Traditional restaurant managers’ use of sensory marketing to maintain customer satisfaction: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA

Figures & data

Figure 1. SEM model.

Figure 2. Configuration path from sensory marketing to satisfaction.

Table 1. Measurement items

Construct	Items
Visual (Haase & Wiedmann, 2018, 2020)	The colours of traditional restaurants are pleasing to the eye.
	The interior of traditional restaurants are balanced.
	The interior decorations of traditional restaurant are attractive.
Auditory (Haase & Wiedmann, 2018, 2020)	I like the music played in traditional restaurants.
	The music playing in traditional restaurants makes me feel happy.
	The volume of the music playing in traditional restaurants is appropriate.
Taste (Haase & Wiedmann, 2018, 2020)	The food and drink at traditional restaurants are delicious.
	There are various types of food and drinks in traditional restaurants.
	The food and beverage ingredients in traditional restaurants are fresh.
Olfaction (Haase & Wiedmann, 2018, 2020)	The aroma of traditional restaurants matches the overall atmosphere of the restaurant.
	I like the smell of traditional restaurants.
	The aroma of traditional restaurants soothes me.
Haptic (Haase & Wiedmann, 2018, 2020)	Traditional restaurants are clean.
	The temperature in traditional restaurants is appropriate.
	The furniture in traditional restaurants is comfortable.
Satisfaction (Kim et al., 2020)	I enjoy the tangible and intangible facilities of a traditional restaurant.
	There is a fun atmosphere with family and/or friends that creates an enjoyable experience at traditional restaurants.
	Traditional restaurants and dining experiences put me in a good mood.
	I am satisfied with the overall experience of the traditional atmosphere in traditional restaurants.

Table 2. Respondents’ profile

Measure	Items	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	159	30.3%
	Female	366	69.7%
Age (Years old)	19 or below	64	12.2%
	20–24	221	42.1%
	25–29	37	7.0%
	30–34	39	7.4%
	35–39	37	7.0%
	40–44	29	5.5%
	45 or above	98	18.7%
Marital Status	Single	337	64.2%
	Married	188	35.8%
Educational Background	Senior high school or equal	118	22.5%
	Undergraduate	315	60.0%
	Master	77	14.7%
	PhD	15	2.9%
Occupation	Student	19	3.6%
	Undergraduate Student	247	47.0%
	Master Student	15	2.9%
	PhD Student	7	1.3%
	Entrepreneur	15	2.9%
	Private Employee	99	18.9%
	Government Employee	113	21.5%
	Others	10	1.9%
Frequency of Visits to Traditional Restaurants	2 times or less	205	39.0%
	3–5 times	151	28.8%
	6–8 times	43	8.2%
	8 times or above	126	24.0%
Travel with	Self	14	2.7%
	Friends	86	16.4%
	Family	376	71.6%
	Couple	26	5.0%
	Colleagues	15	2.9%
	Group	8	1.5%
Most impressive about the restaurants	Foods	355	67.6%
	Atmosphere	97	18.5%
	Interior Decoration	30	5.7%
	Traditional Furniture	16	3.0%
	Traditional Music	27	5.1%

Table 3. Construct validity and internal consistency

Construct	Items	FL	CA	CR	AVE
Visual	VSL.1	0.914	0.913	0.945	0.852
	VSL.2	0.923
	VSL.3	0.932
Auditory	ADT.1	0.914	0.895	0.935	0.827
	ADT.2	0.935
	ADT.3	0.878
Taste	TST.1	0.883	0.862	0.916	0.784
	TST.2	0.867
	TST.3	0.905
Olfaction	OLF.1	0.772	0.834	0.901	0.752
	OLF.2	0.924
	OLF.3	0.898
Haptic	HPT.1	0.908	0.905	0.940	0.840
	HPT.2	0.914
	HPT.3	0.927
Satisfaction	ST.1	0.865	0.904	0.933	0.776
	ST.2	0.880
	ST.3	0.882
	ST.4	0.897

Note: FL, Factor Loading ≥ 0.7; CA, Cronbach’s Alpha ≥ 0.7; CR, Composite Reliability ≥ 0.7; AVE, Average Variance Extracted ≥ 0.5.

Table 4. Discriminant validity fornell-larcker criterion

Construct	VSL	ADT	TST	OLF	HPT	ST
Visual (VSL)	0.923
Auditory (ADT)	0.566	0.909
Taste (TST)	0.394	0.509	0.885
Olfaction (OLF)	0.542	0.625	0.579	0.867
Haptic (HPT)	0.624	0.618	0.618	0.560	0.916
Satisfaction (ST)	0.549	0.594	0.578	0.659	0.696	0.881

Note: The values for the diagonal and bold are the values for the square root of AVE.

Table 5. Discriminant Validity of Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)

Construct	VSL	ADT	TST	OLF	HPT	ST
Visual (VSL)	-
Auditory (ADT)	0.626	-
Taste (TST)	0.443	0.573	-
Olfaction (OLF)	0.616	0.717	0.674	-
Haptic (HPT)	0.684	0.685	0.698	0.640	-
Satisfaction (ST)	0.603	0.658	0.654	0.749	0.764	-

Note: HTMT threshold value, ≤ 0.85, strong; ≤ 0.90, weak.

