer Loyalty are often seen as the outcome of
differences in decision making processes. Past studies Fate Homayoon (2014) shows
that male and female have significant difference in Customer Loyalty. So the study
focused on the influence of gender on Customer Loyalty. For this purpose the
following hypothesis was formulated and tested with independent sample t test.
Ho29: There is no significant difference between male and female regarding
Customer Loyalty.
H129: There is significant difference between male and female regarding Customer
Loyalty.
Table 3.41
Gender and Customer Loyalty
Construct Gender Mean t value df P value
Male 3.87
Customer Loyalty .168 553 .866
Female 3.88
Table 3.41 shows the result of hypothesis test. As P value is greater than
0.05, it was failed to reject the null hypothesis and it was inferred that Customer
Loyalty is independent of gender of consumers.
133
Area of Living and Customer Loyalty
Chandrasekhar (2012) in his study found that Customer Loyalty is very low
in rural consumers. Here the researcher is interested to find out the impact of area of
residence towards Customer Loyalty of branded fast food consumption. For this
purpose following hypothesis was formulated and tested with one way ANOVA.
Ho30: There is no significant difference among urban, semi urban and rural
consumers regarding Customer Loyalty.
H130: There is significant difference among urban, semi urban and rural consumers
regarding Customer Loyalty.
Table 3.42
Area of living and Customer Loyalty
Area of living Mean t value df P value
Customer Urban 3.83

Loyalty
Semi- Urban 3.91 1.404 2,552 .246
Rural 3.93
As the P value is greater than 0.05 regarding Customer Loyalty, the null
hypothesis was failed to reject. Hence Customer Loyalty is independent of the
residential area of consumers.
Marital status and Customer Loyalty
In past studies (Anand and Renganathan, 2016) it was concluded that there is
no association between Marital status and Customer Loyalty. Here the researcher
tried to find out the relationship between marital status and Customer Loyalty. For
this purpose following hypothesis was formulated and tested with t- test.
134
H131: There is significant difference between married and unmarried consumers
Table 3.43
Marital status and Customer Loyalty
Marital Status Mean t value df P value
Married 3.91
Customer Loyalty .998 553 .319
Unmarried 3.86
Table 3.43 shows the result of hypothesis test. As the P value is greater than
0.05, it was failed to reject the null hypothesis. Hence it is concluded that Customer
Loyalty is independent of marital status of consumers.
Educational qualification and Customer Loyalty
In the previous study of (Jyoti Pradhan and Devi Prasad Misra 2015) about
Customer Loyalty in FMCG shows that education had insignificant impact on
customers Customer Loyalty. In this study the researcher is interested to know the
impact of education on Customer Loyalty. For this purpose following hypothesis
was formulated and tested with one way ANOVA.
background regarding Customer Loyalty.
H132: There is significant difference among different educational background
135
Table 3.44
Educational qualification and Customer Loyalty
Educational Qualification Mean F value df P value
SSLC 3.99
Plus two 3.95

Customer
.758 3,551 .518
Loyalty
Graduation 3.85
0.05, it was failed to reject the null hypothesis. It was concluded that Customer
Loyalty is independent of educational groups of consumers.
Occupation and Customer Loyalty
Occupation appears to be the single best predictor of social class and is often
sufficient to estimate a family’s class (Kahl and Davis, 1985). Consumers in
different social classes may approach the buying situation differently. Here the
researcher is interested to know the Customer Loyalty of fast food consumers. For
this purpose following hypothesis was formulated and tested with one way ANOVA.
136
Table 3.45
Occupation and Customer Loyalty
Business 4.00
Government job 4.00

