Pandemic Dining Dilemmas: Exploring the Determinants of Korean Consumer Dining-Out Behavior during COVID-19
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article “Pandemic Dining Dilemmas: Exploring the Determinants of Consumer Dining-Out Behavior During COVID-19” examines factors influencing consumers' dining-out behavior changes using a unified theoretical framework based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and select components of the Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) model. The text is well structured, the hypotheses were properly constructed, the estimation process and the results were well described. Thus, I understand that the paper has the potential to be published in Sustainability, but some adjustments can improve the quality of the work:
Describe the sample exclusion criteria that led to an initial sample of 607 cases and a final sample of 536 cases.
Was the research evaluated by an ethics committee? If yes, explain.
In the results section, present the means and standard deviation (or present frequency graphs) of each of the constructs to show the reader what are the perceptions of the interviewees about Attitude, Control, Norm, Intention, Fear, Risk information-seeking behavior and Dining- out behavior change
I suggest placing a note in Table 7 to explain the meaning and differences of “original” and “Sample mean”.
Expand the discussion of the results in the light of the literature.
In the conclusions, resume and discuss the results for the four objectives proposed for the paper in the introduction section.
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
The article “Pandemic Dining Dilemmas: Exploring the Determinants of Consumer Dining-Out Behavior During COVID-19” examines factors influencing consumers' dining-out behavior changes using a unified theoretical framework based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and select components of the Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) model. The text is well structured, the hypotheses were properly constructed, the estimation process and the results were well described. Thus, I understand that the paper has the potential to be published in Sustainability, but some adjustments can improve the quality of the work:
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We appreciate your positive feedback regarding the structure of our paper and the estimation process.
Comment 1. Describe the sample exclusion criteria that led to an initial sample of 607 cases and a final sample of 536 cases.
Response: We apologize for the lack of clarity regarding the sample exclusion criteria. We had excluded responses if they were incomplete or insincere. This clarification has been added to the Methodology section on page 5 line 253 to 254 as below:
Out of 604 responses, 68 were excluded from the analysis due to incompleteness or lack of sincerity. Therefore, a total of 536 samples of Korean consumers were ultimately analyzed.
Comment 2. Was the research evaluated by an ethics committee? If yes, explain.
Response: Thank you for your feedback on our research paper. We appreciate your thorough evaluation of our work. Regarding your question about whether the research was evaluated by an ethics committee, we would like to clarify that we did not have access to an official Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the evaluation of this study.
However, we would like to assure you that we have taken ethical considerations seriously throughout the research process. We have made every effort to conduct the study in accordance with ethical principles and guidelines commonly followed in the field. Our study adhered to principles such as voluntary participation, informed consent, privacy protection, and data anonymization. We also ensured that the research did not involve any harm or risk to participants.
While we understand the importance of formal ethical evaluations, we have been unable to engage with an IRB or Ethics Committee due to the individual researcher status of the lead author at the initial stage of the study. We believe that the steps we have taken to uphold ethical standards and protect participant rights are in line with the best practices of the research community. We would be happy to provide any additional information or documentation that could address your concerns or provide further assurance.
We appreciate your understanding and consideration.
Comment 3. In the results section, present the means and standard deviation (or present frequency graphs) of each of the constructs to show the reader what are the perceptions of the interviewees about Attitude, Control, Norm, Intention, Fear, Risk information-seeking behavior and Dining- out behavior change
Response: We appreciate your suggestion to provide more descriptive statistics of the constructs in the Results section. We agree with your recommendation and have incorporated the means and standard deviations for each of the constructs. These descriptive statistics has been added to Table 2 on page 7 (for Attitude, Control, Norm, Intention, Fear), and Table 5 on page 8 (for Risk information-seeking behavior, and Dining-out behavior change) of the Results section.
Comment 4. I suggest placing a note in Table 7 to explain the meaning and differences of “original” and “Sample mean”.
Response: We have added a note in Table 7 (on page 10 line 356 to 359) explaining the meaning and differences between "original" and "Sample mean". We appreciate your suggestion to help clarify the context of the measures and acknowledge the potential variability introduced by sampling.
Original: The mean value of the construct as estimated in the population or based on theoretical assumptions
Sample Mean: The mean value of the construct calculated from the collected data within the sample used for analysis
Comment 5. Expand the discussion of the results in the light of the literature.
Response: We agree that expanding the discussion of results in the light of the literature would enrich the paper. We have integrated more literature comparisons and discussions into this section by comparing the results with each hypothesis derived from the literature review on page 10 line 362 to 403 as follows:
- Discussion
This study investigated the variables influencing dining-out behavior changes under pandemic risk. The findings confirmed several of the proposed hypotheses.
Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, which posited that dining-out attitude, perceived control, and subjective norm would positively influence dining-out intention during the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively, were supported by the study. These findings reinforce the TPB. However, the relatively weaker effect of perceived behavioral control suggests that the pandemic context might have undermined individuals' sense of control.
Although not all human behavior is premeditated, intentions predominantly serve as the driving force behind goal-directed actions [72,73]. In support of Hypothesis 4, the study found that dining-out intention positively influenced dining-out behavior. Conversely, risk information-seeking behavior and fear of COVID-19, as posited in Hypotheses 6 and 10, negatively affected dining-out behavior. Moreover, all formative indicators of dining-out behavior—travel time, stay time, and dining-out frequency—proved to be significant. These results indicate that while dining-out intention positively influences aspects such as travel time to a dining establishment, time spent there, and dining-out frequency, COVID-19-related information-seeking behavior and fear hinder these aspects.
Contrary to Hypothesis 5, risk information-seeking behavior did not significantly affect dining-out intention, although it did discourage dining-out behavior. The formative indicators of risk information-seeking behavior—frequency, effort, and time spent seeking information—were statistically significant, aligning with Hypothesis 6. These findings suggest that an increase in the frequency and extent of individuals' search for COVID-19-related information corresponded with a decline in their dining-out behavior.
Support was also found for Hypothesis 7, which proposed that subjective dining-out norms positively influence COVID-19 related risk information-seeking behavior. Individuals with heightened subjective dining-out norms exhibited increased engagement in risk information-seeking behavior. While risk information-seeking behavior reduced dining-out behavior, it did not diminish dining-out intention, indicating a nuanced relationship between information processing and behavioral intention.
Finally, Hypotheses 8, 9, and 10 relating to the role of fear were validated. Fear was identified as a determinant of dining-out intention, risk information-seeking behavior, and dining-out behavior, emphasizing the power of emotions over rational thinking. Fear negatively affected both dining-out intention and behavior, exhibiting a partial mediation effect that could counterbalance the catalyst effect of dining-out intention leading to dining-out behavior. This does not necessarily stem from the causality between dining-out and disease transmission but rather due to the nature of dining-out as an activity that involves interaction with outsiders, particularly during meals when masks must be removed. Studies suggest that measures such as increasing spaces between tables, optimizing seat arrangement, improving ventilation, and using protective equipment can significantly decrease the infection risk, consumer risk perception, and behavior [11,13,14]. These findings highlight the importance of measures to mitigate fear among consumers and enhance their comfort when dining out..
Comment 6. In the conclusions, resume and discuss the results for the four objectives proposed for the paper in the introduction section.
Response: We have revised the conclusion to better align with the four objectives proposed in the introduction section on page 11 line 405 to 438, based on your suggestion.
6.1. Theoretical implications
This study offers valuable contributions to existing literature particularly in aligning with the primary objectives outlined. The first objective was to investigate the impact of behavioral attitude, perceived control, and subjective norm towards dining-out during the COVID-19 pandemic on dining-out intention. The findings from this study enhance the understanding of consumer psychology and behavior by establishing a clear link betweenrisk information-seeking behavior and changes in dining-out behavior.
The research also addressed the influence of risk information-seeking behavior and fear of COVID-19 on dining-out intention and behavior. In doing so, it examined the factors leading to alterations in dining-out behaviorunder pandemic situations considering cognitive, emotional, and social aspects. This contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the intention-behavior gap in the realm of dining-out. Further, this study aimed to evaluate the interconnectedness among dining-out intention, information-seeking behavior, fear of COVID-19, and changes in dining-out behavior. Previous studies on dining behavior primarily focused on the relationship between internal aspects such as preference, attitude, satisfaction, and intention [74]. In extraordinary contexts, however, external influences play a significant role in behavior and behavior change [28]. This study broadens the scope of existing dining literature by incorporating dining-out intention, COVID-19-related information-seeking behavior, and COVID-19-related fear as crucial antecedents of dining-out behavior during the pandemic. A notable contribution includes the exploration of the relationship between subjective dining-out norms and risk information-seeking behavior, representing a novel and valuable addition to the current literature, as this relationship has rarely been investigated.
