| Literature DB >> 35626945 |
Qiuqin Zheng1, Haimei Zeng2, Xintian Xiu3, Qiuhua Chen1.
Abstract
The organic food industry in China has been developing fast with the increasing consumer demand for healthier, safer, and more nutritious foods since the epidemic outbreak. It is of great significance to understand the psychological preference of consumers for organic food and adjust the marketing strategy accordingly. In this study, we adopted the multi-group structural equation model (SEM) to analyze 571 questionnaire data and explored the effects of consumers' perception on the sensory appeal of organic food, perception on promotional stimulation, positive emotion, and perceived social value on the purchase intention of organic food. Based on the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) model, this study divides the route affecting organic consumption behavior into the rational route and emotional route. It was proved that the emotional route (positive emotion) has a greater impact on the purchase intention of organic food than the rational route (perceived social value). In addition, there are different purchase intentions among different product types. Specifically, compared with organic tea, positive emotion has a greater effect on the purchase intention for organic rice. This study provides an important reference for the organic food-marketing strategy of enterprises.Entities:
Keywords: multi-group SEM; organic food consumption; positive emotion; sensory appeal
Year: 2022 PMID: 35626945 PMCID: PMC9141056 DOI: 10.3390/foods11101375
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Conceptual model.
The measures.
| Variables | Items | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| sensory appeal | Organic tea/rice looks nice | Lee and Yun (2015) [ |
| Packaging of organic tea/rice looks better | ||
| Organic tea/rice has a pleasant texture | ||
| promotional stimulation | Government regulation has a big impact on my purchase of organic tea/rice | Wang et al. (2018) [ |
| Government promotion has a great influence on my purchase of organic tea/rice | ||
| Opinions of experts and academic institutions have a great influence on my purchase of organic tea/rice | ||
| positive emotion | I will feel happy if I buy organic tea/rice | Lee and Yun (2015) [ |
| I will feel delightful if I buy organic tea/rice | ||
| I will feel exciting if I buy organic tea/rice | ||
| perceived social value | Buying organic tea/rice is good for me | Wang et al. (2017) [ |
| Buying organic tea/rice can form a good impression for me | ||
| Buy organic tea/rice to get more praise for me | ||
| purchase intention | I will learn more about organic tea/rice | Kim and Lee (2019) [ |
| I will recommend organic tea/rice to my friends | ||
| I will continue to choose organic tea/rice in the future |
Descriptive statistics of consumer social demographic characteristics.
| Variables | Definition | Frequency | Percentage ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 257 | 45% |
| Female | 314 | 55% | |
| Marriage | Unmarried | 130 | 22.8% |
| Married | 441 | 77.2% | |
| Age | 18–24 | 65 | 11.4% |
| 25–34 | 357 | 62.5% | |
| 35–44 | 130 | 22.8% | |
| 45–54 | 12 | 2.1% | |
| 55–64 | 7 | 1.2% | |
| ≥65 | 0 | 0 | |
| Education | Junior high school or below | 6 | 1.1% |
| High school (including secondary occupation) | 20 | 3.5% | |
| College | 58 | 10.2% | |
| Undergraduate | 414 | 72.5% | |
| Master or above | 73 | 12.8% | |
| Family member | 1–2 | 28 | 4.9% |
| 3–4 | 362 | 63.4% | |
| 5–6 | 165 | 28.9% | |
| ≥7 | 16 | 2.8% | |
| Monthly income (RMB) | ≤3500 | 55 | 9.6% |
| 3501–5000 | 60 | 10.5% | |
| 5001–6500 | 72 | 12.6% | |
| 6501–8000 | 122 | 21.4% | |
| ≥8000 | 262 | 45.9% |
Note: Chinese currency symbols, abbreviated as RenMiBi (RMB).
Results of measurement model analysis.
| Variables | Items | Ustd. | S.E. | Z-Value | P | Std. | SMC | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SA | SA1 | 1.000 | 0.728 | 0.530 | 0.747 | 0.497 | |||
| SA2 | 1.004 | 0.086 | 11.612 | *** | 0.641 | 0.411 | |||
| SA3 | 1.012 | 0.086 | 11.707 | *** | 0.741 | 0.549 | |||
| PS | PS1 | 1.000 | 0.686 | 0.471 | 0.776 | 0.538 | |||
| PS2 | 1.090 | 0.084 | 12.931 | *** | 0.820 | 0.672 | |||
| PS3 | 0.898 | 0.069 | 13.082 | *** | 0.687 | 0.472 | |||
| PE | PE1 | 1.000 | 0.743 | 0.552 | 0.81 | 0.587 | |||
| PE2 | 1.181 | 0.077 | 15.367 | *** | 0.810 | 0.656 | |||
| PE3 | 1.075 | 0.071 | 15.198 | *** | 0.744 | 0.554 | |||
| PSV | PSV1 | 1.000 | 0.650 | 0.423 | 0.771 | 0.531 | |||
| PSV2 | 1.200 | 0.095 | 12.572 | *** | 0.788 | 0.621 | |||
| PSV3 | 1.062 | 0.084 | 12.708 | *** | 0.741 | 0.549 | |||
| PI | PI1 | 1.000 | 0.824 | 0.679 | 0.862 | 0.676 | |||
| PI2 | 1.036 | 0.052 | 19.986 | *** | 0.817 | 0.667 | |||
| PI3 | 0.983 | 0.049 | 20.106 | *** | 0.826 | 0.682 |
Note: *** p < 0.001. Composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), sensory appeal (SA), promotional stimulation (PS), promotional emotion (PE), perceived social value (PSV), purchase intention (PI).
