Next Article in Journal
Managing Service-Level Returns in E-Commerce: Joint Pricing, Delivery Time, and Handling Strategy Decisions
Previous Article in Journal
Descriptive Trajectories of How Service Innovation Shapes Customer Exit Intentions in Online Travel Agencies
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Handwritten Messages Boost Consumer Engagement in Food Delivery

1
School of Business, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610207, China
2
Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32819, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2025, 20(4), 281; https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20040281
Submission received: 12 August 2025 / Revised: 24 September 2025 / Accepted: 25 September 2025 / Published: 9 October 2025

Abstract

Customer assistance (e.g., reviews and referrals) plays a vital role for catering merchants. This study investigates how handwritten (vs. printed) messages can enhance consumers’ intention to engage in such assistance activities in the context of food delivery. Using a multi-method approach (field and scenario-based experiments), we demonstrate that handwritten messages significantly increase customers’ willingness to provide assistance, an effect mediated by perceived interpersonal intimacy. Moreover, the impact of handwritten messages interacts with message content structure. The positive effect of handwritten typefaces is stronger for individual catering businesses than for chain restaurants, and more effective among hedonic customers compared to utilitarian ones. These findings offer practical guidance for service merchants on leveraging handwritten messages to foster customer assistance behaviors.

1. Introduction

The global expansion of e-commerce has fundamentally reshaped consumer habits, with the catering industry being a prime example. The proliferation of online platforms has made food delivery a mainstream service, central to many consumers’ daily lives. Intense competition and thin profit margins characterize the catering industry, motivating small and medium-sized businesses to pursue innovative strategies to increase revenue and grow market share [1]. The rapid advancement of mobile internet technologies has made online food delivery a critical channel for reaching a broader customer base and increasing sales [2]. Ordering food delivery via mobile phone represents a deepening and extension of e-commerce in the field of local lifestyle services (O2O—Online to Offline). These platforms not only enable merchants to connect with wider audiences but also offer consumers greater variety and convenience [3], fueling the sector’s rapid growth. According to Statista [4], the global online food delivery market is projected to grow from USD 296.8 billion in 2021 to USD 1.89 trillion by 2029, with an annual growth rate of 7.79%.
Despite these opportunities, the bandwagon effect poses a significant challenge: businesses that already attract high traffic are more likely to draw even more customers [5]. As a result, generating additional customer traffic has become a critical concern for small and medium-sized catering businesses. Prior research suggests that customer engagement valence, particularly online reviews, serves as a major driver of traffic, as other consumers’ feedback heavily influences purchase decisions [6]. Positive ratings and a higher number of reviews can act as social endorsements, amplifying visibility and attracting more potential buyers, thereby reinforcing the bandwagon effect [7].
However, writing positive reviews is not an obligation for customers; even satisfied ones often choose not to leave feedback. To address this challenge, some catering businesses have adopted offline message requests to encourage customers to engage in supportive behaviors such as leaving online reviews, spreading positive word-of-mouth, or offering suggestions that contribute to long-term growth. These offline messages represent a form of non-instant written communication (Appendix A).
While prior studies have examined the influence of semantic textual elements, such as tone, formality, and sentence structure, on recipients’ perceptions [8,9,10], far less is known about the impact of non-verbal textual elements in an e-commerce context. Subtle variations in the physical characteristics of a message’s typeface (e.g., printed vs. handwritten) can trigger different emotional and cognitive associations, unconsciously shaping consumer behavior [11,12]. For instance, printed text often conveys standardization and formality, whereas handwriting can evoke personalization and emotional warmth.
This raises an important research question: How do different message typefaces influence customers’ willingness to engage in assistance behaviors? To address this gap, the present study examines the main effect and mediating mechanism of typeface design on customer engagement willingness through a combination of field and laboratory experiments. We further examine the boundary conditions of this effect by considering message content structure, shopping motivation, and store type as moderating variables. These findings contribute to the electronic commerce literature by providing actionable insights for online food delivery merchants on enhancing customer engagement through more effective message design.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Customer Behaviors in Online Food-Delivery Service

Online food delivery (OFD) refers to online channels through which consumers order food from catering businesses. Consumers can place the meal orders by using restaurants’ own websites (e.g., KFC, Domino’s, and Pizza Hut) or via third-party platforms (e.g., Foodpanda, Uber Eats, and Meituan). Due to managerial or financial constraints, not all restaurants develop their own online delivery channels [2]. As a result, many catering businesses opt to partner with the third-party platforms to access a broader consumer market in a cost-effective manner [13]. In countries like China, more than 60% of young adults use third-party platforms to order food, because these platforms provide customers with the greater variety of options and references [14].
In the process of using OFD, customers may engage in various behaviors across different stages (i.e., before, during, and after the purchase). Before purchasing, customers need to learn about and download the relevant mobile applications or access the food delivery website. They then get used to the online ordering technology, forming an intention to use OFD [15]. During the purchasing stage, customers may interact with the merchants, such as inquiring about the food products and responding to the promotions offered by the platform or individual merchants [16]. Following the purchase, customers often evaluate their experience by posting reviews, depending on their satisfaction with product quality and delivery service [17]. Additionally, they may develop repurchase intentions or engage in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) [18,19]. Despite the growing body of research on customer responses to food delivery, online food delivery has not received sufficient scholarly attention from the perspective of non-linguistic messages.
The rapid growth of OFD has been strongly driven by social changes that have reshaped dining consumption patterns. For instance, longer working hours, along with the rising number of working parents and single-person households, have reduced individuals’ motivation to cook, thereby increasing reliance on OFD [20]. In addition, technological advancements have facilitated the integration of online and offline resources, offering consumers more diverse options and enhanced convenience [21,22]. Previous literature has identified several key factors that influence customer preferences for using OFD, including perceived usefulness, application performance expectations, perceived value, perceived ease of use, mobile application design, technology anxiety, delivery efficiency, and information quality [23,24,25,26]. Moreover, socio-demographic characteristics and personal factors, such as consumer motivations, perceived social norms, and perceived compatibility, may also affect customers’ purchase intentions and behaviors [20].
Previous studies have examined consumers’ attitudes, repurchase intentions [18,27], willingness to pay a premium [2], WOM [2,28], satisfaction [15,18], and the use of online order applications [29]. Most studies have primarily focused on purchasing behaviors that are directly linked to the revenue performance of catering merchants. However, some customer behaviors, such as writing online reviews or providing advice to improve the service, are not directly tied to purchases. These customers’ assistance activities, especially those triggered by catering businesses through offline message requests, have received limited scholarly efforts despite their growing relevance in the online food delivery context.
Although customers’ assistance activities may not directly affect food merchants’ revenue, positive online reviews and constructive feedback can substantially enhance a catering business’s market competitiveness and support its long-term development [30]. As the competition in the online food delivery market has intensified, understanding how to improve the effectiveness of the offline message can help the merchants gain a competitive edge and ultimately lead to in improved business performance.

