mohiddin, h.s (2015)

A STUDY ON PSYCHOSOCIAL DISPOSITIONS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

AND THE INTENTION TO PURCHASE ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS

HALIMAHTUL SAADIAH BINTI MOHIDDIN

BACHELOR IN HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (HONS.)

FACULTY OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

JUNE 2015


AND THE INTENTION TO PURCHASE ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS

Prepared for:

AZIZ JAMAL

Prepared by:


BACHELOR IN HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (HONS)

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA (UiTM)

FACULTY OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

JUNE 2015

i

ABSTRACT

There is evidence that the growth of organic food markets is contributed by the

increased of health consciousness among consumers. Although frequently dismissed in

scientific literature, most people believe organically-produced foods are superior and

nutritious when compared to the conventional alternatives. This study was therefore

conducted to examine the psychosocial aspects of university students and their intention to

purchase organic food products. A total of 160 students from Universiti Malaysia Sarawak

were participated in this study by answering the questionnaire. Result from correlational

analysis performed indicated the intention to purchase organic food products was associated

with Self-efficacy (r = .57, p = .00), Healthy Eating Motivation (r = .54, p = .00), Subjective

Norms (r = .47, p = .00), Perceived Benefits (r = .45, p = .00), Attitude (r = .45, p = .00) and

Perceived Behaviour Control (r = .37, p = .00). Mean comparison showed that non-Malay

and male respondents had less favourable attitudes towards organic foods and demonstrated

less motivation to eat healthily. Similarly, these groups of respondents also reported to have

less control in their decision to purchase and eat organic food products. The results of the

current study provides practical implications to interested parties in developing strategic

marketing decisions for organic products, targeting university students as their potential

consumers.

Keyword: organic food, purchase, intention to purchase organic products, university

students, psychosocial, correlation

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Mr Aziz Jamal, the lecturer and

also the research supervisor for this research project. I am extremely grateful and indebted to

him for his expertise, sincerity and valuable guidance and encouragement extended

throughout the completion of this research work.

I would also like to express my appreciation to my friends Nur Izzati binti Sain, Seri

Nurhayati binti Nordin and Nihayatul Husna binti Zamakhsari for helping, supporting, and

providing me with aspiring guidance and friendly advice to complete this study.

I would take this opportunity to record my sincere thanks to my parents for their help

and encouragement both financially and morally.

Halimahtul Saadiah binti Mohiddin

June, 2015

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................... iii - iv

LIST OF FIGURE ..........................................................................................v

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................... vi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study ............................................................... 1 - 4

Statement of the Problem .....................................................................5

Research Objectives .............................................................................6

Research Questions ..............................................................................6

Hypothesis ............................................................................................7

Significance of the Study ............................................................. 8 - 10

Definition of Terms .................................................................... 10 - 12

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Defining Organic Food Products ......................................................13

Components of Theory of Planned Behaviour ......................... 14 - 17

Applying the Theory of Planned Behaviour of the Intention to Purchase

Organic-Labelled Foods ...................................................................17

Psychological Factors Influencing the Adoption of Organic Theoretical

Framework .............................................................................. ..18 - 19

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Research Design .......................................................................……..20

Population Sample Size ............................................................. 21 - 22

Sampling Technique ..........................................................................22

Unit of Analysis .................................................................................22

Data Collection Procedures ................................................................22

Survey Instrument ...................................................................... 23 - 24

Validity of Instruments ......................................................................24

iv

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

Survey Return Rate.......................................................................................25

Part A: Descriptive Analysis ............................................................... 26 - 41

Part B: Reliability Analysis of Developed Instruments ...................... 45 - 52

Part C: Correlational Analysis ............................................................. 53 - 57

CHAPTER 5

CONLCUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Conclusion ............................................................................................ 58 - 64

Recommendations ........................................................................................65

Recommendations for Future Research........................................................66

REFERENCES .....................................................................................67 – 72

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Cover Letter ................................................................... 73 - 75

Appendix B: Questionnaire ................................................................. 76 - 95

Appendix C: SPSS Data .................................................................... 96 - 135

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

2.01 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................19

vi

LIST OF TABLES

4.01Descriptive Analysis for Demographic Background .................... 27 - 28

4.02 Mean and standard deviation for Attitude ............................................29

4.03Mean and standard deviation for Behaviour Beliefs .............................30

4.04Mean and standard deviation for Outcome Evaluation .........................31

4.05Mean and standard deviation for Subjective Norm.……….…………32

4.06Mean and standard deviation for Normative Belief, Motivation to

Comply .......................................................................................... 33 - 34

4.07Mean and standard deviation for Perceived Behavioural Control .........34

4.08Mean and standard deviation for Self-Efficacy .....................................35

4.09Mean and standard deviation for Health and Safety Benefits ...............36

4.10Mean and standard deviation for Environmental Benefits ....................37

4.11Mean and standard deviation for Perceived Barrier ...................... 38 - 39

4.12Mean and standard deviation for Healthy Eating Motivation ....... 39 - 40

4.13Mean and standard deviation for Behavioural Intention .......................41

4.14Reliability Statistics for TPB .................................................................42

4.15Reliability Statistics for HBM ...............................................................43

4.16Reiliability Statistics for Self-efficacy, HEM and BI ............................43

4.17Result of Normality test performed on mean scores of HBM ...............44

4.18Result of Normality test performed on mean scores of TPB.................45

4.19Result of Normality test performed on mean scores of Self-efficacy,

HEM and BI .........................................................................................46

4.20Mean Score Comparison (Standard Deviation) .....................................49

4.21Mean Score Comparison (Sum of Ranks)…………………… … 51 - 52

4.22Correlation Analysis performed on HBM .............................................53

4.23Correlation Analysis performed on Self-efficacy, HEM and BI……..54

4.24Correlation Analysis perfomed on TPB ................................................55

4.25 Intercorrelation matrix between TPB, HBM and BI ...........................57

4.26 Summary of hypothesis statement .......................................................64

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

There is a growing demand for organic foods in Malaysia (Cheah, 2009). This

phenomenon is mostly contributed by the increased in the wealth of the population

along with the level of health consciousness; enabling consumers to make informed

decisions regarding food selection. Although not scientifically investigated, the

proponents of organic foods often claim that such foods contain high levels of

antioxidants and essential vitamins, that essentially important for preventing diseases

and maintaining good health. For this reason, the consumption of organic foods is

claimed to make a person healthier and more resistant to serious diseases. As

researchers identified a positive association between consumer‟s positive attitude and

organic foods purchases, perception regarding organic foods to be healthier than

conventional alternatives, was the most important determinant that shapes customer

purchase decision (Chinnici et al., 2002; Harper & Makatouni, 2002).

Nonetheless, organic foods, particularly fruits and vegetables are the foods

that free from synthetic fertiliser and pesticides use. Normally, these food are viewed

as healthier, safer, have better taste, and more nutritious when compared to

conventionally produced foods (Klonsky & Tourte 1998; Goldman & Hylton 1972).

Owing to this fact, many identified organic food products as “green foods” simply

2

because they are safe to be consumed, are of fine quality, and are of strict adherence

to the principle of sustainable development (Liu, 2003).

Apart from public perception regarding the superiority of organic foods in

terms of quality and nutritional values, price also contributes to the public‟s decision

to buy organic foods. In an interesting study conducted by Rao and Burgen (1992),

products with premium price tag were shown to be able to create consumer „belief‟

that such products had high value in return. This belief would consequently drive

consumers‟ willingness to pay. Although a great majority of consumers would

indicate that price is an important decisional factor, research indicated that it depends

on whom price is considered significant. In the case of products with premium price

tag, the excessive price paid above the “fair” price is justified by the “true” value of

the product (Rao & Burgen, 1992). Therefore, perceived true value attached with the

premium products might an indicator of consumers‟ demand for that product (Tse,

2001). Nonetheless, from the economic perspective, the amount of money that

consumers are willing to pay for organic foods seemingly relied on a few factors. For

example, the type of food, the relative cost of a comparable conventionally produced

item and the absolute price of the item (Jolly, 1991) albeit few researchers have

discovered that organic food consumers are less likely to consider price as an

important issue, when compared to those consumers who had never purchased any

organic product (Williams & Hammit, 2001).

Purchase decision for organic food could be driven by general or commodity-

specific concerns. Examples for general concerns include human health, food safety,

and environmental impact, whereas commodity-specific concerns include freshness,

taste and packaging (Yiridoe et al., 2004). Concerning certain types of organic

3

product such as diary, meat and poultry, consumers are concerned with the use of

antibiotics, man-made chemicals and artificial hormones in farming industry as most

people believe the use of those substances might cause ill-effects. This argument is

consistent with Schifferstein and Peter (1998)‟s work, as they observed organic food

buyers tend to be health-conscious and believe that the type of food they choose to eat

affects their well-being.

In Malaysia, the increase in the standard of living, household income,

education level along with the increase in awareness towards environment and health,

have resulted the consumers to be more cautious about the food they consume and

daily products they use. Timely, organic food market is available and its popularity is

increasing amongst these health-conscious consumers.

The market for organic foods in Malaysia is small but growing steadily. The

Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI), an agency that

spearheads the effort to modernise the country‟s agricultural sector, acknowledges

that the market size as the statistics revealed 60% of organic food products for local

consumption are actually imported.

Although the factors associated to purchase intention such as availability and

price have been rigorously studied in a number of publication, few studies to date,

have been conducted to examine the psychosocial aspect of consumers that drive their

purchase intention. Therefore, the current study was conducted to determine the

association between psychosocial dispositions of consumers with the intention to

purchase food products.

Presently, there is less information about the association between psychosocial

dispositions of consumers and organic food purchases intention. The outcomes of this

4

study are therefore be able to provide baseline knowledge and viewpoints regarding

the likelihood the psychosocial aspects of consumers to influence the intention to

purchase organic foods.

5

Statement of problem

Currently, organic food market in Malaysia is still small but growing steadily

along with the consumer awareness. With the widespread of information, most

consumers are concerned regarding the chemical use and the residues left in the non-

organic food that perceived to cause ill-effects to their health. This has therefore

created a market base for organically produced foods.

According to Malaysia Department of Agriculture, the area of organic crops

plantation has increased from 130 hectares in 2001 to not less than 2400 hectares in

2007 (DOA, 2009). Although the figure is promisingly increased, the supply for

organic food has never been able to meet the growing demand from the population.

As a solution, most of organic food supplies in Malaysia are largely imported from

countries like Thailand, China, Australia, New Zealand, USA and European countries.

Statistically, it is estimated that 60% to 90% of organic food supply in the local

market, including vegetables, fruits, grains, cereals and beverages, is imported

(Rozhan et al., 2009).

The demand for organic foods is largely fueled by the increased of purchasing

power along with the perception that organic products are healthier and with superior

quality. Few local studies had attempted to investigate these factors, and correlate

them with purchase intention. However, psychosocial aspects that drive such

perception and behavior intention had not been studied sufficiently. Therefore, a study

that examines various psychosocial dispositions and the potential impact they might

have on purchase intention is warranted.

6

Research Objectives

The main objective of this study is to identify the relationship between psychosocial

dispositions of students and the intention to purchase organic food products. The

specific objectives are:

1. To determine the level of psychosocial dispositions of university students to

purchase organic food products.

2. To ascertain the level of intention of student to purchase organic food

products.

3. To correlate students psychosocial dispositions with the intention to purchase

food products.

Research Questions

To achieve the objectives formulated for the proposed study, the following research

questions are developed:

1. How is organic food products perceived by the respondents?

2. What are the perceived benefits that could be derived from the decision to

consume organic food products?

3. What specific barriers and enablers that characterised respondent‟s decision

to purchase organic food products?

4. To what extent the respondents intent to purchase organic food products?

5. Is there any significant correlation between respondent‟s psychosocial

disposition and intention to consume/purchase organic food products?

7

Research Hypotheses

To answer the research questions developed, the hypotheses following hypotheses

were constructed:

H1: Perceived Benefits significantly and positively influences respondent‟s

intention to purchase Organic Food Products.

H2: Perceived Barriers significantly and negatively influences respondent‟s


H3: Self-efficacy significantly and positively influences respondent‟s intention to

purchase Organic Food Products.

H4: Healthy Eating Motivation significantly and positively influences

respondent‟s intention to purchase Organic Food Products.

H5: Attitudes significantly and positively influences respondent‟s intention to

purchase Organic Food Products.

H6: Subjective Norms significantly and positively influences respondent‟s


H7: Perceived Behavioural Control significantly and positively influences

respondent‟s intention to purchase Organic Food Products.

8

Significance of the Study

As the study was focused on determining psychosocial aspects that influence

organic food purchase intention, it is expected that the result of this study would

provide positive implications and additional information to the existing body of

knowledge. Findings from this study would be practically significant to agriculture

sectors, retailers, business-related stakeholders (such as marketing agencies and

caterers), Ministry of Health (MOH), and public health department, including

nutritionists.

Contribution to the agriculture sector

Findings of study would contribute to a better understanding on the

development of organic market in Malaysia. Relevant government agencies

MARDI, FAMA and Lembaga Kemajuan Ikan Malaysia, could use the data contained

in this study to further promote the feasibility of organic foods enterprises among

local food producers. Existing strategies such as campaign, seminars, and technical

advice, as the mean to encourage local market participation could be further

strengthened by sound evidence provided by this study.

Contribution to the retailers

Data from the study could be used as the basis for marketing strategies and

future plan for market expansion. Information about purchase intention of organic

products provides basis for retailers to better equipped with the current and future

demand. Retailers might find the data contained in the current study provide

9

directions on marketing strategies as aiming at expanding the supply to local markets

to meet the unmet demand.

Contribution to other businessmen

This study can be used by the relevant stakeholders to increase the level of

understanding about organic food. Besides, the information will broaden their

knowledge as they would acknowledge the importance in consuming organic food.

This research would help the entity at large to understand their own psychosocial

dispositions that might motivate themselves to becoming one of the customers that

consume organic food as way of life. In addition, they have to be aware and eliminate

those negative perceptions or puzzled mind toward organic food.

Ministry of Health

Information obtained from this study could be used by the Ministry of Health

(MOH) to develop a specific strategy aiming at nurturing the positive attitude towards

healthy eating. As healthy eating attitude contributes directly to organic food

purchase intention, the government specifically the Ministry could provide assistance

to agricultural agencies in both financially and technical knowledge to organize talks,

public forums and campaigns. By organising such campaigns, level of awareness or

intention among Malaysian could be increased. Many studies posit that high level of

awareness would lead individuals to perform desired behaviour.

Public Health Departments/Institute

The findings from the current study would also be used to support the public

health departments. Data would help the department to observe the trend for organic

10

food consumption. For nutritionists, they could use data from the finding as

supporting materials in their practice especially in providing counselling services

requiring nutritional-related advice. Additionally, the current study would be able to

help nutritionist in keeping pace with trends associated with organic food purchase

and intention.

Definition of Terms

Psychosocial disposition

Psychosocial disposition refers to the elements of social determinants such as

poverty, unemployment, and frail social ties (Suissa, 2014). It also includes the

support from family and friends, health status, total annual of household income and

education level (Essau et al., 2014). In the context of this study, psychosocial

disposition refer to the tendency of students‟ social factors which determine their

intention to consume organic foods. These factors include attitude, subjective norms

and perceived behaviour control, perceived benefits and barriers, and health eating

motivation

Organic-labelled food

Organic-labelled food is a product that has been tested by an independent

accredited institution and qualified to be issued organic certification (Bauer et al.,

2013). For organic food that has “100% organic” seal, it must use ingredients that are

produced organically. In addition, organic food which has “organic” label, the

11

ingredients must be 95% organically produced (Winter & Davis, 2006). Other than

that, organic food productsthat have complied with the rules and standard of organic

production are also referred as organic-labelled foods. They can either be labelled

with universal l “organic” label or supplemented with additional logos of organic

certification (Janssen & Hamm, 2012). In the context of this study, organic-labelled

foods refers to any food product, including vegetables, fruits, grains, cereals, and

poultry, that self-labelled, and claimed as „organic‟ by the producers.

Chemically-processed food

Chemically processed food could be divided into two, which are processed

food and ultra-processed food. Processed food is food that has been added substances

which change the nature of the food. Ultra-processed food is made mostly or

completely from processed ingredients which usually include little or no whole foods.

(Rauber et al., 2014). In general sense, processed food might also refer to any food

that includes preservative, synthetic vitamins or minerals and advanced typed of

packaging. This food typically has long shelf-life (Monteiro et al., 2011). Other than

that, chemically-processed food is the food contains chemicals which are used as

intentional additives in processed foods. This includes preservatives, antioxidants,

surface active agents, food colours, nutritive supplement, flavouring agents and other

functional groupings. As opposed to organic food, processed food uses chemicals in

the process and production of the end product. In the context of this study,

chemically-produced food is generalised to all non-organically-produced products.

12

Food-induced illness

Food-induced illnesses are also known as food-borne illnesses. Viruses,

bacteria, parasites and prions are the primary pathogens that known to cause food-

borne diseases. Most commonly known pathogens are Salmonella, Campylobacter

and E. coli (Newell, D. et al., 2010). Food-borne illnesses are also condition in which

infections or irritations of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract caused by food or beverages

that contain harmful bacteria, parasites, viruses, or chemicals. (Scallan et al., 2011).

In the context of our study, food-induced illness is generalised as any disease, as

perceived by the respondents that might be caused by the consumption of foods that

not organically produced.

13

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

In Malaysia, the establishment of organic farms was first observed in the early

1990s. Back then, the farms were mostly located in the states of Penang, Kuantan,

Perak, Melaka and Negeri Sembilan. Local evidence suggests the development was

contributed by the success of organic compost and fertilisers manufacturing, that

allows local farmers to increase their yield.

Today, local organic agricultural sector is still growing, albeit at a slower

pace. With the increased in demand for organic foods from consumers, there is a

shortage in the supply of locally-produced organic products. As a temporary measure

to accommodate consumer‟s demand, most organic foods products are currently

imported from countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Thailand. For local

farmers, this phenomenon opens a great opportunity to generate more revenues by

intensifying the production. Strategy to increase the production of organic food must

therefore be developed and be used as a competitive advantage (Rozhan et al., 2009).

This study was attempted to determine the relationship between the

psychosocial disposition of consumers and their intention to purchase organic food

products. The literature review consists of the discussion of relevant psychosocial

aspects that potentially influence organic food purchase intention. These

psychosocial aspects were abstracted from the constructs of Theory of Planned

14

Behaviour (TPB), Health Belief Model (HBM) and Healthy Eating Motivation

(HEM).

Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

One of the most important elements in TPB is attitude. Jung (1971) interprets

attitude as a psychological construct that represents an individual‟s readiness to act or

react in a certain way. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) elaborated attitude by three key

features. Firstly, attitude is linked to an entity (an object, a person or behaviour).

Secondly, it includes a general evaluation of this entity as desirable or not and lastly,

it is a physiological predisposition that might or might not be expressed in certain

behaviours.

Relating attitude with intention, positive influence was observed in a number

of studies (Chan, 1999; Chan & Lau, 2000: Dispoto, 1977; Ling-yee, 1997; Maloney

& Ward, 1973; Gracia & Magistris, 2007; Kalafatis et al., 1999; Chiou, 1998;

Aertsens et al., 2009). Thematic analysis identified that attitude is mostly underpinned

by consumer‟s belief toward the characteristics of organic food, that could be

grouped into three major themes namely the condition of the product, the state of

naturality, and the presence of contamination or any disturbance from insect or

animals that might affect the structure and quality of the food.

Apart from the product characteristics, lifestyle could also potentially

influence the attitude of the consumers. It is empirical to suggest a positive

relationship between healthy lifestyle with the intention to purchase healthier food

products. That is, the more people practice healthy lifestyle, the more likely they are

conscious about their health and consequently choose healthier food to eat. A healthy

lifestyle can be defined in situations when individuals put priority on their health by

15

avoiding any causes that can affect their health condition badly (Bloch, 1984). In a

broader sense, the practice of healthy lifestyle can also be interpreted as the way of a

person reorient his or her life prosperity by expressing it through the activity,

suggestion, decision and interest. Relating healthy lifestyle with food consumption, a

research readily identified that the attitude on organic food consumption was affected

by the kind of lifestyle practiced by consumers (Chen, 2009).

