| Literature DB >> 32610596 |
Jianming Wang1, Ninh Nguyen2,3, Xiangzhi Bu4.
Abstract
Green food consumption is a core issue that contributes to solving environmental pollution and achieving sustainable development. This study aims to investigate the mediating role of green food consumption and social trust in the relationship between perceived consumer effectiveness and psychological wellbeing to provide new insights into green food consumption, based on social ideal theory and social trust theory. Using a sample data of 514 consumers in China, the results of structural equation modeling showed that perceived consumer effectiveness was positively related to psychological wellbeing. Furthermore, green food consumption mediated the relationship between perceived consumer effectiveness and psychological wellbeing. In addition, social trust moderated the relationship between perceived consumer effectiveness and green food consumption. Social trust also moderated the indirect effect of perceived consumer effectiveness on psychological wellbeing through green food consumption. The findings of this study enrich the extant literature relating to green food consumption and have practical implications for business managers and policymakers.Entities:
Keywords: China; green food consumption; perceived consumer effectiveness; psychological wellbeing; social ideal theory; social trust theory
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32610596 PMCID: PMC7369759 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17134676
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Conceptual framework of the study.
Items and constructs of measures.
| Construct | Items | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived consumer effectiveness | What I purchase as a consumer affects the nation’s environmental problem. | [ |
| Green food consumption | I always buy green food. | [ |
| Social trust | In the last month, how often did you feel that the way our society works makes sense to you. | [ |
| Psychological wellbeing | In most ways, my social life is close to my ideal. | [ |
Sample characteristics (N = 514).
| Variable | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 177 | 34.4% |
| Female | 337 | 65.6% |
| Age | ||
| Under 20 | 102 | 19.8% |
| 20–under 30 | 298 | 58.0% |
| 30–under 40 | 66 | 12.8% |
| 41 and above | 48 | 9.3% |
| Marital status | ||
| Married | 150 | 29.2% |
| Not married | 362 | 70.4% |
| Education | ||
| High school and below | 153 | 29.8% |
| University | 243 | 66.7% |
| Master and above | 18 | 3.5% |
| Income | ||
| Under 500 USD | 124 | 24.1% |
| 500–under 1000 USD | 348 | 67.7% |
| 1000 USD or above | 42 | 8.2% |
Means, standard deviation, and Pearson correlation (N = 514).
| Variable | Means | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived consumer effectiveness | 3.86 | 0.71 | 0.76 | |||
| Green food consumption | 3.74 | 0.74 | 0.53 ** | 0.78 | ||
| Social trust | 3.69 | 0.83 | 0.48 ** | 0.51 ** | 0.85 | |
| Psychological wellbeing | 3.59 | 0.78 | 0.41 ** | 0.27 ** | 0.47 ** | 0.74 |
** p <0.01
Results of the measurement model (N = 514).
| Variable | Items | Factor Loadings | CR Value | AVE Value | Cronbach’s α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) | PCE1 | 0.65 *** | 0.84 | 0.57 | 0.84 |
| PCE2 | 0.80 *** | ||||
| PCE3 | 0.77 *** | ||||
| PCE4 | 0.80 *** | ||||
| Green food consumption (GFC) | GFC1 | 0.81 *** | 0.86 | 0.61 | 0.90 |
| GFC2 | 0.79 *** | ||||
| GFC3 | 0.81 *** | ||||
| GFC4 | 0.72 *** | ||||
| Social trust (STR) | STR1 | 0.85 *** | 0.84 | 0.72 | 0.84 |
| STR2 | 0.85 *** | ||||
| Psychological wellbeing (PSW) | PSW1 | 0.62 *** | 0.83 | 0.55 | 0.77 |
| PSW2 | 0.63 *** | ||||
| PSW3 | 0.83 *** | ||||
| PSW4 | 0.85 *** |
*** p <0.001.
Figure 2Results of hypothesis testing (N = 514). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3Moderating effect of social trust.
Moderating role of social trust (N = 514).
| Moderator | Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (X) → Green Food Consumption (M) → Psychological Wellbeing (Y) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage | Effect | ||||
| First | Second | Direct Effects | Indirect Effects | Total Effects | |
| Low social trust | 0.557 *** | 0.391 *** | 0.062 * | 0.218 *** | 0.280 ** |
| High social trust | 0.629 *** | 0.438 ** | 0.098 * | 0.276 *** | 0.374 ** |
| Differences | 0.072 *** | 0.047 *** | 0.036 | 0.058 ** | 0.094 ** |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; PXM: path from independent variable to mediator; PMY: path from mediator to dependent variable; PXY: path from independent variable to dependent variable.