Page 1 of 26
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 11, No. 5
Publication Date: May 25, 2024
DOI:10.14738/assrj.115.16906.
Liu, X., Ng, S. I., Basha, N. K., & Cheah, J.-H. (2024). Consumer Behavior in Food Delivery Applications: A Systematic Literature Review
and Future Research Agenda. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(5). 01-26.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Consumer Behavior in Food Delivery Applications: A Systematic
Literature Review and Future Research Agenda
Xin Liu
School of Business and Economics,
Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia
Siew Imm Ng
ORCID: 0000-0002-6518-925X
School of Business and Economics,
Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia
Norazlyn Kamal Basha
ORCID: 0000-0001-5942-0032
School of Business and Economics,
Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia
Jun-Hwa Cheah
ORCID: 0000-0001-8440-9564
Norwich Business School,
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
ABSTRACT
Over the past few years, there has been notable interest among consumers in food
delivery applications. Consequently, understanding consumer behavior within this
context has become crucial for practitioners seeking to execute effective marketing
strategies. While academic studies in this field are gaining traction, there remains a
lack of a comprehensive overview. Existing literature on the subject is often
fragmented and inconsistent, hindering a thorough comprehension of consumer
behavioral patterns in food delivery applications. Thus, this study aims to address
this gap by conducting a systematic literature review to organize and synthesize
current knowledge on consumer behavior in such applications, elucidating how
consumers interact within these platforms. We analyzed 587 journal articles
extracted from primary databases (Scopus and Web of Science), ultimately
reviewing 112 articles spanning from 2014 to August 2023. Furthermore, we
developed a conceptual framework to fully grasp the variables influencing
consumer behavior, showcasing frequently reported factors in food delivery
application literature. This research also identifies nine directions for further
exploration, including regional and country comparisons, methodological
approaches, theoretical perspectives, demographic analyses, independent
variables, moderating effects, affective and cognitive evaluations, outcome
responses, and drone-based food delivery application perspectives. This review is
expected to offer valuable insights for both researchers and practitioners.
Page 2 of 26
2
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 5, May-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Keywords: Systematic literature review, Consumer behavior, Food delivery application,
Mobile application
INTRODUCTION
Owing to the rising popularity of smart devices and new mobile technologies, numerous
companies have developed mobile applications to reach out to their consumers virtually [1,2].
Mobile applications are mobile operating systems present on smart devices, providing
advanced computational capabilities and a wide array of functions through application
software [3]. They provide consumers with the opportunity to engage with businesses in real- time, resulting in a flexible, mobile, and efficient shopping experience [4]. Companies can
leverage mobile applications to shape the consumer journey, facilitating various tasks such as
accessing information, building social networks, and making purchasing decisions [5]. In our
increasingly mobile-centric world, the number of mobile applications has grown exponentially
over the past decade. According to [6], by the third quarter of 2022, there were over 3.5 million
mobile applications available on the Google Play Store, with a staggering 27 billion apps
downloaded from Google Play in the first quarter of 2023, indicating significant app usage.
While the growth of mobile applications has slowed in recent times, they remain highly
regarded as the ultimate marketing tool for achieving marketing objectives [7]. In current years,
the online food delivery industry is one of the fastest-growing categories among mobile
applications [8]. Unlike traditional online food delivery where users usually have to order food
based on a website or telephone call, the food delivery application (FDA) overcame old
technical limitations (e.g., busy phone lines, fixed location, or human mediation), allowing
consumers to select their favourite food at diverse restaurants, make a payment online via
smart devices, and get food orders anywhere and anytime [9]. Consumers can track orders,
complain to consumer service agents about delivery delays, and provide online ratings and
reviews about food, taste, and experience through the FDAs [10]. Indeed, these digital features
help to popularize and integrate applications into people's lives for better quality of life [11].
FDAs can generally be classified into two types: (1) applications owned by catering businesses,
utilized for receiving online orders and delivering food offline via their delivery staffs, as
exemplified by McDonald's, Domino's, or Pizza Hut; (2) third-party FDAs, serving as
intermediary platforms linking food providers and consumers. Third-party FDAs do not sell
food directly but offer services connecting food providers, delivery staff and consumers, such
as Uber Eats, Meituan Waimai, Grubhub, and Foodpanda. Presently, online food orders are
primarily conducted through FDAs on smart devices [12]. This is because FDAs can make the
entire food delivery process easier and more efficient. FDAs are deeply embedded into people’s
eating practices, having brought substantial changes to food consumption [13]. The online food
delivery market has witnessed unprecedented growth in recent years, particularly following
the onset of COVID-19, as an increasing number of catering businesses embrace FDAs to engage
and connect with consumers [12]. The market volume of online food delivery is projected to
reach approximately US$1.79tn by 2028, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of
10.06% from 2024 to 2028 [14].
Currently, intense rivalry exists among FDA companies worldwide, stimulating research into
consumer behavior in this context and advancing field knowledge. In recent years, there has
been an increasing number of scholarly research in this domain employing various
conceptualizations and research methods to analyze and explain the FDA phenomenon. As in
Page 3 of 26
3
Liu, X., Ng, S. I., Basha, N. K., & Cheah, J.-H. (2024). Consumer Behavior in Food Delivery Applications: A Systematic Literature Review and Future
Research Agenda. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(5). 01-26.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.115.16906
any other discipline, a systematic literature review (SLR) is necessary to consolidate and
integrate the status of knowledge development in the field of consumer behavior, particularly
in highly competitive and dynamic markets [15,16]. Therefore, this study specifically focused
on systematically reviewing consumer behavior in the FDA literature.
As suggested by [17], an SLR serves to bridge the gap between research and practice. Notably,
cross-border e-commerce [18], online retailing [19], and halal food [20] have benefited from
knowledge consolidation through systematic reviews of the literature on consumer behavior.
Currently, SLRs on online food delivery are available [21,22,23,24]. However, an SLR with a
specific focus on FDA is yet to be found. For example, [21]’s (2020) review attempted to utilize
three sustainable perspectives (economic, social, and environmental) to evaluate a range of
positive and negative impacts of online food delivery platforms. The review of [22] captured 59
journal articles from 2016 and 2020 to understand the main actors involved and the main
value-creating activities in on-demand food delivery ecosystems. [23] conducted a tri-method
study to capture various facets of the issues among online food delivery stakeholders by
synthesizing 43 journal articles published from 2015 to 2021 (March). Finally, [24] reviewed
56 journal articles between 2014 and 2021 and developed a conceptual framework consisting
of antecedents, mediators, moderators, and outcome variables used in the online food delivery
literature, proposing research suggestions for future research. Notably, only 32% of the review
articles covered by [24] focused on FDAs. To this end, it is timely to conduct an SLR focused on
FDA articles, which serves to illustrate insightful research gaps and locate some fruitful avenues
for future research [25].
