






































Events and Tourism Review


Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 

License. 

 

Events and Tourism Review                                     
 
June 2021                                                                                                                                                 Volume 4 No. 1      

   

 

Dining Satisfaction with Quick Service Restaurants among College Students 
 

 

 

Siriporn McDowall  

 

Weijia Jia  

 

Arkansas Tech University 

Correspondence: smcdowall@atu.edu (S. McDowall) 

 

 
 

 

 

For Authors 

Interested in submitting to this journal? We recommend that you review the About the Journal 

page for the journal's section policies, as well as the Author Guidelines. Authors need to register 

with the journal prior to submitting or, if already registered, can simply log in and begin the 

five-step process. 

For Reviewers 

If you are interested in serving as a peer reviewer, please register with the journal. Make sure to 

select that you would like to be contacted to review submissions for this journal. Also, be sure 

to include your reviewing interests, separated by a comma. 

About Events and Tourism Review (ETR) 

ETR aims to advance the delivery of events, tourism and hospitality products and services by 

stimulating the submission of papers from both industry and academic practitioners and 

researchers. For more information about ETR visit the Events and Tourism Review. 

Recommended Citation 

McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021). Dining satisfaction with quick service restaurants among 

college students. Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29.  
 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
mailto:smcdowall@atu.edu
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/about
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/about/submissions#authorGuidelines
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/user/register
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/user/register
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/index/login
https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ETR/user/register
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ETR


McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29. 
15 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

 
 

 

 

Abstract 

 

The purposes of this research were to investigate the reasons why college students enjoy fast 

food and why fast food is popular among college students.  There were 313 respondents 

participating in this study. The majority of them were male, between 18-24 years of age, 

single, and they were freshmen and sophomores. On average, they visited the restaurant 3 

times a week. Friends and family were their major source of information, followed by drive-

by, the restaurant sign, social media, and billboard.  Respondents were most satisfied with 

billing was accurate, operation hours were convenient, received food as ordered, menu was 

easy to read and order, and seat availability. Those who were satisfied with the restaurant 

would come back and recommend their friends and relatives to patron the restaurant. 

 

Keywords: Fast Food, Quick Service Restaurant, College Students, Customer Satisfaction 
 

 

Introduction 

 

“Which quick service restaurants do college students like to eat?”, “Why do they eat there?”, 

“Who went with them?”, and “How often do they go there?” These are questions come to mind for 

this study when seeing the main street of the main campus of nearly every university in the United 

States is surrounded by fast food restaurants and crowded by college students. It is evident that fast 

food restaurants must offer what college students want at the price they can afford to have them as 

their clientele.  

 

      Quick service restaurants (QSR) 

Foodservice includes restaurants and QSRs is a major segment of the hospitality industry. 

Unique characteristics of the hospitality industry, such as intangibility, inseparability, perishability, 

and variability create challenges for conducting business. In restaurants, there is interaction between 

service providers who provide and deliver food to customers and customers who receive such 

services.  Service providers vary in skill and passion to provide service. Simultaneously, customers 

differ in taste, choice of food, experience, and expectations.  Differences in service providers and 

customers, together with the required customer involvement in the delivery process intensify the 

relationship between service providers and customers and create a challenge for customers to 

evaluate the quality of food or quality of service they received. Like with other businesses, the goal 

of restaurants is to make a profit, and in order to do so restaurants need to pay attention to their 

customers whose evaluations and satisfaction with products and services received impact their 

experiences and decisions to support the business (Walker, 2017).  

 

For this study, a fast food or QSR is defined as a type of establishment that offers a limited 

menu at an inexpensive price, with limited food preparation time, providing fast service although 

employing a minimum number of employees.  Limited menus enable customers to make quick 

decisions, leading to shortened waiting and order lines, and increasing customer satisfaction.  They 

enable restaurants to hire unskilled employees and spend limited time in training them to cook or  

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29. 
16 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

serve, leading to less food preparation time. Location strategies (makes it convenient for people to 

find QSRs), limited menus, and fast service contribute to the popularity of fast food (Walker, 2017).  

Throughout the history, QSRs seem to adapt very well with the crises (i. e., 2008 recession and 2019 

COVID-19 pandemic). This is mainly due to their unique characteristics of being inexpensive, 

quickly prepared and served food, convenient locations, and less contact or interaction between the 

service provider and the customers.  These have helped QSRs to survive and sustain during the 

pandemic which requires less contact or contactless service compared to other types of restaurants 

or businesses.  

 

Purpose of the study:   

As previously stated, QSRs play an important role in American’s economy because of its 

affordable price, limited menu selection, convenient location, and efficient serving time, which fit 

college students’ lifestyles. Therefore, the purpose of this study is as follows: 

1. To analyze characteristic of college students who patronize QSRs.  

2. To analyze factors affected satisfaction among college students when dining at QSRs.  

3. To analyze a relationship between the affected factors and college students’ loyalty (return to 

the QSR and/or recommend that QSR to their friends and relatives).  

