Factors Affecting Customer Sat

sustainability
Article
Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction in Fast Food Restaurant
“Jollibee” during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Ardvin Kester S. Ong 1 , Yogi Tri Prasetyo 1,2,3, * , Klint Allen Mariñas 1,4 , Jehorom Px Alegre Perez 1,5 ,
Satria Fadil Persada 6 , Reny Nadlifatin 7 , Thanatorn Chuenyindee 8 and Thapanat Buaphiban 8
1 School of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Mapúa University, 658 Muralla St.,
Intramuros, Manila 1002, Philippines
2 International Program in Engineering for Bachelor, Yuan Ze University, 135 Yuan-Tung Road,
Chung-Li 32003, Taiwan
3 Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Yuan Ze University, 135 Yuan-Tung Road,
Chung-Li 32003, Taiwan
4 Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan 320, Taiwan
5 School of Graduate Studies, Mapúa University, 658 Muralla St., Intramuros, Manila 1002, Philippines
6 Entrepreneurship Department, BINUS Business School Undergraduate Program, Bina Nusantara University,
Jakarta 11480, Indonesia
7 Department of Information Systems, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh November, Kampus ITS Sukolilo,
Surabaya 60111, Indonesia
8 Department of Industrial Engineering and Aviation Management, Navaminda Kasatriyadhiraj Royal Air
Force Academy, Bangkok 10220, Thailand
* Correspondence: ytprasetyo@mapua.edu.ph; Tel.: +63-(2)8247-5000 (ext. 6202)
Abstract: Jollibee is one of the most widely known fast food in Filipino-based restaurants in the
world. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted restaurants across the world. The decrease
in profit and dividend, and even closure of branches were evident. This study aimed to determine
Citation: Ong, A.K.S.; Prasetyo, Y.T.;
the relationships between Jollibee’s price, food quality, culture/social influence, and service quality
Mariñas, K.A.; Perez, J.P.A.; Persada,
through the SERVQUAL dimensions on customer satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic using
S.F.; Nadlifatin, R.; Chuenyindee, T.;
Buaphiban, T. Factors Affecting
the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. A total of 303 respondents were recruited using
Customer Satisfaction in Fast Food a purposive sampling approach to answer an online survey through social media platforms. This
Restaurant “Jollibee” during the study found that among the factors mentioned, responsiveness, reliability, and assurance dimensions
COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability yielded to be statistically insignificant to the service quality. Due to the normal attributes the staff
2022, 14, 15477. https://doi.org/ and restaurant have, the different factors were deemed insignificant. At the same time, the service
10.3390/su142215477 quality was observed to have the largest significant direct relationship with customer satisfaction,
Academic Editor: Marc A. Rosen
followed by the cultural influence, food quality, COVID-19 protocols, and pricing. It was also seen
that cleanliness and appearance, empathetic staff, food quality, price, and proper implementation
Received: 27 September 2022 of COVID-19 protocol prevention would lead to high levels of satisfaction among customers in
Accepted: 1 November 2022
Jollibee fast-food restaurant. Moreover, cultural/social influence has played a big role seeing that
Published: 21 November 2022
the indicators represent the feeling of belongingness since childhood. This study is the first study
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral that analyzed the factors affecting the customer satisfaction of Jollibee. Finally, this study could be
with regard to jurisdictional claims in used as a basis for fast-food companies and service-related industries to increase its performance by
published maps and institutional affil- enhancing customer satisfaction worldwide.
iations.
Keywords: SERVQUAL; structural equation modeling; fast food restaurant; Filipino
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
1. Introduction
distributed under the terms and The intensifying competition in the service industry has been continuously expanding
conditions of the Creative Commons and has been a challenge for food businesses [1,2]. Every business focuses on strategies
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// that will provide a competitive advantage over the others [1]. When it comes to strategic
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ responses in food businesses, competitive prices, sales promotion, quality of the food, and
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15477. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215477 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 15477 2 of 19
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 21
good customer service are the key drivers for customer patronization and satisfaction,
which
responseswillinlead
foodto customercompetitive
businesses, loyalty [1].prices, sales promotion, quality of the food, and
Customer loyalty
good customer service are the key is also known
drivers tofor
be customer
linked with customerand
patronization satisfaction
satisfaction, [3]. It in-
which will lead to customer loyalty [1].
creases as customer satisfaction increases at a certain level [3,4]. Customer satisfaction
is theCustomer
customer’s loyalty is alsotoknown
reaction to be linked
the difference with customer
between what they satisfaction
received[3]. andIt in-
what they
creases as customer
anticipated [5]. Gerpotsatisfaction
et al. [6]increases
proposed at that
a certain level [3,4].
satisfaction Customer
is based satisfaction
on how well the is services
the customer’s reaction to the difference between what they received
or the products fulfill customer expectations [7]. However, it is evident that customer and what they an-
ticipated [5]. links
satisfaction Gerpotwithet al.customer
[6] proposed that satisfaction
patronization andis business
based on how well the services
profitability [8]. To which,
or the products fulfill customer expectations [7]. However,
there might be some changes that may occur in the customer’s behavior it is evident that customer duesat-
to further
isfaction links with
developments andcustomer
changespatronization
as time proceeds; and business
such asprofitability
the Internet [8].characteristics,
To which, there product
might be some changes that may occur in the customer’s behavior due to further devel-
attributes, conditions, and situational factors [9]. The best example of these changes is the
opments and changes as time proceeds; such as the Internet characteristics, product at-
COVID-19 pandemic which has led people to social distancing and frequent lockdowns,
tributes, conditions, and situational factors [9]. The best example of these changes is the
which
COVID-19 havepandemic
caused disruptions
which has led inpeople
the behavior
to socialofdistancing
the customers [10]. lockdowns,
and frequent
which Customers
have caused play a significant
disruptions in therole in the pricing
behavior and service
of the customers [10].quality they receive [11,12].
Customers
Fair pricing andplay a significant
service role in the
quality promote pricing
trust and service
and leave a branding quality theytoreceive
image customers. In
[11,12]. Fair
addition, fairpricing
pricingand andservice
service quality promote
quality fulfill trust and leave
customer a branding
satisfaction whenimage
welltomanaged
cus- [11].
tomers.
This In addition,
is because fair pricing
customer and service
satisfaction quality
is the key to fulfill customerthe
continuing satisfaction
businesswhen well
and keeping it on
managed [11].
surviving This is because
the similar industrycustomer satisfaction
[11]. However, dueistothe
thekey to continuing
COVID-19 the business
pandemic, the behavior
and
of keeping itchanged
consumers on surviving
[13]. Ongthe similar industry
et al. [13] pointed[11].out
However,
how customersdue to the COVID-19
were highly anxious
pandemic,
and wouldthe behavior
rather of consumers
stay home. To which,changed
online[13]. Ongdelivery
food et al. [13]services
pointed have
out how cus- largely
become
tomers were[14].
significant highly
One anxious
of theand would restaurants
fast-food rather stay home.that To which,the
utilized online food delivery
promotion and delivery
services have become largely significant [14]. One of the fast-food restaurants that utilized
is Jollibee.
the promotion and delivery is Jollibee.
In the industry of fast-food restaurants in the Philippines, Jollibee has been the dom-
In the industry of fast-food restaurants in the Philippines, Jollibee has been the dom-
inant
inant market leaderwith
market leader with over
over 600600 outlets
outlets and andoverover 30 stores
30 stores abroad abroad
[15–17].[15–17].
It always It always
strives
strives for innovative ideas and total customer experience, focusing on customers’ joy and joy and
for innovative ideas and total customer experience, focusing on customers’
satisfaction [18].AAreport
satisfaction [18]. report created
created by by Beneschan
Beneschan [19] showed
[19] showed higherhigher
than 60% thanof 60% of Jollibee
Jollibee
stores the Philippines are franchised, comprising more than 218 branches. This presentspresents
stores in the Philippines are franchised, comprising more than 218 branches. This
the popularity
the popularity ofofJollibee
Jollibee in in
thethecountry.
country.In addition,
In addition,Jollibee has been
Jollibee haschallenging
been challengingthe the
world by building their footprint across the world. Figure 1 presents
world by building their footprint across the world. Figure 1 presents the global footprint the global footprint
ofJollibee.
of Jollibee.
JOLLIBEE GLOBAL FOOTPRINT

1200 1094
1000
800
600
400
200
40 102
0 1 27
29
Figure 1. Jollibee global footprint [20].

