Antecedents of Consumers’ Purchase Intention towards Organic Food: Integration of Theory of Planned Behavior and Protection Motivation Theory
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. An Overview of the Organic Food Sector in Malaysia
2.2. Definition of Organic Food and Its Practices
2.3. Theoretical Foundation
2.3.1. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
2.3.2. Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)
2.3.3. Integration of Theory of Planned Behavior and Protection Motivation Theory
2.4. Purchase Intention towards Organic Food
2.5. Factors That Influence Consumers’ Purchase Intention towards Organic Food
2.5.1. Perceived Threat
2.5.2. Perceived Rewards
2.5.3. Perceived Efficacy
2.5.4. Perceived Cost
2.5.5. Subjective Norm
2.5.6. Attitude
2.6. Proposed Research Framework
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Measures
3.2. Sample and Procedures
4. Results
4.1. Measurement Model Assessment
4.2. Structural Model Assessment
4.3. Hypothesis Testing
5. Discussion
6. Limitation and Future Research
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Perceived Severity | PS1 | Climate change is a serious issue. |
PS2 | Climate change will have negative consequences on this planet. | |
PS3 | The negative impact of climate change is severe. | |
PS4 | The thought of climate change scares me. | |
Perceived Vulnerability | PV1 | Climate change can negatively affect me. |
PV2 | I will experience the negative effects of climate change in my lifetime. | |
PV3 | I am vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change. | |
PV4 | My chances of being affected negatively by climate change are high. | |
Fear | F1 | I fear of getting ill when I exclusively eat agricultural products from non-organic farming. |
F2 | I fear products of non-organic farming could contain pesticides residues. | |
F3 | I fear the environment will suffer under current non-organic agricultural practices. | |
Intrinsic Rewards | IR1 | I feel comfortable purchasing non-organic food. |
IR2 | If I purchase non-organic food, I will be healthier. | |
IR3 | If I purchase non-organic food, I will be more confident. | |
IR4 | If I purchase non-organic food, I will be happier. | |
Extrinsic Rewards | ER1 | Non-organic food is easily available. |
ER2 | If I purchase non-organic food, I will save time. | |
ER3 | If I purchase non-organic food, I will save money. | |
ER4 | If I purchase non-organic food, I will save effort. | |
ER5 | If I purchase non-organic food, I will get more acceptances from my peers. | |
ER6 | If I purchase non-organic food, I will get more approval from my peers. | |
ER7 | If I purchase non-organic food, I will be popular among my peers. | |
ER8 | If I purchase non-organic food, I will meet my peers’ expectations. | |
Response Efficacy | RE1 | I am sure that purchasing organic food is effective in preventing negative environment effects. |
RE2 | I am sure that purchasing organic food will help to prevent depletion of the scarce resources. | |
RE3 | I am sure that purchasing organic food will help to prevent threat to my well-being and the well-being of society. | |
Self-efficacy | SE1 | It is easy for me to be involved in purchases of organic food. |
SE2 | If I wanted to, I could easily be involved in purchases of organic food. | |
SE3 | It is mostly up to me whether I would like to be involved in purchases of organic food. | |
Response Cost | RC1 | Although organic food is better for my health or the health of my kids or the environment, I am not willing to pay more for organic food. |
RC2 | I usually compare prices of organic and non-organic food, and will only buy the organic ones when the price is reasonable to me. | |
RC3 | Organic food is relatively expensive to purchase. | |
RC4 | Organic food has limited choices for me. | |
RC5 | Purchases of organic food would require too much of an adjustment in my food consumption. | |
RC6 | There is not enough certainty about the safety of organic food. | |
Subjective Norm | SN1 | Most people who are important to me think I should purchase organic food. |
SN2 | Most people who are important to me would want me to purchase organic food. | |
SN3 | People whose opinions I value would prefer that I purchase organic food. | |
