| Literature DB >> 35345638 |
Zhai Lili1, Abdullah Al Mamun2, Naeem Hayat3, Anas A Salamah4, Qing Yang1, Mohd Helmi Ali2.
Abstract
The study examined the effect of celebrity attractiveness, celebrity trustworthiness, and celebrity cause fit on the attitude toward green cosmetics. This was followed by the effect of brand awareness, brand associations, brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand credibility on brand equity, including the impact of attitude toward green cosmetics and brand equity on the willingness to purchase green cosmetics among of young Chinese consumers. This study adopted a cross-sectional design and collected quantitative data from 301 respondents using a structured questionnaire, which was distributed online using various social media platforms. It was found that celebrity attractiveness, celebrity trustworthiness, and celebrity cause-fit had a significant impact on the attitudes toward green cosmetic, while brand loyalty, perceived quality, and brand credibility substantially affected brand equity. Moreover, the attitudes toward green cosmetics and brand equity had a strong impact on the willingness to purchase green cosmetics. To increase the sales for green cosmetics, the advertisements for it should have appeal, trustworthiness, and cause-fit celebrities to improve consumers' attitudes and willingness to purchase green cosmetics. Finding of this study provide a guideline for green cosmetic manufacturers, to direct their resources to enhance brand loyalty, credibility, and perceived quality of the product they produce by highlighting the difference between conventional and green cosmetics.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese youth; attitude; brand equity; celebrity endorsement; green cosmetics; purchase intention
Year: 2022 PMID: 35345638 PMCID: PMC8957083 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.860177
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Research framework.
Survey questionnaire.
| Code | Questions | Sources |
| CA – Item 1 | The celebrity endorser is attractive |
|
| CA – Item 2 | The celebrity endorser is classy. | |
| CA – Item 3 | The celebrity endorser is elegant. | |
| CA – Item 4 | The celebrity endorser is presentable. | |
| CA – Item 5 | The celebrity endorser is well known | |
| CT – Item 1 | The celebrity endorser is honest. |
|
| CT – Item 2 | The celebrity endorser is reliable. | |
| CT – Item 3 | The celebrity endorser is trustworthy. | |
| CT – Item 4 | The celebrity endorser is dependable. | |
| CT – Item 5 | The celebrity endorser is sincere. | |
| CF – Item 1 | It is very logical for the celebrity to endorse products |
|
| CF – Item 2 | The celebrity appropriate to endorse the products is very important. | |
| CF – Item 3 | The cause matched with celebrity personality. | |
| CF – Item 4 | The celebrity and the product company should be represent to each other well. | |
| CF – Item 5 | The celebrity and the product company should fit together well. | |
| AGC – Item 1 | I like buying products which donate part of their profits to environment. |
|
| AGC – Item 2 | I am willing to pay more for a product if the manufacturer donates part of the profits to environmental protection. | |
| AGC – Item 3 | If a company is donating part of its profits to produce green products then I am more likely to buy its products. | |
| AGC – Item 4 | Companies who advertise that they are donating part of their profits to environmental protection are good corporate citizens. | |
| AGC – Item 5 | I make a special effort to buy from companies that support environmental causes. | |
| BA – Item 1 | I can recognize green brand among other competing brands |
|
| BA – Item 2 | I am aware of green brand cosmetics | |
| BA – Item 3 | The green brand is known to me. | |
| BA – Item 4 | I am acquainted with the green brand cosmetics | |
| BA – Item 5 | I know green brand cosmetics very well | |
| PQ – Item 1 | Green cosmetics are high quality |
|
| PQ – Item 2 | The likely quality of green cosmetics is extremely high | |