Figure 1. Jollibee global footprint [20].
It could be seen that the majority of the branches of Jollibee are in the Philippines
It could be seen that the majority of the branches of Jollibee are in the Philippines
where they originated. Following which is Vietnam where they have 102 branches and
where they originated. Following which is Vietnam where they have 102 branches and are
currently widely popularized in the United States and Canada with 40 branches. Other
Asian countries including Macau have 29 and 1, respectively, and 27 in the Middle East.
It could be seen that Jollibee is trying to penetrate the market through different countries
with its availability [20].
With the aim to be one of the top 5 global fast-food markets [20], the sales became
challenging when the COVID-19 pandemic hit [21]. Venzon [21] reported that in the
February of 2020, the branch of Jollibee in China was closed due to the pandemic. In
addition, Venzon [21] added that the income sales of Jollibee decreased by 14% in the same
month. In April of 2020, a decrease in dividend of 62 centavos (0.0115 USD) due to the
pandemic hit was reported. The report of Venzon [20] presented that valuation would lead
to an increase in customer sales, and that customer loyalty would result in the restoration
of the decrease in sales and value [21].
In analyzing customer satisfaction, factors such as the pricing, food quality, cultural
influence, and the SERVQUAL dimensions could be utilized. The SERVQUAL dimensions
have been adapted and utilized in numerous studies in different service settings, geographic
locations, and cultural contexts [22]. In the UK, Nguyen et al. [23] conducted a study in fast
food restaurants regarding customer satisfaction using the SERVQUAL dimensions. The
study of Nguyen et al. [23] found that tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and
empathy had a significant positive effect on customer satisfaction. In Australia, a similar
study was also conducted by Lee and Hing [24]. They measured the quality of restaurant op-
erations using the SERVQUAL dimensions. However, both the study of Nguyen et al. [23]
and Lee and Hing [24] only considered the SERVQUAL dimensions as a factor in determin-
ing customer satisfaction. Other factors that may influence customer satisfaction may also
include the price and product quality. Moreover, these studies only used a small sampling
size, which was conducted before the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, in
the Philippines, the effects of customer service quality and product quality on customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty were studied by Altejar and Dizon [17]. The findings
of the study of Altejar and Dizon [17] showed that customer service quality and product
quality affect customer satisfaction, while customer satisfaction affects customer loyalty. In
addition, product quality and service quality were included in the study as factors affecting
customer satisfaction. Another factor that may influence customer satisfaction such as price,
may also be included to have a better perspective on the economic effect of the COVID-19
pandemic [13,25]. Most of the SERVQUAL model is often utilized in service quality and
application [12]. Thus, it will be interesting to investigate the model’s applicability in fast
food restaurants, especially when combined with price, cultural influence, and product
quality as an additional factor during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It was stated from the study by Gimeno-Arias et al. [26] that how corporate social
responsibility (CSR) is one of the most significant factors affecting customer satisfaction.
It was explained that when employees worked cohesively, companies would be able
to achieve their goals. The practice presented among employees toward a service be-
ing provided also influenced satisfaction [26]. In line with this study, these affirmations
were segregated among social and cultural influence on customer satisfaction and the
SERVQUAL dimension. In addition, Bahta et al. [27] highlighted how reputation was
one of the key factors affecting CSR and financial performance. It could be deduced that
since Jollibee has been increasingly becoming popular, their reputation precedes them. To
which, food pricing and quality could be influential factors. Overall, these factors may be
considered as extended latent variables as explained in the study of Islam et al. [28] wherein
reputation, trust, and satisfaction among customers influence their loyalty. Reiterating this
would lead to customer loyalty and evident profitability.
As one of the rising fast-food restaurants being recognized throughout the world, the
Jollibee fast-food restaurant has been challenged by the pandemic. There is therefore a
need to assess the satisfaction of customers to gain the profit loss throughout the stint of
the COVID-19 pandemic which may be utilized even after the pandemic. The analysis of
different factors affecting customer satisfaction should be explored to better understand the
behavior of consumers. This would lead to better strategies and create marketing strategies
during the COVID-19 pandemic [25]. Building a sustainable business model during the
COVID-19 pandemic is crucial. Ong et al. [25] explained that the need for re-planning and
re-strategizing is needed to enhance profitability. The sustainable business model could
then be applied even after the COVID-19 pandemic as the new normal is being adopted by
consumers in the present.
To which, research questions to understand the gap and objective of this study are
as follows:
1. What factors precede customer satisfaction for Jollibee fast-food restaurants in
the Philippines?
2. Utilizing structural equation modeling, which factors and indicators are considered
significant and insignificant?
3. How do the factors influence customer satisfaction and how can the findings
contribute to the current state of Jollibee and other fast-food chains?
The study aimed to correlate the factors affecting customer satisfaction for Jollibee
fast-food restaurants in the Philippines by utilizing the SERVQUAL dimensions. The tangi-
bles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, food quality, culture/social influence,
service quality, and pricing were investigated concurrently with customer satisfaction. This
study could serve as a basis for the company’s value creation and business strategy on how
it could increase its number of customers by enhancing customer satisfaction. Moreover, the
extended model could be applied and extended among other fast-food restaurants. Lastly,
the findings of this study could be enforced by other fast-food restaurants or service-related
industries for strategy planning worldwide.
The content of this research is as follows: (1) Introduction explaining the background
of the study, research gap, related literature, and objectives; (2) theoretical framework
and hypotheses building; (3) methodology considering participants, questionnaire, data
collection, and multivariate analysis; (4) results; (5) discussion, implication, and limitation;
and (6) conclusion.
2. Theoretical Framework
Figure 2 shows the theoretical framework for customers’ views of service qual-
ity with five SERVQUAL dimensions. These dimensions are tangibles (T), reliability
(REL), responsiveness (RES), assurance (A), and empathy (E). Moreover, other factors
such as service quality (SQ), culture/social influence (CI), COVID-19 protocols (CP),
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW (P), food quality (FQ), and customer satisfaction (C) have been investigated
pricing 5 of 21 in
the current study. These factors were hypothesized to affect customer satisfaction in Jollibee
fast-food restaurants.
Figure 2.2.Theoretical
Figure Theoreticalframework.
framework.
As part of the CSR, the SERVQUAL dimensions are presented to be individual factors
that should be considered by service providers such as fast-food chains. It was highlighted
from the study of Gimeno-Arias et al. [26] that the stakeholders such as the employees
should be able to provide a thorough and reflective output by their service to enhance the
satisfaction among consumers. With this, an increase in industry value will be evident.
As part of the CSR, the SERVQUAL dimensions are presented to be individual factors
that should be considered by service providers such as fast-food chains. It was highlighted
from the study of Gimeno-Arias et al. [26] that the stakeholders such as the employees
should be able to provide a thorough and reflective output by their service to enhance
the satisfaction among consumers. With this, an increase in industry value will be evi-
dent. Thus, the need to assess the SERVQUAL dimensions as an effect of CSR should
be considered.
Assurance refers to the staff’s knowledge, courtesy, and ability to carry trust and
confidence [29]. Assurance is one of the significant dimensions of SERVQUAL, especially
when customers feel uncertain about the service provided by the restaurant [30,31]. The
assurance is achieved when customers entrusted their decisions regarding the waiter’s
recommendations, feel confident regarding the safety of the food, and are capable of voicing
their concerns and opinions without arguing or having a fear of insult [30]. Thus, it was
hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Assurance had a significant effect on service quality.
Tangibles refer to the restaurant’s physical facilities, equipment, and personnel [30,32].
It connects the restaurant’s image and embeds quality to customers [30]. Moreover, the
smooth and fast transactions and suitable environment that the customers feel during
the service are also part of the tangible dimension. Thus, better service is provided to
customers when better tangibles are given by the organization or industry [12]. Thus, it
was hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Tangibles had a significant effect on service quality.
Reliability is the staff’s ability to provide service dependably, accurately and promptly
when responding to the customer’s demand [11,31,32]. In restaurants, reliability correctness
in responding to customer requests is about the preparation of the menu item, reservations,
food order, and accurate billing [30]. Thus, the more the service is reliable, the better it will
influence good service quality. To which, it was hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Reliability had a significant effect on service quality.
Responsiveness refers to the ability, flexibility, and willingness of the service providers
to respond to customers’ requests and concerns [11,30,33]. In addition, the responsiveness
of the employees in helping the customers’ problems using services influenced customer
satisfaction [34]. Thus, the more responsive the staff are in attending to the customers’
requests, the better the service quality is perceived. Thus, it was hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Responsiveness had a significant effect on service quality.
Empathy pertains to the staff’s ability to provide care and individualized attention
to the customers [11,30,35], for example, when the customers were treated as individuals
when service was provided [29]. Without it, customers will be dissatisfied with the service
that they received [35]. Thus, empathy hugely influences customer satisfaction [33]. Thus,
it was hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 5 (H5). Empathy had a significant effect on service quality.
One of the dominant factors affecting customer satisfaction is service quality [36–38].
Customers are the individuals who receive the products and services and evaluate its
quality if it has satisfied or exceeded their needs and expectations [37,39]. In the restaurant
industry, customers judge the food quality and the service quality that they had through-
out their dining involvement [40]. Some studies revealed that service quality was more
significant than food quality when considering dining satisfaction [30]. Moreover, the find-
ings of the study of Yuksel and Yusel [41] found that service quality influenced customer
satisfaction. Thus, it was hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 6 (H6). Service quality had a significant effect on customer satisfaction.
Price is one of the significant factors affecting customer satisfaction. It is also deemed
to be subsequent to service quality when considering customer satisfaction [42]. Dai [43]
found that price fairness has a strong influence on customer satisfaction [43,44]. The more
the product is affordable, the more it will satisfy and make the customers buy the product
repetitively [45]. Therefore, it was hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 7 (H7). Pricing had a significant effect on customer satisfaction.
Food is one of the most critical factors of the overall dining experience [46]. Its quality
captivates the customers and significantly impacts customer satisfaction [46–48]. In the
restaurant industry, customer satisfaction is achieved by focusing on food quality [49]. In
addition, Rozekhi et al. [47] found that food quality has a significant effect on customer
satisfaction. Thus, it was hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 8 (H8). Food quality had a significant effect on customer satisfaction.
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the daily routines of the people [13,48]. Thus,
the preferences and perspectives of the customers changed [25,35,50]. Around 1100 respon-
dents from the United States (U.S) were asked if their dining behaviors have remained
since November 2020 [51]. Significantly, 55% said that their breakfast behaviors changed,
51% reported that their lunch behaviors have changed, and 53% reported that their dinner
behaviors changed [48]. In addition, 72% of the respondents reported that the number of
the COVID-19 cases would be the basis of their decision to dine outside or not [51]. It could
be posited that COVID-19 affected the habit of people since they considered this factor
in their decision [52]. In addition, the study of Ong et al. [13,25] and German et al. [53]
also highlighted the change in behavior of people during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was
seen that with proper protocol and enhanced safety, consumers spend time and attempt to
affirm the service being provided. With the danger and caution to get infected with the
virus, people are more hesitant to obtain the service being offered. In relation to this study,
people may be more hesitant to buy food even online due to the COVID-19 pandemic as a
preventive measure [54]. Thus, it was hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 9 (H9). COVID-19 had a significant effect on customer satisfaction.
Culture bears a powerful influence in controlling human behavior [52]. Moreover,

culture further affects the customers’ behavior about their decisions on making purchases.
In addition, marketing researchers also consider this as one of the major drivers and
determinants for customer behavior [13,52,55]. Moreover, marketing researchers also used
cultural dimensions to measure its impact on customer behavior [13,25,35]. Hence, it was
hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 10 (H10). The cultural influence had a significant effect on customer satisfaction.
3. Methodology
3.1. Participants
A total of 303 respondents answered the survey. They were the individuals who are
regularly eating or who have experienced eating at Jollibee fast food, Philippines. Through
purposive sampling, an online questionnaire was utilized to collect the data due to the
strict implementation of lockdowns brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. The data were
collected from December 2021 until January 2022 through different social media platforms.
Following the study of German et al. [53], the Yamane Taro formula as seen in equation
1 was utilized. It was suggested that with 62.6 million Filipinos at a 10% margin of error,
100 participants could be utilized. The collected data exceeded the calculated sample size
during the collection period with no non-response bias. Upon the collection of data, a
common method of bias analysis using the Harman’s Single Factor test was conducted. It
was seen that a 36.12% result was obtained, lower than the 50% threshold [54]. Thus, the
collected data were seen to be acceptable.
N
n= (1)
1 + N ( e )2
3.2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire utilized in this study was from studies that considered the SERVQUAL
dimensions [11–14,35]. Moreover, questions used in service and retail businesses to assess
the customers’ perception of service quality were also adapted for this study [56]. Prior
to distribution, a validation was considered with 150 respondents. A value of 0.803 for
Cronbach’s alpha was obtained, therefore, was deemed acceptable for dissemination [13,14].
The sample survey questionnaire that was utilized in this study is presented in Appendix A.
3.3. Statistical Analysis: Structural Equation Modeling

