Relationship Between Food Healthiness, Price Fairness, and Loyalty with Moderating Roles of Temperature, Personalization, and Eco-Friendly Packaging at Subway
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Review of the Literature and Proposal of the Hypotheses
2.1. Loyalty
2.2. Price Fairness
2.3. Food Healthiness
2.4. Hypothesis Development
2.5. Value Dilution Effect and Moderating Roles of Temperature, Personalization, and Eco-Friendly Packaging
3. Method
3.1. Research Model and Measurement Items
3.2. Recruitment of Survey Participants and Data Analysis Instruments
4. Empirical Results
4.1. Profile of the Survey Participants
4.2. Validity and Reliability of the Measurement Items and Correlation Matrix
4.3. Testing Results of Hypotheses
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- QSR Magazine. Subway’s U.S. Count Keeps Declining. 2025. Available online: https://www.qsrmagazine.com/story/subways-u-s-count-keeps-declining/ (accessed on 4 January 2026).
- Subway. Subway® Reintroduces Fresh Fit® Menu with Four Protein-Packed Sandwiches Under 500 Calories, and a Full Serving of Vegetables. 2025. Available online: https://newsroom.subway.com/2025-09-10-Subway-R-Reintroduces-Fresh-Fit-R-Menu-with-Four-Protein-Packed-Sandwiches-Under-500-Calories,-and-a-Full-Serving-of-Vegetables (accessed on 5 January 2026).
- Foroni, F.; Esmaeilikia, M.; Rumiati, R.I. What makes a food healthy? Sex differences in what is associated to healthiness evaluations. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 96, 104438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, K.A.; Moon, J. Assessing antecedents of restaurant’s brand trust and brand loyalty, and moderating role of food healthiness. Nutrients 2023, 15, 5057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plasek, B.; Lakner, Z.; Temesi, Á. Factors that influence the perceived healthiness of food. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, G.; Slack, N.J.; Sharma, S.; Aiyub, A.S.; Ferraris, A. Antecedents and consequences of fast-food restaurant customers’ perception of price fairness. Br. Food J. 2022, 124, 2591–2609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiao, J.; Moudon, A.; Kim, S.; Hurvitz, P.; Drewnowski, A. Health implications of adults’ eating at and living near fast food or quick service restaurants. Nutr. Diabetes 2015, 5, e171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yum, K.; Kim, J. The influence of perceived value, customer satisfaction, and trust on loyalty in entertainment platforms. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, M.; de Castro, B.; Cordeiro, B.; de Castro, B.S.; Peixoto, M.; da Silva, E.; Gonçalves, M. Factors of Customer Loyalty and Retention in the Digital Environment. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2025, 20, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Salirrosas, E.; Escobar-Farfán, M.; Esponda-Perez, J.; Millones-Liza, D.; Villar-Guevara, M.; Haro-Zea, K.L.; Gallardo-Canales, R. The impact of perceived value on brand image and loyalty: A study of healthy food brands in emerging markets. Front. Nutr. 2024, 11, 1482009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulyawan, I.; Tulsi, K.E.; Rafdinal, W. Predicting customer loyalty of local brand fast-food restaurant in Indonesia: The role of restaurant quality and price fairness. J. Bus. Manag. Rev. 2022, 3, 675–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawra, J.; Katyal, K. Decoding price promotions: A moderated mediation model of fairness, trust, and deal proneness. J. Revenue Pricing Manag. 2023, 22, 248–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.; Song, Z.; Fong, K.Y. Perceived Price Fairness as a Mediator in Customer Green Consumption: Insights from the New Energy Vehicle Industry and Sustainable Practices. Sustainability 2024, 17, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samoggia, A.; Grillini, G.; Del Prete, M. Price fairness of processed tomato agro-food chain: The Italian consumers’ perception perspective. Foods 2021, 10, 984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, H.; Eastman, J.K.; Mothersbaugh, D. The effect of a limited-edition offer following brand dilution on consumer attitudes toward a luxury brand. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 38, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atigala, P.; Maduwanthi, T.; Gunathilake, V.; Sathsarani, S.; Jayathilaka, R. Driving the pulse of the economy or the dilution effect: Inflation impacting economic growth. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0273379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Namkung, Y.; Jang, S. Does food quality really matter in restaurants? Its impact on customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2007, 31, 387–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, J.W.; Namkung, Y. Measuring the service quality of fresh food delivery platforms: Development and validation of the “Food PlatQual” scale. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, J.; Kim, S.; Lee, Y.K. Mass customization in food services. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 93, 102750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derossi, A.; Husain, A.; Caporizzi, R.; Severini, C. Manufacturing personalized food for people uniqueness. An overview from traditional to emerging technologies. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 1141–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, H.; Liao, F.; Qing, P. How consumer expertise influences preference for customized food. Foods 2022, 11, 2459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitta, D.A. Product strategy in harsh economic times: Subway. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2010, 19, 131–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miguel, O.; María, A.; Jessenia, M.; Tannia, A.S. Sociodemographic determinants of consumer experience and loyalty in a food hall. Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arli, D.; van Esch, P.; Weaven, S. The impact of SERVQUAL on consumers’ satisfaction, loyalty, and intention to use online food delivery services. J. Promot. Manag. 2024, 30, 1159–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hien, L.; Kim, J. An analysis of relationship quality and loyalty between farmers and agribusiness companies in the rice industry: Using multi-group analysis. Agriculture 2024, 14, 2197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elansari, H.; Alzubi, A.; Khadem, A. The impact of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals on customers’ perceptions and loyalty in the banking sector: A multi-mediation approach. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.H.; Yang, Y.R. The Effect of Digital Quality on Customer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty Under Environmental Uncertainty: Evidence from the Banking Industry. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.G.; Moon, J. Price Fairness, Consumer Attitude, and Loyalty in the US Egg Market: The Moderating Roles of Tariff Concern and Education Level. Foods 2025, 14, 2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heidary, K.; Pluut, H. All is (not) fair in personalized pricing: Antecedents and outcomes of consumer fairness perceptions. J. Revenue Pricing Manag. 2025, 24, 204–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riquelme, I.P.; Román, S. Personal antecedents of perceived deceptive pricing in online retailing: The moderating role of price inequality. Electron. Commer. Res. 2023, 23, 739–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, E.; Zhang, L.S. Is this food healthy? The impact of lay beliefs and contextual cues on food healthiness perception and consumption. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2022, 46, 101348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, L.; Lu, J. The impact of package color and the nutrition content labels on the perception of food healthiness and purchase intention. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2016, 22, 191–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konuk, F.A. Trustworthy brand signals, price fairness and organic food restaurant brand loyalty. Manag. Decis. 2023, 61, 3035–3052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukaromah, H. Effect of of Food Quality, Perceived Value, Price Fairness, and Customer Satisfaction on Repurchase Intention and Word of Mouth. J. Cendekia Ilm. 2024, 3, 8197–8204. [Google Scholar]
- Konuk, F.A. The influence of perceived food quality, price fairness, perceived value and satisfaction on customers’ revisit and word-of-mouth intentions towards organic food restaurants. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 50, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anesbury, Z.; Nguyen, Y.; Bogomolova, S. Getting a “sweet” deal: Does healthfulness of a sub-brand influence consumer loyalty? Eur. J. Mark. 2018, 52, 1802–1826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, S.; Lee, S.; Jeon, H. The role of customer experience, food healthiness, and value for revisit intention in GROCERANT. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hride, F.; Ferdousi, F.; Jasimuddin, S. Linking perceived price fairness, customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty: A structural equation modeling of Facebook-based e-commerce in Bangladesh. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excel. 2022, 41, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zukier, H. The dilution effect: The role of the correlation and the dispersion of predictor variables in the use of nondiagnostic information. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1982, 43, 1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nisbett, R.E.; Zukier, H.; Lemley, R.E. The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cogn. Psychol. 