SN4 | My friend’s positive opinion influences me to purchase organic food. | |
Attitude towards organic food | AT1 | I like the idea of purchasing organic food. |
AT2 | Purchasing organic food is a good idea. | |
AT3 | I have a favourable attitude toward purchasing organic food. | |
Purchase Intention | PI1 | I will consider buying organic food because they are less polluting in coming times. |
PI2 | I will consider switching to organic food for ecological reasons. | |
PI3 | I plan to spend more on organic food rather than non-organic food. | |
PI4 | I expect to purchase organic food in the future because of its positive environmental contribution. | |
PI5 | I definitely want to purchase organic food in the near future. |
References
- Perez-Barea, J.J.; Espantaleon-Perez, R.; Sedik, P. Evaluating the Perception of Socially Responsible Consumers: The Case of Products Derived from Organic Beef. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Goal 13: Climate Action; UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, M.F. Attitude Toward Organic Foods Among Taiwanese as Related to Health Consciousness, Environmental Attitudes, and the Mediating Effects of a Healthy Lifestyle. Br. Food J. 2009, 111, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, M. Determinants of Organic Food Purchases: Evidence from Household Panel Data. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 68, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Jeong, S.H.; Hwang, Y. Predictors of Pro-Environmental Behaviors of American and Korean Students: The Application of the Theory of Reasoned Action and Protection Motivation Theory. Sci. Commun. 2012, 35, 168–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lockie, S.; Lyons, K.; Lawrence, G.; Grice, J. Choosing Organics: A Path Analysis of Factors Underlying the Selection of Organic Food Among Australian Consumers. Appetite 2004, 43, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, O.H.; Hoover, L.; Dodd, T.; Huffman, L.; Feng, D. The Use of the Modified Protection Motivation Theory to Explore Adult Consumers’ Functional Foods Consumption Behavior. In Proceedings of the 16th Graduate Student Research Conference in Hospitality and Tourism Houston, University of Massachusetts Amherst Community, Houston, TX, USA, 6–8 January2011; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- TechSci Research. Global Organic Food Market by Product Type (Organic Meat, Poultry and Dairy; Organic Fruits and Vegetables; Organic Processed Food; etc.), by Region (Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific, etc.), Competition Forecast and Opportunities, 2012–2022; TechSci Research: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI). Scope of Research—Organic Farming; MARDI: Seri Kembangan, Malaysia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Somasundram, C.; Zuliana, R.; Vicknesha, S. A Review on Organic Food Production in Malaysia. Horticulturae 2016, 2, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Willer, H.; Lernoud, J. The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics & Emerging Trends 2019; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and IFOAM: Nurnberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Chait, J. The Balance Small Business. What is Organic Farming? Available online: https://www.thebalancesmb.com/the-definition-of-organic-farming-2538081 (accessed on 1 May 2020).
- Coleman, L.J.; Bahnan, N.; Kelkar, M.; Curry, N. Walking the Talk: How the Theory of Reasoned Action Explains Adult and Student Intentions to Go Green. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 2011, 27, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rogers, R.W. A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. J. Psychol. Interdiscip. Appl. 1975, 91, 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keshavarz, M.; Karami, E. Farmers’ Pro-Environmental Behavior Under Drought: Application of Protection Motivation Theory. J. Arid Environ. 