Table 6. Discriminant validity of cross-loading matrix

	Satisfaction	Visual	Olfaction	Auditory	Taste	Haptic
ADT.1	0.500	0.522	0.537	0.914	0.411	0.524
ADT.2	0.568	0.508	0.595	0.935	0.488	0.556
ADT.3	0.549	0.515	0.570	0.878	0.483	0.602
VSL.1	0.490	0.914	0.482	0.507	0.356	0.574
VSL.2	0.527	0.923	0.535	0.553	0.362	0.579
VSL.3	0.504	0.932	0.482	0.507	0.375	0.574
OLF.1	0.456	0.392	0.772	0.451	0.409	0.409
OLF.2	0.626	0.496	0.924	0.581	0.572	0.498
OLF.3	0.614	0.512	0.898	0.582	0.510	0.541
ST.1	0.865	0.509	0.629	0.554	0.495	0.675
ST.2	0.880	0.489	0.574	0.507	0.531	0.557
ST.3	0.882	0.446	0.568	0.543	0.508	0.593
ST.4	0.897	0.488	0.545	0.487	0.504	0.619
HPT.1	0.591	0.541	0.486	0.564	0.582	0.908
HPT.2	0.631	0.546	0.522	0.535	0.546	0.914
HPT.3	0.685	0.622	0.529	0.598	0.574	0.927
TST.1	0.482	0.309	0.518	0.386	0.883	0.477
TST.2	0.499	0.360	0.441	0.427	0.867	0.556
TST.3	0.550	0.375	0.573	0.528	0.905	0.603

Note: The values in bold indicate the factor loadings construct.

Figure 3. Structural model.

Table 7. Summarize of hypothesis

Hypothesis	Path Coefficients	T-Value	P-Value	Conclusion
H1 Visual ➔ Satisfaction	0.066	1.182	0.238	Unsupported
H2 Auditory ➔ Satisfaction	0.089	1.201	0.230	Unsupported
H3 Taste ➔ Satisfaction	0.107	1.924	0.055	Unsupported
H4 Olfaction ➔ Satisfaction	0.302***	5.714	0.000	Supported
H5 Haptic ➔ Satisfaction	0.365***	6.768	0.000	Supported

Note: *** P < 0.001; ** P < 0.01

Table 8. Truth table for high satisfaction

Visual	Auditory	Olfaction	Taste	Haptic	Cases	High Satisfaction	Consistency	PRI
Low	High	High	High	Low	2	Yes	1	1
Low	High	Low	High	High	1	Yes	1	1
High	High	High	High	Low	3	Yes	0.999	0.998
High	High	High	High	High	436	Yes	0.997	0.997
Low	High	High	High	High	9	Yes	0.994	0.986
High	Low	High	High	High	3	Yes	0.992	0.979
High	Low	High	High	Low	1	Yes	0.989	0.955
Low	Low	High	High	High	1	Yes	0.989	0.951
Low	Low	High	High	Low	2	Yes	0.988	0.938
Low	Low	Low	High	High	1	Yes	0.982	0.866
High	Low	Low	Low	Low	1	Yes	0.977	0.759

Table 9. Truth table for low satisfaction

Visual	Auditory	Olfaction	Taste	Haptic	Cases	Low Satisfaction	Consistency	PRI
High	Low	Low	Low	Low	1	Yes	1	1
Low	Low	Low	High	High	1	Yes	1	1
Low	Low	High	High	Low	2	No	0.999	0.998
Low	High	Low	High	High	1	No	0.997	0.997
Low	Low	High	High	High	1	No	0.994	0.986
High	Low	High	High	Low	1	No	0.992	0.979
Low	High	High	High	Low	2	No	0.989	0.955
High	Low	High	High	High	3	No	0.989	0.951
High	High	High	High	Low	3	No	0.988	0.938
Low	High	High	High	High	9	No	0.982	0.866
High	High	High	High	High	436	No	0.977	0.759

Table 10. Configurations for high and low satisfaction

Antecedents	High Satisfaction Outcomes		Low Satisfaction Outcomes
	H.1	H.2	L.1	L.2
Sensory marketing
Visual		●	●	ⓧ
Auditory			ⓧ	ⓧ
Olfaction	●		ⓧ	ⓧ
Taste	●	●●	ⓧ	●
Haptic			ⓧ	●
Raw Coverage	0.958	0.112	0.506	0.580
Unique Coverage	0.843	0.001	0.057	0.131
Consistency	0.986	0.986	0.930	0. 887
Overall Solution Coverage	0.960		0.637
Overall Solution Consistency	0.985		0.873

Note: Black circle (●) represents ‘presence of conditions’; Circle with cross (ⓧ) represents ‘absence of conditions’; Blank space represents ‘do not care’ conditions.

Figure 4. First Configurations for high satisfaction.

Source: The normal ellipse represents presence of conditions, the dotted ellipse represents absence of conditions and no ellipse represents do not care conditions.

Figure 5. First Configurations for low satisfaction.

Source: The normal ellipse represents presence of conditions, the dotted ellipse represents absence of conditions and no ellipse represents do not care conditions.

Haase, J., & Wiedmann, K. P. (2018). The sensory perception item set (SPI): An exploratory effort to develop a holistic scale for sensory marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 35(10), 727–739. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21130

 Google Scholar

Haase, J., & Wiedmann, K. P. (2020). The implicit sensory association test (ISAT): A measurement approach for sensory perception. Journal of Business Research, 109, 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.005

 Google Scholar

Kim, W. H., Lee, S. H., & Kim, K. S. (2020). Effects of sensory marketing on customer satisfaction and revisit intention in the hotel industry: The moderating roles of customers’ prior experience and gender. Anatolia, 31(4), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1783692

 Google Scholar