2.2. Message Typeface (Printed vs. Handwritten), Interpersonal Intimacy, and Customers’ Willingness to Engage in Assistance Activities

The content of offline message requests left by catering merchants is commonly machine-printed or handwritten, and these two message types can elicit different psychological feelings. First, these two forms of typeface suggest different sources. While the handwritten character is created by humans, the print text is produced by printers. The subtle change in the physical characteristics of the two typefaces may evoke different associations for customers, making it easier for them to connect handwritten text with human interaction [31]. Similarly, when an individual receives a handwritten letter, they may unconsciously imagine the state of the writer while writing, creating a sense of interpersonal interaction, which can be described as a medium for meeting the writer [11].
The visual characteristics of the two typefaces differ. From an aesthetic perspective, printed typefaces follow standardized structures, featuring uniform strokes and consistent directions that convey formality and a sense of detachment [32]. In contrast, handwritten typefaces often exhibit tilts, curves, and irregularities, making them appear more casual, personalized [33] and emotionally expressive [12]. As Ren et al. [11] found, the handwritten text is particularly effective in interpersonal communication, with its expressive characteristics fostering a greater sense of intimacy between the writers and the readers.
Recent studies found that handwritten messages convey a form of trust that is more emotionally grounded and benevolence-based. Beyond institutional trust—established through platform rules and rating systems—there exists a powerful type of “interpersonal trust,” nurtured through subtle and personalized human interactions, which can equally drive users’ cooperative (e.g., purchasing, disclosing information, showing tolerance) and supportive behaviors (e.g., providing positive feedback) [34]. Handwritten typeface can change customer attitudes [12,35] and perceptions [36], encourage purchases [37], increase willingness to donate [38], and facilitate product reviews [27] by highlighting the human-related factors in the environment. This is because the handwritten text represents a form of self-expression, reflecting the writers’ personal characteristics and self-identity. As a result, customers who read the handwritten messages are more likely to perceive emotional communication and develop a sense of closeness [11]. When the interpersonal intimacy generated by handwritten text overlaps with the customers’ cognitive perceptions, it can strengthen their psychological connections [39]. This cognitive overlap is embodied not only by shared thoughts and feelings [40], but also by social behaviors (e.g., information sharing) [41], cooperation [42], and assistance [39]. In addition, this cognitive overlap may encourage an individual to shift from the self-centered perspective to the others-centered perspective. Therefore, when deciding whether to provide assistance, individuals may care less about the cost and be more considerate to the benefit to others.
In the context of e-commerce shopping scenarios like food delivery, customers place orders through online platforms without any face-to-face interaction with service personnel. Customers often feel like just an order number, interacting with machines and algorithms. This “dehumanizing” experience can erode trust and emotional investment [43,44]. Messages serve as an indirect communication channel, acting as an interpersonal bridge between the service provider and the customer. Beyond the informational content of the messages, the message typeface conveys cues about the communicator’s identity. Compared to printed text, a handwritten message requires time and effort; it cannot be easily automated or replicated, making it a costly signal that strongly suggests a real person has invested effort. This signal effectively communicates the seller’s “sincerity” and “dedication,” implying, “I value you so much that I am willing to spend extra time for you.” This process re-humanizes an otherwise cold transaction, shortens the psychological distance with the customer, establishes a stronger mental connection, and ultimately enhances the customer’s willingness for digital engagement.
In summary, compared with printed text, handwritten messages convey a stronger sense of uniqueness [43,44,45,46], enabling customers to perceive the writer’s presence [32,44]. At the same time, they signal greater effort on the part of the writer [11,44,46,47,48], which in turn fosters a sense of interpersonal intimacy among customers. As such, this study posits that the messages in handwritten typeface can enhance consumer intentions to engage in assistance activities by strengthening the interpersonal intimacy between the merchants and customers. Thus, we propose that:
H1. 
Compared to messages in a printed typeface, messages in a handwritten typeface can enhance customers’ willingness to engage in assistance activities.
H2. 
Interpersonal intimacy mediates the relationship between message typeface (printed vs. handwritten) and customers’ willingness to engage in assistance activities.

2.3. The Moderating Role of Message Content Structure

Messages sent by merchants primarily aim to request customers’ assistance with specific tasks. However, the content structure of these messages may significantly influence customers’ responses. Request messages can be classified into two distinct types: PureTask messages and AffectiveWithTask messages [49].
PureTask messages convey task requests directly, such as “Please clear your tray after dining.” These messages provide straightforward behavioral instructions, making their purpose explicit and likely to trigger social exchange thinking. Recipients tend to process such information via the central route, focusing on the rationality of the task itself [50]. In this context, customers perceive the interaction as a business exchange and thus feel little obligation to respond to the merchant personally. Although handwritten fonts carry human-like qualities, their emotional tone may conflict with the utilitarian nature of PureTask messages (e.g., “Is the merchant trying to manipulate me by using an intimate font to prompt a positive review?”), which can ultimately weaken the effectiveness of handwriting in this setting.
Conversely, AffectiveWithTask blends emotional expression with task requests, using affectively engaging language to trigger emotional processing. Recipients are more likely to interpret such messages through the peripheral route, relying on affective cues rather than rational evaluation [50]. In this context, handwritten fonts function as peripheral cues that amplify emotional resonance [31], making task requests appear more natural and genuine (e.g., “The merchant genuinely cares about me, so I’m more willing to cooperate.”).
According to Cognitive Consistency Theory [51], when the emotional dimension of message content, and its visual forms are congruent, recipients are more likely to form positive evaluations. In contrast, incongruity between content and form can create cognitive conflict, weakening the intended effect. Therefore, when handwritten fonts align with affective content, they can reinforce perceptions of “genuine care” [43], thereby fostering interpersonal intimacy. Conversely, printed fonts may undermine this effect due to the emotional mismatch between form and content. Based on this reasoning, we propose that:
H3. 
The message content structure (AffectiveWithTask vs. PureTask) moderates the effect of typeface on interpersonal intimacy. When the message content structure is AffectiveWithTask, handwritten typeface evokes stronger interpersonal intimacy compared to printed typeface. When the message content structure is PureTask, there is no significant difference in interpersonal intimacy between handwritten and printed typefaces.

2.4. The Moderating Role of Store Type

Store types can be classified into national chain restaurants and local small individual restaurants [52]. National chain restaurants, such as KFC, Golden Corral, and Applebee’s, have several characteristics, including high brand awareness, standardized interior design, consistent product offerings, and group operations. Local, independently owned restaurants often personalize their brand design and store decorations [53]. Previous research has found that consumers have different expectations and perceptions when visiting these two types of restaurants [52,54]. For instance, when consumers visit chain restaurants, they may evaluate their consumption experiences based on stability, controllability, and perceived quality [52], which can influence their satisfaction. However, customers tend to be more tolerant to local individual restaurants because they recognize that the owners are often restricted by limited financial resources and may lack managerial and operational skills needed for the business development [55], which leads to a sense of empathy [56].
Attribution theory suggests that people infer causal relationships between objects based on specific behaviors or personal characteristics [57]. It posits that individuals tend to explain social behaviors in their surroundings—consciously or unconsciously—to better adapt to the environment. Compared with locally owned individual restaurants, national chain restaurants typically have greater capital and operate with higher levels of professionalism [58]. Consequently, when consumers visit chain restaurants, they may attribute the quality of services, products, and decor to the professional operation of the enterprise, indicating that the performance is the result of organizational efforts. In contrast, when visiting local individual restaurants, customers may attribute various aspects of service to the operation of an individual owner. That is, the operational performance is a personal endeavor. Wen and Li [33] found the individual image of the local restaurant makes it easier for consumers to perceive the presence of the store owner, resulting in a higher level of trust, which further gives the business a competitive advantage in building personal relationships. Therefore, customers may be more willing to engage in assistance activities for individual businesses, owing to the stronger psychological connection. In contrast, messages from national chain restaurants are often perceived as part of a broader marketing strategy, regardless of whether they are printed or handwritten. As a result, the typeface may not significantly influence customers’ willingness to engage in assistance activities in such contexts. As such, this paper proposes that:
H4. 
Store type (chain vs. individual) moderates the relationship between interpersonal intimacy and the customers’ willingness to engage in assistance activities. For an individual catering business, the handwritten message typeface (vs. printed) leads to stronger interpersonal intimacy and willingness to engage in assistance activities. However, these effects will be attenuated for chain stores.