2016, 127, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirkarimi, K.; Mostafavi, F.; Eshghinia, S.; Vakili, M.A.; Ozouni-Davaji, R.B.; Aryaie, M. Effect of Motivational Interviewing on a Weight Loss Program Based on the Protection Motivation Theory. Iran. Red Crescent Med. J. 2015, 17, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cismaru, M.; Cismaru, R.; Ono, T.; Nelson, K. Act on climate change: An application of Protection Motivation Theory. Soc. Mark. Q. 2011, 17, 62–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, H.; Ahn, E.; Kang, S. Processing Anti-Smoking Ads Among College Students: The Role of Emotional Response and Level of Smoking. J. Promot. Manag. 2016, 22, 370–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, D.N.; Koster, A.; Russell, C.G. Predicting Intentions to Consumer Functional Foods and Supplements to Offset Memory Loss Using an Adaptation of Protection Motivation Theory. Appetite 2004, 43, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hsieh, H.L.; Kuo, Y.M.; Wang, S.R.; Chuang, B.K.; Tsai, C.H. A Study of Personal Health Record User’s Behavioral Model Based on the PMT and UTAUT Integrative Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Reserach Public Health 2017, 14, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janmaimool, P. Application of Protection Motivation Theory to Investigate Sustainable Waste Management Behaviors. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Milne, S.; Sheeran, P.; Orbell, S. Prediction and Intervention in Health-Related Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of Protection Motivation Theory. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 30, 106–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, Q.A.; Hens, L.; MacAlister, C.; Johnson, L.; Lebel, B.; Tan, S.B.; Nguyen, H.M.; Nguyen, N.T.; Lebel, L. Theory of Reasoned Action as a Framework for Communicating Climate Risk: A Case Study of Schoolchildren in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiao, A.; Yang, S.; Iqbal, Q. Factors Affecting Purchase Intentions in Generation Y: An Empirical Evidence from Fast Food Industry in Malaysia. Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bai, L.; Wang, M.; Gong, S. Understanding the Antecedents of Organic Food Purchases: The Important Roles of Beliefs, Subjective Norms, and Identity Expressiveness. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baghiani-Moghadam, M.H.; Andi, S.J.; Shirvani, J.S.; Khafri, S.; Ghadimi, R.; Parsian, H. Efficiency of Two Constructs Called “Fear of Disease” and “Perceived Severity of Disease” on the Prevention of Gastric Cancer: Application of Protection Motivation Theory. Casp. J. Intern. Med. 2015, 6, 201–208. [Google Scholar]
- Gebrehiwot, T.; Veen, A.V. Farmers Prone to Drough Risk: Why some Farmers Undertake Farm-Level Risk-Reduction Measures While Others Not? Environ. Manag. 2015, 55, 588–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rainear, A.M.; Christensen, J.L. Protection Motivation Theory as an Explanatory Framework for Proenvironmental Behavioral Intentions. Commun. Res. Rep. 2017, 34, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moeini, B.; Ezati, E.; Barati, M.; Shahkolai, F.R.; Mezerji, N.M.; Afshari, M. Skin Cancer Preventive Behaviors in Iranian Farmers. Workplace Health Saf. 2019, 67, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruthig, J.C. Health Risk Perceptions and Exercise in Older Adulthood: An Application of Protection Motivation Theory. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2016, 35, 939–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verkoeyen, S.; Nepal, S.K. Understanding Scuba Divers’ Response to Coral Bleaching: An Application of Protection Motivation Theory. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 869–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hassandoust, F.; Techatassanasoontorn, A.A. Understanding Users’ Information Security Awareness and Intentions: A Full Nomology of Protection Motivation Theory. In Cyber Influence and Cognitive Threats; Benson, V., Mcalaney, J., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: London, UK, 2020; pp. 129–143. [Google Scholar]
