| Literature DB >> 30558279 |
Jianhua Wang1,2, Ziqiu Gao3, Minmin Shen4.
Abstract
In order to alleviate the situation that bad money drives out good in the produce market within the context of incomplete information, as well as bridge the gap between demand and product surplus, establishing and improving the safety certification system for farm produce is an urgent need. This paper discusses factors that affect consumers' purchase of pork with safety certificates in the setting of incomplete information. Data from 844 consumers in Jiangsu and Anhui provinces, along with a structural equation model, are adopted to study consumers' purchase intention of certified safe pork form. According to our studies, major factors refer to degree of understanding, degree of concern, recognition ability, government publicity, pork's origin information, consumers' educational levels, income levels, and consumers' evaluation of government supervision. Accordingly, suggestions are provided as follows. Above all, enhancing education and training of food safety is conducive to lead consumers' behaviors in a correct way. Next, news media and social public opinions can play a stronger role in guidance and supervision. Thirdly, an upgraded legal system should be accompanied by better policy implementation. Finally, strengthening the origin certification system and promoting a sense of brand are of significance.Entities:
Keywords: pork with safety certificate; purchase intention; structural equation model; theory of planned behavior (TPB)
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30558279 PMCID: PMC6313748 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15122879
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Descriptive statistics of consumer social demographic characteristics.
| Social Demographic Characteristics | Frequency | Percentage | Total Percentage | Social Demographic Characteristics | Frequency | Percentage | Total Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sex | Family member | ||||||
| Female | 473 | 56 | 56 | 1 | 6 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| Male | 371 | 44 | 100 | 2 | 70 | 8.3 | 9 |
| Age | 3 | 387 | 45.9 | 54.9 | |||
| 30 or below | 255 | 30.2 | 30.2 | 4 | 173 | 20.5 | 75.4 |
| 30-39 | 151 | 17.9 | 48.1 | More than 5 | 208 | 24.6 | 100 |
| 40-49 | 223 | 26.4 | 74.5 | Family annual income | |||
| 50-59 | 134 | 15.9 | 90.4 | 50,000 or below | 106 | 12.6 | 12.6 |
| 60 or above | 81 | 9.6 | 100 | 50,000–80,000 | 183 | 21.7 | 34.2 |
| marital status | 80,000–100,000 | 230 | 27.3 | 61.5 | |||
| unmarried | 222 | 26.3 | 26.3 | 100,000 or above | 325 | 38.5 | 100 |
| married | 622 | 73.7 | 100 | Is there a child under 18? | |||
| degree | No | 431 | 51.1 | 51.1 | |||
| Junior high school or below | 237 | 28.1 | 28.1 | Yes | 413 | 48.9 | 100 |
| High school (including secondary occupation) | 208 | 24.6 | 52.7 | Is it the main purchaser of household daily food? | |||
| College | 113 | 13.4 | 66.1 | No | 390 | 46.2 | 46.2 |
| Bachelor | 240 | 28.4 | 94.5 | yes | 454 | 53.8 | 100 |
| Graduate student or above | 46 | 5.5 | 100 | ||||
Design of consumer social feature items based on Kotler’s behavior selection model.
| Classify | Number | Items |
|---|---|---|
| AGE | age | |
| individual factors | GEND | sex |
| EDU | Education degree | |
| cultural factors | INCOME | Family annual income |
| NUMBER | Family population | |
| Social factors | STATUS | Current quality and safety status of pork |
| KNOW | Safety certification pork understanding | |
| CONCERN | Concern about pork safety issues | |
| psychological factors | ENCOUNTER | Whether to encounter the problem of pork quality safety |
| DEGREE | Satisfaction with the effectiveness of government regulation |
Test of validity.