This study is one of the first to systematically review and consolidate the existing literature on
consumer behavior in FDAs. First, this SLR conducts a theoretically coherent synthetic analysis
of existing knowledge. By summarizing the growing scholarly interest over the years, it offers
a descriptive overview of consumer behavior in using FDAs, advancing the field of consumer
behavior in using FDAs. Second, this SLR contributes to the literature by developing a
conceptual model to categorize the main variables of the selected articles into six sets of
independent variables, two sets of mediating variables and two sets of outcome responses for
understanding consumer behavior in the context of FDAs. This model serves as a useful
reference for researchers and practitioners seeking a comprehensive understanding of the
field. Third, we also provide a useful basis for future research directions, contributing to the
advancement of research in this area. Against this background, research questions serve as a
guide of this SLR, enabling researchers to focus on the central topic rather than subjective bias
[26]. Thus, a series of specific research questions are used to guide this SLR. Consistent with
prior SLR [18], the research questions are as follows:
1. How has empirical research evolved over the years in this domain?
2. What journals are the most influential in this domain?
3. Who are the most influential scholars in this domain?
4. What research contexts were investigated in this domain?
5. What research methods were used in this domain?
6. What theories were proposed to explain in this domain?
7. What key variables were studied to understand consumer behaviors in this domain?
8. What is an overview of consumer behavioral patterns in this domain based on a
conceptual framework?
9. What are the research gaps and avenues for future research in this domain?
Page 4 of 26
4
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 5, May-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The study is structured as follows: the second section introduces the literature search and
evaluation protocol utilized in this research. The third section elaborates on the findings of
selected articles and presents a conceptual framework summarizing their variables. The fourth
section discusses research gaps and future research possibilities, followed by study limitations
and conclusions in the final section.
METHODOLOGY
To address the above questions, we followed the SLR methodology guidelines proposed by [25].
This methodology starts with formulating a review protocol to establish the review scope.
Furthermore, the procedure of literature evaluation and screening is explained in the
subsequent sub-sections.
Database and Search Terms
In the identification phase, we aim to delineate the precise scope and boundaries of the review,
ensuring the relevance of the selected articles for our study. Following the SLR methodology
[25], we included empirical studies indexed in two well-recognized and popular electronic
databases: Scopus and Web of Science [27]. We selected these two databases due to their
established reputation for reliability. They have been extensively utilized in recent SLRs for
analyzing scientific publications [28], minimizing the likelihood of omitting any relevant
studies.
To finalize the list of keywords and terms and ensure sufficient relevant search results, we first
reviewed existing literature. Subsequently, we conducted collective brainstorming sessions to
compile diverse expressions related to FDAs found in titles, abstracts, or main bodies of existing
literature on FDAs. Additionally, we consulted experienced researchers and practitioners in the
FDA field to validate the comprehensiveness of the list. To achieve our research objectives, we
designed the search strings based on the help of Boolean logic (*, AND, OR, NOT, etc.), helping
in refining our search and fetching relevant literature [29]. Subsequently, we determined the
following retrieval terms: (“food delivery app*” OR “mobile food ordering app*” OR
“smartphone diet app*” OR “food delivery aggregator” OR “food service mobile app*” OR “O2O
food delivery app*” OR “O2O meal delivery app*” OR “food friend app*” OR “food app*”) AND (
“behavio*r” OR “willingness” OR “buy” OR “attitude” OR “intention” OR “trust” OR “satisfaction”
OR “loyalty” OR “choose” OR “loyalty” OR “pay” OR “WOM” OR “purchase” OR “adoption” OR
“advocacy”). As asserted by [20], this step was crucial to ensure comprehensive coverage of
studies related to consumer behavior in FDAs.
Article Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
We applied a series of pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria during the selection
process to ensure the relevance of the chosen articles to our topic. Furthermore, no temporal
restrictions were imposed. All sources were located based on the following inclusion
requirements:
• Articles should encompass quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research.
• The document type should be peer-reviewed empirical articles.
• Articles should be within the subject filter of “business and management”;
• Articles must be written in the English;
• A full-text version must be available;
Page 5 of 26
5
Liu, X., Ng, S. I., Basha, N. K., & Cheah, J.-H. (2024). Consumer Behavior in Food Delivery Applications: A Systematic Literature Review and Future
Research Agenda. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(5). 01-26.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.115.16906
• Articles should examine consumer behavior in the context of FDAs;
• Additionally, we set the exclusion requirements as follows:
• Studies focusing on online food delivery services, online food delivery websites, and
drone food delivery services;
• Conference papers, review articles, dissertations, book chapters, proceedings, editorial
content, and institutional reports;
• Non-English language articles;
• Non-empirical studies;
• A full-text version inaccessible;
Systematic Review Protocol
The study employs the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
(PRISMA) method, a widely adopted approach among academicians for reporting SLR [30]. The
PRISMA method involves four steps: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Figure
1 depicts the detailed flow diagram of the SLR process. Initially, during the identification stage,
search strings were retrieved in the title, abstract, and keywords in the Scopus and Web of
Science database to refine and confine the quest scope. These searches covered studies from
2014 to August 2023. A total of 587 peer-reviewed articles were identified during the article
search stage. Subsequently, with the assistance of Zotero, duplicates were identified and
removed by examining the “author, title, year” format of all listed studies, resulting in a total of
470 unique studies. Then, we conducted rigorous manual screening, applying both inclusion
and exclusion criteria to ensure the relevance of the selected articles [26].
During the manual screening stage, we assessed whether the article directly dealt with
consumer behavior in FDAs by browsing each article’s titles, abstracts, and keywords. A total
of 260 studies were deemed irrelevant to peer-reviewed empirical articles and English versions
and thus eliminated. In the eligibility process, we carefully assessed and read the full texts of
the remaining 210 articles to further evaluate whether they delved into the primary data
inquiry. At this stage, 102 articles did not examine consumer behavior in FDAs, and access to
the full text of 1 article was not possible within the available resources. Consequently, after
discarding these articles, 107 articles satisfied the eligibility criteria. Successively, during the
inclusion stage, as recommended by [31], we utilized a forward and backward search approach
to identify other potentially relevant articles that meet the eligibility criteria, ensuring no
relevant studies were omitted in the final sample. Forward and backward search is a practical
and straightforward strategy for identifying additional studies on a specific topic [32]. In this
respect, we added 5 journal articles through a full-text screening for articles that might be
suitable for the review (meet eligibility criteria). As a result, a total of 112 empirical articles
were collected for the ultimate review basket after taking into account all hitherto-mentioned
selection criteria. In the final stage, we utilized Excel as the software assistance to document
the detailed article’s findings with a worksheet, reporting titles, keywords, objective, used
model/framework, country context, methodology, determinants, consequences, and full
reference of each retained article.