2.5. The Moderating Role of Shopping Motivation

Shopping motivations refer to the desired outcome that drives the consumption of products or services [59]. They can affect consumer behaviors at various stages, including information search [60], product purchase [61], and consumption decision-making [59]. Shopping motivations are generally classified into two major categories (utilitarian motivation vs. hedonic motivation). Customers with utilitarian motivations prioritize functionality and efficiency, whereas those with hedonic motivation focus more on the enjoyment and experiential aspects of consumption [62].
In other words, customers who are hedonically motivated usually connect every single interaction with the merchant, and they are more concerned about their emotions. Customers with utilitarian motivations pay more attention to outcomes and value [63]. Babin et al. [62] argued that customers’ needs and decision preferences change according to their shopping motivations. This can be observed throughout the purchasing process, where hedonic customers rely more on emotional cues and use peripheral routes to process the emotional information [64]. In contrast, utilitarian customers depend more on cognitive cues and use central routes to process the semantic content of the messages and make decisions. Compared to rational decision approach, hedonic customers rely more on emotional response [65]. Thus, different effects may occur when different types of messages (printed vs. handwritten) are presented to customers with different shopping motivations.
When a message is presented to hedonic consumers, they can process the semantic elements of the text more fluently and extract the underlying information, as they are more sensitive and able to notice the subtle differences in surface features of the message. The positive emotions generated by the emotional cues embedded in the handwritten messages can further stimulate their intentions to engage in assistance activities. In contrast, utilitarian customers focus more on the core content of the message and may overlook the emotional elements implied in this message. Therefore, compared with utilitarian customers, the effect of message typefaces on hedonic customers is weaker. Accordingly, our study proposes the following hypotheses:
H5. 
Customer shopping motivations (hedonic vs. utilitarian) moderate the relationship between message typeface (printed vs. handwritten) and customers’ willingness to engage in assistance activities. Compared to customers with utilitarian shopping motivations, the effect that handwritten messages exert on willingness to engage in assistance activities is stronger than that for those with hedonic shopping motivations. Compared to customers with hedonic shopping motivations, the effect that handwritten and printed messages exert on willingness to engage in assistance activities does not show significant difference for those with utilitarian shopping motivations.

2.6. Conceptual Model

Based on the above hypothesis development, this study develops a research model (see Figure 1).

3. Methodology

3.1. Overview

This study adopted a multi-method approach, including a field experiment and scenario experiments. Study 1 was conducted in collaboration with a local milk tea store to test the main effect between message type and customer willingness to engage in assistance activities through a field experiment. Study 2 to 4 examined the underlying mechanism and the boundary conditions using scenario-based experiments. Specifically, message content structure, store type and shopping motivations were examined as moderators separately from study 2 to 4. To enhance the robustness of the findings, variations in shape, color, and request types were incorporated into the experimental materials. The experiment participants primarily consisted of students and young adults in China. This focus was chosen because China is the world’s largest food delivery market, with annual spending exceeding 1.5 trillion CNY and a user base of 553 million [66]. Given that students and young adults represent the largest demographic within this market, they are the most representative group and hold the greatest commercial value for this study. All participants participated voluntarily, and our experimental design received approval from the ethics review committee.

3.2. Study 1: The Main Effect of the Message Typeface (Printed vs. Handwritten)

3.2.1. Study Design

Study 1 aims to examine the main effect of message typeface (printed vs. handwritten) on the willingness to engage in assistance activities through a field experiment. The experiment adopted a single-factor, between-subjects design (message typeface: printed vs. handwritten). Participants were randomly assigned to either handwritten message group or printed message group with different experiment conditions.

3.2.2. Pretest

The two different types of message material (handwritten vs. printed) were consistent in font size, line thickness, and spacing (Figure 2). The content of the message was: “Dear customers, thank you for your patronage. I hope you like and enjoy the milk tea. Please write a positive review for us!”
We recruited 78 volunteers from a university for the pretest (57.7% female; Mage = 20.60, SD = 1.53). The pretest was conducted in a laboratory setting, and participants were awarded a set of memorial postcards of the university. They were randomly assigned to either the printed or the handwritten groups and invited to read the message material and then answered two questions. The first question was to measure the perceptions of the message typeface: “Do you think the message is printed or handwritten?” (7-point Likert scale: 1 = printed, 7 = handwritten; [31]). The second question assessed the legibility of the text: “To what extent do you think the legibility of the text is?” (7-point Likert scale: 1 = very hard, 7 = very easy; [11]).
The results of the ANOVA test indicated that participants in the handwritten message condition perceived the message more as handwritten (h) than those in the printed (p) message group (Mp = 2.07, SD = 0.784; Mh = 5.90, SD = 0.810; F(1,76) = 447.11, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.855). Furthermore, results of the text legibility showed no significant difference between the two types of message (Mp = 5.66, SD = 1.072; Mh = 5.85, SD = 1.001; F(1,76) = 0.669, p = 0.416, η2 = 0.009). These results demonstrated that the manipulation was successful.

3.2.3. Procedures for the Main Experiment

In study 1, we collaborated with a milk tea store that provides online delivery services to conduct the experiment. The milk tea store was newly opened in a residential area. The owner was keen to increase its word of mouth and thus agreed to participate in this experiment by following our design to send offline message requests to customers. The store’s customer base primarily consisted of local residents. The experiment lasted for eight days in November 2023. The milk tea store used only one type of message (printed vs. handwritten) each day and switched to the other one on the next day. The store employees recorded the number of orders and online reviews, with a 24 h cycle for each round of data collection. We rotated the experimental materials daily to approximate random sampling. Furthermore, the experiment was conducted over a relatively long period of eight days. This design, with a sufficient sample size, aimed to mitigate the potential influence of confounding factors such as time-of-day sales differences and participants’ prior brand familiarity. However, since true random assignment of samples could not be fully achieved, this study is considered a quasi-experiment. During the experiment, the milk tea store received a total of 877 delivery orders, with 449 accompanied by the handwritten messages and 428 by the printed messages. These 877 orders resulted in 183 customer reviews. The handwritten message group generated 113 reviews and 136 five-star ratings, while the printed message group received 70 reviews and 81 five-star ratings.

3.2.4. Results

Dependent variable: The chi-square test result showed that (Figure 3), for online-review writing, the ratio of handwritten group was significantly higher than that of the printed group (Mh = 25.2%, Mp = 16.4%, χ2 (1) = 10.304, p < 0.001). For the five-star rating, the ratio of the handwritten group was also significantly higher than that of the printed group (Mh = 30.3%, Mp = 18.9%, χ2 (1) = 15.197, p < 0.001). Overall, compared to the printed messages, the handwritten messages resulted in more reviews and five-star ratings, supporting H1.
Taking date as the control variable and message typeface as the independent variable (Printed = 0, Handwritten = 1), logistic regression was used to analyze the data. The results showed that for online review writing, the coefficient of message typeface is significant (β = 0.416, SE = 0.174, p = 0.017, 95% CI = [1.08, 2.13]); similarly, for five-star rating, the coefficient of message typeface is also significant (β = 0.514, SE = 0.164, p = 0.002, 95% CI = [1.21, 2.30]). H1 was supported.
In this field experiment, the day-by-day manipulation (alternating handwritten and printed messages) may have introduced a time-related bias [31]. To address this concern, subsequent studies should employ scenario-based experiments in which participants are randomly assigned, thereby eliminating potential biases [12,43].

