A roadmap focused on customer citizenship behavior for fast-food restaurants during COVID-19

Abstract

Purpose

This study proposes a model that influences customer citizenship behavior during COVID-19, and empirically tests the effects of fast-food restaurant customers' perceptions of justice (price and procedural justice) on trust; trust on satisfaction and loyalty; and trust, satisfaction and loyalty on customer citizenship behavior. Furthermore, it was questioned whether there was a disparity between customer expectations based on the restaurant's image and consumption experience.

Design/methodology/approach

The data were gathered from customers of fast-food restaurants in the shopping centers in Turkey. The data set, which included 437 valid questionnaires, was subjected to CFA for validity and reliability, SEM analysis for hypothesis and paired sample t-Tests for the research questions.

Findings

The findings of the study indicate that perceived justice affects customer trust, which, consequently, affects customer loyalty and satisfaction during the COVID-19 period. Findings also demonstrate that, while customer loyalty and trust increase customer citizenship behavior, customer satisfaction alone is insufficient to increase customer citizenship behavior. The study also shows that during the COVID-19 period, fast-food restaurants should have raised awareness of employees’ fair behaviors toward the customers and provided additional services to differentiate themselves in the market. Also, it indicates that customer expectations related to price, cleanliness and professional appearance of staff are not met after taking service.

Originality/value

No research has been found in the literature focusing on the expectations, justice, trust, satisfaction, loyalty and citizenship behaviors of fast-food restaurant customers in the COVID-19 pandemic process. Therefore, the results can fill the gap in relevant literature by testing the relationships between justice, trust, satisfaction, loyalty and citizenship during the pandemic and provide inferences for fast-food business owners.

Citation

Akgunduz, Y., Nisari, M. and Sungur, S. (2023), "A roadmap focused on customer citizenship behavior for fast-food restaurants during COVID-19", International Hospitality Review, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IHR-01-2023-0006

Introduction

The COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease-2019) epidemic, which first appeared in the Chinese city of Wuhan, at the end of 2019, spread across the continents and infected many people in the entire world. World Health Organization (WHO) deemed it a pandemic. The pandemic triggered a severe economic and social recession that had a negative impact on a wide range of industries. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the restaurant industry heavily due to stay-at-home regulations and travel limitations, social distancing practices in public spaces and the circumstance that all restaurants can only sell takeaway services (Gursoy & Chi, 2020). Many restaurants temporarily halted operations, reduced the number of employees or preferred to extend their takeaway services as they was less affected by the pandemic's adverse effects and thus maintain their existence (Yeşilyurt & Kurnaz, 2021).

COVID-19 has altered people's shopping and consumption habits. This change is evidenced by the 85.2% decrease in the seated customer food consumption rate in restaurants. This situation has led fast-food restaurants to switch to technological systems to make it easier for customers to benefit from meals and other services without endangering their health (Wali & Idenedo, 2021). COVID-19 has brought about drastic changes in customers' preferences and behaviors, with fear of illness and death driving these changes. According to Sheth (2020), these changes can be divided into eight categories: hoarding, improvisation, suppressed demand, embracing digital technology, coming home to the store, blurring the boundaries of work-life, friend-family meetings and talent discovery. For restaurant customers, cleanliness has become the most important factor when choosing a restaurant, and many customers now prefer to buy food online rather than go to the restaurant. Moreover, customers now expect higher product quality than before (Hoang & Suleri, 2021).

Customers act almost like employees in service businesses (Bowen & Schneider, 1985). These customer actions are regarded as “in-role” or “extra-role behaviors.” In service encounters, guests are usually expected to conduct in-role behaviors like arriving at the restaurant on the booked day and time. Extra-role behaviors, on the other hand, are those that customers conduct in order to contribute to the business by voluntarily sacrificing their time, effort and physical comfort (Kim, Yin, & Lee, 2020). Extra-role behaviors are another term for customer citizenship behavior (CCB). CCB has a massive effect on preventing customers' service errors, improving service quality, reducing costs and building a strong image for businesses (Qiu, Wang, & Li, 2021). Given the strong rivalry in the fast-food industry, CCB becomes increasingly important (Gong & Yi, 2021). However, regarding the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (limited working hours during the day, closure on certain days of the week, supply chain disruptions, reduced customer purchasing power and so on), even the sustained existence of businesses has become a goal in and of itself, emphasizing the importance of CCB (Lakmali & Kajendra, 2021). So, the main question here should be, “Which customers display CCB?” Based on theory and literature, in this research, which customers exhibit CCBs considering trust, loyalty and satisfaction were answered, and the hypotheses developed were empirically tested on fast-food restaurant customers in Turkey.

Turkey's fast-food sector has been expanding since the 1980s (Akbay, Tiryaki, & Gul, 2007). One of the most prominent causes for this development is the country's high youth population density. In 2020, the country's population of eighty-five million people will have an average age of 32.7 (TUIK, 2021). Furthermore, according to data from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (2021), Turkey hosted 45.8 million international tourists in 2018 and 51.2 million in 2019, making it one of the top ten countries that welcomed the most foreign tourists in 2018 and 2019 (UNWTO, 2020). As a result, according to 2018 estimates, fast-food restaurants have a market size of $2.4 billion (WorldFood, 2018). Identifying the expectations of customers, who are the most important actors in this market, and determining the levels of trust, satisfaction and loyalty and their effects on both each other and the CCB will contribute to the development of the sector. Furthermore, because international firms are the majority of the sector, it is anticipated that this research, which was conducted in Turkey, would contribute to international literature and international fast-food restaurant managers.