 

 

Literature Review 

 

This study was the application of the “Reasoned Action” theory, which was developed by 

Ajzen & Fishbein (1992). This theory stated that a person’s emotional attachment (like or dislike) 

with the object is an outcome of how that person perceives the object’s characteristics. This object’s 

attachment led to future actions with that object.  This implies that consumers’ perceptions of QSRs 

affect their satisfaction or dissatisfaction, leading to their behavioral intention (i.e., repurchase or 

recommendation) for that QSRs (Mason et al., 2016). 

 

Customer satisfaction  

Customer satisfaction plays a major role for a company’s success and has been a focus of 

study for nearly four decades (Gupta, McLaughlin, & Gomez, 2007).  QSRs are similar to other 

businesses, which are to satisfy customers and gain competitive advantage in order to sustain the 

business or make profits. Customer satisfaction comes from their comparing purchased 

products/services against their expectations, and they are satisfied when the products/services they 

received meet or exceed their expectations. On the other hand, dissatisfied customers will take their 

business elsewhere and actively convince others to do the same (Gilbert, Veloutsou, Goode, & 

Moutinho, 2004). To prosper, restaurants must cultivate customer loyalty through delivering quality 

products or services as well as a high level of dining satisfaction. Customer loyalty can be measured 

by the extent to which patrons revisit restaurants and/or recommend the restaurants to others through 

positive word-of-mouth (Kivela, Reece, & Inbakaran, 1999). In this study, customer satisfaction is 

used interchangeably with dining satisfaction.  

 

Factors that affect customer satisfaction 

 

Numerous researchers (Parasuraman, et al., 1988; Kara, et al., 1995; Lee & Ulgado, 1997;  

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29. 
17 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Qin & Prybutok, 2008) devoted their studies to determine factors affected customer satisfaction.  

There is no consensus regarding the number of factors, type of factors, and how to classify such 

factors. This might be because the research was conducted with different samples, different type of 

restaurants, age groups, and countries. The present study identified three factors (service quality, 

food quality and reliability) as main factors affect customer satisfaction in QSRs.  

 

Service quality 

Service quality is the extent to which intangible economic activities which are consumed at 

the point-of-sale meet customers’ expectations and satisfy their needs and requirements. QSRs have 

improved their service quality due to increased competition among QSRs and a rise in number of 

QSRs (Qin & Prybutok, 2008). Using SERVQUAL to measure customer perceptions of service 

quality in service and retailing businesses in 1988 by Parasuraman et al. gave rise to the study of the 

service quality.  In this study, Parasuraman et al. (1988) stated that intangibility, heterogeneity, and 

inseparability of production and consumption of services make it difficult to measure the level of 

service quality objectively.  Service quality is determined by the discrepancy between customers’ 

expectations of the services offered and their perceptions of the actual performances of the service 

providers. A negative gap between perceptions and expectations will result in customer 

dissatisfaction. On the other hand, a positive gap will result in satisfaction. The five dimensions in 

the 1988 study used to assess service quality were tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, 

and empathy. Since then, numerous other studies and measurement instruments have emerged based 

on Parasuraman, et al. and their famous SERVQUAL.  

Globalization, the popularity of QSRs, especially in the U.S. market, and the opportunity to 

capture new markets and expand market share have inspired QSRs expansion overseas and 

accompanying research.  Kara, Kaynak, and Kucukemiroglu (1995) compared similarities and 

differences in customers’ perceptions and preferences for QSRs between 179 U.S. and 141 

Canadian customers. The results revealed that hamburgers, pizza, and chicken were the top three 

fast food items among Americans, whereas seafood, hamburgers, and chicken were the top three 

items preferred by Canadians. Delivery service, variety of menu, service speed, quality, cleanliness 

and friendliness of personnel were important criteria among Americans in selecting QSRs, whereas 

seating capacity, cleanliness, nutritional value, friendly personnel and menu variety affected 

Canadians’ choice of QSRs. 

Qin and Prybutok (2008) examined the relationships among and between service quality, 

food quality, price/value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions using the modified 

SERVPERF to measure QSR service (SERVPERF was developed by Cronin and Taylor in 1992 

and was based on SERVQUAL). This study used an online survey with 203 respondents. Satisfied 

customers were more likely than others to become repeat patrons, recommend a given QSR to 

others, or say good things about it.  However, providing quality service alone does not guarantee 

that customers will be satisfied, for attributes such as food quality and short waiting times are also 

important. There was a direct and positive relationship between food quality and customer 

satisfaction and between food quality and behavioral intentions. This means that food quality affect 

customer satisfaction, as well as impact customers’ behavioral intentions. Consequently, quality of 

food can capture customer satisfaction. Customers will return to patronize that restaurant again in 

the future or convince their friends or relatives to patronize that restaurant because of food quality.  

In this study, price/value had no relationship to customer satisfaction, perhaps because the 

price/value variables under this study were competitive price, value worthy of price, and special  

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29. 
18 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

discounts.   

