RESEARCH PAPER FOR MSC MARKETING
MANAGEMENT
CONSUMER MOTIVATIONS FOR PURCHASING MEAT
SUBSTITUTES: AN APPLICATION OF THE THEORY OF
PLANNED BEHAVIOR
By
SHELLEY DE GROOT
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
1st of July 2013 Hoofdweg 102 9617AK Harkstede 06-48 48 44 77 Shelley.de.groot@gmail.com Student number: 2190435
2
ABSTRACT
The first aim was to investigate what consumer characteristics, referent groups or individuals, and product related barriers indirectly influence consumers' intention to purchase meat substitutes. The sample used for this study consisted of mainly Dutch students with high educational background. It has been found that concern for animal welfare and the taste of meat substitutes (like meat or not) influences consumer attitude towards meat substitutes. Social influence by partner, parents and opinion leaders has a direct effect on intention to purchase meat substitutes. And availability and perceived consumer effectiveness are found to influence perceived behavioral control. The second aim was to investigate consumer segments. We can distinguish between vegetarians, non-vegetarian meat substitute consumer and meat eaters. Vegetarians are found to be significantly more concerned with animal welfare compared to non-vegetarian meat substitute consumer and meat eaters. Vegetarians and non-vegetarian meat substitute consumers find it more important that meat substitutes do not taste like meat. Parents and partners are most influential on the purchase intention of meat substitutes by vegetarians and non-vegetarian meat substitute consumers, while there is no difference between the segments concerning influence by opinion leaders. Non-vegetarian meat substitute consumers are influenced most by meat substitute availability, while vegetarians are least influenced by different usage applications of meat substitutes. The outcome of this study suggests that when positioning meat substitutes, segment characteristics should be taken into account and separate communication strategies should be developed
Key words: Meat substitutes, theory of planned behavior, vegetarians, sustainability Research theme: Consumer motives for purchasing meat substitutes
3
SUMMARY
We live in a time where sustainability and sustainable consumption are becoming more and more important. The level and construction of human activity pose serious threats to the natural environment, and thereby threatens the basis of human well-being (Stern, 2007). Individual consumption is considered to be the main cause of environmental problems, hence at this level also lies the solution.
The meat industry has a significant impact on green house gas emissions, which contributes to environmental problems. The Dutch agriculture is responsible for 13 percent of the Dutch contribution in greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, meat and dairy are responsible for approximately half the greenhouse gas emissions caused by food in the Netherlands. At the individual level, consumers can reduce their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions with approximately seven percent, when reducing meat consumption by including one vegetarian- diet day weakly (voedingscentrum, 2013).
There are several ingredients available which are considered meat substitutes, such as tofu and tempé, meat substitutes based on soy; seitan, extracted from wheat; fungi; and legumes, a class of vegetables which includes beans, peas, lentils, and peanuts. In the Netherlands, several national brands are available which make use of one or more of the previously mentioned ingredients, including de Vegetarische Slager, GoodBite, Tivall, Valess, Vivera and Quorn. All brand have their brand focus, some on the health benefits related to eating meat substitutes and others on the sustainable character of their products. All brands can be considered sustainable, only Valess, which is diary based, has a environmental impact similar to the chicken industry. This is significantly lower than the beef industry, but has a higher impact than vegetable protein products.
4 By means of regression analysis, support for the theory of planned behavior has been found for attitude and subjective norm. Consumers' concern for animal welfare, the taste of meat substitutes (not like meat), and the taste of meat substitutes (good) are found to positively influence attitude towards meat substitutes. Social influence by partner, parents and opinion leaders are found to directly influence consumers' intention to purchase meat substitutes. Lastly, availability, usage application and perceived consumers effectiveness influence consumers' perceived behavioral control.
ANOVA-analysis found that there are three different consumer segments, namely vegetarians, non-vegetarian meat substitute consumer and meat eaters. Vegetarians are found to be significantly more concerned with animal welfare compared to non-vegetarian meat substitute consumers and meat eaters. Furthermore, vegetarians and non-vegetarian meat substitute consumers find it more important that meat substitutes do not taste like meat. Parents and partners are most influential on the purchase intention of meat substitutes by vegetarians and non-vegetarian meat substitute consumers, while there is no difference between the segments concerning influence by opinion leaders. Concerning barriers related to perceived behavioral control, non-vegetarian meat substitute consumers are influenced most by meat substitute availability. Vegetarians are least influenced by different usage applications of meat substitutes and meat eaters consider themselves to be least effective concerning environmental changes.
5
PREFACE
The report laying in front of you is my master thesis, which is the final step towards the conclusion of the Master program Marketing Management at the University of Groningen. The process of this report resulted in some sleepless nights, especially in the beginning. I faced some start-up problems and I had trouble finding a research topic which would keep me motivated throughout the whole process. I am happy with the topic I choose to work on, meat substitutes. I consider myself a semi-vegetarian, which is probably the main reason that I would still like to find out more concerning this topic.
Firstly, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor at the University of Groningen, Wander Jager, who still supported me in my work even though he had a hard time visualizing the end of my project. I thank him for the quick responses by email, commenting on my just submitted work and making time free for individual meetings.
A second word of thanks, goes to Sarah Castaldi. In the first place as my life-partner, keeping up with my mood-swings and stress, and keeping me on track and positive. In the second place as research-master student at the University of Groningen, who proof-read my thesis. Thirdly, I would like to thank all 309 participants who took the time to complete the whole questionnaire. Without them I would not have had any results and I would have had a really hard time to finish this project up.
Lastly, my thanks go to Vincent Kunst, research-master student at the University of Groningen, who helped me with analyzing my data and interpreting my statistical results.
