Proceedings of 3rd European Business Research Conference
4 - 5 September 2014, Sheraton Roma, Rome, Italy, ISBN: 978-1-922069-59-7
The Roles of Health Consciousness, Health Motivation and
Trust in the Purchase Intention of Meat with Traceability
Kawpong Polyorat* and Nathamon Buaprommee**
Food safety crises including mad cow disease and bird flu have raised
consumers’ concern in meat safety. In response, the meat industry has
adopted traceability systems to standardize quality and safety of their meat
production. Traceability, however, is still rarely positioned as a marketing tool
to persuade consumers who are meat endusers. Therefore, the present
study attempts to understand consumer behaviors in the context of meat
with traceability system by conducting a study in Thailand where research in
this area is little. The study results, based on structural equation modeling
with AMOS, reveal that, while health motivation has a significant, positive
impact on traceability trust, health consciousness does not directly affect
traceability. Health consciousness, nevertheless, have a positive influence
on health motivation. Finally, traceability trust has a positive impact of
purchase intention of meat with traceability. Research implications and future
study directions conclude the study report.
Track: Marketing
1. Introduction
Food quality and food safety have been an important issue for consumers, public sectors,
and food producers. Food safety crisis such as mad cow disease and bird flu have caused
consumers to lose trust in the meat manufacturing process, resulting in the drop of meat
sales (De Jonge et al., 2004). In response, the meat industry has adopted traceability
systems to standardize quality and safety of their meat production.
In the meat production context, meat traceability system is an information technology
where information for each piece of meat (Hobbs, 2004) is recorded and displayed. In this
regard, information including source-of-origin, production method, ingredient,
manufacturer, warehouse, distributor, selling place, and product movement from the
beginning up to the point where that particular piece of meat reaches consumers can be
retrieved with this technology. The meat traceability system, therefore, is tremendously
useful for meat tracking and checking (Hobbs et al., 2005).
Although traceability has been used within the manufacturer-wholesaler-retailers cycle, it is
interesting to note that the use of traceability system is rarely communicated to
consumers. In other words, the marketing potential of traceability system among meat
consumers remains largely unknown. One reason for this could be attributed to the lack of
*Dr. Kawpong Polyorat, Department of Marketing, Faculty of Management Science, Khonkaen University,
Thailand Email: kawpong@kku.ac.th,
**Miss Nathamon Buaprommee, Doctoral student, DBA Programmee, Faculty of Management Science,
Khonkaen University Email: nathamon_b@kkumail.com
1
Proceedings of 3rd European Business Research Conference
4 - 5 September 2014, Sheraton Roma, Rome, Italy, ISBN: 978-1-922069-59-7
profound understanding of consumer behaviors in the meat traceability context. As a
consequence, the present study attempts to fill these gaps by conducting a study with
consumers in Thailand to examine three antecedents of consumer’s purchase intention of
meat with traceability system: (1) health consciousness, (2) health motivation, and (3)
traceability trust.
It is expected that what uncovered in this study will contribute to the food marketing
literature by empirically documenting how these three antecedents may be relevant for
marketers and academics interested in using traceability as a marketing tool for meat
products. Moreover, due to the scarcity of meat traceability marketing research in
Thailand, the results from this study would also provide managerial implications for Thai
meat producers. In this regard, the use of Thailand as a country in focus would respond to
the need for more empirical evidence from other underrepresented countries (Sophonsiri
and Polyorat, 2009).
2. Literature Review
Heath consciousness reflects the attention a consumer pays to the prevention and
promotion of his or her good health generally due to the concern over unsafe environment
which could be dangerous to health (Newsom et al., 2005). Health consciousness could
lead to health lifestyles such as the more careful selection of food (Chen, 2009).