Other determinant, that recently known to influence consumer‟s decision to

purchase organic food is the attitude towards sustainable consumption (Reheul et al.,

2001). Consumers tend to pay attention on the physical attributes of the organic food

such as the type of packaging, the origin of the food, any presence of the product

being genetically modified and also how the organic food is frequently regulated to

ensure superior quality. It is also important to the customers that the organic foods

have sustainable characteristics by looking into the quality, taste, safety, and freshness

which can contribute to favourable and constructive to their health, environment and

regional economics.

In addition, other antecedent that is prominent in motivating consumers to buy

organic food is price. Consumers are often felt satisfied when buying organic foods

as they are perceived to have added value to promote good health (Yiridoe et al.,

2004). Despite the fact that the price of organic food is considerably expansive than

the alternatives, this inconvenience is often counterbalanced by the perceived benefits

obtained from consuming organic food.

Other than attitude, perceived behavioural control (PBC) also is one of the

components in TPB. Perceived behavioural control refers to the perception the

individuals regarding their capacity to occupy in a specific behaviour (Azjen, 1991).

16

Examining the construct, perceived behaviour control concerns with people‟s

judgment regarding obtainable resources such as the ability to purchase. In this

context, most of measured items within this domain are directed to determine one‟s

purchasing power of organic foods that generally perceived to be more expensive.

The time available also is relatively important since people need time to search shops

that sell organic food (Tarkiainen & Sundqvist, 2005). According to Thørgesen

(2009), perceived behavioural control is constructed by perceived barriers and

perceived ability affecting the behaviour in purchasing organic food. Availability and

price are examples of perceived barriers that likely to impede the preference of

organic food (Magnussonnn et al., 2001). For perceived abilities, there is positive

relationship between financial resources and willingness to purchase organic food.

That is, the higher the income of consumers, the more purchasing power they have,

which in turn makes the consumption of organic food is affordable (Riefer & Hamm,

2008).

TPB also includes subjective norms in its framework. It is arguably the most

altruistic variable of the TPB that focuses on the expected reaction of behaviour of

significant individuals in the consumers‟ surroundings. Simply put, it measures the

perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).

Subjective norm is considered to be a function of salient normative belief.

While subjective norm relates to perceptions of general social pressure, the underlying

normative beliefs are concerned with the likelihood that specific individuals or groups

(referents) with whom the individual is motivated to comply will approve or

disapprove of the behaviour (Armitage & Conner, 2001). In purchasing organic

foods, the consumers would react to surroundings by either purchase, or not to

17

purchase organic food. The action of purchasing is also influenced by attitudes and

behaviour regarding the intentions to purchase organic foods.

The effect of subjective norms on the behaviour intention, as published in

literature, revealed inconsistencies. HoveTarkianinen and Sundqvist (2005) found no

direct and significant correlation between intention to purchase and subjective norms;

although a significant positive association was found between for organic food

consumption through attitudes and subjective norms. By applying structural equation

modelling technique, Bamberg et al., (2007) attest that subjective norm is not

correlated with intention, but it has have an indirect influence by impacting perceived

behaviour control, attitudes, norms and guilty emotions regarding pro environmental

behaviour. It is believed that people pursue norms of sociality is not merely due to

being succumb to social pressure but also due to the information given about what the

most effective and proper behaviour is (Bamberg et al., 2007).

Health Belief Model

The Health Belief Model was originally used to explain one‟s preventive

health behaviour (Rosenstock, 1974). This model was initially developed in the

1950s to explain the reason why tuberculosis medical screening programs offered by

the U.S Public Health Servicewas not successful (Hochbaum, 1958). According to

Conner and Norman (1996), since the model inception, a broad range of health

behaviours and populations has been studied using HBM.

There are four main constructs of Health Belief Model, which are perceived

seriousness, perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers. Due

to the advancement of knowledge however, this model has been expanded to include

18

cues to action, and self-efficacy, and other motivating factors relevant to specific

study.

Concerning organic food purchase and intention, there are three relevant HBM

psychosocial constructs. There are Perceived Benefits, Perceived Barriers, and Self-

efficacy. Because of the fact that organic food consumption has not yet scientifically

proven to provide superior benefits when compared to conventional food products,

other HBM dimensions, namely Perceived Severity, Perceived Susceptibility were not

reviewed.

The first reviewed HBM dimension is Perceived Benefits. Janz and Becker

(1984) defined perceived benefits as the belief that people have, prompting them to

take certain action as they recognise derivable benefits from performing

recommended behaviour. Some studies revealed that buying pattern of consumers is

influenced by several factors such as environmental and health consciousness, safety

and quality concerns and exploratory food buying behaviour, as well as specific

products attributes such as nutritional, value taste, freshness and price (Davies et al.,

1995; Roddy et al., 1994; Fotopoulus & Krystallis, 2002). There are two types of

benefits that commonly associated with organic food consumption namely the

benefits related to personal health and safety, and the benefits to the environment.

Perceived barriers on the other hand are potential negative aspects that

obstruct people from taking certain action or recommended behaviour. Commenting

on the utility of HBM Perceived barriers construct, it is proclaimed as one of the most

significant determinant of behaviour change, with a strong hypothesised predictive

value (Janz & Becker, 1984). There are three barriers that commonly cited to prevent

people from buying organic foods. They include the cost of organic food, the

19

availability of organic food in the markets, and consumer‟s distrust regarding claimed

organic foods themselves. Gonvindasamy (1999) affirmed the wide price difference

between organic products and the conventional alternatives inhibit the consumers

from buying organic food products regularly. Besides that, the finding from a study

conducted by Zanoli and Naspetti (2004), identified issues related to organic foods

availability. In their study, consumers‟ difficulty in getting organic foods in the

market, due to limited number of sellers and/with limited selection, had caused people

to settle for conventional alternatives even though most of them were highly

motivated to consume organic food products. Having said that, it is prudent to

acknowledge behaviour change is contingent upon the resources for the intended

behaviour to take place. With respect to fast food consumption, although the

motivation or intention is high, it is impossible to transform the intention into practice

due to lack of choice (organic food availability).

Other dimension that recently integrated into HBM is self-efficacy. As

originally developed by Bandura (1977), self-efficacy construct measures one‟s belief

in own ability to do something. Hypothetically, people with high level of self-

efficacy choose to perform more challenging task (Locke & Latham, 1990) Historical

account ascertains self-efficacy was first added to the original four beliefs of HBM

shortly after its inception in 1977 (Rosentock et al., 1988). Self-efficacy in the

context of the current study refers to the conviction that one can successfully execute

the behaviour – purchasing organic food products, with given various conditions.

20

Healthy Eating Motivation

Another psychosocial determinant influences the respondents‟ intention to

purchase organic food products is the level of motivation. Various studies identified

motivation to eat healthily influences the pattern of food selection and dietary

management. As Healthy Eating Scale (MHES) originally refined from Regulation

of Eating Behavior Scale (REBS), it evaluates the motivational adaptation toward

healthy dietary management (Pelleter et al., 2004). Examining the constructs of this

scale, there are three motivation dimensions according to different set of behavioural

regulatory style. These dimensions are intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and

amotivation. Intrinsic motivation is behaviour that steered by the individuals

themselves while extrinsic motivation is a behaviour that steered by external forces.

Extrinsic motivation consists of four categories which are external regulation,

introjected regulation, identified regulation and integrated regulation (Deci & Ryan,

1985). Two categories of extrinsic motivation measured by this scale include

integrated regulation and identified regulation. Defining each category within

extrinsic motivation measures, external regulation is motivated by behaviour to attain

reward or to prevent punishment probability. Introjected regulation is motivation

from an internalized, pressuring voice. The source of motivation for a behaviour is

guilt, worry or shame. Introjected regulation inspires an individual to enact a

behaviour not because he wants to, but because he fears not to out a sense of

obligation (Anderson, 2015). Identified regulation on the other hand, refers to

embraced behaviour, resulting from a trust that performance of such behaviour is

useful for his well-being and life (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, a person might

be motivated to minimise sugar intake because such action, according to that person,

might cause a healthy blood sugar level, which is crucial goal to achieve. Integrated

21

regulation whereas, refers to behaviour which is paralleled to the aims or target of an

individual. Using the same example, a person might be able to minimise her or his

sugar intake simply because the performance of such behaviour is coherent with her

or his personal goal. Unlike motivation dimensions, amotivation is confined within

individuals who unable to notice the probabilities between their actions and

consequences of their actions, resulting them incapable to predict the effects of their

behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 1985). A previous study by Yoshiko et al., (2012) had used

MHES that have six factor scales to examine healthy eating motivation amongst

female undergraduate students in Japan. Mentioned study modified some of the items

contained in the original scales that previously constructed by Pelletier et al. (2004).

For the current study, healthy eating motivation was measured using modified scales

from Yoshiko et al. (2012) work.

In Malaysia, the establishment of organic farms was first observed in the early

1990s. Back then, the farms were mostly located in the states of Penang, Kuantan,

Perak, Melaka and Negeri Sembilan. Local evidence suggests the development was

contributed by the success of organic compost and fertilisers manufacturing, that

allows local farmers to increase their yield.

Today, local organic agricultural sector is still growing, albeit at a slower

pace. With the increased in demand for organic foods from consumers, there is a

shortage in the supply of locally-produced organic products. As a temporary measure

to accommodate consumer‟s demand, most organic foods products are currently

imported from countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Thailand. For local

farmers, this phenomenon opens a great opportunity to generate more revenues by

22

intensifying the production. Strategy to increase the production of organic food must

therefore be developed and be used as a competitive advantage (Rozhan et al., 2009).

This study was attempted to determine the relationship between the

psychosocial disposition of consumers and their intention to purchase organic food

products. The literature review consists of the discussion of relevant psychosocial

aspects that potentially influence organic food purchase intention. These

psychosocial aspects were abstracted from the constructs of Theory of Planned

Behaviour (TPB), Health Belief Model (HBM) and Healthy Eating Motivation

(HEM).

Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

One of the most important elements in TPB is attitude. Jung (1971) interprets

attitude as a psychological construct that represents an individual‟s readiness to act or

react in a certain way. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) elaborated attitude by three key

features. Firstly, attitude is linked to an entity (an object, a person or behaviour).

Secondly, it includes a general evaluation of this entity as desirable or not and lastly,

it is a physiological predisposition that might or might not be expressed in certain

behaviours.

Relating attitude with intention, positive influence was observed in a number

of studies (Chan, 1999; Chan & Lau, 2000: Dispoto, 1977; Ling-yee, 1997; Maloney

& Ward, 1973; Gracia & Magistris, 2007; Kalafatis et al., 1999; Chiou, 1998;

Aertsens et al., 2009). Thematic analysis identified that attitude is mostly underpinned

by consumer‟s belief toward the characteristics of organic food, that could be

grouped into three major themes namely the condition of the product, the state of

23

naturality, and the presence of contamination or any disturbance from insect or

animals that might affect the structure and quality of the food.

Apart from the product characteristics, lifestyle could also potentially

influence the attitude of the consumers. It is empirical to suggest a positive

relationship between healthy lifestyle with the intention to purchase healthier food

products. That is, the more people practice healthy lifestyle, the more likely they are

conscious about their health and consequently choose healthier food to eat. A healthy

lifestyle can be defined in situations when individuals put priority on their health by

avoiding any causes that can affect their health condition badly (Bloch, 1984). In a

broader sense, the practice of healthy lifestyle can also be interpreted as the way of a

person reorient his or her life prosperity by expressing it through the activity,

suggestion, decision and interest. Relating healthy lifestyle with food consumption, a

research readily identified that the attitude on organic food consumption was affected

by the kind of lifestyle practiced by consumers (Chen, 2009).

Other determinant, that recently known to influence consumer‟s decision to

purchase organic food is the attitude towards sustainable consumption (Reheul et al.,

2001). Consumers tend to pay attention on the physical attributes of the organic food

such as the type of packaging, the origin of the food, any presence of the product

being genetically modified and also how the organic food is frequently regulated to

ensure superior quality. It is also important to the customers that the organic foods

have sustainable characteristics by looking into the quality, taste, safety, and freshness

which can contribute to favourable and constructive to their health, environment and

regional economics.

24

In addition, other antecedent that is prominent in motivating consumers to buy

organic food is price. Consumers are often felt satisfied when buying organic foods

as they are perceived to have added value to promote good health (Yiridoe et al.,

2004). Despite the fact that the price of organic food is considerably expansive than

the alternatives, this inconvenience is often counterbalanced by the perceived benefits

obtained from consuming organic food.

Other than attitude, perceived behavioural control (PBC) also is one of the

components in TPB. Perceived behavioural control refers to the perception the

individuals regarding their capacity to occupy in a specific behaviour (Azjen, 1991).

Examining the construct, perceived behaviour control concerns with people‟s

judgment regarding obtainable resources such as the ability to purchase. In this

context, most of measured items within this domain are directed to determine one‟s

purchasing power of organic foods that generally perceived to be more expensive.

The time available also is relatively important since people need time to search shops

that sell organic food (Tarkiainen & Sundqvist, 2005). According to Thørgesen

(2009), perceived behavioural control is constructed by perceived barriers and

perceived ability affecting the behaviour in purchasing organic food. Availability and

price are examples of perceived barriers that likely to impede the preference of

organic food (Magnussonnn et al., 2001). For perceived abilities, there is positive

relationship between financial resources and willingness to purchase organic food.

That is, the higher the income of consumers, the more purchasing power they have,

which in turn makes the consumption of organic food is affordable (Riefer & Hamm,

2008).

TPB also includes subjective norms in its framework. It is arguably the most

altruistic variable of the TPB that focuses on the expected reaction of behaviour of

25

significant individuals in the consumers‟ surroundings. Simply put, it measures the

perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).

Subjective norm is considered to be a function of salient normative belief.

While subjective norm relates to perceptions of general social pressure, the underlying

normative beliefs are concerned with the likelihood that specific individuals or groups

(referents) with whom the individual is motivated to comply will approve or

disapprove of the behaviour (Armitage & Conner, 2001). In purchasing organic

foods, the consumers would react to surroundings by either purchase, or not to

purchase organic food. The action of purchasing is also influenced by attitudes and

behaviour regarding the intentions to purchase organic foods.

The effect of subjective norms on the behaviour intention, as published in

literature, revealed inconsistencies. Hove Tarkianinen and Sundqvist (2005) found

no direct and significant correlation between intention to purchase and subjective

norms; although a significant positive association was found between for organic food

consumption through attitudes and subjective norms. By applying structural equation

modelling technique, Bamberg et al., (2007) attest that subjective norm is not

correlated with intention, but it has have an indirect influence by impacting perceived

behaviour control, attitudes, norms and guilty emotions regarding pro environmental

behaviour. It is believed that people pursue norms of sociality is not merely due to

being succumb to social pressure but also due to the information given about what the

most effective and proper behaviour is (Bamberg et al., 2007).

26

Health Belief Model

The Health Belief Model was originally used to explain one‟s preventive

health behaviour (Rosenstock, 1974). This model was initially developed in the

1950s to explain the reason why tuberculosis medical screening programs offered by

the U.S Public Health Servicewas not successful (Hochbaum, 1958). According to

Conner and Norman (1996), since the model inception, a broad range of health

behaviours and populations has been studied using HBM

There are four main constructs of Health Belief Model, which are perceived

seriousness, perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers. Due

to the advancement of knowledge however, this model has been expanded to include

cues to action, and self-efficacy, and other motivating factors relevant to specific

study

Concerning organic food purchase and intention, there are three relevant HBM

psychosocial constructs. There are Perceived Benefits, Perceived Barriers, and Self-

efficacy. Because of the fact that organic food consumption has not yet scientifically

proven to provide superior benefits when compared to conventional food products,

other HBM dimensions, namely Perceived Severity, Perceived Susceptibility were not

reviewed.

The first reviewed HBM dimension is Perceived Benefits. Janz and Becker

(1984) defined perceived benefits as the belief that people have, prompting them to

take certain action as they recognise derivable benefits from performing

recommended behaviour. Some studies revealed that buying pattern of consumers is

influenced by several factors such as environmental and health consciousness, safety

and quality concerns and exploratory food buying behaviour, as well as specific

products attributes such as nutritional, value taste, freshness and price (Davies et al.,

27

1995; Roddy et al., 1994; Fotopoulus & Krystallis, 2002). There are two types of

benefits that commonly associated with organic food consumption namely the

benefits related to personal health and safety, and the benefits to the environment.

Perceived barriers on the other hand are potential negative aspects that

obstruct people from taking certain action or recommended behaviour. Commenting

on the utility of HBM Perceived barriers construct, it is proclaimed as one of the most

significant determinant of behaviour change, with a strong hypothesised predictive

value (Janz & Becker, 1984). There are three barriers that commonly cited to prevent

people from buying organic foods. They include the cost of organic food, the

availability of organic food in the markets, and consumer‟s distrust regarding claimed

organic foods themselves. Gonvindasamy (1999) affirmed the wide price difference

between organic products and the conventional alternatives inhibit the consumers

from buying organic food products regularly. Besides that, the finding from a study

conducted by Zanoli and Naspetti (2004), identified issues related to organic foods

availability. In their study, consumers‟ difficulty in getting organic foods in the

market, due to limited number of sellers and/with limited selection, had caused people

to settle for conventional alternatives even though most of them were highly

motivated to consume organic food products. Having said that, it is prudent to

acknowledge behaviour change is contingent upon the resources for the intended

behaviour to take place. With respect to fast food consumption, although the

motivation or intention is high, it is impossible to transform the intention into practice

due to lack of choice (organic food availability).

Other dimension that recently integrated into HBM is self-efficacy. As

originally developed by Bandura (1977), self-efficacy construct measures one‟s belief

in own ability to do something. Hypothetically, people with high level of self-

28

efficacy choose to perform more challenging task (Locke & Latham, 1990) Historical

account ascertains self-efficacy was first added to the original four beliefs of HBM

shortly after its inception in 1977 (Rosentock et al., 1988). Self-efficacy in the

context of the current study refers to the conviction that one can successfully execute

the behaviour – purchasing organic food products, with given various conditions.

Healthy Eating Motivation

Another psychosocial determinant influences the respondents‟ intention to

purchase organic food products is the level of motivation. Various studies identified

motivation to eat healthily influences the pattern of food selection and dietary

management. As Healthy Eating Scale (MHES) originally refined from Regulation

of Eating Behavior Scale (REBS), it evaluates the motivational adaptation toward

healthy dietary management (Pelleter et al., 2004). Examining the constructs of this

scale, there are three motivation dimensions according to different set of behavioural

regulatory style. These dimensions are intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and

amotivation. Intrinsic motivation is behaviour that steered by the individuals

themselves while extrinsic motivation is a behaviour that steered by external forces.

Extrinsic motivation consists of four categories which are external regulation,

introjected regulation, identified regulation and integrated regulation (Deci & Ryan,

1985). Two categories of extrinsic motivation measured by this scale include

integrated regulation and identified regulation. Defining each category within

extrinsic motivation measures, external regulation is motivated by behaviour to attain

reward or to prevent punishment probability. Identified regulation on the other hand,

refers to embraced behaviour, resulting from a trust that performance of such

29

behaviour is useful for his well-being and life (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, a

person might be motivated to minimise sugar intake because such action, according to

that person, might cause a healthy blood sugar level, which is crucial goal to achieve.

Integrated regulation whereas, refers to behaviour which is paralleled to the aims or

target of an individual. Using the same example, a person might be able to minimise

her or his sugar intake simply because the performance of such behaviour is coherent

with her or his personal goal. Unlike motivation dimensions, amotivation is confined

within individuals who unable to notice the probabilities between their actions and

consequences of their actions, resulting them incapable to predict the effects of their

behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 1985). A previous study by Yoshiko et al., (2012) had used

MHES that have six factor scales to examine healthy eating motivation amongst

female undergraduate students in Japan. Mentioned study modified some of the items

contained in the original scales that previously constructed by Pelletier et al. (2004).

For the current study, healthy eating motivation was measured using modified scales

from Yoshiko et al. (2012) work.

30

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theoretical framework developed in this study was based on cognitive-

psychosocial constructs taken from the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and

Health Belief Model (HBM). These constructs were strengthen by the inclusion of

Healthy Eating Motivation measure. As the theoretical framework usually illustrates

the relationships between variables, the independent variables (IV) in the current

study were the psychosocial dispositions of respondents in regard to organic food

products. Measured psychosocial dispositions were Attitude, Subjective Norms,

Perceived Behaviour Control, Perceived Benefits and Perceived Barriers, and Healthy

Eating Motivation. The dependent variable (DV) on the other hand, focused on

measuring respondent‟s behaviour intention to purchase organic food. Figure 2.0

illustrates the conceptual framework of the current study.

