The Survey Instrument

The survey instrument used in the study consisted of four parts. In the first section the
respondents were asked to state the approximate number of times they availed fast
food in the last 12 months. Following which they were asked to identify the QSR brand
whose services they have availed most frequently in the last 12 months from a list
given below. The list was designed following a set of focus group interviews that were
conducted earlier. However, the list also had an option as “others” for respondents
who preferred a brand beyond the list. Next the respondents were asked to state the
approximate number of times they availed fast food services of the identified brand in
the last 12 months. The second section of the questionnaire contained the
measurement items pertaining to the six dimensions of service value as proposed by
Sánchez-Fernández et al., (2009) in an empirical investigation of Holbrook (1999)
value typology. No items were modified to suit the context of the study as the context
of research for Sánchez-Fernández et al., (2009) was vegetarian restaurants, which
is closely similar to the service industry selected for the present study (fast food
restaurants). Please refer to Table --- for the items used to measure service value
dimensions. The respondents were asked to state their level of agreement against
each of the measurement items for the value dimensions using a 5 point Likert scale
ranging from 5 being “strongly agree” to 1 being “strongly disagree” keeping in mind
the QSR restaurant of their choice they indicated earlier.

1
 Measurement Items for Service Value Dimensions
Efficiency
EFF 1 The time you have waited to be seated and to order has not been
excessive
EFF 2 You have promptly received your bill and paid
EFF 3 In general, you are happy with the prices of the restaurant
EFF 4 The prices are good, considering what you have received from the
restaurant
EFF 5 The effort, time, and money spent in the restaurant are right
Quality
QUAL 1 The service provided by the restaurant staff was up to the standard
QUAL 2 Members of the restaurant staff are competent, accessible and polite
QUAL 3 Your relationship with the restaurant staff has been adequate
QUAL 4 The quality of the food served is good
Social value
SOV 1 The people and the environment of the restaurant are in accordance with
its social level and status
SOV 2 You feel close to the environment and the people in the restaurant
SOV 3 In general, your experience in the restaurant is important for your social
relationships, your self esteem and your status
Play
PLAY 1 The environment of the restaurant (music, customers, etc.) has helped you
to enjoy your stay
PLAY 2 Going to the restaurant has served as a way of temporary escape for you
PLAY 3 The staff of the restaurant have contributed in making your stay more
amusing and entertaining
PLAY 4 You have enjoyed your visit to the restaurant
Aesthetics
AES 1 You like the arrangement of the table and the food in the restaurant
AES 2 You find the restaurant’s design and decoration attractive
AES 3 The appearance of the staff at the restaurant is appropriate
AES 4 In your opinion, the restaurant’s taste is fine
Altruistic value
ALTV 1 Going to the restaurant has an ethical and moral interest for you, as you
consider that the products have been ecologically produced
ALTV 2 The environmental preservation of the restaurant is coherent with your
ethical and moral values
ALTV 3 You feel attracted by the spiritual atmosphere of the restaurant
ALTV 4 Going to the restaurant has had an ethical and spiritual value for you

The third part of the survey instrument consisted of measurement items pertaining to
the constructs, attitudinal loyalty (cognitive, affective and conative) and behavioral
loyalty. The items are adopted from Han et al. (2008); however they are modified to
represent the context of study. The modification of the items is in the form of replacing
the word “service provider” in the items of the original study with the word “restaurant”.

2
The respondents were asked to state their level of agreement against each of the
measurement items corresponding to their brand of choice specified earlier. The items
were anchored to 5 point Likert scales ranging from 5 being “strongly agree” to 1 being
“strongly disagree”. Please refer to Table --- for the items used in measuring customer
loyalty constructs.

