| Literature DB >> 35465533 |
Songyu Jiang1, Nuttapong Jotikasthira1, Ruihui Pu2.
Abstract
The prosperous development of online education in the digital age harvested countless consumers. Education for sustainable development is an important proposition for both academic community and practitioner, however, current little studies have shed light on Sustainable Consumption Behavior in online education industry (SCBOEI). The Consumer Value Theory and Social Identity Theory as theoretical basis linked with the field of Sustainable Consumption Behavior. This study is to further investigate the role of consumer value and social identity in the relation to Sustainable Consumption Behavior. Putting forward suggestions from this study to online education providers toward sustainable development. Method: Data on the impact of personal value on SCBOEI through a survey method with 552 valid students as respondents are collected from higher education institutions in China. A structural equation modeling approach is employed in this study for data analysis.Entities:
Keywords: identity; online education; psychology; quality education; sustainable consumption behavior; value
Year: 2022 PMID: 35465533 PMCID: PMC9022665 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.865149
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Scale statistics of online education market from 2015 to 2020 in China. Source: https://bg.qianzhan.com/trends/detail/506/210730-5d593518.html.
FIGURE 2Growth rate of online education market from 2015 to 2020 in China. Source: https://bg.qianzhan.com/trends/detail/506/210730-5d593518.html.
FIGURE 3Scale and forecast of online education users in China from 2016 to 2021 (user scale: 10,000). Source: https://bg.qianzhan.com/trends/detail/506/210730-5d593518.html.
Definition of variables in the study.
| Variable | Definition | |
| Value | Functional value | Consumers’ perception of the price utility and special quality of online education. |
| Social value | Consumers’ self-image and social relationship network formed through online education consumption. | |
| Emotional value | Consumers’ sense of pleasure, comfort and satisfaction through consumption online education. | |
| Social identity | Consumers’ social self-concept and trust derived from the consumption of online education. | |
| SCBOEI | Consumers’ commitment to quality education, economic development and social stability resulted from online education, and to use online education as a tool for sustainable development. |
SCBOEI, Sustainable Consumption Behavior in Online Education Industry.
Demographic statistical analysis.
| Sex | Male | 306 | 55.40% |
| Female | 246 | 44.60% | |
| Grade | Grade 1 | 111 | 20.10% |
| Grade 2 | 150 | 27.20% | |
| Grade 3 | 177 | 32.10% | |
| Grade 4 | 110 | 19.90% | |
| Over bachelor | 4 | 0.70% | |
| Education level | Under bachelor | 73 | 13.20% |
| Bachelor | 475 | 86.10% | |
| Master | 4 | 0.70% | |
| Location | East China | 90 | 16.30% |
| South China | 127 | 23% | |
| West China | 220 | 39.90% | |
| North China | 115 | 20.80% | |
| Institution attribute | Private | 190 | 34.40% |
| Public | 241 | 43.70% | |
| Private and public | 121 | 21.90% |
Source of variables measurement.
| Variables | References |
| SCBOEI | |
| Emotional value |
|
| Functional value |
|
| Social value |
|
| Social identity |
|
Descriptive statistics of instruments used to explain sustainable consumption behavior in online education industry.
| Mean | Std. deviation | ||
| SCBOEI | Q6 | 2.90 | 1.236 |
| Q7 | 3.00 | 1.245 | |
| Q8 | 2.99 | 1.259 | |
| Functional value | Q9 | 2.89 | 1.201 |
| Q10 | 2.96 | 1.169 | |
| Q11 | 2.97 | 1.259 | |
| Q12 | 2.99 | 1.204 | |
| Emotional value | Q13 | 2.96 | 1.168 |
| Q14 | 3.00 | 1.271 | |
| Q15 | 3.01 | 1.238 | |
| Social value | Q16 | 2.88 | 1.217 |
| Q17 | 2.92 | 1.189 | |
| Q18 | 2.90 | 1.239 | |
| Q19 | 2.85 | 1.166 | |
| Social identity | Q20 | 2.96 | 1.198 |
| Q21 | 2.90 | 1.212 | |
| Q22 | 2.91 | 1.236 | |
| Q23 | 3.06 | 1.267 | |
| Q24 | 3.05 | 1.242 | |
| Q25 | 3.07 | 1.215 |
Reliability and validity of the measurement model.
| RMSEA | CFI | GFI | TLI | AGFI | |
| 1.053 | 0.010 | 0.991 | 0.971 | 0.989 | 0.961 |
Regression weights in CFA.