31

Figure 2.0:

Theoretical framework for the current study that correlates the psychosocial

disposition with the intention to purchase organic food products.

Independent Variable (Psychosocial

Disposition)

Th

eory

of

Pla

nn

ed B

ehav

iou

r (T

PB

) Attitude

Subjective Norms

Perceived Behavioural Control

Hea

lth

Bel

ief

Mo

del

(H

BM

)

Self-efficacy

Perceived Benefits

Perceived Barriers

Hea

lth

y E

atin

g M

oti

vat

ion

(H

EM

) Intrinsic Motivation

Integrated Motivation

Identified Regulation

Dependent Variable

Behavioural Intention to Purchase

Organic Food Products

32

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The primary purpose of the current study was to identify the

relationship between psychosocial dispositions and the intention to purchase Organic

Food Products. This chapter comprises of explanation on the methodological aspects

of the current study. Explanation includes the selection of research design, the

determination of population and sample size of the current study, the sampling

technique used, the determination of unit of analysis, and data collection procedures.

Elaboration of survey instrument, and effort to maintain the validity of the instrument

used are also provided in this chapter.

Research Design

The correlation research was selected for this study, which examines the

relationships between variables. It provides some indication as to how two or more

things were related to one another or, in effect, what they share or have in common, or

how a specific outcome be predicted by one or more pieces of information (Salkind,

2014). This design was chosen simply because the correlational analysis was deemed

appropriate to ascertain of the association between respondents‟ psychosocial

dispositions and their intention to purchase or consume organic foods.

33

Population

Population refers to the entire group of people, events, or things of interest

that the researcher wishes to investigate (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). With specific

reference to this study, the population refers to the students from Universiti Malaysia

Sarawak that currently enrolled in various academic disciplines. The total number of

current Universiti Malaysia Sarawak students is 20, 000.

Sampling Technique

Sampling is the process of selecting a sufficient number of elements from the

population. The right sampling technique will help to produce more reliable results

(Kelley et al., 2003). The sampling technique chosen was convenience sampling.

Convenience sampling is a type of survey sampling in which the researcher is allowed

to choose convenient members of the population to distribute the questionnaires

(Salkind, 2014). The reasons for the selection are because of its simplicity and the

subjects are promptly available.

Sample Size

According to (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013), the factors affecting decisions on

sample size are the research objective, the extent of precision desired, the acceptable

risk in predicting that level of precision, the amount of variability in the population

itself, the cost and time constraints, and the size of the population itself. With these

factors, it determines how astronomically immense the sample should be. This study

employed power size estimation technique using G*Power software designed by

Erdfelder, Faul and Buchner (Erdfelder et.al, 2007). To enable the current proposed

34

study to detect small effect size (ρ = 0.10), at least 616 samples would be required to

achieve statistical power not less than 80% (1- β error probability = .80).

Unit of Analysis

Unit of analysis is the subject of whom or what the current study is

investigating (Trochim & Donnelly, 2006). It could be individuals, groups or

organisations. In the current study, the unit analysis is individual students of

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. The respondents were enrolled in various faculties and

field of studies.

Data Collection Procedure

The questionnaire copies were distributed personally by the researcher to the

students who agreed to participate in the study. To identify potential respondents, the

researcher approached the students who were at the time available to complete the

questionnaire. The researcher specifically identified student common areas – library,

Centre of Academic and Information System (CAIS) as the setting for questionnaire

distribution.

As a token of appreciation, a pack of cookies was handed to each student who

completed answering the questions in the questionnaire form.

Survey Instrument

For the current study, the researcher gathers information through

questionnaires. As a tool to collect data, the items in the questionnaire were developed

based on research objectives and research questions related to the study. Items were

35

written in English language, with translation written in Malay language. The content

of the questionnaire is described below:

Section A: Demographic Background

In section A, questions were developed to gather demographic information of the

respondents namely age, gender, ethnicity, religion, marital status, academic-related

information, BMI status, and the amount of money spent on daily meals. All items

contained in Section A were closed-ended questions.

Section B: Psychosocial Dispositions towards Organic Food Products

In section B, the items constructed were designed to measure psychosocial

dispositions of the respondents regarding organic food, its consumption and purchase.

Items constructed based on the proposed dimensions of the Theory of Planned

Behaviour (TPB) which include Attitude (19 items), Subjective Norms (15 items) and

Perceived Behavioural Control (4 items). The two components from Health Belief

Model (HBM) were also assessed. They are Perceived Benefits (12 items), Perceived

Barriers (13 items), and self-efficacy (4 items). Other measures included in this part

were intended to measure respondent‟s Healthy Eating Motivation (HEM). The scale

consists of four constructs namely Intrinsic Motivation (5 items), Integrated

Regulation (5 items), identified regulation (5 items) and amotivation (5 items). As all

items were written in statement form, respondents were asked to indicate their

36

level of agreement using seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 to indicate

strong disagreement, to 7 to indicate strong agreement.

Section C: Behavioural Intention to Purchase Organic Food Products

In section C, the items asked were to measure the respondent‟s intention to purchase

organic food products. Similar to section B items, seven-point Likert-type scale was

used to solicit respondent‟s agreement on the seven statements provided.

Validity of Instrument

In the current study, the development of the questionnaire was guided by

researcher‟s supervisor, Mr. Aziz Jamal, who is known to be an expert in the area of

health behaviour. The relevance of each item in the questionnaire was carefully

checked and reviewed. Necessary modifications were made to items that were

thought trivial, irrelevant and requiring further expansion.

The instrument was also tested for face and content validity. Face validity is a

property intended to measure the appropriateness of questionnaires copy (Salkind,

2014). Simply put, a test can be said to have face validity to “looks like” it is going to

measure what it is supposed to measure (Salkind, 2014). To get the questionnaire

items face validated, two lecturers from the department of nutrition and dietetics,

faculty of health science, from UiTM were consulted. These individual were Dr.

Norazmir bin Md Nor and Mrs. Naleena Devi D/o Muniandy.

37

CHAPTER 4

FINDING

This chapter presents the results of data analyses performed on collected data.

Discussions are divided into three parts. The first part discusses the findings on

demographic data, and the results of descriptive analyses of each research dimension

contained in the study framework. The second part discusses the result of reliability

analysis of developed instruments, normality test and means scores comparison of all

dimensions in this study.

The third part on the other hand discusses the result of correlation analysis

between respondents‟ psychosocial disposition and their Behavioural Intention to


Survey Returned Rate

A total of 616 questionnaire copies were conveniently distributed to the

respondents. Of 616 questionnaire copies distributed, only 26% (n=160) of

questionnaire copies was completed and returned to the researcher. Data from 160

copies of questionnaire returned were therefore included for data analyses.

38

Part A: Descriptive Analysis

This part discusses the results of descriptive analyses performed on each

questionnaire item.

Question item 1-11: Demographic Background of Respondent

Item 1 to 11 were designed to gather respondent‟s demographic information

namely age, gender, ethnicity, religion, marital status, highest academic qualification

obtained, level of academic programme enrolled, academic field , year of academic

programme, BMI status and estimated daily meal allowance.

From the total of 160 respondents, the descriptive statistics revealed a great

number of students were from the age group of 21 to 23 years old (79.4% [n=127])

and female (61.9% [n=99]). Most of the respondents identified themselves as Malay

(63.1% [n=101]) and Islam (70.0% [n=112]). Descriptive statistic also revealed that

majority of the respondents are single and unmarried (99.4% [n=160]). When asked

to supply the information regarding body weight and height for BMI status, majority

of the students‟ BMI were within normal BMI value, 18.5 to 24.9 (63.7% [n=160]).

Table 4.01 summarises the demographic background of the respondents.

39

Table: 4.01

Characteristic of the respondents (N = 160)

Characteristic n % Total (%)

Age (years) 100

18 – 20 13 8.1

21 – 23 127 79.4

24 – 26 19 11.9

27 and above 1 .6

Gender 100

Male 61 38.1

Female 99 61.9

Ethnicity 100

Malay 101 63.1

Indian 6 3.8

Chinese 25 15.6

Others 28 17.5

Religion 100

Islam 112 70.0

Buddha 6 3.8

Hinduism 13 8.1

Christian

Others

27

2

16.9

1.3

Marital Status 100

Single 159 99.4

Married 1 .6

40

The highest academic qualification reported by the respondents was

SPM/STPM school certificate (85.6% [n=137]) and the level of academic programme

currently enrolled by the respondent was Bachelor‟s degree level (95.0% [n=152]).

Most of the respondents were currently in their second and third year (41.3% [n=66]

and 28.7% [n=46] respectively). Additionally, most of the respondents were currently

enrolled in academic programmes, unrelated to health and medical field (96.9%

[n=155]). Lastly, most respondents reported to spend less than RM20 on daily meals

(85.0% [n=136]). Table 4.01.1 summarises the academic information of the

respondents, and the amount of money spent on daily meals.

41

Table 4.01.1

Characteristics of the respondents (N=160)

Characteristics n % Total (%)

Highest Academic Qualification Obtained 100

SPM/STPM 137 85.6

Post-high school certificate 9 5.6

Diploma

Degree

11

3

6.9

1.9

Level of Current Enrolled Academic Programme 100

Certificate/Diploma 5 3.1

Degree 152 95.0

Master 3 1,9

Year of Academic Programme 100

First Year 35 21.9

Second Year 66 41.3

Third Year 46 28.7

Fourth Year 13 8.1

BMI 100

Underweight (below 18.5) 23 14.4

Normal (from 18.5 to 24.9) 102 63.7

Overweight (from 25.0 to 29.9) 19 11.9

Obese (30 and above) 16 10.0

Academic field 100

Medical/ Health Related 5 3.1

Others 155 96.9

Total Spending 100

0 – 19 136 85.0

20 – 40 24 15.0

42

Question item 12 – 18: Attitude

Items 12 – 18 were taken from the first dimension of Theory of Planned

Behaviour (TPB) - Attitude. The attitude toward the behavior refers to the degree to

which a person has a favourable or unfavourable evaluation of the behavior in

question. For the items 12 until 18, the construction of statements was designed to

assess direct attitude of respondents in regards to organic food product consumption

and purchase. Descriptive analysis revealed the highest mean was for the item

“Overall, I think eating organic products is a healthier choice” (M = 5.56, SD =

1.24), indicated most respondents were moderately agreed with the statement

provided. The lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item “Overall,

organic food products are just a marketing gimmick” (M = 4.08, SD = 1.36),

indicated respondents were neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. Table

4.02 summarises the mean values for all attitude items.

Table: 4.02

Item Response for Attitude (N = 160)

Item Mean SD

Direct Measure

12. Overall, I think eating organic products is a healthier choice. 5.56 1.24

13. Overall, I think organic food products cost more than they‟re

worth.* 5.19 1.27

14. Overall, I think organic food products have superior quality. 5.61 1.17

15. Overall, organic food products are just a marketing gimmick.* 4.08 1.36

16. Overall, I think organic food products taste better than

conventional food 4.29 1.31

17. Overall, I think the production of organic food products is

environmentally friendly. 5.18 1.26

18. Overall, I think organic foods are more nutritious than others. 5.51 1.20

* Items 13 & 15 were reverse-coded

43

Question item 19 – 24: Behavioural Beliefs

Questionnaire items 19 – 24 measured indirectly the attitude of respondents by

evaluating their behavioral belief. Descriptive analysis revealed the highest mean

was for the item “If I choose to eat organic foods, my body would be healthier” (M =

5.44, SD = 1.26), indicated most respondents were moderately agreed with the

statement provided. The lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item “If I

choose to eat organic foods, I might have to travel far to buy them” (M = 4.44, SD =

1.58), indicating the respondents were neither agreed nor disagreed with the

statement. Table 4.03 summarises the mean values for all Behavioural Beliefs items.

Table 4.03

Item response for Indirect Measures Behavioural Beliefs (N = 160)

Item Mean SD

Indirect Measure

19. If I choose to eat organic foods, my body would be healthy. 5.44 1.26

20. If I choose to eat organic foods, I would be able to protect the

environment. 5.30 1.23

21. If I choose to eat organic foods, I might have to travel far to buy

them.* 4.44 1.58

22. If I choose to eat organic foods, I would be less likely to suffer from

illness. 5.14 1.34

23. If I choose to eat organic foods, my body‟s immunity could be

strengthened. 5.28 1.15

24. If I choose to eat organic foods, I would physically better. 5.43 1.13

* Items 21 was reverse-coded

44

Questionnaire item 25 – 30: Outcome Evaluation

Questionnaire items 25 to 30 were designed to indirectly assesse the attitude of

the respondents by measuring their evaluation of behaviour and its possible outcomes.

Descriptive analysis revealed the highest mean was for the item “It is desirable to me

to keep my body healthy” (M = 6.08, SD = .994), indicated most respondents were

moderately agreed with the statement provided. The lowest mean score on the other

hand, was for the item “It is desirable to me to get organic food where ever they are

available” (M = 5.43, SD = 1.247), indicating the respondents were moderately

agreed with the statement. Table 4.04 summarises the mean values for all Outcome

Evaluation items.

Table: 4.04

Item response for Outcome Evaluation (N = 160)

Item Mean SD

22. It is desirable to me to keep my body healthy. 6.08 .994

23. It is desirable to me to be able to protect the environment. 5.78 1.10

24. It is desirable to me to get organic food where ever they are

available. 5.43 1.25

25. It is desirable to me to get protected from illnesses. 5.89 1.11

26. It is desirable to me to get my immunity strengthened. 5.96 1.09

27. It is desirable to me to feel better physically. 5.94 1.11

45

Question item 31 – 55: Direct Measures of Subjective Norms

Items 31 to 35 were taken from the second TPB dimension – Subjective

Norms. This dimension measures respondent‟s belief about whether people approve

or disapprove the decision to consume or purchase organic food products. Descriptive

analysis revealed the highest mean was for the item “Most people I know believe that

eating organic food is a healthier choice” (M = 4.83, SD = 1.32), indicating most

respondents were neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement provided. The

lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item “People who are important to

me think that I should NOT waste my money on organic products” (M = 4.04, SD =

1.6), indicating the respondents were neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement

provided. Table 4.05 summarises the mean values for all Subjective Norms (Direct

Measure) items.

Table: 4.05

Item response for Perceived Barrier (N = 160)

Item Mean SD

31. Most people who are important to me want me to choose

organic food 4.65 1.29

32. Most people I know believe that eating organic food is a

healthier choice. 4.83 1.32

33. People who are important to me want me to eat organic food. 4.76 1.31

34. I am expected to choose organic over conventional food. 4.78 1.38

35. People who are important to me think that I should NOT waste

my money on organic products.* 4.04 1.6

* Items 35 was reverse-coded

Questionnaire item 36 -45: Normative Belief and Motivation to Comply (Indirect

Measures)

46

Items 36 – 45 were developed to indirectly measure the subjective norms of

the respondents by evaluating the Normative Belief and Motivation to Comply.

Normative Belief items in the current study measure the belief whether each referent

(significantly important to the respondents) approve or disapproves the respondent‟s

decision to consume or purchase organic food products. Motivation to comply on the

other hand measures respondent‟s motivation to do what each referent thinks.

Combining items from both Normative Belief and Motivation to comply, descriptive

analysis revealed the highest mean was for the motivation to comply item “Doing

what my parents think I should do is important to me” (M = 5.94, SD = 1.10),

indicating most respondents were moderately agreed with the statement provided.

The lowest mean score on the other hand, was for normative belief item “My close

friends would DISAPPROVE my preference for organic foods” (M = 3.51, SD = 1.4),

indicating slightly disagreed with the statement provided. Table 4.06 summarises the

mean values for all Normative Belief and Motivation to Comply items.

47

Table: 4.06

Item response for Normative Belief and Motivation to Comply (Indirect Measure)

(N = 160)

Item Mean SD

Normative Belief

36. My parents think I SHOULD eat organic foods. 4.81 1.30

37. My close friends would DISAPPROVE my preference for

organic foods.* 3.51 1.41

38. My classmates think I SHOULD eat organic foods. 4.46 1.27

39. My siblings think I SHOULD eat organic foods. 4.61 1.40

40. My loved one thinks I SHOULD NOT waste my money on

organic foods.* 3.65 1.62

Motivation to Comply

41. Doing what my parents think I should do is important to me. 5.94 1.10

42. My close friends‟ approval of what I do is important to me. 4.78 1.53

43. Doing what my classmates think I should do is important to

me. 4.38 1.55

44. Doing what my siblings think I should do is important to me. 5.28 1.22

45. Following my love one‟s advice is important to me. 3.93 1.96

* Items 37& 40 were reverse-coded

48

Question item 46 – 49: Perceived Behavioural Control

Items 46 – 49 were taken from the third TPB dimension – Perceived

Behaviour Control. This dimension measures respondent‟s overall perceived control

over the performance of the behaviour. Descriptive analysis revealed the highest mean

was for the item “The decision to buy and consume organic food rests entirely on me”

(M = 5.83, SD = 1.10), indicating most respondents were moderately agreed with the

statement provided. The lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item “To

decide whether or not to buy and consume organic food is easy for me” (M = 4.91,

SD = 1.36), indicating the respondents were neither agreed nor disagreed with the

statement provided. Table 4.07 summarises the mean values for all Perceived

Behavioural Control items.

Table: 4.07

Item response for Perceived Behavioural Control (N = 160)

Item Mean SD

46. To decide whether or not to buy and consume organic food is

easy for me 4.91 1.36

47. The decision to buy and consume organic food rests entirely on

me. 5.83 1.10

48. If organic foods were available in the shops, nothing will

prevent me from buying them. 5.43 1.24

49. No one could easily influence me to buy or not to buy organic

foods. 5.53 1.34

49

Question item 50 – 54: Self-efficacy

Questionnaire items 50 – 54 were developed to measure the respondent‟s self-

efficacy. Self-efficacy in the context of the current study refers to the conviction that

one can successfully execute the behaviour required to produce outcomes. Descriptive

analysis revealed the highest mean was for the item “I am confident that organic

foods is a better choice even if most people doubt the benefits” (M = 4.93, SD = 1.30),

indicating most respondents were slightly agreed with the statement provided. The

lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item “I am sure that I could get

organic products, even if I have to travel far to buy them” (M = 4.20, SD = 1.53),

indicating similar level of agreement. Table 4.08 summarises the mean values for all

Self-efficacy items.

Table: 4.08

Item response for Self-Efficacy (N = 160)

Item Mean SD

50. I am certain that I could get organic foods, even if they are

costly. 4.50 1.52

51. I am confident that organic food is a better choice even if most

people doubt the benefits. 4.93 1.3

52. I am sure that I could get organic products, even if I have to

travel far to buy them. 4.20 1.53

53. I am certain that I could purchase organic products, even if the

selection is limited. 4.43 1.37

54. I am certain that I could get organic foods, even if most people

disapprove my decision. 4.50 1.48

50

Question item 55 – 60: Perceived Benefits

Items 55 to 60 were taken from second dimension of HBM – Perceived

Benefit. This dimension measures the perception of potential positive aspects of

organic food purchase or consumption. Assessment in this part was focused on the

benefits associated with health and safety. Descriptive analysis revealed the highest

mean was for the item “I could get more vitamins and minerals from organic products

(M = 5.28, SD = 1.23), indicating most respondents were moderately agreed with the

statement provided. The lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item “I am

rest assured that organic food products contain no harmful chemicals” (M = 4.60, SD

= 1.38), indicating the respondents were neither agreed nor disagreed with the

statement. Table 4.09 summarises the mean values for all Health and Safety Benefit

items.

Table: 4.09

Item response for Health and Safety Benefit (N = 160)

Item Mean SD

HBM – Perceived Benefits (Health and Safety Benefit)

55. I am rest assured that organic food products contain no harmful

chemicals. 4.60 1.38

56. Organic food products reduce my chance to get food poisoning. 4.78 1.31

57. Consuming organic products would keep my health condition at

its best. 5.07 1.23

58. Organic food products prevent me from getting serious illnesses. 5.03 1.24

59. My body immunity will be strengthened if I eat organic products. 4.99 1.32

60. I could get more vitamins and minerals from organic products. 5.28 1.23

51

Question item 61 – 66: Perceived Benefits (Environment Benefit)

Questionnaire items 61 to 66 measured Perceived Benefits from the

consumption and purchase of organic foods, to the environment. Descriptive analysis

revealed the highest mean was for the item “Organic farming reduces environmental

pollution” (M = 5.31, SD = 1.144), indicating most respondents were moderately

agreed with the statement provided. The lowest mean score on the other hand, was

for the item “Organic are non-genetically modified products, so it is safe to consume

and good for environment” (M = 5.08, SD = 1.22), indicating similar level of

agreement. Table 4.10 summarises the mean values for all Environment Benefit

items.