- Ling, M.; Kothe, E.J.; Mullan, B.A. Predicting Intention to Receive a Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Using Protection Motivation Theory. Soc. Sci. Med. 2019, 233, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Scarpa, R.; Thiene, M. Organic Food Choices and Protection Motivation Theory: Addressing the Psychological Sources of Heterogeneity. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 532–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. Am. Psychol. 1982, 37, 122–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. Perceived Behavioural Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 665–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Liang, J.; Yang, J.; Ma, X.; Li, X.; Wu, J.; Yang, G.; Ren, G.; Feng, Y. Analysis of the Environmental Behavior of Farmers for Non-Point Source Pollution Control and Management: An Integration of the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Protection Motivation Theory. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 237, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aung, Y.M.; Chotiyaputta, V. Exploring Customers’ Purchase Intention on Poultry Products Using Protection Motivation Theory. Panyapiwat J. 2020, 12, 145–165. [Google Scholar]
- Aertsens, J.; Verbeke, W.; Mondelaers, K.; Huylenbroeck, G.V. Personal Determinants of Organic Food Consumption: A Review. Br. Food J. 2009, 111, 1140–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chu, K.M. Mediating Influences of Attitude on Internal and External Factors Influencing Consumers’ Intention to Purchase Organic Foods in China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ostrom, T.M. The Relationship Between the Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive Components of Attitude. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1969, 5, 12–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chyung, S.Y.; Roberts, K.; Swanson, I.; Hankinson, A. Evidence-Based Survey Design: The Use of a Midpoint on the Likert Scale. Perform. Improv. 2017, 56, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ibrahim, H.; Al-Ajlouni, M.M. Sustainable Consumption: Insights from the Protection Motivation (PMT), Deontic Justice (DJT) and Construal Level (CLT) Theories. Manag. Decis. 2018, 56, 610–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, W.Y.; Linn, C.T.; Fu, C.S.; Sukoco, B.M. The Role of Endorsers, Framing, and Rewards on the Effectiveness of Dietary Supplement Advertisements. J. Health Commun. Int. Perspect. 2012, 17, 54–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdullah, I. Advertising in Malaysia. In More Advertising Worldwide; Kloss, I., Ed.; Springer Science & Business Media: Stralsund, Germany, 2002; pp. 159–181. [Google Scholar]
- Anvar, M.; Venter, M. Attitudes and Purchase Behaviour of Green Products Among Generation Y Consumers in South Africa. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 2014, 5, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de-Magistris, T.; Gracia, A. Consumers’ Willingness-to-Pay for Sustainable Food Products: The Case of Organically and Locally Grown Almonds in Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 118, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maloney, J.; Lee, M.-Y.; Jackson, V.; Miller-Spillman, K.A. Consumer Willingness to Purchase Organic Products: Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2014, 5, 308–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Modi, A.; Patel, J. Predicting Green Product Consumption Using Theory of Planned Behavior and Reasoned Action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, B.C.; Lau, T.C. Green Purchase Behavior: Examining the Influence of Green Environmental Attitude, Perceived Consumer Effectiveness and Specific Green Purchase Attitude. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2011, 5, 559–567. [Google Scholar]
- Yadav, R. Altruistic or Egoistic: Which Value Promotes Organic Food Consumption Among Young Consumers? A Study in the Context of a Developing Nation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 33, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W. Commentary: Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. MIS Q. 1998, 22, VII–XVI. [Google Scholar]
