| Literature DB >> 36010423 |
Chun-Chieh Ma1, Hsiao-Ping Chang2,3.
Abstract
Extreme weather conditions have intensified due to manufactured environmental damage in recent years. To reduce the environmental impact on the Earth, many consumers seek to change their dietary patterns to protect the environment and voluntarily switch to a vegetarian diet. Past studies have found that the transition from nonvegetarian to vegetarian is not easy, but promoting the consumption of alternative foods such as plant-based meat alternatives should help consumers gradually reduce their dependence on meat during the transition period of changing their eating habits. This study was designed to apply the value-attitude-behavior model (VAB) to study the consumption attitude and behavior of novel and environmentally friendly foods such as plant-based meat alternatives, and the novelty of plant-based meat alternatives was included as an intervening variable for discussion. In this study, 376 valid questionnaires were collected from college students in Taiwan, and the recovery rate of valid questionnaires was 94%. It was found from the analysis of results that perceptions of green value and animal welfare value had a significantly positive effect on attitude, while attitude and product knowledge also had a significant positive effect on behavior; however, the novelty of plant-based meat alternatives products did not have an interference effect on the relationship between product knowledge and behavior. Based on the research findings of this study, it is suggested that when introducing plant-based meat alternatives products, food companies should not only let consumers understand that they are based on environmental friendliness and animal welfare values but also enhance the marketing and promotion of product knowledge to increase consumers' confidence in purchasing plant-based meat alternatives and reduce their consumption concerns.Entities:
Keywords: animal welfare value; novel and environmentally friendly foods; perception of green value; plant-based meat alternatives; product knowledge; value-attitude-behavior model
Year: 2022 PMID: 36010423 PMCID: PMC9407091 DOI: 10.3390/foods11162423
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Sample characteristics.
| Item |
| Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 103 | 27.4% |
| Female | 273 | 72.6% | |
| Monthly disposable amount | Less than NTD 4999 | 82 | 21.8% |
| Between NTD 5000 and NTD 9999 | 183 | 48.7% | |
| Between NTD 10,000 and NTD 14,999 | 75 | 19.9% | |
| Between NTD 15,000 and NTD 19,999 | 11 | 2.9% | |
| Less than NTD 20,000 | 25 | 6.6% | |
| Ever purchased plant meat | Yes | 122 | 32.4% |
| No | 254 | 67.6% | |
| Pay attention to environmental issues | Yes | 317 | 84.3% |
| No | 59 | 15.7% |
Note. NTD: New Taiwan dollars.
Figure 1Research framework.
Constructs/variables and corresponding measuring statements are included in the questionnaire.
| Construct/Variable | Number of Statements | Measuring Items | Sources of Adoption |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived of green value | 4 |
I think plant meat is an environmentally friendly product. I believe that purchasing plant-based meat products is helpful for environmental sustainability (e.g., reducing carbon emissions, reducing resource consumption). I think the performance of plant-based meat in promoting environmental sustainability meets my expectations. I think plant meat is better for the environment than other meats (e.g., beef, pork). | Williams& Soutar [ |
| Animal welfare value | 3 |
I don’t think eating meat from livestock raised animals is in line with animal welfare, because their lives deserve to be respected. I think consumers should stop killing animals, even if it costs some people their jobs. I think it is morally wrong to kill animals for the sake of appetite. | Zhung & Liu [ |
| Attitude | 2 |
I think it is right to buy plant-based meat products for environmental sustainability. Buying plant-based meat products for environmental sustainability makes me feel good. | Tsen et al. [ |
| Purchase intention | 3 |
I would like to buy plant-based meat that promotes environmental sustainability. I would like to recommend family and friends to buy plant—based meat that promotes environmental sustainability. I am willing to continue to buy plant-based meat that promotes environmental sustainability. | Follows & Jobber [ |
| Product knowledge | 4 |
Information about plant-based meat products influences my intention to purchase. For environmental sustainability, I will take the initiative to learn about plant-based meat products. If I understand the differences between various plant-based meat products (e.g.,: vegan, green certification, etc.), it may affect my choice when buying plant-based meat products. If I know about plant-based meat products, I will be willing to share with friends and family. | Brucks [ |
Results of factor loading, reliability, and validity.