3.3. Study 2: The Mediating Role of Interpersonal Intimacy and the Moderating Role of Message Content Structure

3.3.1. Study Design

Study 2 examined interpersonal intimacy as a mediator and message content structure as a moderator. The study conducted a scenario experiment with a 2 (message typeface: printed vs. handwritten) ×2 (message content structure: PureTask vs. AffectiveWithTask) between-subjects factorial design.

3.3.2. Procedures

Using G*Power v3.1.9.7 to calculate the required sample size, with a medium effect size (0.25), a 5% significance level, and to achieve 80% statistical power, the minimum required sample size is 128. Therefore, the sample sizes for Studies 2 to 4 must exceed 128. In the main experiment, a total of 213 participants who had online food-delivery experiences were recruited (53.8% = female; Mage = 23.5, SD = 5.23) from a Tencent survey, an online survey platform. The participants were assigned randomly into one of the four experimental groups by the Tencent survey system, and they were rewarded with a small amount of cash.
The participants were informed of the scenario context: “You order some food through delivery service from an online merchant. When you receive the food, you notice an offline message from the merchant”. Then, participants were then invited to read the message materials. The message requested customers to offer suggestions for service improvement (Figure 4). For the PureTask group, the message content was: “Hello, customer: Please provide suggestions for improving our service.” For the AffectiveWithTask group, the message content was: “Hello, customer: Thank you for your patronage. We hope you enjoy our food and products, and have a pleasant experience. Please provide suggestions for improving our service.”
Once the participants finished reading the message, they were invited to complete a questionnaire, which consisted of three parts. The first part was to measure the dependent variable and mediator in sequence. Willingness to engage in assistance activities was measured by one question “In what extent you would like to give an advice to the merchant through text message?” (7-point Likert scale, 1 = extremely disagree, 7 = extremely agree). Interpersonal intimacy was measured using five items adapted from Tolstedt & Stokes; and Dubois et al. [41,67], including “This message presents a sense of touch with the store owner,” “This message implies the personalities of the store owner,” “This message brings me a feeling of social interaction,” “This message brings me a sense of communication,” and “This message makes me feel the interaction with the store owner” (7-point Likert scale, 1 = extremely disagree, 7 = extremely agree; α = 0.936). The second part checked the manipulation of the message typeface and text legibility, using the same items in study 1. The third part collected demographic information (e.g., gender and age).

3.3.3. Results

The results of one-way ANOVA analysis indicated that the main effect of message typeface manipulation was significant (Mh = 6.45, SD = 1.35; Mp = 1.93, SD = 2.04; F(1,211) = 268.14, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.560). The manipulation test was successful.
We then examined the interaction effect of message typeface and the message content structure on interpersonal intimacy. The Two-way ANOVA results revealed a significant effect for message typeface (p < 0.001) and a significant effect for the message content structure (p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a significant interaction between message typeface and the message content structure (p < 0.001). Specifically, when the message content structure was in the PureTask condition, there was no significant difference in interpersonal intimacy between the handwritten group and the printed group (Mh = 3.07, SD = 0.59; Mp = 2.89, SD = 0.60; p = 0.11, η2 = 0.010). However, when the message content structure was in the AffectiveWithTask condition, a significant difference was found in interpersonal intimacy between two groups (Mh = 5.12, SD = 0.67; Mp = 4.28, SD = 0.55; p < 0.001, η2 = 0.200). In the subscript, “Puretask” is abbreviated as “pt”,” AffectiveWithTask” is abbreviated as “at”. Further analysis showed that when the typeface was handwritten, a significant difference was found in interpersonal intimacy between the handwritten group and the printed group (Mpt = 5.12, SD = 0.67; Mat = 3.07, SD = 0.59; p < 0.001, η2 = 0.400). When the typeface was printed, a significant difference was found in interpersonal intimacy between two groups (Mh = 4.28, SD = 0.55; Mp = 2.89, SD = 0.60; p < 0.001, η2 = 0.596). These results, thus, support H2 and H3 (Figure 5).
We used PROCESS Model 7 with 5000 bootstrap samples to test the moderated serial mediation analysis [68]. The results showed that the index of moderated mediation was significant (index = 0.63, 95% CI = [0.33, 0.93]; Table 1). In the PureTask condition, there was a significant indirect effect of message typeface on the willingness to engage in assistance activities (effect size = 1.33, 95% CI = [1.13, 1.53]). In the AffectiveWithTask condition, the indirect effect of message typeface on the willingness to engage in assistance activities was also significant, with a larger effect size (effect size = 1.96, 95% CI = [1.69, 2.22]). Given that the direct effect of message typeface on the willingness to engage in assistance activities was also significant (effect size = 0.51, 95%CI = [0.37, 0.65]), interpersonal intimacy was found to partially mediate the relationship between message typeface and the willingness to engage in assistance activities. The results, therefore, support H2 and H3.

3.4. Study 3: The Moderating Role of Store Type

3.4.1. Study Design

Study 3 examined the moderating role of store type in the relationship between interpersonal intimacy and customers’ willingness to engage in assistance activities. This study adopted a scenario-based experimental design using a 2 (message typeface: printed vs. handwritten) ×2 (store type: chain vs. individual) between-subjects factorial design.

3.4.2. Procedures

In the main experiment, a total of 180 participants who had online food-delivery experiences were recruited (55.5% = female; Mage = 22.6, SD = 6.72) on campus using convenience sampling. A screen question was employed to ensure their eligibility. Participants were assigned randomly into the four experimental groups. The randomization sequence was generated using a computer-based random number generator. As an incentive, they received a small amount of cash for their participation.
Participants were invited to a quiet office and presented the scenario context through a tablet. The chain store group was informed: “You placed an order from a national chain catering business through a third-party operated online food-delivery platform.” The individual store group was informed: “You placed an order from a local individual catering merchant through a third-party operated online food-delivery platform.” All participants were told “When you received the food, you noticed an offline message from the merchant. The content was:“. They were then asked to read the message materials, which requested customers to offer suggestions for service improvement (Figure 6).
After reading the message, participants completed a questionnaire consisting of three parts. The first part measured the studied variables. Customers’ willingness to engage in assistance activities was assessed using one question “In what extent you would like to give an advice to the merchant through text message?” (7 point Likert scale, 1 = extremely disagree, 7 = extremely agree). Interpersonal intimacy was measured using the same items as in Study 2. The second part checked the manipulation of the message typeface and text legibility, with same items used in study 1. The last section gathered demographic information of participants (e.g., gender and age).

3.4.3. Results

The results of one-way ANOVA analysis indicated that the main effect of message typeface manipulation was significant (Mh = 6.61, SD = 0.59; Mp = 1.14, SD = 0.35; F(1,178) = 5630.87, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.969). The manipulation test was successful.
A Two-way ANOVA was conducted using the willingness to engage in assistance activities as the independent variable. The results revealed a significant effect of message typeface (p < 0.001, Figure 7) and a significant effect of the store type (β = 0.19, p < 0.001). Moreover, the interaction effect between message typeface and store type was also significant (p < 0.001). Specifically, when the message was from a chain store, there was no significant difference in the willingness to engage in assistant activities between the handwritten and the printed groups (Mh = 4.27, SD = 1.18; Mp = 4.11, SD = 1.01; p = 0.445, η2 < 0.001). In contrast, when the message was from an individual store, a significant difference was found in the willingness to engage in assistant activities between two groups (Mh = 6.04, SD = 0.74; Mp = 4.18, SD = 0.89; p < 0.001, η2 = 0.324). When the message was printed, no significant difference was found between the individual store and chain store (Mh = 4.18, SD = 0.89; Mp = 4.11, SD = 1.01; p = 0.743, η2 < 0.001). However, when the message was handwritten, a significant difference was found between the store types (Mh = 6.04, SD = 0.74; Mp = 4.27, SD = 1.18; p < 0.001, η2 = 0.303). Therefore, H4 is partially supported.
We used PROCESS Model 14 with 5000 bootstrap samples to test the moderated serial mediation analysis [68]. The results showed that the index of moderated mediation was significant (index = −0.14, 95% CI = [−0.270, −0.033]; Table 2). When participants received a message from a chain store, there was a significant indirect effect of message typeface on customers’ willingness to engage in assistant activities (effect size = 0.59, 95% CI = [0.321, 0.854]). In contrast, in the condition of receiving a message from an individual store, the indirect effect was significant and stronger (effect size = 0.73, 95% CI = [0.377, 1.065]). The direct effect of message typeface on customers’ willingness to engage in assistance activities was also found to be significant (effect size = 0.297, 95% CI = [0.134, 0.459]). These results suggested that interpersonal intimacy partially mediates the effect of message typeface on customers’ willingness to engage in assistance activities is significant. Hence, H4 is supported.

