Consumers’ buying intention towards healthy foods during the COVID-19 pandemic in an emerging economy

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Table 1. Factor analysis and reliability test

Determinant Factors	Factor Loading	α	CR	AVE
Food safety concern (Michaelidou & Hassan, 2008)		.808	.810	.587
FS1: Most foods contain residues from chemical sprays and fertilizers during the pandemic due to less monitoring.	.740
FS2: I am very concerned about the amount of artificial additives and preservatives in food during the pandemic due to less monitoring.	.777
FS3: The quality and safety of food concern me during the pandemic due to less monitoring.	.781
Health consciousness (Ling & Ang, 2018)		.850	.855	.666
HC1: I consider myself as health-conscious even during the pandemic.	.692
HC2: I think it is essential to know well how to eat healthy during the pandemic.	.922
HC3: I try to consume healthy foods for my long-term health benefits during the pandemic.	.818
Nutritional content (Curvelo et al., 2019)		.880	.884	.717
NC1: Healthy foods have many vitamins and minerals good enough to fight against COVID.	.822
NC2: Healthy foods keep me healthy good enough to fight against COVID 19.	.851
NC3: Healthy foods are rich in protein good enough to fight against COVID 19.	.867
Natural content (Curvelo et al., 2019)		.851	.852	.658
NT1: I perceive healthy foods contain no additives during the pandemic and less monitoring.	.788
NT2: I perceive healthy foods have natural ingredients during the pandemic and less monitoring.	.843
NT3: I perceive healthy foods do not have artificial ingredients during the pandemic and less monitoring.	.802
Premium price (T. H. Lee et al., 2020)		.883	.886	.723
PP1: I believe the price of healthy foods is high during the pandemic.	.768
PP2: I am willing to pay more during pandemics for healthy foods.	.915
PP3: I am willing to pay more during pandemics for healthy foods because it is environmentally friendly.	.861
Attitude (Alam and Sayuti 2011)		.885	.793	.561
AT1: I like the idea of buying healthy foods in the COVID period.	.753
AT2: I think that buying healthy foods is a good idea in the COVID period.	.751
AT3: I have a favorable attitude toward buying healthy foods in the COVID period.	.742
Buying intention (Ling & Ang, 2018)		.923	.875	.638
BI1: In recent months, during pandemics, I have the willingness to buy healthy foods.	.767
BI2: I will increase the purchase frequency of buying healthy foods during the pandemic.	.839
BI3: I am willing to buy healthy foods regularly during the pandemic.	.803
BI4: I will recommend others to buy healthy foods during the pandemic.	.783
Food safety trust (Canova et al., 2020)		.793	.800	.571
FST1: I perceive healthy foods to be safe and reliable during the pandemic with less monitoring.	.742
FST2: I trust in healthy foods during the pandemic.	.763
FST3: I trust in purchasing healthy foods during the pandemic.	.762

Table 2. Fornell-Larcker correlation matrix and normality data

	FS	HC	NC	NT	PP	AT	BI	FST
Food safety concern (FS)	0.766
Health consciousness (HC)	.478**	0.816
Nutritional content (NC)	.685**	.530**	0.847
Natural content (NT)	.538**	.417**	.662**	0.811
Premium price (PP)	.625**	.511**	.756**	.660**	0.850
Attitude (AT)	.664**	.537**	.726**	.703**	.712**	0.749
Buying intention (BI)	.673**	.558**	.742**	.621**	.734**	.720**	0.799
Food safety trust (FST)	.361**	.252**	.517**	.443**	.457**	.509**	.396**	0.756
Mean	3.274	3.834	3.345	3.437	3.298	3.395	3.377	3.715
Std. Dev.	.733	.685	.789	.767	.863	.834	.822	.609
Skewness	−.503	−.584	−.386	−.347	−.174	−.343	−.307	−.130
Kurtosis	.002	.565	.004	.077	−.107	−.425	−.237	.001

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The bold diagonal values represent the square root of AVE.