Table: 4.10

Item response for Perceived Benefits (Environment Benefit) (N =160)

Item Mean SD

HBM – Perceived Benefits (Environmental Benefits)

61. Organic farming reduces environmental pollution. 5.31 1.14

62. Soil and water contamination could be prevented by organic

farming. 5.28 1.17

63. The production of organic food is necessarily energy-efficient. 5.24 1.15

64. I could protect the environment by buying organic products 5.31 1.12

65. Organic foods are non-genetically modified products, so it is safe

to consume and good for environment. 5.08 1.22

66. Organic farming supports community trade. 5.21 1.23

52

Question item 67– 79: Perceived Barrier

Items 67 to 79 were taken from the HBM dimension - Perceived Barrier. This

dimension measures respondent‟s perception on the potential negative aspects on a

particular health action that may act as impediments to undertaking the recommended

behavior. Respondent‟s evaluation includes potential barriers related to cost,

availability and trust/distrust. Descriptive analysis revealed the highest mean was for

the item “The cost of organic food products is expensive” (M = 5.48, SD = 1.18),

indicating most respondents were moderately agreed with the statement provided.

The lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item “Health benefits from

eating organic foods are not yet proven” (M = 4.71, SD = 1.34), indicating the

respondents were neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. Table 4.11

summarises the mean values for all Perceived Barrier items.

Table: 4.11

Item response for Perceived Barrier (N = 160)

Item Mean SD

Cost

67. The cost of organic food products is expensive 5.48 1.18

68. Organic food products cost more than they‟re worth. 4.83 1.31

69. As a student, I can't afford to buy organic foods. 5.08 1.50

70. Because of my limited financial allowance, buying organic

food products is not an option. 5.11 1.47

Availability

71. Organic shops are too far from my house. 4.98 1.50

72. It is hard to look for organic foods in nearby area. 4.91 1.44

73. Only few shops that I know sell organic food products. 4.95 1.38

74. Even if organic food products are available, the selection is too

limited. 5.09 1.23

53

Table 4.11.1

Item Mean SD

Trust/Distrust

75. There is a chance that conventional food products are labelled

as organic. 5.06 1.11

76. The production of claimed organic food products might not

meet the standard. 5.23 3.26

77. Health benefits from eating organic foods are not yet proven. 4.71 1.34

78. Sellers might claim their products are organic to boost the

sales. 5.41 1.11

79. Nutritional value as labelled in most organic products might be

inaccurate. 5.24 1.12

54

Questionnaire item 80– 99: Healthy Eating Motivation

Questionnaire items 80-94 were designed to measure the respondent‟s healthy

eating motivation. The construct of this dimension was further divided into four sub-

dimensions namely Intrinsic Motivation, Integrated Regulation, Identified regulation

and Amotivation. Descriptive analysis revealed the highest mean was for Identified

Regulation item “I believe healthy eating will eventually allow me to feel better” (M =

5.88, SD = 1.04), indicated most respondents were strongly agreed with the statement

provided. The lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item “In regards to

healthy eating I don‟t know. I can‟t see how my efforts to eat healthy are helping my

health situation” (M = 3.73, SD = 1.63), indicating most respondents were slightly

disagreed with the statement provided. Table 4.12 summarises the mean values for all

Healthy Eating Motivation items.

Table: 4.12

Item response for Health Eating Motivation (N = 160)

Item Mean SD

Intrinsic Motivation

80. I like to find new way to create meals that are good for health. 5.09 1.36

81. It is fun to create meals that are good for my health. 5.47 1.13

82. I am interested in eating healthy 5.54 1.21

83. I take pleasure in fixing healthy meals. 5.42 1.19

84. I am satisfied with eating healthy 5.64 1.11

Integrated Regulation

85. Eating healthily is an integral part of my life. 5.31 1.21

86. Eating healthily is congruent with other important aspects of my

life. 5.31 1.14

87. Eating healthily is base of my life. 5.41 1.18

88. Regulating my eating behaviours has become a fundamental part

of who I am 5.18 1.29

89. Eating healthily is part of the way I have chosen to live my way. 5.29 1.18

55

Table 4.12.1

Items Mean SD

Identified Regulation

90. I believe healthy eating will make my mind and body comfortable. 5.81 1.03

91. I believe healthy eating will eventually allow me to feel better 5.88 1.04

92. Healthy eating is a way to ensure long-term health benefits. 5.83 1.12

93. I believe healthy eating is a good thing I can do to feel better

about myself in general. 5.61 1.21

94. Not only eat good food, healthy eating is a good idea to try to

regulate my eating behaviors. 5.62 1.16

Amotivation

95. In regards to healthy eating I don‟t really know. I truly have the

impression that I‟m wasting my time trying to regulate my eating

behaviors.

4.05 1.67

96. In regards to healthy eating I can‟t really see I‟m getting out of it. 4.18 1.62

97. In regards to healthy eating I don‟t really know why I bother. 3.88 1.74

98. In regards to healthy eating I don‟t know. I can‟t see how my

efforts to eat healthy are helping my health situation. 3.73 1.63

99. In regards to healthy eating I think there are more important

things to do than to eat healthy. 3.86 1.78

56

Question item 100 – 103: Behavior Intention

Questionnaire items 100 – 103 were designed to measure the respondent‟s

Behavior Intention. Items within this construct measure respondents‟ perceived

likelihood or „subjective probability‟ that the person would purchasing organic food

products. Descriptive analysis revealed the highest mean was for the item “I intend to

buy organic food products on a regular basis.” (M = 4.69, SD = 1.39), indicating

most respondents were neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement provided. The

lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item “I plan to buy organic food

products on a regular basis” (M = 4.58, SD = 1.40) and for the items “I have decided

to buy organic food products on a regular basis.” (M = 4.58, SD = 1.40), indicating

similar level of agreement. Table 4.13 summarises the mean values for all Behavior

Intention items.

Table: 4.13

Item response for Behavior Intention (N = 160)

Item Mean SD

100. I plan to buy organic food products on a regular basis. 4.58 1.40

101. I intend to buy organic food products on a regular basis 4.69 1.39

102. I have decided to buy organic food products on a regular

basis. 4.58 1.40

103. I will buy organic food products on a regular basis. 4.63 1.46

57

Part B: Reliability Analysis of Developed Instruments

To measure the internal consistency of scales developed for the current study,

reliability statistics were computed. Results revealed that all items summated to

represent TPB, HBM, Self-efficacy, HEM and Behavioural Intention dimensions were

satisfactorily consistent, as evidenced by the Cronbach‟s alpha values (α>.70). Table

4.14 summarises the result of reliability statistics for TPB-based, Health Belief Model

(HBM), Self-Efficacy, Healthy Eating Motivation (HEM) and Behavioural Intention

questionnaire items.

Table: 4.14

Reliability Statistics for the TPB, HBM, SE, HEM and BI Questionnaire Items (N =

160)

Dimension

Cronbach‟s Alpha

TPB

Attitude .73

Subjective Norm .74

P. Behaviour Control .73

HBM

Perceived Beneftt .93

Perceived Barrier .80

SE, HEM, and BI

Self-efficacy .89

Healthy Eating Motivation .95

Behavioural Intention .95

58

Data Distribution Analyses

To analyse the distribution of data supplied by the respondents, computed

mean scores for HBM-based Perceived Benefits and Perceived Barriers were checked

using Standard Deviation (SD), Skewness and Kurtosis values. In the current study,

the researcher used the threshold ± 1 to indicate normal distribution. Results for the

analysis revealed the standard deviation and skewness values for all dimensions were

normal. Examining the kurtosis values, Perceived Benefit and Perceived Barrier scale

was somehow leptokortosed (Kurtosis = -.108) and (Kurtosis = -.206) respectively.

Because of data were not normally distributed, non-parametric test, Mann-whitney U

would be used to compare means between groups, and Spearman test for determining

the association between variables. Data distribution for TPB scales is summarised in

Table 4.15.

Table: 4.15

Result of Normality test performed on means scores of Health Belief Model (HBM)

dimensions (N = 160)

Dimension Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis

1. Perceived Benefit Overall 5.10 .91 .81 -.108

2. Perceived Barrier Overall 5.08 .84 .18 -.206

Computed mean scores for all TPB dimensions were also checked using

Standard Deviation, Skewness and Kurtosis values. Results for the analysis revealed

the standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis values for all dimensions were not

normal. Data distribution for TPB scales are summarised in Table 4.16.

59

Table: 4.16

Result of Normality test performed on means scores of Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

dimensions (N = 160)


1. Attitude Overall 5.34 .76 -.96 3.43

2. Subjective Norm Overall 4.56 .69 -.09 .779

3. Perceived Behaviour Control 5.42 .94 -.39 -.237

Self-efficacy, Health Eating Motivation (HEM) and Behaviour Intention

dimensions mean scores also were checked using similar technique. Results from the

analyses revealed the standard deviation values for all dimensions were normal.

However, examining the kurtosis values, self-efficacy and behaviour intention scales

were somehow leptokurtic (Kurtosis = +.368) and (Kurtosis = +.308). Because of

data between scales were normally distributed, non-parametric test namely, Pearson

be used to compare means between groups, and Spearman Rank Correlation

Coefficient test for determining the association between variables. Data distribution

for Self-efficacy, Health Eating Motivation (HEM) and Behavioural Intention scales

is summarised in Table 4.17.

Table: 4.17

Result of Normality test performed on means scores of Self-Efficacy, Health Eating

Motivation and Behaviour Intention dimensions (N = 160)


1. Self-Efficacy 4.51 1.19 -.25 .368

2. Health Eating Motivation 5.10 .67 .07 .060

3. Behaviour Intention 4.62 1.32 -.47 .308

60

Mean Comparison

To determine if there was significant difference between the mean scores of

dimension contained in within the research framework, when compared across

respondents‟ socio-demographic groups, a T-Test was computed. The difference

would be considered statistically significant value (represented by p-value) was equal

or smaller than 0.05. The effect size of mean difference (d-value) was calculated

manually using the following formula:

√

Where:

X1 = Mean for group 1

X2 = Mean for group 2

12 = Variance of group 1

22 = Variance of group 2

The effect size of each statistically differentiated mean score would be

interpreted using guideline by Cohen (1988). Table 4.18 shows Cohen‟s d values

with the corresponding interpretation of difference magnitude.

Table: 4.18

Threshold for Interpreting Effect Size d

D Difference Magnitude

.20 Small

.50 Medium

.80 Large

Source: Cohen (1988)

61

The mean score for Attitude showed female respondents was higher when

compared with the mean score supplied by male respondents, with almost medium

effect size (M = 5.46 (SD = .79) vs. (M = 5.16 (SD = .67) (t = -2.6, p = .01, d = .41).

Statistically, female respondents had better attitude regarding organic food

consumption and purchase when compared with the male respondents.

When compared between respondents ethnicity, Malay respondents showed

higher attitude mean score compared with the non-Malay respondents with nearly

medium effect size (M = 5.46 (SD = .71) vs (M = 5.14 (SD = .80) (t = 2.5, p = .01, d =

.42). This could be interpreted that the Malay respondents had more favourable

attitude towards organic foods than non-Malay respondents. Similarly, Malay

respondents were also reported to have higher mean score of Self-efficacy and

Subjective Norms (M = 4.59 (SD = 1.19) vs (M = 4.37 (SD = 1.19) (t = 5.77, p = .00,

d = .18) and (M = 4.65 (SD = .67) vs (M = 4.41 (SD = .69) (t = 2.1, p = .03, d = .35),

but with rather small effect size

Although statistically significant differences were observed among few tested

variables, the effect size of Attitude and Subjective Norm were medium (d = .35 to d

= .42). Calculated power analysis indicated that in order for the current study to

accept moderate effect size, at least 102 samples were required. The current study has

employed 160 samples, thus it has sufficient power for the research to accept the

finding.

For the difference between Self-efficacy means scores across respondent‟s

ethnicity, the effect size was rather small (d = .18). Calculated power analysis

showed that in order for the current study to accept small effect size, at least 620

samples were required. As the current study only employed 160 samples the results

62

were therefore underpowered and must be interpreted with cautions. Table 4.19

summarises the result of mean comparison analysis performed.

Table: 4.19

Mean Score Comparison on Selected Respondent‟s Socio-demographic Variables (N

= 160)

Socio-

demographic

variables

Mean (SD) of self-reported score for TPB and HBM dimensions

Attitude Subjective

Norm

Health Belief

Model PBR SE

Gender

Male 5.16 (.67) 4.59 (.65) 4.97 (.78) 4.94 (.80) 4.47 (.9)

Female 5.46 (.79) 4.54 (.72) 5.17 (.98) 5.17 (.85) 4.54 (1.3)

t=-2.6 t=.41 t=-.1.4 t=-1.6 t=-.40

p =.01 p =.69 p =.15 p =.10 p = .70

d=.41 d=.07 d=.23 d=.28 d=.06

Ethnicity

Malay 5.46 (.71) 4.65 (.67) 5.19 (.86) 5.10 (.86) 4.59 (1.19)

Other 5.14 (.80) 4.41 (.69) 4.94 (.98) 5.06 (0.8) 4.37 (1.19)

t=2.5 t=2.1 t=1.67 t=.32 t=5.77

p = .01 p =.03 p =.10 p = .75 p = .00

d=.42 d=.35 d=.27 d=.05 d=.18

Total Spending

< RM20 5.34 (.75) 4.57 (.69) 5.10 (.88) 5.07 (.83) 4.50 (1.18)

> RM20 5.35 (.83) 4.53 (.69) 5.08 (1.10) 5.18 (.84) 4.62 (1.28)

t=-.02 t=.25 t=.07 t=-.61 t=-.44

p = .99 p =.80 p = .95 p = .55 p = .67

d=.01 d=.06 d=.02 d=.13 d=.10

Year of Academic Program

Final Year 5.37 (.84) 4.55 (.67) 5.24 (.76) 5.13 (.82) 4.65 (1.09)

Other 5.33 (.71) 4.57 (.70) 5.01 (.98) 5.06 (.85) 4.43 (1.24)

t=-.37 t=.20 t=-1.67 t=-.49 t=-1.16

p = .72 p = .85 p =.10 p = .63 p = .25

d=.05 d=.03 d=.26 d=.08 d=.19

BMI

Normal 5.40 (.70) 4.63 (.66) 5.17 (.88) 5.17 (.89) 4.68 (1.10)

Other 5.25 (.85) 4.44 (.74) 4.97 (.96) 4.93 (.72) 4.22 (1.30)

t=1.14 t=1.56 t=1.33 t=1.86 t=2.29

p = .26 p = .12 p = .19 p = .07 p = .24

d=.19 d=.27 d=.22 d=.30 d=.38

63

Because of mean scores for some variables were not normally distributed;

mean comparison analyses were performed using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U

test. The difference would be considered statistically significant if the significant

value (represented by p-value) was equal or smaller than 0.05. The effect size of

mean difference (r-value) was calculated manually using the following formula:

√

Where,

Z = z statistic

N = Total number of respondents

The effect size of each statistically differentiated mean score would be

interpreted using guideline by Rosenthal (1994) and Rosenthal & Rosnow (1984).

Table 4.20 shows Cohen‟s r values with the corresponding interpretation of

difference magnitude.

Table: 4.20

Threshold for Interpreting Effect Size

r equivalent to d Interpretation of size of difference

.10 Small

.24 Medium

.37 Large

Source: Rosenthal (1994); Rosenthal & Rosnow (1984)

64

Overall, only few mean scores were statistically differentiated by respondents‟

groups of socio-demographic variables, as evidence by the test result obtained. In

particular, Malay and female respondents had the higher mean score of Attitude

(equation here) and Perceived Behavioural Control (U = 2202.500, r = -0.2, p = .00)

when compared with score supplied by non-Malay, and male respondents. Malay

respondents were also found to report to higher mean score of Healthy Eating

Motivation when compared with their group counterpart (U = 2348.000, r = -0.2, p =

.03).

Although statistically significant differences were observed among few tested

variables, the effect size were rather small (r = 0.2). Calculated power analysis

indicated that in order for the current study to accept small effect size, at least 650

samples were required. Because the current study only employed 160 samples, the

results were therefore underpowered and must be interpreted with cautions. Table

4.21 summarises the result of mean comparison analyses performed.

65

Table: 4.21

Mean Score Comparison on Selected Respondent‟s Socio-demographic Variables

(N=160)

* PBC =Perceived Behavioural Control, * PB = Perceived Benefits, *PBR = Perceived Barriers,

*HEM = Healthy Eating Motivation

Socio-

demographic

variables

Mean (Sum of Ranks) of self-reported score for TPB and HBM dimensions

Attitude PBC PB PBR HEM

Gender

Male 67.11

(4093.50)

67.11

(4093.50)

75.04

(4577.50)

72.72

(4436.00)

75.75

(4620.50)

Female 88.75

(8786.50)

88.75

(8786.50)

83.86

(8302.50)

85.29

(8444.00)

83.43

(8259.50)

U =2202.500 U =2202.500 U =2686.500 U =2545.000 U =2729.500

r = -0.2 r = -0.2 r = -0.1 r = -0.1 r = -0.1

p = .00 p = .00 p = .24 p = .36 p = .31

Ethnicity

Malay 89.16

(9005.00)

88.08

(8896.00)

84.15

(8499.00)

82.25

(8307.00)

86.75

(8762.00)

Other 65.68

(3875.00)

67.53

(3984.00)

74.25

(4381.00)

77.51

(4573.00)

69.80

(4118.00)

U =2105.000 U = 2214.000 U =2611.000 U =2803.000 U =2348.000

r = -0.2 r = -0.2 r = -0.1 r = -0.0 r = -0.2

p = .00 p = .00 p = .19 p = .53 p = .03

Year of Academic Program

Graduating 85.42

(5039.50)

81.57

(4812.50)

88.50

(5221.50)

82.58

(5872.50)

89.50

(5280.50)

Other 77.63

(7840.50)

79.88

(8067.50)

75.83

(7658.50)

79.28

(8007.50)

75.24

(7599.50)

U =2689.500 U = 2916.500 U =2507.500 U =2856.500 U =2448.500

r = -0.1 r = -0.0 r = -0.1 r = -0.0 r = -0.1

p = .31 p = .82 p = .10 p = .66 p = .06

BMI

Normal 83.68

(8535.00)

83.71

(8538.00)

85.56

(8727.50)

85.15

(8685.50)

84.99

(8668.50)

Other 74.91

(4345.00)

74.86

(4342.00)

71.59

(4152.50)

72.32

(4194.50)

72.61

(4211.50)

U =2634.000 U = 2631.000 U =2441.500 U =2483.500 U =2500.500

r =-0.1 r = -0.1 r = -0.1 r = -0.1 r = -0.1

p = .25 p = .24 p = .07 p = .09 p = .10

66

* PBC= Perceived Behavioural Control, * PB = Perceived Benefits, *PBR = Perceived Barriers,

*HEM = Healthy Eating Motivation

Socio-

demographi

c variables

Mean (Sum of Ranks) of self-reported score for TPB and HBM dimension

Attitude PBC PB PBR HEM

Spending

< RM20 80.54

(10953.00)

81.47

(11080.00)

80.70

(10975.50)

79.50

(10812.00)

79.46

(10806.50)

>RM20 80.29

(1927.00)

75.00

(1800.00)

79.35

(1904.50)

86.17

(2068.00)

86.40

(2073.50)

U =1627.000 U =1500.00 U =1604.500 U =1496.000 U =1490.500

r = -1.8 r = -0.1 r = -0.0 r = -0.1 r = -0.1

p = .98 p = .53 p = .90 p = .52 p = .50

67

Part C: Correlational Analysis

A correlational analysis was performed on two HBM dimensions with

Behaviour Intention. The mean score for Behavior Intention was normally distributed,

thus the Pearson product -moment correlation test was chosen for this analysis. The

result indicated weak (Cohen, 1988), with statistically significant correlation between

two HBM dimensions with Behaviour Intention, namely Perceived Benefit (r = .453,

p = .000) and Perceived Barrier (r = .211, p = .004). Correlation values were positive;

indicating the stronger the agreement of respondents on the items represented by those

dimensions, the more likely the respondents showed strong intention to purchase

Organic Food Products. Table 4.22 summarises the result of correlational analysis

performed.