| PQ – Item 3 | The likelihood that green cosmetics is reliable is very high | |
| PQ – Item 4 | The likelihood that green cosmetics will be satisfactory is very high | |
| PQ – Item 5 | Green cosmetics is a quality leader within its category | |
| BL – Item 1 | I consider myself to be loyal to green cosmetics |
|
| BL – Item 2 | I will not buy other brands if green cosmetics are available at the store | |
| BL – Item 3 | Even if another product has the same features as the cosmetics, I would prefer to buy green cosmetics. | |
| BL – Item 4 | Green cosmetics would be my first choice | |
| BL – Item 5 | Green cosmetics are products that I often buy back | |
| BS – Item 1 | You can recognize this brand among other competing brands because of its environmental commitments |
|
| BS – Item 2 | You are aware of this brand because of its environmental reputation | |
| BS – Item 3 | Some environmental characteristics of this brand come to the top-of-mind in your consideration set quickly | |
| BS – Item 4 | You can quickly recall the green image of this brand | |
| BS – Item 5 | I have a clear impression of the type of people who use the green brand | |
| BC – Item 1 | The green brand has the ability to deliver what it promises |
|
| BC – Item 2 | Green brand’s product claims are believable | |
| BC – Item 3 | Over time, my experiences with the green brand have led me to expect it to keep its promises. | |
| BC – Item 4 | The green brand has a name you can trust | |
| BC – Item 5 | Green brands have their own techniques that you can trust | |
| BE – Item 1 | It makes sense to buy this brand instead of other brands because of its environmental commitments, even if they are the same. |
|
| BE – Item 2 | Even if another brand has the same cosmetics features as green brand products, I would prefer to buy green brand products | |
| BE – Item 3 | If there is another cosmetics performance greater than green cosmetics, I would prefer to buy green brand products | |
| BE – Item 4 | If the performance concern of another brand is not different from that of this brand in any way, it seems smarter to purchase a green brand | |
| BE – Item 5 | Buying green cosmetics is more attractive than other brands’ assets because it is in line with the concept of sustainable development | |
| IGC – Item 1 | I intend to buy green cosmetics in the future |
|
| IGC – Item 2 | I will try to buy green cosmetics in the future | |
| IGC – Item 3 | I will make an effort to buy green cosmetics in the future | |
| IGC – Item 4 | I would be willing to influence others to purchase green cosmetics-related products. | |
| IGC – Item 5 | The likelihood of purchasing this product is very high | |
| IGC – Item 6 | The probability that I would consider buying the product is very high | |
| IGC – Item 7 | My willingness to buy the product is very high |
CA: Celebrity Attractiveness, CT: Celebrity Trustworthiness, CF: Celebrity Cause Fit, AGC: Attitude Toward Green Cosmetics, BA: Brand Awareness, BS: Brand Associations, BL: Brand Loyalty, PQ: Perceived Quality, BC: Brand Credibility, BEQ: Brand Equity, IGC: Intention to Purchase Green Cosmetics.
Demographic characteristics.
| N | % | N | % | ||
|
|
| ||||
| Female | 248 | 82.4 | junior high school | 5 | 1.7 |
| Male | 53 | 17.6 | high school | 10 | 3.3 |
| Total | 301 | 100.0 | Diploma | 104 | 34.6 |
| Bachelor Degree | 125 | 41.5 | |||
|
| Master Degree | 52 | 17.3 | ||
| 18 – 25 years old | 113 | 37.5 | Doctorate Degree | 5 | 1.7 |
| 26 – 30 years old | 104 | 34.6 | Total | 301 | 100.0 |
| 31 – 40 years old | 69 | 22.9 | |||
| 41 – 50 years old | 11 | 3.7 |
| ||
| >51 years old | 4 | 1.3 | Less than 1000 Yuan | 44 | 14.6 |
| Total | 301 | 100.0 | 1001–3000 Yuan | 99 | 32.9 |
| 3001–5000 Yuan | 80 | 26.6 | |||
|
| 5001–7000 Yuan | 27 | 9.0 | ||
| Less than 500 Yuan | 148 | 49.2 | 7001–9000 Yuan | 21 | 7.0 |
| 501–1500 Yuan | 90 | 29.9 | 9001–10000 Yuan | 18 | 6.0 |
| 1501–3000 Yuan | 54 | 17.9 | More than 10001 Yuan | 12 | 4.0 |
| More than 3001 Yuan | 9 | 3.0 | Total | 301 | 100.0 |
| Total | 301 | 100.0 | |||
Reliability and validity.