Page 6 of 26
6
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 5, May-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Figure 1: Prisma protocol
RESULTS
A descriptive analysis of all 112 articles was performed from seven perspectives. Theses
perspectives included publication trend, journal distribution, authorship, geographic
distributions, research designs, theoretical underpinnings, and an overview of main variables.
This analysis aimed to address the research questions in the field.
Publication Trend
According to Figure 2, empirical studies investigating consumer behavior in FDAs began in
2014, marking the outset of this review. In the early years, due to the emergence of FDAs and
the incomplete development of relevant mobile technologies, the volume of research output on
this topic remained relatively low. Consequently, only five studies on this topic were collected
from 2014 to 2018. Subsequently, the number of articles in the field exhibited a general upward
trend after 2019. Interestingly, there was a substantial surge in the number of publications Identification of studies via databases and registers
Identification Screening Included Eligibility
Database search: SCOPUS and Web of Science (WOS)
Search terms: (“food delivery app*” OR “mobile food ordering app*” OR
“smartphone diet app*” OR “food delivery aggregator” OR “food service mobile
app*” OR “O2O food delivery app*” OR “food friend app*” OR “food app*”)
AND ( “behavio*r” OR “willingness” OR “buy” OR “attitude” OR “intention”
OR “trust” OR “satisfaction” OR “loyalty” OR “choose” OR “loyalty” OR “pay”
OR “WOM” OR “purchase” OR “adoption” OR “advocacy”)
Limits: (n=587)
Duplicates (articles appeared in
both SCOPUS and WOS)
Excluded (n = 117)
Rejection based on titles, keywords
and abstracts (n =260 )
Articles excluded due to:
Inclusion criteria (n =102)
Full-text inaccessible (n = 1)
Further 5 articles were identified
from backward search
Articles after duplicates removed (n=470)
Articles after screening process (n=210)
Articles after full text scanned
for eligibility (n=107)
Studies included in review
(n =112)
Page 10 of 26
10
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 5, May-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Table 4: Number of countries in the dataset
Number of countries No. of articles
One country 106
Two countries 2
More than two countries 1
Note: Conceptual papers are not included in this list
Research Design
All articles selected for this review utilized primary data. Table 5 illustrates the research
designs employed in the articles. It was observed that a significant proportion of the FDA
studies were quantitative studies (n = 92), with twelve studies employing a mixed-method
approach. Interestingly, only eight studies utilized qualitative methods to investigate FDA.
Table 5: Number of research design in the dataset
Research designs No. of articles
Quantitative 92
Qualitative 8
Mixed-method 12
Theoretical Perspectives
Previous studies employed diverse theoretical lenses to comprehend consumer behavior in
FDAs. According to Table 6, 36 theories were applied. The technology acceptance model (TAM)
(n = 21), unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT2) (n = 12), and theory
of planned behavior (TPB) (n = 7) were the most frequently employed theories among these.
Furthermore, 18 studies utilized multiple theories in their research (e.g., [34,37,46,47,48,49]).
For example, [49] integrated TAM and stimulus–organism–response model, while [48]
extended stimulus–organism–response model with pleasure–arousal–dominance theory.
Additionally, certain theories (e.g., the task-technology fit model, the triangular theory of love,
the attention-interest-desire-action model, and the theory of stress and coping) were utilized
by only one study. Overall, the widespread utilization of theories from various disciplines,
including psychology and communication, suggests that scholars explored diverse theoretical
frameworks to bolster and extend their findings [45,50,51,52].
Table 6: Theoretical foundation in the dataset
Theories No. of articles
The technology acceptance model 21
Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and UTAUT2 12
Expectation-confirmation theory 7
Theory of Planned Behavior 6
Stimulus-organism-response theory 6
Theory of consumption values 5
Pleasure arousal dominance theory 4
Uses and gratification theory 4
Innovation resistance theory 3
Task-Technology fit model 3
Information systems success model 3
Page 11 of 26
11
Liu, X., Ng, S. I., Basha, N. K., & Cheah, J.-H. (2024). Consumer Behavior in Food Delivery Applications: A Systematic Literature Review and Future
Research Agenda. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(5). 01-26.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.115.16906
Behavioural reasoning theory 2
SERVQUAL 2
Personalization-privacy theory 1
Privacy calculus theory 1
The theory of reasoned action 1
Social support theory 1
The extended meta-model 1
Triangular theory of love 1
The expectancy model 1
Relationship theory 1
Co-Creation theory 1
The Attention-Interest-Desire- Action model 1
The theory of stress and coping 1
Trust transfer theory 1
Social influence theory 1
Acquisition-transaction utility theory 1
Theory of interpersonal behavior 1
Equity theory 1
Utility theory 1
Four-level customer loyalty model 1
Dual factor theory 1
Technology continuance theory 1
Cognition-affect-conation model 1
Information adoption model 1
The diffusion of innovation 1
No theory 34
Note. 18 studies have used two theories
Frequently Discussed Variables in FDA Literature
To gain a comprehensive understanding of the main variables extracted from FDA literature,
we have developed a conceptual framework to categorize. Figure 3 illustrates that consumer
responses to FDAs are predominantly influenced by internal factors and external factors.
Internal factors encompass individuals' intrinsic thought processes, comprising motivation- related factors (e.g., utilitarian motivation, hedonic motivation, convenience motivation),
social-related factors (e.g., subjective norms, social isolation, social exchange, social influence),
health-related factors (e.g., health consciousness, hygiene consciousness, health anxiety) and
individual characteristic factors (e.g., habit, brand knowledge, experience barrier, and age),
while external factors are related to extrinsic aspects, including application-related factors (e.g.,
visual appeal, quality of information, and navigational design) and marketing-related factors
(e.g., product portfolio, price value, and various food choices). Thus, there are six sets of
independent variables in total. Additionally, cognitive evaluation factors and affective
evaluation factors serve as mediators in the relationship between antecedents and outcome
responses in FDA contexts. The framework also exhibited two sets of outcome responses,
namely approach response and avoidance response. The abovementioned variables are briefly
discussed below.
Page 12 of 26
12
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 5, May-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Figure 3: Conceptual framework for consumer behavior in using FDAs
From a consumer perspective, various factors stemming from motivational principles have
been identified, with motivation-related factors closely tied to consumer behaviour. For
example, previous empirical research has indicated that consumers’ positive attitude is driven
by hedonic and utilitarian motivations [53]. [54] found that convenience motivation drives
consumers’ positive behavior intention in using FDA. Additionally,[13]found results consistent
with the idea that hedonic motivation predicts consumer behavior.
