| Literature DB >> 35372210 |
Xiaotong Guo1,2, Zhaoyang Fan1,2, Hong Zhu1,2, Xiangyang Chen3, Mengmeng Wang1,2, Hanliang Fu2.
Abstract
Healthy housing can set its occupants completely in good physical, mental and social conditions, but there is a lack of research in China on the public's willingness to pay (WTP) for healthy housing. From the perspective of cognitive psychology, this study constructs an analytical framework based on the model of "theory of planned behavior" (TPB), the theory of selective information exposure, and the model of "emotions as social information," while exploring the effect mechanism of the online reviews on the public's WTP for healthy housing during COVID-19 pandemic. In combination with eye-tracking experiments and subjective reports, physiological, psychological and behavioral multimodal data on WTP of 65 participants for healthy housing are collected. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) is adopted to analyze the formation effect mechanism of the public's WTP for healthy housing. This study acquires the following results: (i) Information attentiveness to online reviews on different valence information of healthy housing as obtained in eye tracking experiments delivers significant effect on attitude, subjective norm (SN) and perceived behavioral control (PBC), but has no direct effect on the public's WTP for healthy housing; (ii) Hypotheses from TPB model are verified. attitude, PBC and SN can all make significant effect on WTP for healthy housing, with attitude showcasing the most prominent effect; and (iii) In terms of the mediating effect, information attentiveness can deliver significant indirect effect on WTP through attitude.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; eye tracking; healthy housing; information attentiveness; theory of planned behavior; willingness to pay
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35372210 PMCID: PMC8965038 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.855671
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Conceptual model and hypotheses.
List of measurement items.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Attitude (ATT) | (ATT1) I think healthy housing consumption is necessary. | ( |
| (ATT2) I think healthy housing consumption is a good idea. | ( | |
| (ATT3)I think healthy housing is safe. | ||
| (ATT4) I think healthy housing has advantages over traditional housing. | ||
| Subjective Norm (SN) | (SN1) My family thinks I should be spending on healthy housing rather than traditional housing. | ( |
| (SN2) My close friends think that I should be spending on healthy housing rather than traditional housing. | ( | |
| (SN3) Most people who are important to me think that I should be spending on healthy housing rather than traditional housing. | ||
| Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) | (PBC1) I believe I can afford healthy housing over traditional housing whenever I want. | |
| (PBC2) I see myself as capable of healthy housing consumption in the future. | ( | |
| (PBC3) I have the resources, time and willingness to make healthy housing consumption. | ( | |
| WTP for healthy housing (WTP) | (WTP1) I would like to make healthy housing consumption. | ( |
| (WTP2) I would like to live in healthy housing. | ( | |
| (WTP3) I would like to recommend healthy housing to my family and friends. |
Demographic characteristics of the participants (N = 65).
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 32 (49.2) |
| Female | 33 (50.8) | |
| Age | 20 or less | 6 (9.3) |
| 20–30 | 53 (81.5) | |
| 30–40 | 3 (4.6) | |
| 40 or more | 3 (4.6) | |
| Education | High school and below | 1 (1.5) |
| Specialist college | 2 (3.1) | |
| Undergraduate degree | 37 (56.9) | |
| Master's degree and higher | 25 (38.5) | |
| Health conditions | Physical health | 51 (78.5) |
| Current recovery from | 2 (3.0) | |
| past medical history | ||
| Self-feeling sub-health | 12 (18.5) | |
| Health status of | Physical health | 57 (87.7) |
| family members | Chronic diseases | 6 (9.2) |
| In-hospital treatment | 2 (3.1) |
Figure 2Area of interest division map of Weibo page.
Figure 3Experimental procedures.
Discriminant validity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VA | 0.51 | 0.03 |
| ||||
| ATT | 4.94 | 1.46 | 0.493 |
| |||
| PBC | 4.97 | 1.33 | 0.489 | 0.636 |
| ||
| SN | 3.96 | 1.12 | 0.264 | 0.460 | 0.461 |
| |
| WTP | 4.72 | 1.23 | 0.471 | 0.780 | 0.674 | 0.602 |
|
IA, information attentiveness; ATT, attitude; PBC, perceived behavioral control; SN, subjective norm; WTP, willingness to pay.
Reliability and validity analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.856 | 0.901 | 0.697 | |
| ATT1 | 0.343 | |||
| ATT2 | 0.345 | |||
| ATT3 | 0.247 | |||
| ATT4 | 0.254 | |||
|
| 0.868 | 0.919 | 0.791 | |
| SN1 | 0.410 | |||
| SN2 | 0.345 | |||
| SN3 | 0.369 | |||
|
| 0.716 | 0.840 | 0.638 | |
| PBC1 | 0.360 | |||
| PBC2 | 0.482 | |||
| PBC3 | 0.405 | |||
|
| 0.900 | 0.937 | 0.833 | |
| WTP1 | 0.388 | |||
| WTP2 | 0.343 | |||
| WTP3 | 0.364 | |||
|
| 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Heterotrait-monotrait ratio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IA | — | — | — | — | — |
| ATT | 0.523 | — | — | — | — |
| PBC | 0.571 | 0.796 | — | — | — |
| SN | 0.285 | 0.512 | 0.576 | — | — |
| WTP | 0.495 | 0.873 | 0.833 | 0.673 | — |
Results for the hypothesis model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1a | IA → ATT | 0.493 | 4.864 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H1b | IA → SN | 0.264 | 2.059 | 0.037 | Yes |
| H1c | IA → PBC | 0.489 | 4.179 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H1d | IA → WTP | 0.052 | 0.638 | 0.527 | No |
| H2 | ATT → WTP | 0.501 | 4.889 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H3 | SN → WTP | 0.260 | 3.763 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H4 | PBC → WTP | 0.211 | 2.373 | 0.010 | Yes |
Figure 4Model path for WTP for healthy housing.
Calculation of GoF index.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Attention | 1.000 | |
| Attitude | 0.485 | |
| Perceived Behavioral Control | 0.283 | |
| Subjective Norm | 0.545 | |
| Willingness to Pay | 0.626 | 0.695 |
| Average scores | 0.588 | 0.695 |
| AVE * R2 | 0.409 | |
| GoF = √(AVE × R2) | 0.639 |