3.5. Study 4: The Moderating Role of Shopping Motivation

3.5.1. Study Design

Study 4 examined the moderating role of shopping motivations between message typeface and customers’ willingness to engage in assistance activities. We conducted a scenario-based experiment using a 2 (message typeface: printed vs. handwritten) ×2 (shopping motivation: hedonic vs. utilitarian) between-subjects factorial design.

3.5.2. Pretest

The stimuli were manipulated by informing participants of their shopping motivations following the procedures of Kronrod et al. [69]. We recruited 80 participants (female = 58%; Mage = 21.9, SD = 3.20) through Tencent Survey and randomly assigned them to one of two experimental conditions. The utilitarian group was informed that “You almost make ends meet every month, so you are thrifty in daily life. You always choose the work lunch combo when you order online food-delivery.” The hedonic group was informed that “You have a high-paid job, so you care more about the enjoyment. You always choose the meal from the luxury restaurant when you order online food-delivery.” After finishing the material reading, participants were asked to evaluate the shopping condition on a single bipolar scale (1 = utilitarian, 7 = hedonic). Following the study of Khan and Dhar [70], definitions of the shopping motives were provided: utilitarian motivation refers to the shopping that is practical, useful, and functional in achieving a specific goal, whereas hedonic motivation focuses on fun, enjoyable, pleasant and sensorially appealing shopping. The results showed that participants in the hedonic condition reported a higher score in the hedonic condition than those in the utilitarian condition (Mhedonic = 5.93; Mutilitarian = 2.13, t = 17.88, p < 0.001). Therefore, the manipulation was successful.

3.5.3. Procedures

In the main experiment, a total of 208 participants who had online food-delivery experiences were recruited (56.2% = female; Mage = 25.2, SD = 4.68) through Tencent Survey. To ensure balanced group sizes across the experiment, we employed a blocked randomization procedure. The randomization sequence was generated by a third-party service (Office Excel) and placed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. The experimenter opened the envelope only after a participant had consented and completed the baseline assessment, thus ensuring allocation concealment. Participants were assigned randomly to one of the four experimental groups (message typeface: printed vs. handwritten) × (shopping motivation: hedonic vs. utilitarian). As compensation for their participation, all respondents received a small monetary reward.
The participants were assigned to one of the two shopping motivation conditions and presented the scenario context: “You placed an order from a catering business through a third-party online food-delivery platform. When you receive the food, you noticed a message note from the merchant, and the content was: “…”. Participants were asked to read the message materials that requested customers to offer advice for service improvement through text message (similar message content but adjusted for food shown in Figure 6). Participants were required to complete a questionnaire after reading the message. This questionnaire included three parts. Customers’ willingness to engage in assistance activities was examined, using one question “In what extent you would like to give advice to the merchant through text message?” (7-point Likert scale, 1 = extremely disagree, 7 = extremely agree). Interpersonal intimacy was measured using the same items as study 2. The second part checked the manipulation of the message typeface and text legibility, with same items used in study 1. The last section collected demographic information, such as gender and age.

3.5.4. Results

The results of one-way ANOVA analysis indicated that the main effect of message typeface manipulation was significant (Mh = 6.57, SD = 0.59; Mp = 1.13, SD = 0.34; F(1,206) = 6635.76, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.970). The manipulation test was successful.
The Two-way ANOVA results indicated a significant interaction effect of message typeface and shopping motivations (F = 31.27, p < 0.001; Figure 8). Specifically, when a handwritten message was presented, hedonic customers were more willing to engage in assistance activities (Mhedonic = 6.13, SD = 0.66; Mutilitarian = 4.65, SD = 0.84; F(1,204) = 77.88), p < 0.001, η2 = 0.496) than utilitarian customers. When a printed message was presented, no significant difference was found between hedonic and utilitarian customers regarding their willingness to engage in assistance activities (Mhedonic = 4.21, SD = 0.89; Mutilitarian = 4.06, SD = 0.99; F(1,204) = 0.84, p = 0.36, η2 = 0.007).
Moreover, when customers sought hedonic shopping, a significant effect difference was found between the hedonic and utilitarian groups (Mp = 4.21, SD = 0.89; Mh = 6.13, SD= 0.66; F(1,204) =131.359, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.605). In contrast, when customers’ shopping was utilitarian-driven, no significant difference existed between two groups (Mp = 4.06, SD = 0.99; Mh = 4.65, SD = 0.84; F(1,204) =12.62, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.096). Therefore, H5 is supported.

4. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that using handwritten (vs. printed) typefaces enhances customers’ sense of interpersonal intimacy (H2), which in turn increases their willingness to engage in assistance activities (H1). Handwritten typefaces convey the personality and identity of the writer. Furthermore, the subtle imperfections and personal characteristics inherent in handwriting demonstrate the time and skill invested in its creation. This serves as a “costly signal,” implicitly conveying to the recipient that the sender has dedicated valuable resources to the message. Consequently, it enables customers to establish a deeper psychological connection with service personnel than printed typefaces can achieve [41], thereby increasing their inclination to respond positively to subsequent requests. Adopting a three-dimensional perspective—considering service providers, media, and customers—this study also identifies factors that moderate the positive effects of handwriting. Specifically, the impact of handwritten messages interacts with message content structure. A PureTask structure, which conveys a more assertive tone, tends to activate a utilitarian mindset in customers, resulting in lower engagement in assistance activities compared to an AffectiveWithTask structure (H3). Moreover, the positive effect of handwritten typefaces is stronger for individual catering businesses than for chain stores (H4), likely because individual stores are perceived as more personal and aligned with authentic communication. Finally, handwritten messages are more effective for hedonic customers than for utilitarian customers (H5). This may be because hedonic customers are more sensitive to feature variations [62] and more likely to perceive the subtle differences between handwritten and printed typefaces.