Social factors refer to an individual’s agreement with the group’s opinion. Among the variables
involved in social stimulus, the subjective norm is the most popular variable [38,53]. For
example, [55] found subjective norms influence consumer use and word-of-mouth intentions.
[56] examined the effect of social influence on satisfaction with using FDAs. This finding is
consistent with that of [57] who assesses the importance of social influence in impacting user
behavior. Moreover, [38] emphasized social isolation may affect consumer continuance
behavior.
Health-related factors focus on cues related to the health of consumers. Health and food safety
are particularly important for some consumers. For example, [58] found health anxiety
significantly affects the satisfaction levels of the consumer in using FDAs. This finding concurs
with findings by [59]. Previous studies also reported that health consciousness has been
identified as a positive driver of consumer behavior in using FDAs such as purchase intention
[60]. Moreover, [38] found that consumer perception of food safety positively influences their
behavioral intention and continuance behavior, respectively. They also mentioned that food
delivery hygiene also predicted consumers' continuance behavior through behavioral intention
to use. The findings of [53]’s (2022) study mentioned that consumer trust in using FDAs may
be impeded by their food safety risk perceptions. In contrast, [40] found there is no support for
the relationship between health consciousness and purchase intentions toward FDAs, while
consumers’ food safety concerns did not have any statistical influence on purchase intentions.
l Food tracking l Information Quality
l Easy payment
l Easy registration
l Review quality
l Personalization l Visual appeal
l Online rating l Interface quality
l System design
l Navigational design
l Listing Search of
restaurants l Food tracking
l Subjective norms l Social isolation
l Social exchange
l Social value
l Social risk
l Social influence
l Societal pressure l Social status
l Moral norms
l Religious values
l Prestige Value
l Health consciousness l Hygiene consciousness
l Food delivery hygiene
l Health Anxiety
l Hygiene l Perception of Food
Safety
Internal factors
l Dining attitudes l Openness to novelty
l Sustainability perception
l Experience barrier
l Self-interests
l Habit l Experience barrier
l Self-efficacy
l Personal innovativeness
l Trustworthiness
l Solidarity with food sector l Positive/ negative
emotions
l Perception of COVID-19-
related risks
l Irritation
l Perceived risk
l Brand knowledge
l Prior Online Purchase
Experience
l Age
l gender
l education
l Income l Annual income
l Usage frequency
l Utilitarian motivations l Hedonic motivations.
l Time-saving orientation.
l Special benefits
l Convenience Motivation
l Easy of use
l Order Customization
Marketing-related factors
l Advertisement overload l Product portfolio
l Value for money
l Various food choices
l Price Advantage
l Monetary and quality-ofbenefits value
l Platform interactivity l Price value
l Saving orientation
l Economic barrier
l Economic exchange
Cognitive Evaluation
l Perceived value l Perceived innovativeness
l Trust
l Loyalty
l Risk assessment
l Cognitive experience l Attitude
l Recovery
l Usefulness
Affective Evaluation
l Satisfaction l Resentment
l Affective experience
l Arousal
l Dominance
l Pleasure
Application-related factors
External factors
Individual characteristic factors
Health-related factors
Motivation-related factors
Social-related factors
Approach response
Avoidance response
l Continuance Intention l Intention
l Loyalty
l WOM
l Adoption
l Satisfaction l Trust
l Habit
l Negative WOM
l Risk perception
l Body dissatisfaction
l Disordered eating urge
Page 14 of 26
14
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 5, May-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
(n = 2). Additionally, FDA studies have investigated other consumer responses such as advocacy
[86], conversion [65], over-ordering behaviour [36], purchase decision [74], and risk
perception [87].
Table 7: Examined responses in quantitative studies (104 studies)
Responses No. of article
Continuance Intention 33
Intention 32
Loyalty 13
word-of-mouth (recommendation) 8
Usage/ adoption 6
Satisfaction 3
Trust 3
Habit 2
Brand attachment 2
Shopping routine 2
Advocacy 1
Conversion 1
Over-ordering behaviour 1
Purchase decision 1
Risk perception 1
Brand involvement 1
Consumer Decision Process 1
Buying Behavior 1
Actual buy 1
Platform preference 1
Disordered eating urges 1
Body dissatisfaction 1
DISCUSSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
This SLR rigorously analyzed 112 articles published between 2014 and 2023 August. In
addition, opportunities for future research were grouped into eight categories: (1) region and
country comparative perspectives, (2) methodological perspectives, (3) theoretical
perspective, (4) demographic perspectives, (5) independent variable perspectives, (6)
moderating effect perspectives, (7) affective and cognitive evaluation perspectives, (8)
outcome response perspectives, (9) drone-based FDA perspectives.
This SLR disclosed that the literature in this field has predominantly focused on three Asian
countries (e.g., India, mainland China, South Korea, and the United States). With 56% of studies
conducted in these four countries, the generalizability of the findings may be questionable.
Therefore, it is recommended that more studies consider collecting data from other continents
such as Europe, Oceania, and South America. Furthermore, cross-cultural and cross-national
comparative studies have received limited attention in the literature, and only a few studies
reported [42,44,45]. Most research focuses on recruiting FDA consumers from a single country.
The results may not be generalizable to countries with different cultural backgrounds and may
not fully represent the target community. [88] noted that different countries or cultures tend
Page 15 of 26
15
Liu, X., Ng, S. I., Basha, N. K., & Cheah, J.-H. (2024). Consumer Behavior in Food Delivery Applications: A Systematic Literature Review and Future
Research Agenda. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(5). 01-26.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.115.16906
to show different consumer psychology, motivations, and behavior despite globalization.
Similar to any online-to-offline service, the online food delivery industry inherently needs to
understand global differences in consumer motivations and behaviors to inform the
practitioners’ cross-border strategies. Furthermore, comparative studies may be useful in
identifying boundary conditions for scholars to extend theories. Furthermore, [122]
highlighted consumer behavior regarding different cultural backgrounds can be different.
Therefore, cultural factors may have a significant influence on consumer behavior differently
in the FDA context. Although it is challenging to collect data in multiple countries and to
conceptualize and analyze the comparative studies, validating the research model in multiple
countries to broaden its generalizability for future research. Therefore, future research should
be directed toward FDA consumer behavior in diverse cultural and geographical settings.
Our review indicates that the quantitative method has gained momentum as one of the most
popular research methods in this domain. These studies typically enabled the identification of
potential drivers of consumer behavior in FDAs by developing and testing research models
based on hypotheses derived from existing literature. In contrast, mixed method and
qualitative method are underrepresented. Given the limited scope of the research domain,
future research should consider the importance of generating new ideas using qualitative
method or mixed method. Specifically, qualitative research is needed to explore new stimuli,
organisms, and response factors, advancing the development of FDA-specific theories.