In analyzing the relationships between the service quality, food quality, and price on
customer satisfaction, the structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized. It is a data
analysis technique driven by theory and is used to evaluate the prior identified hypotheses
concerning the causal relations of the latent variables and observed indicators [57]. It was
explained by Hair et al. [58] that how SEM is a multivariate analysis that can assess the
causal relationship of factors of multiple independent variables with dependent variables.
It has been widely considered in several studies that assessed service quality, intention,
and customer satisfaction among service providers and related industries.
Taking for example the study of Bahta et al. [27], they assessed the performance of
small and medium enterprises using partial least square SEM (PLS-SEM). It was discussed
by Dash and Paul [59] that how PLS-SEM is utilized for research with theories being
justified while covariance based SEM (CB-SEM), the SEM utilized in this study is utilized
for research with existing frameworks. In line with this study, an established framework
utilizing the SERVQUAL dimension to correlate customer satisfaction with extended latent
variables was used. In addition, Ong et al. [13] presented how SEM would be a viable tool
for assessing human behavior-related studies.
Figure 2 presents the SEM framework utilized in this study. A total of 45 questionnaire
items were used in this study under the tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance,
empathy, service quality, food quality, and pricing. Moreover, a total of five items were used
to assess the customers’ satisfaction. Different studies have utilized SEM in identifying
customer satisfaction with SERVQUAL dimensions [13,17,22–25,28]. Thus, SEM could be
utilized in assessing customer satisfaction among Jollibee consumers.
4. Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the respondents. The majority of the
respondents came from 21–26 years old (57.09%), followed by 27–33 years old (16.83%),
15–20 years old (10.20%), and the rest are older than 34 years old. Most of the respondents
eat at Jollibee at least once a month (38.95%), once a week (28.71%), or twice a week
(22.11). To which, most of the respondents are employed (61.06%), students (21.12%), and
unemployed (11.22%) with no dependents (76.90%). Moreover, majority of the respondents
have low monthly income (11,999 and below to 20,999 PhP; 228.30 USD and below to
399.55 USD) which is 54.45% and middle class (21,999–40,999 PhP; 418.57–780.09 USD) with
have
399.55low
with monthly
USD)
399.55
30.69%.which
with income
USD)
Lastly,
30.69%. (11,999
is 54.45%
which isand
consumers
Lastly, and and
54.45% below
middle to(21,999–40,999
class
middle
consumers
would eat 20,999
classPhP;
would
at 228.30 USDPhP;
(21,999–40,999
Jollibee and418.57–780.
below
PhP; 418.57–780.09
eat ateven
Jollibee
without to
USD)
evendiscounts
without discounts
or coupons or
(89.77%).
Table (89.77%).
1. Descriptive statistics of respondents (N = 303).
399.55
with USD)
30.69%.
(89.77%). withwhich
Lastly,
30.69%.
(89.77%). is 54.45%
consumers
Lastly, and middle
consumers
would eat class
would
at (21,999–40,999
Jollibee
eat at
even
Jollibee PhP;
without
even 418.57–780.09
discounts
without USD)
discounts
or couponsor
Table 1. Descriptive
statistics ofstatistics
respondents
of respondents
(N = 303). (N = 303).
with 30.69%. Lastly,
Characteristics
(89.77%). (89.77%).
Table 1. Descriptive consumers
Table 1. Descriptive would
Category
statistics ofstatistics
respondents eat at Jollibee
of respondents even
Frequency
(N = 303). (N = 303). without discounts or
Percentage coupons
(%)
Characteristics
(89.77%).
Table Characteristics
1. Descriptive
statistics
15 of Category
tostatistics ofCategory
respondents
20 years (N = 303). Frequency
respondents
old (N =31303). FrequencyPercentage
10.20Percentag
(%)
Characteristics
Table Characteristics
1. Descriptive
statistics of
15 to Category
statistics
respondents
to 26
20 years
yearsofCategory
respondents
15 toold(N
old = 303). Frequency
(N
20 years old 173 = 303).
31 Frequency
31 Percentage
10.20 (%)10.20
Percentag
Characteristics
Characteristics21 Category Category Frequency Frequency 57.09
Percentage Percentag
(%)10.20
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15477 Table 1. Descriptive statistics
15 of
to respondents
20 years
21 to 26 years15 to (N
old
20
21 toold = 303).
years old
26 years old 173 31 31
173 10.20
8 of 19
57.09 57.09
Characteristics 27
Characteristics15 to
to 33
Category
20 years
years
15 toold
Category
old
20 years old 51
Frequency
31 Frequency
31 16.83
Percentage
10.20 Percentag
(%)10.20
Characteristics 21
27 to
to 26
33
Category years
21
years
27 to
toold
26
old
33 years
years old
old 173
51
Frequency 173
51 57.09
16.83
Percentage (%)57.09
16.83
34
15
21 to
to 40
20
26 years
15
years
21 to
toold
20
old
26 years
years old
old 25
31
173 31
173 8.250
10.20
57.09 10.20
57.09
Age 27
34 to
to 33
40 years
27
years
34 to
toold
33
old
40 years
years old
old 51
25 51
25 16.83
8.250 16.83
8.250
Age Age 27 15
41
21 to 20
46
26 years
21 toold
26 years old 31
10
173 173 10.20
3.30
57.09 57.09
30.69%. Lastly, consumers would eat
34 to
toat33
40 years
Jollibee 27
years
34 to
toold
33
even
old
40 years old
without
years old 51
discounts
25 or 51
coupons
25 16.83
(89.77%).
8.250 16.83
8.250
Age Age 47 41
21 to
to
27 to 40 46
26
53 years
41
years
33 years to
27 to old
46
old
toold years
33 years old
years old
old 25 10
173
10
51 10
51 3.30
57.09
3.30
16.83 3.30
16.83
34
41 to 46 34
years
41 to 40
old
46 years old 10 25
10 8.250
3.30 8.250
3.30
Table 1. Descriptive Age
statistics Age 47
27
34 to
54 to 53
33
years
of respondents
40
(n 47
years
old
=
years
34 to 53
old
and
303).
toold
40 years
years old
old 10
51
25 10
25 3.30
16.83
8.250 3.30
8.250
Age Age 34 41
47 to
to 46
53 years
41
years
47 to
toold
46
old
53 years
years old
old 10
3
10 10
10 3.30
1.030
3.30 3.30
3.30
54to
41 years
to 40
above
46 old
54 to
years
years
41 years
and
old
old
46 old and
years old 25
10 10 8.250
3.30 3.30
Age
Characteristics 47
54 to 53 years
Category
years 47
old
54 toold
53 years
years
and old old 10
Frequency
and 3 3
10
Percentage 1.030
3.30
(%) 1.030
3.30
41 to
Once above
46 ayearsweek above
old 10
87
3 3 3.30
28.71
1.030 1.030
47 to 53
54toyears years
47
old
54 toold
53
years
and years
old old
and 10 10 3.30 3.30
15
Once
20above
years
ayears
week
old
Once above
a week
31
87
3 87
3
10.20
28.71
1.030 28.71
1.030
47 to
Twice 53
54toyears a week
old old
54 old
years
and old and 173 10
67 3.30
22.11
Frequency of Eating 21
Once
26above
years
aa weekOnce above
aa week 87
3 87
3
57.09
28.71
1.030 28.71
1.030
54
27 Twice
toyears
Thrice
33above
yearsa week
old Twice
weekand
old above week 51 18 67 67 22.11
16.83 5.940 22.11
Frequency Frequency
of Eating of Eating
in Jollibee Once
Twice a week
Once
a week
Twice a week 87
3 87 28.71
1.030 28.71
344Thrice old a week 67 67 22.11 22.11
above
times aaaaweek
week
Thrice
Once aaaweek
week week 25 13 18 18 5.940 5.940
to 40 years 8.250 4.290
Frequency
Age Frequency
of Eating
in Jollibee of Eating
in Jollibee Once
Twice week
Twice week 87
67 87
67 28.71
22.11 28.71
22.11
414Thrice
times
to 46 yearsa week
Thrice
aweek
week
4Twice a
timesaaweek
old week
week 10 18
13 18
13 3.30 5.940
4.290 5.940
4.290
Frequency Frequency
of Eating
in Jollibee of Eating
in Jollibee Once
Once
Twice a aamonth
week 87
118
67 67 28.71
38.95
22.11 22.11
474Thrice
times
to 53 yearsaa week
4Thrice
week
times
old aa week
week 10 18
13 18
13 3.30 5.940
4.290 5.940
4.290
Frequency Frequency
of Eating of Eating
Once
in Jollibeein Jollibee54Thrice
Twice a
Student month
Once
aa week a month 118
67
64 118 38.95
22.11
21.12 38.95
Frequency of Eating 4 times
years a
old week
4Thrice
week
times
and aa week
week 18
13 18
13 5.940
4.290 5.940
4.290
in Jollibee Once
in Jollibee Thrice a
Student month
Once
aa week a month
Student 3 118
64
18 118
64 1.030 38.95
21.12
5.940 38.95
21.12
4Unemployed
times
Once
above
a week
4
monthtimes
Once a a week
month 34
13
118 13
118 11.22
4.290
38.95 4.290
38.95
in Jollibee
Occupation Student Student 64 64 21.12 21.12
Unemployed
4Once
times
Employed a
a month Unemployed
week
Once a month 34
13
185
118 34
118 11.22
4.290
61.06
38.95 11.22
38.95
Occupation Occupation Unemployed
Once a
Student week
Student
Unemployed
87
64
34 64
34
28.71
21.12
11.22 21.12
11.22
Employed Employed 185 185 61.06 61.06
of EatingOccupationOnce aa week
month
Occupation Twice Other 67118
20 22.11 38.95
6.60
Frequency Student
Unemployed Student
Unemployed 64
34 64
34 21.12
11.22 21.12
11.22
Occupation Employed
Occupation Unemployed
Thrice Other
a
Student week Employed
Other 18 185
20
64 185
20 5.940 61.06
6.60
21.12 61.06
6.60
in Jollibee
Employed0 Unemployed
Employed 233
34
185 185 76.90
34 4.290 61.06
11.22 11.22
61.06
Occupation Occupation Unemployed
4 times Other
a
0
week Other
0
13 20
233
34 20
233 6.60
76.90
11.22 6.60
76.90
Occupation Once a1
Employed
OthermonthEmployed
Other 38
118185
20 185
20 38.95 12.54
61.06
6.60 61.06
6.60
0 0 233 233 76.90 76.90
Number of Children Employed21
Other
Student 0
1
Other
0 64
38
185
15
20
233
38
233
12.54
61.06
20 21.12 4.950
6.60
76.90
12.54
6.60
76.90
Number of Number
Children of Children 1 1 38 38 12.54 12.54
Unemployed 32
Other 0
1
2
0
1 34 15
20
11
233
38
15 11.22 3.630
233
38
4.950
6.60
76.90
12.54
4.950
76.90
12.54
Number
Occupation of
Number
Children of Children 2 2 15 15 4.950 4.950
Number of Number
Children of Children and03
4Employed 1above 3
2 1
2
11
185233
6
38
15
11
15
3.630
76.90
38 61.06 1.980
12.54
4.950
3.630
12.54
4.950
4 andand
Other 3
12above 3
4 and2above 20 11
6
38 11
6 6.60 3.630
1.980
12.54 3.630
1.980
Number of Number
Children ₱11,999
of Children 3 below 3 87
15
11 15
11 28.71
4.950
3.630 4.950
3.630
Number of Children ₱12,000 to 4
₱11,999 and and above4
₱11,999and
below
23 ₱20,999 3 above
and below 6
87
15 6
87 1.980
28.71
4.950 1.980
28.71
4 and
0
above4 and above
233 78
11
6 11
6
76.90 25.74
3.630
1.980 3.630
1.980
₱11,999
₱12,000 1and
to below
₱11,999
₱12,000
3above₱20,999 and below
toabove
₱20,999 93
38 87
78
11 87
78 12.54 28.71
25.74
3.630 28.71
25.74
₱21,000
4
₱11,999 and to
and ₱40,999
4 and
below
₱11,999 and below 6
87 6
87 30.69
1.980
28.71 1.980
28.71
Number Monthly Income
of Children ₱12,000
₱21,000
2to
to ₱12,000
₱20,999
₱21,000
₱40,999 to
to ₱20,999
₱40,999
15 78
93 78
93
4.950 25.74
30.69 25.74
30.69
4
₱41,000
₱11,999 and to
and above
₱60,999
belowand
₱11,999 below 78 6
21
87 87 1.980
6.930
28.71 28.71
Monthly Income
Monthly Income ₱12,000
₱21,000
3to
to ₱12,000
₱20,999
₱21,000
₱40,999 to
to ₱20,999
₱40,999
11
93 78
93
3.630 25.74
30.69 25.74
30.69
Monthly Income
4 and and
₱11,999
₱61,000
₱12,000 to
to
above belowto
₱41,000
₱60,999
₱80,999
₱12,000
₱20,999 to ₱60,999
₱20,999 21
87
6 11
78 21
78 6.930
28.71
1.980 3.630
25.74 6.930
25.74
₱21,000
₱41,000 to
to ₱21,000
₱40,999
₱41,000
₱60,999 to
to ₱40,999
₱60,999 93
21 93
21 30.69
6.930 30.69
6.930
Monthly Income
₱12,000
₱81,000
₱21,000 to
11,999 to
and ₱61,000
₱80,999
₱20,999
to₱41,000
and above
₱21,000
₱40,999to
below to ₱80,999
to ₱60,999
₱40,999 21
87 11
78
13
93 11
93 28.71 3.630
25.74
4.290
30.69 3.630
30.69
Monthly Income
₱61,000 to ₱60,999
₱61,000
₱80,999 to ₱80,999 11 21
11 6.930
3.630 6.930
3.630
₱81,000
₱21,000
12,000 Yes
₱41,000 toand
to
to aboveand
₱81,000
₱40,999
20,999
₱41,000
₱60,999 to above78 57
₱60,999 13
93
21 13
21 4.290
30.69
25.74 18.81
6.930 4.290
6.930
Monthly Income
Customers Who Eat ₱81,000₱61,000 to
and ₱61,000
₱80,999
above
₱81,000 to
and ₱80,999
above 11
93 13 11
13 3.630
30.69 4.290 3.630
4.290
Monthly Income
21,000 to
₱41,000
₱61,000 Yes
Noto
to
40,999
₱60,999
₱61,000
₱80,999 Yes
to ₱80,999 57
21
146
11 57
11 18.81
6.930
48.18
3.630 18.81
3.630
Customers Customers
Who
because of Discount Eat Who Eat
₱81,000
41,000 and
Yes
to above
₱81,000
60,999 and
Yes above 21 13
57 13
57 6.930 4.290
18.81 4.290
18.81
Customers Customers
Who Eat ₱61,000
Who Eat
₱81,000 Noto
Sometimes
and ₱80,999
above
₱81,000 No
and above 146
11
100
13 146
13 48.18
3.630
33.00
4.290 48.18
4.290
because ofbecause
Discount of Discount Yes
61,000 to
No
80,999 Yes
No
11 57
146 57
146
3.630 18.81
48.18 18.81
48.18
Customers
because ofCustomers
Who Eat
because
Discount Who
₱81,000
of Discount Sometimes
Eat and
81,000 andabove
Yes Sometimes
above Yes 13 100
13
31
57 100
57 4.290 33.00
4.290
10.23
18.81 33.00
18.81
Customers Customers
Who Eat Who Eat No
Sometimes No
Sometimes 146
100 146
100 48.18
33.00 48.18
33.00
because ofbecause
Discount of Discount Yes Yes
No Yes
No 57 31
57
146 31 18.81 18.81
146 10.23
48.18 10.23
48.18
Customers Who
because ofbecause
Customers Who Eat Eat
Discount
because Sometimes
of Discount No Yes Sometimes
Yes 100
31 100
31 33.00
10.23 33.00
10.23
No
Sometimes Sometimes 146 146
100 100 48.18 48.18
33.00 33.00
because of Discount
of Discount Yes
Sometimes Yes 100 31 31 33.00 10.23 10.23
Sometimes
Yes Yes 100
31 31 33.00
10.23 10.23
Customers Who Eat because Yes
Yes 31 31 10.23 10.23
of permanent discount No 272 89.77
Figure 3 represents the initial SEM model of the study. From Table 2, it was found
that pricing, culture/social influence, tangibles, empathy, COVID-19 protocols, overall
service quality, and food quality were significant to customer satisfaction. However,
responsiveness, reliability, and assurance yielded insignificant results. In addition, some of
the indicators under tangibles and COVID-19 protocols, such as T5 and CP2 were observed
to have low factor loadings (less than 0.05). Thus, a revised model, which is shown in
Figure 4, was derived by eliminating the mentioned variables and indicators [13]. Moreover,
modification indices were performed to enhance the model fit of the study [14].
Table 3 presents the model’s reliability and validity with Cronbach’s alpha (CR) values,
factor loading, average extracted variance (AVE), and composite reliability (Re). In evaluat-
ing the validity of each construct, the value of the factor loading served as a basis. A good
factor loading has a value greater than 0.5, which is considered significant [58]. While for
the CR value and Cronbach’s value, the minimum validity required is 0.7 [60,61]. Moreover,
in measuring its validity through AVE, an ideal value should be greater than 0.4 [62]. All
the limits mentioned in this study have exceeded the cut-off values. In addition, a test for
multicollinearity was conducted. The variance inflation factor (VIF) has presented values
less than 5.00 which indicates no multicollinearity among constructs used in this study [63].
that pricing, culture/social influence, tangibles, empathy, COVID-19 protocols, overall ser-
vice quality, and food quality were significant to customer satisfaction. However, respon-
siveness, reliability, and assurance yielded insignificant results. In addition, some of the
indicators under tangibles and COVID-19 protocols, such as T5 and CP2 were observed
to have low factor loadings (less than 0.05). Thus, a revised model, which is shown in
Figure 4, was derived by eliminating the mentioned variables and indicators [13]. Moreo-
ver, modification indices were performed to enhance the model fit of the study [14].
Figure 3. InitialFigure 3. Initial SEM results.