| Variables | No. Items | Mean |
| CA | DG | CR | AVE | VIF |
| CA | 5 | 3.447 | 0.844 | 0.880 | 0.887 | 0.912 | 0.676 | 1.801 |
| CT | 5 | 2.746 | 0.841 | 0.889 | 0.891 | 0.919 | 0.693 | 1.272 |
| CF | 5 | 3.320 | 0.926 | 0.944 | 0.945 | 0.957 | 0.818 | 1.823 |
| AGC | 5 | 3.483 | 0.897 | 0.919 | 0.920 | 0.939 | 0.756 | 1.392 |
| BA | 5 | 2.870 | 0.996 | 0.937 | 0.942 | 0.952 | 0.799 | 1.796 |
| BS | 5 | 3.127 | 0.929 | 0.956 | 0.958 | 0.966 | 0.852 | 2.878 |
| BL | 5 | 3.271 | 0.967 | 0.947 | 0.949 | 0.959 | 0.826 | 1.601 |
| PQ | 5 | 2.940 | 0.962 | 0.951 | 0.952 | 0.962 | 0.835 | 1.877 |
| BC | 5 | 2.993 | 0.981 | 0.954 | 0.955 | 0.965 | 0.845 | 2.248 |
| BEQ | 5 | 3.290 | 0.923 | 0.941 | 0.942 | 0.955 | 0.811 | 1.392 |
| IGC | 7 | 3.512 | 0.992 | 0.971 | 0.972 | 0.976 | 0.853 | - |
CA: Celebrity Attractiveness, CT: Celebrity Trustworthiness, CF: Celebrity Cause Fit, AGC: Attitude Toward Green Cosmetics, BA: Brand Awareness, BS: Brand Associations, BL: Brand Loyalty, PQ: Perceived Quality, BC: Brand Credibility, BEQ: Brand Equity, IGC: Intention to Purchase Green Cosmetics, SD: Standard Deviation, CAA: Cronbach’s Alpha, DG rho: Dillon-Goldstein’s rho, CR: Composite Reliability, AVE: Average Variance Extracted, VIF: Variance Inflation Factors. Author’s data analysis.
Discriminant validity.
| CA | CT | CF | AGC | BA | BS | BL | PQ | BC | BEQ | IGC | |
|
| |||||||||||
| CA | 0.822 | ||||||||||
| CT | 0.414 | 0.833 | |||||||||
| CF | 0.649 | 0.426 | 0.905 | ||||||||
| AGC | 0.642 | 0.423 | 0.657 | 0.869 | |||||||
| BA | 0.444 | 0.493 | 0.444 | 0.457 | 0.894 | ||||||
| BS | 0.479 | 0.537 | 0.483 | 0.535 | 0.638 | 0.923 | |||||
| BL | 0.550 | 0.341 | 0.461 | 0.595 | 0.454 | 0.575 | 0.909 | ||||
| PQ | 0.388 | 0.536 | 0.358 | 0.401 | 0.514 | 0.577 | 0.489 | 0.914 | |||
| BC | 0.323 | 0.535 | 0.322 | 0.369 | 0.494 | 0.702 | 0.419 | 0.607 | 0.919 | ||
| BEQ | 0.506 | 0.410 | 0.503 | 0.531 | 0.446 | 0.573 | 0.571 | 0.538 | 0.602 | 0.900 | |
| IGC | 0.588 | 0.298 | 0.550 | 0.540 | 0.406 | 0.435 | 0.553 | 0.454 | 0.352 | 0.553 | 0.923 |
|
| |||||||||||
| CA | – | ||||||||||
| CT | 0.476 | – | |||||||||
| CF | 0.707 | 0.463 | – | ||||||||
| AGC | 0.708 | 0.467 | 0.702 | – | |||||||
| BA | 0.485 | 0.538 | 0.471 | 0.485 | – | ||||||
| BS | 0.528 | 0.583 | 0.506 | 0.570 | 0.671 | – | |||||
| BL | 0.605 | 0.372 | 0.486 | 0.638 | 0.479 | 0.603 | – | ||||
| PQ | 0.428 | 0.583 | 0.376 | 0.429 | 0.542 | 0.605 | 0.514 | – | |||
| BC | 0.358 | 0.580 | 0.339 | 0.395 | 0.524 | 0.735 | 0.439 | 0.637 | – | ||
| BEQ | 0.555 | 0.448 | 0.532 | 0.571 | 0.469 | 0.603 | 0.603 | 0.568 | 0.635 | – | |
| IGC | 0.630 | 0.320 | 0.573 | 0.571 | 0.419 | 0.451 | 0.576 | 0.471 | 0.365 | 0.577 | – |
CA: Celebrity Attractiveness, CT: Celebrity Trustworthiness, CF: Celebrity Cause Fit, AGC: Attitude Toward Green Cosmetics, BA: Brand Awareness, BS: Brand Associations, BL: Brand Loyalty, PQ: Perceived Quality, BC: Brand Credibility, BEQ: Brand Equity, IGC: Intention to Purchase Green Cosmetics.