Table: 4.22

The result of correlational analysis performed on all Health Belief Model (HBM)

dimension scores and Behavioral Intention score, the intention to purchase organic

food products(N = 160)

Variable 1 2 3

1. Perceived Benefits - - -

2. Perceived Barriers .21** - -

3. Behavioral Intention .45** .21** -

*p <0.05 **p<0.01

68

Similar test was performed to determine the relationship between self-efficacy,

Health Eating Motivation, and Behaviour Intention to purchase organic food products.

The result indicated a strong (Cohen, 1988), with statistically significant correlation

between Self-efficacy (r = .562, p = .000) , and Health Eating Motivation (r = .479, p

= .000), with Behaviour Intention.Correlation values were positive, indicating the

stronger the agreement of respondents on the items represented by those dimensions,

the more likely the respondents show strong intention to purchase Organic Food

Products. Table 4.23 summarises the result of correlational analysis performed.

Table: 4.23

The result of correlational analysis performed on Self-efficacy and Health Eating

Motivation scores with Behavior Intention score the intention to purchase Organic

Food Products (N = 160)

Dimension 1 2 3

1. Self-efficacy - - -

2. Health Eating Motivation .48** - -

3. Behavioral Intention .56** .48** -

*p <0.05 **p<0.01

69

A correlational analysis was performed on all TPB dimensions. Because of the

mean score of Behaviour Intention was not normally distributed, a Spearman Rank

Order Correlation test was chosen for this purpose. The result indicated a strong

(Cohen, 1988), but statistically significant correlation between two TPB dimensions

with Behaviour Intention, namely Attitude (r = .452, p = .000) and Subjective Norm

(r = .496, p = .000). Perceived Behaviour Control also showed a statistically

significant relationship with behaviour intention albeit with a medium effect size (r =

.388. p = .000). All correlation values were positive; indicating the stronger the

agreement of respondents on the items represented by those dimensions, the more

likely the respondents showed strong intention to purchase Organic Food Products.

Table 4.24 summarises the result of correlational analysis performed. On the other

hand Table 4.25 displays the results of inter-correlation analyses with the inclusion of

all variables of the current study.

Table: 4.24

The result of correlational analysis performed on TPB dimensions with Behaviour intention

to purchase organic food products (N = 160).

Dimension 1 2 3 4

1. Attitude - - - -

2. Subjective Norm .50** - - -

3. Perceived Behavior Control .67** .32** - -

4. Behavioral Intention .45** .50** .39** -

*p <0.05 **p<0.01

70

Table: 4.25

The result of Inter-correlation analyses inclusive all research variables of the current

study (N = 160)

Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Attitude - - - - - - - -

2. Subjective

Norm .55** - - - - - - -

3.

Perceived

Behaviour

Control

.67** .32** - - - - - -

4. Self-

efficacy .53** .56** .49** - - - - -

5. Perceived

Benefit .69** .42** .54** .61** - - - -

6. Perceived

Barrier .27** .24** .24** .19** .21** - - -

7.

Healthy

Eating

Motivation

.54** .52** .46** .56** .58** .25** - -

8. Behavioural

Intention .45** .50** .39** .56** .45** .21** .48** -

*p <0.05 **p <0.01

71

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter consists of summary of findings, conclusion and

recommendations drawn from results of the data analyses. The conclusion part

focuses on the answering the research questions developed in earlier chapter. On the

other hand, few recommendations are also proposed to relevant authorities to

strengthen the presence of organic food products among university students. Several

recommendations were also proposed to future researchers aiming at reducing the

methodological limitations when conducting similar studies.

Demographic profile

Most of the respondents were female (n =99, 61.9%) and aged between 21 to

23 years old (n=127, 63.1%). A great majority of the respondents were Malays

(n=101, 63.1%) and reported Islam as their religion (n=112, 70.0%). The most

reported marital status was single and unmarried (n=159, 99.4%). A great majority of

the respondents had SPM/STPM school certificates as their highest educational level

attained (n=137, 85.6%). When asked regarding the level of academic programme that

the respondent were currently enrolled, most of the respondents were currently

enrolled in bachelor‟s degree programme (n=152, 95.0%). Majority of the

respondents were also reported to study in academic programme, unrelated to health

and medical field (n=155, 96.9%).

72

In addition, most of the respondents were in the second year of academic

programme (n=66, 41.3%). Calculated BMI status revealed that most of the

respondents were within the normal range of 18.5 to 24 of BMI values (n=102,

63.7%). This proportion was followed by the respondents with underweight status

(n=23, 14.4%) and overweight (n=19, 11.9%). When asked to estimate the total

spending on daily meals, most respondents spend between RM0 – RM19 daily

(n=136, 85.0%), followed by RM20 – RM40 daily (n=24, 15.0%).

73

Research Objective 1:

To determine the attitudes of university students in regard to Organic Food Products.

Research Question 1:

How was Organic Food Products perceived by the students?

From the descriptive analysis performed on Attitude items, the results revealed

that majority of the respondents perceived organic foods as healthy products. Overall

mean score for Attitude dimension that comprised both direct and indirect measures

was (M = 5.34, SD = .76). This mean value could be interpreted as slight agreement

for overall attitude dimension items. Ajzen & Fishbein (2005) states that background

factors such as individuals‟ experience are important variables during the process of

formation of consumer attitudes and behaviour.


To determine the attitudes of university students in regard to Organic Food Products.


What are the perceived benefits that could be derived from the decision to purchase

Organic Food Products?

Health and Safety Benefit, and Environment Benefit were the perceived

benefits that could be derived from consumption and purchase of organic food

products. Overall mean score for Perceived Benefit items was (M = 5.10, SD = .91).

The respondents were slightly agreed that the consumption of organic food products

might contribute to better health and at the same time consumption or purchase of

organic food might be able to protect the environment. According to (Jan, Kwang &

Agrawal, 2011), health and environmental concerns together with trust of organic

food shaped the Malaysian consumers‟ attitude towards organic food.

74


To determine the attitudes of university students in regard to purchase Organic Food

Products.


What specific barriers and enablers that characterize student‟s decision to purchase

organic food products?

There were three main barriers proposed in this study namely barriers related

to cost, related to availability and trust/distrust issues regarding the products and

sellers. Slight agreement was shown for overall mean score for perceived barrier (M =

5.08, SD = .84). Most of the respondents recognised cost of the organic food as

specific barriers and enablers that characterised the decision to purchase organic food

product. According to a study by (Timmins, C., 2010), the enablers for consumers to

purchase organic foods are perceived healthier than conventional alternatives, better

taste, price dependent and fewer chemical/toxins. Meanwhile, the barriers are the

perception that organic foods are just a con or a gimmick that prevent the consumers

to purchase organic food products.


To ascertain the level of intention of student to purchase Organic Food Products.


To what extent the student intent purchase Organic Food Products?

Based on the analysis, the overall mean score for student‟s intention to

purchase organic food products was M = 4.62, (SD = 1.32). Most of the respondents

were uncertain in their intention to purchase organic food products on a regular basis.

Results revealed that the students were unsure to purchase the organic food products

75

because of lack consciousness towards organic foods. Based on previous study by

(Pino, G., Peluso M. A., & Guido. G., 2012), for occasional consumers, the link

between food safety concerns and purchase intention is fully mediated by attitude

toward organic food products. This suggests that food-related risks are more likely to

generate a favorable disposition toward these products rather than immediately

influencing occasional consumers‟ purchase intentions. Providing arguments in favor

of the safety properties of organic food may have the effect of raising the favorable

attitudes of occasional consumers toward organic farming and its output. In turn, the

more favorable attitudes can be expected to increase the likelihood that these

consumers will purchase organic food.


To correlate students attitude and intention to purchase Organic Food Products.


Is there any significant correlation between student attitudes and their intention to

purchase Organic Food Products?

Correlational analyses were performed to determine the association between

respondent‟s psychosocial dispositions and behaviour intention to purchase organic

foods. To determine the presence (or absence) of significant correlation between

variables, results from correlational analyses, namely level of significant (represented

by p-value) and effect size (represented by r-value) were examined. An association

between variables is said to be statistically significant if the p-value is less than .05

(Cohen, 1988). To observe the effect size (r-value) of a statistically significant

association, the following threshold and interpretation will be used:

76

Table: 4.26

Threshold for Interpreting Effect Size

Interpretation

r Effect size Strength of association

.10 Small Weak

.30 Medium Moderate

.50 Large Strong

.70 Very large Very strong

Source: Cohen (1988)

Another important aspect to be considered when interpreting statistical test is

the power of the study to detect an effect of a given simple size with a given degree of

confidence (Nakagawa & Cuthill, 2007). Determination of study power could be

performed using power analysis. In the current study, power analysis was performed

using G*power Version 3.1.9.2, a statistical software developed by Faul, Buchner,

Erdfelder & Lang (Faul et al, 2007; Fault et al, 2009). Using a correlation normal

bivariate model with 80% achieved power (1-β error prob = .80) as criteria, this study

required at least 616 samples to detect small effect sizes, 67 samples to detect medium

effect size and 23 samples to detect large effect size. Table 4.27 presents the effect

size with given sample size required to detect significant association.

Table: 4.27

Priori sample size calculation with given α, power and effect size

r* Sample size required

(1 – β error prob = .80)

.10 616

.30 67

.50 23

.70 11

*Significant level (1-tailed) was set at .05

77

In the current study, post-hoc power analyses were performed on any association

between variables that found to be statistically significant. The alternate hypotheses

developed for the current study would only be accepted if the achieved power was

equal or exceeded 80%.

H1: Perceived Benefits significantly and positively influences respondent‟s

intention to purchase organic food products.

Correlation analysis using Pearson product -moment correlation coefficient

performed between Perceive Benefits and Behaviour Intention to purchase

organic food products showed a significant positive correlation, with a large

effect size (r= .56, p=.00). Post hoc power analysis performed indicated

sufficient sample size power to accept the alternate hypothesis (H1) as

100% power (1 – β = 1) was achieved. Given this condition, alternate

hypothesis (H1) developed for the current study was accepted.

H2: Perceived Barriers significantly and negatively influences respondent‟s



performed between Perceive Barriers and Behaviour Intention to purchase

organic food products showed a significant positive correlation, with a

medium effect size (r= .21, p=.00). Given this condition, alternate

hypothesis (H2) developed for the current study was rejected.

H3: Self-efficacy significantly and positively influences respondent‟s intention

to purchase organic food products.


performed between Self-efficacy and Behaviour Intention to purchase


78

effect size (r= .56, p=.000). Post-hoc power analysis performed indicated




H4: Attitudes significantly and positively influences respondent‟s intention to


Correlation analysis using Spearman‟s rank-order correlation performed

between Attitude and Behaviour Intention to purchase organic food

products showed a significant positive correlation, with a large effect size

(r= .45, p=.00). Post-hoc power analysis performed indicated sufficient

sample size power to accept the alternate hypothesis (H4) as 99% power (1

– β error prob) was achieved. Given this condition, alternate hypothesis

(H4) developed for the current study was accepted.

H5: Subjective Norms significantly and positively influences respondent‟s



performed between Subjective Norms and Behaviour Intention to purchase


effect size (r= .50, p=.00). Post-hoc power analysis performed indicated




79

H6: Perceived Behavioral Control significantly and positively influences

respondent‟s intention to purchase organic food products.


performed between Perceived Behavioural Control and Behaviour

Intention to purchase organic food products showed a significant positive

correlation, with a medium effect size (r= .39, p=.00). Post-hoc power

analysis performed indicated sufficient sample size power to accept the

alternate hypothesis (H6) as 99% power (1 – β error prob) was achieved.

Given this condition, alternate hypothesis (H6) developed for the current

study was accepted.

H7: Healthy Eating Motivation significantly and positively influences



performed between Healthy Eating Motivation and Behaviour Intention to

purchase organic food products showed a significant positive correlation,

with a large effect size(r= .48, p=.00). Post-hoc power analysis performed

indicated sufficient sample size power to accept the alternate hypothesis

(H7) as 99% power (1 – β error prob) was achieved. Given this condition,

alternate hypothesis (H5) developed for the current study was accepted.

80

Table 4.28

Summary of the Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis Statement Result 1 – β error

prob Remark

H1 Perceived Benefits significantly and positively influences respondent‟s


r = .56, p =

.00

1 Accepted

H2 Perceived Barriers significantly and negatively influences respondent‟s


r = .21, p =

.00

.84 Rejected

H3 Self -efficacy significantly and positively influences respondent‟s


r = 56, p = .00 1 Accepted

H4 Attitudes significantly and positively influences respondent‟s intention to


r = .45, p =

.00

.99 Accepted

H5 Subjective Norms significantly and positively influences respondent‟s


r = .50, p =

.00

1 Accepted

H6 Perceived Behavioral Control significantly and positively influences


r = .39, p =

.00

.99 Accepted

H7 Health Eating Motivation significantly and positively influences


r = .48, p =

.00

.99 Accepted

81

Recommendations

The following recommendations were suggested to strengthen the organic food

industry in Malaysia. For the organic food marketers, it is recommend to intensify the

promotion of organic food products through the use of mass media that includes

television, radio, internet.. The use of such media as promotional tool might increase

the awareness of potential consumers regarding the available organic food products in

the markets. . In addition, market expansion might be necessary to ensure the

products are easily recognised by the consumers

Specific actions at the ministry level are welcomed to control the prices of organic

food products. Next, in the results showed that the students had higher motivation to

purchase organic food products so it is recommended to Ministry of Health or

provider to hold a campaign regarding the benefits eating organic food products. It is

also recommended to the Ministry of Health Malaysia to give incentive to the retailers

who sold organic food products to the student as the current study is focused on

students. By doing this, the retailers would feel motivated to sell organic food

products.

82

Recommendations for the future research

For the future researchers who are interested in conducting similar study, it is

recommended for to conduct a study that could measure the effect of specific

intervention aiming at increasing the acceptance level of organic food products.

Future research could include different variables such as the exposure of media as

the sources of information. Analysis could therefore ascertain the extent of such

source of information influence both perception and knowledge regarding organic

food.

In addition, future researchers could conduct the study in different setting, not

limited to a university. The result could be therefore compared with current study

and allow the direction for future and additional study to be made.

83

References

Aertsens, Verbeke & Mondelaers. (2009). Personal determinants of organic food

consumption: a review, British Food Journal, 111 (10), 1140-1167.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Organizational Behaviour &

Human Decision Processes, 50 (2) , 179-211.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behaviour. In D.

Albarracin, B.T. Johnson & M. P. Zanna (eds.) The Handbook of attitudes.

Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. p. 173-221.

Anderson, E. (2015). 5 different types of motivation. Demand Media. eHow.com.

Armitage, C. J. & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. A

Meta-analytic Review, 40, 471-499.

Bamberg, S., Hunecke, M. & Blobau M., A. (2007). Social context, personal norms &

the use of public transportation: two field studies. Journal of

Environmenta Psychology, 27 (3), 190-203.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bauer, H., Heinrich, D., & Schafer, D. (2013). The effects of organic labels on global,

local, and private brands: More hype than substance? Journal of Business

Research, 66 (8), 1035-1043.

Bloch, P. (1984). The wellness movement: Imperatives for health care marketers.

Journal of Health Care Marketing, 4 (1), 9-16.

Byrne, P. J., Toensmeyer, U. C., & German, C. L. (1991). Analysis of consumer

attitude toward organic produce purchase likelihood. Journal of Food

Distribution Research, 22 (2), 49-62.

Chan, R.Y.K. (1999). Environmental attitudes and behavior of consumers in china:

Survey findings and implications. Journal of International Consumer

Marketing, 11 (4), 25-52.

84

Chan, R.Y.K., & Lau, L.B.Y. (2000). Antecedents of green purchases: A survey in

China. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17 (4), 338-357.

Cheah, C. M. (2009). A study on consumers green purchasing intention. Masters

Thesis, College of Business, University Utara Malaysia, Malaysia.

Chen, M. F. (2009). Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic

foods in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food

Quality and Preference,18 (7), 1008-1021.

Chinnici, G., D‟Amico, M., & Pecorino, B. (2002). A multivariate statistical analysis

on the consumers of organic products. British Food Journal, 104 (3/4/5), 187-

199.

Cocke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd

Edition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Conner, M. & Norman, P. (1996). Predicting Health Behaviour. Search and Practice

with Social Cognition Models. Open University Press: Ballmore:

Buckingham.

Davies, A., Titterington, A.J. & Cochrane, C. (1995). Who buys organic food? A

profile of the purchasers of organic food in Northern Ireland. British Food

Journal, 97 (10), 17-23.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in

human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Dispoto, R.G. (1977). Interrelationships among measures of environmental acitivity,

emotionality and knowledge. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

37 (2), 451-459.

DOA. (2009). Statistics on organic production, Department of Agriculture, Malaysia.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Texas: Fort worth,

85

Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower: A general power analysis

program. Journal of Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computer,

28 (1), 1-11.

Essau, C., Lewinsohn, P., & Olaya, B. (2014). Anxiety Diorders in adolescents and

psychosocial outcomes at age 30. Journal of Affective Disorders, 163, 125-

132.

Fotopoulos, C. & A. Krystalis (2002). Organic Product avoidance. Reasons for

rejection and potential buyers‟ identification in a countrywide survey. British

Food J., 104 (3-5): 233-260.

Goldman, M. C. & Hylton, W. (1972). The Basic Book of Organically Grown Foods.

Erasmus, Pennsylvania: Rodale Press.

Govindasamy, R. & Italia J. (1999). Predicting willingness to pay a premium for

organically grown fresh produce. Journal of Food Distribution research,

30(2), 44-53.

Gracia, A., & Magistris, T. (2007). Organic food product purchase behaviour: a pilot

study for urban consumers in the South of Italy. Spanish Journal of

Agricultural Research, 5 (4), 439-451.

Harper, G. C. & Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food

productions and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104 (3/4/5), 287-

299.

Hochbaum, G.M. (1958). Public participation in Medical Screening Programs: A

socio-Psychological Study (Public Health Service Publication No. 572).

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2012). Product labelling in the market for organic food:

Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different certification logos.

Journal of Food Quality and Preference, 25 (1), 9-22.

Jan P.V., Kwang S.N. & Agrawal A. (2011). Determinants of willingness to purchase

organic food. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review

(IFAMA). 14(2).

Janz, N. K. & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A decade later.

Health Education Quarterly, 11(1), 1-47.

86

Jolly, D.A. (1991). Differences between buyers and nonbuyers of organic produce and

willingness to pay organic price premiums. Journal of Agribusiness, 9 (1), 97-

111.

Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological Types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kalafatis, S. P., Michael., Robert, E., & Markos H. T. (1999). Green marketing and

Ajzen‟s theory of planned behavior: A cross-market examination. Journal of

Consumer Marketing, 16 (5), 441-460.

Kelley, K., Clark, B., & Brown, V. (2003). Good practice in the conduct and reporting

of survey research. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 15 (3),

261-266.

Klonsky, K. & Tourte, L. (1998). Organic agricultural production in the United

States: Debates and directions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,

80 (5), 1119-1124.

Li, L. Y. (1997). Effect of collectivist orientation and ecological attitude on actual

environmental commitment: The moderating role of consumer demographics

and product involvement. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9,

31-53.

Liu, L. J. (2003 July). Enhancing sustainable development through developing green

food: China‟s option. Paper presented for Mission of China to the United

Nations in Geneva.

Magnusson, M.K., Arvola, A., & Hursti, U. K. K. (2001). Attitudes towards organic

foods among Swedish consumers. British Food Journal, 103 (3), 209-227.

Maloney, M.P., & Ward, M.P. (1973). Ecology: Lets hear from the people: An

objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge.

American Psychologist, 28 (7), 583-586.

Monteiro, C., Levy, R.., & Claro, R. (2011). Increasing consumption of ultra-

processed foods and likely impact on human health: evidence from Brazil.

Journal of Public Health Nutrition, 14 (1), 5-13.

87

Nakagawa, S & Cuthill, I.C (2007). Effect Size, Confidence Interval and Statistical

Significance: a practical guide for biologist. Biological Reviews Vol. 82:

591 – 605.

Newell, D., Koopmans, M., Verhoef, L., Duizer, E., & Sprong, H. (2010). Food-borne

diseases – The challenges of 20 years ago still persist while new ones continue

to emerge. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 139, 3-15.