Qin and Prybutok conducted another study in 2009, with 282 respondents. Some of the 

results were similar to the previous study in 2008.  The 2009 study revealed that there was a direct 

and positive relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction, which was different 

from the results in 2008. This might be because respondents were more familiar with and accepted 

the level of service provided at QSRs. They might have recognized that they could not use the same 

service quality standard at other types of restaurants to evaluate service quality at QSRs.  Another 

possible reason for differences in customer perceptions might be differences in sample 

characteristics, e.g., in the 2008 study, respondents were predominantly male (54.7% of 

respondents), whereas in the 2009 sample, respondents were mainly female (54.3%).  Another 

difference was how the authors grouped the respondents’ age in the survey. For 2008 samples, 

76.3% of them were between 20 to 25 years of age, whereas 82.3% of the 2009 respondents were 

between 18-25 years of age. Both groups were college students.  

 

Food quality 

Johns and Howard (1998) stated that food is the main product or core business of restaurants, 

fulfilling a basic human need. They examined the relationship between customer expectations and 

their perceptions of service performance using the profile accumulation technique, developed by 

Johns and Lee-Ross in 1996, to collect data qualitatively yet analyze it quantitatively. Customers at 

two pizza restaurants filled out open-ended questionnaires about their meal experience or service 

received from each QSR, while passers-by reported on what they expected from restaurants in 

general. Then, the authors compared passer-by expectations with perceptions of diners at the two 

QSRs. There were 172 respondents: 50 diners from the first restaurant, 22 from the second, and 50 

passers-by.  Respondents of the first restaurant reported that food quality of the first restaurant 

exceeded their expectations, but respondents from the second QSR rated food quality as poor. This 

might be because during the data collection, the second restaurant was in the process of terminating 

its franchise agreement. In both QSRs, respondents’ perceptions on food, staff and atmosphere 

exceeded what they had expected, which means respondents were satisfied with those aspects.  

Service and price were the most positive aspects. Qin and Prybutok (2008; 2009) reported that food 

quality was related to customer satisfaction, while Law et al. (2004) found that food quality affected 

repurchase behavior during lunch.  Perlik (2003) found that consistent food quality was the top 

reason customers patronized their favorite chain restaurant. 

 

Reliability 

Reliability is defined as the service provider’s ability to perform the promised service 

dependably and accurately. This has been one in five most famous dimensions used to measure 

service quality (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985, 1988). The purpose of Parasuraman et al’s 

studies were to help the businesses understand customers’ expectations and perceptions of service, 

which eventually led them to improve the service they provided to customers.  They also 

emphasized the role service quality played as a source of competitive advantage. Moonkyu and 

Ulgado (1997) found differences existed between Korean and American fast-food customers in 

reliability and empathy dimensions.  Humnekar (2017) found SERVQUAL scale is not applicable 

for a study of service quality in fast food restaurants in India, which might be because of cultural 

differences.   

Some studies investigate the impact of waiting time on customer satisfaction. As fast service  

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29. 
19 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

is a major draw of QSRs (Walker, 2017), customers expect to place their orders and receive their 

food quickly. Thus, the length of waiting time affects customer satisfaction (Davis & Vollmann, 

1990; Law et al., 2004), repeat restaurant patronage (Law et al., 2004), decisions as to which 

restaurant to patronize (Davis & Vollmann, 1990), and long-term profits (Davis, 1991).  Taylor 

(1994) stated that customers would relate long waits for poor service. 

Davis and Vollman (1990) collected data from two fast food restaurants, with 723 

respondents.  Results revealed that the longer a customer waited, the less satisfied or more 

dissatisfied he/she became with the service received. Customer satisfaction and waiting time also 

affected by time of day and store locations. The longer customers waited during lunch time, the less 

satisfied they became. Type of location (suburban versus downtown) affected customer satisfaction; 

the longer suburban customers waited, the less satisfied they became.  

Law et al. (2004) studied with two groups of participants: 135 college students who 

patronized the university’s QSR and 106 students who patronized both the university’s QSR and 

off-campus food outlets. Results revealed that for the first group, a significant relationship existed 

between expected and actual waiting times only during lunch. The model also showed that a 

reduction in waiting time during lunch would increase the number of repeat customers.  Staff service 

attitude impacted repurchase frequency. Food price and food quality did not affect repurchase 

frequency. This might be because college students were on a limited allowance, campus offered 

food at a reasonable price, and food quality was not their priority in selecting the place to eat. 

Among participants in the second group, significant relationships existed between repurchase 

frequency, food price, and seat availability for university’s food outlet participants during dinner. 

For the off-campus food outlet group, only food price affected repurchase behavior during dinner, 

whereas waiting satisfaction, seat availability, and food quality affected repurchase behavior during 

lunch.   