6
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. Introduction ... 8
2. Background ... 10
2.1 Sustainability and consumption ... 10
2.2 History of meat substitutes ... 13
2.3 Meat substitutes in the Netherlands ... 13
3. Literature Review ... 16
3.1 Consumer segments ... 16
3.2 Theory of planned behavior (TPB) ... 16
3.3 Attitude ... 18
3.3.1 Attitude and TPB ... 18
3.3.2 Personal influencers ... 19
3.3.3 Product related influencers ... 21
3.4 Subjective norm ... 22
3.4.1 Subjective norm and TPB ... 22
3.4.2 Personal influences ... 22
3.4.3. Societal influences ... 23
3.5 Perceived behavioral control ... 24
3.5.1 Perceived behavioral control and TPB ... 24
3.5.2 Product related barriers ... 24
3.5.3 Personal barriers ... 25 4. Research Design ... 28 4.1. Methodology ... 28 4.2. Procedure ... 28 4.2.1 Attitude ... 28 4.2.1.1 Personal variables ... 29
4.2.1.2 Product related variables ... 29
4.2.2 Subjective Norm ... 29
4.2.2.1 Personal referent group/individual ... 30
4.2.2.2 Societal referent group/individual ... 30
4.2.3 Perceived behavioral control ... 30
4.2.3.1 Product related barriers ... 30
4.2.3.2 Personal barriers ... 30
7 5. Data Analysis ... 32 5.1. Descriptive results ... 32 5.2 Variable aggregation ... 33 5.2.1 Attitude ... 33 5.2.2 Subjective norm ... 34
5.2.3 Perceived behavioral control ... 35
5.2.4 Intention ... 35
5.3 Data analysis ... 36
5.3.1 Theory of Planned Behavior ... 36
5.3.2 Attitude ... 37
5.3.3 Subjective Norm ... 38
5.3.4 Perceived behavioral control ... 40
5.3.6 Consumer Segments ... 42
5.3.6.1 Influencers of Attitude ... 42
5.3.6.2 Referent groups and individuals ... 43
5.3.6.3 Influencers of Perceived Behavioral Control ... 43
6. Discussion ... 44
6.1. Conclusions ... 44
6.1.1 Research question one ... 44
6.1.2 Research question two ... 47
6.2. Managerial implications ... 50
6.3. Limitations and Future Research ... 51
References ... 53
Appendices ... 59
Appendix 1. Tables Consumer Segments ... 59
8
1. INTRODUCTION
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955) -
Albert Einstein, known for his physics and math, adopted a vegetarian diet towards the end of his live (ivu.org). With this quote he was not only referring to the nutritional benefits of a vegetarian diet; even though, lifestyle diseases such as heart disease have been linked to consumption of meat protein (Clifton, 2011). 'chances of survival of life on Earth' is, as well, corresponding with the ecological problems related to the consumption of meat. In the last decades, meat consumption increased from 10 kg per person per year in 1962, towards 29 kg per person per year in 2003 (FAO, 2006a). It has been proved that livestock has a substantial impact on the world’s water, land and biodiversity resources and contribute significantly to climate change (FOA, 2006a). On the other hand, the production of vegetable proteins require several times less the amount of land and water as beef protein (Stehfest et al., 2009). Hence, in order to be able to stick with our Western, varied diets and have a healthy nutritional intake of proteins, meat substitutes offer a solution. It is not suggested that everyone should change to a full-vegetarian diet, however, reducing meat consumption by one vegetarian-diet day a week already reduces an individual's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions with approximately seven percent (voedingscentrum, 2013).
9 The purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) to investigate what consumer characteristics, referent groups or individuals, and product related barriers indirectly influence consumers' intention to purchase meat substitutes. Using the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), the current research investigates how attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control influence consumer's intention to purchase meat substitutes. Health consciousness, environmental concern, animal welfare, and taste (like meat or good in general) have been included as influencers of attitude. Social influence by referent groups and individuals has been included as components of subjective norm. Lastly, availability, price, product usage application and perceived consumer effectiveness have been included as influencers of perceived behavioral control.
(2) To investigate if we can distinguish between different consumer segments related to meat substitute consumption; and if they differ with respect to their consumer characteristics, how they are being influenced by social influence of referent groups or individuals, and the impact of product related barriers and perceived consumer effectiveness. This second research question is explorative. The current research intents to find different consumer groups; and explores if they are distinctive in nature. This would imply that the segments need a different approach, which is relevant for marketing purposes. This paper adds to current literature by (1) applying the theory of planned behavior to meat substitute purchase intention, (2) finding the relative importance of different consumer characteristics in relation to attitude, (3) testing the effect of different reference groups which influence meat substitute purchase intention, (4) finding the relative importance of person and product related barriers, and (5) investigating the distinction between meat substitute consumer segments.
10
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Sustainability and consumption
We live in a time where sustainability and sustainable consumption are becoming more and more important. The level and construction of human activity pose serious threats to the natural environment, and thereby threatens the basis of human well-being (Stern, 2007). Not so long ago resource extraction and industrial production were responsible for practically all noteworthy human impact on the environment; recently, however, a large and increasing share of this impact comes directly from private consumption (Durning, 1992). Consumption activities of private households contribute substantially to environmental problems such as climate change and acidification, and pollution of soil and water (Ölander and Thøgersen, 1995). Beliefs about individual choice, consumption, and sacrifice suggest that the daily behavior of individuals is the main cause of environmental problems and that the solution lies in changing individual behavior (Stern, 2007). Serious progress towards sustainability will require individuals to change their consumption habits. There are several ways in which private consumers can contribute to sustainable consumption, they can, for example, choose for environment friendly products instead of conventional products when doing grocery shopping. Ecological foods have been found to help reduce the environmental impact associated with conventional farming (Jungbluth, Tietje and Scholz, 2000). Sustainable products are products that due to their attributes and consequences contribute to achieve economic goals (profit), social goals (people) or environmental goals (planet) or a combination thereof. The economic aspect involves fair price for the agricultural producers and consumer prices. The ecological aspect considers care for natural environment, livestock living and production conditions, and the quality of human life; it is this aspect which refers to sustainability in a sense of preserving the environment and sustainable use and management of natural resources. Finally, the social aspects can be found back in an integration of agriculture in the priorities and needs of the society/citizens, and an appreciation and support for the agro-food sector from the society (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006).
It is especially the ecological aspect which is important when considering the meat sector, as livestock has a substantial impact on the world’s water, land and biodiversity resources and contribute significantly to climate change (FOA, 2006a). Livestock’s impact on the environment is already huge, and it is growing and rapidly changing as global demand for meat, milk and eggs is fast increasing.
11 of animal origin, more added sugar and fat, and often more alcohol. We can see an increase of meat consumption in the last decades, with a meat intake of 10 kg per person per year in 1962, to 29 kg per person per year in 2003 (FAO, 2006a). The livestock sector is currently growing faster than the rest of the agricultural sector in almost all countries. While the meat production was about 75 million tonnes in developed countries in 1970, it is expected to be about 250 million tonnes in 2030 (see figure 1.0)
FIGURE 1
Past and projected meat production in
developed and developing countries from 1970 to 2050
Source: FAO, 2006b
12 In the Netherlands meat consumption in 2012 was 83,7 kg per capita, which was almost a kilo less compared to 2011. This reduction in consumption was due to the higher price level of cattle and pork in 2012, which was a result of the high selling prices, and of the fact that supermarkets organized fewer sales campaigns for meat (PVE, 2012). In 2012, 98,3% of all households in the Netherlands bought meat at some time, spending together a total of 1,25 billion Euro's (PVE, 2012). Worldwide livestock activities are estimated to contribute 18 percent to the total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (voedingscentrum, 2013). The Dutch agriculture (lifestock, horticulture and cultivation) is responsible for 13 percent of the Dutch contribution in greenhouse gas emissions. Meat and dairy are responsible for approximately half the greenhouse gas emissions caused by food in the Netherlands. According to the Netherlands Nutrition Centre Foundation (Stichting Voedingscentrum Nederland), individuals reduce their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions with approximately seven percent, when reducing meat consumption by including one vegetarian diet day weakly (voedingscentrum, 2013).