Radman, M. (2005). Consumer consumption and perception of organic products in

Croatia. British Food Journal, 107 (4), 263-273.

Rauber, F., Campagnolo, P., & Hoffman, D. (2014). Consumption of ultra-processed

food products and its effects on children‟s lipid profiles: A longitudinal study.

Journal of Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardivascular Disease. 1-7.

Rao, A. R., & Bergen, M. E. (1992). Price Premium Variations as a Consequence of

Buyers' lack of Information'. Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (3), 412-423.

Reheul, D., E. Mathijs, & J. Relaes. (2001). Elements for a future view with respect to

sustainable agri-and horticulture in Flanders, Dissertation abstract

„„Sustainable Agriculture”, Stedula, Ghent.

Riefer, A. and Hamm, U. (2008). Changes in families‟ organic food consumption.

Paper presented at 12th Congress of the European Association of Agricultural

Economists.

Rosenstock, I.M., Strecher, V.J. & Becker, M.H. (1988). Social learning theory and

the Health Belief Model. Health Education Quarterly, 15(2), 175-183.

Rosenstock, I.M., (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health

Education Monographs, 2, 328-335.

Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R.L., (1984), Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods

and Data Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rosenthal, R (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. The Handbook of Research

Synthesis (eds. Cooper, H.R. & Hedges, Lv) Sage; New York.

Rozhan, A. B., Ahmad Zairy, Z., & Abu Kasim, A. (2009). Consumer‟s perceptions,

consumption and preference on organic product: Malaysian perspective.

Journal of Economic and Technology Management, 4, 95-107.

88

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and The Facilitation

Of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development and Well-being. American

Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Pelletier, L. G., Dion, S. C., Angelo, M., S., & Reid, R. (2004). Why Do You

Regulate What You Eat? Relationships Between Forms of Regulation, Eating

Behaviors, Sustained Dietary Behavior Change, and Psychological

Adjustment. Motivation and Emotion, 28 (3), 245-277.

Pino. G, Peluso M.A. & Guido, G. (2012). Determinants of Regular and Occasional

consumers‟ Intentions to Buy Organic Food. The Journal of Consumer

Affairs, 46(1), p.157-168.

Salkind, J. N. (2014). Exploring Research. United States of America: Pearson

Education Limited.

Scallan, E., Hoekstra, R., Angulo, F., Tauxe, R., & Widdowson, M. (2011).

Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States – Major Pathogens. Journal

of Emerging Infectious Diseases, 17 (1), 1-9.

Schifferstein, H. N. J. & Peter, A M. (1998). Health-related determinants of organic

food consumption in The Netherlands. Food Quality Preference, 9 (3), 119-

133.

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business United Kingdom:

John Willey & Sons Ltd.

Suissa, A. J. (2014). Cyberaddictions: Toward a psychosocial perspective. Journal of

Addictive Behaviors, 39 (12), 1914-1918.

Tarkiainen, A. & Sundquist, S. (2005). Subjective norms, attitudes & intentions of

Finnish consumers in buying organic foods. British Food Journal, 107 (11),

808-822.

Thøgersen, J. (2009). Traditional Food Production Facing Sustainability: A European

Challenge. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Timmins, C. (Oct, 2010). Consumer Attitudes towards Organic Foods. Beaufort

Research, Cardiff.

89

Tse, A. C. B. (2001). How much more are consumers willing to pay for a higher level

of service? A preliminary survey. Journal of Services Marketing, 15 (1), 11-

17.

Trochim, W., & Donnelly, J. P. (2006). The Research Methods Knowledge Base.

Cincinnati: Atomic Dog Publishing.

Williams, P. R. D., & Hammit, J. K. (2001). Perceived risks of conventional and

organic produce: pesticides, pathogens, and natural toxins. Risk Analysis, 21,

319-330.

Winter, C., & Davis, S. (2006). Organic foods. Journal of Food Science, 71 (9), 117-

124.

Yiridoe, E. K., Bonti-Ankomah, S., & Martin, R. C. (2004). Comparison of consumer

perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced

foods: a review and update of the literature. Journal of Renewable Agriculture

and Food Systems, 20 (4), 193-205.

Yoshiko, K., Makoto, I., Roth, R., Tomoko, H., & Greimel, E. (2012). Psychometric

Validation of the Motivation for Healthy Eating Scale (MHES). Scientific

Research: Psychology, 4 (2), 136-141.

Zanoli, R. & Naspetti, S. (2002). Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic

food: A means-end approach. British Food Journal, 104, 8, ISSN 0007

070X, 643-653.

90

APPENDIX A: Cover Letter

91

Center for Management and Administration Studies

Faculty of Business Management

Universiti Teknologi MARA

Puncak Alam Campus

Dear Respondent,


AND THE INTENTION TO PURCHASE ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS.

As a final year student of Bachelor‟s Degree of Health Administration (Hons.), I am in the process of

completing a research with a title “The Correlates of University Students‟ Psychosocial Dispositions

and Intention to Purchase Organic Food Products.”

As one of identified potential respondents for this study, I would be grateful if you could spend some

time to complete this questionnaire. Your assistance in providing valuable input for this study would

be very much appreciated.

Rest assured that all data collected would be treated with the strictest CONFIDENTIALITY. The

results would not be individually identified and only aggregated data would be analysed and reported

Should you have queries regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact me:


Phone no.: 014-6891695

Email: [email protected]

Your cooperation is highly appreciated. Thank you.

Yours Sincerely,

________________________


Researcher

92

Pusat Pengajian Pengurusan dan Pentadbiran

Fakulti Pengurusan Perniagaan

Universiti Teknologi MARA

Kampus Puncak Alam

Kepada Responden,

KAJIAN MENGENAI HUBUNG KAIT DI ANTARA PEMBAWAAN PSIKOSOSIAL

PELAJAR UNIVERSITI DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MEMBELI PRODUK MAKANAN

ORGANIK.

Sebagai pelajar tahun akhir Ijazah Sarjana Muda Pentadbiran Kesihatan (Kepujian), saya kini dalam

proses menyiapkan penyelidikan yang bertajuk “Hubung Kait di antara Pembawaan Psikososial

Pelajar Universiti dengan Niat untuk Membeli Produk Makanan Organik.”

Memandangkan anda adalah salah seorang daripada responden yang telah dikenal pasti berpotensi

untuk kajian ini, saya berbesar hati sekiranya anda dapat meluangkan masa untuk melengkapkan

borang soal selidik ini. Bantuan anda dalam memberikan pandangan dan input yang berharga untuk

kajian ini amatlah dihargai.

Semua data yang dikumpul akan dianggap SULIT. Keputusan tidak akan digunakan untuk mengenal

pasti individu dan hanya data yang telah digabungkan sahaja akan dianalisis dan dilaporkan.

Sekiranya anda mempunyai sebarang pertanyaan yang lebih lanjut mengenai kajian ini, sila hubungi

saya:


No. telefon: 014-6891695

Emel: [email protected]

Kerjasama anda amat dihargai. Sekian, terima kasih.

Yang benar,

__________________________


Penyelidik

93

APPENDIX B: Questionnaire

94

ARAHAN: Sila tandakan (√) pada jawapan yang paling tepat mengenai anda dan isikan

jawapan pada tempat kosong yang disediakan.

27 tahun dan ke atas

27 years old and above

2. Jantina (Gender)

Lelaki (Male)

Perempuan (Female)

3. Bangsa (Ethnicity)

Melayu (Malay)

India (Indian)

Cina (Chinese)

Lain-lain (Others)

Nyatakan (Please State): _________________

INSTRUCTION: Please tick (√) for the best answer that represents you and fill-in your response in the blanks

provided.

1. Umur (Age)

18 – 20 tahun

18 – 20 years old

21 – 23 tahun 21 – 23 years old

24 – 26 tahun 24 – 26 years old

BAHAGIAN A: LATAR BELAKANG DEMOGRAFIK

SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND

95

4. Agama (Religion)

Islam Buddha (Islam) (Buddhism)

Hindu Kristian (Hinduism) (Christianity)

Lain-lain (Others)

Nyatakan (Please state): __________________

5. Taraf Perkahwinan (Marital Status)

Bujang

(Single)

Berkahwin

(Married)

6. Tahap Pendidikan Tertinggi (Highest academic qualification obtained)

SPM/STPM Ijazah (SPM/STPM) (Degree)

Sijil lepasan sekolah Master (Post-high school certificate) (Master)

Diploma (Diploma)

7. Tahap Program Akademik Sedang dalam Pengajian (Level of current enrolled academic programme)

Certificate/Diploma Master (Sijil/Diploma) (Master)

Ijazah Ph.D

(Degree) (PhD)

8. Program yang sedang diambil (Academic field of current programme)

Berkaitan Kesihatan/Perubatan Lain-lain (Others)

(Medical/Health-related) Nyatakan (Please state)

________________________

96

9. Tahun Pengajian (Year of academic programme)

Tahun Pertama Tahun Ketiga (First Year) (Third Year)

Tahun Kedua Tahun Keempat (Second Year) (Fourth Year)

10. Berapakah berat anda? (What is your current body weight?)

Sila isi dalam kilogram (kg) ATAU paun (lbs). (Please fill either in kilogram (kg) OR pound (lbs.)

.................... kg ..................... lbs.

Berapakah ketinggian anda? (What is your current height?)

Sila isi dalam sentimeter (cm) ATAU (kaki/inci). (Please fill either in centimetre (cm) OR (feet/inches)

.................... cm .................... inches

11. Berapa jumlah wang yang selalunya dibelanjakan oleh anda untuk hidangan harian berikut: How much money do you usually spend on the following daily meals: Nota: Tandakan „0‟ sekiranya tidak berkenaan/Write „0‟ if the meal is not applicable.

Sarapan

Breakfast RM:. . . . . . . . . . ./Sehari (Daily)

Minum pagi (9 – 10am)

Morning Break RM:. . . . . . . . . . ./Sehari (Daily)

Makan tengahari

Lunch RM:. . . . . . . . . . ./Sehari (Daily)

Minum petang (3 – 4pm)

Evening snack RM:. . . . . . . . . . ./Sehari (Daily)

Makan malam

Dinner RM:. . . . . . . . . . ./Sehari (Daily)

Makan lewat malam

Late Night Snack/Supper RM:. . . . . . . . . . ./Sehari (Daily)

97

ARAHAN: Berikut merupakan pernyataan bertujuan untuk mengukur sikap anda

terhadap pemakanan produk organik. Sila bulatkan pada skala yang paling

tepat mewakili jawapan anda.

INSTRUCTION: The following statements are intended to examine the attitudes towards eating organic foods

Please circle for the scale that best represents your agreement.

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

AT

DM

12.

Secara keseluruhan, saya fikir produk

makanan organik adalah pilihan terbaik.

Overall, I think eating organic products is a healthier

choice.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

13. Secara keseluruhan, saya fikir harga produk

makanan organik melebihi dari nilainya.

Overall, I think organic food products cost more than

they're worth

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

14. Secara keseluruhan, produk makanan organik

mempunyai kualiti yang tinggi.

Overall, I think organic food products have superior

quality.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

15.

Secara keseluruhan, produk makanan organik

hanyalah gimik pasaran. Overall, organic food products are just a marketing

gimmick.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

BAHAGIAN B: PEMBAWAAN PSIKOSOSIAL TERHADAP

PEMAKANAN PRODUK ORGANIK.

SECTION B: PSYCHOSOCIAL DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS

98

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

16. Secara keseluruhan, saya fikir produk

makanan organik mempunyai rasa yang lebih

baik daripada makanan biasa.

Overall, I think organic food products taste better than

conventional food.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

17. Secara keseluruhan, saya fikir pemprosesan

produk makanan organik ialah mesra alam.

Overall, I think the production of organic food products

is environmentally friendly.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

18. Secara keseluruhan, saya fikir makanan

organik lebih berkhasiat daripada yang lain.

Overall, I think organic foods are more nutritious than

others.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

BB

IM

Sekiranya saya memilih untuk makan makanan organik…

If I choose to eat organic foods…

19. …badan saya akan sihat. …my body would be healthy.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

20. …saya mampu melindungi persekitaran. …I would be able to protect the environment.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

21. …saya mungkin perlu berjalan jauh untuk

membeli makanan organik.

…I might have to travel far to buy them.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

99

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

Sekiranya saya memilih untuk makan makanan organik…

If I choose to eat organic foods…

22. …peluang untuk saya mendapat penyakit

adalah kurang.

…I would be less likely to suffer from illness.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

23. …imun tubuh badan saya lebih kuat.

…my body's immunity could be strengthened.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

24. …secara fizikal, saya merasa baik.

…I would physically feel better.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

OE

Adalah menjadi keinginan saya untuk... It is desirable to me to… 25.

…memastikan tubuh badan saya sihat.

…keep my body healthy.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26. …mampu untuk melindungi persekitaran.

…be able to protect the environment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27. …mendapatkan produk makanan organik di

mana sahaja ianya boleh didapati.

…get organic food where ever they are available.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28. …mendapat perlindungan daripada penyakit.

…get protected from illnesses.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29. …mendapatkan imun sistem yang kuat.

…get my immunity strengthened.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30. …merasa baik secara fizikal.

…feel better physically.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

100

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

SN

DM

31. Kebanyakan mereka yang penting bagi saya

mahukan saya memilih makanan organik.

Most people who are important to me want me to choose

organic food.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

32. Kebanyakan mereka yang saya kenal percaya

memakan makanan organik adalah pilihan yang

sihat.

Most people I know believe that eating organic food is a

healthier choice.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


mahukan saya memakan makanan organik.

People who are important to me want me to eat organic

foods.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

34.

Saya diharapkan untuk memilih makanan

organik berbanding makanan konvensional.

I am expected to choose organic over conventional food.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


merasakan saya TIDAK patut membazirkan

wang untuk makanan organik.

People who are important to me think that I should NOT

waste my money on organic products.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

101

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

NB

IM

36. Ibu bapa saya merasakan saya PATUT makan

makanan organik.

My parents think I SHOULD eat organic foods.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

37.

Teman rapat saya akan TIDAK BERSETUJU

mengenai pilihan terhadap makanan organik.

My close friends would DISAPPROVE my preference for

organic foods.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

38. Rakan sekelas saya merasakan saya PATUT

makan makanan organik.

My classmates think I SHOULD eat organic foods.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

39. Adik-beradik saya merasakan saya PATUT

makan makanan organik.

My siblings think I SHOULD eat organic foods.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

40. Kekasih saya merasakan saya TIDAK PATUT

membazirkan duit saya untuk membeli makanan

organik.

My loved one thinks I SHOULD NOT waste my money on

organic foods.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

102

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

MTC

IM

41.

Melakukan perkara yang ibu bapa saya

sarankan adalah penting bagi saya.

Doing what my parents think I should do is important to

me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

42.

Keizinan teman rapat mengenai perkara yang

saya lakukan adalah penting bagi saya.

My close friends‟ approval of what I do is important to me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

43.

Melakukan perkara yang disarankan rakan

sekelas adalah penting bagi saya.

Doing what my classmates think I should do is important

to me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

44.

Melakukan perkara yang disarankan adik-

beradik saya adalah penting bagi saya.

Doing what my siblings think I should do is important to

me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

45.

Mengikut nasihat kekasih saya adalah penting

bagi saya.

Following my love one‟s advice is important to me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

PBC

46.

Untuk membuat keputusan samada ingin

membeli atau menggunakan makanan organik

adalah mudah bagi saya.

To decide whether or not to buy and consume organic food

is easy for me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

103

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

47.

Keputusan untuk membeli dan menggunakan

makanan organik bergantung kepada saya.

The decision to buy and consume organic food rests

entirely on me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

48.

Sekiranya makanan organik mudah didapati

tiada yang dapat menghalang saya untuk

membelinya.

If organic foods were available in the shops, nothing will

prevent me from buying them.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

49.

Tiada siapa boleh mempengaruhi saya untuk

membeli atau tidak membeli makanan organik.

No one could easily influence me to buy or not to buy

organic foods.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SE

50.

Saya merasakan saya boleh mendapatkan

makanan organik walaupun ianya mahal.

I am certain that I could get organic foods, even if they are

costly.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

51.

Saya yakin bahawa makanan organik adalah

pilihan yang terbaik, walaupun kebanyakan

orang meragui kebaikannya.

I am confident that organic food is a better choice even if

most people doubt the benefits.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

52.

Saya pasti yang saya boleh mendapatkan

makanan organik walaupun terpaksa berjalan

jauh.

I am sure that I could get organic products, even if I have

to travel far to buy them.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

53.

Saya merasakan saya boleh membeli makanan

organik walaupun pilihannya terhad.

I am certain that I could purchase organic products, even

if the selection is limited.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

104

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

54.

Saya merasakan saya boleh mendapatkan

makanan organik walaupun kebanyakan orang

tidak bersetuju dengan keputusan saya.

I am certain that I could get organic foods, even if most

people disapprove my decision.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

HBM – PB

H & SB

55. Saya tetap yakin produk makanan organik

tidak mengandungi bahan kimia yang

berbahaya.

I am rest assured that organic food products contain no

harmful chemicals.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

56. Makanan organik mengurangkan risiko saya

mendapat keracunan makanan.

Organic food products reduce my chance to get food

poisoning.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

57. Menggunakan produk organik memastikan

kesihatan saya di tahap yang baik.

Consuming organic products would keep my health

condition at its best.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

58. Produk makanan organik mengelakkan saya

daripada mendapat penyakit-penyakit yang

serius.

Organic food products prevent me from getting serious

illnesses.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

59. Imuniti badan saya menjadi kuat sekiranya

saya memakan produk organik.

My body immunity will be strengthened if I eat organic

products.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

105

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

60. Saya boleh mendapat lebih vitamin dan

mineral daripada produk organik.

I could get more vitamins and minerals from organic

products.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

EB

61. Perladangan organik mengurangkan

pencemaran alam sekitar.

Organic farming reduces environmental pollution.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

62. Pencemaran ke atas tanah dan air boleh

dielakkan dengan perladangan organik.

Soil and water contamination could be prevented by

organic farming.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

63. Penghasilan makanan organik semestinya

menggunakan tenaga yang cekap.

The production of organic food is necessarily energy-

efficient.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

64. Saya boleh melindungi alam sekitar dengan

membeli produk organik.

I could protect the environment by buying organic

products.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

65. Makanan organik tidak diubahsuai secara

genetik, jadi ia selamat untuk digunakan dan

baik untuk persekitaran.

Organic foods are non-genetically modified products, so

it is safe to consume and good for environment.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

66. Penanaman organik menyokong komuniti

perdagangan.

Organic farming supports community trade.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

106

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

PBR

CS

67. Harga produk makanan organik adalah mahal.

The cost of organic food products is expensive.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

68. Nilai produk makanan organik adalah tidak

setimpal dengan harganya.

Organic food products cost more than they‟re worth.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

69. Sebagai pelajar, saya tidak mampu membeli

makanan organik.

As a student, I can't afford to buy organic foods.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

70. Disebabkan peruntukan kewangan saya yang

terhad, membeli makan organik bukan pilihan

saya.

Because of my limited financial allowance, buying organic

food products is not an option.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

AVL

71. Kedai organik sangat jauh dari kawasan

perumahan saya.

Organic shops are too far from my house.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

72. Ianya suasah untuk mencari makanan organik di

kawasan berhampiran.

It is hard to look for organic foods in nearby area.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

73. Hanya beberapa kedai yang saya tahu menjual

produk makanan organik.

Only few shops that I know sell organic food products.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

107

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

74. Walaupun makanan organik boleh didapati,

pilihannya adalah sangat terhad.

Even if organic food products are available, the selection

is too limited.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

TRS

75. Ada kebarangkalian produk makanan

konvensional dilabel sebagai organik.

There is a chance that conventional food products are

labelled as organic.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

76.

Pemprosesan makanan organik mungkin tidak

menepati tahap piawaian.

The production of claimed organic food products might

not meet the standard.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

77. Kebaikan kesihatan memakan makanan organik

masih belum terbukti.

Health benefits from eating organic foods are not yet

proven.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

78.

Penjual mungkin mengaku produk mereka

adalah organik untuk meningkatkan jualan.

Sellers might claim their products are organic to boost the

sales.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

79.

Nilai nutrisi seperti yang dilabel dalam

kebanyakan produk makanan organik mungkin

tidak tepat.

Nutritional value as labelled in most organic products

might be inaccurate.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

108

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

HEM

INM

80.

Saya suka mencipta hidangan baru yang baik

untuk kesihatan.