Health motivation reflects the extent to which consumers are motivated to engage in
preventative health behaviors such as health information acquisition, diet restriction, and
diet addition (Moorman and Matulich, 1993). In addition to its impact on the preventive
health care behavior per se, Jayanti and Burns (1998) also found that heath motivation
influences self-efficacy (the degree to which a consumer believes that target behaviors
that alleviate health threats can be successfully implemented) and response efficacy (the
degree to which a consumer believes that a specific health care action is capable of
lessening a health threat).
In a consumption context, trust is a psychological mechanism reflecting consumer’s
expectation and acceptance of seller’s transparency and integrity (Pavlou and Gefen,
2004). Trust also represents the good relationships between sellers and buyers which may
occur when consumers receive frank information especially that concerning product quality
or safety from the sellers (Mishra et al., 1998). Traceability trust in the present study refers
to the trust consumers have in the traceability system provided by meat producers and
sellers.
For consumers who have health consciousness and/or health motivation, food safety
concern is a very important issue because food can directly affect consumer’s health in
both positive and negative manners. Therefore, health-conscious and/or health motivated
consumers are more likely to avoid food-related risk such as meat products with mad cow
disease and bird flu (Chen, 2009: Michaelidou and Hassan, 2008). One approach to avoid
this risk is through the consumption of food product with quality and safety assurance.
2
Proceedings of 3rd European Business Research Conference
4 - 5 September 2014, Sheraton Roma, Rome, Italy, ISBN: 978-1-922069-59-7
Recently, traceability has been implemented in the food production industry so that the
sources and details of food production can be traced back in all steps, thus ensuring the
food quality and safety (Rijswijk and Frewer, 2008). As a consequence, consumers with
health consciousness and/or health motivation are more likely to have trust in the meat
traceability system as it can provide health-related benefits to the consumers. Moreover,
this trust is likely to result in the higher level of purchase intention for meat with traceability
system also because of the benefits granted by the traceability system. In addition, the
present study proposes that health consciousness should lead to health motivation. That
is, a health conscious consumer is likely to have a stronger motivation to engage in
preventative health behaviors such as the consumption of meat with traceability as the
traceability system can facilitate the acquisition of health-related information.
Hypotheses
On the basis of the literature review and the discussions thus far, the present study
proposes that:
H1: Health consciousness positively influences traceability trust.
H2: Health motivation positively influences traceability trust.
H3: Health consciousness positively influences health motivation.
H4: Traceability trust positively influences purchase intention of meat with traceability.
3. Methodology
3.1 Sample and Procedure
Two hundred and forty-four consumers in the Northeastern region of Thailand participated
in this survey via judgmental sampling. The profile of the research participants is: female
(67%), between 21 to 30 years old (62%), bachelor’s degree holders (70%), public and
private sector workers (33% and 30%, respectively), and with a monthly income of 10,00120,000 baht (57%).
The participants were first informed of the study description, then asked to complete the
measures of health consciousness, health motivation, traceability trust, and purchase
intention of meat with traceability system. Finally, they provide their personal data at the
end.
3.2 Measures
The participants were instructed to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed
with each of the scale items in the Likert type (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
Health consciousness was measured with six items (e.g., “I worry that there are harmful
chemicals in my food”) from Jayanti and Burns (1998). Health motivation was measured
with six items (e.g., “I try to prevent health problems before I feel any symptoms.”) from
Jayantiand Burns (1998). Traceability trust was measured with three items (e.g.,
“Information provided by the traceability system is trustworthy”) from Choe, et al. (2009).
Purchase intention was measured with three items (e.g., “I intend to increase the
3
Proceedings of 3rd European Business Research Conference
4 - 5 September 2014, Sheraton Roma, Rome, Italy, ISBN: 978-1-922069-59-7
frequency of purchasing meat with the traceability system.” adapted from Choe, et al.
(2009).
4. Findings
4.1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analyses
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients
for the four constructs
4.2 Measurement Model Results
Structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS was employed for data analysis. In order
to achieve an acceptable model fit, the first two items in the original scale of health
consciousness construct were eliminated due to poor loading (<0.50). The final
measurement model fit was acceptable; chi-square = 209.064, df = 100, chi-square/df =
2.091, p = 0.000, RMSEA= 0.067, GFI = 0.905, CFI = 0.945, NFI = 0.900 and TLI = 0.934.