Customer satisfaction is a cognitive state that is affected by previous experiences (Yang, Zhang, & Fu, 2022). Discrepancies between subjective experience and expectations reduce satisfaction, while coherence improves it. Restaurant image, which is considered a reference point in the creation of expectations for customers, affects customers' subjective perceptions, value and satisfaction sentiments, and subsequent behaviors (Jin, Lee, & Huffman, 2012). Thus, restaurant image is among the factors that affect customers' restaurant selection and satisfaction levels (Clark & Wood, 1999). Depending on the image of the restaurant, the expectations of fast-food customers are related to the cleanliness of the restaurant, menu variety, price, food quality, location of the business and waiting time for the meal (Ryu, Han, & Kim, 2008). When these expectations are in harmony with subjective experience, customer satisfaction increases (Lin & Mattila, 2010), and positive customer attitudes (revisit, loyalty and recommend) are formed (Ha & Jang, 2010; Ryu et al., 2008). When expectations regarding the restaurant’s image are not met with subjective experiences, negative customer attitudes (such as not coming back, negative word-of-mouth communication, complaints to the management and forwarding to third parties) occur (Lam & Tang, 2003; Kim & Lynn, 2007). Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed previously assumed facts regarding customer behavior and attitudes. Fast-food restaurants, like any businesses that must exist economically, must adapt to the new world order. As a result, it is essential to determine what customers expect from fast-food restaurants and maintain additional service requirements in this regard. We are attempting to address the research question of whether there is a difference between the expectations and consumption experiences of customers at fast-food restaurants, and if so, how this difference provides valuable insight into how the restaurant's image influences customer expectations and satisfaction. Hence, the research question we are trying to address is:

RQ1.

Is there a difference between the expectations of fast-food restaurant customers and their consumption experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic?

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused people's behavior to change in general due to the uncertainty, anxiety and worry it brings (Zeybek, Bozkurt, & Aşkın, 2020). In fact, it has altered nearly all our routines and established beliefs. Customer attitudes and habits have also changed as a consequence of this transformation. Previous studies have focused on customer loyalty and satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic in online food service (Prasetyo et al., 2021), online customer satisfaction (Rao, Saleem, Saeed, & Haq, 2021), online purchase behavior (Gu, Slusarczyk, Hajizada, Kovalyova, & Sakhbieva, 2021), satisfaction and loyalty perceptions of the Z generation (Chayomchai, 2021) and key changes in customer behavior (Švajdová, 2020). Mitrega, Klézl, and Spáčil (2022), in their systematic review study, state that loyalty, satisfaction and trust are relational concepts that can be both outcome and antecedents of the CCB. The studies which focus on CCB considering the sample of Turkey are insufficient. Cakici, Akgunduz, and Yildirim (2019) determined that price justice and satisfaction influenced the revisit intention of restaurant customers, and revisit intention positively influenced the loyalty of the restaurant customer. Nonetheless, Yarmaci and Kefeli (2020), in their research on the food industry, measured the effect of perceived service quality on CCB and found a significant effect. According to Cintamür (2022), in the study conducted on airline customers in Turkey, the perception of customer justice has a positive effect on CCB through the corporate reputation evaluation. However, no research has been found in the literature focusing on the expectations, justice, trust, satisfaction, loyalty and citizenship behaviors of fast-food restaurant customers during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the purpose of this study is to fill this gap in the literature. Fast-food restaurants are among the most significant actors in the food and beverage industry in terms of the number of customers and firms and sales revenue. This research also examines customer expectations and the service they experience and provides inferences for restaurant managers by determining the differences between them and determining which expectations are met and not satisfied. As a result, practical recommendations are made to prevent the industry from being severely affected by the change in customer behavior caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the study proposes a roadmap from customers' perceptions of justice to citizenship behaviors and empirically tests it. In this context, the impacts of the study's variables were tested on a single model, rather than using different effect analyses, by considering their correlations. The mutual relationships between justice, trust, satisfaction, loyalty and citizenship behaviors are also investigated in this paper, which contributes to the field of theory.

In this study, deep insights into satisfaction, loyalty, trust and fairness that affect customer citizenship behaviors are addressed. The study also put forward suggestions that can help marketing managers in developing and implementing strategies to increase customer citizenship behaviors. During the decision-making stage, a new perspective will be proposed to the business owners in the process of transforming perceived price and procedural justice into voluntary customer behaviors through trust and loyalty.

This paper first investigates the concepts of perceived justice and customer trust, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and customer citizenship behavior within the restaurants’ context and critically scrutinizes the related research before moving to the formulation of hypotheses. Then, we describe the methodology, present results plus the limitations of the study and identify the implications for further research.

Literature review and hypotheses development

Perceived justice and customer trust

Fairness or justice is a significant aspect of customer-service provider interaction, and perceived justice is a critical component in maintaining strong customer relationships in the service business (Aggarwal & Larrick, 2012). Namkung and Jang (2010) extended the original justice theory and included customers' benefits and sacrifice to explain the understudied nature of service justice in service delivery settings. Time and money are associated with sacrifices that customers give, and the benefits they gain in this regard are the products.

Numerous studies assume that perceived price justice is a psychological element and influences how customers respond to price (Kim, Lee, & Yoo, 2016; Nikbin, Marimuthu, & Hyun, 2016). The perceived “price injustice” is a customer's opinion of whether the comparison of the actual price (tag price) and the reference price is unrealistic or unacceptable (Xia, Monroe, & Cox, 2004). Price justice, according to Namkung and Jang (2010), is a customer's entire price judgment based on a comparison of the actual price to acceptable prices determined for both societal norms (reference price) and self-interest (adaptation level). Therefore, price justice could be seen as an essential measure of customer sacrifice. Price justice is based on community standards. If the rules are broken and product prices are increased by a company, the price will be viewed as unjust (Herrmann, Xia, Kent, & Huber, 2007).

Kumar, Scheer, and Steenkamp (1995), and Schurr and Ozanne (1985) determined that there is a relationship between trust and perceived service fairness or justice. They indicated that perceptions of justice influence trust tendencies. Perceived justice has a significant impact on trust, according to Devlin, Roy, and Sekhon (2014), and Aurier and Siadou-Martin (2007). Nikbin et al. (2016) found that service justice perception except outcome justice has a positive effect on trust. Kim, Shin, and Koo (2018) posited that price, procedural outcome and interactional justice all had a substantial impact on brand trust, whereas price, outcome and interactional justice all had a significant impact on brand experience.

H1a.

Customers perceived price justice positively affects customer trust.

H1b.

Customers perceived procedural justice positively affects customer trust.

