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

A STUDY ON PSYCHOSOCIAL DISPOSITIONS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

AND THE INTENTION TO PURCHASE ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS

Prepared for:
AZIZ JAMAL

Prepared by:
HALIMAHTUL SAADIAH BINTI MOHIDDIN
BACHELOR IN HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (HONS)

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA (UiTM)

FACULTY OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

JUNE 2015

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

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

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 consumers 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 publics 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 commodityspecific 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 countrys 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 nonorganic 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 respondents 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 respondents 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 respondents

intention to purchase Organic Food Products.

H2:

Perceived Barriers significantly and negatively influences respondents

intention to purchase Organic Food Products.

H3:

Self-efficacy significantly and positively influences respondents intention to

purchase Organic Food Products.

H4:

Healthy Eating Motivation significantly and positively

respondents intention to purchase Organic Food Products.

H5:

Attitudes significantly and positively influences respondents intention to

purchase Organic Food Products.

H6:

Subjective Norms significantly and positively influences respondents

intention to purchase Organic Food Products.

H7:

Perceived Behavioural Control significantly and positively influences

respondents intention to purchase Organic Food Products.

influences

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 foodborne 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 consumers 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.
psychosocial aspects were abstracted from the constructs of Theory of Planned

These

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 individuals 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

consumers 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 consumers 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 peoples
judgment regarding obtainable resources such as the ability to purchase. In this
context, most of measured items within this domain are directed to determine ones
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 Thrgesen
(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 ones 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 Selfefficacy. 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 consumers 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 ones belief

in own ability to do something. Hypothetically, people with high level of selfefficacy 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 consumers 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 individuals 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

consumers 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 consumers 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 peoples
judgment regarding obtainable resources such as the ability to purchase. In this
context, most of measured items within this domain are directed to determine ones
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 Thrgesen
(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 ones 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 Selfefficacy. 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 consumers 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 ones 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 cognitivepsychosocial 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 respondents behaviour intention to purchase organic food.
illustrates the conceptual framework of the current study.

Figure 2.0

31
Figure 2.0:
Theoretical framework for the current study that correlates the psychosocial
disposition with the intention to purchase organic food products.

Healthy Eating Motivation (HEM)

Health Belief Model (HBM)

Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

Independent Variable (Psychosocial

Disposition)

Attitude

Subjective Norms

Perceived Behavioural Control

Perceived Barriers

Perceived Benefits

Self-efficacy

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 ( = 0.10), at least 616 samples would be required to
achieve statistical power not less than 80% (1- 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 respondents 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 respondents intention to purchase
organic food products. Similar to section B items, seven-point Likert-type scale was
used to solicit respondents agreement on the seven statements provided.

Validity of Instrument

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

researchers 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
purchase organic food products.

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 respondents 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
Age (years)
18 20
21 23
24 26
27 and above

13
127
19
1

8.1
79.4
11.9
.6

Gender
Male
Female

61
99

38.1
61.9

Ethnicity
Malay
Indian
Chinese
Others

101
6
25
28

63.1
3.8
15.6
17.5

Total (%)
100

100

100

Religion
Islam
Buddha
Hinduism
Christian
Others

100
112
6
13
27
2

70.0
3.8
8.1
16.9
1.3

Marital Status
Single
Married

159
1

99.4
.6

100

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 Bachelors 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
Highest Academic Qualification Obtained
SPM/STPM
Post-high school certificate
Diploma
Degree

137
9
11
3

85.6
5.6
6.9
1.9

Level of Current Enrolled Academic Programme

Certificate/Diploma
Degree
Master

5
152
3

3.1
95.0
1,9

Year of Academic Programme

First Year
Second Year
Third Year
Fourth Year

Total (%)
100

100

100
35
66
46
13

21.9
41.3
28.7
8.1

23
102
19
16

14.4
63.7
11.9
10.0

Academic field
Medical/ Health Related
Others

5
155

3.1
96.9

Total Spending
0 19
20 40

136
24

85.0
15.0

BMI

100
Underweight (below 18.5)
Normal (from 18.5 to 24.9)
Overweight (from 25.0 to 29.9)
Obese (30 and above)

100

100

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

5.56

1.24

5.19

1.27

5.61
4.08

1.17
1.36

4.29

1.31

5.18

1.26

5.51

1.20

Direct Measure
12. Overall, I think eating organic products is a healthier choice.
13. Overall, I think organic food products cost more than theyre
worth.*
14. Overall, I think organic food products have superior quality.
15. Overall, organic food products are just a marketing gimmick.*
16. Overall, I think organic food products taste better than
conventional food
17. Overall, I think the production of organic food products is
environmentally friendly.
18. Overall, I think organic foods are more nutritious than others.
* 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

5.44

1.26

5.30

1.23

4.44

1.58

5.14

1.34

5.28

1.15

5.43

1.13

Indirect Measure
19. If I choose to eat organic foods, my body would be healthy.
20. If I choose to eat organic foods, I would be able to protect the
environment.
21. If I choose to eat organic foods, I might have to travel far to buy
them.*
22. If I choose to eat organic foods, I would be less likely to suffer from
illness.
23. If I choose to eat organic foods, my bodys immunity could be
strengthened.
24. If I choose to eat organic foods, I would physically better.
* 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.

23. It is desirable to me to be able to protect the environment.
24. It is desirable to me to get organic food where ever they are
available.
25. It is desirable to me to get protected from illnesses.
26. It is desirable to me to get my immunity strengthened.
27. It is desirable to me to feel better physically.

6.08
5.78

.994
1.10

5.43

1.25

5.89
5.96
5.94

1.11
1.09
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 respondents 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
31. Most people who are important to me want me to choose
organic food
32. Most people I know believe that eating organic food is a
healthier choice.
33. People who are important to me want me to eat organic food.
34. I am expected to choose organic over conventional food.
35. People who are important to me think that I should NOT waste
my money on organic products.*
* Items 35 was reverse-coded

Mean

SD

4.65

1.29

4.83

1.32

4.76
4.78

1.31
1.38

4.04

1.6

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 respondents
decision to consume or purchase organic food products. Motivation to comply on the
other hand measures respondents 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

4.81

1.30

3.51

1.41

4.46
4.61

1.27
1.40

3.65

1.62

5.94
4.78

1.10
1.53

4.38

1.55

5.28
3.93

1.22
1.96

Normative Belief
36. My parents think I SHOULD eat organic foods.
37. My close friends would DISAPPROVE my preference for
organic foods.*
38. My classmates think I SHOULD eat organic foods.
39. My siblings think I SHOULD eat organic foods.
40. My loved one thinks I SHOULD NOT waste my money on
organic foods.*
Motivation to Comply
41.
42.
43.

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

My close friends approval of what I do is important to me.
Doing what my classmates think I should do is important to
me.
44. Doing what my siblings think I should do is important to me.
45. Following my love ones advice is important to me.
* 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 respondents 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
46. To decide whether or not to buy and consume organic food is
easy for me
47. The decision to buy and consume organic food rests entirely on
me.
48. If organic foods were available in the shops, nothing will
prevent me from buying them.
49. No one could easily influence me to buy or not to buy organic
foods.

Mean

SD

4.91

1.36

5.83

1.10

5.43

1.24

5.53

1.34

49
Question item 50 54: Self-efficacy
Questionnaire items 50 54 were developed to measure the respondents selfefficacy. 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
50. I am certain that I could get organic foods, even if they are
costly.
51. I am confident that organic food is a better choice even if most
people doubt the benefits.
52. I am sure that I could get organic products, even if I have to
travel far to buy them.
53. I am certain that I could purchase organic products, even if the
selection is limited.
54. I am certain that I could get organic foods, even if most people
disapprove my decision.

Mean

SD

4.50

1.52

4.93

1.3

4.20

1.53

4.43

1.37

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

4.60

1.38

4.78

1.31

5.07

1.23

5.03
4.99
5.28

1.24
1.32
1.23

HBM Perceived Benefits (Health and Safety Benefit)

55. I am rest assured that organic food products contain no harmful
chemicals.
56. Organic food products reduce my chance to get food poisoning.
57. Consuming organic products would keep my health condition at
its best.
58. Organic food products prevent me from getting serious illnesses.
59. My body immunity will be strengthened if I eat organic products.
60. I could get more vitamins and minerals from organic products.

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

5.31

1.14

5.28

1.17

5.24
5.31

1.15
1.12

5.08

1.22

5.21

1.23

HBM Perceived Benefits (Environmental Benefits)

61. Organic farming reduces environmental pollution.
62. Soil and water contamination could be prevented by organic
farming.
63. The production of organic food is necessarily energy-efficient.
64. I could protect the environment by buying organic products
65. Organic foods are non-genetically modified products, so it is safe
to consume and good for environment.
66. Organic farming supports community trade.

52
Question item 67 79: Perceived Barrier
Items 67 to 79 were taken from the HBM dimension - Perceived Barrier. This
dimension measures respondents perception on the potential negative aspects on a
particular health action that may act as impediments to undertaking the recommended
behavior. Respondents 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

5.48
4.83
5.08

1.18
1.31
1.50

5.11

1.47

4.98
4.91
4.95

1.50
1.44
1.38

5.09

1.23

Cost
67.
68.
69.
70.

The cost of organic food products is expensive

Organic food products cost more than theyre worth.
As a student, I can't afford to buy organic foods.
Because of my limited financial allowance, buying organic
food products is not an option.

Availability
71.
72.
73.
74.

Organic shops are too far from my house.

It is hard to look for organic foods in nearby area.
Only few shops that I know sell organic food products.
Even if organic food products are available, the selection is too
limited.

53

Table 4.11.1
Item

Mean

SD

5.06

1.11

5.23

3.26

4.71

1.34

5.41

1.11

5.24

1.12

Trust/Distrust
75. There is a chance that conventional food products are labelled
as organic.
76. The production of claimed organic food products might not
meet the standard.
77. Health benefits from eating organic foods are not yet proven.
78. Sellers might claim their products are organic to boost the
sales.
79. Nutritional value as labelled in most organic products might be
inaccurate.

54
Questionnaire item 80 99: Healthy Eating Motivation
Questionnaire items 80-94 were designed to measure the respondents healthy
eating motivation. The construct of this dimension was further divided into four subdimensions 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 dont know. I cant 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

5.09
5.47
5.54
5.42
5.64

1.36
1.13
1.21
1.19
1.11

5.31

1.21

5.31

1.14

5.41

1.18

5.18

1.29

5.29

1.18

Intrinsic Motivation
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.

I like to find new way to create meals that are good for health.
It is fun to create meals that are good for my health.
I am interested in eating healthy
I take pleasure in fixing healthy meals.
I am satisfied with eating healthy

Integrated Regulation
85. Eating healthily is an integral part of my life.
86. Eating healthily is congruent with other important aspects of my
life.
87. Eating healthily is base of my life.
88. Regulating my eating behaviours has become a fundamental part
of who I am
89. Eating healthily is part of the way I have chosen to live my way.

55

Table 4.12.1
Items

Mean

SD

5.81
5.88
5.83

1.03
1.04
1.12

5.61

1.21

5.62

1.16

4.05

1.67

4.18
3.88

1.62
1.74

3.73

1.63

3.86

1.78

Identified Regulation
90.
91.
92.
93.

I believe healthy eating will make my mind and body comfortable.

I believe healthy eating will eventually allow me to feel better
Healthy eating is a way to ensure long-term health benefits.
I believe healthy eating is a good thing I can do to feel better
about myself in general.
94. Not only eat good food, healthy eating is a good idea to try to
regulate my eating behaviors.
Amotivation
95.

96.
97.
98.
99.

In regards to healthy eating I dont really know. I truly have the

impression that Im wasting my time trying to regulate my eating
behaviors.
In regards to healthy eating I cant really see Im getting out of it.
In regards to healthy eating I dont really know why I bother.
In regards to healthy eating I dont know. I cant see how my
efforts to eat healthy are helping my health situation.
In regards to healthy eating I think there are more important
things to do than to eat healthy.

56
Question item 100 103: Behavior Intention
Questionnaire items 100 103 were designed to measure the respondents
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.

101. I intend to buy organic food products on a regular basis
102. I have decided to buy organic food products on a regular
basis.
103. I will buy organic food products on a regular basis.

4.58
4.69

1.40
1.39

4.58

1.40

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 Cronbachs alpha values (>.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

Cronbachs 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)
Dimension

Mean

SD

Skewness

Kurtosis

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)
Dimension

Mean

SD

Skewness

Kurtosis

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
=
X2
=
2
=
1
2
=
2

Mean for
Mean for
Variance
Variance

group 1
group 2
of group 1
of group 2

The effect size of each statistically differentiated mean score would be

interpreted using guideline by Cohen (1988). Table 4.18 shows Cohens d values
with the corresponding interpretation of difference magnitude.

Table: 4.18
Threshold for Interpreting Effect Size d
D

Source: Cohen (1988)

Difference Magnitude

.20

Small

.50

Medium

.80

Large

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 respondents
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 Respondents Socio-demographic Variables (N
= 160)
Sociodemographic
variables
Gender
Male
Female

Ethnicity
Malay
Other

Mean (SD) of self-reported score for TPB and HBM dimensions

Subjective
Health Belief
Attitude
PBR
SE
Norm
Model
5.16 (.67)
5.46 (.79)
t=-2.6
p =.01
d=.41

4.59 (.65)
4.54 (.72)
t=.41
p =.69
d=.07

4.97 (.78)
5.17 (.98)
t=-.1.4
p =.15
d=.23

4.94 (.80)
5.17 (.85)
t=-1.6
p =.10
d=.28

4.47 (.9)
4.54 (1.3)
t=-.40
p = .70
d=.06

5.46 (.71)
5.14 (.80)
t=2.5
p = .01
d=.42

4.65 (.67)
4.41 (.69)
t=2.1
p =.03
d=.35

5.19 (.86)
4.94 (.98)
t=1.67
p =.10
d=.27

5.10 (.86)
5.06 (0.8)
t=.32
p = .75
d=.05

4.59 (1.19)
4.37 (1.19)
t=5.77
p = .00
d=.18

4.57 (.69)
4.53 (.69)
t=.25
p =.80
d=.06

5.10 (.88)
5.08 (1.10)
t=.07
p = .95
d=.02

5.07 (.83)
5.18 (.84)
t=-.61
p = .55
d=.13

4.50 (1.18)
4.62 (1.28)
t=-.44
p = .67
d=.10

4.55 (.67)
4.57 (.70)
t=.20
p = .85
d=.03

5.24 (.76)
5.01 (.98)
t=-1.67
p =.10
d=.26

5.13 (.82)
5.06 (.85)
t=-.49
p = .63
d=.08

4.65 (1.09)
4.43 (1.24)
t=-1.16
p = .25
d=.19

4.63 (.66)
4.44 (.74)
t=1.56
p = .12
d=.27

5.17 (.88)
4.97 (.96)
t=1.33
p = .19
d=.22

5.17 (.89)
4.93 (.72)
t=1.86
p = .07
d=.30

4.68 (1.10)
4.22 (1.30)
t=2.29
p = .24
d=.38

Total Spending
< RM20
5.34 (.75)
> RM20
5.35 (.83)
t=-.02
p = .99
d=.01
Year of Academic Program
Final Year
5.37 (.84)
Other
5.33 (.71)
t=-.37
p = .72
d=.05
BMI
Normal
5.40 (.70)
Other
5.25 (.85)
t=1.14
p = .26
d=.19

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 Cohens 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 Respondents Socio-demographic Variables
(N=160)
Sociodemographic
variables
Gender
Male

Mean (Sum of Ranks) of self-reported score for TPB and HBM dimensions
Attitude

PBC

67.11
(4093.50)
88.75
(8786.50)
U =2202.500
r = -0.2
p = .00

67.11
(4093.50)
88.75
(8786.50)
U =2202.500
r = -0.2
p = .00

75.04
72.72
75.75
(4577.50)
(4436.00)
(4620.50)
83.86
85.29
83.43
(8302.50)
(8444.00)
(8259.50)
U =2686.500 U =2545.000 U =2729.500
r = -0.1
r = -0.1
r = -0.1
p = .24
p = .36
p = .31

89.16
(9005.00)
Other
65.68
(3875.00)
U =2105.000
r = -0.2
p = .00
Year of Academic Program
Graduating
85.42
(5039.50)
Other
77.63
(7840.50)
U =2689.500
r = -0.1
p = .31
BMI
Normal
83.68
(8535.00)
Other
74.91
(4345.00)
U =2634.000
r =-0.1
p = .25

88.08
(8896.00)
67.53
(3984.00)
U = 2214.000
r = -0.2
p = .00

84.15
82.25
86.75
(8499.00)
(8307.00)
(8762.00)
74.25
77.51
69.80
(4381.00)
(4573.00)
(4118.00)
U =2611.000 U =2803.000 U =2348.000
r = -0.1
r = -0.0
r = -0.2
p = .19
p = .53
p = .03

81.57
(4812.50)
79.88
(8067.50)
U = 2916.500
r = -0.0
p = .82

88.50
82.58
89.50
(5221.50)
(5872.50)
(5280.50)
75.83
79.28
75.24
(7658.50)
(8007.50)
(7599.50)
U =2507.500 U =2856.500 U =2448.500
r = -0.1
r = -0.0
r = -0.1
p = .10
p = .66
p = .06

83.71
(8538.00)
74.86
(4342.00)
U = 2631.000
r = -0.1
p = .24

85.56
85.15
84.99
(8727.50)
(8685.50)
(8668.50)
71.59
72.32
72.61
(4152.50)
(4194.50)
(4211.50)
U =2441.500 U =2483.500 U =2500.500
r = -0.1
r = -0.1
r = -0.1
p = .07
p = .09
p = .10

Female

Ethnicity
Malay

PB

PBR

HEM

* PBC =Perceived Behavioural Control, * PB = Perceived Benefits, *PBR = Perceived Barriers,

*HEM = Healthy Eating Motivation

66

Sociodemographi
c variables
Spending
< RM20
>RM20

Mean (Sum of Ranks) of self-reported score for TPB and HBM dimension
Attitude

PBC

80.54
(10953.00)
80.29
(1927.00)
U =1627.000
r = -1.8
p = .98

81.47
(11080.00)
75.00
(1800.00)
U =1500.00
r = -0.1
p = .53

PB

PBR

HEM

80.70
79.50
79.46
(10975.50)
(10812.00)
(10806.50)
79.35
86.17
86.40
(1904.50)
(2068.00)
(2073.50)
U =1604.500 U =1496.000 U =1490.500
r = -0.0
r = -0.1
r = -0.1
p = .90
p = .52
p = .50

* PBC= Perceived Behavioural Control, * PB = Perceived Benefits, *PBR = Perceived Barriers,

*HEM = Healthy Eating Motivation

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

2. Health Eating Motivation

.48**

3. Behavioral Intention

.56**

.48**

1. Self-efficacy

*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

2. Subjective Norm

.50**

3. Perceived Behavior Control

.67**

.32**

4. Behavioral Intention

.45**

.50**

.39**

1. Attitude

*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. Attitude

.55**

2.

Subjective
Norm

Perceived
3. Behaviour
Control

.67** .32**

4.

Selfefficacy

.53** .56** .49**

5.

Perceived
Benefit

.69** .42** .54** .61**

6.

Perceived
Barrier

.27** .24** .24** .19** .21**

Healthy
7. Eating
Motivation
8.

.54** .52** .46** .56** .58** .25**

Behavioural
.45** .50** .39** .56** .45** .21** .48**
Intention

*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 bachelors 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.

Research Objective 1:
To determine the attitudes of university students in regard to Organic Food Products.
Research Question 2:
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
Research Objective 1:
To determine the attitudes of university students in regard to purchase Organic Food
Products.
Research Question 3:
What specific barriers and enablers that characterize students 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.

Research Objective 2:
To ascertain the level of intention of student to purchase Organic Food Products.
Research Question 4:
To what extent the student intent purchase Organic Food Products?
Based on the analysis, the overall mean score for students 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.

Research Objective 3:
To correlate students attitude and intention to purchase Organic Food Products.
Research Question 5:
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

respondents 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- 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 , power and effect size
r*

Sample size required

(1 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 respondents

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 = 1) was achieved.

Given this condition, alternate

hypothesis (H1) developed for the current study was accepted.

H2:

Perceived Barriers significantly and negatively influences respondents

intention to purchase organic food products.
Correlation analysis using Pearson product -moment correlation coefficient
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 respondents intention

to purchase organic food products.
Correlation analysis using Pearson product -moment correlation coefficient
performed between Self-efficacy and Behaviour Intention to purchase
organic food products showed a significant positive correlation, with a large

78
effect size (r= .56, p=.000). Post-hoc power analysis performed indicated
sufficient sample size power to accept the alternate hypothesis (H3) as
100% power (1 = 1) was achieved.

Given this condition, alternate

hypothesis (H3) developed for the current study was accepted.

H4:

Attitudes significantly and positively influences respondents intention to

purchase organic food products.
Correlation analysis using Spearmans 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
error prob) was achieved.

Given this condition, alternate hypothesis

(H4) developed for the current study was accepted.

H5:

Subjective Norms significantly and positively influences respondents

intention to purchase organic food products.
Correlation analysis using Pearson product -moment correlation coefficient
performed between Subjective Norms and Behaviour Intention to purchase
organic food products showed a significant positive correlation, with a large
effect size (r= .50, p=.00). Post-hoc power analysis performed indicated
sufficient sample size power to accept the alternate hypothesis (H5) as
100% power (1 = 1) was achieved.

Given this condition, alternate

hypothesis (H5) developed for the current study was accepted.

79

H6:

Perceived Behavioral Control significantly and positively influences

respondents intention to purchase organic food products.
Correlation analysis using Pearson product -moment correlation coefficient
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 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

respondents intention to purchase organic food products.
Correlation analysis using Pearson product -moment correlation coefficient
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 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 error
prob

H1

Perceived Benefits significantly and positively influences respondents

intention to purchase organic food products.

r = .56, p =
.00

H2

Perceived Barriers significantly and negatively influences respondents

intention to purchase organic food products.

r = .21, p =
.00

.84

H3

Self -efficacy significantly and positively influences respondents

intention to purchase organic food products.

r = 56, p = .00

H4

Attitudes significantly and positively influences respondents intention to

purchase organic food products.

r = .45, p =
.00

.99

H5

Subjective Norms significantly and positively influences respondents

intention to purchase organic food products.

r = .50, p =
.00

H6

Perceived Behavioral Control significantly and positively influences

respondents intention to purchase organic food products.

r = .39, p =
.00

.99

H7

Health Eating Motivation significantly and positively influences

respondents intention to purchase organic food products.

r = .48, p =
.00

.99

Remark

Accepted

Rejected

Accepted

Accepted

Accepted

Accepted

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.
products.

By doing this, the retailers would feel motivated to sell organic food

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., DAmico, M., & Pecorino, B. (2002). A multivariate statistical analysis
on the consumers of organic products. British Food Journal, 104 (3/4/5), 187199.
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, 125132.
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), 287299.
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), 97111.

Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological Types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kalafatis, S. P., Michael., Robert, E., & Markos H. T. (1999). Green marketing and
Ajzens 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: Chinas 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 ultraprocessed 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 childrens 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). Consumers 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), 119133.

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.

Thgersen, 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), 1117.
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), 117124.
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,

A STUDY ON PSYCHOSOCIAL DISPOSITIONS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

AND THE INTENTION TO PURCHASE ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS.
As a final year student of Bachelors 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:
Halimahtul Saadiah binti Mohiddin
Phone no.: 014-6891695
Email: halimahtulsaadiahm92@gmail.com

Your cooperation is highly appreciated. Thank you.

Yours Sincerely,

________________________
HALIMAHTUL SAADIAH BINTI MOHIDDIN
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:
Halimahtul Saadiah binti Mohiddin
No. telefon: 014-6891695
Emel: halimahtulsaadiahm92@gmail.com

Kerjasama anda amat dihargai. Sekian, terima kasih.

Yang benar,

__________________________

HALIMAHTUL SAADIAH BINTI MOHIDDIN

Penyelidik

93

APPENDIX B: Questionnaire

94

BAHAGIAN A: LATAR BELAKANG DEMOGRAFIK

SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND

ARAHAN:

Sila tandakan () pada jawapan yang paling tepat mengenai anda dan isikan
jawapan pada tempat kosong yang disediakan.

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

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): _________________

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
(Medical/Health-related)

Lain-lain (Others)
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
BAHAGIAN B: PEMBAWAAN PSIKOSOSIAL TERHADAP
PEMAKANAN PRODUK ORGANIK.

Strongly Agree

Moderately Agree

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

Slightly Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Strongly Disagree

TIDAK PASTI

The following statements are intended to examine the attitudes towards eating organic foods
Please circle for the scale that best represents your agreement.

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

INSTRUCTION:

TIDAK SETUJU

Berikut merupakan pernyataan bertujuan untuk mengukur sikap anda

terhadap pemakanan produk organik. Sila bulatkan pada skala yang paling
tepat mewakili jawapan anda.

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

ARAHAN:

SANGAT SETUJU

SECTION B: PSYCHOSOCIAL DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS

AT
DM
12.

Secara keseluruhan, saya fikir produk

makanan organik adalah pilihan terbaik.

Overall, I think eating organic products is a healthier

choice.

13.

Secara keseluruhan, saya fikir harga produk

makanan organik melebihi dari nilainya.
Overall, I think organic food products cost more than
they're worth

14.

Secara keseluruhan, produk makanan organik

mempunyai kualiti yang tinggi.
Overall, I think organic food products have superior
quality.

15.

Secara keseluruhan, produk makanan organik

hanyalah gimik pasaran.
Overall, organic food products are just a marketing
gimmick.

16.

Strongly Agree

SANGAT SETUJU

Moderately Agree

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

TIDAK PASTI

Slightly Disagree

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

Moderately Disagree

TIDAK SETUJU

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.

17.

Strongly Disagree

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

98

Secara keseluruhan, saya fikir pemprosesan

produk makanan organik ialah mesra alam.

Overall, I think the production of organic food products

is environmentally friendly.

18.

Secara keseluruhan, saya fikir makanan

organik lebih berkhasiat daripada yang lain.
Overall, I think organic foods are more nutritious than
others.

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.

20.

saya mampu melindungi persekitaran.

I would be able to protect the environment.

21.

saya mungkin perlu berjalan jauh untuk

membeli makanan organik.
I might have to travel far to buy them.

Strongly Agree

SANGAT SETUJU

Moderately Agree

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

TIDAK PASTI

Slightly Disagree

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

Moderately Disagree

TIDAK SETUJU

Strongly Disagree

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

99

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.

23.

imun tubuh badan saya lebih kuat.

my body's immunity could be strengthened.

24.

secara fizikal, saya merasa baik.

I would physically feel better.

OE

Adalah menjadi keinginan saya untuk...

It is desirable to me to
25.

memastikan tubuh badan saya sihat.

keep my body healthy.

26.

mampu untuk melindungi persekitaran.

be able to protect the environment.

27.

mendapatkan produk makanan organik di

mana sahaja ianya boleh didapati.
get organic food where ever they are available.

28.

mendapat perlindungan daripada penyakit.

get protected from illnesses.

29.

mendapatkan imun sistem yang kuat.

get my immunity strengthened.

30.

merasa baik secara fizikal.

feel better physically.

Strongly Agree

SANGAT SETUJU

Moderately Agree

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

TIDAK PASTI

Slightly Disagree

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

Moderately Disagree

TIDAK SETUJU

Strongly Disagree

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

100

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.

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.

33.

Kebanyakan mereka yang penting bagi saya

mahukan saya memakan makanan organik.
People who are important to me want me to eat organic
foods.

34.

Saya diharapkan untuk memilih makanan

organik berbanding makanan konvensional.
I am expected to choose organic over conventional food.

35.

Kebanyakan mereka yang penting bagi saya

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.

Strongly Agree

SANGAT SETUJU

Moderately Agree

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

TIDAK PASTI

Slightly Disagree

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

Moderately Disagree

TIDAK SETUJU

Strongly Disagree

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

101

NB
IM
36.

Ibu bapa saya merasakan saya PATUT makan

makanan organik.

My parents think I SHOULD eat organic foods.

37.

Teman rapat saya akan TIDAK BERSETUJU

mengenai pilihan terhadap makanan organik.
My close friends would DISAPPROVE my preference for
organic foods.

38.

Rakan sekelas saya merasakan saya PATUT

makan makanan organik.
My classmates think I SHOULD eat organic foods.

39.

Adik-beradik saya merasakan saya PATUT

makan makanan organik.
My siblings think I SHOULD eat organic foods.

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.

Strongly Agree

SANGAT SETUJU

Moderately Agree

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

TIDAK PASTI

Slightly Disagree

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

Moderately Disagree

TIDAK SETUJU

Strongly Disagree

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

102

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.

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.

43.

Melakukan perkara yang disarankan rakan

sekelas adalah penting bagi saya.
Doing what my classmates think I should do is important
to me.

44.

Melakukan perkara yang disarankan adikberadik saya adalah penting bagi saya.
Doing what my siblings think I should do is important to
me.

45.

Mengikut nasihat kekasih saya adalah penting

bagi saya.
Following my love ones advice is important to me.

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.

47.

Keputusan untuk membeli dan menggunakan

makanan organik bergantung kepada saya.

Strongly Agree

SANGAT SETUJU

Moderately Agree

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

TIDAK PASTI

Slightly Disagree

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

Moderately Disagree

TIDAK SETUJU

Strongly Disagree

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

103

The decision to buy and consume organic food rests

entirely on me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

54.

Saya merasakan saya boleh mendapatkan

makanan organik walaupun kebanyakan orang
tidak bersetuju dengan keputusan saya.

Strongly Agree

SANGAT SETUJU

Moderately Agree

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

TIDAK PASTI

Slightly Disagree

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

Moderately Disagree

TIDAK SETUJU

Strongly Disagree

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

104

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

people disapprove my decision.

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.

56.

Makanan organik mengurangkan risiko saya

mendapat keracunan makanan.
Organic food products reduce my chance to get food
poisoning.

57.

Menggunakan produk organik memastikan

kesihatan saya di tahap yang baik.
Consuming organic products would keep my health
condition at its best.

58.

Produk makanan organik mengelakkan saya

daripada mendapat penyakit-penyakit yang
serius.
Organic food products prevent me from getting serious
illnesses.

59.

Imuniti badan saya menjadi kuat sekiranya

saya memakan produk organik.
My body immunity will be strengthened if I eat organic
products.

60.

Saya boleh mendapat lebih vitamin dan

mineral daripada produk organik.

Strongly Agree

SANGAT SETUJU

Moderately Agree

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

TIDAK PASTI

Slightly Disagree

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

Moderately Disagree

TIDAK SETUJU

Strongly Disagree

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

105

I could get more vitamins and minerals from organic

products.

EB
61.

Perladangan organik mengurangkan

pencemaran alam sekitar.
Organic farming reduces environmental pollution.

62.

Pencemaran ke atas tanah dan air boleh

dielakkan dengan perladangan organik.
Soil and water contamination could be prevented by
organic farming.

63.

Penghasilan makanan organik semestinya

menggunakan tenaga yang cekap.
The production of organic food is necessarily energyefficient.

64.

Saya boleh melindungi alam sekitar dengan

membeli produk organik.
I could protect the environment by buying organic
products.

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.

66.

Penanaman organik menyokong komuniti

perdagangan.
Organic farming supports community trade.

Strongly Agree

SANGAT SETUJU

Moderately Agree

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

TIDAK PASTI

Slightly Disagree

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

Moderately Disagree

TIDAK SETUJU

Strongly Disagree

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

106

PBR
CS
67.

Harga produk makanan organik adalah mahal.

The cost of organic food products is expensive.

68.

Nilai produk makanan organik adalah tidak

setimpal dengan harganya.

Organic food products cost more than theyre worth.

69.

Sebagai pelajar, saya tidak mampu membeli

makanan organik.
As a student, I can't afford to buy organic foods.

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.

AVL
71.

Kedai organik sangat jauh dari kawasan

perumahan saya.
Organic shops are too far from my house.

72.

Ianya suasah untuk mencari makanan organik di

kawasan berhampiran.
It is hard to look for organic foods in nearby area.

73.