Author’s data analysis.
Loadings and cross-loading.
| Code | CA | CT | CF | AGC | BA | BS | BL | PQ | BC | BEQ | IGC |
| CA – Item 1 | 0.814 | 0.272 | 0.523 | 0.531 | 0.348 | 0.345 | 0.393 | 0.272 | 0.231 | 0.393 | 0.480 |
| CA – Item 2 | 0.760 | 0.430 | 0.445 | 0.421 | 0.358 | 0.448 | 0.463 | 0.356 | 0.324 | 0.377 | 0.374 |
| CA – Item 3 | 0.843 | 0.417 | 0.509 | 0.537 | 0.391 | 0.465 | 0.488 | 0.326 | 0.305 | 0.448 | 0.474 |
| CA – Item 4 | 0.834 | 0.330 | 0.588 | 0.543 | 0.384 | 0.386 | 0.471 | 0.341 | 0.275 | 0.425 | 0.524 |
| CA – Item 5 | 0.857 | 0.282 | 0.588 | 0.586 | 0.348 | 0.348 | 0.454 | 0.315 | 0.214 | 0.431 | 0.545 |
| CT – Item 1 | 0.344 | 0.815 | 0.335 | 0.337 | 0.368 | 0.439 | 0.291 | 0.478 | 0.497 | 0.302 | 0.188 |
| CT – Item 2 | 0.305 | 0.845 | 0.343 | 0.346 | 0.384 | 0.469 | 0.289 | 0.439 | 0.457 | 0.339 | 0.249 |
| CT – Item 3 | 0.369 | 0.804 | 0.357 | 0.332 | 0.433 | 0.457 | 0.276 | 0.407 | 0.398 | 0.351 | 0.297 |
| CT – Item 4 | 0.316 | 0.861 | 0.346 | 0.362 | 0.392 | 0.431 | 0.269 | 0.483 | 0.433 | 0.381 | 0.252 |
| CT – Item 5 | 0.388 | 0.837 | 0.389 | 0.380 | 0.473 | 0.440 | 0.294 | 0.427 | 0.444 | 0.334 | 0.254 |
| CF – Item 1 | 0.591 | 0.449 | 0.833 | 0.615 | 0.425 | 0.480 | 0.454 | 0.400 | 0.375 | 0.524 | 0.540 |
| CF – Item 2 | 0.572 | 0.371 | 0.908 | 0.547 | 0.406 | 0.417 | 0.374 | 0.304 | 0.277 | 0.418 | 0.478 |
| CF – Item 3 | 0.587 | 0.378 | 0.927 | 0.604 | 0.397 | 0.408 | 0.395 | 0.292 | 0.240 | 0.429 | 0.480 |
| CF – Item 4 | 0.585 | 0.348 | 0.930 | 0.593 | 0.396 | 0.425 | 0.431 | 0.298 | 0.264 | 0.437 | 0.480 |
| CF – Item 5 | 0.598 | 0.374 | 0.922 | 0.603 | 0.381 | 0.447 | 0.424 | 0.318 | 0.295 | 0.457 | 0.502 |
| AGC – Item 1 | 0.578 | 0.382 | 0.642 | 0.856 | 0.401 | 0.437 | 0.497 | 0.328 | 0.299 | 0.452 | 0.450 |
| AGC – Item 2 | 0.572 | 0.401 | 0.555 | 0.890 | 0.388 | 0.459 | 0.504 | 0.381 | 0.306 | 0.468 | 0.475 |
| AGC – Item 3 | 0.560 | 0.341 | 0.567 | 0.884 | 0.389 | 0.428 | 0.524 | 0.331 | 0.312 | 0.449 | 0.481 |
| AGC – Item 4 | 0.545 | 0.351 | 0.576 | 0.866 | 0.364 | 0.454 | 0.523 | 0.328 | 0.314 | 0.460 | 0.452 |
| AGC – Item 5 | 0.532 | 0.363 | 0.510 | 0.850 | 0.443 | 0.548 | 0.542 | 0.374 | 0.377 | 0.477 | 0.488 |
| BA – Item 1 | 0.450 | 0.449 | 0.382 | 0.486 | 0.825 | 0.582 | 0.437 | 0.472 | 0.428 | 0.467 | 0.430 |
| BA – Item 2 | 0.392 | 0.435 | 0.408 | 0.398 | 0.925 | 0.562 | 0.407 | 0.420 | 0.417 | 0.365 | 0.355 |
| BA – Item 3 | 0.384 | 0.429 | 0.424 | 0.412 | 0.934 | 0.559 | 0.381 | 0.428 | 0.432 | 0.391 | 0.355 |
| BA – Item 4 | 0.340 | 0.469 | 0.360 | 0.310 | 0.845 | 0.573 | 0.392 | 0.522 | 0.514 | 0.356 | 0.282 |