4.1. Theoretical Implications

This study makes several important theoretical contributions. First, it advances research on OFD by highlighting handwritten messages as an effective tool for encouraging customer engagement in assistance activities. While prior OFD research has primarily focused on the antecedents of service adoption, the acceptance of online ordering technologies, and consumer preferences for merchants, this study extends the literature by examining strategies that actively promote customer participation and cooperation [6,7], non-consuming behaviors are largely overlooked, especially customer assistance behaviors. By employing a mixed-methods approach, this study examines the impact of message typeface on customers willingness to engage in assistant activities and reveals the underlying mechanism. This aspect of customer behavior, prevalent in online food delivery, has been largely neglected in existing literature [71,72,73]. To the best of our knowledge, this research is one of the pioneering efforts to explore this phenomenon from a consumer psychology perspective. Moreover, the findings of this study are not limited to online food delivery (OFD) but can also be applied to other service contexts and online platforms, such as unmanned hotels or homestays. Handwritten messages can effectively guide customer behavior across these diverse service settings.
Second, this study expands understanding of the conditions under which merchant messages are effective. Existing research has not clearly identified the boundary conditions that determine how typeface influences customers’ willingness to engage, making this an important contribution to the theoretical development in this area [74]. The study validated the effect of message content structure and store type for the first time in the context of merchant messages. While past studies have primarily focused on differences in typeface [35,75], the effect of message typeface may also depend on the semantic context within the communication setting [76], and what type of service provider is using it. By examining the role of message typeface from a three-dimensional lens of service providers, media and customers, this study further refines the current theoretical framework.
Third, our study focuses on a communication context entirely devoid of other people. Prior research in settings such as hotels and restaurants indicates that individuals receiving messages are often influenced by the presence of on-site employees, making it difficult to isolate the effects of impression management motives [77]. However, in a completely unstaffed environment, customers can respond to merchants based solely on their internal thoughts, without the discomfort that may arise from interacting with employees [78]. In this context, our findings align more closely with real-world scenarios of online food delivery. Meanwhile, the findings of this study are applicable to all non-face-to-face service scenarios or contexts without on-site personnel, including hotel rooms, self-service supermarkets, and online platforms.

4.2. Managerial Implications

Our study observed a statistically significant effect of handwritten message typeface on customers’ willingness to engage in assistance activities. Although the effect size was not particularly large, it is noteworthy that within the immense operational scale of e-commerce, its cumulative value could be substantial. Compared to the high cost of customer acquisition, adding a handwritten note to a package is extremely low cost. For a platform processing tens of thousands of monthly orders, even an intervention that increases customer retention or repurchase rates by just 1–2 percentage points can generate a significant aggregate increase in long-term customer lifetime value. The essence of this “micro-influence” strategy lies in its scalability and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, profitability in e-commerce is highly dependent on customer lifetime value and word-of-mouth referrals. Our findings indicate that the enhancement of interpersonal intimacy through handwriting facilitates building long-term relationships with customers, thereby generating sustained revenue. Finally, in the current landscape of highly homogenized e-commerce experiences, a small touchpoint that conveys “humanized care” can serve as a valuable differentiator. It shifts competition from functional aspects (like price or delivery speed) to the emotional experience, helping brands establish a unique position in consumers’ minds. Therefore, we propose the following suggestions:
First, merchants can use handwritten messages to foster intimacy with customers. In online food delivery and other service contexts where face-to-face interactions are absent, establishing interpersonal connections can be challenging. Handwritten typefaces convey human-like cues and offer a more personalized and emotional touch compared to printed typefaces, which may appear more impersonal. This approach provides a useful strategy for developing a more sincere and friendly relationship with customers.
Second, for messages with an AffectiveWithTask content structure, such as sincere greetings, using a handwritten font can evoke stronger interpersonal intimacy. In contrast, when the message content is PureTask, a printed font may be adopted and produced efficiently through automated printing.
Third, for individual stores, handwritten-style fonts can be selected from a variety of styles (e.g., playful, elegant, artistic) to align with their unique brand identity. For chain stores, however, it is advisable to employ a standardized handwritten font to maintain consistency across locations.
Lastly, for orders placed by hedonically motivated customers—such as those involving desserts, afternoon tea, late-night snacks, high-priced items, or new product trials—it is recommended to use a handwritten font on the card, supplemented with small illustrations like a smiley face. This approach caters to their desire for exploration and emotional experience, thereby significantly increasing engagement. For orders from utilitarian-minded customers (e.g., routine weekday meals), communication should emphasize efficiency and reliability. Message content can be more straightforward, and a printed font can be used on the card.

4.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study is not without its limitations, which suggest directions for future research. Due to limitations in the experimental design, the sample for this study was drawn from a single country, which may restrict the external validity of the findings. Prior research indicates that cultural differences can influence customer behavior in the food delivery context. Therefore, future studies should incorporate more diverse samples—not limited to students—and collect data across different geographical locations to assess the generalizability and robustness of the results. Additionally, previous research has shown that handwritten messages can influence behavior through perceived effort or perceived uniqueness. Future studies could examine these alternative mediators simultaneously to rule out potential confounding explanations, or consider constructing a sequential mediation model that includes both factors along with interpersonal intimacy. In addition, the context of this study is based on online delivery services, which primarily involve non-face-to-face communication. Future research could explore whether the role of typeface remains significant in other contexts that involve interpersonal interactions. Finally, while this study examined three moderating variables, the application of handwritten messages extends to numerous scenarios. Therefore, future research should further explore potential boundary conditions more explicitly. For instance, investigations could focus on differences across various types of digital platforms or whether the observed effect persists across diverse cultural contexts. A particularly noteworthy issue concerns AI-generated synthetic handwriting. Although it may appear very similar to genuine handwriting, the entire premise—that handwriting signifies invested effort—collapses when customers learn it is machine-generated rather than personally written by hand. The signal becomes “cheap” and potentially deceptive, preventing customers from establishing any interpersonal intimacy. Consequently, the positive effects associated with handwriting may vanish. This critical distinction warrants further empirical examination in the future.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.L.; methodology, Y.L.; software, Y.L.; validation, Y.L.; formal analysis, Y.L.; investigation, Y.L.; data curation, Y.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.L.; writing—review and editing, T.L. and X.F.; funding acquisition, Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 72472129).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Sichuan University.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Offline Message from the Milk-Tea Merchants (Customer Reviews)

