| Literature DB >> 35959058 |
Anam Javeed1,2, Mohammed Aljuaid3, Zoya Khan4, Zahid Mahmood5, Duaa Shahid6.
Abstract
Examining the quality perceptions of consumers has often been recommended as an international research paradigm. This study is grounded in the Pakistani consumer market to evaluate the impact of food packaging cues on perceived product quality. The moderating effect of consumer knowledge was also taken into consideration in the study. A signaling theory was used in the study for its established predictive power in consumer behavior, marketing, and various fields of research. Based on the essence of the signaling theory, this study hypothesized that food packaging cues cast a positive impact on perceived product quality and consumer knowledge moderates these relationships. By using the sample of 504 consumers, data were gathered using the mall intercept method following a multi-stage sampling technique. The responses were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social sciences (SPSS) and Smart Partial Least Square (PLS). The findings of this study unveil that the extrinsic cues' brand name, price, nutritional labels, and precautionary labels were positively and significantly related to the perceived product quality. However, the country of origin cast no impact on the perceived product quality. Consumer knowledge reflected a moderation effect on the relationships between brand name and country of origin with the perceived product quality whereas it exerted no moderation impact on the relationships of price, nutritional labels, and precautionary labels with the perceived product quality. As the results exhibit that Pakistani consumers rely on food packaging cues for perceiving a product, hence it is recommended that marketers and policymakers develop appropriate marketing strategies focused on the significance of food packaging cues.Entities:
Keywords: consumer market; cues; perceived product quality; perceptions; signaling theory
Year: 2022 PMID: 35959058 PMCID: PMC9359923 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.913836
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Theoretical framework.
City wise sample size.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Islamabad | 1,430,000/4,430,000* 504 | 163 |
| Rawalpindi | 3,000,000/4,430,000* 504 | 341 |
Proportionate sample time and day wise.
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| C M/Isb | 10 | 12 | 12 | 19 |
| B C/Isb | 3 | 9 | 16 | 22 |
| K M/Isb | 6 | 16 | 13 | 25 |
| CSD Mall/Rwp | 12 | 22 | 19 | 28 |
| CSD Super Mall/Rwp | 6 | 16 | 19 | 31 |
| G V P Hyper mart/Rwp | 9 | 22 | 25 | 32 |
| R M/Rwp | 13 | 16 | 34 | 37 |
Dimensions of the constructs.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Brand name | • Consistent quality | Jamal and Sharifuddin, |
| Country of origin | • Sophistication | Qasem et al., |
| Price | • Higher quality | Wang, |
| Precautionary label | • Awareness | Ambali and Bakar, |
| Consumer knowledge | • Objective knowledge | Alba and Hutchinson, |
| Perceived product quality | • Perceived healthfulness | Asshidin et al., |
Total variance explained.
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Raw | 1 | 17.463 | 25.542 | 25.542 | 17.463 | 25.542 | 25.542 |
| 2 | 5.687 | 8.318 | 33.860 | ||||
| 3 | 3.009 | 4.402 | 38.261 | ||||
| 4 | 2.811 | 4.111 | 42.373 | ||||
| 5 | 2.530 | 3.700 | 46.073 | ||||
| 6 | 2.444 | 3.575 | 49.648 | ||||
| 7 | 2.059 | 3.012 | 52.660 | ||||
| 8 | 1.646 | 2.408 | 55.068 | ||||
| 9 | 1.589 | 2.325 | 57.392 | ||||
| 10 | 1.420 | 2.077 | 59.469 | ||||
| 11 | 1.293 | 1.891 | 61.361 | ||||
AVE and composite reliability.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Brand name | 0.861 | 0.806 | 0.508 |
| Country of origin | 0.867 | 0.794 | 0.623 |
| Price | 0.861 | 0.800 | 0.553 |
| Precautionary label | 0.876 | 0.835 | 0.503 |
Effect size.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reliability test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Brand name | 0.861 | 0.836 | 5 | BN1 |
| 2. | Country of origin | 0.867 | 0.806 | 4 | COO1 |
| 3. | Price | 0.861 | 0.801 | 5 | PR1 |
| 4. | Precautionary label | 0.876 | 0.849 | 5 | PL1 |
| 5. | Perceived quality | 0.907 | 0.851 | 5 | PQ1 |
| 6. | Consumer knowledge | 0.920 | 0.916 | 5 | CK1 |
Factor analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brand name | 5 | BN1 | 0.545 | 0.749 | 0.00 | 1.066 | 70.559 | 0.836 |
| Country of origin | 4 | COO1 | 0.527 | 0.768 | 0.00 | 2.538 | 63.445 | 0.806 |
| Price | 5 | PR1 | 0.706 | 0.728 | 0.00 | 1.089 | 67.939 | 0.801 |
| Precautionary label | 5 | PL1 | 0.578 | 0.734 | 0.00 | 1.042 | 67.623 | 0.849 |
| Perceived quality | 5 | PQ1 | 0.686 | 0.789 | 0.00 | 1.485 | 68.097 | 0.851 |
| Consumer Knowledge | 5 | CK1 | 0.632 | 0.800 | 0.00 | 5.313 | 59.032 | 0.911 |
Respondents' profile.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 193 | 40.4 |
| Female | 285 | 59.6 | |
| Education | High school | 206 | 43.1 |
| Bachelor | 167 | 34.9 | |
| Masters | 71 | 24.5 | |
| Doctorate | 34 | 7.1 | |
| Age group | 18–25 | 160 | 33.5 |
| 26–33 | 167 | 34.9 | |
| 34–41 | 117 | 24.5 | |
| 41-above | 34 | 7.1 |
Path co-efficient and significance level.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Brand name (BN) | 0.123 | 2.873 | 0.004 |
| Country of origin | 0.025 | 0.622 | 0.534 |
| Price (PR) | 0.081 | 1.927 | 0.055 |
| Precautionary label (PL) | 0.272 | 4.512 | 0.000 |
| BN × CK | 0.121 | 1.698 | 0.090 |
| COO × CK | −0.130 | 2.134 | 0.033 |
| PR × CK | 0.054 | 1.496 | 0.135 |
| PL × CK | 0.054 | 1.201 | 0.230 |
Multicollinearity test.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Brand name | 0.725 | 1.380 | 14.374 |
| Country of origin | 0.684 | 1.462 | 17.074 |
| Price | 0.547 | 1.828 | 22.723 |
| Precautionary label | 0.422 | 2.368 | 26.194 |
| Consumer knowledge | 0.976 | 1.025 | 32.353 |
Path coefficients of hypotheses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | BN→PQ | 0.123 | 2.910 | 0.004 | Supported | Major |
| H2 | COO→PQ | 0.027 | 0.646 | 0.519 | Rejected | Null |
| H3 | PR→PQ | 0.082 | 2.056 | 0.040 | Supported | Minor |
| H4 | PL→PQ | 0.272 | 4.620 | 0.000 | Supported | Major |
| H5 | BN × CK | 0.121 | 1.698 | 0.090 | Supported | Minor |
| H6 | COO × CK | −0.130 | 2.134 | 0.033 | Supported | Minor |
| H7 | PR × CK | 0.044 | 0.814 | 0.416 | Rejected | Null |
| H8 | PL × CK | −0.133 | 1.201 | 0.230 | Rejected | Null |