| latent Variable (Code) | Observable Variables (Code) | Cronbach’α | Factor Loading | Bartlett Test of Sphericity | KMO Sample Measure | C.R | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| attitude of behavior (AB) | I think it’s wise to buy safe and certified pork (AB1) | 0.753 | 0.694 | 678.627 (P = 0.000) | 0.66 | 0.821 | 0.606 |
| I support the purchase of safe and certified pork (AB2) | 0.825 | ||||||
| I believe that implementing pork quality safety certification can increase consumer confidence in food safety (AB3) | 0.809 | ||||||
| subjective norm (SN) | Family, relatives and friends have a great influence on my purchase of safe certified pork. (SN1) | 0.738 | 0.682 | 803.192 (P = 0.000) | 0.794 | 0.834 | 0.503 |
| Colleagues have a great influence on my purchase of safe certified pork. (SN2) | 0.575 | ||||||
| The government’s publicity call has a big impact on my purchase of safely certified pork. (SN3) | 0.641 | ||||||
| The media information has a great impact on my purchase of safe certified pork. (SN4) | 0.774 | ||||||
| The opinions of experts and academic institutions are very big for me to buy safe certified pork. (SN5) | 0.563 | ||||||
| perceived behavioral control (PBC) | I have enough experience to ensure the safety of the pork I purchased (PBC1) | 0.693 | 0.782 | 594.522 (P = 0.000) | 0.692 | 0.808 | 0.514 |
| I think it is not difficult to identify the characteristics of safely certified pork at the time of purchase. (PBC2) | 0.78 | ||||||
| For me, it’s convenient to buy safe certified pork. (PBC3) | 0.525 | ||||||
| For me, the cost of purchasing safely certified pork has not increased significantly. (PBC4) | 0.568 | ||||||
| purchase intention (PI) | Do you have the idea of purchasing a safe certified pork? (PI1) | 0.601 | 0.606 | 199.095 (P = 0.000) | 0.5 | 0.752 | 0.504 |
| Have you purchased safety certified pork in your daily life? (PI2) | 0.749 |
Overall fitness evaluation standard and fitting evaluation result of structural equation model.
| Index Category | Index Name | Evaluation Standard | ACTUAL FIT | Compared with Evaluation Criteria | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute fit index | χ2/df | <3 | 2.832 | <3 | Ideal |
| GFI | >0.90 | 0.968 | >0.90 | Ideal | |
| RMR | <0.05 | 0.037 | <0.05 | Ideal | |
| RMSEA | <0.05 | 0.044 | <0.05 | Ideal | |
| Incremental fitness index | NFI | >0.90 | 0.934 | >0.90 | Ideal |
| IFI | >0.90 | 0.958 | >0.90 | Ideal | |
| TLI | >0.90 | 0.945 | >0.90 | Ideal | |
| CFI | >0.90 | 0.957 | >0.90 | Ideal |
GFI (Goodness of Fit Index); RMR (Root Mean square Residual); RMSEA (Root Mean square Error of Approximation); NFI (Nprmed Fit Index); IFI (Incremental Fit Index); TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index); CFI (Comparative Fit Index).
Figure 1Structural equation model variable regression path coefficient graph.
Regression analysis of beliefs on the three dimensions of planned behavior theory.
| Dependent Variable | Independent Variable | β | Standard β | T Value | R2 | F Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| attitude of behavior | (constant) | −2.308 *** | −16.089 | 0.244 | 90.33 | |
| BB1 | 0.146 *** | 0.038 | 3.835 | |||
| BB2 | 0.089 *** | 0.039 | 2.293 | |||
| BB3 | 0.396 *** | 0.039 | 10.247 | |||
| subjective norm | (constant) | −1.497 *** | −14.879 | 0.244 | 135.598 | |
| NB1 | 0.218 *** | 0.257 | 7.421 | |||
| NB2 | 0.247 *** | 0.312 | 9.014 | |||
| perceived behavioral control | (constant) | −0.819 *** | −5.479 | 0.037 | 16.263 | |
| CB1 | 0.094 *** | 0.108 | 3.086 | |||
| CB2 | 0.141 *** | 0.134 | 3.832 |
Note: *** indicates significant at >0.001
Regression analysis of consumer characteristics on three dimensions of planned behavior theory and consumer intention.