13 2.2 History of meat substitutes
Vegan and vegetarian meat products, or meat substitutes, have a long history. Meat alternatives became necessary among the Chinese Buddhist monks in the seventh century, as meat was often unaffordable; moreover, because of Buddhism's promotion of a vegetarian diet (Geiger, 2010). They created a chewy, hearty and protein-rich substance which they called mein ching, or 'Buddha's food'. It made its way to Japan, where mein ching was used to create seitan by simmering it in soy sauce and ginger (Geiger, 2010). The development of meat substitutes in Western countries took a leap in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when the earliest U.S. patentswere issued for the use of extrusion to make 'meat analogues' from vegetable proteins (Zorpette, 2013). And during the natural foods movement of the 1970s, grain meat products like seitan emerged in Western culture as vegetarian, macrobiotic and vegan diets became more popular (Geiger, 2010).
2.3 Meat substitutes in the Netherlands
If people choose to eat no or less meat, and still want a varied diet have, they have a lot of options: there are meat substitutes based on vegetables like soy or wheat, based on nuts or on dairy products. Appropriate meat substitutes contains iron and proteins, as well as vitamin B1 and/or B12 (voedingcentrum.nl). Here, an overview is provided of the most common options for consumers who would like to reduce their general meat intake.
Tofu: Tofu originated in China about 2000 years ago and is sometimes called Asian Cheese (FoodService Director, 2011). Tofu is coagulated soy milk, is rich of protein, iron, and calcium, contains few calories and no cholesterol. It is a versatile substance which is capable of absorbing other flavors and taking various forms, which is often needed to counteract its blandness. In its soft (silken) form, tofu can be used for sauces, deserts and as a substitute for scrambled eggs. Firm tofu can be baked, fried, grilled, or sauted (ehow.nl).
14 Seitan: Seitan is the gluten that is extracted from wheat (FoodService Director, 2011) and is regarded as the substitute which most resembles real meat (ehow.nl), because the look and texture is very similar (FoodService Director, 2011). Seitan has been developed in Asia; it is high in protein and low in calories, but also high in sodium.
Fungi: Mycoproteins, or fungi, was first being used in 1985 by Quorn Foods Inc. who created a new meatless offering without using soy or wheat derivatives. The company uses mycoprotein; in this case the edible filamental fungus; in all its products. The fungus is processed and textured to produce a product which is easily mistaken for meat (Feder, 2013). Although no meat is used in the products, it is not animal-free as egg-white is used as a binder (Feder, 2013). Voedingscentrum Nederlands does not consider Quorn products to be a full meat-substitute because it contains a low amount of iron and no vitamin B12 (voedingscentrum.nl).
Legumes: Legumes is a class of vegetables which includes beans, peas, lentils, and peanuts. Beans, peas and lentils contain lots of protein, iron, and vitamin-B, and are therefore considered full meat substitutes (voedingscentrum.nl). Peanuts contain enough iron, a lot of vitamin B1, but no B12. They are considered good substitutes, but as they contain fat, and therefore lots of calories, they should not be eaten too often (voedinscentrum.nl).
The previously described ingredients are mostly being used in processed meat substitutes. The following table gives an overview of the most common brands of meat substitutes products in the Netherlands.
TABLE 1
Overview meat substitutes brands in the Netherlands
Brand name Soy Wheat Fungi Legumes Lupine Animal Protein Algae
Vegetarische Slager X X GoodBite X X X Tivall X X Valess X X Vivera X Quorn X
source: voedingscentrum.nl, devegetarischeslager.nl, valess.nl, quorn.nl
While some brands focus on the health characteristic of their meat substitute, like Valess which states on their website: "It is a healthy and delicious meat substitute, which gives you a
15
Valess have the 'ik-kies-bewust'-logo ('Conscious-choice'-logo)"1 (Valess.nl). Other brands
focus on the sustainable character of their products; for example, Quorn™Foods states on their website: "Livestock is a very inefficient source of protein which is why eating Quorn
instead of meat can be a more sustainable option. For example, the carbon footprint of Quorn Mince is 70% less than that of beef, so Quorn is better for you and better for the planet."
(Quorn.co.uk). Moreover, 'de vegatarische slager' (the Vegetarian Butcher) says:" Cattle emits
methane and nitrous oxide, these are greenhouse gases that are 25 respectively 310 times as harmful to the climate as CO². Cows, pigs and chickens produce a lot of manure, which flows into sewers, groundwater, rivers and oceans, causing pollution. Also, large scale poultry farming emits particulate matter into the air, which is harmful to public health. The Vegetarian Chicken Meatballs, Smoked Bacon, Tuna, Roasting Pieces and other vegetarian meat from the Vegetarian Butcher is free from this particular environmental damage."
(vegetarianbutcher.com). GoodBite, on the other hand, focuses its vision on health and sustainability: "Better for animal welfare, better for the environment, better for your health!" (Goodbite.nl), as well as Vivera: "Vivera is a tasty, modern, naturally responsible meat
replacement product, which is easy to prepare and offers abundant variation for your nutrition." (Vivera.com). Tivall does not focus its communication on health or sustainability
but chooses to emphasizes its varied assortment and communicates health and sustainability more on the background.
Considering the available brands in the Netherlands, we can conclude that the Vegetarian Butcher's and Quorn's focus is on sustainability. Valess can be considered least sustainable, because their products contain animal protein, and thus is still associated with the negative contributions of livestock. It is argued that the environmental impact of dairy-based meat substitutes, such as Valess, is similar to that of chicken meat and eggs (milieucentraal.nl). Vegetable proteins (soy, wheat, nuts, tempé and quorn), used by the other brands, provide the least environmental impact and are therefore more sustainable than Valess (milieucentraal.nl). Valess is still a good meat substitute for vegetarians who consider animal cruelty, but not for those vegetarians or people who would like to reduce their meat intake to reduce their ecological footprint.