SEM results.
Table 2.
Table 2. Relationship Relationship
between between the factors.
the factors.
Preliminary
Preliminary Model Model Final Model
Final Model
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Effect (β) Effect (β)
p-Value p-Value
Effect (β) Effect (β)
p-Value p-Value
1 1 A → SQA → SQ 0.173 0.173 0.153 0.153 - - - -
2 2 T → SQT → SQ 0.355 0.355 0.000 0.000 0.359 0.359 0.002 0.002
3 3 REL →
REL
SQ → SQ 0.155 0.155 0.186 0.186 - - - -
4 RES → SQ 0.151 0.195 - -
5 4 E → RES
SQ → SQ 0.552 0.151 0.000 0.195 0.676 - 0.002 -
6 5 SQ → EC → SQ 0.281 0.552 0.001 0.000 0.319 0.676 0.001 0.002
7 6 CP → SQ
C →C 0.327 0.281 0.002 0.001 0.245 0.319 0.019 0.001
8 FQ → C 0.371 0.000 0.265 0.004
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 7 P → CCP → C 0.221 0.327 0.019 0.002 0.245
0.209 10 of 21 0.018 0.019
10 8 CI → FQ
C →C 0.389 0.371 0.001 0.000 0.282 0.265 0.001 0.004
9 P→C 0.221 0.019 0.209 0.018
10 CI → C 0.389 0.001 0.282 0.001
Figure
Figure4. 4.
Final SEM
Final results.
SEM results.
Table 3 presents the model’s reliability and validity with Cronbach’s alpha (CR) val-
ues, factor loading, average extracted variance (AVE), and composite reliability (Re). In
evaluating the validity of each construct, the value of the factor loading served as a basis.
A good factor loading has a value greater than 0.5, which is considered significant [58].
While for the CR value and Cronbach’s value, the minimum validity required is 0.7
Table 3. Construct reliability and validity.
Average Variance Composite Variance Inflation

Latent Variables Items Cronbach’s α Factor Loadings
Extracted (AVE) Reliability (Re) Factor (VIF)
A1 0.76
A2 0.74
A 0.876 0.65 0.879 4.990
A3 0.84
A4 0.84
T1 0.67
T2 0.76
T T3 0.864 0.79 0.57 0.869 3.480
T4 0.78
T6 0.84
REL1 0.79
REL2 0.74
REL 0.825 0.55 0.827 3.829
REL3 0.68
REL4 0.73
E1 0.81
E2 0.84
E E3 0.935 0.89 0.73 0.930 4.209
E4 0.85
E5 0.86
CP1 0.65
CP3 0.56
CP4 0.62
CP5 0.69
CP 0.875 0.48 0.878 2.673
CP6 0.78
CP7 0.82
CP8 0.81
CP9 0.51
FQ1 0.75
FQ2 0.72
FQ3 0.58
FQ 0.853 0.46 0.834 2.318
FQ4 0.68
FQ5 0.66
FQ6 0.84
CI1 0.53
CI2 0.82
CI CI3 0.834 0.90 0.53 0.842 1.582
CI4 0.78
CI5 0.51
P1 0.77
P2 0.80
P P3 0.900 0.79 0.63 0.897 1.995
P4 0.80
P5 0.84
SQ1 0.77
SQ2 0.90
SQ SQ3 0.927 0.82 0.56 0.864 4.467
SQ4 0.88
SQ5 0.90
C1 0.78
C2 0.87
C C3 0.914 0.72 0.50 0.831 -
C4 0.71
C5 0.80
Table 4 presents the goodness of fit measurement results for the SEM. Measures such
as the GFI, AGFI, RMSEA, IFI, TLI, and CFI with their corresponding cut-off values are
presented. As seen from the results, the IFI, TLI, and CFI reached the minimum cut-off
as per the recommendations of Hair et al. [58] of 0.80; at the same time, the parameter
estimates for the GFI and AGFI are approaching 1 [64]. In addition, the RMSEA value is
less than 0.07 which indicates that the model utilized is acceptable.
Table 4. Goodness of fit and parameter estimates.
Goodness of Fit Measures of