- Erdfelder, E.; Faul, F.; Buchner, A. GPOWER: A General Power Analysis Program. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 1996, 28, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodhue, D.L.; Lewis, W.; Thompson, R. Does PLS Have Advantages for Small Sample Size or Non-Normal Data? MIS Q. 2012, 36, 981–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In Multivatiate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2014; pp. 599–638. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Gold, A.H.; Malhotra, A.; Segars, A.H. Knowledge Management: An Organizational Capabilities Perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2001, 18, 185–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Cha, J. Partial Least Squares. In Advanced Methods of Marketing Research; Bagozzi, R.P., Ed.; Blackwell Publishers: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994; pp. 52–78. [Google Scholar]
- UN News. Fall in COVID-Linked Carbon Emissions Won’t Halt Climate Change–UN Weather Agency Chief; UN News: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Henson, S.; Cranfield, J.; Herath, D. Understanding Consumer Receptivity Towards Foods and Non-Prescription Pills Containing Phytosterols as a Means to Offset the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: An Application of Protection Motivation Theory. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2010, 34, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, N.; Dayal, R. Drivers of Green Purchase Intentions: Green Self-Efficacy and Perceived Consumer Effectiveness. Glob. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2016, 8, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maichum, K.; Parichatnon, S.; Peng, K.C. Application of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior model to Investigate Purchase Intention of Green Products Among Thai Consumers. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, X.; Pacho, F.; Liu, J.; Kajungiro, R. Factors Influencing Organic Food Purchase Intention in Developing Countries and the Moderating Role of Knowledge. Sustainability 2019, 11, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, S.; Jaharuddin, N.S. Identifying the Key Purchase Factors for Organic Food Among Chinese Consumers. Front. Bus. Res. China 2020, 14, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pacho, F. What Influences Consumers to Purchase Organic Food in Developing Countries? Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrighetto, G.; Grieco, D.; Tummolin, L. Perceived Legitimacy of Normative Expectations Motivates Compliance with Social Norms when Nobody is Watching. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Luu, V.; Land, L.; Chin, W.W. Safeguarding Against Romance Scams -Using Protection Motivation Theory. In Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Association for Information Systems Electronic Library (AISeL), Guimarães, Portugal, 10 June 2017; pp. 2429–2444. [Google Scholar]
Variable | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 166 | 55% |
Female | 134 | 45% |
Age Group | ||
18–25 | 73 | 24% |
26–35 | 172 | 57% |
36–45 | 42 | 14% |
46–55 | 4 | 1% |
56 and above | 9 | 3% |
Marital Status | ||
Single | 195 | 65% |
Married | 100 | 33% |
Divorced | 5 | 2% |
Education Level | ||
Secondary school | 68 | 23% |
Certificate/Diploma | 51 | 17% |
Bachelor’s Degree | 135 | 45% |
Postgraduate Degree | 44 | 15% |
Others | 2 | 1% |
Occupational Level | ||
Self-employed | 74 | 25% |
Professional | 51 | 17% |
Manager/Senior Manager | 23 | 8% |
Executive Officer | 81 | 27% |
Housewife | 6 | 2% |
Student | 51 | 17% |
Unemployed | 5 | 2% |
Others | 9 | 3% |
Monthly Income | ||
RM1500 and below | 73 | 24% |
RM1501–RM3500 | 42 | 14% |
RM3501–RM5000 | 83 | 28% |
RM5001 and above | 102 | 34% |
Ethnicity | ||
Malay | 83 | 28% |
Chinese | 192 | 64% |
Indian | 23 | 8% |
Others | 2 | 1% |
First Order Constructs (after Deletion of Items) | Items | Cronbach’s Alpha | Loadings | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perceived Severity (PS) | PS1 | 0.915 | 0.916 | 0.942 | 0.801 |
PS2 | 0.911 | ||||
PS3 | 0.916 | ||||
PS4 | 0.834 | ||||
Perceived Vulnerability (PV) | PV1 | 0.926 | 0.862 | 0.947 | 0.818 |
PV2 | 0.906 | ||||
PV3 | 0.939 | ||||
PV4 | 0.908 | ||||
Fear (F) | F1 | 0.864 | 0.854 | 0.919 | 0.791 |
F2 | 0.919 | ||||
F3 | 0.893 | ||||
Intrinsic Rewards (IR) | IR2 | 0.825 | 0.830 | 0.932 | 0.821 |
IR3 | 0.933 | ||||
IR4 | 0.951 | ||||