Etemad-Sajadi and Rizzuto (2013) compared Chinese and Swiss customers’ perception of 

meal quality, service quality, price and their influence on satisfaction and loyalty, using McDonald’s 

customers and measured with a modification of SERVQUAL. Data were collected from 52 Chinese 

samples and 66 from Swiss samples, for a total of 118. Results revealed that the Chinese 

respondents had higher perceptions of McDonald’s service quality in terms of reliability (ability to 

perform the promised service dependably and precisely) and tangibility (physical facilities, 

equipment, and personnel) than their Swiss counterparts. Chinese respondents perceived 

McDonald’s image and product quality as being higher than the perceptions of their Swiss 

counterparts. In general, both groups were satisfied with McDonald’s, but the cross-cultural image 

and service quality perception differences meant that Chinese respondents were more loyal to this 

QSR than their Swiss counterparts.  

 

Relationship between customer satisfaction and repeat-purchase intentions 

Many studies in the 1980s until the early 2000s focused on customer satisfaction and factors 

affecting their satisfaction.  Competitiveness makes restaurants seek to go beyond achieving 

customer satisfaction to winning their loyalty.  The benefits of having loyal customers are many, 

including the clients’ strong intention to re-purchase the company’s products/services even though 

competitors are vigorously vying for their business; they purchase the company’s products/services 

more often, purchase a variety of items offered, and are less price-sensitive than otherwise. In 

addition, loyal customers help attract new clients through spreading credible, highly effective word-

of mouth (WOM) recommendations about the company to their friends or relatives, significantly  

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29. 
20 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

lowering the QSR’s costs needed to maintain existing customers and create new ones (Kotler, et al., 

2017). In the restaurant business, friends and relatives are the major source of information people 

sought out when they wanted to try out a new restaurant (Perlik, 2003).  Reichheld and Sasser 

(1990) found that a small increase of 5% in customer retention resulted in a 25% to 85% increase in 

profit among nine service companies. Since then, the concept has expanded to include the 

relationship between customer satisfaction and repeat-purchase intentions, especially since repeat 

purchases are a main source of restaurant profits (Gupta, et al., 2007). In restaurants, various factors 

such as service quality, food quality, and waiting time contribute to customer satisfaction, 

encouraging patrons to return, make recommendations, and spread positive word-of-mouth about 

the QSRs (Qin & Prybutok, 2008; 2009).   

Kivera, et al., (2000) found respondents (regardless of gender) who patronized the restaurant 

for business or social reasons were more likely to return to the QSR than those who dined there to 

celebrate an occasion or because the QSR was convenient. Female respondents who dined there due 

to social obligations were most likely to return to a given restaurant, but male respondents who 

patronized at a given restaurant for business reasons were most likely return.  First and last 

impressions, service and food quality affected intention to return. Almost all (98.58%) repeat 

customers were likely to return to the given restaurant, suggesting the importance of satisfying first-

time patrons to turn them into repeat diners.  

Keshavarz, Jamshidi, and Bakhtazma (2016) examined relationships between customer 

expectations about service quality, perceived service quality, customer satisfaction and customer 

loyalty in restaurants, using 450 respondents. Results revealed that customer expectations affected 

their perceived service quality and loyalty. Also, there was a strong relationship between customer 

satisfaction and customer loyalty. 

 

Methodology 

 

Instrumentation 

A questionnaire was developed as a means to collect data through a three-step process. First, 

the contents were based on previous studies (i.e., Keshavarz et al., 2016; Mason et al., 2016; Qin & 

Prybutok, 2008; 2009) mentioned in the review of literature. Second, students and professors in the 

hospitality management field were asked to review the content of the questionnaire and it was 

revised accordingly. Third, the questionnaire was pilot tested with 20 college students. Then, the 

content of the questionnaire was revised based on results of the pilot test.  

Population and samples:  

The population under this study was college students at a small college with less than 10,000 

students on the main campus. Data were collected from 313 respondents; hence, a convenient 

sampling method was used.   

 

Hypotheses 

The purpose of this study was to investigate factors affect college students’ satisfaction with 

quick service restaurants and whether those who were satisfied would come back or recommend the 

restaurant to their friends/relatives. Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed: 

H1: There is a significant relationship between reliability and dining satisfaction in quick service 

restaurants among college students.  

H2: There is a significant relationship between food quality and dining satisfaction in quick service 

restaurants among college students.  

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29. 
21 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

H3: There is a significant relationship between service quality and dining satisfaction in quick 

service restaurants among college students. 

H4: There is a significant relationship between dining satisfaction and customer loyalty (intention to 

return to quick service restaurants and recommending the restaurant to friends or relatives) among 

college students. 

 

Results and Discussion 

 

Demographic profile of respondents 

As shown in Table 1, slightly more than half of the respondents (51.76%) were male. The 

majority of them were single (84.98%), between 18-24 years of age (94.2%), and they were 

freshmen and sophomore (63.2%). They went to a restaurant in a small group (mean = 2.56) as 

32.9% of them reported of having two people in the group (including themselves), followed by 

being by themselves (27.2%), and 15.3% were there with three people in a group. They visited 

QSRs 3.29 times per week on average. Taco Bell was their most favorite QSR (19.4%), followed by 

Chick-Fil-A (14.7%), McDonald’s (14.1%), Wendy’s (8.3%), Popeyes (5.1%), and Sonic (5.1%).  