Parameter Estimates Minimum Cut-Off Recommended By
the SEM
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) 0.802 >0.80 [64]
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) 0.811 >0.80 [64]
Root Mean Square Error of
0.065 <0.07 [65]
Approximation (RMSEA)
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) 0.886 >0.80 [64]
Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) 0.873 >0.80 [64]
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.885 >0.80 [64]
5. Discussion
Generally, the results of this study showed that tangibles and empathy significantly
affect service quality; at the same time, the service quality, COVID-19 protocols, food
quality, pricing, and cultural/social influence significantly affect customer satisfaction in
Jollibee Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilizing SEM, different results were
seen such as the insignificant effect of responsiveness, reliability, and assurance.
Referring to Figure 4, it was found that assurance does not have a significant rela-
tionship with service quality (p-value > 0.05). These findings were contrary to the study
of Almohaimmeed [65], who conducted a study about restaurant quality and customer
satisfaction. From the study, it was found that assurance does have a significant positive
effect on customer satisfaction [65]. In addition, it contradicts the results from the study
of Tat et al. [66]; wherein it was found that assurance has the most significant positive
relationship with customers’ perceived service quality. These results indicated that the staff
are knowledgeable and capable of the service being provided.
It was also seen that reliability was found not to have a significant positive relationship
with service quality (p-value > 0.05). Similarly, these findings were contrary to the study of
Saad Andaleeb and Conway [42] where they determined that reliability has a significant
impact on customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry. Qin and Prybutok [67] examined
and investigated the service quality and customer satisfaction in a Chinese restaurant using
enhanced SERVPERF. One of the findings in their study suggested that reliability was also
a significant part of the service quality dimension, conversely, in examining the customer
satisfaction in the restaurant industry [45]. However, they found that reliability has a
significant but weak relationship with customer satisfaction.
Third, responsiveness was also found to have an insignificant relationship with service
quality (p-value > 0.05). Interestingly, Qin and Prybutok [67] revealed that responsiveness
is one of the important dimensions of service quality as opposed to the results of this
study. A similar study was conducted by Namkung and Jang [68] where they examined
customer satisfaction in restaurants. The findings suggested that the restaurants must give
reliability, responsiveness, and assurance importance in order to produce highly satisfied
customers. At the same time, Lau et al. [69] found that responsiveness was a slightly
significant determinant of customer satisfaction in Chinese restaurants in Hongkong. The
results of this study specifically indicate that customer assistance, shorter waiting time, and
courteousness of the staff were also the contributing factors to customer satisfaction.
The three attributes, responsiveness, reliability, and assurance have been seen to be
present in different branches which explains why it is not considered significant latent
variables. The staff is trained and this attribute is part of the service being delivered,
evident even in other countries [20]. In addition, Jollibee trains its employees to have good
communication skills and be capable of responding to all the requests and concerns of the
customers. This results in the insignificance of responsiveness and reliability since these
attributes are part of the training and performance of the staff. Thus, with maintenance,
these attributes were deemed to be normalized in Jollibee fast-food restaurants.
The tangibles dimension was found to significantly preceded service quality in Jollibee
Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic (β: 0.359; p = 0.002). It was found that the
indicators under this exogenous latent variable such as the virtual signs and messages to
customers, staffs, uniform, store appearance, appearance of the reception area, and store hy-
giene were deemed to have a significant connection to customer satisfaction. These results
were similar to Kincaid et al. [70], where they found that tangibles have a significant direct
and indirect effect on customer behavior. Moreover, investigating the impact of service
quality on customer satisfaction from different restaurants in Pakistan was conducted by
Khan and Shaikh [71]. One of the results of their investigation concluded that responsive-
ness and tangibles were the customers’ preferred importance when choosing where to dine
in a restaurant. These only indicated that customer satisfaction is influenced by virtual
signs and messages in the restaurant, staff uniform, overall appearance, and hygiene.
Empathy was found to have a solid link to service quality (β: 0.676; p = 0.002). The
indicators under this exogenous latent variable that was found to have a significant relation-
ship with customer satisfaction are when staff understand the needs of the customers, when
staffs apologize for the mistakes that they made, when staffs are willing to help the cus-
tomers, and when staffs are courteous. Lee et al. [72] also found that among the five dimen-
sions of the SERVQUAL dimensions, empathy was significant in preceding the customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty in Korean family restaurants [73]. Similarly, in analyzing
the customer loyalty to newly open cafes and restaurants in Malaysia, Moorthly et al. [74]
revealed that empathy is one of the positively significant factors relating to customer loyalty.
Therefore, customer satisfaction heightens staffs’ understanding of the customers’ needs,
when staffs apologize for mistakes, and when staffs portray courteousness and willingness
to help the customers.
The overall service quality was found to have a relationship with customer satisfaction
(β: 0.319; p = 0.001) significantly. The indicators considered were the overall facility appear-
ance, when all the services provided were done accurately, the overall responsiveness of the
staffs, when the services and the requests of the customers that were provided were carefully
explained, and when the staffs are competent enough to deal with the concerns of the cus-
tomers. A similar study about the relationship of service quality and customer satisfaction
on the repurchase intentions in restaurants was conducted by Mensah and Mensah [75].
The study found that service quality has a significant positive relationship on customer
satisfaction. Qin and Prybutok [67] also posited a direct and positive relationship between
service quality and customer satisfaction in fast food restaurants. Thus, customers were
more satisfied when provided services were prompt, responsive, empathic, accurate, and
when the overall store appearance was good.
The pricing of Jollibee Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic was also found to
have a significant link with customer satisfaction (β: 0.209; p = 0.018). The indicators under
this factor were the compatibility of the price to the food quality, its affordability compared
to other fast-food restaurants, and the implementation of discounts, benefits of buying in
a package, and the customers’ satisfaction based on its over-all pricing. These findings
were similar to the results of Jawabreh et al. [76], where there is a significant link between
pricing and customer satisfaction in restaurants. Similarly, the significant relationship of
pricing was also consistent with the results found by Ryu and Han [77]. Thus, pricing on
the menus portrays a role as one of the determinants of customer satisfaction during the
pandemic. With the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy such as job loss,
Jollibee has been a staple among Filipinos due to its price range of meals.
The food quality was also found to precede customer satisfaction significantly (β: 0.265;
p = 0.004). Indicators such as the quality of its fried chicken among competitors, quality
of burger among the competitors, quality of the fries among its competitors, quality of its
spaghetti among its competitors, quality of sundae ice cream, and its overall food quality
were deemed significant. The same result was also found by Rozekhi et al. [47] and is
consistent with Kivela et al. [40] and Law et al. [78]. Thus, customers were satisfied with the
quality of the foods that were mentioned under this factor. Moreover, there is a significant
comparison among other fast-food restaurants. In the Philippines, most of consumers can
choose from Burger King, McDonald’s, KFC, etc. With the food quality indicators, it was
seen that a lot of Filipinos find the food quality in Jollibee more satisfactory than other
fast-food restaurants.
The COVID-19 protocols were found to have a link in customer satisfaction (β: 0.245;
p = 0.019). Because the indicators under these factors are designed positively, which would
mean that the higher its beta coefficient and its factor loadings, the more it will not precede
customer satisfaction. Indicators such as the social distancing, quarantines do not stop
customers from buying Jollibee, the use of face masks and face shield did not also precede
the customers from buying Jollibee, customers still prefer eating in Jollibee even during
the pandemic, customers do also perceive that the pandemic did not affect Jollibee’s food
quality, service quality, food pricing, and the total number of cases did not affect them
from choosing Jollibee as their fast food preference were deemed significant. This result
was opposite to what was posited by Shim et al. [9] and Sheth [10]. From their studies,
customers’ behavior changes as time proceeds, especially when it is disrupted by different
internal and external factors; specifically, the protocols for the pandemic. Interestingly,
despite the impact of the COVID-19 on the restaurant industry, it was found in this study
that the COVID-19 pandemic did not preceded the customer satisfaction, behavior, and
future intentions in buying Jollibee.
Finally, the cultural/social influence of the Jollibee in the Philippines was found to have
a significant relationship on customer satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic (β: 0.282;
p = 0.001). Indicators that were significant were good tv commercials interconnected with
Filipinos’ culture and values, childhood experiences that it has been established with
the by Jollibee, the good memories and experiences that it has built to the customers,
reminds the good Filipino tradition because of their campaigns, and Jollibee has established
memories of the important people with the customers. A similar study was also conducted
by Jang and Ha [79], where the influence of cultural experience emotion in restaurants
was investigated. The study results deduced that cultural experience emotion is linked
with the emotion and authenticity of the food and atmosphere of the restaurant. Thus,
establishing good memories and experiences with the customers is one of the determinants
of customer satisfaction.
Therefore, it could be deduced that cleanliness and appearance, empathetic staff, food
quality, price, and proper implementation of COVID-19 protocol prevention would lead to
high levels of satisfaction among customers in Jollibee fast-food restaurant. Moreover, the
cultural/social influence has played a big role in that the indicators represent the feeling
of belongingness since childhood. This results in an established and recognized name of
Jollibee among people. The remainder of their childhood, and even homes for Filipinos
living abroad could be connected here. Almendral [80] explored the feel for home upon
Jollibee consumption among people living abroad. Not only were people reminded of home
due to food, but also the tradition of living with families are catered in the atmosphere of
Jollibee. Thus, other fast-food restaurants can capitalize on these factors to promote their
own branding and establish their names by heart among consumers.
Limitations and Future Research

