| Literature DB >> 35010179 |
Guillermo Bermúdez-González1, Eva María Sánchez-Teba2, María Dolores Benítez-Márquez3, Amanda Montiel-Chamizo1.
Abstract
Previous studies have generated important insights into consumer behavior. However, no study has addressed how to persuade young people belonging to Generation Z to increase the purchase intention of food products from a gender perspective. Drawing on ambivalent sexism theory, this paper explores the influence of the attitude toward advertising and the ethical judgment to predict consumers' food product purchase intention. We applied a quantitative method, partial least squares structural equation modeling, to 105 individuals. Two advertisements with different food products and female role stereotype categories are using: (1) women in a traditional role or housewife's role (benevolent sexism), and (2) women in a decorative role or physical attractiveness (hostile). However, the results show that attitude toward advertising has a direct and positive influence on purchase intention in advertisement with benevolent sexism. In addition, the effect of ethical judgment on consumers' food product purchase intention is not significant. In the advertisement with hostile sexism, both-attitude toward advertising and ethical judgment-directly and positively impact purchase intention. The study provides a novelty conceptual model in the food industry for Generation Z and recommendations on the use of female sexist stereotypes in food and beverage advertising.Entities:
Keywords: Generation Z; PLS-SEM; advertising; ambivalent sexism; attitude towards advertising; ethical judgment; gender stereotypes; purchase intention; structural equation modeling
Year: 2021 PMID: 35010179 PMCID: PMC8750082 DOI: 10.3390/foods11010053
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Composite (not observed variable) and measures (observed variables).
| Composite | Measures | Seven-Point Likert Scale | Label |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ethical Judgement | How do you see the performance of the characters? | 1: Strongly incredible–7: Strongly credible | EJ1 |
| Brito-Rhor et al. [ | How do you feel about the use of images? | 1: Strongly imprudent–7: Strongly prudent | EJ2 |
| How acceptable is it to you and your family? | 1: Strongly unacceptable–7: Strongly acceptable | EJ3 | |
| How does it seem to you morally? | 1: Strongly immoral–7: Strongly moral | EJ4 | |
| 2. Attitude toward Advertisement | Do you like the advertising? | 1: Totally dislike–7: Totally like | ATA1 |
| MacKenzie et al. [ | What do you think about the advertising? | 1: Not appealing–7: Very appealing | ATA2 |
| Are you interested in the advertising? | 1: Not interesting–7: Very interesting | ATA3 | |
| Do you think the advertising is offensive? | 1: Not at all offensive–7: Very offensive | ATA4 | |
| 3. Purchase Intention of Food Product | Do you want to buy the product after seeing the advertisement? | 1: Not likely to buy–7: Very likely to buy | PI1 |
| Zeng et al. [ | Would I be able to purchase the product after seeing this ad? | 1: Not likely to buy–7: Very likely to buy | PI2 |
Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 1Research Model (videos 1 and 2). H means hypothesis. Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 2Estimated models (videos 1 and 2). Source: p-values into brackets, adapted from original figures obtained using [79].
Direct, indirect, total effect, type of mediation, and results of tests concerning video 1 (hostile sexism).
| Coefficient | Sig. | Hypotheses | Type | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| H1 (1). Ethical judgment has a direct, positive influence on purchase intention (video 1). | 0.186 | * | Supported | - |
| H2 (1). Attitude towards advertisement has a direct, positive influence on purchase intention (video 1). | 0.598 | *** | Supported | - |
| H4 (1). Ethical judgment has a direct, positive influence on attitude towards advertisement (video 1). | 0.742 | *** | Supported | - |
|
|
| |||
| H3 (1). Ethical judgement indirectly affects purchase intention through attitude towards advertisement (video 1). | 0.444 | *** | Supported | VAF = 70.48% |
|
|
| |||
| H1 (1). Ethical judgment has a positive influence on purchase intention (video 1). | 0.630 | *** | Supported | - |
| H2 (1). Attitude towards advertisement has a positive influence on purchase intention (video 1). | 0.598 | *** | Supported | - |
| H4 (1). Ethical judgment has a direct, positive influence on attitude towards advertisement (video 1). | 0.742 | *** | Supported | - |
Note: 10,000 subsamples. Bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap. Sig.: Significant, NS: Not significant. Variance account for (VAF). * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001. Source: Own format of table elaboration with results obtained from [79].
Direct, indirect, total effect, type of mediation, and results of tests concerning video 2 (benevolent sexism).
| Coefficient | Sig. | Hypothesis | Type | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| H1 (2). Ethical judgment has a direct, positive influence on purchase intention (video 1). | 0.106 | NS | Rejected | |
| H2 (2). Attitude towards advertisement has a direct, positive influence on purchase intention (video 1). | 0.741 | *** | Supported | |
| H4 (2). Ethical judgment has a direct, positive influence on attitude towards advertisement (video 1). | 0.769 | *** | Supported | |
|
| ||||
| H3 (2). Ethical judgement indirectly affects purchase intention through attitude towards advertisement (video 1). | 0.570 | *** | Supported | VAF = 84.32% |
|
| ||||
| H1 (2). Ethical judgment has a positive influence on purchase intention (video 1). | 0.676 | *** | Supported | |
| H2 (2). Attitude towards advertisement has a positive influence on purchase intention (video 1). | 0.741 | *** | Supported | |
| H4 (2). Ethical judgment has a direct, positive influence on attitude towards advertisement (video 1). | 0.769 | *** | Supported |
Note: 10,000 subsamples. Bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap. Sig.: Significant, NS: Not significant. Variance account for (VAF). *** p < 0.001. Source: Own format table elaboration with results obtained from [79].
Moderation analysis (video 1 and video 2).
| Moderation | Coefficient | Sig. | Hypothesis |
|---|---|---|---|
| H5 (1). Gender moderates the relationship between attitude towards advertisement and purchase intention (video 1). | −0.000 | NS | Rejected |
| H6 (1). Gender moderates the relationship between ethical judgment and purchase intention (video 1). | 0.031 | NS | Rejected |
| H5 (2). Gender moderates the relationship between attitude towards advertisement and purchase intention (video 2). | −0.031 | NS | Rejected |
| H6 (2). Gender moderates the relationship between ethical judgment and purchase intention (video 2). | −0.046 | NS | Rejected |
Note: Sig.: Significant, NS: Not significant. Source: Own format table elaboration with the results obtained from [79].
Figure 3Total effects on Generation Z’s purchase intention of food products. Source: Own elaboration based on results from [79]. Note. *** p < 0.001.