Customer trust and customer satisfaction

Customer trust is a fundamental need and a key antecedent of high-quality service (Chung-Herrera, 2007). Satisfaction is customers’ fulfillment level of expectations within their purchases (Bowden-Everson, Dagger, & Elliott, 2013). In the restaurant industry, meeting customers' expectations is also critical, as customer satisfaction is generally recognized as a significant factor for repeat service purchases (Liu & Jang, 2009). For restaurant customers to have a positive attitude and commitment toward business, customer satisfaction is critical (Erkmen & Hancer, 2019).

Previous research (Chinomona & Sandada, 2013; Kim, 2014; Singh et al., 2021) indicated that higher customer satisfaction regarding a product, service or restaurant leads to customer trust, and customer satisfaction comes before brand trust. Accordingly, customer trust reflects the level of satisfaction in the restaurant–customer relationship (Bowden-Everson et al., 2013). Singh et al. (2021) argue that when customers are satisfied with the services of a fast-food restaurant, customer trust in the restaurant improves. Therewithal, many studies (Jin, Line, & Merkebu, 2016; Kim, Ferrin, & Rao, 2009; Namasivayam & Guchait, 2013) claim that customer trust comes before satisfaction and improves customer satisfaction. Chinomona and Sandada (2013) state that this occurs because customers trust the restaurants’ images rather than their own experiences with service providers. It is almost impossible to satisfy customers without first gaining their trust (Erciş, Ünal, Candan, & Yıldırım, 2012). Shin and Yu (2020) argue that trust is a key aspect in customers’ evaluations of the business after purchasing service from a fast-food restaurant. In this study, we hypothesize that trust is a crucial antecedent affecting customer satisfaction, and when customers trust a fast-food restaurant, their satisfaction with that restaurant increases. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2a.

Fast-food restaurant customers’ trust positively affects their satisfaction.

Customer trust and customer loyalty

Customer trust is an important driving force for gaining customer loyalty (Kalia, Kaushal, Singla, & Parkash, 2021) and an important and even fundamental premise of loyalty (Carranza, Díaz, & Martín-Consuegra, 2018). The customer becomes loyal to a brand as a result of the trust created (Quoquab, Sadom, & Mohammad, 2019). For this reason, customer loyalty is regarded higher when the customer trusts the business and believes that the business has the required capacity to respond to its own needs (Bowden-Everson et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2021).

According to Kim (2014), and Shin and Yu (2020), when service providers act to increase customer trust, customer trust will increase loyalty because the perceived risk of the service will decrease. Similarly, according to Quoquab et al. (2019), in the Malaysian fast-food industry, trust is positively associated with customer loyalty. Sahagun and Vasquez-Parraga (2014) proved that trust is the precursor of loyalty among fast-food customers. In this direction, Chinomona and Sandada (2013) argue that ensuring customer trust makes the biggest contribution to customer loyalty. As a result, trust is predicted to have a positive influence on customers' thoughts, eventually leading to customer loyalty. Depending on this assumption, H2b has been suggested:

H2b.

Fast-food restaurant customers’ trust positively affects their loyalty.

Customer trust and customer citizenship behavior

Customer trust includes customers' perception of the reliability of service providers to meet their needs (Liu, Guo, & Hongwiset, 2020). When service businesses seek to form a continuing stable cooperative relationship with customers and build mutual trust, both sides benefit from this stable relationship (Liu et al., 2020; Di, Huang, Chen, & Yu, 2010). The increasing trust of customers in service businesses and their employees indicates that customers are inclined toward citizenship behavior (Dang, Nguyen, & Pervan, 2020; Liu et al., 2020; A Nagy & Galal Marzouk, 2018). It has also been proven in the literature that customer trust affects CCB (Abbasi & Zivarmoghbeli, 2014; Dai, Chen, & Wu, 2014; Di et al., 2010; Mosavi & Ghaedi, 2012; Revilla-Camacho et al., 2017; Wingwon & Piriyakul, 2010).

When customers accept that the business is worthy of trust, they show citizenship behaviors such as voluntarily helping the business in certain transactions and recommending the business to their friends (Di et al., 2010). Customer trust has a greater effect on CCB than satisfaction, reputation and loyalty variables (Abbasi & Zivarmoghbeli, 2014). In addition, trust indirectly affects CCB through loyalty (Mosavi & Ghaedi, 2012). Based on the explanations and evidence, H2c has been proposed.

H2c.

Fast-food restaurant customers’ trust positively affects their customer citizenship behavior.

Customer satisfaction and customer loyalty

Customer loyalty refers to customers' repeat purchase intentions for a particular service (Kalia et al., 2021). Customer satisfaction is critical for attempting to retain existing customers and gain new customers (Saneva & Chortoseva, 2020). Satisfied customers tend to repurchase products (Carranza et al., 2018; Javed, Rashidin, & Jian, 2021) and become loyal customers (Kalia et al., 2021; Uddin, 2019). They also provide recommendations to other consumers and are less responsive to price changes (Bowden-Everson et al., 2013; Terblanche & Boshoff, 2010; Uddin, 2019; Zhong & Moon, 2020). Numerous studies have found a link between customer satisfaction and loyalty (Kalia et al., 2021; Kim, 2014; Bowden-Everson et al., 2013; Chinomona & Sandada, 2013). Many scholars emphasize and empirically supported the link between consumer satisfaction and loyalty, particularly in the restaurant and fast-food industries (Carranza et al., 2018; Cheng, Chiu, Hu, & Chang, 2011; Espinosa, Ortinau, Krey, & Monahan, 2018; Haghighi, Dorosti, Rahnama, & Hoseinpour, 2012; Hyun, 2010; Javed et al., 2021; Sahagun & Vasquez-Parraga, 2014; Saneva & Chortoseva, 2020; Terblanche & Boshoff, 2010; Uddin, 2019; Zhong & Moon, 2020). Depending on these considerations and prior research, it is anticipated that high customer satisfaction would result in high customer loyalty. In this sense, the following hypothesis has been established:

H3a.

Fast-food restaurant customers’ satisfaction positively affects their loyalty.