Despite the relevant findings and strong implications, this study still has several
limitations which could be considered for extension by future research. This study only
utilized online questionnaires to measure different factors affecting customer satisfaction
due to the strict lockdown implemented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews and
thematic analysis may be done to enhance the implication of this study. Moreover, from
the interview, other factors may be referred to as an extension of the framework utilized in
this study. Second, the majority of the respondents in this study ranged from 21 to 26 years
old, thus, limiting the broader perception of Jollibee’s customers in terms of diversity in
population. Clustering of customers based on their demographics may be conducted to
highlight the relevant findings. Lastly, customers’ perceptions, traditions, behavior, and
culture vary across the different regions in the Philippines. This also limits the findings of
this study, for the majority of the respondents were from the National Capital Region (NCR)
of the Philippines. Therefore, it is recommended that the distribution of the survey and
the focus of this study be conducted across branches of Jollibee Philippines for customers’
perspectives, values, and traditions to get more variety of results if any.
6. Conclusions
From the quantitative results, it was seen that tangible and empathy significantly
preceded service quality. Both of these presented the highest correlation to service quality
(β = 0.32 and β = 0.68), respectively. These factors preceded service quality which correlates
to satisfaction the highest compared to other extended variables (β = 0.32). Following which
are food quality (β = 0.27), COVID-19 protocols (β = 0.24), and pricing (β = 0.21), preceding
significantly influenced customer satisfaction. It indicates that the SERVQUAL dimensions
greatly affected customer satisfaction. With tangible and empathy, the visuals, such as
signage and physical appearance, presented great satisfaction upon dining at Jollibee. In
addition, the staff’s courteousness, amendable understanding, and willingness to help were
key highlights. Moreover, it could be highlighted that cultural/social influence played a big
role in attaining customer satisfaction and loyalty to Jollibee fast-food restaurants. Jollibee
may still pursue its current business strategy to implement the COVID-19 protocols, for it
did not affect the customers’ satisfaction and future intention to repurchase. It could be
deduced that cleanliness and appearance, empathetic staff, food quality, price, and proper
implementation of COVID-19 protocol prevention, would lead to high levels of satisfaction
among customers in Jollibee fast-food restaurant.
Finally, Jollibee has succeeded in capturing the minds and emotions of Filipinos. Their
social and cultural influence is the company’s second most potent asset in increasing
customer patronization and satisfaction. Indeed, emotions, good memories, and good
experiences should always be embedded in the customers’ minds whenever the services
and the foods are provided to customers. The results of this study could be utilized to
create strategies and food sustainability efforts through food systems management that
includes the overall operational systems for Jollibee and other fast-food restaurants across
the world. The theoretical framework utilized in this study did consider not only the
typical SERVQUAL dimensions but also other factors such as price, food quality, COVID-19
protocol, and cultural/social influence. Thus, it could be posited that the framework can
holistically measure customer satisfaction and service quality, which may be utilized by
other restaurant and service-related industries worldwide.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.K.S.O., Y.T.P. and J.P.A.P.; methodology, A.K.S.O., Y.T.P.
and J.P.A.P.; software, A.K.S.O., Y.T.P. and J.P.A.P.; validation, K.A.M., S.F.P., R.N., T.C. and T.B.; formal
analysis, A.K.S.O., Y.T.P. and J.P.A.P.; investigation, A.K.S.O., Y.T.P. and J.P.A.P.; resources; J.P.A.P.;
data curation, Y.T.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K.S.O., Y.T.P. and J.P.A.P.; writing—review
and editing, K.A.M., S.F.P., R.N., T.C. and T.B.; visualization, A.K.S.O., J.P.A.P. and Y.T.P.; supervision,
Y.T.P., S.F.P. and R.N.; project administration, Y.T.P.; and funding acquisition, Y.T.P. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Mapua University Directed Research for Innovation and
Value Enhancement (DRIVE).
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was approved by Mapua University Research
Ethics Committees and Petra Christian University Research Ethics Committees (FM-RC-22-17).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this
study (FM-RC-22-17).
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank all the respondents who answered our online
questionnaire. We would also like to thank our friends for their contributions in the distribution of
the questionnaire.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
41
47 to 46
53 years 41 to 46old
oldyears 41 to
old46
53 years 10 old 10 10
103.30
3.30 103.30 3.30
54 toyears years
47
oldtoand 53 years
47
54to old
years years
47
5410
old to 53
oldyears
years
and 10 and
old old 3.30 3.30 3.30
47 to
54 years53 years
47
54 to
oldyears 53
old
and old years
47 to
54andold53
years years
5410
3
oldyears old
and 10
old and 10
3 3.30
1.030 3 3.30 3.30
1.030 1.030
above above 3 and above 3 31.030 31.030 1.030 1.030
54 years above 54
old years
and old
54 and
years old
Once a weekabove Once above 3Once
a week
87 above 3
a week 328.71
871.030 871.030 1.030
28.71 28.71
Once above
a week
Once above
a week Once above
a week
87
Once a week
87 8728.71 8728.71 28.71 28.71
Twice a week Twice a week 67
Twice a week 6722.11 67 22.11 22.11
requencySustainability
of EatingFrequency Once
Twice ofaaEating
Frequency week
OnceofaaEating
week
Twice week
weekOnce aa week
Twice 87
week
67
Twice aa week 87
67 87
6728.71
22.11 6728.71
22.11 28.71
22.11 22.11
requency
Frequency Thrice
2022, 14,
of EatingFrequency
of Eating
15477
Frequency a
ofaEating week ofaEating Thrice a 18
week
Thrice week 185.940 18 5.940 5.940 15 of 19
in Jollibee inTwice
Jollibee
Thrice a week
inTwice
Jollibee
week
Thrice a week
weekTwice aa week
Thrice 67
week
Thrice
18 a 67
week
18 67
1822.11
5.940 1822.11
5.940 22.11
5.940 5.940
requency
Frequency
of
in Jollibee Eating Frequency
of Eating
in Jollibee in 4 times of
Jollibee Eating
a weekJollibee 4Thrice times a413 week
times a week 134.290 13 4.290 4.290
Thrice
4Once
times ain4week
Thrice
times aa week timesaaamonth4week
18 18 18
135.940 135.940 5.940
in Jollibee in Jollibee in a amonth
Jollibee week week
4Once 13
week
118 timesa amonth
Once 13
week 1184.290
38.95 1184.290 4.290
38.95 4.290
38.95
4Once
timesa amonth 4Once
week
times a amonth
week
Appendix 4Once
timesaAamonth 13
weeka month
118
Once
Instruments 13
118 134.290
11838.95 1184.290
38.95 4.290
38.95 38.95
Student Student 64 Student 6421.12 64 21.12 21.12
Once a month
Student Once a month
Student Once a month
Student 118
64 Student 118
64 118
6438.95 6438.95 38.95
Unemployed Table A1. Unemployed
Sample 34
Unemployed
survey 3421.12
11.22 3421.12
questionnaires. 21.12
11.22 21.12
11.22
Occupation Student
Occupation
Unemployed Student Unemployed
Occupation
Unemployed Student 64
34
Unemployed 64
34 64
3421.12
11.22 3421.12
11.22 21.12
11.22 11.22
Occupation Employed Employed 185Employed 18561.06 185 61.06 61.06
I. Occupation Occupation
Unemployed
Employed
Occupation
Unemployed Unemployed 34Employed 34 3411.22 11.22 11.22
Other Employed Employed 185 185 185
2061.06
6.60 185
2061.06 61.06 61.06
Respondent Profile
Occupation OccupationOccupation Other 20 Other 6.60 6.60
Gender: Employed
Other Employed
Other Employed
Other 185
20 Other 185
20 185
2061.06
6.60 2061.06
6.60 61.06
6.60 6.60
0 0 233 0 23376.90 233 76.90 76.90
Age: Other
01 Other
0 Other
01 23320 20
01 233 2076.90
233 6.60 233 6.60
76.90 6.60
76.90 76.90
38 3812.54 38 12.54 12.54
___15 to 20 years 01 old 01
___21 to 26 01 233
years old
38 12 233
38 233
3876.90 3876.90 76.90
umber of ChildrenNumber___27 to 33 Number
ofyears
Children
2 old of___34 Childrento 40 years 2 old
15 1512.54
4.950 1512.54 12.54
4.950 12.54
4.950
umber Number
of Children ofNumber
Children
___41 to 46 Number
ofyears 1
Children
23 oldof___47 1
Children 1
2 to 53 years23 old 38
15 2 38
15 38
1512.54
4.950 1512.54
4.950 12.54
4.950 4.950
11 3 113.630 11 3.630 3.630
umber Number
of Children ofNumber
Children
___54 andof Children
above. 23 23 23 1511 3 15
11 15
114.950
3.630 114.950
3.630 4.950
3.630 3.630
4 andeat3in above
Jollibee:3 4 and above 64 and above 61.980 6 1.980 1.980
Number of times you
4aand above
4below
and above 4 and 3above
11
64below
and 11
6below 11
above 63.630
1.980 63.630
1.980 3.630
1.980 1.980
₱11,999
___once weekand ___twice a₱11,999
week and 87
₱11,999
___thrice and
a week 8728.71 87 28.71 28.71
___4 4 and
₱11,999
times and above
₱11,999
a week 4andand
below and
above above 4 andand
below
₱11,999 above
6below
87
₱11,999 and 6below 87
87 61.980
28.71 871.980
28.71 1.980
28.71 28.71
₱12,000 to ₱20,999 ₱12,000 to 78
₱12,000
₱20,999 to ₱20,999 7825.74 78 25.74 25.74
₱11,999
___once
₱12,000 and
a month₱11,999
to below
₱12,000
₱20,999 and below and
to ₱11,999
₱20,999
₱12,000 to 87
78
₱12,000below
₱20,999 to 87
78
₱20,999 87
7828.71
25.74 7828.71
25.74 28.71
25.74 25.74
₱21,000 to ₱40,999 ₱21,000 to 93
₱21,000
₱40,999 to ₱40,999 9330.69 93 30.69 30.69
Occupation:Monthly
₱21,000 to
Monthly
Income
to ₱12,000
₱20,999
₱21,000
₱40,999 to
Income
to ₱20,999
₱12,000
₱40,999
₱21,000 to
to 78
₱20,999
93
₱21,000
₱40,999 to 78
93
₱40,999 78
9325.74
30.69 9325.74
30.69 25.74
30.69 30.69
MonthlyMonthly
Income Income Monthly to ₱60,999
₱41,000Monthly
Income Income ₱41,000 to 21 ___Other
₱41,000
₱60,999 to ₱60,999 216.930 21 6.930 6.930
₱21,000
___Student
₱41,000 to
to ₱21,000
₱40,999
___Employed
₱41,000
₱60,999 to
to ₱40,999
₱21,000
₱60,999
₱41,000 to
___Unemployed
to 93
₱40,999
21
₱41,000
₱60,999 to 93
21
₱60,999 93
2130.69
6.930 2130.69
6.930 30.69
6.930 6.930
MonthlyMonthly
Income Income Monthly
₱61,000 Income
to ₱80,999 ₱61,000 to 11
₱61,000
₱80,999 to ₱80,999 113.630 11 3.630 3.630
Monthly Income: ₱41,000
₱61,000 to
to ₱41,000
₱60,999
₱61,000
₱80,999 to
to ₱60,999
₱41,000
₱80,999
₱61,000 to
to 21
₱60,999
11
₱61,000
₱80,999 to 21
11
₱80,999 21
116.930
3.630 116.930
3.630 6.930
3.630 3.630
___₱81,000
11,999 and and belowabove 12,000 toand
___₱81,000 13above
₱81,000
20,999 and above 134.290 13 4.290 4.290
₱61,000 to
21,000 toand
₱61,000
₱80,999
above to ₱81,000
and ₱80,999
₱61,000
abovetoYesto
and 11
₱80,999
13 and11 13above 11 3.630 133.630 3.630
___₱81,000
Yes ₱81,000
40,999 ___ 41,000
57above
₱81,000
60,999
Yes 13
574.290
18.81 574.290 4.290
18.81 4.290
18.81
___₱81,000
ustomers Who EatCustomers 61,000 and
Customers
toWho
Yes ₱81,000above
80,999 and
EatYes
Who
___ above
₱81,000
Eat and
81,000 and
Yes 13
57
aboveabove Yes 13
57 13
574.290
18.81 574.290
18.81 4.290
18.81 18.81
ustomers
Customers
Who Eatis Customers
Who No No146 No 14648.18 146 48.18 48.18
ecause of Discount one ofEat
because Customers
of Who Eat
Yes
because
Discount Who
of Yes
Discount Eat Yes 57 No146 57 5718.81 18.81 18.81
ustomers
Discount
Customers
Who EatCustomers
Who
the
Eat No
reasons
Who
Sometimes
why
Eat No I eat in
No146
Jollibee:
Sometimes 100 Sometimes 146
10048.18
33.00 146
10048.18 48.18
33.00 48.18
33.00
ecause of
because
Discount of because
Discount of
because
___Yes SometimesDiscount of Discount
No ___Sometimes No No146 146 14648.18 48.18 48.18
ecause of
because
Discount of because
Discount
___No
of Discount
Yes Sometimes Sometimes 100
Yes31 Yes Sometimes 100 10033.00 100
3110.23 31 33.00 33.00
10.23 33.00
10.23
Sometimes
I often eat in Jollibee Yes Sometimes
because Yes haveSometimes
I always Yes100
a discount 31 card Yes 100
31 citizen100
(senior 3133.00
ID,10.23 3133.00
PWD ID and others): 33.00
10.23 10.23 10.23
___Yes ___No Yes ___Sometimes Yes Yes31 31 3110.23 10.23 10.23
Number of Children:
II. Costumer assessment based on price, food quality and service quality
Answer the following items by marking the column that corresponds to your answer.
Rating Scale:
5—Very satisfied
4—Somewhat satisfied
3—Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
2—Somewhat dissatisfied
1—Very dissatisfied
Tangibles 5 4 3 2 1 References
T1. Virtual signs and messages for customers.
T2. Staffs’ uniform.
T3. Store appearance.
T4. Reception Appearance (counters and waiting areas).
T5. Accessibility to locations. [11]
T6. Store hygiene. [11]
Reliability 5 4 3 2 1 References
REL1. Accommodation on customers. [12]
REL2. Speed in serving the food orders of the customers. [11]
REL3. Accuracy in responding to the food orders of the customers. [11]
REL4. Staff returns personal belongings and other valuable items.
Responsiveness 5 4 3 2 1 References
RES1. Assistance provided by guards or other staffs upon entry. [12]
RES2. Queue waiting time.
RES3. Staffs promptly serve all customers. [12]
RES4. Staff courteousness. [12]
Assurance 5 4 3 2 1 References
A1. Product knowledge of the staff. [11]
A2. Product quality assurance. [11]
A3. Staff communication skill. [11]
A4. All customer concerns and requests were done. [12]
Table A1. Cont.
Empathy 5 4 3 2 1 References
E1. Staffs understand customer needs. [12]
E2. Staffs apologize when committing mistakes. [12]
E3. Staffs apologize when customer requests were not done. [12]
E4. Staffs willingness to help. [12]
E5. Staffs’ courtesy. [12]
Overall Service Quality 5 4 3 2 1 References
SQ1. Overall facility appearance. [12]
SQ2. All the discussed services were done accurately. [12]
SQ3. Overall staff responsiveness to customers. [12]
SQ4. All services and requests done were explained.
SQ5. Staff is competent in dealing with customer concerns.
Food Quality 5 4 3 2 1 References
FQ1. Quality of fried chicken among competitors.
FQ2. Quality of yum burger among competitors.
FQ3. Quality of the fries among competitors.
FQ4. Quality of the jolly spaghetti among competitors.
FQ5. Quality of the sundae among competitors.
FQ6. Overall food quality
Pricing 5 4 3 2 1 References
5—Very cheap
4—Somewhat cheap
3—Neither costly nor cheap
2—Somewhat costly
1—Very Costly
P1. Compatibility of the price to the food quality.
P2. Pricing compared to other fast food restaurants.
P3. Affordability (5—Very affordable and 1—Very expensive). [11]
P4. Implementation of discount and buying package (5—Very satisfied and
[11]
1—Very dissatisfied).
P5. Satisfaction based on overall pricing (5—Very satisfied and 1—Very dissatisfied).
COVID-19 Protocols 5 4 3 2 1 References
5—Strongly agree
4—Somewhat agree
3—Neither agree nor disagree
2—Somewhat disagree
1—Strongly disagree
CP1. The social distancing has not affected my satisfaction when ordering and
queuing in Jollibee.
CP2. It is better to eat my orders from Jollibee inside their restaurants than to take it
at home.
CP3. Quarantines do not stop me from buying foods to Jollibee (ordering through
online transactions).
CP4. The use of face mask and face shield didn’t stop me from queuing and ordering
to Jollibee.
CP5. I still prefer to eat in Jollibee even if there are restaurants nearer in my location.
CP6. The COVID-19 pandemic didn’t affect the quality of their foods.
CP7. The COVID-19 pandemic didn’t affect their customer service quality.
CP8. The COVID-19 pandemic didn’t affect their food pricing.
CP9. The total number of COVID-19 cases do not affect my habit from dining inside
the Jollibee.
Culture/Social Influence 5 4 3 2 1 References
CI1.I like eating Jollibee because of their good TV commercials.
CI2. I like eating to Jollibee because it has been with me since childhood.
CI3. I like eating to Jollibee because I have good memories and experiences with it.
CI4. I love going to Jollibee because it reminds me of the good Filipino tradition, through their influence in the commercial ads.
CI5. I like eating to Jollibee because it reminds me of someone.
Table A1. Cont.
Customer Satisfaction 5 4 3 2 1 References

