Factors influencing consumers’ continuance purchase intention of local food via online food delivery services: the moderating role of gender

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research framework.

Table 1. Respondents’ demographic.

Demographics		Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	113	56.5
	Female	87	43.5
Age	18–25 years old (Generation Z)	154	77
	26–41 years old (Generation Y)	29	14.5
	42–57 years old (Generation X)	8	4
	58 and above	9	4.5
Race	Chinese	134	67
	Malay	40	20
	Indian	21	10.5
	Others	5	2.5
Occupation	Employed	44	22
	Housewife	4	2
	Retired	5	2.5
	Student	142	71
	Unemployed	5	2.5
Marital status	Single	171	85.5
	Married	23	11.5
	Divorced	4	2
	Widowed	2	1
Education level	Secondary (PMR/PT3/SPM)	12	6
	Post-secondary (STPM/Foundation/A-Levels)	12	6
	Tertiary (Diploma/bachelor’s degree)	168	84
	Postgraduate (Masters/PhD)	8	4
Household income	Less than RM3170	109	54.5
	RM3171- RM4,850	47	23.5
	RM4,851- RM7,100	32	16
	RM7,101- RM10,970	8	4
	RM10,911 and above	4	2

Table 2. General information.

How long have you been using online food delivery services?	1–6 months	78	39
	7–12 months	24	12
	More than 12 months	98	49
How often do you use online food delivery services per month?	1–4 times	123	61.5
	5–8 times	43	21.5
	9–12 times	10	5
	More than 12 times	24	12
What is your preferred method of ordering?	Through food delivery apps	195	97.5
	Through restaurant websites	2	1
	Through phone	3	1.5
Which online food delivery service that you used the most?	Grab food	112	56
	Food Panda	78	39
	Others	10	5

Table 3. Different in central tendency and dispersion of variables among gender.

	Male		Female
Variable	Mean	Std	Mean	Std	t-Value
Health Aspects (H)	4.135	.63916	4.305	.52748	−2.005*
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)	4.270	.56413	4.434	.56863	−2.031*
Price Value (PV)	3.896	.59455	3.839	.59183	0.673
Food Quality (FQ)	3.816	.57478	3.805	.51634	0.150
Service Quality (SQ)	4.254	.47125	4.230	.49152	0.358
Continuance Purchase Intention (CPI)	4.108	.64855	4.108	.64855	−0.400

Note: Based on a 5-Likert scale, *p < 0.05.

Table 4. Convergent validity.

Constructs	Factor loading	CR	AVE
Health aspects (H)		0.911	0720
H1. I tend to buy food that are fresh and clean for health reasons during the Covid-19 pandemic.	0.835
H2. Aspects such as sanitation standards (hygiene), safety and cleanliness of food delivered are important for me when buying food via online food delivery services during the Covid-19 pandemic.	0.819
H3. Public health initiatives such as practicing social distancing or self-quarantining have changed my eating patterns.	0.889
H4. I buy local food via online food delivery services because I am afraid of catching Covid-19.	0.849
Perceived ease-of-use (PEOU)		0.931	0.773
PEOU1. In my opinion, food delivery apps are easy to use.	0.908
PEOU2. The order placement process via food delivery apps is easy for me.	0.919
PEOU3. I like the feature to track order progress (order accepted/prepared/pickup) via food delivery apps.	0.813
PEOU4. The filter options (type of cuisine, estimated delivery time) are helpful for me	0.873
Price value (PV)		0.909	0.714
PV1. I can save money by comparing prices from different online food delivery services.	0.799
PV2. I like to search for cheap food deals in different food delivery apps.	0.866
PV3. Online food delivery services offer better value for my money compared to physical store.	0.842
PV4. I use online food delivery services because I can save money with discounts and vouchers.	0.870
Food quality (FQ)		0.878	0.643
FQ1. Local restaurants offer a healthy option via online food delivery services.	0.755
FQ2. Local food delivered via online food delivery services are fresh and clean.	0.807
FQ3. Local food delivered via online food delivery services taste just like in the restaurant.	0.803
FQ4. Local food delivered via online food delivery services are still warm upon arrival
Service quality (SQ)	0.841	0.883	0.653
SQ1. My order is delivered as promised and there are no missing orders.	0.761
SQ2. My order is delivered on time.	0.853
SQ3.The delivery staffs are courteous and presentable, and they treated me well.	0.795
SQ4. For me, the delivery charges are worth it for the service offered.	0.821
Continuance purchase intention (CPI)		0.949	0.822
CPI1. I intend to continue buying local food via online food delivery services in the future.	0.898
CPI2. I will always try to use an online food delivery service to buy local food in my daily life.	0.871
CPI3. I plan to continue using online food delivery service frequently when buying local food.	0.935
CPI4. I have decided to use online food delivery services when I buy local food for the next time	0.921

Table 5. Discriminant validity by heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) criterion.