| Estimate | C.R. | P | ||||
| Q6 | ← | SCBOEI | 1 | |||
| Q7 | ← | SCBOEI | 0.901 | 0.148 | 6.079 |
|
| Q8 | ← | SCBOEI | 1.021 | 0.157 | 6.511 |
|
| Q9 | ← | FV | 1 | |||
| Q10 | ← | FV | 0.992 | 0.16 | 6.216 |
|
| Q11 | ← | FV | 1.065 | 0.172 | 6.203 |
|
| Q12 | ← | FV | 0.947 | 0.159 | 5.95 |
|
| Q13 | ← | EV | 1 | |||
| Q14 | ← | EV | 1.024 | 0.168 | 6.111 |
|
| Q15 | ← | EV | 1.023 | 0.165 | 6.202 |
|
| Q16 | ← | SV | 1 | |||
| Q17 | ← | SV | 0.879 | 0.153 | 5.724 |
|
| Q18 | ← | SV | 0.918 | 0.16 | 5.733 |
|
| Q19 | ← | SV | 1.105 | 0.169 | 6.551 |
|
| Q20 | ← | SI | 1 | |||
| Q21 | ← | SI | 1.038 | 0.208 | 4.991 |
|
| Q22 | ← | SI | 1.305 | 0.236 | 5.523 |
|
| Q23 | ← | SI | 1.421 | 0.251 | 5.662 |
|
| Q24 | ← | SI | 1.356 | 0.242 | 5.601 |
|
| Q25 | ← | SI | 1.321 | 0.236 | 5.591 |
|
*** means the relationship between the variables is significant.
Results of the correlation analysis.
| Estimate | C.R. |
| ||||
| FV | ↔ | EV | 0.211 | 0.039 | 5.408 |
|
| FV | ↔ | SV | 0.213 | 0.039 | 5.416 |
|
| SCBOEI | ↔ | FV | 0.231 | 0.042 | 5.535 |
|
| FV | ↔ | SI | 0.174 | 0.035 | 5.031 |
|
| EV | ↔ | SV | 0.223 | 0.041 | 5.482 |
|
| SCBOEI | ↔ | EV | 0.212 | 0.041 | 5.232 |
|
| EV | ↔ | SI | 0.172 | 0.034 | 5.017 |
|
| SCBOEI | ↔ | SV | 0.213 | 0.04 | 5.281 |
|
| SV | ↔ | SI | 0.167 | 0.034 | 4.945 |
|
| SCBOEI | ↔ | SI | 0.204 | 0.039 | 5.202 |
|
*** means the relationship between the variables is significant.
FIGURE 4Standardized estimated path coefficient.
Path coefficient estimate of the final model.
| Estimate | C.R. |
| Results | Hypothesis | ||||
| SI | ← | FV | 0.251 | 0.036 | 7.058 |
| Support | H1 |
| SI | ← | EV | 0.178 | 0.032 | 5.589 |
| Support | H2 |
| SI | ← | SV | 0.211 | 0.036 | 5.873 |
| Support | H3 |
| SCBOEI | ← | SI | 0.344 | 0.055 | 6.22 |
| Support | H7 |
| SCBOEI | ← | FV | 0.187 | 0.048 | 3.87 |
| Support | H4 |
| SCBOEI | ← | EV | 0.101 | 0.042 | 2.368 | 0.018 | Support | H5 |
| SCBOEI | ← | SV | 0.129 | 0.048 | 2.679 | 0.007 | Support | H6 |
*** means the relationship between the variables is significant.
Results of mediation analysis using bootstrapping.
| Path | Estimate | Lower | Upper |
| |
| Indirect effect | FV → SI → SCBOEI | 0.086 | 0.053 | 0.136 | 0.000 |
| EV → SI → SCBOEI | 0.061 | 0.035 | 0.098 | 0.000 | |
| SV → SI → SCBOEI | 0.073 | 0.041 | 0.115 | 0.000 | |
| Total effect | FV → SI → SCBOEI | 0.273 | 0.182 | 0.369 | 0 |
| EV → SI → SCBOEI | 0.162 | 0.072 | 0.258 | 0.002 | |
| SV → SI → SCBOEI | 0.201 | 0.094 | 0.302 | 0.001 | |
| Mediation/total effect | FV → SI → SCBOEI | 0.316 | 0.187 | 0.558 | 0 |
| EV → SI → SCBOEI | 0.378 | 0.186 | 0.856 | 0.003 | |
| SV → SI → SCBOEI | 0.36 | 0.183 | 0.799 | 0.001 | |
| Mediation difference | Diff1 | 0.025 | −0.013 | 0.072 | 0.199 |
| Diff2 | 0.014 | −0.026 | 0.062 | 0.494 | |
| Diff3 | −0.011 | −0.053 | 0.027 | 0.542 | |
| Diff indicates the difference of mediating effects of different paths | |||||