Lastly, the study sought to analyze the significance of formative indicators that constitute risk information-seeking behavior and dining-out behavior in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings affirm the influence and validity of formative indicators that constitute risk information-seeking behavior and dining-out behavior in the research model through PLS-SEM. While CB-SEM is useful for verifying causality and validation among variables based on established theories [62,75], efforts to understand the interplays and progress the concepts in rapidly changing environments and situational dynamics can contribute to the expansion of academic horizons. Although not all loadings and significance levels were robust, all formative indicators of risk information-seeking and dining-out behavior exhibited statistical significance. These indicators can serve as a solid foundation for future studies.
We extend our sincere gratitude for your valuable feedback, which has significantly contributed to the enhancement of our manuscript. Your insights and suggestions have been instrumental in improving the quality of our research. We truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work and providing such valuable input.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I have a few recommendations:
1. The article analyses consumer behaviour when dining out during the pandemic and tries to answer to the question regarding the factors influencing the decision to do that
2. It is relevant even if the pandemic is now gone but it is always better to understand situations that unfortunately might occur again at some point.
3. It is a country study and it brings novelty because each country has its own culture so these things might influence our behaviour.
4. For me, the method is clearly explained. Still, I recommended the authors to be specific about the country even in the title because these studies are, as I told above, dependent on the country s specific. This should be emphasised in the method section too. Also, Hypotheses should be in the present tense not the future tense.
5. Regarding Discussion and Conclusions: In the Discussion, it is mandatory to highlight for each hypothesis what other results are in the literature review. To compare the results. In conclusions, the authors have the first paragraph Theoretical and Practical Implications and the second with Practical Implication. Correct the subtitles to not repeat yourself. I appreciate the rigour of the work done by the authors in the methodology and section parts and in the conclusion section too.
6. The references are appropriate but not in the format required by the journal
7. Figure 1 should be in section 3 or at least at the beginning of section 4 not at the end.
I appreciate the rigour of the work done by the authors in the methodology and section parts and in the conclusion section too.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Dear authors,
I have a few recommendations:
Comment 1. The article analyses consumer behaviour when dining out during the pandemic and tries to answer to the question regarding the factors influencing the decision to do that
Comment 2. It is relevant even if the pandemic is now gone but it is always better to understand situations that unfortunately might occur again at some point.
Response: Thank you for your helpful feedback and positive comments on our work. We agree with your suggestions and will make the following amendments. First, we have corrected the tense of our hypotheses to present tense as per your suggestion.
Comment 3. It is a country study and it brings novelty because each country has its own culture so these things might influence our behaviour.
Comment 4. For me, the method is clearly explained. Still, I recommended the authors to be specific about the country even in the title because these studies are, as I told above, dependent on the country s specific. This should be emphasised in the method section too. Also, Hypotheses should be in the present tense not the future tense.
Response: Thank you for your words of support and motivation. According to your advice to implicate the contextual domain of the sample of the study, we have specified the country in the title to emphasize the cultural context of the study, and also highlighted this in the Methodology section (on page 6, line 254).
Title: Pandemic Dining Dilemmas: Exploring the Determinants of Korean Consumer Dining-Out Behavior During COVID-19
Therefore, a total of 536 samples of Korean consumers were ultimately analyzed.
Comment 5. Regarding Discussion and Conclusions: In the Discussion, it is mandatory to highlight for each hypothesis what other results are in the literature review. To compare the results. In conclusions, the authors have the first paragraph Theoretical and Practical Implications and the second with Practical Implication. Correct the subtitles to not repeat yourself. I appreciate the rigour of the work done by the authors in the methodology and section parts and in the conclusion section too.
Response: We have enhanced the Discussion section by comparing our results with other findings from the literature review for each hypothesis on page 10 line 362 to 403 as follows:
This study investigated the variables influencing dining-out behavior changes under pandemic risk. The findings confirmed several of the proposed hypotheses.
Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, which posited that dining-out attitude, perceived control, and subjective norm would positively influence dining-out intention during the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively, were supported by the study. These findings reinforce the TPB. However, the relatively weaker effect of perceived behavioral control suggests that the pandemic context might have undermined individuals' sense of control.
Although not all human behavior is premeditated, intentions predominantly serve as the driving force behind goal-directed actions [72,73]. In support of Hypothesis 4, the study found that dining-out intention positively influenced dining-out behavior. Conversely, risk information-seeking behavior and fear of COVID-19, as posited in Hypotheses 6 and 10, negatively affected dining-out behavior. Moreover, all formative indicators of dining-out behavior—travel time, stay time, and dining-out frequency—proved to be significant. These results indicate that while dining-out intention positively influences aspects such as travel time to a dining establishment, time spent there, and dining-out frequency, COVID-19-related information-seeking behavior and fear hinder these aspects.