Jtaer 20 00281 i0a1

References

  1. Rivera, M. Online Delivery Provider (ODP) Services: Who Is Getting What from Food Deliveries? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 80, A1–A2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hwang, J.; Choe, J.Y.J.; Kim, J.J. Exploring Perceived Risk in Building Successful Drone Food Delivery Services. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 1775–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ray, A.; Dhir, A.; Bala, P.K.; Kaur, P. Why Do People Use Food Delivery Apps (FDA)? A Uses and Gratification Theory Perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 51, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Statista. eServices Report 2024—Online Food Delivery. 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/study/40457/food-delivery/ (accessed on 1 January 2024).
  5. Duan, W.; Gu, B.; Whinston, A.B. The Dynamics of Online Word-of-Mouth and Product Sales—An Empirical Investigation of the Movie Industry. J. Retail. 2008, 84, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tanford, S.; Kim, E.L. Risk versus Reward: When Will Travelers Go the Distance? J. Travel Res. 2019, 58, 745–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Roy, G.; Datta, B.; Basu, R. Effect of eWOM Valence on Online Retail Sales. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2017, 18, 198–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, X.X.; Yin, C.Y.; Li, M.R. The Power of Voice! The Impact of Robot Receptionists’ Voice Pitch and Communication Style on Customer Value Cocreation Intention. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2024, 122, 103819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Linos, E.; Lasky-Fink, J.; Larkin, C.; Moore, L.; Kirkman, E. The Formality Effect. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2024, 8, 300–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kim, J.M.; Park, S. Does Language Shape the Mind? Linguistic Fluency and Perception of Service Quality. J. Serv. Mark. 2023, 37, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ren, X.; Xia, L.; Du, J. Delivering Warmth by Hand: Customer Responses to Different Formats of Written Communication. J. Serv. Mark. 2018, 32, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Liu, S.Q.; Choi, S.; Mattila, A.S. Love Is in the Menu: Leveraging Healthy Restaurant Brands with Handwritten Typeface. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 98, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shankar, A.; Jebarajakirthy, C.; Nayal, P.; Maseeh, H.I.; Kumar, A.; Sivapalan, A. Online Food Delivery: A Systematic Synthesis of Literature and a Framework Development. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 104, 103240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. iiMedia Research. Survey Data on the Development Status and Consumer Behavior of China’s Online Food Delivery Platform Market; iiMedia: Guangzhou, China, 2025; Available online: https://data.iimedia.cn/data-classification/theme/13121676.html?acFrom=iminfo_103996&acPlatCode=imw (accessed on 21 February 2025).
  15. Zhao, Y.; Bacao, F. What Factors Determining Customer Continuingly Using Food Delivery Apps During 2019 Novel Coronavirus Pandemic Period? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 91, 102683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ahn, J. Impact of Cognitive Aspects of Food Mobile Application on Customers’ Behaviour. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022, 25, 516–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, J.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, C. Research on Online Review Information Classification Based on Multimodal Deep Learning. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Alalwan, A.A. Mobile Food Ordering Apps: An Empirical Study of the Factors Affecting Customer E-Satisfaction and Continued Intention to Reuse. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 50, 28–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Boldureanu, D.; Gutu, I.; Boldureanu, G. Understanding the Dynamics of e-WOM in Food Delivery Services: A SmartPLS Analysis of Consumer Acceptance. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2025, 20, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Roh, M.; Park, K. Adoption of O2O Food Delivery Services in South Korea: The Moderating Role of Moral Obligation in Meal Preparation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 47, 262–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Verhoef, P.C.; Kannan, P.K.; Inman, J.J. From Multi-Channel Retailing to Omni-Channel Retailing: Introduction to the Special Issue on Multi-Channel Retailing. J. Retail. 2015, 91, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kapoor, A.; Vij, M. Technology at the Dinner Table: How Smartphones Influence Offline Dining Experiences. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 43, 342–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chung, J.F.; Al-Khaled, A.A.S.; Martin, J.J. A Study on Consumer Attitude, Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use to the Intention to Use Mobile Food Apps during COVID-19 Pandemic in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2022, 12, 987–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Lin, P.M.; Au, W.C.W.; Baum, T. Service Quality of Online Food Delivery Mobile Application: An Examination of the Spillover Effects of Mobile App Satisfaction. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2024, 36, 906–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Meena, P.; Kumar, G. Online Food Delivery Companies’ Performance and Consumers Expectations during COVID-19: An Investigation Using Machine Learning Approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 68, 103052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Senthil, M.; Gayathri, N.; Chandrasekar, K.S. Changing Paradigms of Indian Foodtech Landscape-Impact of Online Food Delivery Aggregators. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2020, 11, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Shorbaji, M.F.; Alalwan, A.A.; Algharabat, R. AI-Enabled Mobile Food-Ordering Apps and Customer Experience: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2025, 20, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pires, P.B.; Perestrelo, B.M.; Santos, J.D. Unpacking Customer Experience in Online Shopping: Effects on Satisfaction and Loyalty. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2025, 20, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Okumus, B.; Bilgihan, A. Proposing a Model to Test Smartphone Users’ Intention to Use Smart Applications in Ordering Food. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2014, 5, 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shah, A.M.; Abbasi, A.Z.; Yan, X. Do Online Peer Reviews Stimulate Diners’ Continued Log-In Behavior: Investigating the Role of Emotions in the O2O Meal Delivery Apps Context. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 72, 103234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Schroll, R.; Schnurr, B.; Grewal, D. Humanizing Products with Handwritten Typefaces. J. Consum. Res. 2018, 45, 648–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Guo, Y.; Cui, X.; Zhao, Y. Handwritten Typeface Effect of Souvenirs: The Influence of Human Presence, Perceived Authenticity, Product Types, and Consumption Goals. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2024, 58, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wen, J.; Li, X. AI Digital Human Responsiveness and Consumer Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Trust. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2025, 20, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lăzăroiu, G.; Neguriţă, O.; Grecu, I.; Grecu, G.; Mitran, P.C. Consumers’ Decision-Making Process on Social Commerce Platforms: Online Trust, Perceived Risk, and Purchase Intentions. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Xie, S.; Wei, H. Handwritten or Machine-Written? How Typeface Affects Consumer Forgiveness for Brand Failures. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2024, 81, 103938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kim, S.; Choi, J.; Kim, S.H. Do Handwritten Notes Benefit Online Retailers? A Field Experiment. J. Interact. Mark. 2022, 57, 651–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Izadi, A.; Patrick, V.M. The Power of the Pen: Handwritten Fonts Promote Haptic Engagement. Psychol. Mark. 2020, 37, 1082–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Huang, H.; Liu, S.Q. “Donate to help combat COVID-19!” How typeface affects the effectiveness of CSR marketing? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 3315–3333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Aron, A.; Aron, E.N.; Tudor, M.; Nelson, G. Close Relationships as Including Other in the Self. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 60, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Goldstein, N.J.; Cialdini, R.B. The Spyglass Self: A Model of Vicarious Self-Perception. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 92, 402–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dubois, D.; Bonezzi, A.; De Angelis, M. Sharing with Friends versus Strangers: How Interpersonal Closeness Influences Word-of-Mouth Valence. J. Mark. Res. 2016, 53, 712–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Batson, C.D.; Sager, K.; Garst, E.; Kang, M.; Rubchinsky, K.; Dawson, K. Is Empathy-Induced Helping Due to Self–Other Merging? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1997, 73, 495–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hwang, Y.; Gao, Y.; Mattila, A.S.; Wang, P. Optimizing Handwritten Font Style to Connect with Customers. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2023, 64, 381–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tok, D.; Huang, Y.H.; Yang, L. “Feel the Green”: How a Handwritten Typeface Affects Tourists’ Responses to Green Tourism Products and Services. Tour. Manag. 2024, 104, 104920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yu, X.; Huang, H.; Liu, S.Q.; Lu, Z. Signaling Authenticity of Ethnic Cuisines via Handwriting. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 85, 103054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, X.; Gao, M.; He, B.; Chen, C.H.; Hu, L. From Pen to Plate: How Handwritten Typeface and Narrative Perspective Shape Consumer Perceptions in Organic Food Consumption. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Li, F.; Ma, J. The Effectiveness of the Destination Logo: Congruity Effect Between Logo Typeface and Destination Stereotypes. Tour. Manag. 2023, 98, 104772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lo, L.Y.; Yeung, K.Y. An Effortful Apology: The Effect of Pen Pressure on Perceived Sincerity. Curr. Psychol. 2023, 42, 6395–6402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dillard, J.P.; Shen, L. On the Nature of Reactance and Its Role in Persuasive Health Communication. Commun. Monogr. 2005, 72, 144–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  51. Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance; Row Peterson: Evanston, IL, USA, 1957. [Google Scholar]