| BA – Item 5 | 0.393 | 0.413 | 0.403 | 0.402 | 0.936 | 0.562 | 0.399 | 0.446 | 0.416 | 0.387 | 0.365 |
| BS – Item 1 | 0.459 | 0.471 | 0.466 | 0.544 | 0.591 | 0.902 | 0.524 | 0.524 | 0.647 | 0.569 | 0.403 |
| BS – Item 2 | 0.452 | 0.489 | 0.444 | 0.501 | 0.598 | 0.929 | 0.517 | 0.535 | 0.627 | 0.497 | 0.394 |
| BS – Item 3 | 0.439 | 0.497 | 0.434 | 0.480 | 0.553 | 0.925 | 0.517 | 0.511 | 0.653 | 0.518 | 0.403 |
| BS – Item 4 | 0.433 | 0.472 | 0.456 | 0.477 | 0.610 | 0.949 | 0.546 | 0.545 | 0.670 | 0.533 | 0.412 |
| BS – Item 5 | 0.427 | 0.548 | 0.422 | 0.460 | 0.589 | 0.909 | 0.549 | 0.547 | 0.637 | 0.522 | 0.393 |
| BL – Item 1 | 0.490 | 0.295 | 0.425 | 0.531 | 0.437 | 0.529 | 0.928 | 0.451 | 0.387 | 0.530 | 0.502 |
| BL – Item 2 | 0.496 | 0.307 | 0.420 | 0.535 | 0.363 | 0.447 | 0.864 | 0.391 | 0.306 | 0.502 | 0.505 |
| BL – Item 3 | 0.504 | 0.294 | 0.431 | 0.550 | 0.407 | 0.571 | 0.902 | 0.478 | 0.430 | 0.554 | 0.510 |
| BL – Item 4 | 0.489 | 0.320 | 0.390 | 0.515 | 0.418 | 0.517 | 0.916 | 0.451 | 0.380 | 0.476 | 0.489 |
| BL – Item 5 | 0.519 | 0.334 | 0.425 | 0.570 | 0.437 | 0.544 | 0.930 | 0.445 | 0.394 | 0.523 | 0.502 |
| PQ – Item 1 | 0.338 | 0.507 | 0.312 | 0.366 | 0.482 | 0.531 | 0.439 | 0.931 | 0.560 | 0.482 | 0.386 |
| PQ – Item 2 | 0.352 | 0.465 | 0.305 | 0.378 | 0.445 | 0.512 | 0.415 | 0.886 | 0.539 | 0.454 | 0.393 |
| PQ – Item 3 | 0.363 | 0.479 | 0.349 | 0.362 | 0.476 | 0.539 | 0.466 | 0.908 | 0.562 | 0.516 | 0.443 |
| PQ – Item 4 | 0.347 | 0.502 | 0.335 | 0.366 | 0.481 | 0.526 | 0.457 | 0.922 | 0.550 | 0.502 | 0.424 |
| PQ – Item 5 | 0.374 | 0.498 | 0.330 | 0.360 | 0.463 | 0.528 | 0.452 | 0.922 | 0.561 | 0.502 | 0.424 |
| BC – Item 1 | 0.328 | 0.541 | 0.322 | 0.381 | 0.456 | 0.680 | 0.428 | 0.572 | 0.937 | 0.579 | 0.340 |
| BC – Item 2 | 0.306 | 0.485 | 0.264 | 0.329 | 0.429 | 0.635 | 0.425 | 0.559 | 0.903 | 0.556 | 0.339 |
| BC – Item 3 | 0.299 | 0.490 | 0.283 | 0.313 | 0.460 | 0.616 | 0.350 | 0.563 | 0.932 | 0.562 | 0.299 |
| BC – Item 4 | 0.267 | 0.481 | 0.295 | 0.334 | 0.439 | 0.639 | 0.352 | 0.554 | 0.946 | 0.553 | 0.298 |
| BC – Item 5 | 0.285 | 0.457 | 0.316 | 0.341 | 0.489 | 0.656 | 0.370 | 0.540 | 0.875 | 0.514 | 0.342 |
| BEQ – Item 1 | 0.478 | 0.363 | 0.487 | 0.494 | 0.406 | 0.532 | 0.487 | 0.487 | 0.558 | 0.890 | 0.470 |
| BEQ – Item 2 | 0.459 | 0.390 | 0.452 | 0.480 | 0.410 | 0.529 | 0.503 | 0.504 | 0.583 | 0.931 | 0.513 |
| BEQ – Item 3 | 0.418 | 0.412 | 0.398 | 0.437 | 0.432 | 0.493 | 0.519 | 0.499 | 0.553 | 0.901 | 0.481 |
| BEQ – Item 4 | 0.484 | 0.322 | 0.503 | 0.519 | 0.395 | 0.508 | 0.545 | 0.466 | 0.469 | 0.868 | 0.519 |