Customer satisfaction and customer citizenship behavior

The link between customer satisfaction and CCB is based on Blau’s (1964) theory of social exchange (Bove, Pervan, Beatty, & Shiu, 2009; Groth, 2005). According to this CCB theory, when consumers are satisfied with the service or believe they have been serviced beyond their expectations, they are more likely to reciprocate by engaging in voluntary behaviors that benefit the organization (Bettencourt, 1997; Groth, 2005). Customers' interactions with service organizations may be considered as a social exchange that develops trust and reciprocity (Bowen, 1990). In this respect, satisfaction is the main effective variable for CCB, and this has been proven by empirical research (Chien-Jung, 2017; Gong & Yi, 2021; Jung & Yoo, 2017). Many studies in the literature (Anaza & Zhao, 2013; Bettencourt, 1997; Chen, Chen, & Farn, 2010; Choi & Hwang, 2019; Groth, 2005; Hwang & Lee, 2019; Ponnusamy & Ho, 2015; Revilla-Camacho et al., 2017; Sharma, Raj, & Gupta, 2016; Tung, Chen, & Schuckert, 2017; Yi & Gong, 2008; Zhu, Sun, & Chang, 2016) prove that satisfied customers engage in citizenship behavior. These voluntary behaviors have been shown as the result of customer satisfaction in numerous studies on customers (Al Halbusi, Jimenez Estevez, Eleen, Ramayah, & Hossain Uzir, 2020; Chen et al., 2010). Groth (2005), in his study in which he extended the in-role behaviors and extra-role behaviors of employees to customers in service delivery, determined a strong relationship between customer satisfaction and citizenship behavior. According to this information, H3a is proposed:

H3b.

Fast-food restaurant customers’ satisfaction positively affects their customer citizenship behaviors.

Customer loyalty and customer citizenship behavior

Customers are more likely to empathize with the service worker based on their feelings of attachment and affection toward a business he is loyal to. When the opportunity arises, customers exhibit behaviors that indicate they are willing to help the service worker (Bove et al., 2009). CCB is also considered an extension of customer loyalty, as it measures other behaviors of customers rather than customer loyalty (Ponnusamy & Ho, 2015). In addition, customer loyalty is one of the three dimensions (helping other customers, helping the business and positive word-of-mouth) of CCB (Bettencourt, 1997).

Numerous studies in the literature suggest that a customer's level of personal loyalty to a service provider has a positive effect on the customer's citizenship behavior (Abdulaziz & Maiyaki, 2018; Anaza & Zhao, 2013; Bove et al., 2009; Hu, Huang, Yan, Liu, & Zhang, 2020; Tung et al., 2017; Van, Chi, Chi, & Quang, 2016). Bartikowski and Walsh (2011) concluded that customer loyalty affects the customer's helping behavior but has no effect on helping other customers. Shahsavari and Faryabi (2013) determined the indirect effect of customer loyalty on three dimensions of CCBs. On the other hand, Ponnusamy and Ho (2015) reveal the relationship between e-loyalty and e-CCB. Based on this information, the following hypothesis is suggested:

H4.

Fast-food restaurant customers’ loyalty positively affects their customer citizenship behaviors.

Method

Sampling method and procedure

Since we wanted every customer to have the chance to participate in the study, the convenience sampling method, which is one of the non-probability sampling methods that are not based on probability, was preferred. The data were collected from the customers of fast-food restaurants being served in shopping centers located in the Izmir and Aydin cities of Turkey. In Izmir, there are sixteen fast-food restaurants in Optimum Mall, six fast-food restaurants in Aydin Ada Plaza Mall and four fast-food restaurants in Novada Mall Soke. Because determining the number of consumers was impossible, a sample size of 384 was deemed enough.

People who were seen receiving service from any fast-food restaurant were told about the objective and scope of the research throughout the data-collection procedure, and questionnaires were left on the tables of those who wished to participate in the data-gathering process. The questionnaires were collected back about 15 minutes later. Although the data collection process started before the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of questionnaires required for the analysis was not reached due to curfew restrictions and the prohibition on restaurants providing table service. After the restrictions were lifted, the data collection process continued. However, due to the significant changes in the behavior of customers before the COVID-19 pandemic and during the COVID-19 pandemic process, the surveys (128) collected before the pandemic (March 2020) were excluded from the analysis. Although 466 questionnaires were collected during the data collection process conducted in September–October 2021, incomplete or poorly filled questionnaires were excluded from the analysis. For this reason, an analysis was conducted with 437 questionnaires. This sampling size is accepted as sufficient according to Sekaran (1992) and Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010) for being bigger than 384.

Measures

Researchers used standardized scales in this study. Except for the loyalty scale, all the scales used are originally in English. For this reason, the translation-back-translation process suggested by Brislin (1980) was followed to adapt the scales to Turkish. In the first stage of this process, the statements in the scales were translated into Turkish by three tourism academicians with advanced English. In the second stage, the items translated into Turkish were translated back into English by two linguists. In the last stage, the similarities between the original scale items and the items translated from Turkish into English were compared to ensure the accuracy of the Turkish items.

Customer trust was measured using the four-item scale of Hyun (2010). A sample item is, “Employees are sincere.” Satisfaction was measured using the three-item scale of Bae and Kim (2017). A sample item is, “I was pleased to dine at the restaurant.” Customer citizenship behavior was measured using the six-item scale of Hwang, Lee, and Hahn (2020). A sample item is, “I encourage friends and relatives to visit green restaurants.” Loyalty was measured using the four-item scale of Türkmendağ and Hassan (2018). A sample item for loyalt is “I will continue to prefer this restaurant, even though there is another restaurant that offers the same service level.” Price justice and procedural justice were measured using the six-item of Clemmer and Schneider (1993). A sample item for price justice is, “The food I ordered was reasonably priced,” and a sample item for procedural justice is, “I was seated in the order I arrived.” We used a 5-point Likert scale to measure all the variables, whereby “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree” were coded as 1 and 5. Used scales, their items and authors’ info are showed at Table 1.