1981, 13, 248–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertin, N.; Constantinescu, D.; Génard, M.; Breniere, T.; Fanciullino, A.L. Integrative view of tomato fruit carotenoid and polyphenol accumulation for consumer health. J. Exp. Bot. 2025, 76, 6274–6288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Liao, H.; Wang, F.; Li, R. Ambient temperature and food behavior of consumer: A case study of China. Weather Clim. Soc. 2021, 13, 813–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kennedy, J.; Jackson, V.; Blair, I.S.; McDowell, D.; Cowan, C.; Bolton, D.J. Food safety knowledge of consumers and the microbiological and temperature status of their refrigerators. J. Food Prot. 2005, 68, 1421–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feng, Y.; Bruhn, C.M. Motivators and barriers to cooking and refrigerator thermometer use among consumers and food workers: A review. J. Food Prot. 2019, 82, 128–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baskentli, S.; Block, L.; Morrin, M. The serving temperature effect: Food temperature, expected satiety, and complementary food purchases. Appetite 2021, 160, 105069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jadhav, H.B.; Choudhary, P. Emerging techniques for the processing of food to ensure higher food safety with enhanced food quality: A review. Discov. Food 2024, 4, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, S.Y. The effects of location personalization on individuals’ intention to use mobile services. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 53, 802–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Müller, T.; Klein-Flügge, M.C.; Manohar, S.G.; Husain, M.; Apps, M. Neural and computational mechanisms of momentary fatigue and persistence in effort-based choice. Nat. Comm. 2021, 12, 4593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsen, S.B.; Meyerhoff, J.; Mørkbak, M.R.; Bonnichsen, O. The influence of time of day on decision fatigue in online food choice experiments. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 497–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Kim, C.; Lee, K.C. Exploring the personalization-intrusiveness-intention framework to evaluate the effects of personalization in social media. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2022, 66, 102532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, L.; Goswami, J. Poly (vinyl alcohol) as sustainable and eco-friendly packaging: A review. J. Packag. Technol. Res. 2023, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shimul, A.S.; Cheah, I. Consumers’ preference for eco-friendly packaged products: Pride vs guilt appeal. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2023, 41, 186–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, S.; Akhter, R.; Maktedar, S.S. Advancements in sustainable food packaging: From eco-friendly materials to innovative technologies. Sustain. Food Technol. 2024, 2, 1297–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, K.A.; Moon, J. Relationships between psychological risk, brand trust, and repurchase intentions of bottled water: The moderating effect of eco-friendly packaging. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muldoon, J.; Apostolidis, P. ‘Neither work nor leisure’: Motivations of microworkers in the United Kingdom on three digital platforms. New Media Soc. 2025, 27, 747–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.; Anderson, R.; Babin, B.; Black, W. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed.; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]




| Attributes | Codes | Measurement Items | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Food healthiness | FH1 | Subway food contributes positively to my health. | Konuk [33] Sun & Moon [4] |
| FH2 | Subway food is nutritious. | ||
| FH3 | Choosing Subway food can improve my health. | ||
| FH4 | Subway food is beneficial for maintaining good health. | ||
| Price fairness | PF1 | The prices at Subway are fair. | Singh et al. [6] Kim & Moon [28] |
| PF2 | The prices at Subway are reasonable. | ||
| PF3 | The prices at Subway are acceptable. | ||
| PF4 | The prices at Subway are affordable. | ||
| Loyalty | LO1 | I am loyal to the Subway brand. | Miguel et al. [23] Pereira et al. [9] |
| LO2 | I intend to visit a Subway store again. | ||
| LO3 | I plan to purchase Subway products again. | ||
| LO4 | I am willing to make repeat purchases from Subway. | ||
| Temperature | TM1 | The temperature of Subway food is appropriate. | Namkung & Jang [17] Kang & Namkung [18] |
| TM2 | Subway food is served at the right temperature. | ||
| TM3 | The temperature of Subway food meets my expectations. | ||
| TM4 | I am satisfied with the temperature of Subway food. | ||
| Personalization | PS1 | Subway food can be customized to my preferences. | Ho [47] Lee et al. [50] |