Conducting semi-structured interviews, focus group interviews, or employing the Delphi
method [89] may uncover additional empirical evidence and provide first-hand insights into
the determinants of consumer behavior in FDAs. Similarly, mixed methods could provide a
holistic understanding of consumer responses by collecting both objective and perceptual
measures. [90] noted that mixed methods can develop stronger inferences from data.
Specifically, employing a qualitative study with focus group discussions or open-ended essays
to elucidate the variables of interest, followed by empirically examining the underlying
research issues using quantitative data, such efforts can be regarded as a superior avenue to
increase the validity of the research by providing more rigorous and convincing findings [91].
[92] indicated that mixed methods can address research questions that other methods cannot
and minimize common method bias. Therefore, the qualitative method or mixed method should
be considered in further studies.
The majority of research in the literature mainly utilized cross-sectional surveys for data
collection, providing insights limited to correlations. Cross-sectional design has limitations.
Researchers should be wary of the possibility of biased findings because they rely on self- reported data collected at a single point in time. Consumer behavior is dynamic and may change
over time [93]. Cross-sectional data may limit understanding of internal changes. It has not
been able to capture an accurate view that explains how consumers’ perceptions change over
time. In addition, the functionality and interface of FDAs continue to evolve [94]. In other words,
there is a constant evolution of the FDAs with the growing social developments. For example,
during the COVID-19 pandemic, government’s stay-at-home restrictions and social distancing
orders have led to increased adoption of FDAs globally. However, data from most studies were
collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising concerns about the generalizability of
research findings to non-epidemic situations [87,95]. Findings may vary with a different survey
period, limiting the causal inferences we could make. Therefore, it is suggested to undertake
longitudinal research for future research. Academia would benefit from empirical evidence
Page 18 of 26
18
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 5, May-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
such as perceived risk and negative experiences. Consequently, if consumers harbor a desire
for retaliation (e.g., seeking retribution against the business) over time, they may develop
resentment towards the business and be unwilling to forgive [117]. In the context of the FDAs,
these aspects warrant further attention to assist practitioners in optimizing user experiences
and alleviating negative sentiments. Another area warranting attention is the analysis of post- purchase return behavior. Consumer trade-offs prior to product return may vary significantly
in other e-commerce settings, yet there is limited understanding of consumers' return behavior
in FDAs. To date, return behaviors have been investigated in online shopping [118], and live- streaming e-commerce [119]. Therefore, these aspects should be considered as part of FDA
responses for future research direction.
Drone-based food delivery is a recent technology advancement in the food delivery industry,
garnering significant interest from scholars [120]. Drone food delivery, as an eco-friendly
innovative channel, offers numerous advantages over traditional people-based food deliver,
including more efficient delivery without traffic concerns, reduced logistics costs, and broader
coverage. UberEATS is exploring the possibility of introducing drone-delivery service. Meituan
Waimai, a major FDA company in China, commenced drone delivery in Shenzhen in 2021 and
covered office buildings, hospitals, university campuses and residential communities [121].
Our review only focused on applications with people-based food delivery, without considering
drone-based food delivery. Further research in FDA should consider that drone food delivery
may impact consumer behavior differently, thereby presenting another area for exploration.
LIMITATION
Although this study contributes to the literature, it suffers from several limitations. Limitations
arise from our selection criteria. Specifically, our study focuses solely on collecting peer- reviewed empirical research (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods) published in
English. Therefore, our findings are restricted to articles that meet our inclusion and exclusion
criteria. Future studies could explore conference papers, proceedings, and non-empirical
research and publications in other languages, which may yield more insights into the field.
Another limitation is that the extracted articles primarily come from two databases. They may
not fully represent the entirety of consumer behavior research related to FDAs. Therefore, it is
possible that some relevant studies in the field may have been inadvertently overlooked in this
review. In this regard, it would be worthwhile to explore additional academic databases to
expand the pool of articles.
CONCLUSION
Over the past few years, the FDA has received a lot of attention in the academic community.
Research on FDAs has increased due to their global popularity. Through systematically
description, categorization, and synthesis of extracted articles, we offer a comprehensive
understanding of consumer behavior in FDA usage and identify research gaps in this field. This
SLR included a substantial sample of studies (n=112), with the majority (e.g., 97 studies)
published between 2020 and 2023, indicating the timeliness of the research. Descriptive
analysis was performed to offer a broader perspective on publication trends in consumer
behavior research related to FDAs. Moreover, we propose a conceptual model to elicit stimulus,
organism, and response factors, classifying the variables from the extracted articles.
Furthermore, we suggested nine future research directions inspired by identified gaps. In
summary, this SLR serves as a fundamental and informative guide for scholars to better
Page 19 of 26
19
Liu, X., Ng, S. I., Basha, N. K., & Cheah, J.-H. (2024). Consumer Behavior in Food Delivery Applications: A Systematic Literature Review and Future
Research Agenda. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(5). 01-26.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.115.16906
understand the stages of consumer behavior formation and trigger their future research efforts.
It also provides guidance for managers and practitioners in managing FDA customers.
References
[1]. Rao, S., & Troshani, I. (2007). A conceptual framework and propositions for the acceptance of mobile
services. Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research, 2(2), 61-73.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer2020014
[2]. Sia, P. Y. H., Saidin, S. S., & Iskandar, Y. H. P. (2023). Systematic review of mobile travel apps and their
smart features and challenges. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 6(5), 2115-2138.
[3]. Nah, F. F. H., Siau, K., & Sheng, H. (2005). The value of mobile applications: a utility company
study. Communications of the ACM, 48(2), 85-90.
[4]. Weichbroth, P. (2020). Usability of mobile applications: a systematic literature study. Ieee Access, 8,
55563-55577.doi:10.1109/access.2020.2981892
[5]. Stocchi, L., Pourazad, N., Michaelidou, N., Tanusondjaja, A., & Harrigan, P. (2022). Marketing research on
Mobile apps: past, present and future. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1-31.
[6]. Statista (2023). “Mobile app usage - Statistics & Facts. Statista.” Available at:
https://www.statista.com/topics/1002/mobile-app-usage/#topicOverview. Accessed 10 October 2023.
[7]. Kopalle, P. K., Kumar, V., & Subramaniam, M. (2020). How legacy firms can embrace the digital ecosystem
via digital customer orientation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48, 114-131.
[8]. Hakim, M. P., Libera, V. M. D., Zanetta, L. D. A., Nascimento, L. G. P., & da Cunha, D. T. (2022). What is a dark
kitchen? A study of consumer's perceptions of deliver-only restaurants using food delivery apps in
Brazil. Food research international, 161, 111768.