Contrary to Hypothesis 5, risk information-seeking behavior did not significantly affect dining-out intention, although it did discourage dining-out behavior. The formative indicators of risk information-seeking behavior—frequency, effort, and time spent seeking information—were statistically significant, aligning with Hypothesis 6. These findings suggest that an increase in the frequency and extent of individuals' search for COVID-19-related information corresponded with a decline in their dining-out behavior.
Support was also found for Hypothesis 7, which proposed that subjective dining-out norms positively influence COVID-19 related risk information-seeking behavior. Individuals with heightened subjective dining-out norms exhibited increased engagement in risk information-seeking behavior. While risk information-seeking behavior reduced dining-out behavior, it did not diminish dining-out intention, indicating a nuanced relationship between information processing and behavioral intention.
Finally, Hypotheses 8, 9, and 10 relating to the role of fear were validated. Fear was identified as a determinant of dining-out intention, risk information-seeking behavior, and dining-out behavior, emphasizing the power of emotions over rational thinking. Fear negatively affected both dining-out intention and behavior, exhibiting a partial mediation effect that could counterbalance the catalyst effect of dining-out intention leading to dining-out behavior. This does not necessarily stem from the causality between dining-out and disease transmission but rather due to the nature of dining-out as an activity that involves interaction with outsiders, particularly during meals when masks must be removed. Studies suggest that measures such as increasing spaces between tables, optimizing seat arrangement, improving ventilation, and using protective equipment can significantly decrease the infection risk, consumer risk perception, and behavior [11,13,14]. These findings highlight the importance of measures to mitigate fear among consumers and enhance their comfort when dining out.
We also appreciate your noting on the subtitle redundancy. We have revised the subtitles in the conclusion into “Theoretical implications” and “Practical implications” to avoid repetition.
Comment 6. The references are appropriate but not in the format required by the journal
Response: Thank you for this comment. We were not sure how to abbreviate the titles as we do not have much experience on this and followed the journal guideline below.
Note: If you are not sure how to abbreviate a particular journal title, please leave the entire title. The Editorial Office will abbreviate those journal titles appropriately.
Comment 7. Figure 1 should be in section 3 or at least at the beginning of section 4 not at the end.
Response: Figure 1 was moved to the end of the Section 3 on page 6, as per your suggestion.
Comment 8. I appreciate the rigour of the work done by the authors in the methodology and section parts and in the conclusion section too.
Response: Thank you for your kind words and for recognizing the rigor we have applied to the methodology, sections, and conclusion of our paper. We would like to express our deep appreciation for your invaluable feedback, which has played a vital role in the improvement of our manuscript. Your thoughtful comments and suggestions have helped us refine our research and strengthen the overall quality of our work. We are genuinely grateful for your time and expertise in reviewing our paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is interesting and seems well structured. I just have some doubts about the placement of the hypotheses. The authors pose the hypotheses taking into account future scenarios of COVID19, but, taking into account the current context of the pandemic, it would no longer be pertinent to place the hypotheses in the past, directly related to the period analyzed and from there to the suggestions that they actually propose for future scenarios?
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Comment:
The article is interesting and seems well structured. I just have some doubts about the placement of the hypotheses. The authors pose the hypotheses taking into account future scenarios of COVID19, but, taking into account the current context of the pandemic, it would no longer be pertinent to place the hypotheses in the past, directly related to the period analyzed and from there to the suggestions that they actually propose for future scenarios?
Response:
Thank you for your encouragement and insightful suggestion. We agree that considering the current pandemic context, the hypotheses should reflect the period analyzed. Accordingly, we have revised the tense in our hypotheses to be more reflective of the past period under study. We have also made sure that our future recommendations are firmly grounded in the analysis of past data. Your feedback has been instrumental in refining our study and its implications.
We also have summarized the findings reminding the study context and the use of the implication on page 11, from line 405 to 413, as follows:
This study explored factors influencing dining-out behavior among Korean consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Key findings include the positive impact of attitudes towards dining out, perceived control, and subjective norms on the intention to dine out. The intention to dine out positively drives dining-out behavior, while risk information-seeking behavior and fear of COVID-19 negatively affect it. Notably, while risk information-seeking behavior discourages actual dining-out behavior, it doesn't significantly impact the intention to dine out. Moreover, subjective norms regarding dining out positively impact COVID-19 related risk information-seeking behavior, and fear negatively affects both the intention and behavior of dining out.
We sincerely appreciate your concise yet impactful comment, which has played a significant role in improving the quality of our manuscript. Your valuable input has been instrumental in enhancing our research, and we are grateful for your contribution to the refinement of our work.