| BEQ – Item 5 | 0.437 | 0.359 | 0.425 | 0.459 | 0.366 | 0.520 | 0.516 | 0.465 | 0.546 | 0.911 | 0.504 |
| IGC – Item 1 | 0.556 | 0.284 | 0.511 | 0.517 | 0.385 | 0.425 | 0.546 | 0.419 | 0.332 | 0.512 | 0.937 |
| IGC – Item 2 | 0.581 | 0.287 | 0.538 | 0.517 | 0.394 | 0.425 | 0.506 | 0.437 | 0.363 | 0.525 | 0.900 |
| IGC – Item 3 | 0.528 | 0.240 | 0.505 | 0.493 | 0.373 | 0.398 | 0.520 | 0.405 | 0.302 | 0.499 | 0.936 |
| IGC – Item 4 | 0.522 | 0.248 | 0.502 | 0.473 | 0.378 | 0.383 | 0.490 | 0.410 | 0.297 | 0.491 | 0.932 |
| IGC – Item 5 | 0.551 | 0.315 | 0.506 | 0.482 | 0.391 | 0.432 | 0.538 | 0.486 | 0.356 | 0.502 | 0.914 |
| IGC – Item 6 | 0.523 | 0.273 | 0.494 | 0.484 | 0.317 | 0.360 | 0.460 | 0.372 | 0.297 | 0.494 | 0.910 |
| IGC – Item 7 | 0.539 | 0.276 | 0.495 | 0.518 | 0.383 | 0.386 | 0.510 | 0.402 | 0.323 | 0.545 | 0.933 |
(1) NFA: Need for Achievement, RTP: Risk-Taking Propensity, PRP: Proactive Personality, SLE: Self-Efficacy, ENE: Entrepreneurship Education, UNA: Uncertainty Avoidance, ENK: Entrepreneurial Knowledge, ATE: Attitude Toward Entrepreneurship, ORC: Opportunity Recognition Competency, ENIN: Entrepreneurial Intention. (2) The Italic values in the matrix above are the item loadings and others are cross-loadings.
Author’s data analysis.
Path coefficients.
| Hypo | Beta | CI – Min | CI – Max |
|
|
|
| Q2 | Decision | |
|
| ||||||||||
| H1 | CA→AGC | 0.345 | 0.242 | 0.442 | 5.806 | 0.000 | 0.138 | Accept | ||
| H2 | CT→AGC | 0.117 | 0.051 | 0.192 | 2.794 | 0.003 | 0.522 | 0.023 | 0.387 | Accept |
| H3 | CF→AGC | 0.383 | 0.288 | 0.472 | 6.997 | 0.000 | 0.168 | Accept | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| H4 | BA→BEQ | 0.031 | –0.065 | 0.137 | 0.498 | 0.310 | 0.001 | Reject | ||
| H5 | BS→BEQ | 0.065 | –0.096 | 0.208 | 0.732 | 0.232 | 0.003 | Reject | ||
| H6 | BL→BEQ | 0.318 | 0.218 | 0.431 | 5.101 | 0.000 | 0.126 | Accept | ||
| H7 | PQ→BEQ | 0.130 | 0.007 | 0.251 | 1.663 | 0.048 | 0.500 | 0.018 | 0.400 | Accept |
| H8 | BC→BEQ | 0.329 | 0.173 | 0.475 | 3.612 | 0.000 | 0.097 | Accept | ||
|
| ||||||||||
| H8 | AGC→IGC | 0.343 | 0.245 | 0.439 | 5.903 | 0.000 | 0.390 | 0.138 | 0.329 | Accept |
| H9 | BEQ→IGC | 0.371 | 0.259 | 0.463 | 6.008 | 0.000 | 0.162 | Accept | ||
CA: Celebrity Attractiveness, CT: Celebrity Trustworthiness, CF: Celebrity Cause Fit, AGC: Attitude Toward Green Cosmetics, BA: Brand Awareness, BS: Brand Associations, BL: Brand Loyalty, PQ: Perceived Quality, BC: Brand Credibility, BEQ: Brand Equity, IGC: Intention to Purchase Green Cosmetics.