| Items | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s α | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived of green value | 0.868 | 0.874 | 0.634 | |
| 1. I think plant meat is an environmentally friendly product. | 0.85 | |||
| 2. I believe that purchasing plant-based meat products is helpful for environmental sustainability (e.g., reducing carbon emissions, reducing resource consumption). | 0.88 | |||
| 3. I think the performance of plant-based meat in promoting environmental sustainability meets my expectations. | 0.74 | |||
| 4. I think plant meat is better for the environment than other meats (e.g., beef, pork). | 0.71 | |||
| Animal welfare value | 0.870 | 0.869 | 0.690 | |
| 1. I don’t think eating meat from livestock raised animals is in line with animal welfare, because their lives deserve to be respected. | 0.84 | |||
| 2. I think consumers should stop killing animals, even if it costs some people their jobs. | 0.86 | |||
| 3. I think it is morally wrong to kill animals for the sake of appetite. | 0.79 | |||
| Attitude | 0.776 | 0.781 | 0.640 | |
| 1. I think it is right to buy plant-based meat products for environmental sustainability. | 0.82 | |||
| 2. Buying plant-based meat products for environmental sustainability makes me feel good. | 0.78 | |||
| Purchase intention | 0.910 | 0.912 | 0.775 | |
| 1. I would like to buy plant-based meat that promotes environmental sustainability. | 0.92 | |||
| 2. I would like to recommend family and friends to buy plant-based meat that promotes environmental sustainability. | 0.84 | |||
| 3. I am willing to continue to buy plant-based meat that promotes environmental sustainability. | 0.88 | |||
| Product knowledge | 0.788 | 0.788 | 0.487 | |
| 1. Information about plant-based meat products influences my intention to purchase. | 0.53 | |||
| 2. For environmental sustainability, I will take the initiative to learn about plant-based meat products. | 0.77 | |||
| 3. If I understand the differences between various plant-based meat products (e.g., vegan, green certification, etc.), it may affect my choice when buying plant-based meat products. | 0.66 | |||
| 4. If I know about plant-based meat products, I will be willing to share with friends and family. | 0.80 | |||
| Novelty of plant-based meat alternatives | 0.879 | 0.879 | 0.784 | |
| 1. I like to try the novelty of plant-based meat products. | 0.91 | |||
| 2. I would like to try novelty of plant-based meat products. | 0.86 |
Note: CR: Composite reliability; AVE: Average variance extracted.
Means, standard deviations, and correlations of constructs.
| Construct | Mean | S.D. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender | 1.730 | 0.447 | 1 | |||||||||
| 2. Monthly disposable amount | 2.240 | 1.039 | −0.203 ** | 1 | ||||||||
| 3. Ever purchased plant meat | 1.680 | 0.469 | −0.018 | −0.092 | 1 | |||||||
| 4. Pay attention to environmental issues | 1.160 | 0.364 | −0.014 | 0.020 | 0.096 | 1 | ||||||
| 5. Perceived of green value | 4.044 | 0.729 | 0.010 | −0.061 | −0.126 * | −0.194 ** | 1 | |||||
| 6. Animal welfare value | 2.896 | 1.035 | 0.094 | −0.058 | −0.212 ** | −0.197 ** | 0.344 ** | 1 | ||||
| 7. Attitude | 3.735 | 0.811 | 0.028 | −0.031 | −0.170 ** | −0.197 ** | 0.591 ** | 0.458 ** | 1 | |||
| 8. Purchase intention | 3.528 | 0.919 | −0.006 | −0.024 | −0.278* * | −0.283 ** | 0.551 ** | 0.520 ** | 0.699 ** | 1 | ||
| 9. Product knowledge | 3.817 | 0.703 | 0.042 | 0.063 | −0.162 ** | −0.333 ** | 0.528 ** | 0.387 ** | 0.542 ** | 0.571 ** | 1 | |
| 10. Novelty of Plant-based meat alternatives | 3.743 | 0.935 | −0.086 | 0.032 | −0.245 ** | −0.191 ** | 0.440 ** | 0.301 ** | 0.471 ** | 0.580 ** | 0.501 ** | 1 |
Note: N = 376; * p < 0.05.; ** p < 0.01.
Figure 2Results of structural equation modeling Note. *** p < 0.001.
The model’s standardized regression weights, t-values, and hypothesis.
| Path | Standardized Regression Weight | Hypothesis | Verification | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Directed effect of the integrative model | ||||
| Step 1: Independent variable—Product knowledge | 0.571 *** | 0.374 *** | 0.374 *** | |
| Perceived of green value → Attitude (γ11) | 0.769 | 10.676 *** | H1 * | Supported |
| Animal welfare value → Attitude (γ12) | 0.246 | 6.148 *** | H2 * | Supported |
| Attitude → Purchase intention (β12) | 0.719 | 9.513 *** | H3 * | Supported |
| Product knowledge → Purchase intention (γ23) | 0.450 | 6.375 *** | H4 * | Supported |
| χ2/df = 2.351, GFI = 0.930, AGFI = 0.900, CFI = 0.964, NFI = 0.940, SRMR = 0.049, RMSEA = 0.060 | ||||
Note: t > 3.29, *** p < 0.001; * indicates the hypothesis was supported; GFI: Goodness of fit index; AGFI: Adjusted goodness of fit index; CFI: Comparative fit index; NFI: Normed-fit index; RMR: Standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA: Root mean square error of approximation.
Results of hierarchical regression analysis.
| Variables | Purchase Intention | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
| Step 1: Independent variable—Product knowledge | 0.571 *** | 0.374 *** | 0.374 *** |
| Step 2: Moderator—Novelty of Plant-based meat alternatives | 0.393 *** | 0.396 *** | |
| Step 3: Interaction—Product knowledge x Novelty of plant-based meat alternatives | 0.014 | ||
| R2 | 0.325 | 0.441 | 0.441 |
| ΔR2 | 0.116 | 0.000 | |
| F | 180.476 *** | 147.157 *** | 97.914 *** |
Note. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3The interactive effect of product knowledge, purchase intention, and Novelty of Plant-based meat alternatives.