3
 Measurement Items for Loyalty and Word of Mouth
Cognitive brand loyalty
COGL I consider the restaurant my first choice when I need eat out in the city
1
COGL I consider the restaurant my primary restaurant when I eat out in the city
2
COGL The service of the restaurant is better than that of other similar
3 restaurants in the city
COGL I am willing to pay more to be a customer at this restaurant than at other
4 similar restaurants in the city
Affective brand loyalty
AFFL 1 I like visiting the restaurant very much
AFFL 2 To me, the restaurant is the one I enjoy the most in the city
AFFL 3 Compared with other similar restaurants, I prefer this restaurant more
AFFL 4 This restaurant is the one that I appreciate most in the city
Conative brand loyalty
CONL I intend to visit the restaurant again when I want to eat out in the city
1
CONL I intend to recommend the restaurant to others
2
CONL I intend to say good things about the restaurant to others
3
CONL I intend to give feedback to the restaurant so that it can improve its
4 service quality
Behavioural brand loyalty
BEHL 1 When I eat out in the city, I always visit this restaurant
BEHL 2 Compared with other restaurants, I have spent more money at this
restaurant
BEHL 3 Compared with other restaurants in the city, I have visited more at this
restaurant
BEHL 4 Compared with other restaurants in the city, I have used more of the
services offered at this restaurant

The final section of the questionnaire was designed to collect information on

demographics of the respondent.

Sampling and Data Collection

Data was collected from the period September, 2016 to December, 2016. A Delhi
based market research agency called Brandserve was involved in the collection of
data. Data was collected across the 8 tire I cities in India (Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai,
Hyderabad, Pune, Ahmedabad, Chennai and Bangalore). The market research
agency was advised to administer emailed questionnaire to approximately equal
number of respondents in all the tire I cities who were residing in those cities atleast
for two years. As per industry reports of the age wise distribution of fast food

4
consumers in the urban areas of India is as follows: 18 to 20 years = 18%, 21 to 30
years = 40%, 31 to 40 years = 31%, 40 years and above 11%. Thus it is evident that
58% of the fast food consumers are below the age of 30 years and 89% of the urban
fast food consumers are below the age of 40 years. The agency was asked to
distribute quotas accordingly and maintain the gender ratio of male 52% and female
48% as per Indian government’s population census report, 2011. A total of 960
questionnaires were distributed online to target respondents, 120 for each of the 8 tire
I cities.

5
 Demographic Profile of Pretest Respondents
Income Numbe Percentag Age Numbe Percentag
r e r e
Less than 1 lac 12 7.89% Below 20 years 38 25.00%
1 lac to 3 lacs 24 15.79% 20 - 29 years 61 40.13%
3 lacs to 5 lacs 47 30.92% 30 - 39 years 32 21.05%
More than 5 69 45.39% 40 - 49 years 12 7.89%
lacs
50 - 59 years 9 5.92%
Gender 60 years and 0 0.00%
above
Female 88 57.89%
Male 64 42.11% Education
Higher Secondary 22 14.47%
Employment Bachelors 59 38.82%
Private sector 71 46.71% Masters 49 32.24%
Public sector 15 9.87% PhD 20 13.16%
Student 60 39.47% Others 2 1.32%
Self employed 6 3.95%
Others 0 0.00%

Following the guidelines by Yu and Cooper (1983) and Oppenheirn (1992), the survey
questionnaire was preceded by a covering letter that explained the purpose of the
study, promised confidentiality of the responses and informed the respondents of
some incentives on participating in the survey in an attempt to reduce non-response
bias. Of the 960 questionnaires distributed, 580 completed responses were received,
resulting in a response rate of 60.42%. As compared to the guidelines provided to the
market research firm, the male female ratio stood to be 61.72: 38.28 and as per age
wise 73.62 % respondents were below 30 years and 90 % of the respondents were
below 40 years. Refer to Table ---- for the sample demographics.

6
 Demographics of the Respondents
Income Numbe Percentag Age Numbe Percentag
r e r e
Less than 1 lac Below 20 years
1 lac to 3 lacs 20 - 29 years
3 lacs to 5 lacs 30 - 39 years
More than 5 40 - 49 years
lacs
50 - 59 years
Gender 60 years and
above
Female
Male Education
Higher Secondary
Employment Bachelors
Private sector Masters
Public sector PhD
Student Others
Self employed
Others

Data Set provided as-

DataSet.xlsx

Link for the same-

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mTR55U7JwkxNVYqL57nksjkIZq65T6Oc?us
p=sharing