In terms of frequency of visiting the restaurants, slightly more than half of them (53.70%) 

patronized QSRs 1-3 times a week, followed by 4-6 times a week (34.50%), 7-9 times per week 

(4.70%), and over ten times per week (1.80%), with an average of 3.29 times per week. 

 

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics and Profiles of Respondents 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable n Percentage 

Gender   

Male 162 51.76% 

Female 147 46.96% 

Age   

18-24 295 94.25% 

25-34 11 3.51% 

35-44 2 0.64% 

45-54 4 1.28% 

Over 65  1 0.32% 

Marital status   

Married 20  6.39% 

Single 266 84.98% 

Academic status   

Freshman  124 39.62% 

Sophomore  74 23.64% 

Junior 54 17.25% 

Senior 51 16.29% 

Graduate  10   3.19% 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29. 
22 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Information sources  

 To find out how respondents found out about QSRs, they were asked, “How did you find out 

about the fast-food restaurant (your last visit)? They could check ‘Friend/relative, social media, 

Flyer, TV ad, newspaper ad, coupon, billboard, restaurant sign, drive by, mobile app, and other’. 

They could check more than one answer. The results in Table 2 revealed that friend/relative were 

the major source of information (37.1%), followed by drive-by (33.2%), restaurant sign (23.3%), 

TV ad (14.4%), and social media (8.6%). The result of this study emphasizes the important role that 

friends and relatives play in spreading the word-of-mouth about the restaurants. Loyal customers 

can spread positive word-of-mouth about the restaurants and bring in their friends/relatives to 

support the business.  

 

Table 2. Number of People Accompanying and Information Sources 

Variable n Percentage 

Number of people dining with you   

1 85 27.16% 

2 103 32.91% 

3 48 15.34% 

>3  77 24.60% 

Source of information   
Friend/Relative 116 37.06% 

Drive-by 104 33.23% 

Restaurant sign 73 23.32% 

TV ad  27   8.63% 

Social media    45 14.38% 

 

 

Ranking of customer satisfaction with the dining experience 

Table 3 shows the results of the ranking of respondents’ satisfaction with the dining 

experience at the last QSRs. Respondents ranked billing is accurate, operation hours are convenient, 

received food as ordered, menu is easy to read and order, and seat availability as their top five 

attributes for their satisfaction.  On the contrary, availability of healthy food, special discounts, 

coupons, Wi-Fi availability, cleanliness of dining area, and employees’ appearance were attributes 

contributed to their least satisfaction.  Some of these attributes were consistent with the previous 

research, whereas some are not. This might be because different location, different demographic and 

different time.  The trend of healthy food and technology did not affect their selection of QSRs.   

This sample represented young college students whose lifestyle was different, and they could have 

access to the Internet through their own telephone company’s network, so Wi-Fi availability at the 

QSRs is not their concern. In addition, at that moment, food is their priority. Food price at QSRs is 

already low, compared to other type of restaurants; therefore, there was no need to use special 

discounts or coupons. 

 

 

 

 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29. 
23 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Table 3. Ranking of Customer Satisfaction with Products/Services Provided (Students) 

Items Ranking Mean SD 

Billing is accurate 1 4.59 0.746 

Operation hours are convenient. 2 4.47 0.858 

Received food as ordered 3 4.45 0.887 

Menu is easy to read and order 4 4.32 0.937 

Seat availability 5 4.31 0.810 

Location 6 4.31 0.863 

Prompt service 7 4.27 0.896 

Portion size of food 8 4.27 0.927 

Variety of food/beverage 9 4.23 0.926 

Value 10 4.18 0.909 

Drive through 11 4.16 1.112 

Employees’ friendliness and courteous 12 4.12 0.927 

Employees’ knowledgeable 13 4.08 0.903 

Appealing of physical facilities 14 4.02 0.864 

Waiting time in line to order food 15 3.99 1.005 

Competitive Price 16 3.97 0.945 

Individual attention 17 3.97 1.019 

Parking availability 18 3.96 1.023 

Employees’ appearance 19 3.91 0.933 

Cleanliness of dining area 20 3.84 0.985 

WiFi available 21 3.79 1.203 

Special discounts, coupons 22 3.71 1.099 

Availability of healthy food 23 3.27 1.320 

 

Factor analysis 

Table 4 summarizes the results of factor analysis (Varimax with Kaiser Normalization 

rotation), which was used to delineate the underlying dimensions of respondents’ satisfaction with 

their restaurant’s last visit. The results from this analysis were used for further analysis in the 

regression analysis. Results revealed that the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was statistically 

significance (ꭓ2 = 2868.88, df = 253, p < 0.000) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was 

