| Literature DB >> 32521728 |
Yu-Shan Chen1, Tai-Wei Chang2, Hung-Xin Li1, Ying-Rong Chen1.
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of green brand affect on green purchase intentions and explores the mediation effects of green brand attitude and green brand associations by means of the structural equation model (SEM). There is no previous literature discussing the relationship between brand affect and purchase intentions from the perspective of green marketing. Therefore, this article establishes a green purchase intention framework to fill in the research gap. The research object of this study focuses on Taiwanese consumers who have the purchase experience of information and electronics products in Taiwan. A total of 1000 consumers were randomly selected and 365 valid responses were received. In addition, this research conducted an empirical study using a questionnaire survey and structural equation model (SEM) to verify the research framework. The results show that green brand affect has no direct influence on green purchase intentions. Besides, this study indicates that green brand associations and green brand attitude fully mediate the relationship between green brand affect and green purchase intentions. It implies that green brand affect indirectly influences green purchase intentions via green brand attitude and green brand associations. While companies tend to raise their customers' green purchase intentions, they need to increase their green brand affect, green brand associations, and green brand attitude.Entities:
Keywords: green brand affect; green brand associations; green brand attitude; green purchase intentions; sustainable consumption
Year: 2020 PMID: 32521728 PMCID: PMC7311963 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17114089
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Research framework.
Sample distribution by classification.
| Classification | Frequency | Percent | Classification | Frequency | Percent | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education level | Graduate School (or above) | 108 | 29.6% | Gender | Male | 121 | 33.2% |
| University (College) | 238 | 65.2% | Female | 244 | 66.8% | ||
| High school (or below) | 19 | 5.2% | Age | 41 or above | 12 | 3.2% | |
| Annual income | 1 million or more | 9 | 2.5% | 31–40 | 23 | 6.3% | |
| 0.4–1 million | 65 | 17.8% | 21–30 | 263 | 72.1% | ||
| Less than 0.4 million | 291 | 79.7% | Below 20 | 67 | 18.4 | ||
Notes: (1) N = 365; (2) Annual income is denominated in New Taiwan Dollars.
The information of the questionnaire.
| Constructs | Items | Cronbach’s α | Resources | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Numbers | Content | |||
| Green brand affect | GA1 | The environmental friendliness of the brand makes you feel good. | 0.917 | Chaudhuri and Holbrook [ |
| GA2 | the brand’s emphasis on environmental protection makes you feel good. | |||
| GA3 | the brand’s environmental performance makes you happy. | |||
| Green brand associations | GB1 | The strength of the brand’s environmental features is outstanding. | 0.899 | Chen and Chang [ |
| GB2 | the favorability of the brand’s environmental features is better than that of other brands. | |||
| GB3 | the uniqueness of the brand’s environmental features is excellent. | |||
| Green brand attitude | GBA1 | You will like this brand more because the brand is environmentally friendly. | 0.926 | Chen et al. [ |
| GBA2 | You will prefer the brand because of your concern for the environment. | |||
| GBA3 | You agree that the brand can be more valuable because it is environmentally friendly. | |||
| Green purchase intentions | GI1 | You intend to buy the brand out of concern for the environment. | 0.943 | Chen and Chang [ |
| GI2 | You bought the brand last because of its environmental performance. | |||
| GI3 | In general, you are happy to buy the brand considering it is environmentally favorably. | |||
Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the constructs.
| Constructs | Mean | Std. Dev. | 1. | 2. | 3. | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Green brand affect | 5.424 | 0.9584 | (0.887) | |||
| 2. Green brand associations | 5.155 | 1.023 | 0.686 ** | (0.865) | ||
| 3. Green brand attitude | 5.321 | 1.007 | 0.791 ** | 0.764 ** | (0.898) | |
| 4. Green purchase intentions | 5.321 | 1.074 | 0.645 ** | 0.674 ** | 0.708 ** | (0.920) |
Notes: ** p < 0.01.
Factor analysis of this study.
| Constructs | Number of Items | Number of Factors | Accumulation Percentage of Explained Variance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Green brand affect | 3 | 1 | 85.753% |
| Green brand associations | 3 | 1 | 83.187% |
| Green brand attitude | 3 | 1 | 87.133% |
| Green purchase intentions | 3 | 1 | 89.715% |
The items’ loadings (λ) and the constructs’ Cronbach’s α coefficients and average variance extracted (AVE)s.
| Constructs | Items | λ | Cronbach’s α | AVE | The Square Root of AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Green brand affect | GA1 GA2 GA3 | 0.884 | 0.917 | 0.787 | 0.887 |
| 2. Green brand associations | GB1 GB2 GB3 | 0.890 | 0.899 | 0.748 | 0.865 |
| 3. Green brand attitude | GBA1 GBA2 GBA3 | 0.905 | 0.926 | 0.807 | 0.898 |
| 4. Green purchase intentions | GI1 GI2 GI3 | 0.929 | 0.943 | 0.846 | 0.920 |
Note: *** p <0.001.
Figure 2The result of the full model. Chi square/df = 2.224, GFI = 0.954, RMSEA = 0.058, IFI= 0.987, CFI = 0.986 Note: *** p < 0.001.
The results of the structural model.
| Hypothesis | Proposed Effect | Path Coefficient | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1. green brand affect positively influences green brand associations. | + | 0.755 *** | H1 is supported |
| H2. green brand affect positively influences green brand attitude. | + | 0.515 *** | H2 is supported |
| H3. green brand affect positively influences green purchase intentions. | + | 0.119 | H3 is not supported |
| H4. green brand associations positively influence green brand attitude. | + | 0.454 *** | H4 is supported |
| H5. green brand associations positively influence green purchase intentions. | + | 0.291 *** | H5 is supported |
| H6. green brand attitude positively influences green purchase intentions. | + | 0.414 *** | H6 is supported |
Note: *** p < 0.001.
The mediation results of this study.
| Point Estimation | Product of Coefficients | Bootstrapping | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bias-Corrected | Percentile | ||||||
| S.E. | Z | Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | ||
| Indirect Effects | |||||||
| (1) GA→GB→GI | 0.256 * | 0.099 | 2.586 | 0.069 | 0.457 | 0.062 | 0.450 |
| (2) GA→ GBA→GI | 0.248 ** | 0.080 | 3.1 | 0.110 | 0.436 | 0.098 | 0.412 |
| (3) GA→ GB→GBA→GI | 0.165 * | 0.075 | 2.2 | 0.056 | 0.360 | 0.047 | 0.336 |
| Direct Effects | |||||||
| (4) GA→GI | 0.138 | 0.121 | 1.140 | −0.090 | 0.383 | −0.083 | 0.392 |
| Total Effects | |||||||
| Total (1 + 2 + 3 + 4) | 0.669 *** | 0.068 | 9.838 | 0.674 | 0.941 | 0.671 | 0.939 |
| Contrasts | |||||||
| (1)—(2) | 0.008 | 0.157 | 0.051 | −0.303 | 0.312 | −0.299 | 0.318 |
| (2)—(3) | 0.083 | 0.073 | 1.137 | −0.041 | 0.257 | −0.073 | 0.225 |
| (3)—(1) | −0.083 | 0.073 | 1.137 | −0.257 | 0.041 | −0.225 | 0.073 |
Notes: (1) Standardized estimating of 5,000 bootstrap samples; (2) Contrasts of the two indirect effects; (3) Green brand affect (GA); Green brand associations (GB); Green brand attitude (GBA); Green purchase intentions (GI); (4) * Z > 1.96, ** Z > 2.58, ***Z > 3.29; (5) N = 365.