Customer
7.82 3,551 <.001
Loyalty
Private job 3.93
Students 3.73
0.05; the null hypothesis is rejected in favour of alternative hypothesis. Hence it was
concluded that there is significant difference among different income group
regarding Customer Loyalty. To identify the groups that are significantly different
‘Post Hoc’ test was conducted. The result shows that three groups are significantly
different. The Customer Loyalty is significantly higher for business group
consumers (M = 4.00) than Students group consumers (M= 3.73). There is
significant difference between Government Employees and Student. Customer
Loyalty is significantly more for Government Employees (M = 4.00) than Students
(M= 3.73). There is significant difference between Private Employees and Students
group of consumers. The loyalty is significantly more for private employees
(M= 3.93) than Students (M = 3.73). Thus Customer Loyalty is significantly more
for employed group of consumers than others.
Age and Customer Loyalty
With regard to age and loyalty, a study of FMCG in the USA, (Ehrenberg
(1990), concluded that there was no difference in Customer Loyalty between
137
consumers of different age groups. There is a general belief that older consumers are
more conservative and less willing to try new brands. In this study researcher made
an attempt to find the influence of age on Customer Loyalty. For this purpose
Ho34: There is no significant difference among different age group regarding
Customer Loyalty.
H134: There is significant difference among different age group regarding Customer
Loyalty.
Table 3.46
Age and Customer Loyalty
Age Mean F value df P value
< 25 years 3.97
Customer 25-35 years 3.82

16.19 3,551 <.001
Loyalty
35-45 years 3.58
45 & Above 4.50
0.05 rejected in favour of alternative hypothesis. It was concluded that there is
significant difference among different age groups regarding Customer Loyalty. To
identify the groups that are significantly different ‘Post Hoc’ test was conducted.
The result shows that there is significant difference regarding Customer Loyalty
between Below 25 year’s age group & 25-35 age groups and also between 35-45 age
groups and above 45 years age group. The Customer Loyalty is significantly more
for Below 25 years age group (M = 3.97) than 25-35 age group (M = 3.82). The
138
Customer Loyalty is more for above 45 years age group (M= 4.50) than 35-45 age
group (M= 3.58). The Customer Loyalty is significantly more for above 45 years
age group. Hence it can be concluded that customer loyalty is significantly more for
younger and older consumers.
Income and Customer Loyalty
The previous studies (Mishra, S. and Prasad, S. (2014), results indicated that
income is not influencing Customer Loyalty. Similarly in this study the researcher is
interested to know whether the income has any effect on Customer Loyalty. For this
purpose following hypothesis was formulated and tested with one way ANOVA.
Ho35: There is no significant difference among consumers from different income
H135: There is significant difference among consumers from different income
139
Table 3.47
Income and Customer Loyalty
Construct Income Mean F value df P value
< Rs. 25,000 3.88

Customer
Rs. 25,000-Rs. 50,000 3.87 .058 2,552 .944
Loyalty
< Rs. 50,000 3.89
0.05, it was failed to reject the null hypothesis. It was concluded that Customer
Loyalty is independent of income consumers. Therefore, the finding of the study is
consistent with findings of similar studies done earlier.
Table 3.48
Summary of Hypothesis Test = Customer Loyalty
Area of Living H0 failed to reject
Marital status H0 failed to reject