| Dependent Variable | Classify | Independent Variable | β | Standard β | T Value | R2 | Adjust R2 | F Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| attitude of behavior | (constant) | −2.224 *** | −8.769 | 0.195 | 0.184 | 18.311 | ||
| Individual factors | Gender | 0.067 | 0.033 | 1.067 | ||||
| Age | 0.034 | 0.045 | 0.961 | |||||
| Marital | −0.05 | −0.022 | −0.501 | |||||
| cultural factors | Education | 0.082 ** | 0.108 | 2.586 | ||||
| Family member | −0.085 ** | −0.082 | −2.589 | |||||
| income | 0.051 | 0.053 | 1.567 | |||||
| Social Factors | status | 0.221 *** | 0.197 | 4.892 | ||||
| degree | 0.138 *** | 0.133 | 3.32 | |||||
| Psychological factors | know | 0.181 *** | 0.176 | 5.331 | ||||
| concern | 0.121 *** | 0.124 | 3.729 | |||||
| encounter | −0.016 | −0.005 | −0.154 | |||||
| subjective norm | (constant) | −1.536 *** | −5.776 | 0.115 | 0.104 | 9.857 | ||
| Individual factors | Gender | −0.035 | −0.018 | −0.534 | ||||
| Age | −0.058 | −0.077 | −1.578 | |||||
| Marital | 0.063 | 0.028 | 0.599 | |||||
| cultural factors | Education | −0.02 | −0.026 | −0.598 | ||||
| Family member | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.363 | |||||
| income | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.103 | |||||
| social factors | status | 0.068 | 0.061 | 1.434 | ||||
| degree | 0.220 *** | 0.213 | 5.062 | |||||
| Psychological factors | know | 0.131 *** | 0.128 | 3.684 | ||||
| concern | 0.108 ** | 0.11 | 3.167 | |||||
| encounter | −0.013 | −0.004 | −0.116 | |||||
| perceived behavioral control | (constant) | −2.996 *** | −12.074 | 0.229 | 0.219 | 22.495 | ||
| Individual factors | Gender | 0.084 | 0.042 | 1.361 | ||||
| Age | 0.032 | 0.043 | 0.942 | |||||
| Marital | 0.125 | 0.055 | 1.288 | |||||
| cultural factors | Education | 0.072 * | 0.094 | 2.311 | ||||
| Familymember | 0.06 | 0.058 | 1.871 | |||||
| income | 0.092 ** | 0.096 | 2.906 | |||||
| social factors | status | 0.189 *** | 0.169 | 4.271 | ||||
| degree | 0.143 *** | 0.139 | 3.522 | |||||
| Psychological factors | know | 0.260 *** | 0.253 | 7.833 | ||||
| concern | 0.101 ** | 0.103 | 3.173 | |||||
| encounter | −0.073 | −0.022 | −0.707 | |||||
| purchase intention | (constant) | −2.425 *** | −9.753 | 0.226 | 0.216 | 22.095 | ||
| Individual factors | Gender | −0.114 | −0.056 | −1.836 | ||||
| Age | −0.032 | −0.042 | −0.916 | |||||
| Marital | 0.041 | 0.018 | 0.416 | |||||
| cultural factors | Education | 0.083 ** | 0.108 | 2.655 | ||||
| Familymember | −0.001 | −0.001 | −0.024 | |||||
| income | 0.126 *** | 0.132 | 3.979 | |||||
| social factors | status | 0.146 *** | 0.13 | 3.299 | ||||
| degree | 0.053 | 0.051 | 1.305 | |||||
| Psychological factors | know | 0.266 *** | 0.259 | 7.992 | ||||
| concern | 0.163 *** | 0.167 | 5.11 | |||||
| encounter | 0.049 | 0.015 | 0.475 |
Note: *** indicates significant at >0.001, ** indicates significant at >0.01, and * indicates significant at >0.05.