C1. Satisfaction regarding the price given.
C2. Satisfaction regarding the overall service quality given.
C3. Recommend Jollibee to a friend or peer.
C4. Continue patronizing Jollibee’s foods and beverages.
C5. Overall satisfaction.
References
1. Mwangi, C.W. Strategic Responses to Competition among Large Fast Food Restaurants in Nairobi Central Business District.
Ph.D. Thesis, School of Business, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2010.
2. Banterle, A.; Cavaliere, A.; Carraresi, L.; Stranieri, S. Food smes face increasing competition in the EU market: Marketing
Management Capability is a tool for becoming a price maker. Agribusiness 2013, 30, 113–131. [CrossRef]
3. Bowen, J.T.; Chen McCain, S.-L. Transitioning loyalty programs. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 27, 415–430. [CrossRef]
4. Oliva, T.A.; Oliver, R.L.; MacMillan, I.C. A catastrophe model for Developing Service Satisfaction Strategies. J. Mark. 1992, 56, 83.
[CrossRef]
5. Zineldin, M. Exploring the common ground of total relationship management (TRM) and Total Quality Management (TQM).
Manag. Decis. 1999, 37, 719–730. [CrossRef]
6. Gerpott, T.J.; Rams, W.; Schindler, A. Customer retention, loyalty, and satisfaction in the German Mobile Cellular Telecommunica-
tions Market. Telecommun. Policy 2001, 25, 249–269. [CrossRef]
7. Hansemark, O.C.; Albinsson, M. Customer satisfaction and retention: The experiences of individual employees. Manag. Serv.
Qual. Int. J. 2004, 14, 40–57. [CrossRef]
8. Nunkoo, R.; Teeroovengadum, V.; Ringle, C.M.; Sunnassee, V. Service quality and customer satisfaction: The moderating effects
of Hotel Star Rating. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 91, 102414. [CrossRef]
9. Shim, S.; Eastlick, M.A.; Lotz, S.L.; Warrington, P. An online prepurchase intentions model. J. Retail. 2001, 77, 397–416. [CrossRef]
10. Sheth, J. Impact of COVID-19 on consumer behavior: Will the old habits return or die? J. Bus. Res. 2020, 117, 280–283. [CrossRef]
11. Limakrisna, N.; Ali, H. Model of customer satisfaction: Empirical study at fast food restaurants in bandung. Int. J. Bus. Commer.
2016, 5, 132–146.
12. Balinado, J.R.; Prasetyo, Y.T.; Young, M.N.; Persada, S.F.; Miraja, B.A.; Perwira Redi, A.A. The effect of service quality on customer
satisfaction in an automotive after-sales service. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 116. [CrossRef]
13. Ong, A.K.; Cleofas, M.A.; Prasetyo, Y.T.; Chuenyindee, T.; Young, M.N.; Diaz, J.F.; Nadlifatin, R.; Redi, A.A. Consumer behavior
in clothing industry and its relationship with open innovation dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Open Innov. Technol.
Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 211. [CrossRef]
14. Prasetyo, Y.T.; Tanto, H.; Mariyanto, M.; Hanjaya, C.; Young, M.N.; Persada, S.F.; Miraja, B.A.; Redi, A.A. Factors affecting
customer satisfaction and loyalty in online food delivery service during the COVID-19 pandemic: Its relation with open innovation.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 76. [CrossRef]
15. Alano, C.M. Top 10 Fast-Food Restaurants. Available online: https://www.philstar.com/lifestyle/food-and-leisure/2008/07/17
/73334/top-10-fast-food-restaurants (accessed on 16 October 2021).
16. Statista Research Department. Largest Foodservice Companies Philippines 2017, by Market Share. 2022. Available on-
line: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049413/philippines-largest-foodservice-companies-by-market-share/ (accessed on
16 October 2021).
17. Altejar, L.; Dizon, C. Study of the Effects of Customer Service Quality and Product Quality on Customer Satisfaction and Customer
Loyalty. Coll. Bus. Adm. Major Mark. Manag. Access Address 2019, 10, m9.
18. A Jolly Toast to a New Era for Jollibee BusinessMirror. Available online: https://businessmirror.com.ph/2019/11/05/a-jolly-
toast-to-a-new-era-for-jollibee/ (accessed on 16 October 2021).
19. Beneschan, M. Analyzing Jollibee Restaurant Data. Available online: https://mikebeneschan.medium.com/analyzing-jollibee-
restaurant-data-f57a24c6d942 (accessed on 20 March 2022).
20. Venzon, C. Can Jollibee Take a Bite Out of the Global Fast-Food Market? Available online: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/
The-Big-Story/Can-Jollibee-take-a-bite-out-of-the-global-fast-food-market (accessed on 20 March 2022).
21. Venzon, C. Jollibee’s Quest for Global Dominance Derailed by Virus. Available online: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/
Business-Spotlight/Jollibee-s-quest-for-global-dominance-derailed-by-virus (accessed on 20 March 2022).
22. Naik, C.K.; Gantasala, S.B.; Prabhakar, G.V. Service quality (SERVQUAL) and its effect on customer satisfaction in retailing. Eur. J.
Soc. Sci. 2010, 16, 231–243.
23. Nguyen, Q.; Nisar, T.M.; Knox, D.; Prabhakar, G.P. Understanding customer satisfaction in the UK Quick Service Restaurant
Industry. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 1207–1222. [CrossRef]
24. Lee, Y.L.; Hing, N. Measuring Quality in Restaurant Operations: An application of the SERVQUAL instrument. Int. J. Hosp.
Manag. 1995, 14, 293–310. [CrossRef]
25. Ong, A.K.; Prasetyo, Y.T.; Picazo, K.L.; Salvador, K.A.; Miraja, B.A.; Kurata, Y.B.; Chuenyindee, T.; Nadlifatin, R.; Redi, A.A.;
Young, M.N. Gym-goers preference analysis of fitness centers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A conjoint analysis approach for
business sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10481. [CrossRef]
26. Gimeno-Arias, F.; Santos-Jaén, J.M.; Palacios-Manzano, M.; Garza-Sánchez, H.H. Using PLS-SEM to analyze the effect of CSR on
corporate performance: The mediating role of human resources management and customer satisfaction. an empirical study in the
Spanish food and beverage manufacturing sector. Mathematics 2021, 9, 2973. [CrossRef]
27. Bahta, D.; Yun, J.; Islam, M.R.; Bikanyi, K.J. How does CSR enhance the financial performance of smes? the mediating role of firm
reputation. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraž. 2020, 34, 1428–1451. [CrossRef]
28. Islam, T.; Islam, R.; Pitafi, A.H.; Xiaobei, L.; Rehmani, M.; Irfan, M.; Mubarak, M.S. The impact of corporate social responsibility
on customer loyalty: The mediating role of corporate reputation, customer satisfaction, and Trust. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021,
25, 123–135. [CrossRef]
29. Zeithaml, V.A.; Bitner, M.J.; Gremler, D.D.; Mende, M. Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm; McGraw Hill
LLC: Dubuque, IA, USA, 2023.
30. Omar, M.S.; Ariffin, H.F.; Ahmad, R. Service quality, customers’ satisfaction and the moderating effects of gender: A study of
Arabic restaurants. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 224, 384–392. [CrossRef]
31. Vatolkina, N.; Gorbashko, E.; Kamynina, N.; Fedotkina, O. E-service quality from attributes to outcomes: The similarity and
difference between digital and hybrid services. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 143. [CrossRef]
32. Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J. Mark.
1985, 49, 41. [CrossRef]
33. Iberahim, H.; Mohd Taufik, N.K.; Mohd Adzmir, A.S.; Saharuddin, H. Customer satisfaction on reliability and responsiveness of
self service technology for retail banking services. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2016, 37, 13–20. [CrossRef]
34. Grandey, A.A.; Goldberg, L.; Pugh, S.D. Employee satisfaction, responsiveness, and customer satisfaction: Linkages and boundary
conditions. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2011, 2011, 1–6. [CrossRef]
35. Chuenyindee, T.; Ong, A.K.; Ramos, J.P.; Prasetyo, Y.T.; Nadlifatin, R.; Kurata, Y.B.; Sittiwatethanasiri, T. Public Utility Vehicle
Service Quality and customer satisfaction in the Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Util. Policy 2022, 75, 101336.
[CrossRef]
36. Joon Choi, B.; Sik Kim, H. The impact of outcome quality, Interaction Quality, and peer-to-peer quality on customer satisfaction
with a Hospital Service. Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 2013, 23, 188–204. [CrossRef]
37. Kalaja, R.; Myshketa, R.; Scalera, F. Service Quality Assessment in health care sector: The case of durres public hospital.
Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 235, 557–565. [CrossRef]
38. Sahari, N.; Basir, N.M.; Jangga, R. Factors of food dimension affecting customer satisfaction in family restaurants. In Proceedings
of the 3rd International Conference on Business and Economic Research, Bandung, Indonesia, 12–13 March 2012; pp. 2831–2846.
39. Shen, X.X.; Tan, K.C.; Xie, M. An integrated approach to innovative product development using Kano’s model and QFD. Eur. J.
Innov. Manag. 2000, 3, 91–99. [CrossRef]
40. Kivela, J.; Inbakaran, R.; Reece, J. Consumer research in the restaurant environment, part 1: A conceptual model of dining
satisfaction and return patronage. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 1999, 11, 205–222. [CrossRef]
41. Yüksel, A.; Yüksel, F. Measurement of Tourist Satisfaction with Restaurant Services: A segment-based approach. J. Vacat. Mark.
2003, 9, 52–68. [CrossRef]
42. Saad Andaleeb, S.; Conway, C. Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: An examination of the transaction-specific model.
J. Serv. Mark. 2006, 20, 3–11. [CrossRef]
43. Dai, B. The Impact of Perceived Price Fairness of Dynamic Pricing on Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions: The Moderating Role
of Customer Loyalty; Auburn University: Auburn, AL, USA, 2010.
44. Sabir, R.I.; Ghafoor, O.; Hafeez, I.; Akhtar, N.; Rehman, A.U. Factors affecting customers satisfaction in restaurants industry in
Pakistan. Int. Rev. Manag. Bus. Res. 2014, 3, 869.
45. Gustafsson, A.; Johnson, M.D.; Roos, I. The effects of customer satisfaction, Relationship Commitment Dimensions, and triggers
on customer retention. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 210–218. [CrossRef]
46. Sulek, J.M.; Hensley, R.L. The relative importance of food, atmosphere, and fairness of wait. Cornell Hotel. Restaur. Adm. Q. 2004,
45, 235–247. [CrossRef]
47. Rozekhi, N.A.; Hussin, S.; Siddiqe, A.S.K.A.R.; Rashid, P.D.A.; Salmi, N.S. The influence of food quality on customer satisfaction
in fine dining restaurant: Case in Penang. Int. Acad. Res. J. Bus. Technol. 2016, 2, 45–50.
48. Peri, C. The Universe of Food Quality. Food Qual. Prefer. 2006, 17, 3–8. [CrossRef]
49. Al-Tit, A.A. The effect of service and food quality on customer satisfaction and hence customer retention. Asian Soc. Sci. 2015,
11, 129. [CrossRef]
50. Intelligence, N. Impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) on Consumer Behavior in 2020. Available online: https://www.numerator.
com/resources/blog/impact-covid-19-consumer-behavior (accessed on 16 October 2021).
51. The Impact of COVID-19 on Restaurant Consumers. Available online: https://www.revenuemanage.com/en/insights/the-
impact-of-covid-19-on-restaurant-consumers/ (accessed on 16 October 2021).
52. Nayeem, T. Cultural influences on consumer behaviour. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2012, 7, 78. [CrossRef]
53. German, J.D.; Redi, A.A.; Prasetyo, Y.T.; Persada, S.F.; Ong, A.K.; Young, M.N.; Nadlifatin, R. Choosing a package carrier during
COVID-19 pandemic: An integration of pro-environmental planned behavior (PEPB) theory and Service Quality (SERVQUAL).
J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 346, 131123. [CrossRef]
54. Gumasing, M.J.; Prasetyo, Y.T.; Ong, A.K.; Nadlifatin, R. Determination of factors affecting the response efficacy of Filipinos
under Typhoon Conson 2021 (jolina): An extended protection motivation theory approach. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022,
70, 102759. [CrossRef]
55. De Mooij, M. Global Marketing and Advertising: Understanding Cultural Paradoxes, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications Asia-Pacific: Singapore, 2010.
56. Main Page. Available online: https://is.theorizeit.org/wiki/Main_Page (accessed on 2 February 2022).
57. Mueller, R.O.; Hancock, G.R. Structural Equation Modeling; Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2019.
58. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.B. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed.; Cengage: Hampshire, UK, 2019;
pp. 146–157, 675–680.
59. Dash, G.; Paul, J. CB-SEM vs. PLS-SEM methods for research in Social Sciences and Technology forecasting. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 2021, 173, 121092. [CrossRef]
60. Taber, K.S. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and Reporting Research Instruments in science education. Res. Sci.
Educ. 2017, 48, 1273–1296. [CrossRef]
61. Lin, H.-F. A stage model of Knowledge Management: An empirical investigation of process and effectiveness. J. Inf. Sci. 2007,
33, 643–659. [CrossRef]
62. Verhoef, P.C.; Franses, P.H.; Hoekstra, J.C. The effect of relational constructs on customer referrals and number of services
purchased from a multiservice provider: Does age of relationship matter? J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2002, 30, 202–216. [CrossRef]
63. Yuduang, N.; Ong, A.K.; Prasetyo, Y.T.; Chuenyindee, T.; Kusonwattana, P.; Limpasart, W.; Sittiwatethanasiri, T.; Gumasing, M.J.;
German, J.D.; Nadlifatin, R. Factors influencing the perceived effectiveness of COVID-19 risk assessment mobile application
“Morchana” in Thailand: Utaut2 approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5643. [CrossRef]
64. Gefen, D.; Straub, D.; Boudreau, M. Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice. Commun.
Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000, 4, 7. [CrossRef]
65. Almohaimmeed, B.M. Restaurant quality and customer satisfaction. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 2017, 7, 42–49.
66. Tat, H.H.; Sook-Min, S.; Ai-Chin, T.; Rasli, A.; Hamid, A.B.A. Consumers’ purchase intentions in fast food restaurants: An
empirical study on undergraduate students. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2011, 2, 214–221.
67. Qin, H.; Prybutok, V.R. Service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in fast-food restaurants. Int. J. Qual. Serv.
Sci. 2009, 1, 78–95. [CrossRef]
68. Namkung, Y.; Jang, S.C. Are highly satisfied restaurant customers really different? A quality perception perspective. Int. J.
Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2008, 20, 142–155. [CrossRef]
69. Lau, T.; Cheung, M.L.; Pires, G.D.; Chan, C. Customer satisfaction with sommelier services of upscale Chinese restaurants in
Hong Kong. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2019, 31, 532–554. [CrossRef]
70. Kincaid, C.; Baloglu, S.; Mao, Z.; Busser, J. What really brings them back? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 22, 209–220.
[CrossRef]
71. Khan, N.R.; Shaikh, U. Impact of service quality on customer satisfaction: Evidences from the restaurant industry in Pakistan.
Manag. Mark. 2011, 9, 343–355.
72. Lee, Y.-K.; Park, K.-H.; Park, D.-H.; Lee, K.A.; Kwon, Y.-J. The relative impact of service quality on service value, customer
satisfaction, and customer loyalty in Korean family restaurant context. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2005, 6, 27–51. [CrossRef]
73. Tan, Q.; Oriade, A.; Fallon, P. Service quality and customer satisfaction in Chinese fast food sector: A proposal for CFFRSERV.
Adv. Hosp. Tour. Res. (AHTR) 2014, 2, 30–53.
74. Moorthy, K.; En Chee, L.; Chuan Yi, O.; Soo Ying, O.; Yee Woen, O.; Mun Wei, T. Customer loyalty to newly opened cafés and
restaurants in Malaysia. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2016, 20, 525–541. [CrossRef]
75. Mensah, I.; Mensah, R.D. Effects of service quality and customer satisfaction on repurchase intention in restaurants on University
of Cape Coast campus. J. Tour. Herit. Serv. Mark. 2018, 4, 27–36.
76. Jawabreh, O.; Al Jaffal, T.; Abdelrazaq, H.; Mahmoud, R. The impact of menus on the customer satisfaction in restaurants
classified in Aqaba special economic zone authority (ASEZA). J. Tour. Hosp. Sport. 2018, 33, 29–39.
77. Ryu, K.; Han, H. Influence of the quality of food, service, and physical environment on customer satisfaction and behavioral
intention in quick-casual restaurants: Moderating role of perceived price. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2009, 34, 310–329. [CrossRef]
78. Law, A.K.Y.; Hui, Y.V.; Zhao, X. Modeling repurchase frequency and customer satisfaction for fast food outlets. Int. J. Qual. Reliab.
Manag. 2004, 21, 545–563. [CrossRef]
79. Jang, S.C.; Ha, J. The influence of cultural experience: Emotions in relation to authenticity at ethnic restaurants. J. Foodserv. Bus.
Res. 2015, 18, 287–306. [CrossRef]
80. Almendral, A. Jollibee: A Taste of Home for Filipinos. Available online: https://theworld.org/stories/2012-10-26/jollibee-taste-
home-filipinos (accessed on 20 March 2022).
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.

