Evaluation of tourist behavior towards traditional food consumption: validation of extended Theory of Planned Behaviour

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research framework.

Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents.

Characteristics	Number (n)	Percentage
Gender	Male (204)	52.72%
	Female (183)	47.28%
Age	18 − 30 years (209)	54.00%
	31–43 years (96)	24.80%
	44–55 years (67)	17.32%
	56 Above (15)	3.88%
Education	Elementary school (07)	1.80%
	Middle school (11)	2.84%
	High school (14)	3.63%
	Bachelor’s degree (187)	48.32%
	Master’s degree (152)	39.28%
	Higher (16)	4.13%
Occupation	Employee (196)	50.64%
	Unemployed (76)	19.64%
	Student (100)	25.84%
	Retired (15)	3.88%
Annual income	Less than Rs. 50,000 (09)	2.33%
	Rs. 50,000 to 1,00, 000 (32)	8.27%
	Rs. 1,00, 000 to 1,50, 000 (67)	17.31%
	Rs 1,50,000 to 2, 00, 000 (136)	35.14%
	Above 2, 00, 000 (143)	36.95%

Table 2. Results of reliability test.

Dimension	No. of items	Cronbach alpha (α) value
Attitude	03	.935
Subjective norms	04	.940
Perceived behavioural control	04	.939
Perceived usefulness	02	.889
Curiosity	02	.878
Education	04	.918
Behavioural intention	03	.904
Actual behaviour	03	.831

Note: Cronbach Alpha (α) for all the constructs is above the threshold level.70.

Table 3. Results of confirmatory factor analysis.

Dimensions	Items	Loadings	AVE	CR
Attitude (AT)			0.708	0.879
Consuming local food is a good idea.	(AT1)	0.834
I like knowing about local food items.	(AT2)	0.790
Restaurants that serve local food adopt appropriate behavior	(AT3)	0.897
Subjective Norms (SN)			0.698	0.902
People who influence my behavior think it is preferable to consume local/ traditional food	(SN1)	0.720
People in my organization (school, university, company, etc.) consider that local/traditional food consumption is useful.	(SN2)	0.854
In general, people support the consumption of local/ traditional food.	(SN3)	0.867
People who are important to me want me to taste local food	(SN4)	0.891
Perceived Behavioural Control (PBC)			0.713	0.908
I would like to attend restaurants that serve/offer local and traditional food items.	(PBC1)	0.830
I decide I will go to restaurants that serve/offer local food items.	(PBC2)	0.768
I think I have the resources, the knowledge, and the skills necessary to understand if a restaurant serves/offers local food items.	(PBC3)	0.955
I am capable of consuming local food when I go to restaurants/local vendors.	(PBC4)	0.813
Perceived Usefulness (PUS)			0.739	0.850
I consider the local food items as a useful element for health.	(PUS1)	0.863
Keeping local food items on the menu increases restaurant productivity.	(PUS2)	0.856
Curiosity (CU)			0.691	0.816
Visiting local vendors and restaurants offering local food stimulates my curiosity.	(CU1)	0.904
Visiting local vendors and restaurants offering local food favors my imagination.	(CU2)	0.751
Education (EDU)			0.652	0.880
During my visit to local Restaurants, the experience was highly educational to me.	(EDU1)	0.838
During my visit to local Restaurants, the experience has made me more knowledgeable.	(EDU2)	0.808
During my visit to local Restaurants, it was a real learning experience.	(EDU3)	0.615
During my visit to local Restaurants, my curiosity was stimulated to learn new things.	(EDU4)	0.936
Esthetic(ESTH)			0.667	0.800
During my visit to local Restaurants, just being there was very pleasant		0.869
During my visit to local Restaurants, I felt a real sense of harmony.		0.761
Behavioral Intention (BI)			0.745	0.898
I will recommend attending restaurants offering local/traditional food items	(BI1)	0.815
I intend to attend restaurants offering local/traditional food items in the future.	(BI2)	0.858
I will say positive things about restaurants offering local/traditional food items.	(BI3)	0.914
Actual Behavior (AB)			0.761	0.905
I used to go to restaurants to consume traditional food	(AB1)	0.844
I spend enough time in restaurants to consume traditional food	(AB2)	0.858
The number of my visits restaurants offering traditional food is high.	(AB3)	0.914

Table 4. Results of convergent validity and discriminant validity.

	CR	AVE	AB	ATT	BI	CU	EDU	ESTH	PBC	PUS	SN
AB	0.905	0.761	0.872
ATT	0.879	0.708	0.342	0.841
BI	0.898	0.745	0.642	0.379	0.863
CU	0.816	0.691	0.519	0.159	0.411	0.831
EDU	0.880	0.652	0.333	0.84	0.356	0.147	0.807
ESTH	0.800	0.667	0.294	0.273	0.361	0.163	0.324	0.816
PBC	0.908	0.713	0.782	0.376	0.548	0.347	0.284	0.26	0.844
PUS	0.850	0.739	0.343	0.250	0.504	0.390	0.283	0.261	0.247	0.859
SN	0.902	0.689	0.521	0.246	0.805	0.317	0.328	0.329	0.484	0.372	0.830

‘Note: The values in the above matrix’s diagonal are the square root of the AVE.

CR = Composite Reliability, AVE = Average Variance Extracted.

AB = Actual Behaviour, ATT = Attitude, BI = Behavioural Intention, CU = Curiosity, EDU = Education, ESTH = Esthetic, PBC = Perceived Behavioural Control, PUS = Perceived Usefulness, SN = Subjective Norms’.

Figure 2. The estimated SEM path model. Source: Authors’ elaboration.

Table 5. Hypothesis testing results.

	Path coefficients	(STDEV)	T statistics	P values
Attitude –> Behavioural intention	0.268	0.096	2.787	0.005	Supported
Behavioural intention –> Actual behaviour	0.642	0.035	18.113	0.000	Supported
Curiosity –> Behavioural intention	0.077	0.030	2.539	0.011	Supported
Education –> Behavioural intention	0.189	0.097	1.975	0.049	Supported
Esthetic –> Behavioural intention	0.050	0.029	1.704	0.089	Not Supported
Perceived behavioural control –> Behavioural intention	0.106	0.039	2.708	0.007	Supported
Perceived usefulness –> Behavioural intention	0.183	0.034	5.404	0.000	Supported
Subjective norms –> Behavioural intention	0.641	0.051	12.593	0.000	Supported