0.89, indicating that factor analysis was appropriate for this study.  Four factors were extracted and 

only three factors with a minimum of three components were retained. These three factors were 

labeled as “reliability”, “food quality”, and “service quality” and they explained 53.94% of the total 

variance. The reliability coefficient alpha (R²) for the entire scale was 0.84, demonstrating that 84% 

of the variance in “customer satisfaction with the last visit” was explained by the three subscales of 

dining experience. This means there was a relationship between these three dimensions and their 

satisfaction with their last visit at the QSRs. The first dimension “reliability” explained 33.31% of 

the total variance and achieved a coefficient (Cronbach alpha) of 0.82. The second dimension “food 

quality” explained 8.2% of the total variance and achieved a coefficient of 0.78. The third dimension 

“service quality” explained 5.71% of the total variance and achieved a coefficient of 0.78.  

Factors that affect customer satisfaction 

Results of the present study identified three factors (reliability, food quality, and service 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29. 
24 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

quality) affected customer satisfaction when dining at QSRs. The initial purpose of this study was to 

confirm that each variable specified in the survey would represent those three factors as planned. 

However, this was not the case. The components of the reliability factor identified in the results of 

the present study were not consistent with the components specified in the Parasuraman’s famous 

research.  However, they were consistent with a definition of reliability.  This might be because 

there was a gap in time between the Parasuraman’s study and the present study (30 years gap) and 

the sample used in this present study (college students with fast food restaurants) is different from 

Parasuraman’s study, which were from service and retailing businesses.  Some components of the 

other two factors (food quality and service quality) were also different from previous research 

mentioned in the literature review. This has created a challenge to group them under the appropriate 

factor identified from factor analysis. 

 

Table 4. Factor Analysis for Students with Varimax 

Survey items Reliability       Food quality      Service quality     

Billing is accurate  0.792   
Received food as ordered  0.790   
Portion size  0.679   
Prompt service 0.662   
Waiting time in line  0.631   
Value  0.766  
Food/beverage variety   0.753  
Competitive price   0.679  
Location  0.663  
Wi-Fi availability   0.630  
Convenient of operation hours  0.500  
Easy to read and order menu  0.470  
Employees’ knowledge   0.796 

Employees’ appearance   0.794 

Cleanliness of dining area    0.752 

Employees’ friendliness   0.723 

Healthy food choice availability   0.652 

Individual attention   0.640 

Physical facilities appealing    0.611 

    
Mean  4.316 4.184 4.184 

SD 0.803 0.904 0.904 

Total variance explained 0.539   
Eigen value 7.690 1.887 1.314 

Variance explained (%) 33.312 8.204 5.714 

Reliability coefficient 0.820 0.780 0.780 

 

 

 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29. 
25 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Customer satisfaction and customer loyalty 

Respondents were asked, “How satisfied are you with the last visit at the restaurant?” to 

measure their satisfaction with their restaurant’s last visit. The frequently distribution analysis 

shows that 90% of respondents were satisfied with the restaurant’s last visit.  A five-point Likert 

scale was also used with this question, with “5” indicating strongly satisfied and “1” indicating 

strongly dissatisfied. Respondents were satisfied with their last visit (mean = 4.43, s.d. = .77).  Two 

aspects of customer loyalty were measured: revisit and recommendation to others.  Respondents 

were asked, “How likely are you going to visit this restaurant again?” A five-point Likert scale was 

used with this question, with “5” indicating very likely and “1” indicating not likely. They were also 

asked, “Would you recommend this restaurant to your friend/relative?” A five-point Likert scale 

was also used with this question, with “5” indicating strongly recommend and “1” indicating not 

recommend.  Very high percentage of them (91%) would likely visit the restaurant again (mean = 

4.62, sd = .74), whereas 83% would recommend the restaurant to their friends/relatives (mean = 

4.35, sd = .89).  
 

Hypothesis testing 

The final step is to examine how three factors from factor analysis influenced customer 

satisfaction. A separate standard multiple regression analysis was used to assess the impact of a set 

of predictors (reliability, food quality, and service quality) on a dependent variable (satisfaction). 

The relationship between each factor (reliability, food quality, and service quality) and satisfaction 

was investigated using Pearson Correlation coefficient.  The correlation value above 0.3 would be 

retained in the model, as it indicates there was a relationship between each variable and satisfaction 

(Pallant, 2020).  Table 5 shows a summary of the stepwise regression analysis.  A variable with p-

value below 0.05 would be retained in the model. Hypothesis 1 through 5 were tested to determine 

relationships between the three dimensions of college students’ dining experience and their 

satisfaction. Table 5 summarizes the results of this study.  

H1: There is a significant relationship between reliability and dining satisfaction in quick 

service restaurants among college students. Results revealed that from five variables in a 

“reliability” factor, only three variables (received food as ordered, prompt service, and billing is 

accurate) had a relationship with dining satisfaction. Received food as order had a t-value of 2.8 and 

had a p-value of 0.005. Prompt service had a t-value as 2.4 and had a p-value as 0.02, and billing is 

accurate had a t-value as 2.8 and had a p-value as 0.05. Therefore, dining satisfaction is significantly 

related to reliability such as prompt service, order accuracy, and billing accuracy. 