[9]. Alalwan, A. A. (2020). Mobile food ordering apps: An empirical study of the factors affecting customer e- satisfaction and continued intention to reuse. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 28-
44.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.04.008.
[10]. Ray, A., Dhir, A., Bala, P. K., & Kaur, P. (2019). Why do people use food delivery apps (FDA)? A uses and
gratification theory perspective. Journal of retailing and consumer services, 51, 221-230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.025
[11]. Crumo, C. A. (2022). Delivering meanings: The “appification” of formal restaurants in Brazil amid the
coronavirus pandemic. Food, Culture & Society, 1-16. DOI: 10.1080/15528014.2022.2143160.
[12]. Pal, D., Funilkul, S., Eamsinvattana, W., & Siyal, S. (2021). Using online food delivery applications during the
COVID-19 lockdown period: What drives University Students’ satisfaction and loyalty?. Journal of
Foodservice Business Research, 25(5), 561-605.DOI: 10.1080/15378020.2021.1964419
[13]. Chakraborty, J. (2021). Convergence of COVID-19 and chronic air pollution risks: Racial/ethnic and
socioeconomic inequities in the US. Environmental Research, 193, 110586.
[14]. Statista (2023). “Online Food Delivery - Worldwide. Statista.” Available at:
https://www.statista.com/outlook/dmo/online-food-delivery/worldwide. Accessed October 2023.
[15]. Williams, B. C., & Plouffe, C. R. (2007). Assessing the evolution of sales knowledge: A 20-year content
analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(4), 408-419.
Page 20 of 26
20
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 5, May-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
[16]. Peighambari, K., Sattari, S., Kordestani, A., & Oghazi, P. (2016). Consumer behavior research: A synthesis of
the recent literature. Sage Open, 6(2), 2158244016645638.
[17]. Hemsley-Brown, J., & Sharp, C. (2003). The use of research to improve professional practice: A systematic
review of the literature. Oxford Review of Education, 29(4), 449-471.
[18]. Chen, J., Lan, Y. C., & Chang, Y. W. (2023). Consumer behaviour in cross‐border e‐commerce: Systematic
literature review and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 47(6), 2609-
2669.
[19]. Nguyen, D. H., de Leeuw, S., & Dullaert, W. E. (2018). Consumer behaviour and order fulfilment in online
retailing: A systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 255-276.
[20]. Iranmanesh, M., Senali, M. G., Ghobakhloo, M., Nikbin, D., & Abbasi, G. A. (2022). Customer behaviour
towards halal food: a systematic review and agenda for future research. Journal of Islamic
Marketing, 13(9), 1901-1917.https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-01-2021-0031
[21]. Li, C., Mirosa, M., & Bremer, P. (2020). Review of online food delivery platforms and their impacts on
sustainability. Sustainability, 12(14), 5528.
[22]. Seghezzi, A., Winkenbach, M., & Mangiaracina, R. (2021). On-demand food delivery: a systematic literature
review. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 32(4), 1334-1355.
[23]. Shroff, A., Shah, B. J., & Gajjar, H. (2022). Online food delivery research: A systematic literature
review. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34(8), 2852-2883.
[24]. Shankar, A., Jebarajakirthy, C., Nayal, P., Maseeh, H. I., Kumar, A., & Sivapalan, A. (2022). Online food
delivery: A systematic synthesis of literature and a framework development. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 104, 103240.
[25]. Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need
to know?. International business review, 29(4), 101717.
[26]. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed
management knowledge by means of systematic review. British journal of management, 14(3), 207-222.
[27]. Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic
papers. Scientometrics, 123(1), 321-335.
[28]. Kushwah, S., Dhir, A., Sagar, M., & Gupta, B. (2019). Determinants of organic food consumption. A
systematic literature review on motives and barriers. Appetite, 143, 104402.
[29]. Pulsiri, N., & Vatananan-Thesenvitz, R. (2018). Improving systematic literature review with automation
and bibliometrics. In 2018 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and
Technology (PICMET) (pp. 1-8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/PICMET.2018.8481746.
[30]. Panic, N., Leoncini, E., de Belvis, G., Ricciardi, W., & Boccia, S. (2013). Evaluation of the endorsement of the
preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of
published systematic review and meta-analyses. PloS one, 8(12), e83138.
[31]. Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele
University, 33(2004), 1-26.
[32]. Haddaway, N. R., Page, M. J., Pritchard, C. C., & McGuinness, L. A. (2022). PRISMA2020: An R package and
Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital
transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell systematic reviews, 18(2), e1230.
Page 22 of 26
22
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 5, May-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
[49]. Akram, U., Ansari, A. R., Fu, G., & Junaid, M. (2020). Feeling hungry? let's order through mobile! examining
the fast food mobile commerce in China. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 56, 102142.
[50]. Ahn, J., & Kwon, J. (2021). Examining the relative influence of multidimensional customer service.
relationships in the food delivery application context. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 33(3), 912-928.
[51]. Tandon, A., Kaur, P., Bhatt, Y., Mäntymäki, M., & Dhir, A. (2021). Why do people purchase from food
delivery apps? A consumer value perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 63, 102667.
[52]. Allah Pitchay, A., Ganesan, Y., Zulkifli, N. S., & Khaliq, A. (2022). Determinants of customers' intention to
use online food delivery application through smartphone in Malaysia. British Food Journal, 124(3), 732-
753.
[53]. Wen, H., Pookulangara, S., & Josiam, B. M. (2022). A comprehensive examination of consumers' intentions
to use food delivery apps. British Food Journal, 124(5), 1737-1754.
[54]. Buvaneswari, P.S., Swetha, M.S., Ragetha, T., Nisha, D., (2021). Technology at Door Step: Consumer
Perception on Food Delivery Aggregators. Materials Today: Proceedings, In press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATPR.2021.01.735.
[55]. Belanche, D., Flavián, M., & Pérez-Rueda, A. (2020). Mobile apps use and WOM in the food delivery sector:
the role of planned behavior, perceived security and customer lifestyle
compatibility. Sustainability, 12(10), 4275.
[56]. Chotigo, J., & Kadono, Y. (2021). Comparative analysis of key factors encouraging food delivery app
adoption before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand. Sustainability, 13(8),
4088.https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084088.
[57]. Muangmee, C., Kot, S., Meekaewkunchorn, N., Kassakorn, N., & Khalid, B. (2021). Factors determining the
behavioral intention of using food delivery apps during COVID-19 pandemics. Journal of theoretical and
applied electronic commerce research, 16(5), 1297-1310.