1
16
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Consumer segments
In their investigation of socio-demographic characteristics and attitudes to food and health of Dutch meat and meat substitute consumers, Hoek et al. (2004) distinguished between different consumers namely vegetarians, non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes, and meat consumers in the Netherlands. Non-vegetarians prefer greater vegetarian option relative to meat-based choices, have been defined as vegetarian oriented consumers by Janda and Troccia (2001). Hoek et al. (2004) showed that vegetarians are more health orientated than meat consumers, and that non-vegetarian meat substitute consumers attach higher importance to price/quality. Janda and Trocchia (2001) showed a higher involvement of vegetarian oriented consumers in nutritional health aspects and that vegetarian oriented consumers were found to be much more similar, in terms of concern for the environment, to non-vegetarians than strict vegetarians. Because of the differences between those consumer groups, the current study also distinguish between vegetarians, non-vegetarian meat substitute consumers and meat consumers:
1. Vegetarians: consumers who indicate to have a vegetarian diet that avoids animal flesh (meat, fish and poultry), with varying degrees of restriction (Silverstone, 1993).2
2. Consumers of meat substitutes: consumers who consume at least one meat substitute product a month and who do not indicate to be vegetarian.
3. Meat consumers: consumers who do not have a specific dietary lifestyle and who do not eat meat substitute
3.2 Theory of planned behavior (TPB)
To find out what determines consumer choice for meat substitutes, it is essential to look at theoretical frameworks that have been proposed to predict and explain human behavior. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) proved to be a good framework for conceptualizing, measuring and empirically identifying factors that determine behavioral intention and behavior (Montano, Kasprzyk and Taplin, 1997). This framework is applicable to the current research as Robinson and Smith (2002) demonstrated that attitudes, perceived behavioral control and subjective norms independently predict purchase intention of sustainable products.
2 It should be noted that strictly vegan consumers are left out due to the small population of vegans (16.000
17 The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) proposes three independent determinants of intention: attitude towards the behavior, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control. Attitude towards the behavior refers to the degree to which a person has a positive or negative evaluation of behavior, while subjective norm corresponds with the perceived social pressure to (not) perform a certain behavior. Behavioral control indicates whether the consumer can easily consume a certain product or whether its consumption is difficult or impossible. According to the TPB, the intention to perform a certain behavior is followed by the performance of this particular behavior. In general, the stronger the intention to engage in a certain behavior, the more likely is it that someone performs this behavior. The theory also states that perceived behavioral control has a direct effect on behavioral performance, this indicates that even if one intends to do something, s/he may be unable to do so if the behavior is not within his/her control. With respect to the current research, this would indicate that when someone intends to purchase meat substitutes, but they are not available, he/she will not purchase them. See figure 2 for a structural diagram of the theory.
FIGURE 2
18 3.3 Attitude
3.3.1 Attitude and TPB
The TPB accounts for the fact that attitudes alone do not predict marketplace behaviors. This has been confirmed in the study of Robinson and Smith (2002), who found that over half of their participants were interested in purchasing sustainable food, but did not purchase those foods due to the perceived barriers of lack of availability, inconvenience, price, habit and trust. In other words, the extent to which attitudes are predictive of behavioral intention depends on different levels of personal or situational factors (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2007). In their research concerning consumer attitudes towards sustainability aspects of food production, Krystallis et al. (2012) included attitude towards environment and nature, industrial food production, animal welfare, food and environment, local economy and employment, and technological progress to measure attitude. For meat substitutes, as a sustainable product, it is therefore plausible to use these aspects as influencers of attitude in the current research. However, the factors concerning industrial food production, and local economy and employment; are excluded as they are not relevant in relation to meat substitutes because in the production thereof these social aspects are not the main focus.
Attitudes are closely related to ethics with respect to purchasing meat substitutes. Ethical trade and ethical shopping initiatives invite consumers to take moral responsibility or co-responsibility for consequences of buying behavior, for example, how other people, animals and other natural environments directly or indirectly are affected (Brinkmann, 2004). Buying vegetarian products such as meat substitutes is considered ethical purchasing (Brinkmann, 2004). Health consciousness, environmental concern, and animal welfare are included in the current research as important personal variables which influence attitude towards meat substitutes.
19
H1: A positive attitude towards meat substitutes, positively influences intention to purchase meat substitutes
3.3.2 Personal influencers
Health consciousness
Besides personal norms and ethical beliefs, health reasons seem to play an increasingly important role to hold a vegetarian lifestyle nowadays (Barr and Chapman, 2002). In addition, there is an increase in the, so-called, 'part-time vegetarians', which can also be explained as an increasing number of health consciousness consumers (Janda and Trocchia, 2001). Health consciousness has been defined as the motivational component that stimulates consumers to undertake health actions (Jayanti and Burns, 1998; Michaelidou and Hassan, 2008). Health conscious consumers strive to enhance and/or sustain their state of well-being by engaging in healthy behavior, such as consuming healthy food. Previous research revealed that health consciousness fosters purchase intentions (Lockie et al., 2002), while it also determines the way consumers decide about food products (Mai and Hoffmann, 2012). In their decision to purchase products, health consciousness determines the quality of attributes consumers consider as important (health-related versus health-unrelated attributes). It seems likely that the health benefits related to meat substitutes (e.g. low calories, low fat) appeal to health conscious consumers, which would positively influence their attitude towards meat substitutes.
Hoek et al. (2004) compared socio-demographic characteristics and attitudes on food and health between vegetarians, non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes and meat consumers in the Netherlands. Moreover, they proved that non-vegetarian meat substitute consumers appeared to be less distinguishing in food-related lifestyle attitudes compared to vegetarians and meat substitute consumers. They found that meat substitute consumers did not differ in health consciousness from meat consumers, which might be attributed to the small sample size of the meat substitute consumer segment. Janda and Trocchia (2001), on the other hand, did show a higher involvement of vegetarian oriented consumers - non-vegetarians which prefer greater vegetarian option relative to meat-based choices - in nutritional health aspects.
Health conscious consumers strive to enhance their state of well-being by engaging in healthy behaviors. Buying and consuming healthy food is considered a healthy behavior, and meat substitutes are considered to be healthy food, which suggests a positive relationship between health consciousness and attitude towards meat substitutes.