Table 3. Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) results

	FS	HC	NC	NT	PP	AT	BI	FST	R^2	VIF
FS	–								–	2.111	2.075
HC	0.578	–							–	1.534	1.509
NC	0.811	0.612	–						–	4.396	4.374
NT	0.647	0.492	0.762	–					–	2.055	2.182
PP	0.737	0.591	0.757	0.758	–				–	2.910	2.907
AT	0.786	0.618	0.783	0.808	0.812	–			.83	–	4.514
BI	0.776	0.629	0.758	0.698	0.711	0.707	–		.72	3.777	–
FST	0.451	0.309	0.617	0.535	0.545	0.604	0.462	–	–	1.428	1.428

Table 4. Results of CFA and structural model with standards

Category	Fit indices	Measurement values for CFA	Meas. values for Structural Model	Standards with Sources
Parsimonious Fit	χ2/df	2.102	2.165	<3	Holbert and Stephenson (2002)
Incremental Fit	CFI	0.970	0.962	>0.900	Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993)
	IFI	0.970	0.962	>0.900	Bentler and Bonett (1980)
	TLI	0.962	0.953	≥ 0.90	McDonald and Ho (2002)
	NFI	0.940	0.931	>0.900	Bentler and Bonett (1980)
Absolute Fit	GFI	0.921	0.917	>0.900	Bentler and Bonett (1980)
	AGFI	0.917	0.908	>0.900	Fornell and Larcker (1981)
	SRMR	0.020	0.025	<0.080	Bentler and Bonett (1980)
	RMSEA	0.052	0.060	<0.080	McDonald and Ho (2002), Bagozzi and Yi (1988)

Figure 2. Structural model.

Figure 3. Interaction of food safety trust: (a) FSC and BI; (b) HC and BI (c); NC and BI; (d) NT and BI; (e) PP and BI.

Table 5. Structural model and hypothesis testing results

Hypotheses	STD Beta	STD Error	t-Values	P- Values	Significance (p < 0.05)
H1a: FS → AT	.168	.036	3.600***	.000	Supported
H1b: FS → BI	.167	.050	3.008***	.003	Supported
H2a: HC → AT	.108	.036	2.492**	.013	Supported
H2b: HC → BI	.106	.045	2.271**	.023	Supported
H3a: NC → AT	.789	.042	13.053***	.000	Supported
H3b: NC → BI	.378	.123	2.441**	.015	Supported
H4a: NT → AT	.328	.037	6.778***	.000	Supported
H4b: NT → BI	−.044	.066	−.587	.557	Not Supported
H5a: PP → AT	.251	.032	5.497***	.000	Supported
H5b: PP → BI	.165	.051	2.614***	.009	Supported
H6: AT → BI	.433	.211	2.370**	.018	Supported
H7a: FST*FS → BI	.235	.031	3.410***	.000	Supported
H7b: FST *HC → BI	.188	.043	3.041***	.006	Supported
H7c: FST *NC → BI	.173	.052	2.985**	.009	Supported
H7d: FST *NT → BI	.031	.121	.980	.120	Not Supported
H7e: FST *PP → BI	.022	.14	.840	.160	Not Supported

** Significant at 5% level, *** Significant at 1% level

Michaelidou, N., & Hassan, L. M. (2008). The role of health consciousness, food safety concern, and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00619.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ling, S. S., & Ang, Y. C. (2018). Factor influencing intention to purchase organic foods among academic staff in Sarawak. South East Asia Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, 17(2), 21–27. http://seajbel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/BUS-47.pdf

 Google Scholar

Curvelo, I. C. G., de Morais Watanabe, E. A., & Alfinito, S. (2019). Purchase intention of organic food under the influence of attributes, consumer trust, and perceived value. Revista de Gestão, 26(3), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1108/REGE-01-2018-0010

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee, T. H., Fu, C. J., & Chen, Y. Y. (2020). Trust factors for organic foods: Consumer buying behavior. British Food Journal, 122(2), 414–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2019-0195

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alam, S. S., & Sayuti, N. M. (2011). Applying the theory of planned behavior (TPB) in halal food purchasing. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 21(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/10569211111111676

 Google Scholar

Canova, L., Bobbio, A., & Manganelli, A. M. (2020). Buying organic food products: The role of trust in the theory of planned behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 575820. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575820

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Structural equation modeling in the communication sciences, 1995–2000. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 531–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00822.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.

 Google Scholar

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327

 Google Scholar