Extrinsic Rewards (ER) | ER5 | 0.876 | 0.947 | 0.983 | 0.935 |
ER6 | 0.978 | ||||
ER7 | 0.971 | ||||
ER8 | 0.972 | ||||
Response Efficacy (RE) | RE1 | 0.918 | 0.910 | 0.948 | 0.859 |
RE2 | 0.941 | ||||
RE3 | 0.930 | ||||
Self-efficacy (SE) | SE1 | 0.893 | 0.921 | 0.933 | 0.824 |
SE2 | 0.929 | ||||
SE3 | 0.873 | ||||
Response Cost (RC) | RC2 | 0.790 | 0.820 | 0.838 | 0.511 |
RC3 | 0.648 | ||||
RC4 | 0.734 | ||||
RC5 | 0.690 | ||||
RC6 | 0.670 | ||||
Subjective Norm (SN) | SN1 | 0.938 | 0.930 | 0.957 | 0.847 |
SN2 | 0.942 | ||||
SN3 | 0.951 | ||||
SN4 | 0.855 | ||||
Attitude towards Organic Food (AT) | AT1 | 0.948 | 0.957 | 0.967 | 0.907 |
AT2 | 0.953 | ||||
AT3 | 0.946 | ||||
Purchase Intention (PI) | PI1 | 0.944 | 0.896 | 0.957 | 0.817 |
PI2 | 0.888 | ||||
PI3 | 0.883 | ||||
PI4 | 0.928 | ||||
PI5 | 0.924 |
Constructs | AT | ER | F | IR | PS | PV | PI | RC | RE | SE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AT | ||||||||||
ER | 0.122 | |||||||||
F | 0.451 | 0.246 | ||||||||
IR | 0.076 | 0.817 | 0.171 | |||||||
PS | 0.399 | 0.100 | 0.233 | 0.124 | ||||||
PV | 0.422 | 0.145 | 0.321 | 0.053 | 0.683 | |||||
PI | 0.737 | 0.161 | 0.508 | 0.143 | 0.337 | 0.341 | ||||
RC | 0.119 | 0.331 | 0.198 | 0.280 | 0.172 | 0.232 | 0.164 | |||
RE | 0.574 | 0.158 | 0.426 | 0.139 | 0.270 | 0.234 | 0.614 | 0.124 | ||
SE | 0.473 | 0.294 | 0.482 | 0.324 | 0.310 | 0.356 | 0.504 | 0.248 | 0.476 | |
SN | 0.501 | 0.244 | 0.521 | 0.241 | 0.150 | 0.165 | 0.553 | 0.161 | 0.431 | 0.414 |
Hypothesis | Relationship | Path Coefficient | Sample Mean (M) | Standard Error | t-Value | p-Value | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | PS → PI | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.053 | 0.865 | 0.388 | Not supported |
H2 | PV → PI | 0.001 | −0.003 | 0.062 | 0.011 | 0.991 | Not supported |
H3 | F → PI | 0.090 | 0.095 | 0.056 | 1.628 | 0.104 | Not supported |
H4 | IR → PI | 0.038 | 0.039 | 0.067 | 0.568 | 0.570 | Not supported |
H5 | ER → PI | −0.038 | −0.040 | 0.066 | 0.579 | 0.563 | Not supported |
H6 | RE → PI | 0.199 | 0.193 | 0.060 | 3.313 | 0.001 | Supported |
H7 | SE → PI | 0.073 | 0.072 | 0.048 | 1.518 | 0.130 | Not supported |
H8 | RC → PI | 0.019 | 0.029 | 0.055 | 0.352 | 0.725 | Not supported |
H9 | SN → PI | 0.158 | 0.165 | 0.058 | 2.732 | 0.007 | Supported |
H10 | AT → PI | 0.429 | 0.423 | 0.078 | 5.477 | 0.000 | Supported |
H11 | PS → AT → PI | 0.042 | 0.045 | 0.029 | 1.459 | 0.145 | Not supported |
H12 | PV → AT → PI | 0.076 | 0.069 | 0.035 | 2.157 | 0.032 | Supported |
H13 | F → AT → PI | 0.027 | 0.026 | 0.028 | 0.965 | 0.335 | Not supported |
H14 | IR → AT → PI | −0.031 | −0.023 | 0.026 | 1.158 | 0.247 | Not supported |
H15 | ER → AT → PI | 0.000 | −0.004 | 0.026 | 0.004 | 0.997 | Not supported |
H16 | RE → AT → PI | 0.131 | 0.124 | 0.042 | 3.130 | 0.002 | Supported |
H17 | SE → AT → PI | 0.052 | 0.048 | 0.026 | 2.046 | 0.041 | Supported |
H18 | RC → AT → PI | −0.005 | 0.001 | 0.030 | 0.157 | 0.875 | Not supported |
H19 | SN → AT → PI | 0.108 | 0.102 | 0.029 | 3.708 | 0.000 | Supported |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pang, S.M.; Tan, B.C.; Lau, T.C. Antecedents of Consumers’ Purchase Intention towards Organic Food: Integration of Theory of Planned Behavior and Protection Motivation Theory. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5218. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095218
Pang SM, Tan BC, Lau TC. Antecedents of Consumers’ Purchase Intention towards Organic Food: Integration of Theory of Planned Behavior and Protection Motivation Theory. Sustainability. 2021; 13(9):5218. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095218
Chicago/Turabian StylePang, Suk Min, Booi Chen Tan, and Teck Chai Lau. 2021. "Antecedents of Consumers’ Purchase Intention towards Organic Food: Integration of Theory of Planned Behavior and Protection Motivation Theory" Sustainability 13, no. 9: 5218. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095218
APA StylePang, S. M., Tan, B. C., & Lau, T. C. (2021). Antecedents of Consumers’ Purchase Intention towards Organic Food: Integration of Theory of Planned Behavior and Protection Motivation Theory. Sustainability, 13(9), 5218. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095218