20
Environmental concern
Specific types of environmental behavior, such as recycling or energy use, as well as coherent patterns of sustainable behavior in general, have been studied in the past. Research on the relationship between environmental concern and pro-environmental behaviors has produced mixed results. Schultz, Oskamp, and Mainieri (1995) examined nine studies that investigated the relationship of general environmental concern to recycling behaviors (pro-environmental behavior), of which five reported a positive relationship, while four reported a non-significant relationship. Gatersleben, Steg and Vlek (2002) state that, in general, individuals are fairly inconsistent in their environmental behavior, which indicates that besides environmental considerations other factors guide behavior. Schultz and Oskamp (1996) proposed effort to be one of these factors. Their results suggested that more general attitudes can directly predict behavior in certain situations. When the amount of effort required to behave environmentally is high, only people with strong pro-environmental attitudes are likely to produce the behavior. When the amount of effort required to recycle is low, however, a small or moderate environmental concern may provide enough motivation to do so (Schultz and Oskamp, 1996). As the amount of effort attributed to reduce meat consumption and purchase meat substitutes (pro-environmental behavior) can be considered low, it is reasonable to suggest that general environmental considerations influence consumer's attitude towards meat substitutes. It has also been argued that vegetarians are particularly concerned with contamination of foods (Beardsworth and Keil, 1992). Because environmental pollution can result in food contamination, it has been proposed that there is a positive relationship between environmental concern and vegetarian-oriented attitudes (Hamilton, 1993). Hence, this suggest that there is a positive relationship between environmental concern and attitude towards meat substitutes.
H3: A high degree of environmental concern positively influences consumers' attitude towards meat substitutes
Animal Welfare
21 meat substitute consumers do not contribute to perceived animal cruelty and suffering, and therefore it is expected that a person's concern for animal welfare relates positively with his/her attitude towards meat substitutes.
H4: A high degree of concern for animal welfare positively influences consumers' attitude towards meat substitutes
3.3.3 Product related influencers
Taste
A few studies investigated consumers’ evaluation of both meat and meat substitutes. Generally, it is found that meat substitutes lacked behind in overall evaluation, particular in sensory appreciation, including taste (Hoek et al., 2011, Hoek et al., 2013). Hoek et al. (2011) found a trend showing that the less meat substitutes were consumed, the more respondents preferred a product that is similar to meat. Those who rarely used meat substitutes indicated to prefer a product with meat sensory properties: meat-like texture, taste, smell and appearance. Which can be explained by the fact that meat is especially appreciated for its sensory properties, its unique taste and texture (Grunert, Bredahl, and Brunsø, 2004). On the opposite, heavy-users of meat substitute preferred a product that is not similar to meat on these characteristics. This is likely to be caused by the specific motives of vegetarians in this high user group, who do not want to be reminded of meat and usually have developed a strong dislike of the sensory properties of meat (Hoek et al., 2011).
22
H5a: Non-vegetarians' attitude towards meat substitutes is positively influenced if meat substitutes taste like meat
H5b: Vegetarians' attitude towards meat substitutes is negatively influenced if meat substitutes taste like meat
H5c: Consumers' attitude towards meat substitutes is positively influenced if meat substitutes taste good
3.4 Subjective norm
3.4.1 Subjective norm and TPB
Individuals' elaborative thoughts on subjective norms are perceptions on whether they are expected by their friends, family and the society to perform the recommended behavior. Social influence is measured by evaluation of various social groups (Ajzen, 1991), such as friends, parents, partner, brother(s)/ sister(s), and other family members (Ajzen and Driver, 1991). Different types of environmental influences have a powerful effect on what people eat; one of these influences is, for example, the social environment which includes interactions with family, friends, peers, and others in the community. Environmental influences can impact food choices through mechanisms such as role modeling, social support, and social norms (Larson and Story, 2009). In the current research, social influence by personal (parents, partner, household members, family and friends) and societal groups (opinion leaders and society) are considered when measuring subjective norm, as well as consumers' motivation to comply with the respective referent.
3.4.2 Personal influences
Family members and the home food environment are important influences on what people eat. A resemblance between family members in foods intake has been found (Feunekes et al., 1998). Parents and other family members who are preparing the meals, play a central role in shaping the dietary habits of household members. As such, persons who determine what food is available in the house, the amounts which are stored and how they are prepared (Savage et al., 2007).
23 Beardsworth and Keil (1992) stated that among social influences, family and peers might be expected to facilitate or inhibit the adoption of vegetarianism. Research shows that adolescents perceive their parents as influencing their food choices in several ways, namely parental eating and cooking behaviors, food purchases, rules regarding eating and meals, parental concerns about nutrition, family meal patterns, overall parent-child relations, and familial cultural and religious practices (Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999). This indicates that parents can be seen as a influencer on children's food choices. When parents are having a vegetarian or semi-vegetarian lifestyle, children will also engage in this behavior. On a later stadium of their lives, when they are making their own food-choices this habit of eating (semi)-vegetarian might not disappear.
3.4.3. Societal influences
Societal influences also play a role in determining personal eating behaviors. Societal influences include mass media and advertising, social and cultural norms of eating, as well as food production and distribution systems, and policies and laws that regulate food-related issues (Trew et al., 2006).
Another source of social influence in becoming vegetarian are other vegetarians. These other vegetarians might be an acquaintance in the role of an opinion leader. Opinion leaders (OLs) are consumers who, in comparison with other consumers, exert more influence on the decisions of others (Rogers and Cartano, 1962). They exert their influence by advising other people about search and purchase decisions (Flynn, Goldsmith, and Eastman, 1996). OLs show high involvement with a product category, which is the actual reason that they are perceived as OLs by others (Lyons and Henderson, 2005).
It is because of the previously mentioned literature that social influence is expected to occur through various social groups and individuals and influences consumers' intention to purchase meat substitutes.
24 3.5 Perceived behavioral control
3.5.1 Perceived behavioral control and TPB
Sustainable consumption is based on a decision-making process that takes the consumer's social responsibility into account, as well as individual needs such as taste, price, convenience and health (Meulenberg, 2003). Recent research shows that 52% of consumers were interested in purchasing 'earth-sustainable' foods, but did not purchase those foods owing to the perceived barriers of lack of availability, inconvenience, price, habit and trust (Robinson and Smith, 2002). In addition, social responsibility is often not the most dominant criterion during purchase decisions (Boulstridge and Carrigan, 2000). Personal (e.g. low perceived consumer effectiveness) as well as contextual or situational (e.g. low availability, price) factors may restrain the purchase of sustainable foods (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). Contextual or situational factors can be perceived as barriers to purchase meat substitutes, and these barriers are related to behavioral control. Behavioral control indicates whether the consumer can easily consume a certain product or whether its consumption is difficult or impossible (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). Several barriers to purchase sustainable products have been related to perceived behavioral control; for example, perceived product availability (Sparks and Shepherd, 1992), as well as perceived affordability and habits (Robinson and Smith, 2002). Behavioral control is assumed to reflect past experience as well as anticipated difficulties (e.g. habits, affordability) or facilitating conditions (e.g. perceived availability). When people feel they lack the resources or opportunities to perform behavior, they are unlikely to create strong intentions to perform the behavior (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). Perceived availability, price, habits (in relation to convenience) and perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) will be included in the current research as barriers. Habits and PCE are personal factors, while availability and price are product related factors which are proposed to influence perceived behavioral control.