Author’s data analysis.
Mediating effects.
| Associations | Beta | CI – Min | CI – Max |
|
| Decision |
|
| ||||||
| CA→AGC→IGC | 0.118 | 0.069 | 0.175 | 3.594 | 0.000 | Accept |
| CT→AGC→IGC | 0.040 | 0.019 | 0.069 | 2.658 | 0.004 | Accept |
| CF→AGC→IGC | 0.131 | 0.087 | 0.179 | 4.760 | 0.000 | Accept |
|
| ||||||
| BA→BEQ→IGC | 0.012 | –0.027 | 0.050 | 0.494 | 0.311 | Reject |
| BS→BEQ→IGC | 0.024 | –0.036 | 0.078 | 0.729 | 0.233 | Reject |
| BL→BEQ→IGC | 0.118 | 0.069 | 0.178 | 3.486 | 0.000 | Accept |
| PQ→BEQ→IGC | 0.048 | 0.003 | 0.098 | 1.597 | 0.055 | Reject |
| BC→BEQ→IGC | 0.122 | 0.063 | 0.189 | 3.162 | 0.001 | Accept |
CA: Celebrity Attractiveness, CT: Celebrity Trustworthiness, CF: Celebrity Cause Fit, AGC: Attitude Toward Green Cosmetics, BA: Brand Awareness, BS: Brand Associations, BL: Brand Loyalty, PQ: Perceived Quality, BC: Brand Credibility, BEQ: Brand Equity, IGC: Intention to Purchase Green Cosmetics.
Author’s data analysis.
Predictive model assessment.
| Q2 | RMSE (PLS-SEM) | RMSE (LM) | Difference | Predictive Power | |
| AGC – Item 1 | 0.447 | 0.791 | 0.826 | –0.034 | |
| AGC – Item 2 | 0.389 | 0.788 | 0.812 | –0.024 | |
| AGC – Item 3 | 0.377 | 0.815 | 0.865 | –0.050 | High Predictive Power |
| AGC – Item 4 | 0.378 | 0.792 | 0.833 | –0.042 | |
| AGC – Item 5 | 0.328 | 0.870 | 0.850 | 0.019 | |
| BEQ – Item 1 | 0.381 | 0.782 | 0.819 | –0.036 | |
| BEQ – Item 2 | 0.407 | 0.801 | 0.843 | –0.042 | |
| BEQ – Item 3 | 0.395 | 0.778 | 0.826 | –0.048 | High Predictive Power |
| BEQ – Item 4 | 0.356 | 0.832 | 0.871 | –0.039 | |
| BEQ – Item 5 | 0.381 | 0.837 | 0.881 | –0.044 | |
| IGC – Item 2 | 0.344 | 0.859 | 0.871 | –0.012 | |
| IGC – Item 3 | 0.349 | 0.867 | 0.896 | –0.029 | |
| IGC – Item 4 | 0.317 | 0.912 | 0.982 | –0.071 | |
| IGC – Item 5 | 0.307 | 0.897 | 0.936 | –0.039 | High Predictive Power |
| IGC – Item 6 | 0.350 | 0.861 | 0.891 | –0.029 | |
| IGC – Item 7 | 0.293 | 0.879 | 0.898 | –0.018 | |
| IGC – Item 2 | 0.320 | 0.911 | 0.971 | –0.060 |
AGC: Attitude Toward Green Cosmetics, BA: Brand Awareness, BS: Brand Associations, BL: Brand Loyalty, PQ: Perceived Quality, BC: Brand Credibility, BEQ: Brand Equity, IGC: Intention to Purchase Green Cosmetics, MAE: Mean Absolute Error, RMSE: Root Mean Squared Error, PLS-SEM: Partial Least Squares – Structural Equation Modeling, LM: Linear Regression Model.
Author’s data analysis.