H2: There is a significant relationship between food quality and dining satisfaction in quick 

service restaurants among college students. Results revealed that from seven variables in a “food 

quality” factor, only three variables (Menu is easy to read and order, value, and food and beverage 

variety) had a relationship with dining satisfaction. Received food as order had a t-value of 4.5 and 

had a p-value of 0.00. Value had a t-value as 2.9 and had a p-value as 0.00, and food and beverage 

variety had a t-value as 2.6 and had a p-value as 0.01. Therefore, dining satisfaction is significantly 

related to food quality such as the menu readability, food value, and food and beverage variety. 

H3: There is a significant relationship between service quality and dining satisfaction in 

quick service restaurants among college students. Results revealed that from seven variables in a 

“service quality” factor, only two variables (appealing of physical facilities and friendliness of 

employees) were retained in the model. For a “service quality” factor, only two components 

(appealing of physical facilities and friendliness of employees) had a relationship with dining  

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29. 
26 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

satisfaction. Appealing of physical facilities had a t-value of 6.6 and had a p-value of 0.00, whereas 

friendliness of employees had a t-value of 3.3 and had a p-value as 0.00. Therefore, dining 

satisfaction is significantly related to service quality such as facility attractiveness and employee 

friendliness. 

 

Table 5. Summary of Regression Analysis 

Indicators SE 

Std. β 

coefficients t-value 

Sig. level (all components 

listed here are significant 

at 0.05 or <0.05) 

     

Factor 1: Reliability*     

Received Food as ordered 0.060 0.194 2.818 0.005 

Prompt service 0.056 0.155 2.393 0.017 

Billing is accurate 0.072 0.380 1.978 0.049 

     

Factor 2: Food quality**     

Menu is easy to read/order 0.044 0.240 4.512 0.000 

Value 0.057 0.201 2.993 0.003 

Food and beverage variety 0.053 0.167 2.641 0.009 

     

Factor 3: Service quality***     
Appealing of physical 

facilities 0.054 0.402 6.612 0.000 

Friendliness of Employees 0.057 0.226 3.316 0.001 

*R = 0.488, R² = .238, F = 19.221, significance = 0.000 

**R = 0.543, R² = .295, F = 18.111, significance = 0.000 

***R = 0.530, R² = .281, F = 17.063, significance = 0.000 

 

H4: There is a significant relationship between dining satisfaction and customer loyalty 

(intention to return to quick service restaurants among college students). Results revealed that there 

was a slightly positive relationship between customer satisfaction and intention to return to quick 

service restaurants among college students (R = 0.606, P-value = 0.00). The reliability coefficient of 

satisfaction for reliability was 0.72, re-visit was 0.71, and recommend was 0.75, respectively.  This 

shows a reasonable relationship between each item on the scale.  Therefore, dining satisfaction and 

customer loyalty are significantly related. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29. 
27 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

 

Table 6. Summary of Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty 

Indicators R 

Std. β 

coefficients t-value 

Sig. level (all components 

listed here are significant 

at 0.05 or < 0.05) 

Visit again 0.606 0.429 8.177 0.000* 

Recommend to friends/relatives 0.555 0.308 5.865 0.000* 

  * significance = 0.000 

 

Conclusions, Recommendations, and Limitations of the Study 

 

The results revealed that the majority of respondents were males, between 18- 24 years of 

age, and they patronized QSRs 3 times a week. Friends/relatives were their major source of 

information, followed by drive-by, and restaurant sign.  This study indicated that respondents were 

satisfied when they received food as ordered, received prompt service, billing is accurate, menu is 

easy to read and order, value, variety of food and beverage, appealing of physical facilities, and 

friendliness of employees. The most interesting factor was when the respondents identified “drive-

by” as the second major source of information in selecting QSRs. This response was consistent with 

one of the factors (appealing of physical facilities) identified at the service quality which affect their 

satisfaction. This might be a factor that QSRs need to be aware of and make their facilities neat and 

clean as they attract customers and contribute to their satisfaction.  All of these variables represent 

major characteristics of QSRs, and they are characteristics that customers expect to receive from 

QSRs. The results shows that respondents were satisfied with products/services offered at fast food 

restaurants and they have become loyal customers as they are willing to come back and recommend 

the restaurant to their friends/relatives. This is not a surprise as evidenced from the growth of fast-

food restaurants especially around campus across the U.S.  

To sustain in a business and make profits in the intensified competition, the restaurant needs 

to continue to providing quality of service, quality of food and managing the line customers stand in 

to place an order for their food and receive their food.  At the same time, they must pay attention to 

customers and satisfy them.  To stay ahead of a competitor, the restaurants must retain their 

customers and transform their satisfied customers into loyal customers. Loyal customers patronize 

the restaurant more often, purchase variety of products, are not price-sensitive, are less likely to 

switch to support the competitor’s business, and they refer the business to their friends and/or 

relatives.  