H7: High perceived behavioral control is positively influencing intention to purchase meat substitutes
3.5.2 Product related barriers
Perceived Availability
25 actual availability and perceived availability (Robinson and Smith, 2002). In the current paper perceived availability is used, because it researches consumers' intention to buy meat substitutes, and therefore knowledge of availability is important. Hoek et al. (2004) showed that vegetarians had positive attitudes towards shopping in specialty shops, while this result was not found for non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes. This might indicate that vegetarians consider the availability of meat substitutes to be higher, while non-vegetarian meat substitute consumers relate to the availability in normal grocery stores.
H8: Low perceived availability has a negative effect on consumers' perceived behavioral control
Price
Currently available meat substitutes may be up to three times more expensive than meat products (Supermarktmonitor, 2010), taking into consideration the average prices of all Dutch supermarkets. They show that the vegetarian variant of hamburger costs 53% more while mince costs 207% more; and when comparing chicken chops with Quorn, there is a price difference of 41%.
As stated earlier, Hoek et al. (2011) found that, in general, people prefer a product which is cheaper than meat, but with more protein, less calories and more vitamins and minerals. As meat substitutes are indeed containing less calories, more protein and more vitamins and minerals, it seems that price is considered a barrier. Hoek et al. (2004) showed that non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes attach a higher importance to price/quality, compared to vegetarians.
H9: High price of meat substitutes has a negative effect on consumers' perceived behavioral control.
3.5.3 Personal barriers
Usage application
Vermeir and Verbeke (2006) found different explanations for the gap between the positive attitude of consumers and their actual purchase behavior of sustainable products. It has been stated that behavior based on habit can account for the low market share of sustainable products (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006).
26 meat, so that they do not have to change the way they have been doing things in the last years. When meat substitutes are supposed to be prepared in the same way as their meat variant, then there is a fit with current habits; therefore no drastic changes in behavior are needed when starting to use meat substitutes. This might imply that when meat substitutes have a similar usage application, usage application is not considered to be a barrier. However, for vegetarians this does not apply. Vegetarians do not have developed a 'meat-preparation' habit, so to not be reminded of meat, it seems likely that they prefer a different usage application.
H10a: Non-vegetarians' perceived behavioral control, is negatively influenced when meat substitutes have a different usage application then meat.
H10b: Vegetarians' perceived behavioral control, is positively influenced when meat substitutes have a different usage application then meat.
Perceived consumer effectiveness
Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) has been defined as the extent to which the consumer believes that his personal efforts can contribute to the solution of a problem (Roberts, 1996). A high PCE is necessary to motivate consumers to express their positive attitudes towards sustainable products in actual consumption (Roberts, 1996). With regards to meat substitutes it is assumed that people who think that their consumption has no influence on sustainability, might not be motivated to buy meat substitutes. Hence, their PCE is considered to be a barrier. Consumers should believe that their personal effort contributes to, for example, a better environment and less animal cruelty. In this case, the personal effort is purchasing and consuming meat substitutes, and thereby reducing meat consumption. People who are highly concerned about the environment should also perceive meat substitutes to be effective and less damaging for the environment. Hence, low PCE functions as a barrier to purchase meat substitutes.
27 The aforementioned hypotheses are graphically represented in the following conceptual model (Fig. 2).
FIGURE 2 The conceptual Model
* effect is moderated by vegetarianism3
The model shows the three variables proposed by the theory of planned behavior, influencing consumers' intention to purchase meat substitutes. As well as the variables which are hypothesized to influence attitude and perceived behavioral control. Furthermore, it shows personal and societal influences to be the constructs of subjective norm. The current research focuses on the first links of the theory of planned behavior, as no data is collected on participants' meat substitute buying behavior. The next chapter will address research methodology on the subject.
3
Only the interaction effect between 'vegetarianism' and 'meat-like taste' and 'usage application' is incorporated as literature does not indicate other important interactions between the variables.
H6
H7 H1 Attitude towards purchasing
meat substitutes Personal H2: Health consciousness (+) H3: Environmental concern (+) H4: Animal welfare (+) Product related
H5a,b: Meat substitute tastes like meat (+/-)*
H5c: Meat substitute tastes good (+)
Subjective Norm Personal
Social influence by:
parents, partner, household members & friends (+)
Societal
Social influence by: society & opinion leaders (+)
Perceived Behavioral Control Product related
H8: Perceived availability (+) H9: Price of meat substitutes (-)
Personal
28
4. RESEARCH DESIGN
4.1. Methodology
In order to test the hypotheses, one online survey is conducted. The largest problem concerning the data collection process is recruiting enough individuals to participate; whereby the aim is to collect a total of three hundred filled in and useable questionnaires, with a relative even distribution of acquaintances from the three different consumer groups: vegetarians, non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes and meat consumers. The survey will be distributed on the net, by making use of qualtrics.com, a survey software provider. The link to the survey will be posted on University of Groningen Facebook pages to be able to reach RUG-students, as well as being distributed via RUG webmail addresses using qualtrics distribution panels. To reach vegetarians and non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes, the link to the survey will also be distributed on Facebook pages from meat substitute brands: Goodbites, Valess, Tivall and on the Twitter page of Vivera. After collecting al data, data entry in SPSS will follow.
4.2. Procedure
This section describes the survey questions which are being used for data analysis. The questionnaire has been translated in Dutch (see appendix 2). Some questions from the questionnaire have not been included in data analysis and are therefore not covered in this section.
4.2.1 Attitude
Within the context of the TPB, the interest lies in the attitude towards the behaviour. This can be defined as the degree to which a person has a favourable or unfavourable evaluation or appraisal of the behaviour in question (Ajzen, 1991). As described in the previous chapter, health consciousness, environmental concern and concern for animal welfare are personal variables which are expected to influence consumers' attitude towards meat substitutes, while 'meat substitute tastes like meat' and 'meat substitute tastes good' are product related variables.
Attitude towards meat substitutes
29 4.2.1.1 Personal variables
Health consciousness
This research includes questions concerning health attitudes to explore health motives of the three consumer groups. Health consciousness has been defined as the degree to undertake health actions and is operationalised by the health consciousness scale (Schifferstein and Oude Ophuis, 1998). In this study, the 11-item health consciousness scale was rated on a 7-point Likert-type agreement scale ranging from 'totally disagree' to 'totally agree'.
Environmental concern and animal welfare
In this study, two of the attitude items by Krystallis et al. (2012) are used, namely 'Attitude towards food and environment' and 'Attitude towards animal welfare', to measure environmental concern and animal welfare (Q2 and Q3). All attitudinal items are measured on seven-point Likert-type agreement scales with end points 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 = ‘strongly agree’.
4.2.1.2 Product related variables
Taste like meat
A question concerning taste was added to the questionnaire based on Hoek et al. (2011). Respondent were asked to answer the question: 'Should a meat substitute taste like meat for you to eat it with your hot meals on a regular basis?' The statement was measured on a 7 point differential scale ( little-much similar to meat).
Taste good
A second question concerning the taste of meat substitutes was added, respondents were asked to indicate on a 7 point scale how important it is that a meat substitute tastes good (not important-really important).
4.2.2 Subjective Norm
30 4.2.2.1 Personal referent group/individual
Based on Ajzen and Driver (1991), the first question related to subjective norm (normative beliefs) asks to rate the degree to which the personal referent groups or individuals (parents, partner, household members, friends and other family members) would approve or disapprove of his/her buying meat substitutes. The respondent rates this degree on a 7-point scale. These normative beliefs were multiplied by motivation to comply with the referent, a rating of how much the respondents cared whether the referent approved or disapproved of their food choices (7-point scale).
4.2.2.2 Societal referent group/individual
The same question as for the personal referents, see 4.2.2.1 has been included for societal referents (opinion leader and society). However, there is no Dutch translation for 'opinion leader'. 'Opinion leader' has been included in the questionnaire as 'authorities in the field of nutrition' ('autoriteiten op het gebied van voeding').
4.2.3 Perceived behavioral control
Perceived control was measured with three items used by Sparks et al. (1992) and adapted to the current research, rated on a 7-point Likert-scale. (a) How much control do you have whether you do or do not eat meat substitutes? (very little control/ complete control); (b) For me to eat meat substitutes is . . . (extremely difficult/ extremely easy); (c) If I wanted to, I could easily eat meat substitutes whenever I eat 'meat', (extremely unlikely/ extremely likely).
4.2.3.1 Product related barriers
Based on the barriers associated with the consumption of meat substitutes, the following question based on Sparks et al. (1992) is included: 'Eating meat substitutes is associated with different sorts of problems (or difficulties) by different people. Please indicate below whether or not you consider that the following are problems that affect their consumption of meat substitutes'. The question then listed on a scale (never a problem/ very often a problem): (a) availability in the shops, (b) price, (c) different usage application to meat ( does not fit the dishes I'm used to prepare)
4.2.3.2 Personal barriers
Usage application
31
Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (PCE)
Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) is measure by the PCE-Scale used by Robert (1996). The scale includes four items, which respondents rate on a 7-point Likert-scale. The items are statements like 'It is worthless for the individual consumer to do anything about pollution' and 'When I buy products, I try to consider how my use of them will affect the environment and other consumers'.
4.2.4. Intention to purchase meat substitutes
To measure the dependent variable in this research, three questions related to intention are included which are in line with the questions used by Sparks et al. (1997). The three items were rated on a 7-point differential scale. 'I will make an effort to increase the amount of meat substitutes that I eat from now on' (definitely true-definitely false); 'I will try to increase the amount of meat substitutes that I eat from now on' (definitely will-definitely will not); and 'I intend to increase the amount of meat substitutes that I eat from now on' (definitely do-definitely do not).
4.3 Plan of analysis
With respect to the first research question the plan of analysis is as follows:
1. Aggregate variables using factor analysis and reliability analysis (Cronbach's Alpha) 2. Find the effect of attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control on
intention to purchase meat substitutes by means of regression analysis. 3. Find the effect of all variables which are proposed to influence attitude.
4. Find the effect of the independent referent groups and individuals on intention to purchase meat substitutes
5. Find the effect of all variables which are proposed to influence perceived behavioral control.
With respect to the second research question the plan of analysis is as follows:
32
5. DATA ANALYSIS
5.1. Descriptive results
A total of 309 completed questionnaires were filled in mainly by students from various study programs at the University of Groningen. 47,6% of the respondents completed or are currently participating in a University or University of Applied Science Bachelor program, while 49,2% of the respondents completed or are currently participating in Master program or any higher education (e.g. PhD). Participants were in the age range between 18 and 56 with an average age of 24,86, of whom 63,1% were male and 36,9% females. Table 4 gives an overview of participant demographics and their meat substitute consumption. Table 3 shows how male and female participants are divided according to meat substitute consumption and vegetarian lifestyle, while table 4 shows the number of participants within each consumer segment. There is a total of 9 participants who are vegetarian, 114 participants are no vegetarians but do consume meat substitutes more than once a month and 186 participants are meat consumers (no vegetarians and do not consume any meat substitutes).
TABLE 2: Demographics
Variable Number of respondents
Age 18-25 26-35 36-45 46< 234 50 14 11 Gender Male Female 195 114 Highest education (currently studying or completed) Secondary education < MBO HBO/WO Bachelor WO Master < 5 5 147 152 Number of consumed meat
substitutes per month
33 TABLE 3:
Gender contingency table
Meat substitute consumer Vegetarian
Yes No Yes No Gender Male 60 135 3 192 Female 62 52 6 108 total 122 187 9 300 TABLE 4: Consumer segments Meat substitute consumer
Yes No total Vegetarian Yes 8 1 9 No 114 186 300 total 122 187 309
5.2 Variable aggregation
5.2.1 Attitude AttitudeThe questions concerning attitude on a seven point differential scale were all taken into account when aggregating a variable for attitude. Reliability analysis showed a Cronbach's Alpha of 0,879; while factor analysis showed all items loading on one component with KMO 0,739.
Health consciousness
34
Environmental concern
The three questions concerning environmental concern were tested on reliability and validity. Taking all three questions into consideration, a Cronbach's Alpha of 0,923 was calculated. However, when only taking the first two questions, a Cronbach's Alpha of 0,927 was calculated. Conducting factor analysis with all three questions showed factor loading on one component with KMO 0,743; however, doing this with only the first two questions showed a KMO of 0,5. Therefore, the preferred option is to aggregate all three questions into one environmental concern variable.
Animal welfare
The last three questions concerning animal welfare were first reversed coded. Conducting a reliability test showed a Cronbach's Alpha of 0,845, and after deleting question six a Cronbach's Alpha of 0,863 is calculated. Conducting factor analysis with all eight questions showed all questions loading on one component (KMO 0,824), this also occurred when deleting question six (KMO 0,819). However, the change in Cronbach's Alpha and KMO is considered to be minimal, therefore all questions are aggregated into one animal welfare variable.
Taste like meat
The individual question related to taste concerning their resemblance of meat, is taken into account independently. The questions in the questionnaire related to meat substitute appearance and if meat substitutes are considered to taste like meat are disregarded.
Taste good
The individual question concerning the importance that meat substitutes have a good taste (not related to meat), will be taken into account independently.
5.2.2 Subjective norm
35 5.2.3 Perceived behavioral control
Perceived behavioral control
A Cronbach's Alpha of 0,665 resulted from a reliability analysis for the three questions concerning perceived behavioral control; however, when taking question one out, the Cronbach's Alpha is 0,798. Conducting factor analysis with all questions shows KMO 0,553 and with question two and three KMO 0,5. Question one is considered important for perceived behavioral control, "How much control do you have over the choice to purchase meat substitutes or not?", and all questions load on the component with more than 0,5; all questions are used to aggregate the perceived behavioral control variable.
Barriers
The three questions concerning the barriers (availability, price and usage application) are considered as individual questions.
Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE)
Questions one and three concerning PCE were reversed coded. Conducting a reliability test showed a Cronbach's Alpha of 0,778 and after deleting question two 0,845. Conducting factor analysis with all four questions showed them all loading on one component with KMO 0,719; however, doing this when leaving question two out showed a KMO of 0,694. It is preferred to use all question, when aggregating the PCE variable, as a Cronbach's Alpha of 0,78 is acceptable.
5.2.4 Intention
Intention to purchase meat substitutes
36
5.3 Data analysis
5.3.1 Theory of Planned Behavior
To test the hypothesis related to the three variables which, according to the theory of planned behavior, influence behavioral intention (H1, H6, and H7) a linear regression is conducted. 'Attitude towards meat substitutes', 'subjective norm' and 'perceived behavioral control' are the independent variables and 'intention to purchase meat substitutes' as dependent variable. The following equation is tested:
y
i= α
0+ β
1x
1i+ β
2x
2i+ β
3x
3i+ ε
iyi = Intention to purchase meat substitutes (Dependent Variable)
x1i = Attitude ( Independent Variable)
x2i = Subjective Norm ( Independent Variable)
x3i = Perceived behavioral control ( Independent Variable)
α0 = Intercept
ε i = Error term i = Respondent i
Running the regression results in an adjusted R square of 0,449, which indicates that 44,9% of the dependent variable, intention to purchase meat substitutes, is explained by the independent variables. The overall model was significant (p=,000, F=84,811). Table 5 shows that attitude (β=0,864; p<0,01) and subjective norm (β=0,006; p<0,05) are significant. However, no significant result is found with respect to perceived behavioral control.
TABLE 5
Coefficients and p-values Regression analysis B p-value
(Constant) -1,154 ,001
Attitude ,864 ,000
Subjective Norm ,006 ,014
Perceived Behavioral Control ,040 ,463
a. Dependent Variable: Intention to Purchase
Table 6 shows an overview of the results, support is found for hypothesis 1 and 6. TABLE 6
Support for the hypotheses: TPB
Hypothesis support comment
H1: A positive attitude towards meat substitutes, positively influences intention to purchase meat substitutes
Yes β= ,864; p<0,01
37 meat substitutes by referent groups or individuals
positively influences consumer's intention to purchase meat substitutes
H7: High perceived behavioral control is positively influencing intention to purchase meat substitutes
No No significant effect found
5.3.2 Attitude
Table 7 shows that all influencers of attitude are inter-correlated, except for 'the importance that meat substitutes taste good'. However, 'the importance that meat substitutes taste good' does correlate with the importance that meat substitutes taste like meat.
TABLE 7
Correlation of the independent variables: attitude
1 2 3 4 5
Health Consciousness (1) 1
Environmental Concern (2) ,421** 1
Animal Welfare (3) ,271** ,495** 1
Taste like meat (4) -,203** -,306** -,225** 1
Taste good (5) -,070 -,024 ,020 ,218** 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level (2-tailed)
Testing hypotheses 2-5a,b,c by means of regression analysis (F=27,391; p=,000) (see table 8); shows that animal welfare (β=0,403; p<0,01), meat substitute tastes like meat (β= -0,191; p<0,01), and meat substitute tastes good (β=0,135; p<0,01) are significant. No significant results were found for health consciousness and environmental concern. Testing for the moderator 'vegetarianism' also shows to be not significant, and no direct effect of 'vegetarianism' is found.
TABLE 8
Coefficients and p-values Regression analysis
B p-value VIF (Constant) 2,577 ,000 HealthConsciousness ,066 ,220 1,239 EnvironmentalConcern -,055 ,234 1,564 AnimalWelfare ,403 ,000 1,438 TasteMeat -,191 ,000 1,223 TasteMeat * Veg. ,193 ,468 3,670 Vegetarian (yes/no) ,429 ,502 3,812 TasteGood ,135 ,001 1,073
38 As shown in table 8, all VIF's are lower than 10, and therefore are not highly correlated. Hence, multicollinearity is not a problem in the regression analysis.
Table 9 shows an overview of the results, support is found for hypothesis 4, 5b and 5c. TABLE 9
Support for the hypotheses: Attitude
Hypothesis support comment
H2: A high degree of health consciousness positively influences consumers' attitude towards meat substitutes
No No significant results
H3: A high degree of environmental concern positively influences consumers' attitude towards meat substitutes
No No significant results
H4: A high degree of concern for animal welfare positively influences consumers' intention to purchase meat substitutes
Yes β=0,403; p<0,01
H5a: Non-vegetarians' attitude towards meat substitutes is positively influenced if meat substitutes taste like meat
No A general negative result was found, β= -0,191; p<0,01)
H5b: Vegetarians' attitude towards meat substitutes is negatively influenced if meat substitutes taste like meat
Yes A general negative result was found, β= -0,191; p<0,01)
H5c: Consumers' attitude towards meat substitutes is positively influenced if meat substitutes taste good
Yes β=0,135; p<0,01
5.3.3 Subjective Norm
Table 10 shows that all independent referent groups or individuals, as components of subjective norm, are inter-correlated.
TABLE 10
Correlation of the independent variables: subjective norm
Social influence by: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Parents (1) 1
Partner (2) ,621** 1
Other household members (3) ,532** ,557** 1
Friends (4) ,541** ,543** 692** 1
Family members (5) ,615** ,566** ,572** ,588** 1
Opinion leaders (6) ,411** ,304** ,297** ,420** ,399** 1
Society (7) ,372** ,209** ,311** ,375** ,371** ,652** 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level (2-tailed)