| PS2 | I can personalize my food choices at Subway. | ||
| PS3 | Subway offers customized food options. | ||
| PS4 | Subway provides personalized meal options. | ||
| Eco-friendly packaging | EP1 | Subway product packaging is eco-friendly. | Sun & Moon [54] |
| EP2 | Subway product packaging is environmentally sustainable. | ||
| EP3 | Subway product packaging helps minimize waste. | ||
| EP4 | Subway product packaging is environmentally beneficial. |
| Characteristics | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 98 | 34.6 |
| Female | 185 | 65.4 |
| 20s | 46 | 16.3 |
| 30s | 98 | 34.6 |
| 40s | 93 | 32.9 |
| 50s | 39 | 13.8 |
| Aged > 60 years | 7 | 2.5 |
| Monthly household income | ||
| <$2500 | 82 | 29.0 |
| $2500–4999 | 91 | 32.2 |
| $5000–7499 | 45 | 15.9 |
| $7500–9999 | 26 | 9.2 |
| ≥$10,000 | 39 | 13.8 |
| Terminal academic degree | ||
| Less than college | 120 | 42.4 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 103 | 38.4 |
| Graduate degree | 60 | 21.2 |
| Weekly usage frequency | ||
| Less than 1 time | 185 | 65.4 |
| 1–2 times | 78 | 27.6 |
| 3–6 times | 18 | 6.4 |
| More than 7 times | 2 | 0.7 |
| Construct | Code | Loading | Mean (SD) | Cronbach’s α | Eigenvalue | Explained Variance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food healthiness | FH1 | 0.787 | 3.39 (1.08) | 0.949 | 2.676 | 11.150 |
| FH2 | 0.809 | |||||
| FH3 | 0.838 | |||||
| FH4 | 0.828 | |||||
| Price fairness | PF1 | 0.889 | 3.41 (1.07) | 0.971 | 12.021 | 50.086 |
| PF2 | 0.897 | |||||
| PF3 | 0.881 | |||||
| PF4 | 0.903 | |||||
| Loyalty | LO1 | 0.554 | 3.84 (1.16) | 0.939 | 1.008 | 4.201 |
| LO2 | 0.854 | |||||
| LO3 | 0.821 | |||||
| LO4 | 0.823 | |||||
| Temperature | TM1 | 0.797 | 4.15 (0.86) | 0.958 | 1.363 | 5.679 |
| TM2 | 0.821 | |||||
| TM3 | 0.804 | |||||
| TM4 | 0.811 | |||||
| Personalization | PS1 | 0.829 | 4.46 (0.73) | 0.929 | 1.829 | 7.622 |
| PS2 | 0.874 | |||||
| PS3 | 0.890 | |||||
| PS4 | 0.787 | |||||
| Eco-friendly packaging | EP1 | 0.885 | 3.54 (1.00) | 0.951 | 2.209 | 9.202 |
| EP2 | 0.874 | |||||
| EP3 | 0.867 | |||||
| EP4 | 0.880 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 1. Loyalty | 1 | ||||
| 2. Price fairness | 0.528 * | 1 | |||
| 3. Food healthiness | 0.660 * | 0.450 * | 1 | ||
| 4. Temperature | 0.588 * | 0.505 * | 0.590 * | 1 | |
| 5. Personalization | 0.519 * | 0.358 * | 0.400 * | 0.588 * | 1 |
| 6. Eco-friendly packaging | 0.410 * | 0.400 * | 0.543 * | 0.421 * | 0.319 * |
| Model1 | Model2 | Model3 | Model4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β-Value (t-Value) | β-Value (t-Value) | β-Value (t-Value) | β-Value (t-Value) | |
| Price Fairness | Loyalty | Loyalty | Loyalty | |
| Constant | 1.89 (10.02) ** | −1.04 (−1.66) * | −1.95 (−2.58) ** | 0.02 (0.05) |
| Food healthiness | 0.44 (8.43) ** | 0.91 (4.20) ** | 1.03 (3.92) ** | 0.80 (−3.52) * |
| Temperature | 0.60 (3.81) ** | |||
| Personalization | 0.73 (4.27) ** | |||
| Eco-friendly packaging | 0.25 (1.68) * | |||
| Food healthiness × Temperature | −0.10 (−2.15) ** | |||
| Food healthiness × Personalization | −0.12 (−2.10) ** | |||
| Food healthiness × Eco-friendly packaging | −0.07 (−1.75) * | |||
| Price fairness | 0.25 (4.76) ** | 0.25 (4.27) ** | 0.31 (6.04) ** | |
| F-value | 71.17 ** | 81.33 ** | 88.94 ** | 71.80 * |
| R2 | 0.2021 | 0.5392 | 0.5614 | 0.5082 |
| Conditional effect of focal predictor | Temperature | Personalization | Eco-friendly packaging | |
| 3.00:0.59 (7.21) ** | 4.00:0.54 (9.53) ** | 2.75:0.61 (9.81) ** | ||
| 4.00:0.48 (8.29) ** | 5.00:0.42 (7.36) ** | 3.50:0.55 (9.81) ** | ||
| 5.00:0.37 (5.45) ** | 5.00:0.42 (7.36) ** | 4.75:0.46 (5.94) ** | ||
| Interaction effect: F-value | 4.65 ** | 4.44 ** | 3.09 * |
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. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Sun, K.-A.; Moon, J. Relationship Between Food Healthiness, Price Fairness, and Loyalty with Moderating Roles of Temperature, Personalization, and Eco-Friendly Packaging at Subway. Foods 2026, 15, 841. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15050841
Sun K-A, Moon J. Relationship Between Food Healthiness, Price Fairness, and Loyalty with Moderating Roles of Temperature, Personalization, and Eco-Friendly Packaging at Subway. Foods. 2026; 15(5):841. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15050841
Chicago/Turabian StyleSun, Kyung-A, and Joonho Moon. 2026. "Relationship Between Food Healthiness, Price Fairness, and Loyalty with Moderating Roles of Temperature, Personalization, and Eco-Friendly Packaging at Subway" Foods 15, no. 5: 841. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15050841
APA StyleSun, K.-A., & Moon, J. (2026). Relationship Between Food Healthiness, Price Fairness, and Loyalty with Moderating Roles of Temperature, Personalization, and Eco-Friendly Packaging at Subway. Foods, 15(5), 841. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15050841