  52. Yalcinkaya, B.; Just, D.R. Comparison of Customer Reviews for Local and Chain Restaurants: Multilevel Approach to Google Reviews Data. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2023, 64, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Srichookiat, S.; Jindabot, T. Small Family Grocers’ Inherent Advantages Over Chain Stores: A Review. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2017, 45, 712–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Goodman, S.; Remaud, H. Store Choice: How Understanding Consumer Choice of ‘Where’ to Shop May Assist the Small Retailer. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 23, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Goldman, A.; Krider, R.; Ramaswami, S. The Persistent Competitive Advantage of Traditional Food Retailers in Asia: Wet Markets’ Continued Dominance in Hong Kong. J. Macromark. 1999, 19, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Klemz, B.R. Assessing Contact Personnel/Customer Interaction in a Small Town: Differences Between Large and Small Retail Districts. J. Serv. Mark. 1999, 13, 194–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Heider, F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1958. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kotler, P.; Keller, K.L. Marketing Management, 14th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  59. Garbarino, E.; Johnson, M.S. Effects of Consumer Goals on Attribute Weighting, Overall Satisfaction, and Product Usage. Psychol. Mark. 2001, 18, 929–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Huffman, C.; Houston, M.J. Goal-Oriented Experiences and the Development of Knowledge. J. Consum. Res. 1993, 20, 190–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ratneshwar, S.; Barsalou, L.W.; Pechmann, C.; Moore, M. Goal-Derived Categories: The Role of Personal and Situational Goals in Category Representations. J. Consum. Psychol. 2001, 10, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Babin, B.J.; Darden, W.R.; Griffin, M. Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value. J. Consum. Res. 1994, 20, 644–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Adaval, R. Sometimes It Just Feels Right: The Differential Weighting of Affect-Consistent and Affect-Inconsistent Product Information. J. Consum. Res. 2001, 28, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jacoby, L.L.; Dallas, M. On the Relationship Between Autobiographical Memory and Perceptual Learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1981, 110, 306–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hirschman, E.C.; Holbrook, M.B. Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions. J. Mark. 1982, 46, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. iiMedia Research. China Online Food Delivery Platform Consumer Behavior Survey Data [Data Report]; iiMedia: Guangzhou, China, 2024; Available online: https://www.iimedia.cn/c1078/97809.html (accessed on 18 December 2024).
  67. Tolstedt, B.E.; Stokes, J.P. Relation of Verbal, Affective, and Physical Intimacy to Marital Satisfaction. J. Couns. Psychol. 1983, 30, 573–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  69. Kronrod, A.; Grinstein, A.; Wathieu, L. Go Green! Should Environmental Messages Be So Assertive? J. Mark. 2012, 76, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Khan, U.; Dhar, R. Price-Framing Effects on the Purchase of Hedonic and Utilitarian Bundles. J. Mark. Res. 2010, 47, 1090–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Saad, A.T. Factors Affecting Online Food Delivery Service in Bangladesh: An Empirical Study. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 535–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gunden, N.; Morosan, C.; DeFranco, A. Are Online Food Delivery Systems Persuasive? The Impact of Pictures and Calorie Information on Consumer Behavior. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2021, 4, 457–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yeo, V.C.S.; Goh, S.K.; Rezaei, S. Consumer Experiences, Attitude and Behavioral Intention Toward Online Food Delivery (OFD) Services. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 35, 150–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chun, J.W.; Lee, M.J. Increasing Individuals’ Involvement and WOM Intention on Social Networking Sites: Content Matters! Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 60, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kim, K.Y.; Yim, M.Y.C.; Kim, E.; Reeves, W. Exploring the Optimized Social Advertising Strategy That Can Generate Consumer Engagement with Green Messages on Social Media. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2021, 15, 30–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Childers, T.L.; Jass, J. All Dressed Up with Something to Say: Effects of Typeface Semantic Associations on Brand Perceptions and Consumer Memory. J. Consum. Psychol. 2002, 12, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Cialdini, R.B.; Demaine, L.J.; Sagarin, B.J.; Barrett, D.W.; Rhoads, K.; Winter, P.L. Managing Social Norms for Persuasive Impact: Social Influence. Soc. Influ. 2006, 1, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Vaibhav, A.; Sahu, R. Predicting Repeat Usage Intention Towards O2O Food Delivery: Extending UTAUT2 with User Gratifications and Bandwagoning. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2021, 25, 434–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Jtaer 20 00281 g001
Figure 2. Message materials of Study 1. Note: The text in the picture is “Dear customers, thank you for your patronage. I hope you like and enjoy the milk tea. Please write a positive review for us!”.
Figure 2. Message materials of Study 1. Note: The text in the picture is “Dear customers, thank you for your patronage. I hope you like and enjoy the milk tea. Please write a positive review for us!”.
Jtaer 20 00281 g002
Figure 3. The ratio of review writing and five-star rating. *** indicates p < 0.001.
Figure 3. The ratio of review writing and five-star rating. *** indicates p < 0.001.
Jtaer 20 00281 g003
Figure 4. Message materials of Study 2. Note: For the PureTask group, the message content was: “Hello, customer: Please provide suggestions for improving our service.” For the AffectiveWithTask group, the message content was: “Hello, customer: Thank you for your patronage. We hope you enjoy our food and products, and have a pleasant experience. Please provide suggestions for im-proving our service”.
Figure 4. Message materials of Study 2. Note: For the PureTask group, the message content was: “Hello, customer: Please provide suggestions for improving our service.” For the AffectiveWithTask group, the message content was: “Hello, customer: Thank you for your patronage. We hope you enjoy our food and products, and have a pleasant experience. Please provide suggestions for im-proving our service”.
Jtaer 20 00281 g004
Figure 5. Interaction of message typeface and the message content structure on Interpersonal intimacy. Note: n.s indicates not significant, *** indicates p < 0.001.
Figure 5. Interaction of message typeface and the message content structure on Interpersonal intimacy. Note: n.s indicates not significant, *** indicates p < 0.001.
Jtaer 20 00281 g005
Figure 6. Message materials of Study 3. Note: The text in the picture is “Dear customer, Thank you for your visit. We hope you enjoyed our milk tea and wish you a pleasant experience. Please feel free to share any suggestions to help us improve our service”.
Figure 6. Message materials of Study 3. Note: The text in the picture is “Dear customer, Thank you for your visit. We hope you enjoyed our milk tea and wish you a pleasant experience. Please feel free to share any suggestions to help us improve our service”.
Jtaer 20 00281 g006
Figure 7. Interaction effect of message typeface and the store type on the willingness to engage in assistance activities. Note: n.s indicates not significant, *** indicates p < 0.001.
Figure 7. Interaction effect of message typeface and the store type on the willingness to engage in assistance activities. Note: n.s indicates not significant, *** indicates p < 0.001.
Jtaer 20 00281 g007
Figure 8. The interaction effect of message typeface and shopping motivation on willingness to engage in assistance activities.
Figure 8. The interaction effect of message typeface and shopping motivation on willingness to engage in assistance activities.
Jtaer 20 00281 g008
Table 1. Results of the moderated mediation effect.
Table 1. Results of the moderated mediation effect.
Effect TypeEffectSEtSig.95%CI
LLCIULCI
Direct effect0.510.077.000.000.370.65
Indirect effect (MT→IN→WEAA)
  Puretask1.330.10 1.131.53
  AffectiveWithTask0.960.13 1.692.22
Note: MT= message typeface, IN = interpersonal intimacy, WEAA= willingness to engage in assistance activities.
Table 2. Results of the moderated mediation effect.
Table 2. Results of the moderated mediation effect.
Effect TypeEffectSEtSig.95%CI
LLCIULCI
Direct effect0.2970.0823.6070.0000.1340.459
Indirect effect (MT→IN→EBI)
  Individual0.7250.176 0.3771.065
  Chain0.5900.135 0.3210.854
Note: MT = Message typeface, IN = interpersonal intimacy, WEAA = willingness to engage in assistance activities.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, Y.; Fu, X.; Lan, T. Handwritten Messages Boost Consumer Engagement in Food Delivery. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2025, 20, 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20040281

AMA Style

Liu Y, Fu X, Lan T. Handwritten Messages Boost Consumer Engagement in Food Delivery. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2025; 20(4):281. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20040281

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Yue, Xiaoxiao Fu, and Tian Lan. 2025. "Handwritten Messages Boost Consumer Engagement in Food Delivery" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 20, no. 4: 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20040281

APA Style

Liu, Y., Fu, X., & Lan, T. (2025). Handwritten Messages Boost Consumer Engagement in Food Delivery. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 20(4), 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20040281

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop