The role of food consumption value and attitude toward food on behavioral intention: Culinary tourist behavior in Indonesia

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographics of the respondents (n = 463).

Category	Description	Frequency	Percent (%)
Sex	Male	204	44.06
	Female	259	55.94
Age	17-23 tahun	69	14.90
	24-30 tahun	159	34.34
	31-40 tahun	140	30.24
	41-50 tahun	66	14.25
	Lebih dari 50 tahun	29	6.26
Education	Lower than Senior High School	3	0.65
	Senior High School or equal	49	10.58
	Diploma or equal	65	14.04
	Undergraduate or equal	178	38.44
	Post Graduate or equal	168	36.29
Occupation	Student	75	16.20
	Entrepreneur / Business Owner	144	31.10
	Employee	94	20.30
	Professionals (Doctors, Lawyers, Educators, etc.)	101	21.81
	Retired / Unemployed	34	7.34
	Others	15	3.24
Tourist’s origin	Europe	204	44.06
	Asia	139	30.02
	Australia	74	15.98
	USA	46	9.94
Tourist visited	Bali	201	43.41
	Surabaya/Malang	101	21.81
	Jogjakarta/Solo/Semarang	86	18.57
	Jakarta/Bandung	75	16.21

Figure 1. Direct path of the structural model (n = 463).

**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

Table 2. Convergent validity measure.

Items		Loading	AVE	CR
Epistemic value
EPV1	I seek out more information about local culinary	0.680	0.521	0.844
EPV2	I’m getting curious about local culinary	0.800
EPV3	Eating Indonesian food is a good opportunity for me to learn new things	0.728
EPV4	I’m willing to try more diverse local culinary	0.745
EPV5	My knowledge of Indonesian culture has increased after consuming Indonesian food	0.647
Emotional value
EMV1	Eating Indonesian food makes me feel happy	0.748	0.558	0.883
EMV2	Eating Indonesian food gives me pleasure	0.773
EMV3	Eating Indonesian food changes my mood positively	0.732
EMV4	Eating Indonesian food fascinates me	0.749
EMV5	Eating Indonesian food keeps me coming back to eat	0.771
EMV6	Eating Indonesian food makes me feel excited	0.707
Functional value
FV1	Indonesian food offers a variety of ingredients	0.667	0.539	0.820
FV2	Indonesian food has appealing flavors	0.831
FV3	Indonesian food is delicious	0.834
FV5	Indonesian food offers value for money	0.568
Interaction value
IV1	The relationship with the family/friends I go with become more intimate when enjoying culinary delights in Indonesia	0.876	0.788	0.881
IV2	It is easier to interact with people I go with when enjoying culinary delights in Indonesia	0.899
Prestige value
PV1	Eating Indonesian food gives a chance to share my dining experiences.	0.852	0.638	0.778
PV3	Sharing pictures of my dining experiences is worthwhile	0.741
Attitude toward food
ATF1	I like the food in Indonesia	0.804	0.589	0.851
ATF2	The food can satisfy my needs	0.713
ATF3	The food is enjoyable	0.773
ATF4	The food is appetizing	0.778
Behavioral intention
BI1	I will say positive things about the local culinary to others	0.813	0.568	0.839
BI2	I will recommend the local culinary to family/relatives/friends	0.810
BI3	I am willing to recommend the local culinary when other people ask for suggestion	0.754
BI5	I would like to go to other regions in Indonesia for culinary tourism.	0.621

Table 3. Discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion).

Variable latent	ATF	BI	EMV	EPV	FV	IV	PV
Attitude toward Local Food	0.768
Behavioral Intention	0.703	0.753
Emotional Value	0.692	0.686	0.747
Epistemic Value	0.630	0.682	0.697	0.722
Functional Value	0.570	0.608	0.634	0.559	0.734
Interaction Value	0.459	0.473	0.489	0.440	0.470	0.887
Prestige Value	0.449	0.499	0.538	0.507	0.478	0.490	0.799

Note: EPV: epistemic value; EMV: emotional value; FV: functional value; IV: interaction value; PV: prestige value; ATF: attitude toward Food; BI: behavioral intention.

Table 4. Normality test.

Variables	Mean	Standard deviation	Excess kurtosis	Skewness
ATF1	0.000	0.595	−0.156	0.084
ATF2	0.000	0.701	1.089	−0.146
ATF3	0.000	0.634	0.265	−0.337
ATF4	0.000	0.628	0.750	−0.372
BI1	0.000	0.582	0.174	−0.328
BI2	0.000	0.586	0.641	−0.266
BI3	0.000	0.657	0.069	−0.433
BI5	0.000	0.784	0.706	−0.747
EMV1	0.000	0.663	3.264	−0.849
EMV2	0.000	0.635	0.270	−0.188
EMV3	0.000	0.681	0.182	−0.405
EMV4	0.000	0.663	−0.008	−0.138
EMV5	0.000	0.637	0.044	−0.344
EMV6	0.000	0.707	0.195	−0.248
EPV1	0.000	0.733	0.739	−0.605
EPV2	0.000	0.600	−0.432	−0.142
EPV3	0.000	0.686	−0.561	−0.207
EPV4	0.000	0.667	0.615	−0.542
EPV5	0.000	0.762	0.558	−0.469
FV1	0.000	0.745	0.375	−0.495
FV2	0.000	0.556	0.398	−0.191
FV3	0.000	0.551	0.390	−0.269
FV5	0.000	0.823	1.502	−0.701
IV1	0.000	0.482	0.910	−0.161
IV2	0.000	0.439	0.910	0.161
PV1	0.000	0.523	0.337	0.395
PV3	0.000	0.671	0.337	−0.395

Note: EPV: epistemic value; EMV: emotional value; FV: functional value; IV: interaction value; PV: prestige value; ATF: attitude toward Food; BI: behavioral intention.

Table 5. Direct results of path coefficient.

Hypothesis	Path Coefficient	T value	P Values	Decision
H1a: EPV -> ATF	0.23	4.61	0.00**	Accepted
H1b: EMV -> ATF	0.39	7.42	0.00**	Accepted
H1c: FV -> ATF	0.15	2.67	0.01*	Accepted
H1d: IV -> ATF	0.10	2.49	0.01*	Accepted
H1e: PV -> ATF	0.01	0.10	0.920	Rejected
H2: ATF -> BI	0.31	5.23	0.00**	Accepted
H3a: EPV -> BI	0.25	5.04	0.00**	Accepted
H3b: EMV -> BI	0.15	2.78	0.01*	Accepted
H3c: FV -> BI	0.15	3.63	0.00**	Accepted
H3d: IV -> BI	0.05	1.42	0.16	Rejected
H3e: PV -> BI	0.06	1.62	0.11	Rejected

Note: p-value < 0.01.

** ; p-value < 0.05.

* , EPV = epistemic value, EMV = emotional value, FV = functional value, IV = interaction value, PV = prestige value, ATF = attitude toward Food; BI = behavioral intention.

Table 6. Indirect results of path coefficient.

Hypothesis	Path Coefficient	T value	P Values	Decision
H4a: EPV -> ATF -> BI	0.07	3.44	0.00**	Accepted
H4b:EMV -> ATF -> BI	0.12	4.44	0.00**	Accepted
H4c: FV -> ATF -> BI	0.05	2.40	0.02*	Accepted
H4d: IV -> ATF -> BI	0.03	2.18	0.03*	Accepted
H4e: PV -> ATF -> BI	0.00	0.10	0.922	Rejected

Note: p-value < 0.01.

** ; p-value < 0.05.

* , EPV = epistemic value, EMV = emotional value, FV = functional value, IV = interaction value, PV = prestige value, ATF = attitude toward Food; BI = behavioral intention.

Data availability statement

Data available on request from the corresponding author.