I like to find new way to create meals that are good for

health.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

81. Ia adalah sesuatu yang menyeronokkan untuk

menyediakan hidangan yang baik untuk

kesihatan saya.

It is fun to create meals that are good for my health.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

82. Saya berminat mengamalkan pemakanan yang

sihat.

I am interested in eating healthy.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

83. Saya berasa seronok dalam menyediakan

hidangan yang sihat.

I take pleasure in fixing healthy meals.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

84. Saya berpuas hati dengan cara pemakanan

yang sihat.

I am satisfied with eating healthy.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

IR

85. Pemakanan yang sihat adalah sebahagian

daripada hidup saya.

Eating healthily is an integral part of my life.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

86. Pemakanan yang sihat selaras dengan aspek

lain dalam kehidupan saya.

Eating healthily is congruent with other important

aspects of my life.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

109

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

87. Pemakanan yang sihat adalah asas kepada

kehidupan saya.

Eating healthily is base of my life.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

88. Mengawal tabiat pemakanan telah menjadi

sebahagian asas daripada diri saya.

Regulating my eating behaviors has become a

fundamental part of who I am.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

89. Pemakanan yang sihat adalah jalan yang telah

saya pilih dalam kehidupan.

Eating healthily is part of the way I have chosen to live my

way.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

IDR

90. Saya percaya pemakanan yang sihat akan

membuatkan minda dan tubuh badan saya

selesa.

I believe healthy eating will make my mind and body

comfortable.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

91. Saya percaya pemakanan yang sihat akan

membuatkan saya berasa lebih baik.

I believe healthy eating will eventually allow me to feel

better.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

92. Pemakanan yang sihat adalah satu cara

mengekalkan kesihatan jangka panjang. Healthy eating is a way to ensure long-term health

benefits.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

110

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

93. Saya percaya pemakanan yang sihat adalah satu

perkara yang baik dan membuatkan saya berasa

lebih baik tentang diri sendiri secara amnya. I believe healthy eating is a good thing I can do to feel

better about myself in general.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

94. Bukan sahaja makan makanan yang bagus,

malah pemakanan yang sihat adalah salah satu

cara untuk mengawal tabiat pemakanan saya. Not only eat good food, healthy eating is a good idea to try

to regulate my eating behaviors.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

AMT

Merujuk kepada pemakanan yang sihat...

In regards to healthy eating...

95. …saya kurang pasti. Saya mempunyai

pandangan yang saya akan membazir masa

dengan cuba mengawal tabiat makan saya. …I don‟t really know. I truly have the impression that I‟m

wasting my time trying to regulate my eating behaviours.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

96. …saya tidak begitu jelas dengan apa yang saya

boleh perolehi. …I can‟t really see I‟m getting out of it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

97. …saya tidak tahu kenapa saya perlu peduli. …I don‟t really know why I bother.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

111

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

98. …saya tidak tahu. Saya tidak nampak

bagaimana usaha saya untuk makan secara sihat

dapat membantu keadaan kesihatan saya. …I don‟t know. I can‟t see how my efforts to eat healthy are helping my health situation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

99. …saya rasa ada perkara yang lebih penting

boleh dibuat selain makan secara sihat. …I think there are more important things to do than to eat healthy.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

112

INSTRUCTION: The following statements are intended to examine your intention towards eating

organic foods. Please circle the best scale that best represents your agreement.

SA

NG

AT

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly D

isag

ree

TID

AK

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Dis

ag

ree

SE

DIK

IT T

IDA

K S

ET

UJ

U

Sli

gh

tly

Dis

ag

ree

TID

AK

PA

ST

I

Un

sure

SE

DIK

IT S

ET

UJU

Sli

gh

tly

Ag

ree

SE

TU

JU

Mod

era

tely

Ag

ree

SA

NG

AT

SE

TU

JU

Str

ong

ly A

gre

e

BI

100. Saya bercadang untuk membeli produk

makanan organik secara berkala.

I plan to buy organic food products on a regular basis.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

101. Saya berniat untuk membeli makanan organik

secara berkala.

I intend to buy organic food products on a regular basis.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

102.

Saya membuat keputusan untuk membeli

produk makanan organik secara berkala.

I have decided to buy organic food products on a regular

basis.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

103. Saya akan membeli produk makanan organik

secara berkala.

I will buy organic food products on a regular basis.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Borang Soal Selidik Tamat

End of Questionnaire

**Terima kasih kerana meluangkan masa menjawab borang soal selidik ini**

** Thank you very much for spending time in completing this questionnaire*

ARAHAN:

Di bawah merupakan pernyataan mengenai niat anda untuk makan

makanan dan produk organik. Sila bulatkan pada skala yang paling

tepat mewakili jawapan anda.

BAHAGIAN C: NIAT UNTUK MEMBELI PRODUK MAKANAN ORGANIK

SECTION C: BEHAVIORAL INTENTION TO PURCHASE ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS

113

APPENDIX C: DATA ANALYSIS

SPSS OUTPUT

114

Section A: Demographic Profiles of Respondents (Descriptive Statistics)

Age of the respondent

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid 18 - 20 years old 13 8.1 8.1 8.1

21 – 23 years old 127 79.4 79.4 87.5

24 – 26 years old 19 11.9 11.9 99.4

27 years and above 1 .6 .6 100.0

Total 160 100.0 100.0

Gender of the respondent


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MALE 61 38.1 38.1 38.1

FEMALE 99 61.9 61.9 100.0

Total 160 100.0 100.0

Ethnicity of the respondent


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MALAY 101 63.1 63.1 63.1

INDIAN 6 3.8 3.8 66.9

CHINESE 25 15.6 15.6 82.5

BUMIPUTERA 23 14.4 14.4 96.9

OTHER NON-

BUMIPUTERA 5 3.1 3.1 100.0

Total 160 100.0 100.0

115

Religion of the respondent


Cumulative

Percent

Valid ISLAM 112 70.0 70.0 70.0

BUDDHISM 6 3.8 3.8 73.8

HINDUISM 13 8.1 8.1 81.9

CHRISTIANITY 27 16.9 16.9 98.8

OTHERS 2 1.3 1.3 100.0

Total 160 100.0 100.0

Marital status of the respondent


Cumulative

Percent

Valid SINGLE 159 99.4 99.4 99.4

MARRIED 1 .6 .6 100.0

Total 160 100.0 100.0

High academic qualification obtain of the respondent


Cumulative

Percent

Valid SPM/STPM 137 85.6 85.6 85.6

POST HIGH-SCHOOL 9 5.6 5.6 91.3

DIPLOMA 11 6.9 6.9 98.1

DEGREE 3 1.9 1.9 100.0

Total 160 100.0 100.0

Level of current enrolled academic programmed of the respondent


Cumulative

Percent

Valid CERTIFICATE/DIPLOMA 5 3.1 3.1 3.1

DEGREE 152 95.0 95.0 98.1

MASTER 3 1.9 1.9 100.0

Total 160 100.0 100.0

116

Academic field of current programme of the respondent


Cumulative

Percent

Valid MEDICAL/HEALTH-

RELATED 5 3.1 3.1 3.1

OTHERS 155 96.9 96.9 100.0

Total 160 100.0 100.0

Year of academic of the respondent


Cumulative

Percent

Valid FIRST YEAR 35 21.9 21.9 21.9

SECOND YEAR 66 41.3 41.3 63.1

THIRD YEAR 46 28.7 28.7 91.9

FOURTH YEAR 13 8.1 8.1 100.0

Total 160 100.0 100.0

Body mass index of the respondent


Cumulative

Percent

Valid UNDERWEIGHT 23 14.4 14.4 14.4

NORMAL 102 63.7 63.7 78.1

OVERWEIGHT 19 11.9 11.9 90.0

OBESITY 16 10.0 10.0 100.0

Total 160 100.0 100.0

Total spending on meals of the respondent


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Below RM20 136 85.0 85.0 85.0

Under RM20 24 15.0 15.0 100.0

Total 160 100.0 100.0

117

Section B: Reliability Analysis of Developed Instruments

Attitude

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.731 7

Item Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Overall, I think eating organic products is a

healthier choice. 5.56 1.237 160

Overall, I think organic food products cost more

than they're worth 5.19 1.265 160

Overall, I think organic food products have

superior quality 5.61 1.171 160

Overall, organic food products are just a

marketing gimmick. 4.08 1.358 160

Overall, I think organic food products taste

better than conventional food 4.29 1.306 160

Overall, I think the production of organic food

products is environmentally friendly 5.18 1.257 160

Overall, I think organic foods are more

nutritious than others. 5.51 1.192 160

118

Behavioural Belief


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.841 6

Item Statistics


If I choose to eat organic foods, my body would

be healthy 5.44 1.263 160

If I choose to eat organic foods, I would be able

to protect the environment. 5.30 1.233 160

If I choose to eat organic foods, I might have to

travel far to buy them. 4.44 1.581 160

If I choose to eat organic foods, I would be less

likely to suffer from illness 5.14 1.340 160

If I choose to eat organic foods, my body's

immunity could be strengthened. 5.28 1.150 160

If I choose to eat organic foods, I would

physically feel better 5.43 1.131 160

119

Behavioural Belief (Outcome Evaluation)


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.931 6

Item Statistics


It is desirable to me to, keep my body healthy 6.08 .994 160

It is desirable to me to, be able to protect the

environment 5.78 1.099 160

It is desirable to me to, get organic food where

ever they are available 5.43 1.247 160

It is desirable to me to, get protected from

illnesses 5.89 1.114 160

It is desirable to me to, get my immunity

strengthened 5.96 1.081 160

It is desirable to me to, feel better physically 5.94 1.109 160

120

Subjective Norm


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.740 5

Item Statistics


Most people who are important to me want me to

choose organic food 4.65 1.294 160

Most people I know believe that eating organic

food is a healthier choice 4.83 1.315 160

People who are important to me want me to eat

organic foods 4.76 1.307 160

I am expected to choose organic over conventional

food 4.78 1.377 160

People who are important to me think that I should

NOT waste my money on organic products 4.04 1.599 160

121

Normative Belief


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.555 5

Item Statistics


My parents think I SHOULD eat organic foods 4.81 1.289 160

My close friends would DISAPPROVE my

preference for organic foods 3.51 1.410 160

My classmates think I SHOULD eat organic foods 4.46 1.268 160

My siblings think I SHOULD eat organic foods 4.61 1.401 160

My loved one thinks I SHOULD NOT waste my

money on organic foods 3.65 1.618 160

Motivation to Comply


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.699 5

Item Statistics


Doing what my parents think I should do is

important to me 5.94 1.086 160

My close friends‟ approval of what I do is important

to me. 4.78 1.525 160

Doing what my classmates think I should do is


Doing what my siblings think I should do is


Following my love one‟s advice is important to me 3.93 1.857 160

122

Perceived Behavioural Control


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.730 4

Item Statistics


To decide whether or not to buy and consume

organic food is easy for me 4.91 1.357 160

The decision to buy and consume organic food rests

entirely on me 5.83 1.102 160

If organic foods were available in the shops, nothing

will prevent me from buying them 5.43 1.242 160

No one could easily influence me to buy or not to

buy organic foods 5.53 1.341 160

123

Self-Efficacy


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.885 5

Item Statistics


I am certain that I could get organic foods, even if

they are costly 4.50 1.517 160

I am confident that organic food is a better choice

even if most people doubt the benefits 4.93 1.299 160

I am sure that I could get organic products, even if

I have to travel far to buy them 4.20 1.525 160

I am certain that I could purchase organic

products, even if the selection is limited 4.43 1.367 160

I am certain that I could get organic foods, even if

most people disapprove my decision 4.50 1.475 160

124

Health Belief Model (Health and Safety Benefit)

Perceived Benefit


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.919 6

Item Statistics


I am rest assured that organic food products

contain no harmful chemicals 4.60 1.379 160

Organic food products reduce my chance to get

food poisoning 4.78 1.311 160

Consuming organic products would keep my health

condition at its best 5.07 1.234 160

Organic food products prevent me from getting

serious illnesses 5.03 1.236 160

My body immunity will be strengthened if I eat

organic products 4.99 1.320 160

I could get more vitamins and minerals from


125

Health Belief Motivation (Environmental Benefit)


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.897 6

Item Statistics


Organic farming reduces environmental

pollution. 5.31 1.144 160

Soil and water contamination could be

prevented by organic farming 5.28 1.165 160

The production of organic food is necessarily

energy-efficient 5.24 1.152 160

I could protect the environment by buying


Organic foods are non-genetically modified

products, so it is safe to consume and good for

environment

5.08 1.218 160

Organic farming supports community trade 5.21 1.225 160

126

Perceived Barrier (Cost)


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.819 4

Item Statistics


The cost of organic food products is expensive 5.48 1.176 160

Organic food products cost more than they‟re

worth 4.83 1.314 160

As a student, I can't afford to buy organic foods 5.08 1.500 160

Because of my limited financial allowance,

buying organic food products is not an option 5.11 1.471 160

Perceived Barrier (Availability)


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.827 4

Item Statistics


Organic shops are too far from my

house 4.98 1.503 160

It is hard to look for organic foods in

nearby area 4.91 1.440 160

Only few shops that I know sell

organic food products 4.95 1.382 160

Even if organic food products are

available, the selection is too limited 5.09 1.233 160

127

Perceived Barrier (Trust/Distrust)


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.525 5

Item Statistics


There is a chance that conventional food

products are labelled as organic 5.06 1.109 160

The production of claimed organic food

products might not meet the standard 5.23 3.260 160

Health benefits from eating organic foods are

not yet proven 4.71 1.344 160

Sellers might claim their products are organic to

boost the sales 5.41 1.107 160

Nutritional value as labelled in most organic

products might be inaccurate 5.24 1.119 160

128

Healthy Eating Motivation (Intrinsic Motivation)


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.912 5

Item Statistics


I like to find new way to create meals that are

good for health 5.09 1.359 160

It is fun to create meals that are good for my

health 5.47 1.127 160

I am interested in eating healthy 5.54 1.207 160

I take pleasure in fixing healthy meals 5.42 1.184 160

I am satisfied with eating healthy 5.64 1.107 160

Healthy Eating Motivation (Integrated Regulation)


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.927 5

Item Statistics


Eating healthily is an integral part of my life 5.31 1.213 160

Eating healthily is congruent with other important

aspects of my life 5.31 1.138 160

Eating healthily is base of my life 5.41 1.178 160

Regulating my eating behaviors has become a

fundamental part of who I am. 5.18 1.281 160

Eating healthily is part of the way I have chosen to

live my way 5.29 1.174 160

129

Healthy Eating Motivation (Identified Regulation)


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.921 5

Item Statistics


I believe healthy eating will make

my mind and body comfortable 5.81 1.031 160

I believe healthy eating will

eventually allow me to feel better 5.88 1.036 160

Healthy eating is a way to ensure

long-term health benefits 5.83 1.117 160

I believe healthy eating is a good

thing I can do to feel better about

myself in general

5.61 1.208 160

Not only eat good food, healthy

eating is a good idea to try to

regulate my eating behaviors

5.61 1.160 160

130

Amotivation


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.910 5

Item Statistics


In regards to healthy eating, I don‟t really

know. I truly have the impression that I‟m

wasting my time trying to regulate my eating

behaviours

4.05 1.674 160

In regards to healthy eating, can‟t really see

I‟m getting out of it 4.18 1.616 160

In regards to healthy eating, I don‟t really

know why I bother 3.88 1.735 160

In regards to healthy eating, I don‟t know. I

can‟t see how my efforts to eat healthy are

helping my health situation

3.73 1.628 160

In regards to healthy eating, I think there are

more important things to do than to eat

healthy

3.86 1.782 160

131

Behavioural Intention


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.952 4

Item Statistics


I plan to buy organic food products on a

regular basis 4.58 1.394 160

I intend to buy organic food products on a

regular basis 4.69 1.388 160

I have decided to buy organic food products

on a regular basis 4.58 1.399 160

I will buy organic food products on a regular

basis 4.63 1.461 160

132

Data Distribution Analysis

Statistics

TOTAL_ATT

N Valid 160

Missing 0

Mean 5.3438

Std. Deviation .75803

Skewness -.955

Std. Error of

Skewness .192

Kurtosis 3.434

Std. Error of Kurtosis .381

Statistics

TOTAL_PB

N Valid 160

Missing 0

Mean 5.0974


Skewness .081

Std. Error of

Skewness .192

Kurtosis -.108


Statistics

TOTAL_SN

N Valid 160

Missing 0

Mean 4.5604


Skewness -.092

Std. Error of

Skewness .192

Kurtosis .779


Statistics

TOTAL_HEM

N Valid 160

Missing 0

Mean 5.1044


Skewness .065

Std. Error of

Skewness .192

Kurtosis .060


133

Statistics

TOTAL_PBR

N Valid 160

Missing 0

Mean 5.0832


Skewness .179

Std. Error of

Skewness .192

Kurtosis -.206


Statistics

MEAN_SE

N Valid 160

Missing 0

Mean 4.5125

Std. Deviation 1.19152

Skewness -.255

Std. Error of

Skewness .192

Kurtosis .368


Statistics

MEAN_PBC

N Valid 160

Missing 0

Mean 5.4234


Skewness -.392

Std. Error of

Skewness .192

Kurtosis -.237


Statistics

MEAN_BI

N Valid 160

Missing 0

Mean 4.6156

Std. Deviation 1.31927

Skewness -.468

Std. Error of

Skewness .192

Kurtosis .308


134

Mean Score Comparison

T-Test

Group Statistics

GENDER_BINARY N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

TOTAL_SN 1 61 4.5880 .64939 .08315

2 99 4.5434 .71646 .07201

TOTAL_HBM 1 61 4.9727 .77575 .09932

2 99 5.1742 .98278 .09877

TOTAL_HEM 1 61 5.0295 .59850 .07663

2 99 5.1505 .70983 .07134

TOTAL_PBR 1 61 4.9483 .79628 .10195

2 99 5.1663 .85458 .08589

MEAN_PBC 1 61 5.1926 .80673 .10329

2 99 5.5657 .99076 .09958

MEAN_SE 1 61 4.4689 .89732 .11489

2 99 4.5394 1.34482 .13516

MEAN_BI 1 61 4.5615 1.07883 .13813

2 99 4.6490 1.45200 .14593

135

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

TOTAL_SN Equal

variances

assumed

.007 .935 .396 158 .693 .04454 .11260 -.17785 .26694

Equal

variances not

assumed

.405 136.681 .686 .04454 .10999 -.17296 .26205

TOTAL_HBM Equal

variances

assumed

3.012 .085 -1.361 158 .175 -.20156 .14808 -.49403 .09090

Equal

variances not

assumed

-1.439 148.459 .152 -.20156 .14008 -.47837 .07524

TOTAL_HEM Equal

variances

assumed

1.091 .298 -1.110 158 .269 -.12100 .10901 -.33631 .09431

Equal

variances not

assumed

-1.156 143.212 .250 -.12100 .10470 -.32795 .08595

136

TOTAL_PBR Equal

variances

assumed

.763 .384 -1.608 158 .110 -.21798 .13558 -.48576 .04979

Equal

variances not

assumed

-1.635 134.047 .104 -.21798 .13331 -.48164 .04568

MEAN_PBC Equal

variances

assumed

3.420 .066 -2.477 158 .014 -.37303 .15060 -.67047 -.07559

Equal

variances not

assumed

-2.600 146.091 .010 -.37303 .14347 -.65658 -.08948

MEAN_SE Equal

variances

assumed

8.028 .005 -.363 158 .717 -.07054 .19448 -.45465 .31357

Equal

variances not

assumed

-.398 156.949 .691 -.07054 .17739 -.42092 .27984

MEAN_BI Equal

variances

assumed

7.208 .008 -.406 158 .685 -.08751 .21531 -.51276 .33773

Equal

variances not

assumed

-.436 152.426 .664 -.08751 .20094 -.48450 .30947

137

Group Statistics

ETHNICITY_BINARY N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

TOTAL_SN 1 101 4.6495 .67499 .06716

2 59 4.4079 .69416 .09037

TOTAL_HBM 1 101 5.1922 .85957 .08553

2 59 4.9350 .98213 .12786

TOTAL_HEM 1 101 5.2099 .65261 .06494

2 59 4.9237 .66672 .08680

TOTAL_PBR 1 101 5.0990 .86389 .08596

2 59 5.0561 .79555 .10357

MEAN_PBC 1 101 5.5743 .90453 .09000

2 59 5.1653 .95096 .12380

MEAN_SE 1 101 4.5941 1.19246 .11865

2 59 4.3729 1.18697 .15453

MEAN_BI 1 101 4.7277 1.30293 .12965

2 59 4.4237 1.33605 .17394

138


Levene's

Test for

Equality

of

Variance

s t-test for Equality of Means

F

Si

g. t df

Sig.