Factors Affecting Customer Sat

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Factors Affecting Customer Sat

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Keywords: SERVQUAL; structural equation modeling; fast food restaurant; Filipino

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 15477. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215477 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 21

JOLLIBEE GLOBAL FOOTPRINT

Figure 1. Jollibee global footprint [20].

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Assurance had a significant effect on service quality.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Tangibles had a significant effect on service quality.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Reliability had a significant effect on service quality.

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Responsiveness had a significant effect on service quality.

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Empathy had a significant effect on service quality.

Hypothesis 6 (H6). Service quality had a significant effect on customer satisfaction.

Hypothesis 7 (H7). Pricing had a significant effect on customer satisfaction.

Hypothesis 8 (H8). Food quality had a significant effect on customer satisfaction.

Hypothesis 9 (H9). COVID-19 had a significant effect on customer satisfaction.

Culture bears a powerful influence in controlling human behavior [52]. Moreover,

3.3. Statistical Analysis: Structural Equation Modeling

Figure 3. InitialFigure 3. Initial SEM results.

Table 3. Construct reliability and validity.

Average Variance Composite Variance Inflation

Table 4. Goodness of fit and parameter estimates.

Goodness of Fit Measures of

Limitations and Future Research

Table A1. Cont.

Table A1. Cont.

Customer Satisfaction 5 4 3 2 1 References

You might also like