[58]. Raman, P. (2022). Fear of coronavirus on continuance intention to use food delivery apps. Journal of
Electronic Commerce in Organizations (JECO), 20(2), 1-22.
[59]. Mertens, E., Sagastume, D., Sorić, T., Brodić, I., Dolanc, I., Jonjić, A., ... & Peñalvo, J. L. (2022). Food choice
motives and COVID-19 in Belgium. Foods, 11(6), 842.
[60]. Candra, S., Ayudina, M., & Arashi, M. A. (2021). The impact of online food applications during the Covid-19
pandemic. International Journal of Technology, 12(3), 472-484.
[61]. Kimiagari, S., & Malafe, N. S. A. (2021). The role of cognitive and affective responses in the relationship
between internal and external stimuli on online impulse buying behavior. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 61, 102567.
[62]. Lee, S. W., Sung, H. J., & Jeon, H. M. (2019). Determinants of continuous intention on food delivery apps:
extending UTAUT2 with information quality. Sustainability, 11(11), 3141.
[63]. Lee, S. O., & Han, H. (2022). Food delivery application quality in customer brand loyalty formation:
Identifying its antecedent and outcomes. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 107, 103292.
[64]. Indriyarti, E. R., Christian, M., Yulita, H., Ruminda, M., Sunarno, S., & Wibowo, S. (2022). Online food
delivery app distribution and determinants of Jakarta’s Gen Z spending habits. Journal of Distribution
Science, 20(7), 73-86.
Page 23 of 26
23
Liu, X., Ng, S. I., Basha, N. K., & Cheah, J.-H. (2024). Consumer Behavior in Food Delivery Applications: A Systematic Literature Review and Future
Research Agenda. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(5). 01-26.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.115.16906
[65]. Kapoor, A. P., & Vij, M. (2018). Technology at the dinner table: Ordering food online through mobile
apps. Journal of retailing and consumer services, 43, 342-351.
[66]. Liu, X., Lim, X.-J., Cheah, J.-H., Ng, S.I. and Kamal Basha, N. (2023), "Food at your doorstep? Examining
customer loyalty towards online food delivery applications", British Food Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No.
ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2023-0116
[67]. Fakfare, P. (2021). Influence of service attributes of food delivery application on customers' satisfaction
and their behavioural responses: The IPMA approach. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food
Science, 25, 100392.
[68]. Su, D. N., Nguyen, N. A. N., Nguyen, L. N. T., Luu, T. T., & Nguyen-Phuoc, D. Q. (2022). Modeling consumers’
trust in mobile food delivery apps: Perspectives of technology acceptance model, mobile service quality
and personalization-privacy theory. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 31(5), 535-569.
[69]. Sharma, R., Dhir, A., Talwar, S., & Kaur, P. (2021). Over-ordering and food waste: The use of food delivery
apps during a pandemic. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 96, 102977.
[70]. Kwon, J., Yu, H., & Ahn, J. (2023). Multidimensional value of customers' mobile service experiences in the
food service context. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 6(2), 912-927.
[71]. Ng, K. S. P., Zhang, J., Wong, J. W. C., & Luo, K. K. (2023). Internal factors, external factors and behavioral
intention toward food delivery apps (FDAs). British Food Journal, 125(8), 2970-2987.
[72]. Yoopetch, C., Siriphan, P., & Chirapanda, S. (2022). Determinants of Customer Satisfaction Via Online Food
Delivery Applications. ABAC Journal, 42(2), 70-88.
[73]. Kim, J. J., Kim, I., & Hwang, J. (2021). A change of perceived innovativeness for contactless food delivery
services using drones after the outbreak of COVID-19. International journal of hospitality management, 93,
102758.
[74]. Handi, H., Hendratono, T., Purwanto, E., & Ihalauw, J. J. (2018). The effect of e-WOM and perceived value on
the purchase decision of foods by using the go-food application as mediated by trust. Quality Innovation
Prosperity, 22(2), 112-127.
[75]. Burlea-Schiopoiu, A., Puiu, S. and Dinu, A. (2022), “The impact of food delivery applications on Romanian
consumers’ behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 82, doi:
10.1016/j.seps.2021.101220.
[76]. Riaz, H., Davidaviciene, V., Ahmed, H., & Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I. (2022). Optimizing customer
repurchase intention through cognitive and affective experience: an insight of food delivery
applications. Sustainability, 14(19), 12936.
[77]. Timur, B., Oğuz, Y. E., & Yilmaz, V. (2023). Consumer behavior of mobile food ordering app users during
COVID-19: dining attitudes, e-satisfaction, perceived risk, and continuance intention. Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Technology, 14(3), 460-475.
[78]. Aureliano-Silva, L., Spers, E. E., Lodhi, R. N., & Pattanayak, M. (2022). Who loves to forgive? The mediator
mechanism of service recovery between brand love, brand trust and purchase intention in the context of
food-delivery apps. British Food Journal, 124(12), 4686-4700.
[79]. An, S., Eck, T., & Yim, H. (2023). Understanding consumers’ acceptance intention to use mobile food
delivery applications through an extended technology acceptance model. Sustainability, 15(1), 832.
Page 24 of 26
24
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 5, May-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
[80]. Thongsri, N., Warintarawej, P., Chotkaew, S., & Seksan, J. (2022). A novel extended design thinking
approach and predicting antecedents of food friend application acceptance during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Foresight, 24(3/4),408–428. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-01-2021-0021
[81]. Roh, M., & Park, K. (2019). Adoption of O2O food delivery services in South Korea: The moderating role of
moral obligation in meal preparation. International Journal of Information Management, 47, 262-273.
[82]. Kaur, P., Talwar, S., Islam, N., Salo, J., & Dhir, A. (2022). The effect of the valence of forgiveness to service
recovery strategies and service outcomes in food delivery apps. Journal of Business Research, 147, 142-
157.
[83]. Kumar, S., & Shah, A. (2021). Revisiting food delivery apps during COVID-19 pandemic? Investigating the
role of emotions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 62, 102595.
[84]. Kumar, S., Jain, A., & Hsieh, J. K. (2021). Impact of apps aesthetics on revisit intentions of food delivery
apps: The mediating role of pleasure and arousal. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 63, 102686.
[85]. Lorenzo-Romero, C., Gómez-Borja, M. Á., & Mollá-Descals, A. (2011). Effects of utilitarian and hedonic
atmospheric dimensions on consumer responses in an online shopping environment. African Journal of
Business Management, 5(21), 8649.
[86]. Fakfare, P. (2021). Influence of service attributes of food delivery application on customers' satisfaction
and their behavioural responses: The IPMA approach. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food
Science, 25, 100392.