The factor loadings varied from 0.51 to 0.94 with all highly significant. The composite
reliabilities varied from 0.85 to 0.91, satisfying the criteria of 0.70. The average variance
extracted varied from 0.50 to 0.72, thus satisfying the criteria of 0.50 (Hair et al, 2010:
Bagozzi and Yi, 1988)
4.3 Structural model results
After the measurement model was confirmed, the next step is to test the research
hypotheses using structural equation modeling analysis (see Figure 1).
Hypothesis 1 examined the impact of health consciousness on traceability trust. The
estimation results indicate that health consciousness does not significantly influence
traceability trust (β = -0.09, t = -0.81, p> 0.01). Therefore, H1 is not supported.
Hypothesis 2 examined the impact of health motivation on traceability trust. The results
indicate that health motivation significantly and positively influences traceability trust
(β = 0.26, t = 2.24, p < 0.05). Hence, H2 is supported.
Hypothesis 3 examined the impact of health consciousness on health motivation. The
results reveal that health consciousness significantly and positively influences health
motivation (β = 0.70, t = 5.86, p < 0.001). H3 is supported, as well.
Hypothesis 4 examined the impact of traceability trust on purchase intention of meat with
traceability. The results reveal that traceability trust significantly and positively influences
4
Proceedings of 3rd European Business Research Conference
4 - 5 September 2014, Sheraton Roma, Rome, Italy, ISBN: 978-1-922069-59-7
purchase intention of meat with traceability (β = 0.46, t = 6.56, p < 0.001). H4 is also
supported.
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analyses
Constructs
1. Health consciousness
Mean
4.01
S.D.
0.65
1
1
2
3
2. Health motivation
3.74
0.71
0.584**
1
3. Traceability trust
3.64
0.75
0.078
0.161*
1
4. Purchase intention
3.76
0.74
0.211**
0.289**
0 .418**
4
1
** significant at the 0.01 level
* significant at the 0.05 level
Figure 1. Results of the hypothesized model
Health
consciousnes
s
-0.09
Traceability
trust
0.70
Health
motivation
2
R = 0.21
0.46
Purchase
intention
0.26
chi-square = 209.064, df = 100, chi-square/df = 2.091, p = 0.000,
RMSEA= 0.067, GFI = 0.905, CFI = 0.945, NFI = 0.900 and TLI = 0.934
5. Discussions
The present study reveal that, among Thai consumers, while health motivation have a
significant, positive impact on traceability trust, health consciousness does not directly
affect traceability. Health consciousness, nevertheless, has a positive influence on health
5
Proceedings of 3rd European Business Research Conference
4 - 5 September 2014, Sheraton Roma, Rome, Italy, ISBN: 978-1-922069-59-7
motivation. Finally, traceability trust has a positive impact of purchase intention of meat
with traceability.
A number of research implications can be drawn from this research. First, our study
demonstrates that the two health-related constructs health consciousness and health
motivation are two different constructs and the measures used in the present study appear
to possess discriminant validity as evidenced by the SEM results. This aspect of our
findings is thus in line with what reported by Jayanti and Burns (1998). Therefore, the
impact of these two constructs needs not to be identical. Moreover, the present study also
contributes to health marketing literature by illustrating that health consciousness is an
antecedent of health motivation. In this sense, we have explained that a consumer is
motivated to adopt preventive health behaviors because he or she is health conscious.
Next, the results of the present study reveals that trust in an important construct that could
play a critical, intermediary role in this set of relationships. In other words, trust is a
psychological mechanism through which health motivation influences purchase intention of
meat with traceability. As a result, marketers may need to build trust with consumers so
that their meat with traceability system will fully stimulate a higher level of purchase
intention.
