| Literature DB >> 35769378 |
Junghyun Park1, Yunmi Park2, Jongsik Yu3.
Abstract
Over the past decade, there has been an increased interest in veganism in several nations across the world. In 2021, there were around 79 million vegans. While veganism is growing, it still covers only 1% of the global population. But if the diet keeps its steady growth rate, it's predicted to increase to one in 10 people within the next 10 years. However, in addition to the traditional, though poorly studied, multiple attributes ascribed to vegan restaurants, there may be other factors influencing the approach intentions of vegan restaurant customers. Within this context, this study investigated the psychological resilience associated with customer engagement (identification, enthusiasm, attention, absorption, and interaction) with the vegan movement for Korean vegan customers. The analysis was conducted using SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 22.0. The results revealed that numerous attributes ascribed to vegan restaurants positively affected customer engagement, especially identification, and strongly influenced psychological resilience as well. However, the identification customer engagement factor did not significantly affect the approach intentions of vegan restaurant customers. The study results suggested that when eliciting customer engagement to increase approach intentions toward vegan restaurants, it is necessary to emphasize customer psychological resilience, enthusiasm, attention, absorption, and interaction. This study contributes to food and consumer behavior literature on the approach intentions toward vegan restaurants.Entities:
Keywords: approach intentions; consumer engagement; multiple attributes; psychological resilience; vegan restaurants
Year: 2022 PMID: 35769378 PMCID: PMC9234452 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.902498
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Figure 1The proposed conceptual framework.
Summary of exploratory factor analysis results.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 30.523 | 0.921 | |
| I feel I am getting healthier when I eat food from vegan restaurants | 0.907 | ||
| I feel that my skin improves when I eat food from vegan restaurants | 0.900 | ||
| I feel that my body becomes beautifully shaped when I eat food from vegan restaurants | 0.894 | ||
| I feel like I am getting cured when I eat food from vegan restaurants | 0.892 | ||
|
| 26.042 | 0.916 | |
| I feel guilty when I think of visiting meat- and seafood-based restaurants instead of vegan restaurants | 0.869 | ||
| I feel like I am abusing animals when I think of visiting meat- and seafood-based restaurants instead of vegan restaurants | 0.836 | ||
| I feel like I am harming my body when I think of visiting meat- and seafood-based restaurants instead of vegan restaurants | 0.887 | ||
| I think that it is ethically wrong to visit meat- and seafood-based restaurants instead of vegan restaurants | 0.820 | ||
|
| 24.496 | 0.902 | |
| I am constantly curious about vegan restaurants | 0.824 | ||
| I am curious about food provided in vegan restaurants | 0.829 | ||
| I am curious about characteristics of those who visit vegan restaurants | 0.855 | ||
| I am deeply interested in ingredients (e.g., beans, wheat, and alternative meat) used in vegan restaurants | 0.904 | ||
|
| 8.022 | 0.950 | |
| Environments are destroyed when people visit meat- and seafood-based restaurants instead of vegan restaurants. | 0.862 | ||
| The amount of greenhouse gas emissions increases when people visit meat- and seafood-based restaurants instead of vegan restaurants. | 0.858 | ||
| Ingredients used in vegan restaurants lead to a decrease in the amount of carbon emissions. | 0.880 |
Total variance explained: 89.083, KMO measure of sampling adequacy: 0.954, Bartlett's test of sphericity (p <0.01).
Measurement model assessment and correlations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health and beauty (1) | 1.000 | ||||||||||
| Guilty (2) | 0.567a | 1.000 | |||||||||
| Curiosity (3) | 0.650 | 0.605 | 1.000 | ||||||||
| Environmental concern (4) | 0.649 | 0.580 | 0.578 | 1.000 | |||||||
| Identification (5) | 0.596 | 0.511 | 0.624 | 0.471 | 1.000 | ||||||
| Enthusiasm (6) | 0.462 (0.213) | 0.586 | 0.534 | 0.537 | 0.450 | 1.000 | |||||
| Attention (7) | 0.427 | 0.546 | 0.438 | 0.532 | 0.449 | 0.554 | 1.000 | ||||
| Absorption (8) | 0.550 | 0.575 | 0.552 | 0.546 | 0.458 | 0.617 | 0.628 | 1.000 | |||
| Interaction (9) | 0.569 | 0.544 | 0.430 | 0.537 | 0.472 | 0.583 | 0.533 | 0.559 | 1.000 | ||
| Psychological resilience (10) | 0.574 | 0.592 | 0.587 | 0.585 | 0.529 | 0.593 | 0.431 | 0.543 | 0.445 | 1.000 | |
| Approach intention (11) | 0.499 | 0.514 | 0.496 | 0.490 | 0.421 | 0.506 | 0.439 | 0.449 | 0.457 | 0.465 | 1.000 |
| Mean | 5.615 | 5.585 | 5.538 | 5.661 | 5.500 | 5.588 | 5.598 | 5.664 | 5.931 | 6.098 | 5.972 |
| SD | 1.268 | 1.231 | 1.346 | 1.370 | 1.471 | 1.229 | 1.263 | 1.205 | 1.053 | 0.909 | 1.025 |
| CR | 0.936 | 0.879 | 0.904 | 0.885 | 0.920 | 0.864 | 0.844 | 0.830 | 0.868 | 0.897 | 0.877 |
| AVE | 0.784 | 0.645 | 0.637 | 0.721 | 0.793 | 0.682 | 0.643 | 0.622 | 0.686 | 0.744 | 0.705 |
Goodness-of-fit statistics for the measurement model: χ.
.
.
Figure 2Results of structural model. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
The structural model estimation.
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1: MAVR | → | ID | 0.850 | 16.241** |
| H2: MAVR | → | EN | 0.657 | 9.873** |
| H3: MAVR | → | AT | 0.628 | 10.115** |
| H4: MAVR | → | AB | 0.658 | 11.156** |
| H5: MAVR | → | IN | 0.635 | 10.555** |
| H6: MAVR | → | PR | 0.593 | 9.226** |
| H7: PR | → | AI | 0.397 | 7.953** |
| H8: ID | → | AI | 0.091 | 1.700 |
| H9: EN | → | AI | 0.147 | 3.236** |
| H10: AT | → | AI | 0.124 | 2.794** |
| H11: AB | → | AI | 0.164 | 3.568** |
| H12: IN | → | AI | 0.288 | 6.205** |
| Indirect effect: | ||||
| β MAVR → | Explained variance: | |||
| = 778** | ||||
**p <0.01.
MAVR, multiple attributes of vegan restaurant; H, heathy and beauty; G, guilty; C, curiosity; E, environmental concern; ID, identification; EN, enthusiasm; AT, attention; AB, absorption; IN, interaction; PR, psychological resilience; AI, Approach intention.
Goodness-of-fit statistics for the structural model: χ.