Hanya beberapa kedai yang saya tahu menjual

produk makanan organik.
Only few shops that I know sell organic food products.

74.

Walaupun makanan organik boleh didapati,

pilihannya adalah sangat terhad.

Strongly Agree

SANGAT SETUJU

Moderately Agree

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

TIDAK PASTI

Slightly Disagree

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

Moderately Disagree

TIDAK SETUJU

Strongly Disagree

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

107

Even if organic food products are available, the selection

is too limited.

TRS
75.

Ada kebarangkalian produk makanan

konvensional dilabel sebagai organik.
There is a chance that conventional food products are
labelled as organic.

76.

Pemprosesan makanan organik mungkin tidak

menepati tahap piawaian.
The production of claimed organic food products might
not meet the standard.

77.

Kebaikan kesihatan memakan makanan organik

masih belum terbukti.
Health benefits from eating organic foods are not yet
proven.

78.

Penjual mungkin mengaku produk mereka

adalah organik untuk meningkatkan jualan.
Sellers might claim their products are organic to boost the
sales.

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.

Strongly Agree

SANGAT SETUJU

Moderately Agree

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

TIDAK PASTI

Slightly Disagree

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

Moderately Disagree

TIDAK SETUJU

Strongly Disagree

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

108

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.

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.

82.

Saya berminat mengamalkan pemakanan yang

sihat.
I am interested in eating healthy.

83.

Saya berasa seronok dalam menyediakan

hidangan yang sihat.
I take pleasure in fixing healthy meals.

84.

Saya berpuas hati dengan cara pemakanan

yang sihat.
I am satisfied with eating healthy.

IR
85.

Pemakanan yang sihat adalah sebahagian

daripada hidup saya.
Eating healthily is an integral part of my life.

86.

Pemakanan yang sihat selaras dengan aspek

lain dalam kehidupan saya.
Eating healthily is congruent with other important
aspects of my life.

87.

Pemakanan yang sihat adalah asas kepada

kehidupan saya.

Strongly Agree

SANGAT SETUJU

Moderately Agree

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

TIDAK PASTI

Slightly Disagree

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

Moderately Disagree

TIDAK SETUJU

Strongly Disagree

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

109

Eating healthily is base of my life.

88.

Mengawal tabiat pemakanan telah menjadi

sebahagian asas daripada diri saya.
Regulating my eating behaviors has become a
fundamental part of who I am.

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.

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.

91.

Saya percaya pemakanan yang sihat akan

membuatkan saya berasa lebih baik.
I believe healthy eating will eventually allow me to feel
better.

92.

Pemakanan yang sihat adalah satu cara

mengekalkan kesihatan jangka panjang.
Healthy eating is a way to ensure long-term health
benefits.

93.

Saya percaya pemakanan yang sihat adalah satu

perkara yang baik dan membuatkan saya berasa
lebih baik tentang diri sendiri secara amnya.

Strongly Agree

SANGAT SETUJU

Moderately Agree

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

TIDAK PASTI

Slightly Disagree

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

Moderately Disagree

TIDAK SETUJU

Strongly Disagree

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

110

I believe healthy eating is a good thing I can do to feel

better about myself in general.

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.

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 dont really know. I truly have the impression that Im
wasting my time trying to regulate my eating behaviours.

96.

saya tidak begitu jelas dengan apa yang saya

boleh perolehi.
I cant really see Im getting out of it.

97.

saya tidak tahu kenapa saya perlu peduli.

I dont really know why I bother.

98.

saya tidak tahu. Saya tidak nampak

bagaimana usaha saya untuk makan secara sihat
dapat membantu keadaan kesihatan saya.

Strongly Agree

SANGAT SETUJU

Moderately Agree

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

TIDAK PASTI

Slightly Disagree

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

Moderately Disagree

TIDAK SETUJU

Strongly Disagree

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

111

I dont know. I cant see how my efforts to eat healthy

are helping my health situation.

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.

112

BAHAGIAN C: NIAT UNTUK MEMBELI PRODUK MAKANAN ORGANIK

Strongly Agree

SANGAT SETUJU

SETUJU

Slightly Agree

SEDIKIT SETUJU

Unsure

Slightly Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Strongly Disagree

TIDAK PASTI

The following statements are intended to examine your intention towards eating
organic foods. Please circle the best scale that best represents your agreement.

SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU

INSTRUCTION:

TIDAK SETUJU

Di bawah merupakan pernyataan mengenai niat anda untuk makan

makanan dan produk organik. Sila bulatkan pada skala yang paling
tepat mewakili jawapan anda.

SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

ARAHAN:

Moderately Agree

SECTION C: BEHAVIORAL INTENTION TO PURCHASE ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS

BI
100.

Saya bercadang untuk membeli produk

makanan organik secara berkala.

I plan to buy organic food products on a regular basis.

101.

Saya berniat untuk membeli makanan organik

secara berkala.
I intend to buy organic food products on a regular basis.

102.

Saya membuat keputusan untuk membeli

produk makanan organik secara berkala.
I have decided to buy organic food products on a regular
basis.

103.

Saya akan membeli produk makanan organik

secara berkala.
I will buy organic food products on a regular basis.