(2-

taile

d)

Mean

Differe

nce

Std.

Error

Differe

nce

95%

Confidence

Interval of

the

Difference

Low

er

Upp

er

TOTAL_S

N

Equal

varianc

es

assume

d

.05

6

.81

3

2.1

62 158 .032 .24160 .11177

.020

84

.462

35

Equal

varianc

es not

assume

d

2.1

46

118.7

54 .034 .24160 .11260

.018

64

.464

55

TOTAL_H

BM

Equal

varianc

es

assume

d

1.0

17

.31

5

1.7

32 158 .085 .25722 .14854

-

.036

16

.550

59

Equal

varianc

es not

assume

d

1.6

72

108.8

75 .097 .25722 .15383

-

.047

68

.562

11

TOTAL_H

EM

Equal

varianc

es

assume

d

.00

0

.98

5

2.6

55 158 .009 .28617 .10779

.073

27

.499

07

139

Equal

varianc

es not

assume

d

2.6

40

119.4

00 .009 .28617 .10840

.071

53

.500

81

TOTAL_P

BR

Equal

varianc

es

assume

d

.66

3

.41

7

.31

2 158 .755 .04295 .13755

-

.228

73

.314

63

Equal

varianc

es not

assume

d

.31

9

129.7

25 .750 .04295 .13460

-

.223

34

.309

24

MEAN_PB

C

Equal

varianc

es

assume

d

.01

7

.89

7

2.7

08 158 .008 .40900 .15105

.110

66

.707

35

Equal

varianc

es not

assume

d

2.6

72

116.6

15 .009 .40900 .15306

.105

86

.712

15

MEAN_SE Equal

varianc

es

assume

d

.01

5

.90

4

1.1

34 158 .259 .22118 .19507

-

.164

10

.606

45

Equal

varianc

es not

assume

d

1.1

35

121.9

63 .259 .22118 .19483

-

.164

51

.606

86

MEAN_BI Equal

varianc

es

assume

d

.22

6

.63

5

1.4

11 158 .160 .30399 .21551

-

.121

65

.729

64

140

Equal

varianc

es not

assume

d

1.4

01

119.0

37 .164 .30399 .21694

-

.125

57

.733

56

141

Group Statistics

BMI_BINARY N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

TOTAL_SN 1 102 4.6261 .65730 .06508

2 58 4.4448 .73544 .09657

TOTAL_HBM 1 102 5.1716 .87854 .08699

2 58 4.9670 .96237 .12637

TOTAL_HEM 1 102 5.1603 .67164 .06650

2 58 5.0060 .66201 .08693

TOTAL_PBR 1 102 5.1704 .88620 .08775

2 58 4.9297 .72480 .09517

MEAN_PBC 1 102 5.5000 .87314 .08645

2 58 5.2888 1.04168 .13678

MEAN_SE 1 102 4.6804 1.09662 .10858

2 58 4.2172 1.30009 .17071

MEAN_BI 1 102 4.6152 1.26485 .12524

2 58 4.6164 1.42134 .18663

142


Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence Interval of

the Difference

Lower Upper

TOTAL_SN Equal

variances

assumed

.804 .371 1.606 158 .110 .18132 .11290 -.04167 .40431

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.557 107.969 .122 .18132 .11645 -.04951 .41215

TOTAL_HBM Equal

variances

assumed

.322 .571 1.368 158 .173 .20461 .14960 -.09086 .50009

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.334 109.895 .185 .20461 .15341 -.09942 .50864

TOTAL_HEM Equal

variances

assumed

.000 .998 1.404 158 .162 .15426 .10989 -.06277 .37129

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.409 120.043 .161 .15426 .10945 -.06244 .37096

143

TOTAL_PBR Equal

variances

assumed

3.133 .079 1.760 158 .080 .24073 .13676 -.02938 .51084

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.860 138.582 .065 .24073 .12945 -.01522 .49668

MEAN_PBC Equal

variances

assumed

2.569 .111 1.370 158 .173 .21121 .15417 -.09329 .51570

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.305 102.417 .195 .21121 .16181 -.10973 .53214

MEAN_SE Equal

variances

assumed

1.100 .296 2.399 158 .018 .46315 .19309 .08179 .84451

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.289 102.942 .024 .46315 .20232 .06190 .86440

MEAN_BI Equal

variances

assumed

.647 .423 -.005 158 .996 -.00118 .21765 -.43105 .42869

Equal

variances not

assumed

-.005 107.582 .996 -.00118 .22476 -.44671 .44434

144

Group Statistics

YEAR_BINARY N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

TOTAL_SN 1 101 4.5683 .70368 .07002

2 59 4.5469 .67145 .08742

TOTAL_HBM 1 101 5.0116 .98326 .09784

2 59 5.2444 .76107 .09908

TOTAL_HEM 1 101 5.0302 .68641 .06830

2 59 5.2314 .62697 .08162

TOTAL_PBR 1 101 5.0586 .84882 .08446

2 59 5.1252 .82205 .10702

MEAN_PBC 1 101 5.4183 .92744 .09228

2 59 5.4322 .96917 .12618

MEAN_SE 1 101 4.4317 1.24474 .12386

2 59 4.6508 1.09077 .14201

MEAN_BI 1 101 4.5421 1.30531 .12988

2 59 4.7415 1.34466 .17506

145


Levene's Test

for Equality of


F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence Interval of

the Difference

Lower Upper

TOTAL_SN Equal

variances

assumed

.453 .502 .189 158 .850 .02142 .11339 -.20254 .24539

Equal

variances not

assumed

.191 126.174 .849 .02142 .11200 -.20022 .24307

TOTAL_HBM Equal

variances

assumed

4.860 .029 -1.565 158 .120 -.23280 .14879 -.52668 .06108

Equal

variances not

assumed

-1.672 145.832 .097 -.23280 .13925 -.50800 .04240

TOTAL_HEM Equal

variances

assumed

.662 .417 -1.845 158 .067 -.20116 .10900 -.41644 .01413

Equal

variances not

assumed

-1.890 130.536 .061 -.20116 .10643 -.41171 .00939

146

TOTAL_PBR Equal

variances

assumed

.003 .960 -.484 158 .629 -.06652 .13749 -.33808 .20504

Equal

variances not

assumed

-.488 124.692 .626 -.06652 .13633 -.33635 .20331

MEAN_PBC Equal

variances

assumed

.074 .786 -.090 158 .929 -.01389 .15452 -.31907 .29130

Equal

variances not

assumed

-.089 117.198 .929 -.01389 .15632 -.32347 .29569

MEAN_SE Equal

variances

assumed

.774 .380 -1.123 158 .263 -.21916 .19508 -.60447 .16614

Equal

variances not

assumed

-1.163 134.622 .247 -.21916 .18843 -.59183 .15350

MEAN_BI Equal

variances

assumed

.008 .928 -.922 158 .358 -.19945 .21628 -.62661 .22772

Equal

variances not

assumed

-.915 118.588 .362 -.19945 .21798 -.63109 .23219

147

Group Statistics

SPENDING_BINARY N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

TOTAL_SN 1 136 4.5662 .69163 .05931

2 24 4.5278 .69391 .14164

TOTAL_HBM 1 136 5.0999 .88056 .07551

2 24 5.0833 1.09567 .22365

TOTAL_HEM 1 136 5.0842 .63973 .05486

2 24 5.2188 .82893 .16921

TOTAL_PBR 1 136 5.0662 .83859 .07191

2 24 5.1795 .83949 .17136

MEAN_PBC 1 136 5.4393 .94158 .08074

2 24 5.3333 .94601 .19310

MEAN_SE 1 136 4.4941 1.18007 .10119

2 24 4.6167 1.27575 .26041

MEAN_BI 1 136 4.6287 1.28955 .11058

2 24 4.5417 1.50482 .30717

148


Levene's Test

for Equality of


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

TOTAL_SN Equal

variances

assumed

.078 .780 .251 158 .802 .03840 .15320 -.26419 .34099

Equal

variances

not assumed

.250 31.606 .804 .03840 .15356 -.27454 .35134

TOTAL_HBM Equal

variances

assumed

1.783 .184 .082 158 .935 .01654 .20259 -.38359 .41668

Equal

variances

not assumed

.070 28.479 .945 .01654 .23605 -.46662 .49971

TOTAL_HEM Equal

variances

assumed

2.773 .098 -.906 158 .366 -.13456 .14847 -.42781 .15869

Equal

variances

not assumed

-.756 28.036 .456 -.13456 .17788 -.49890 .22978

149

TOTAL_PBR Equal

variances

assumed

.001 .972 -.610 158 .543 -.11331 .18570 -.48008 .25346

Equal

variances

not assumed

-.610 31.646 .546 -.11331 .18584 -.49201 .26539

MEAN_PBC Equal

variances

assumed

.051 .822 .508 158 .612 .10600 .20861 -.30602 .51803

Equal

variances

not assumed

.506 31.580 .616 .10600 .20930 -.32055 .53256

MEAN_SE Equal

variances

assumed

.840 .361 -.463 158 .644 -.12255 .26446 -.64488 .39978

Equal

variances

not assumed

-.439 30.352 .664 -.12255 .27938 -.69284 .44774

MEAN_BI Equal

variances

assumed

.528 .469 .297 158 .767 .08701 .29293 -.49156 .66558

Equal

variances

not assumed

.267 29.264 .792 .08701 .32647 -.58043 .75445

150

Mann-Whitney Test

Descriptive Statistics

N Mean

Std.

Deviation Minimum Maximum

Percentiles

25th

50th

(Median) 75th

TOTAL_ATT

160 5.3437 .75803 1.47 6.95 4.8947 5.3684 5.8421

TOTAL_SN

160 4.5604 .68992 2.33 6.73 4.1333 4.5333 5.0000

TOTAL_HBM

160 5.0974 .91216 2.83 7.00 4.5000 5.1667 5.5833

TOTAL_HEM

160 5.1044 .67022 3.25 6.95 4.6000 5.0500 5.5500

TOTAL_PBR

160 5.0832 .83707 3.08 7.46 4.4808 5.0000 5.6923

GENDER_BINARY

160 1.62 .487 1 2 1.00 2.00 2.00

151

Ranks

GENDER_BINARY N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

TOTAL_ATT 1 61 67.11 4093.50

2 99 88.75 8786.50

Total 160

TOTAL_SN 1 61 80.07 4884.50

2 99 80.76 7995.50

Total 160

TOTAL_HBM 1 61 75.04 4577.50

2 99 83.86 8302.50

Total 160

TOTAL_HEM 1 61 75.75 4620.50

2 99 83.43 8259.50

Total 160

TOTAL_PBR 1 61 72.72 4436.00

2 99 85.29 8444.00

Total 160

152


N Mean

Std.


Percentiles

25th

50th

(Median) 75th

TOTAL_ATT 160 5.3437 .75803 1.47 6.95 4.8947 5.3684 5.8421

TOTAL_HBM 160 5.0974 .91216 2.83 7.00 4.5000 5.1667 5.5833

TOTAL_HEM 160 5.1044 .67022 3.25 6.95 4.6000 5.0500 5.5500

TOTAL_PBR 160 5.0832 .83707 3.08 7.46 4.4808 5.0000 5.6923

MEAN_PBC 160 5.4234 .94002 2.50 7.00 4.8125 5.5000 6.2500

ETHNICITY_BINARY 160 1.37 .484 1 2 1.00 1.00 2.00

Test Statisticsa

TOTAL_AT

T

TOTAL_S

N

TOTAL_HB

M

TOTAL_HE

M

TOTAL_PB

R

Mann-

Whitney

U

2202.500 2993.500 2686.500 2729.500 2545.000

Wilcoxo

n W 4093.500 4884.500 4577.500 4620.500 4436.000

Z -2.871 -.091 -1.171 -1.019 -1.668

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.004 .927 .242 .308 .095

a. Grouping Variable: GENDER_BINARY

153

Ranks

ETHNICITY_BINARY N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

TOTAL_ATT 1 101 89.16 9005.00

2 59 65.68 3875.00

Total 160

TOTAL_HBM 1 101 84.15 8499.00

2 59 74.25 4381.00

Total 160

TOTAL_HEM 1 101 86.75 8762.00

2 59 69.80 4118.00

Total 160

TOTAL_PBR 1 101 82.25 8307.00

2 59 77.51 4573.00

Total 160

MEAN_PBC 1 101 88.08 8896.00

2 59 67.53 3984.00

Total 160

Test Statisticsa

TOTAL_ATT TOTAL_HBM TOTAL_HEM TOTAL_PBR MEAN_PBC

Mann-

Whitney

U

2105.000 2611.000 2348.000 2803.000 2214.000

Wilcoxon

W 3875.000 4381.000 4118.000 4573.000 3984.000

Z -3.094 -1.304 -2.234 -.625 -2.718

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.002 .192 .025 .532 .007

a. Grouping Variable: ETHNICITY_BINARY

154


N Mean

Std.


Percentiles

25th

50th

(Median) 75th

TOTAL_ATT

160 5.3437 .75803 1.47 6.95 4.8947 5.3684 5.8421

TOTAL_HBM

160 5.0974 .91216 2.83 7.00 4.5000 5.1667 5.5833

TOTAL_HEM

160 5.1044 .67022 3.25 6.95 4.6000 5.0500 5.5500

TOTAL_PBR

160 5.0832 .83707 3.08 7.46 4.4808 5.0000 5.6923

MEAN_PBC 160 5.4234 .94002 2.50 7.00 4.8125 5.5000 6.2500

YEAR_BINARY 160 1.37 .484 1 2 1.00 1.00 2.00

155

Ranks

YEAR_BINARY N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

TOTAL_ATT 1 101 77.63 7840.50

2 59 85.42 5039.50

Total 160

TOTAL_HBM 1 101 75.83 7658.50

2 59 88.50 5221.50

Total 160

TOTAL_HEM 1 101 75.24 7599.50

2 59 89.50 5280.50

Total 160

TOTAL_PBR 1 101 79.28 8007.50

2 59 82.58 4872.50

Total 160

MEAN_PBC 1 101 79.88 8067.50

2 59 81.57 4812.50

Total 160

Test Statisticsa

TOTAL_AT

T

TOTAL_HB

M

TOTAL_HE

M

TOTAL_PB

R

MEAN_PB

C

Mann-

Whitney

U

2689.500 2507.500 2448.500 2856.500 2916.500

Wilcoxo

n W 7840.500 7658.500 7599.500 8007.500 8067.500

Z -1.026 -1.671 -1.879 -.435 -.224

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.305 .095 .060 .663 .823

a. Grouping Variable: YEAR_BINARY

156


N Mean

Std.


Percentiles

25th

50th

(Median) 75th

TOTAL_ATT 160 5.3437 .75803 1.47 6.95 4.8947 5.3684 5.8421

TOTAL_HBM 160 5.0974 .91216 2.83 7.00 4.5000 5.1667 5.5833

TOTAL_HEM 160 5.1044 .67022 3.25 6.95 4.6000 5.0500 5.5500

TOTAL_PBR 160 5.0832 .83707 3.08 7.46 4.4808 5.0000 5.6923

MEAN_PBC 160 5.4234 .94002 2.50 7.00 4.8125 5.5000 6.2500

BMI_BINARY 160 1.36 .482 1 2 1.00 1.00 2.00

Ranks

BMI_BINARY N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

TOTAL_ATT 1 102 83.68 8535.00

2 58 74.91 4345.00

Total 160

TOTAL_HBM 1 102 85.56 8727.50

2 58 71.59 4152.50

Total 160

TOTAL_HEM 1 102 84.99 8668.50

2 58 72.61 4211.50

Total 160

TOTAL_PBR 1 102 85.15 8685.50

2 58 72.32 4194.50

Total 160

MEAN_PBC 1 102 83.71 8538.00

2 58 74.86 4342.00

Total 160

157

Test Statisticsa

TOTAL_AT

T

TOTAL_HB

M

TOTAL_HE

M

TOTAL_PB

R

MEAN_PB

C

Mann-

Whitney

U

2634.000 2441.500 2500.500 2483.500 2631.000

Wilcoxo

n W 4345.000 4152.500 4211.500 4194.500 4342.000

Z -1.150 -1.835 -1.625 -1.685 -1.165

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.250 .067 .104 .092 .244

a. Grouping Variable: BMI_BINARY


N Mean

Std.

Deviati

on

Minimu

m

Maximu

m

Percentiles

25th

50th

(Media

n) 75th

TOTAL_ATT 16

0

5.343

7 .75803 1.47 6.95

4.894

7 5.3684

5.842

1

TOTAL_HBM 16

0

5.097

4 .91216 2.83 7.00

4.500

0 5.1667

5.583

3

TOTAL_HEM 16

0

5.104

4 .67022 3.25 6.95

4.600

0 5.0500

5.550

0

TOTAL_PBR 16

0

5.083

2 .83707 3.08 7.46

4.480

8 5.0000

5.692

3

MEAN_PBC 16

0

5.423

4 .94002 2.50 7.00

4.812

5 5.5000

6.250

0

SPENDING_BIN

ARY

16

0 1.15 .358 1 2 1.00 1.00 1.00

158

Ranks

SPENDING_BINARY N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

TOTAL_ATT 1 136 80.54 10953.00

2 24 80.29 1927.00

Total 160

TOTAL_HBM 1 136 80.70 10975.50

2 24 79.35 1904.50

Total 160

TOTAL_HEM 1 136 79.46 10806.50

2 24 86.40 2073.50

Total 160

TOTAL_PBR 1 136 79.50 10812.00

2 24 86.17 2068.00

Total 160

MEAN_PBC 1 136 81.47 11080.00

2 24 75.00 1800.00

Total 160

Test Statisticsa

TOTAL_AT

T

TOTAL_HB

M

TOTAL_HE

M

TOTAL_PB

R

MEAN_PB

C

Mann-

Whitney

U

1627.000 1604.500 1490.500 1496.000 1500.000

Wilcoxo

n W 1927.000 1904.500 10806.500 10812.000 1800.000

Z -.024 -.132 -.676 -.650 -.633

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.981 .895 .499 .516 .527

a. Grouping Variable: SPENDING_BINARY

159

Correlation Analysis



TOTAL_SN 4.5604 .68992 160

TOTAL_HBM 5.0974 .91216 160

TOTAL_HEM 5.1044 .67022 160

TOTAL_PBR 5.0832 .83707 160

MEAN_PBC 5.4234 .94002 160

MEAN_SE 4.5125 1.19152 160

MEAN_BI 4.6156 1.31927 160

160

Correlations

TOTAL_SN TOTAL_HBM TOTAL_HEM TOTAL_PBR MEAN_PBC MEAN_SE MEAN_BI

TOTAL_SN Pearson

Correlation 1 .422

** .520

** .242

** .320

** .561

** .496

**

Sig. (1-

tailed) .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000

N 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

TOTAL_HBM Pearson

Correlation .422

** 1 .579

** .213

** .543

** .609

** .453

**

Sig. (1-

tailed) .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .000

N 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

TOTAL_HEM Pearson

Correlation .520

** .579

** 1 .247

** .461

** .556

** .479

**

Sig. (1-

tailed) .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000

N 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

TOTAL_PBR Pearson

Correlation .242

** .213

** .247

** 1 .239

** .192

** .211

**

Sig. (1-

tailed) .001 .003 .001 .001 .008 .004

N 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

MEAN_PBC Pearson

Correlation .320

** .543

** .461

** .239

** 1 .494

** .388

**

Sig. (1-

tailed) .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000

161

N 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

MEAN_SE Pearson

Correlation .561

** .609

** .556

** .192

** .494

** 1 .562

**

Sig. (1-

tailed) .000 .000 .000 .008 .000 .000

N 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

MEAN_BI Pearson

Correlation .496

** .453

** .479

** .211

** .388

** .562

** 1

Sig. (1-

tailed) .000 .000 .000 .004 .000 .000

N 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

162

Correlations

TOTAL_ATT MEAN_BI

Spearman's rho TOTAL_ATT Correlation Coefficient

1.000 .452**

Sig. (1-tailed) . .000

N 160 160

MEAN_BI Correlation Coefficient .452**

1.000

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .

N 160 160

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

mohiddin, h.s (2015)

Documents