A Study on the Selection Attributes Affecting Pet Food Purchase: After COVID-19 Pandemic

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents

Variables	Measure	No. of sample(per)	Percentage (%)	Variables	Measure	No. of sample(per)	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	178	39.6%	Occupancy	Student	172	38.2%
	Female	272	60.4%		Professional	27	5.9%
Age	10’s	32	7.2%		Office worker	51	11.4%
	20’s	191	42.4%		Housewife	158	35.2%
	30’s	153	34.1%		Own Business	29	6.5%
	Over 40’s	73	16.3%		Mics.	13	2.8%
Income	< 500	28	6.2%	Pet Food	< 50	54	12.1%
Per month	500–1000	100	22.3%	Expenditure	50–100	103	22.8%
(thousand	1001–3000	167	37.1%	Per month	101–300	188	41.7%
USD)	3001–5000	116	25.7%	(thousand	301–500	79	17.5%
	> 5000	39	8.7%	USD)	> 500	27	5.9%

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis

Variables		Standardized Factor loading	CR	AVE
Package design	DESI 1	0.80	0.85	0.60
	DESI 2	0.92
	DESI 3	0.78
Price fairness	PRIC 1	0.80	0.88	0.65
	PRIC 2	0.84
	PRIC 3	0.88
	PRIC 4	0.70
Brand reputation	REPU 1	0.70	0.87	0.63
	REPU 2	0.74
	REPU 3	0.85
	REPU 4	0.88
Perceptions of product healthiness	HEAL 1	0.83	0.87	0.63
	HEAL 2	0.70
	HEAL 3	0.75
	HEAL 4	0.87
Recommendation	RECO 1	0.71	0.87	0.62
	RECO 2	0.85
	RECO 3	0.83
	RECO 4	0.76
Attitude	ATTI 1	0.74	0.80	0.66
	ATTI 2	0.87
Purchase intention	PURC 1	0.85	0.88	0.72
	PURC 2	0.90
	PURC 3	0.79

χ2 = 470.056 (df = 231, Chi-square/df = 2.034, p < .001), NFI = .932, IFI = .964, CFI = .964, TLI = .957, and RMSEA = .048 (p < .001)

Table 3. Correlation analysis for discriminant validity

	ATTI	HEAL	DESI	RECO	REPUT	PURC	PRIC
ATTI	0.815
HEAL	0.554	0.791
DESI	0.364	0.315	0.777
RECO	0.491	0.542	0.283	0.790
REPUT	0.552	0.507	0.276	0.613	0.794
PURC	0.613	0.621	0.342	0.703	0.556	0.846
PRIC	0.534	0.511	0.598	0.533	0.522	0.484	0.806

ATTI = Attitude, HEAL = Perceptions of product healthiness, DESI = Package design, RECO = Recommendation, REPUT = Brand reputation, PURC = Purchase intention, PRIC = Price fairness

Figure 1. SEM result of the research model

Table 4. Standardized parameter estimates for structural model

Hypothesis	Path	Standardized regression coefficient	t -value	Results
H1a	Package design → Recommendation	0.033	0.708	Reject
H1b	Price fairness → Recommendation	0.185	3.436 ***	Support
H1c	Brand reputation → Recommendation	0.340	6.717 ***	Support
H1d	Perceptions of product healthiness → Recommendation	0.286	4.900 ***	Support
H2a	Package design → Attitude	0.095	1.554	Reject
H2b	Price fairness → Attitude	0.181	2.565 *	Support
H2c	Brand reputation → Attitude	0.318	4.877 ***	Support
H2d	Perceptions of product healthiness → Attitude	0.412	5.344 ***	Support
H3	Recommendation → Purchase intention	0.551	10.409 ***	Support
H4	Attitude → Purchase intention	0.317	7.321 ***	Support

Table 5. Comparison of online channel and offline channel

	Path	Standardized Regression Coefficient		Comparison Results	Chi-square increment	p – value
		Online	Offline
H5a	DESI→RECO	2.242	0.034	Online > Offline	3.160 (d.f. = 1)	0.075
H5b	PRIC→RECO	3.047	0.118	Online > Offline	7.562 (d.f. = 1)	0.006 **
H5c	REPUT→RECO	0.171	0.243	Online < Offline	0.511 (d.f. = 1)	0.475
H5d	HEAL→RECO	0.589	0.259	Online > Offline	0.591 (d.f. = 1)	0.442
H6a	DESI→ATTI	1.628	0.105	Online > Offline	2.102 (d.f. = 1)	0.147
H6b	PRIC→ATTI	2.016	0.179	Online > Offline	4.145 (d.f. = 1)	0.042 *
H6c	REPUT→ATTI	0.258	0.713	Online < Offline	1.743 (d.f. = 1)	0.187
H6d	HEAL→ATTI	1.421	0.526	Online > Offline	0.992 [d.f. = 1)	0.319

DESI = Package design, PRIC = Price fairness, REPUT = Brand reputation, HEAL = Perceptions of product healthiness, RECO = Recommendation, ATTI = Attitude, PURC = Purchase intention