[87]. Zanetta, L. D. A., Hakim, M. P., Gastaldi, G. B., Seabra, L. M. A. J., Rolim, P. M., Nascimento, L. G. P., ... & da
Cunha, D. T. (2021). The use of food delivery apps during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil: The role of
solidarity, perceived risk, and regional aspects. Food Research International, 149, 110671.
[88]. De Mooij, M. (2019). Consumer behavior and culture: Consequences for global marketing and
advertising.1-472.
[89]. Maxwell, J. A. (2021). Why qualitative methods are necessary for generalization. Qualitative
Psychology, 8(1), 111.
[90]. Ivankova, N. V., & Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mixed methods. Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A
practical introduction, 23, 135-161.
[91]. McKim, C. A. (2017). The value of mixed methods research: A mixed methods study. Journal of mixed
methods research, 11(2), 202-222.
[92]. Reio Jr, T. G. (2010). The threat of common method variance bias to theory building. Human Resource
Development Review, 9(4), 405-411.
[93]. Bhukya, R., & Paul, J. (2023). Social influence research in consumer behavior: What we learned and what
we need to learn?–A hybrid systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research, 162, 113870.
[94]. Rita, P., Eiriz, V., & Conde, B. (2023). The role of information for the customer journey in mobile food
ordering apps. Journal of Services Marketing, 37(5), 574-591.
[95]. Tran, V. D. (2021). Using mobile food delivery applications during the COVID-19 pandemic: Applying the
theory of planned behavior to examine continuance behavior. Sustainability, 13(21), 12066.
[96]. Ruissen, G. R., Zumbo, B. D., Rhodes, R. E., Puterman, E., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2022). Analysis of dynamic
psychological processes to understand and promote physical activity behaviour using intensive
longitudinal methods: A primer. Health Psychology Review, 16(4), 492-525.
Page 25 of 26
25
Liu, X., Ng, S. I., Basha, N. K., & Cheah, J.-H. (2024). Consumer Behavior in Food Delivery Applications: A Systematic Literature Review and Future
Research Agenda. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(5). 01-26.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.115.16906
[97]. McDonald, S., Quinn, F., Vieira, R., O’Brien, N., White, M., Johnston, D. W., & Sniehotta, F. F. (2017). The state
of the art and future opportunities for using longitudinal n-of-1 methods in health behaviour research: a
systematic literature overview. Health psychology review, 11(4), 307-323.
[98]. Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2011). The evolution of entrepreneurial competencies: A
longitudinal study of university spin‐off venture emergence. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1314-
1345.
[99]. Varpio, L., Paradis, E., Uijtdehaage, S., & Young, M. (2020). The distinctions between theory, theoretical
framework, and conceptual framework. Academic Medicine, 95(7), 989-994.
[100].Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Chan, D. W. (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling
training. Journal of applied psychology, 90(4), 692.
[101].Kim, Y. G., Woo, E., & Nam, J. (2018). Sharing economy perspective on an integrative framework of the
NAM and TPB. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 72, 109-117.
[102]. Chen, J. H., & Fu, J. R. (2018). On the effects of perceived value in the mobile moment. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, 27, 118-128.
[103].Wan, J., Zhao, L., Lu, Y., & Gupta, S. (2017). Evaluating app bundling strategy for selling mobile apps: an
ambivalent perspective. Information Technology & People, 30(1), 2-23.
[104].Hsiao, C. H., Chang, J. J., & Tang, K. Y. (2016). Exploring the influential factors in continuance usage of
mobile social Apps: Satisfaction, habit, and customer value perspectives. Telematics and
Informatics, 33(2), 342-355.
[105].Kwon, H. E., So, H., Han, S. P., & Oh, W. (2016). Excessive dependence on mobile social apps: A rational
addiction perspective. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 919-939.
[106]. Lee, J., & Shin, D. H. (2016). Targeting potential active users for mobile app install advertising: An
exploratory study. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 32(11), 827-834.
[107].Ghorayeb, A., Comber, R., & Gooberman-Hill, R. (2021). Older adults' perspectives of smart home
technology: Are we developing the technology that older people want?. International journal of human- computer studies, 147, 102571.
[108].Ng, S. I., Lim, X. J., & Hsu, H. C. (2021). The importance of age-friendly city on older people’s continuity and
life satisfaction. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(14), 7252.
[109].Gurtner, S., Reinhardt, R., & Soyez, K. (2014). Designing mobile business applications for different age
groups. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 177-188.
[110].Tang, C. M., & Chaw, L. (2019). Driving high inclination to complete massive open online courses (MOOCs):
motivation and engagement factors for learners. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 17, 118-130.
[111].Jisana, T. K. (2014). Consumer behaviour models: an overview. Sai Om Journal of Commerce &
Management, 1(5), 34-43.
[112]. Cai, J., Zhao, Y., & Sun, J. (2022). Factors influencing fitness app users’ behavior in China. International
Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38(1), 53-63.
[113]. Logan, K. (2016). Attitudes towards in-app advertising: a uses and gratifications perspective. International
Journal of Mobile Communications, 15(1), 26-48.
Page 26 of 26
26
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 5, May-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
[114].Nagaraj, S., & Vijayalakshmi, S. (2018). A study on food ordering mobile apps. Asian Journal of Research in
Social Sciences and Humanities, 8(7), 10-23.
[115]. Stephens, J., Miller, H., & Militello, L. (2020). Food delivery apps and the negative health impacts for
Americans. Frontiers in nutrition, 7, 14.
[116].Williams, G., Tushev, M., Ebrahimi, F., & Mahmoud, A. (2020). Modeling user concerns in sharing economy:
the case of food delivery apps. Automated Software Engineering, 27, 229-263.
[117].Tsarenko, Y., Strizhakova, Y., & Otnes, C. C. (2019). Reclaiming the future: Understanding customer
forgiveness of service transgressions. Journal of Service Research, 22(2), 139-155.
[118]. Lin, D., Lee, C. K. M., Siu, M. K., Lau, H., & Choy, K. L. (2020). Analysis of customers' return behaviour after
online shopping in China using SEM. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 120(5), 883-902.
[119]. Xu, W., Zhang, X., Chen, R., & Yang, Z. (2023). How do you say it matters? A multimodal analytics
framework for product return prediction in live streaming e-commerce. Decision Support Systems, 172,
113984.
[120].Hwang, J., Lee, J. S., & Kim, H. (2019). Perceived innovativeness of drone food delivery services and its
impacts on attitude and behavioral intentions: The moderating role of gender and age. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 81, 94-103.
[121]. China Daily (2024). “Online Food Delivery - Worldwide. Statista.” Available at:
https://www.chinadailyhk.com/article/371808. Accessed January 2024.
[122].De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). Cross-cultural consumer behavior: A review of research
findings. Journal of international consumer marketing, 23(3-4), 181-192.