At first glance, it seems perplexing to find that health consciousness is not a significant
predictor of traceability trust. However, when a closer look into the SEM model is taken, it
appears that although health consciousness does not have a significant, direct effect on
traceability trust, it does have an indirect effect of 0.182 (or 0.70*0.26) through health
motivation. Therefore, meat marketers still need to reach for consumers who focus on their
health (both health conscious and health-motivated) because they could be a potential
market target for meat with traceability system.
Finally, the present study has a number of limitations which suggest avenues for future
research. First, other health-related constructs (e.g., health knowledge; Jayanti and Burns,
1998) could also be explored. Next, future research may seek to revalidate our results with
consumers from other countries where traceability is more common. Finally, in addition of
purchase intention, future studies may seek to examine other outcome variables including
actual purchase and willingness to play (e.g., Hobbs et al., 2005) to achieve a better
understanding of how consumers respond to meat with traceability system.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by (1) the Higher Education Research Promotion and National
Research University Project of Thailand, Office of the Higher Education Commission,
through the Food and Functional Food Research Cluster of Khon Kaen University, and (2)
Faculty of Management Science, Khonkaen University.
6
Proceedings of 3rd European Business Research Conference
4 - 5 September 2014, Sheraton Roma, Rome, Italy, ISBN: 978-1-922069-59-7
References
Bagozzi, RP and Yi, Y 1998, On the evaluation of structural equation models, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Chen, MF 2009, Attitude toward organic foods among Taiwanese as related to health
consciousness, environmental attitudes, and the mediating effects of a healthy
lifestyle, British Food Journal, Vol. 111, No. 2, pp. 165-178.
Choe, YC, Park, J, Chung, M and Moon, J 2009, Effect of the food traceability system for
building trust: Price premium and buying behavior, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol.
11, No. 2, pp. 167-179.
De Jonge, J, Frewer, L, Trijp, HV, Renes, RJ, Wit, WD and Timmers, J 2004, Monitoring
consumer confidence in food safety: An exploratory study, British Food Journal, Vol.
106, No. 10, pp. 837-849.
Hair, JF, Black, WC, Babin, BJ and Anderson, RE 2010, Multivariate Data Analysis: A
Global Perspective, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Hobbs, JE 2004, Information asymmetry and the role of traceability systems, Agribusiness,
Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 397-415.
Hobbs, JE, Bailey, DV, Dickinson, DL and Haghiri, M 2005, Traceability in the Canadian
red meat sector: Do consumers care?, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 47-65.
Jayanti, RK and Burns, AC 1998, The antecedents of preventive health care behavior: An
empirical study, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.6-15.
Michaelidou, N and Hassan, LM 2008, The role of health consciousness, food safety
concern and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 32, pp. 163-170.
Mishra, KE, Spreitzer, GM and Mishra, AK 1998, Preserving employee morale during
downsizing”. Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 83-95.
Moorman, C and Matulich, E 1993, A model of consumers’ preventive health behaviors:
The role of health motivation and health ability, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.
20, pp. 208-228.
Newsom, JT, McFarland, BH, Kaplan, MS, Huguet, N and Zani, B 2005, The health
consciousness myth: Implications for the near independence of major health
behaviors in the North America population, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 60, No.
2 pp. 433-437.
Pavlou, PA and Gefen, D 2004, Building effective online marketplaces with institutionbased trust, Information Systems Research, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 37-59.
7
Proceedings of 3rd European Business Research Conference
4 - 5 September 2014, Sheraton Roma, Rome, Italy, ISBN: 978-1-922069-59-7
Rijswijk, WV and Frewer, LJ 2008, Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and
their relation to traceability”. British Food Journal, Vol. 110, No. 10, pp. 1034-1046.
Sophonsiri, S and Polyorat, K 2009, The impact of brand personality dimensions on brand
association and brand attractiveness: The case study of KFC in Thailand, Journal of
Global Business and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 51-62.
8