The reliability of the scales is measured through Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient. The reliabilities of the scales of customer trust, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, price justice, procedural justice and customer citizenship behavior are 0.83, 0.91, 0.71, 0.62, 0.83 and 0.82, respectively. These results are acceptable regarding reliability (Hair et al., 2010).

To determine the differences between the expectation and the service experienced depending on the restaurant image, Ryu et al.’s (2008) restaurant image scale was used. This scale consists of eight semantic differential items (i.e. 1 = very bad, 5 = very good). Turkish version of the scale is taken from Erol, Örgün, and Keskin (2019). A sample item for the restaurant image is “Food quality was….” This scale was implemented two times, before taking the service and after taking the service.

Pilot study

Before adopting the final questionnaire, a pilot study was undertaken. A convenience sample of 121 fast-food customers pre-evaluated the questionnaire. It was ensured that the customers who participated in the pre-test were not able to participate in the main study. Reliability and validity tests were applied to measurement scales. According to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) results, AVE values for price justice, procedural justice, satisfaction, customer trust, CCB and loyalty are 0.68, 0.73, 0.79, 0.64, 0.72 and 0.70, respectively. For scales, the standard factor loading is greater than 0.760. Cronbach’s alpha values of price justice, procedural justice, satisfaction, customer trust, CCB and loyalty are 0.756, 0.820, 0.901, 0.818, 0.862 and 0.861, respectively.

Data analysis

The measurement model (convergent and discriminant validity) and internal consistency reliability were tested with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), as suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). The goodness of fit was evaluated using chi-square, RMSEA, NFI, NNFI, IFI, RFI, SRMR and AGFI. Internal reliability was measured with Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR), based on a threshold of 0.70. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to verify the main effects and indirect effects. Common method bias was determined via two methods, Harman’s single factor test and the common latent factor (CLF), to determine if there was bias in the data set from collecting data using the same method. The hypotheses were tested using SEM. In addition, pair simple t-tests were performed to test for the difference between expectancy and encounter related to food quality, menu variety, interior design and décor, location and waiting time for a meal.

Results

Respondent profiles

The demographics of the participants can be seen in Table 2. Male and female customers marked 53% and 46%, respectively. The respondents were almost all young, with around 86% of the respondents aged 30 years and above. The 98% respondents were educated to a high school level or above. The respondents paid 50 TL and above per person. In addition, 437 participants stated that they received service from a total of twenty different fast-food restaurants. It is determined that all these fast-food restaurants are managed with the franchising system.

Measurement model and confirmatory factor analysis

The measurement model comprised six constructs and twenty-three items. Except for PA1, CLY1, CCB2 and CCB6, the loading for the items exceeds the 0.5% threshold. Hence, they were eliminated. The composite reliability (CR) values were well above the recommended value of 0.70 (except for the price justice scale, CR = 0.62), and the average variance extracted (AVE) values were above 0.50 (except for customer loyalty, where AVE = 0.45, and price justice scale, where AVE = 0.46). The loadings, AVE and CR values are shown in Table 3. The CFA results showed that the hypothesized six-factor model, which included customer satisfaction, customer trust, customer loyalty, CCB, price justice and procedural justice, fit the data better than alternative models (χ² = 2.52, df = 137, RMSEA = 0.059, CFI = 0.97, AGFI = 0.89, GFI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.055). The AVE values (except for fair justice (0.46) and customer loyalty (0.45)) are greater than 0.50, which shows constructs have good convergent validity. Although AVE values of customer trust, CCB, price justice and customer loyalty are bigger than 0.50, AVE values of fair justice and customer loyalty are small than 0.50. In case AVE is less than 0.50 but composite reliability is higher than 0.6, the convergent validity of the construct is still adequate (Fornell & Lacker, 1981; Lam, 2012).

Common method bias (CMB)

Since fast-food restaurant customers completed all the questionnaires, Harman’s one-factor test was adopted to check for any serious common method deviation. In this study, the factor analysis included 19 items grouped under four factors, with the first factor explaining 32.79% of the total variance. According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003), this result showed that there was no common method variance problem in our data for the test results is small than 50%. Moreover, when comparing the results of the single-factor CFA and the 6-factor CFA, it was observed that the fit indices of the single-factor model are not at an acceptable level (χ² = 14.67, df = 152, RMSEA = 0.177, CFI = 0.76, AGFI = 0.56, GFI = 0.65, SRMR = 0.12). Therefore, the CMB was not a major concern in this study.

Table 4 shows the means, standard deviations, correlations and reliability coefficients of the latent variables on individual-level data.

As expected, price justice was positively correlated with procedural justice (r = 0.148, p < 0.01), satisfaction (r = 0.405, p < 0.01), customer trust (r = 0.191, p < 0.01), customer loyalty (r = 0.365, p < 0.01) and CCB (r = 0.217, p < 0.01). Procedural justice was positively correlated with satisfaction (r = 0.328, p < 0.01), customer trust (r = 0.290, p < 0.01), customer loyalty (r = 0.168, p < 0.01) and CCB (r = 0.126, p < 0.01). Customer satisfaction was positively correlated with customer trust (r = 0.456, p < 0.01), customer loyalty (r = 0.544, p < 0.01) and CCB (r = 0.328, p < 0.01). Customer loyalty (r = .463, p 0.01) and CCB (r = 0.367, p < 0.01) were both positively correlated with customer trust. Customer loyalty was positively correlated with CCB (r = 0.367, p < 0.01). These findings provided preliminary support for the hypothesized relationships(see Figure 1).

Hypothesis testing

The fit values of SEM indicated the following: χ²/df = 3.29, df = 143, RMSEA = 0.072, CFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.86, GFI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.083. As demonstrated in Figure 2 and Table 5, the coefficient from price justice to customer trust was 0.34 (t = 4.90 p < 0.001), and the coefficient from procedural justice to customer trust was 0.23 (t = 3.76 p < 0.001). Hence, H1a and H1b were supported. The coefficient from customer trust to customer satisfaction was 0. 56 (t = 9.90 p < 0.001), to customer loyalty was 0.34 (t = 5.15 p < 0.001) and to CCB was 0.27 (t = 3.40 p < 0.001). Therefore, H2a, H2b and H2c were supported. The coefficient from satisfaction to loyalty was 0.51 (t = 7.65 p < 0.001), and to CCB was 0.07 (t = 0.84 p > 0.05). Hence, although H3a was supported, H3b was not supported. Lastly, the coefficient from loyalty to CCB was 0.22 (t = 2.03 p < 0.05). Hence, H4 was supported. Moreover, the coefficient of determination of customer satisfaction as an endogenous construct was 32%, customer trust was 23%, customer loyalty was 57% and CCB was 24%.