Results of discriminant validity test.
| Variables | AVE | PI | PSV | PE | PS | SA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PI | 0.676 |
| ||||
| PSV | 0.531 | 0.609 |
| |||
| PE | 0.587 | 0.714 | 0.695 |
| ||
| PS | 0.538 | 0.491 | 0.542 | 0.611 |
| |
| SA | 0.497 | 0.672 | 0.606 | 0.750 | 0.463 |
|
Note: The items on the diagonal represent the square roots of the AVE; off-diagonal elements are the correlation estimates. Sensory appeal (SA), promotional stimulation (PS), promotional emotion (PE), perceived social value (PSV), purchase intention (PI).
Fitting results of model.
| Index | Criteria | Model Fit | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| χ2 | the smaller the better | 207.948 | |
| df | the bigger the better | 83 | |
| χ2/df | <3 | 2.505 | ideal |
| GFI | >0.9 | 0.953 | ideal |
| AGFI | >0.9 | 0.932 | ideal |
| RMSEA | <0.08 | 0.051 | ideal |
| CFI | >0.9 | 0.966 | ideal |
| TLI (NNFI) | >0.9 | 0.958 | ideal |
Note: Goodness of fit index (GFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI).
Results of the hypothesis test.
| Ustd. | S.E. | C.R. | P | Std. | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1: SA → PE | 0.67 | 0.063 | 10.661 | *** | 0.647 | Support |
| H2: PS → PE | 0.286 | 0.044 | 6.518 | *** | 0.329 | Support |
| H3: SA → PSV | 0.424 | 0.054 | 7.828 | *** | 0.505 | Support |
| H4: PS → PSV | 0.232 | 0.041 | 5.601 | *** | 0.329 | Support |
| H5: PE → PI | 0.78 | 0.085 | 9.133 | *** | 0.579 | Support |
| H6: PSV → PI | 0.402 | 0.102 | 3.953 | *** | 0.242 | Support |
Note: *** p < 0.001. Sensory appeal (SA), promotional stimulation (PS), promotional emotion (PE), perceived social value (PSV), purchase intention (PI).
Results of mediating effect test.
| Paths | Total Effect | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | T-Value | β | T-Value | β | LLCI | ULCL | |
| SA → PE → PI | 0.6296 | 14.2338 | 0.323 | 6.6329 | 0.3065 | 0.2171 | 0.4059 |
| SA → PSV → PI | 0.6296 | 14.2338 | 0.4497 | 9.891 | 0.1799 | 0.1065 | 0.264 |
| PS → PE → PI | 0.459 | 10.5131 | 0.1741 | 3.9992 | 0.2849 | 0.2172 | 0.3585 |
| PS → PSV → PI | 0.459 | 10.5131 | 0.2643 | 5.9661 | 0.1948 | 0.1349 | 0.2594 |
Note: Sensory appeal (SA), promotional stimulation (PS), promotional emotion (PE), perceived social value (PSV), purchase intention (PI).
Fit indices for multi-group invariance tests.
| Model | χ2 | DF | P | χ2/DF | GFI | AGFI | CFI | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unconstrained | 342.943 | 166 | 0.000 | 2.066 | 0.926 | 0.893 | 0.954 | 0.043 |
| Measurement weights | 358.377 | 176 | 0.000 | 2.036 | 0.923 | 0.894 | 0.952 | 0.043 |
| Structural weights | 369.238 | 182 | 0.000 | 2.029 | 0.920 | 0.894 | 0.951 | 0.043 |
| Structural covariances | 371.349 | 185 | 0.000 | 2.007 | 0.919 | 0.895 | 0.951 | 0.042 |
| Structural residuals | 379.028 | 188 | 0.000 | 2.016 | 0.918 | 0.895 | 0.95 | 0.042 |
| Measurement residuals | 431.676 | 203 | 0.000 | 2.126 | 0.908 | 0.891 | 0.94 | 0.044 |
Note: Goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
MGA test results.
| Paths | Path Coefficients of Food Type | |
|---|---|---|
| Organic Tea | Organic Rice | |
| H1: SA → PE | 0.613 *** | 0.678 *** |
| H2: SA → PSV | 0.405 *** | 0.535 *** |
| H3: PS → PE | 0.358 *** | 0.291 *** |
| H4: PS → PSV | 0.421 *** | 0.296 *** |
| H5: PE → PI | 0.382 *** | 0.714 *** |
| H6: PSV → PI | 0.373 *** | 0.168 * |
Note: *** p < 0.001; * p < 0.1. Sensory appeal (SA), promotional stimulation (PS), promotional emotion (PE), perceived social value (PSV), purchase Intention (PI).