Customer
Educational Qualification H0 failed to reject
Loyalty
Age H0 rejected
140
3.8 CONCLUSION
The chapter dealt with the analysis of data relating to buying behavior,
drivers and the antecedents and descendants of Customer Satisfaction. The analysis
brought out the peculiar buying behavioral pattern among fast food consumers and
the drivers that influence the selection of a fast food restaurant. Besides, the various
antecedents of Customer Satisfaction such as Service Quality, Perceived Value, and
Product Quality were also assessed and evaluated. The evidence also suggests that
significant difference exists among the measured constructs, according to their
demographic characteristics. The development and testing of the model using the
constructs assessed here are done in the next chapter.
141
References
Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the academy of marketing science
Bryant B, E & Jaesung, C., 1996). Crossing the threshold. Journal of marketing
research 8(4), 20-28.
Chin W.W (1998).The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation
Modeling. InGA Marcoulides (ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research,
295-336. Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates, London.
Chin W.W, Dibbern J (2010). An Introduction to a Permutation Based Procedure for
Multi- Group PLS Analysis: Results of Tests of Differences on Simulated
Data and a Cross Cultural Analysis of the Sourcing of Information System
Services between Germany and the USA. In V Esposito Vinzi, WW Chin, J
Henseler, HF Wang (eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts,
Methods and Applications in Marketing and Related Fields, chapter 7,171-
193. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Cohen, J (1988), Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
Diamantopoulos A, Winklhofer H (2001). Index Construction with Formative
Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development. Journal of Marketing
Research, 38(2), 269-277.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: Algebra and Statistics, Journal of
Marketing Research, 382-388
142
Hair J, F., Hult, Ringle C & Sarstedt M (2014). A primer on partial least square
structural equation modeling (PLS- SEM). London: Sage Publication
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least square in strategic management research: A
review of four studies. Strategic management Journal, 2-0(2), 195- 204.
Mitchel, V. W & Walsh, G (2006). Gender differences in German consumer
decision‐making styles. Journal of consumer behavior 3(4), 331-346.
143

13 Chapter3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

13 Chapter3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 3

ANTECEDENTS AND DESCENDANTS OF

The present chapter accomplishes the objectives of the study by analyzing

profile of samples which describe the demographic characteristics of the sample

Satisfaction and the fifth section deals with Customer Loyalty.

3.1 PROFILE OF SAMPLE RESPONDENTS

This section describes the demographic characteristics of respondents such as

gender, marital status, educational qualification, income, etc., of sample

Below 25 years 268 48

25-35 years 199 36

Above Degree 193 35

Below Rs. 25000 83 15

Rs. 25000- Rs. 50000 219 40

Above Rs. 50000 253 45

Government Employee 105 19

Private Sector Employee 180 32

Source: Field survey N=555

are from Rural Area.

According to age wise classification 48 percent of respondents belong to

Regarding marital status, 62 percent are unmarried and 38 percent are

married. Another classification on the basis of educational qualification shows that

53 percent are Graduates and 35 percent are Post Graduates. 12 percent of

With respect to monthly income 40 percent belong to Rs 25,000 – Rs 50,000

category, 45 percent of respondents belong to ‘Above Rs 50,000’ income category

of consumers are from relatively high income groups.

3.2 BUYING BEHAVIOR

The buying behavior of consumers of fast food restaurant is examined in terms of

One Visit 78 14.1

2-3 Visits 179 32.2

Above 7 Visits 62 11.2

2 Hour 204 36.7

Up to Rs. 500 167 30.0

Rs 500 – Rs 1000 93 16.8

Above Rs 3000 55 10.0

Break Fast 63 11.4

Snacks 176 31.7

Dinner 204 36.7

Cash 285 51.4

Payment Credit Card 36 6.5

Preferred Friends 324 58.4

On the way to Office/ College 57 10.3

On the way Back from the 77 13.9

Leisure Time with Friends/ 361 65.0

Mc Donald’s 166 29.9

KFC 131 23.6

Domino’s Pizza 82 14.8

Source: Field survey N=555

2 hours per visit and 18.4% spent up to 3 hours per visit.

Snacks, 20.2 prefer Lunch and only 11.4% prefers Breakfast.

Regarding the preferred Companion, 58.4% of the consumers prefer to visit

colleagues as their companions to FFRs. 29.9% consumers preferred FFRs was

college/office, 10.8% consumers prefer to visit FFRs in between college/office time

and 10.3% consumers prefer to visit FFRs on the way to Office/College.

3.3 DRIVERS THAT DETERMINE THE CHOICE OF FFRs

Drivers refer to the factors which influence consumers in choosing a fast

of experts were also considered in this regard.

In order to bring down the number of dimensions indicating the drivers,

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was adopted using Principal Component

analysis. The sample adequacy test known as Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of

Anderson 1995). Moreover, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, test the strength of

Factor 1 Promotional Measures

PR1 Advertisement is attractive 3.68 .919 .778