To determine the differences, pair-sample t-tests were employed (Table 6). Although all expectancy is greater than consumption experience, there is no significant at 95% confidence level difference between expectancy and encounter related to food quality, menu variety, interior design and décor, location and waiting time for a meal. Expectations of customers related to cleanliness, price and the professional appearance of staff are significantly different from consumption experience. Expectancy of customer related to cleanliness is 3.91, but consumption experience of cleanliness is 3.79. Moreover, although expectancy of customer related to price is 3.31, consumption experience of price is 3.20. Lastly, a situation similar to cleanliness and price also validates to the professional appearance of staff, although before taking service is 4.06, after taking service is 4.00. Customer has higher before taking service than after taking service consumption experience related to cleanliness, price and professional appearance of staff. These results showed that customers have disappointment related to cleanliness, price and professional appearance of staff when after taking service.

The research conducted has determined that there is a distinct disparity between the expectations of restaurant customers before and after receiving service during the COVID-19 process. This is especially evident regarding cleanliness, price and the professional appearance of employees. It has been established that the expectations of the restaurant customers regarding these factors were not adequately met after the purchase of the service. Therefore, it can be concluded that the answer to the research question (Is there a difference between the expectations of fast-food restaurant customers and their consumption experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic?) is “Yes.”

Discussion

The main aim of the research is to holistically explain the link between justice, trust, satisfaction, loyalty and CCBs of fast-food restaurant customers as a process starting from the perception of justice and going to CCBs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, in research, price justice and procedural justice are the premises of trust; trust is the precursor of satisfaction; satisfaction and trust are the precursors of loyalty; trust, satisfaction and loyalty are regarded as the antecedents of CCBs. Customers who engage in CCB recommend the business and its products to their friends and family members (Bove et al., 2009), give feedback to the business (Groth, 2005), help other customers (Yi, Gong, & Lee, 2013), deal with questions posed to the business (Di et al., 2010), advertise positively on social media and via word-of-mouth (Yi & Gong, 2008) and tolerate the problems when their expectations are not met (Gong & Yi, 2021). Therefore, explaining the citizenship behaviors of fast-food customers is a necessity for both managers and the literature.

Research findings show that price justice and procedural justice positively affect customers' trust. The cause for this positive effect is that the basis of trust is justice (Potgieter, Olckers, & Ehlers, 2015). Customers in fast-food restaurants believe they pay for what they get and regard the restaurant's order-taking and serving procedure as fair, which helps to build, retain and increase trust. When customer trust is established, a social and economic exchange relationship occurs between the customer and the business (Paliszkiewicz & Klepacki, 2013). Therefore, the perception of justice should be strengthened to maintain the changing relationship with the customer. This finding of the study also overlaps with Aziziha et al. (2014), Chapuis (2012), Gokmenoglu and Amir (2021), Kau and Loh’ (2006) research, which reveals that trust emerges depending on justice.

According to the social exchange theory, the exchange between the parties occurs economically and/or socially. The finding of this research regarding the effect of perceived price justice on increasing customer trust confirms the economic aspect of the exchange relationship between restaurants and customers. During this exchange, the parties trust the other party if their economic gains are preserved. In addition, the study determines that perceived procedural justice increases customer trust, which confirms social factors are also valid in the exchange relationship between the restaurant and the customer.

Customer trust increases the citizenship behavior of customers. This finding shows that when customers trust the business and its products, they want to buy the business's products again, recommend the business and products to their acquaintances, cooperate with the employees, report problems to the business on time and help customers by solving the existing problems in the consumption and use of the products. The research that determined that trust increases CCB (Abbasi & Zivarmoghbeli, 2014; Celuch, Walz, & Logan, 2018; Liu et al., 2020; Sidik & Shaari, 2017; Tonder & Heymans, 2020; Wingwon & Piriyakul, 2010; Yu-hong, Da-hai, & Sheng-nan, 2013) also coincides with the results of this research.

Customers' trust in the restaurant leads customers to various behaviors to protect the restaurant's benefits. In this context, customer citizenship behaviors are based on acting in a way that benefits the company rather than undermines it. The norm of reciprocity (NOR) emphasizes that individuals will show positive behavior in return for the benefits they obtain (Gouldner, 1960). The NOR argues that individuals respond with kindness to those who do good for them, and they respond to those who harm them by doing harm. In this research, determining that customer trust has positive effects on citizenship behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic provides an important contribution to the tourism literature by verifying the assumptions of the NOR in restaurants. Therefore, it has been proven that in restaurants that theoretically develop good relations with customers by establishing trust based on fair pricing and procedural justice, customers will also make an effort to behave well (to show citizenship behavior). The study makes an important contribution to the theory by comparing the expectations and service experience of fast-food restaurant consumers. This comparison was made based on food quality, menu variety, cleanliness, price, design and decor, professional appearance of employees, restaurant location and waiting time for food. In this study, it was determined that although all expectations were higher than the service experienced, expectations regarding price, cleanliness and professional appearance of employees were significantly lower than the service experienced. In the literature, there are studies to determine the level of meeting the expectations of restaurant customers regarding online meetings (Li, Xie, & Zhang, 2020), service quality (Marković, Raspor, & Šegarić, 2010), restaurant features (Mhlanga, Hattingh, & Moolman, 2014) and hygiene (Chow, Krishnapillai, & Lee, 2019). There are studies that are like the findings of this study. The studies of Mohsin, McIntosh and Cave (2005), and Öztürk (2019) are like those research findings that determined that the expectations for the price, variety and quality of the customers and the service skills of the food and beverage employees are higher than the experienced service.

