| Literature DB >> 34204332 |
Jinsoo Hwang1, Jinkyung-Jenny Kim2.
Abstract
Edible insects deserve increased attention as green food source in today's society and more restaurants embrace them to promote sustainable consumption behavior. This study was design to explore how consumers' behavioral intentions to use edible insect restaurants were formed based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) model. Furthermore, the study attempted to deepen TPB by including the moderating role of product knowledge. A total of 440 samples were collected by online survey in South Korea, and the results of structural equation modeling found that all of the hypotheses have been statistically accepted. Additionally, the results of multiple group analysis indicated that product knowledge moderated the link between subjective norm and behavioral intentions. On a basis of the analysis results, we provided significant theoretical implications and practical implications how to increase future sustainable food consumption intention.Entities:
Keywords: an edible insect restaurant; behavioral intentions; product knowledge; theory of planned behavior
Year: 2021 PMID: 34204332 PMCID: PMC8296433 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18126520
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Proposed conceptual model. Note: BB = behavioral beliefs, OE = outcome evaluation, NB = normative beliefs, MC = motivation to comply, CB = control beliefs, and PP = perceived power.
Confirmatory factor analysis: items and loadings.
| Construct and Scale Item | Standardized |
|---|---|
| BBiOEi1 | 0.891 |
| BBiOEi2 | 0.919 |
| BBiOEi3 | 0.935 |
| NBjMCj1 | 0.958 |
| NBjMCj2 | 0.982 |
| NBjMCj3 | 0.971 |
| CBkPPk1 | 0.620 |
| CBkPPk2 | 0.974 |
| CBkPPk3 | 0.797 |
| SA1 | 0.927 |
| SA2 | 0.871 |
| SA3 | 0.930 |
| SN1 | 0.948 |
| SN2 | 0.985 |
| SN3 | 0.966 |
| PBC1 | 0.831 |
| PBC2 | 0.962 |
| PBC3 | 0.727 |
| BI1 | 0.947 |
| BI2 | 0.959 |
| BI3 | 0.965 |
| Goodness-of-fit statistics: χ2 = 512.882, df = 168, χ2/df = 3.106, | |
Notes 1: Refer to the Appendix A for the following measurement items: behavioral beliefs, outcome evaluations, normative beliefs, motivation to comply, control beliefs, and perceived power. Notes 2: a all factors loadings are significant at p < 0.001. Notes 3: NFI = normed fit index, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker–Lewis index, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. Notes 4: The asterisk (*) means multiplication.
Descriptive statistics and associated measures.
| Mean (SD) | AVE | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) BBiOEi | 5.06 (0.87) | 0.838 | 0.939 a | 0.304 b | 0.121 | 0.480 | 0.259 | 0.453 | 0.467 |
| (2) NBjMCj | 3.12 (1.29) | 0.942 | 0.092 c | 0.980 | 0.114 | 0.588 | 0.827 | 0.099 | 0.635 |
| (3) CBkPPk | 4.68 (0.88) | 0.656 | 0.015 | 0.013 | 0.847 | 0.085 | 0.181 | 0.131 | 0.105 |
| (4) SA | 4.05 (1.49) | 0.828 | 0.230 | 0.346 | 0.007 | 0.935 | 0.602 | 0.396 | 0.850 |
| (5) SN | 3.91 (1.28) | 0.934 | 0.067 | 0.684 | 0.033 | 0.362 | 0.977 | 0.093 | 0.629 |
| (6) PBC | 4.91 (1.17) | 0.715 | 0.205 | 0.010 | 0.017 | 0.157 | 0.009 | 0.881 | 0.356 |
| (7) BI | 3.69 (1.39) | 0.916 | 0.218 | 0.403 | 0.011 | 0.723 | 0.396 | 0.127 | 0.970 |
Notes 1: BB = behavioral beliefs, OE = outcome evaluations, NB = normative beliefs, MC = motivation to comply, CB = control beliefs, and PP = perceived power, SA = sustainable attitude, SN = subjective norm, perceived behavioral control = PBC, and BI = behavioral intentions. Notes 2: SD = standard deviation and AVE = average variance extracted. Notes 3: a composite reliabilities are along the diagonal, b correlations are above the diagonal, and c squared correlations are below the diagonal.
Figure 2Results of structural equation modeling. Notes 1: BB = behavioral beliefs, OE = outcome evaluation, NB = normative beliefs, MC = motivation to comply, CB = control beliefs, and PP = perceived power. Notes 2: * p < 0.05. Notes 3: S = supported and NS = not supported.
Standardized parameter estimates for structural model.
| Standardized Estimate | Hypothesis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 BBiOEi | → | SA | 0.495 | 10.463 * | Supported |
| H2 NBjMCj | → | SN | 0.828 | 28.300 * | Supported |
| H3 CBkPPk | → | PBC | 0.133 | 2.653 * | Supported |
| H4 SA | → | BI | 0.746 | 20.066 * | Supported |
| H5 SN | → | BI | 0.270 | 8.912 * | Supported |
| H6 PBC | → | BI | 0.081 | 2.642 * | Supported |
| Goodness-of-fit statistics: χ2 = 827.987, df = 180, χ2/df = 4.600, | |||||
Notes 1: BB = behavioral beliefs, OE = outcome evaluations, NB = normative beliefs, MC = motivation to comply, CB = control beliefs, and PP = perceived power, SA = sustainable attitude, SN = subjective norm, perceived behavioral control = PBC, and BI = behavioral intentions. Notes 2: * p < 0.05. Notes 3: NFI = normed fit index, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker–Lewis index, and RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
Results for the moderating role of product knowledge.
| The Low Group | The High Group | Unconstrained Model | Constrained Model | Δχ2 (1) = 3.84 | Result | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β ( | β ( | ||||||||
| H7a | A—BI | 0.723 | 13.347 * | 0.748 | 14.783 * | χ2 (360) = 1097.042 | χ2 (361) = 1097.385 | Δχ2 (1) > 0.343 | Not supported |
| H7b | SN—BI | 0.217 | 4.781 * | 0.395 | 10.367 * | χ2 (361) = 1101.518 | Δχ2 (1) < 4.476 | Supported | |
| H7c | PBC—BI | 0.075 | 1.658 | 0.082 | 2.105 * | χ2 (361) = 1097.060 | Δχ2 (1) > 0.564 | Not supported | |
Notes 1: SA = sustainable attitude, SN = subjective norm, PBC = perceived behavioral control, and BI = behavioral intentions. Notes 2: * p < 0.05.