	CPI	FQ	H	PEOU	PV
FQ	0.512
H	0.336	0.145
PEOU	0.247	0.117	0.231
PV	0.588	0.415	0.115	0.221
SQ	0.553	0.456	0.335	0.316	0.295

Note: The values in the brackets represent the 90% bias-corrected and accelerated confidence derived from bootstrapping with 5000 samples. FQ = Food Quality; H = Health Aspects; CPI = Continuance Purchase Intention; PV = Price Value; SQ = Service Quality.

Table 6. A summary of the assessment for the structural model.

HP	Path	Std. Beta	Std. Error	t-value	Decision	R^2	Q^2	f^2	VIF
H1	H→CPI	0.165	0.057	2.915**	S	0.474	0.426	0.047	1.109
H2	PEOU→CPI	0.045	0.06	0.758	NS			0.004	1.119
H3	PV→ CPI	0.374	0.074	5.042**	S			0.223	1.189
H4	FQ→CPI	0.189	0.073	2.579**	S			0.054	1.270
H5	SQ→ CPI	0.262	0.064	4.113**	S			0.099	1.320

Notes: **Supported at p < 0.01, S = supported, NS = not supported.

Figure 2. The finalised PLS diagram.

Note: Outer-path coefficient, Inner-R square.

Table 7. Summary of MICOM assessment.

Measurement construct	Compositional invariance				Composite equality of mean values
	R	5%	Perm p-value	Partial MI	Mean Diff	Confidence interval	Perm p-value	Full MI
Continuance Purchase intention	1	0.999	0.185	Yes	−0.055	(-0.219,0.226)	0.339	Yes
Food quality	0.997	0.987	0.549	Yes	0.023	(-0.24,0.227)	0.432	Yes
Health aspect	0.998	0.977	0.824	Yes	−0.282	(-0.235,0.233)	0.017	No
Perceived ease of use	0.985	0.920	0.24	Yes	−0.276	(-0.247,0.250)	0.034	No
Price value	0.999	0.995	0.499	Yes	0.093	(-0.235,0.232)	0.239	Yes
Service quality	0.994	0.991	0.163	Yes	0.058	(-0.228,0.242)	0.357	Yes

Notes: R = correlation; MI = measurement invariance; Diff = difference; Perm = permutation.

Table 8. Path coefficient of moderation–permutation.

HP	Path	Std Beta (male)	Std Beta (female)	Difference	Confidence interval	Permutation p-value	Decision
H6a	H→CPI	0.167	0.145	0.023	(-0.199, 0.187)	0.438	NS
H6b	PEOU→CPI	0.130	−0.120	0.249	(-0.203, 0.200)	0.022*	S
H6c	PV→ CPI	0.390	0.381	0.009	(-0.262, 0.264)	0.508	NS
H6d	FQ→CPI	0.147	0.227	−0.079	(-0.257, 0.261)	0.309	NS
H6e	SQ→ CPI	0.159	0.438	−0.279	(-0.202,0.214)	0.011*	S

Note:

* p-Value < 0.05, NS = hypothesis not supported, S = hypothesis supported.

Table 9. Summary of structured model based on genders.

HP	Path	Std. Beta	Std. Error	t-value	Decision	R^2	Q^2	f^2	VIF
Male
H1m	H→CPI	0.167	0.078	2.143*	S	0.359	0.249	0.042	1.042
H2m	PEOU→CPI	0.130	0.101	1.288^#	NS			0.026	1.028
H3m	PV→ CPI	0.390	0.108	3.620**	S			0.208	1.146
H4m	FQ→CPI	0.147	0.100	1.482^#	NS			0.028	1.200
H5m	SQ→ CPI	0.159	0.081	1.963*	S			0.033	1.179
Female
H1f	H→CPI	0.145	0.074	1.958*	S	0.691	0.636	0.051	1.337
H2f	PEOU→CPI	−0.120	0.065	1.844*	NS			0.033	1.383
H3f	PV→ CPI	0.381	0.095	3.994**	S			0.357	1.319
H4f	FQ→CPI	0.227	0.077	2.949**	S			0.114	1.454
H5f	SQ→ CPI	0.438	0.081	5.417**	S			0.365	1.697

Notes: ** m = male, f = female, p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, #p < 0.10. S = supported, NS = not supported.

Figure 3. Overview of MGA results.

Notes: M = Male, F = Female, **p value < 0.01, *p-value <0.05, #p-value < 0.10.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.