Practical implications

Although various factors affect customer trust, the effect of price justice and procedural justice perception on customer trust was examined in this study. Perceived price justice is among the most important aspects affecting the decision process (Nacar, Polat, Geçti, & Çiçek, 2012). Perceived price and procedural justice, especially price justice, are considered psychological factors that significantly affect the reaction of customers to price (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1986). Since the perception of justice increases customer trust, restaurant managers should affect the perception of justice of the customers. To affect the perception of justice, following the reference prices that customers use when comparing the prices of the enterprise, and indirectly emphasizing the cost of the product (such as the high costs of the raw materials used) will turn the price justice perceptions of the customers in favor of the enterprise.

Procedural justice includes the methods, criteria and policies used by decision-makers to solve problems in businesses. For this reason, prompt resolution of customers' complaints is also very important for increasing perceived procedural justice. Ignoring the complaints, not being able to solve them completely or not being fair in the problem resolution process will reduce the customers' perceived procedural justice, and this will negatively affect the customers' trust. Establishing an effective complaint resolution process by restaurant managers will be helpful in strengthening the perception of procedural justice. In addition, managers' encouragement of employees, especially front-line employees, to improve their decision-making skills and to take initiative, when necessary, will increase customers' perception of procedural justice by ensuring that complaints are resolved quickly and effectively. Additionally, by including procedural justice behavior among the performance evaluation and remuneration criteria of the employees, it can be ensured that the employees pay more attention to these practices.

In this study, it was determined that although satisfaction increases loyalty, satisfied customers do not show citizenship behaviors. This finding shows that for fast-food restaurants, customer satisfaction was necessary for all positive attitudes toward business during the COVID-19 pandemic, but not sufficient for CCB. Therefore, in the COVID-19 pandemic, it was necessary to provide service to customers beyond their expectations. It is typical to satisfy the expectations of consumers in similar fast-food restaurants from the consumer's viewpoint, and it would be unusual to assume and anticipate the reverse. As a result, managers must employ cutting-edge marketing strategies, such as green marketing and relationship marketing, as well as create new needs in customers and differentiate themselves from competitors by using a differentiation strategy.

It is necessary for restaurant managers to evaluate the factors affecting customer satisfaction from a holistic perspective and to examine the expectations before coming to the business, the service encountered in the business and the experience transferred after leaving the business. The role of the image in the development of expectations, how expectations are satisfied during the experience and what is remembered from the experience after leaving the restaurant all contribute to customer satisfaction.

The competitive environment compels restaurant managers to make deliberate efforts to improve service quality. Meeting customer expectations is the most important indicator of quality. As a result, in order to present products and services that meet the expectations of the restaurant's customers, it is necessary to first determine the expectations. Conducting market research for the target group to determine expectations will provide critical information to the managers in making quality-improvement decisions. Questionnaires left on tables and interactions between customers and service personnel are effective in gathering essential information about expectations and satisfaction. Incentives (such as tea, coffee, dessert or fruit) can also be used to encourage customers to share their expectations and satisfaction.

The COVID-19 pandemic regulations have forced people to wear masks, place a greater emphasis on social distancing and hygiene to protect themselves from the disease and have left them with financial difficulties. Depending on the research findings, this situation is also reflected in the expectations of restaurant customers about product prices, cleanliness and employee behavior. Therefore, restaurant managers must devote more resources to hygiene than ever before to protect employees’ and customers' health and, in addition, to meet customer expectations.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

This study, like any other, has various limitations. The first limitation is that the research is based only on the opinions of fast-food restaurant customers. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalized to other restaurants. To validate the results of this research, future studies could include data from alternative restaurant types, such as fine dining and luxury restaurants. The second limitation stems from the cross-sectional nature of the study. Data for the service relationship experienced by customers with their expectations can be collected before and after the encounter. The third limitation is that the opinions of the customers were collected and analyzed by quantitative research using the survey method. Using the mixed method, including the interview in the research, will provide more in-depth information about customer attitudes.

In addition, the study utilized customers' ratings on scales measuring price, commitment, loyalty and customer citizenship behaviors to assess their attitudes, which means that responses were limited to the items in these scales. In future studies, qualitative data collected through open-ended questions could be used to provide more detailed explanations of customer attitudes. Additionally, in future studies, the mediating role of social desirability and social cohesion can be added to the model, since this study focused on linear relationships. Moreover, future research could investigate the impact of customer citizenship behaviors on service innovation and customer advocacy.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our quantitative research, based on data collected from fast food businesses, examined the impact of customers' perceptions of price justice and procedural justice on their trust; the effect of customer trust on satisfaction, loyalty and customer citizenship behaviors; and the effect of customer satisfaction and loyalty on customer citizenship behaviors. Specifically, our research focused on the role of loyalty, trust, satisfaction and price perception in affecting customer citizenship behaviors. Our findings suggest that customers' perceptions of price justice and procedural justice have a significant impact on their trust to the business. We also found that customer trust and loyalty are positively associated with customer citizenship behaviors. Moreover, our study suggests that customers' trust and satisfaction lead to a sense of loyalty, which in turn leads to customer citizenship behaviors’.

Figures

Figure 1

Research hypotheses

Figure 2

Structural path estimates model

Table 1

Used scales, items and its authors

Scale	Items	Authors
Price justice	The food I ordered was reasonably priced	Clemmer and Schneider (1993)
	The cost seemed appropriate for what I got
Procedural justice	I was seated in the order I arrived
	I was seated in a timely manner
	The server took my order in a timely manner
	Food was served in a timely manner
Customer satisfaction	I was pleased to dine at the restaurant	Bae and Kim (2017)
	The overall feeling I got from the restaurant was satisfaction
	The overall feeling I got from the restaurant put me in a good mood
Customer trust	Employees are sincere	Hyun (2010)
	Employees are reliable
	Employees are honest
	Employees put customers’ interests first
Customer loyalty	I consider this restaurant my first choice when I want to buy fast-food products	Türkmendağ and Hassan (2018)
	I intend to buy this fast-food restaurant in the future, too
	I will continue to prefer this restaurant, even though there is another restaurant that offers the same service level
	I will continue to prefer this restaurant, even though there is another restaurant that offers the same service level
Customer citizenship behaviors	I do things to make the cashier's job easier	Hwang et al. (2020)
	I make constructive suggestions to green restaurants on how to improve their service
	If I have a useful idea on how to improve service, I give it to someone at the green restaurant
	When I experience a problem at the green restaurant, I let someone know so they can improve the service
	If I notice a problem, I inform an employee of the green restaurant even if it does not affect me
	If an employee at the green restaurant gives me good service, I let them know about it
Restaurant image scale	Food quality was…	Ryu et al. (2008)
	Menu variety was…
	Cleanliness was…
	Price was…
	Interior design and de´cor was…
	Professional appearance of staff was…
	Store location was…
	Waiting time for a meal…