 

Limitations and future study 

The result of this study is limited to those participants who completed the questionnaire in 

October 2018 and the result cannot be generalized to the entire college students across the U.S.  The 

majority of the samples in this study were male, a similar survey might be conducted with more 

females and compared the results. In addition, this study was conducted prior to the COVID-19 

pandemic; the results of a new study conducted with college students after the pandemic to compare 

the result with this study, which was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic might be helpful.  

 

 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29. 
28 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

 

References 

Cronin, J. J. & Taylor, S. A. (1992).  Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. 

Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.  

Davis, M. M. (1991). How long should a customer wait for service? Decision Sciences, 22, 421-434. 

Davis, M. M., & Vollmann, T. E. (1990).  A framework for relating waiting time and customer 

satisfaction in a service operation.  Journal of Service Marketing, 4(1), 61-9. 

Etemad-Sajadi, R., & Rizzuto, D. (2013).  The antecedents of consumer satisfaction and loyalty in 

fast food industry. A cross-national comparison between Chinese and Swiss consumers.  

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 30(7), 780-798.  

Gilbert, G. R., Veloutsou, C., Goode, M.M.H., & Moutinho, L. (2004).  Measuring customer 

satisfaction in the fast food industry: A cross-national approach. Journal of Service 

Marketing, 18(4/5), 371-383. 

Gupta, S., McLaughlin, E., & Gomez, M. (2007).  Guest satisfaction and restaurant performance.  

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 284-298. 

Humnekar, D. T. (2017). To study reliability and validity of SERVQUAL for measuring service 

quality of fast food joints in India.  Review of Business and Technology Research, 14(1), 

1941-1944. Retrieved from http://mtmi.us/rbtr/sept/sept2017/17-Humnekar_pp92-96.pdf 

Johns, N., & Howard, A.  (1998). Customer expectations versus perceptions of service performance 

in the foodservice industry. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(3), 

248-256.  

Johns, N., & Lee-Ross, D. (1996. Strategy, risk, and decentralization in hospitality operations. 

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(2), 14-16.  

Kara, A., Kaynak, E., & Kucukemiroglu, O. (1995). Marketing strategies for fast-food restaurants: 

A customer view. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(4), 16-

22.  

Keshavarz, Y., Jamshidi, D., & Bakhtazma, F. (2016). The influence of service quality on 

restaurants’ customer loyalty.  Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman 

Chapter), 6(4), 1-16. 

Kivela, J., Reece, J., & Inbakaran, R. (1999a).  Consume research in the restaurant environment. 

Part 1. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(5), 205-222.  

Kivela, J., Reece, J., & Inbakaran, R. (2000).  Consume research in the restaurant environment. Part 

3: Analysis, findings and conclusions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality 

Management, 12(1), 13-30.  

Kotler, P., Bowen, J. T., Makens, J. C., & Baloglu, S. (2017).  Marketing for Hospitality and 

Tourism (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson. 

Law. A. K. Y., Hui, Y. V., & Zhao, X. (2004). Modeling repurchase frequency and customer 

satisfaction fir fast food outlets. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 

21(5), 545-563.  

Mason, K., Jones, S., Benefield, M., & Walton, J. (2016).  Building consumer relationship in the 

quick service restaurant industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 19(4), 368-381. 

Moonkyu, L., & Ulgado, F. M. (1997). Consumer evaluations of fast-food services: a cross-national 

comparison. The Journal of Services Marketing, 11(1), 39-52.  

Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS Survival manual: a step by step using SPSS for Window (version 10). 

Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.   

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://mtmi.us/rbtr/sept/sept2017/17-Humnekar_pp92-96.pdf


McDowall, S. & Jia, W. (2021) / Events and Tourism Review, 4(1), 14-29. 
29 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2021), 14-29, DOI: 10.18060/25392                                                                                                  

               Copyright © 2021 Siriporn McDowall and Weijia Jia 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 10(1), 41-50.  

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for 

measuring consumer perception of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.  

Perlik, A. (February 15, 2003).  High fidelity: Exclusive R & I research reveals what draws loyal 

customers and what drives them away. Restaurant & Institutions, 113(4), 44-45, 48-50. 

Qin, H., & Prybutok, V.R. (2008).  Determinants of customer-perceived service quality in fast food 

restaurants and their relationship to customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions.  The 

Quality Management Journal, 15(2), 35- 50. 

Qin, H., & Prybutok, V.R. (2009).  Service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions 

in fast-food restaurants.  International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(1), 78- 95. 

Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, W. E., Jr. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to services.  Harvard 

Business Review, 68(1), 105-111 

Taylor, S. (1994).  Waiting for service: The relationship between delays and evaluations of services.  

Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 56-69. 

Walker, J. R. (2017).  Introduction to hospitality (7thed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson 

Prentice Hall. 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