Source(s): Table by authors

Table 2

Profile of the respondents

	n	Percent		n	Percent
Gender			Account per person*
Male	202	47	40 lira and above	265	60
Female	232	53	41-50	100	23
Age			51-60	39	9
20 years and above	158	37	51-70	17	4
21-30	217	51	71 lira and under	16	4
31 years and under	54	13	Marital status
			Married	68	16
			Single	365	84

Note(s): * 1 Dollar buying is 5.8979 lira, 1 dollar selling 5.9085 lira as on 20 March according to Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey

Source(s): Table by authors

Table 3

CFA results

	Factor loadings	t-value	CR/Alpha	AVE	√AVE	Mean	St. Deviation
Price justice			0.62/0.68	0.46	0.68	3.155
The food I ordered was reasonably priced	0.80	14.07				3.032	1.34
The cost seemed appropriate for what I got	0.52	10.02				3.279	1.13
Procedural justice			0.83/0.83	0.62	0.79	4.172
I was seated in the order I arrived	0.77	17.58				4.269	0.94
I was seated in a timely manner	0.88	20.64				4.208	0.95
The server took my order in a timely manner on time	0.71	15.82				4.039	1.05
Customer satisfaction			0.91/0.91	0.76	0.87	3.683
I was pleased to dine at the restaurant	0.84	20.98				3.797	0.95
The overall feeling I got from the restaurant was satisfaction	0.90	23.63				3.622	1.02
The overall feeling I got from the restaurant put me in a good mood	0.88	22.91				3.631	1.04
Customer trust			0.83/0.82	0.54	0.73	3.370
Employees are sincere	0.74	16.81				3.573	1.06
Employees are reliable	0.77	17.85				3.256	1.16
Employees are honest	0.79	18.37				3.471	1.03
Employees put customers’ interests first	0.63	13.60				3.180	1.08
Customer loyalty			0.71/0.72	0.45	0.67	2.969
I consider this restaurant my first choice when I want to buy fast-food products	0.71	14.92				3.255	1.06
I intend to buy this fast-food restaurant in the future, too	0.69	14.32				3.216	1.13
I will continue to prefer this restaurant, even though there is another restaurant that offers the same service level	0.62	12.61				2.438	1.22
Customer citizenship behaviors (CCB)			0.82/0.81	0.53	0.73	3.431
I do things to make the cashier's job easier	0.67	14.50				3.237	1.08
I make constructive suggestions to green restaurants on how to improve their service	0.76	17.18				3.672	1.19
If I have a useful idea on how to improve service, I give it to someone at the green restaurant	0.81	18.68				3.451	1.22
When I experience a problem at the green restaurant, I let someone know so they can improve the service	0.66	14.19				3.366	1.30

Source(s): Table by authors

Table 4

Descriptive statistics and validity of construct

	Mean	SD	PrJ	PrcJ	CS	CT	CL	CCB
PrJ	3.1554	1.07406	(0.62/0.68)
PrcJ	4.1720	0.84182	0.148**	(0.83/0.83)
CS	3.6834	0.91427	0.405**	0.328**	(0.91/0.91)
CT	3.3700	0.86912	0.191**	0.290**	0.456**	(0.83/0.82)
CL	2.9695	0.90563	0.365**	0.168**	0.544**	0.463**	(0.71/0.72)
CCB	3.4314	0.99019	0.217**	0.126**	0.328**	0.367**	0.367**	(0.82/0.81)

Note(s): n = 437. **p < 0.01, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values are in parentheses across the diagonal

Source(s): Table by authors

Table 5

Main results of effect analyses

Relations			Standardized estimates	t-value	Result	R2
H1a: Price justice	--->	Customer trust	0.34**	4.90	Supported	0.23
H1b: Procedural justice	--->	Customer trust	0.23**	3.76	Supported
H2a: Customer trust	--->	Customer satisfaction	0.56**	9.90	Supported	0.32
H2b: Customer trust	--->	Customer loyalty	0.34**	5.15	Supported	0.57
H3a. Customer satisfaction	--->	Customer loyalty	0.51**	7.65	Supported
H2c: Customer trust	--->	CCB	0.27**	3.40	Supported	0.24
H3b. Customer satisfaction	--->	CCB	0.07	0.84	Rejected
H4. Customer loyalty	--->	CCB	0.22*	2.03	Supported

Note(s): *p < 0.05 **p < 0.001

Source(s): Table by authors

Table 6

The correlation and difference between expectancy from the restaurant and customized experiences

Expectancies/Experiences	Before taking service (expectancy)	After taking service (consumption experience)	Correlation	Differences level (t-value)
Food quality	3.86 (.924)	3.79 (1.072)	0.598**	1.761
Menu variety	3.86 (1.025)	3.85 (1.081)	0.672**	0.621
Cleanliness	3.91 (1.004)	3.79 (1.053)	0.660**	3.205a
Price	3.31 (1.354)	3.20 (1.355)	0.726**	2.604a
Interior design and décor	3.67 (1.092)	3.65 (1.123)	0.626**	0.466
The professional appearance of staff	4.06 (1.031)	4.00 (1.016)	0.746**	1.919a
Restaurant location	3.77 (1.175)	3.75 (1.210)	0.719**	0.539
Waiting time for a meal	3.71 (1.72)	3.69 (1.168)	0.701**	0.479

Note(s): **p < 0.01 a significant difference

Source(s): Table by authors