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*

113

APPENDIX C: DATA ANALYSIS

SPSS OUTPUT

114

Section A: Demographic Profiles of Respondents (Descriptive Statistics)

Age of the respondent

Valid

18 - 20 years old
21 23 years old
24 26 years old
27 years and above
Total

Frequency
13
127
19
1
160

Percent
Valid Percent
8.1
8.1
79.4
79.4
11.9
11.9
.6
100.0

.6
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
8.1
87.5
99.4
100.0

Gender of the respondent

Valid

MALE
FEMALE
Total

Frequency
61
99
160

Percent
Valid Percent
38.1
38.1
61.9
61.9
100.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
38.1
100.0

Ethnicity of the respondent

Valid

MALAY
INDIAN
CHINESE
BUMIPUTERA
OTHER NONBUMIPUTERA
Total

Frequency
101
6
25
23

Percent
Valid Percent
63.1
63.1
3.8
3.8
15.6
15.6
14.4
14.4

3.1

3.1

160

100.0

100.0

Cumulative
Percent
63.1
66.9
82.5
96.9
100.0

115

Religion of the respondent

Valid

ISLAM
BUDDHISM
HINDUISM
CHRISTIANITY
OTHERS
Total

Frequency
112
6
13
27
2
160

Percent
70.0
3.8
8.1
16.9
1.3
100.0

Valid Percent
70.0
3.8
8.1
16.9
1.3
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
70.0
73.8
81.9
98.8
100.0

Marital status of the respondent

Valid

SINGLE
MARRIED
Total

Frequency
159
1
160

Percent
Valid Percent
99.4
99.4
.6
.6
100.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
99.4
100.0

High academic qualification obtain of the respondent

Valid

SPM/STPM
POST HIGH-SCHOOL
DIPLOMA
DEGREE
Total

Frequency
137
9
11
3
160

Percent Valid Percent

85.6
85.6
5.6
5.6
6.9
6.9
1.9
1.9
100.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
85.6
91.3
98.1
100.0

Level of current enrolled academic programmed of the respondent

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
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

Frequency
Valid

MEDICAL/HEALTHRELATED
OTHERS
Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

3.1

3.1

3.1

155
160

96.9
100.0

96.9
100.0

100.0

Year of academic of the respondent

Frequency
Valid

FIRST YEAR
SECOND YEAR
THIRD YEAR
FOURTH YEAR
Total

35
66
46
13
160

Percent

Valid Percent

21.9
41.3
28.7
8.1
100.0

21.9
41.3
28.7
8.1
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
21.9
63.1
91.9
100.0

Body mass index of the respondent

Valid

UNDERWEIGHT
NORMAL
OVERWEIGHT
OBESITY
Total

Frequency
23
102
19
16
160

Percent
14.4
63.7
11.9
10.0
100.0

Valid Percent
14.4
63.7
11.9
10.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
14.4
78.1
90.0
100.0

Total spending on meals of the respondent

Valid

Below RM20
Under RM20
Total

Frequency
136
24
160

Percent
Valid Percent
85.0
85.0
15.0
15.0
100.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
85.0
100.0

117
Section B: Reliability Analysis of Developed Instruments
Attitude

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.731
7

Item Statistics
Mean
Overall, I think eating organic products is a
5.56
healthier choice.
Overall, I think organic food products cost more
5.19
than they're worth
Overall, I think organic food products have
5.61
superior quality
Overall, organic food products are just a
4.08
marketing gimmick.
Overall, I think organic food products taste
4.29
better than conventional food
Overall, I think the production of organic food
5.18
products is environmentally friendly
Overall, I think organic foods are more
5.51
nutritious than others.

Std. Deviation

1.237

160

1.265

160

1.171

160

1.358

160

1.306

160

1.257

160

1.192

160

118
Behavioural Belief
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.841
6

Item Statistics
Mean
If I choose to eat organic foods, my body would
be healthy
If I choose to eat organic foods, I would be able
to protect the environment.
If I choose to eat organic foods, I might have to
travel far to buy them.
If I choose to eat organic foods, I would be less
likely to suffer from illness
If I choose to eat organic foods, my body's
immunity could be strengthened.
If I choose to eat organic foods, I would
physically feel better

Std. Deviation

5.44

1.263

160

5.30

1.233

160

4.44

1.581

160

5.14

1.340

160

5.28

1.150

160

5.43

1.131

160

119
Behavioural Belief (Outcome Evaluation)

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.931
6

Item Statistics
Mean
It is desirable to me to, keep my body healthy
It is desirable to me to, be able to protect the
environment
It is desirable to me to, get organic food where
ever they are available
It is desirable to me to, get protected from
illnesses
It is desirable to me to, get my immunity
strengthened
It is desirable to me to, feel better physically

Std. Deviation

6.08

.994

160

5.78

1.099

160

5.43

1.247

160

5.89

1.114

160

5.96

1.081

160

5.94

1.109

160

120

Subjective Norm

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.740
5

Item Statistics
Mean
Most people who are important to me want me to
choose organic food
Most people I know believe that eating organic
food is a healthier choice
People who are important to me want me to eat
organic foods
I am expected to choose organic over conventional
food
People who are important to me think that I should
NOT waste my money on organic products

Std. Deviation

4.65

1.294

160

4.83

1.315

160

4.76

1.307

160

4.78

1.377

160

4.04

1.599

160

121
Normative Belief
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.555
5

Item Statistics
My parents think I SHOULD eat organic foods
My close friends would DISAPPROVE my
preference for organic foods
My classmates think I SHOULD eat organic foods
My siblings think I SHOULD eat organic foods
My loved one thinks I SHOULD NOT waste my
money on organic foods

Mean
Std. Deviation
4.81
1.289

N
160

3.51

1.410

160

4.46
4.61

1.268
1.401

160
160

3.65

1.618

160

Motivation to Comply

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.699
5

Item Statistics
Mean
Doing what my parents think I should do is
important to me
My close friends approval of what I do is important
to me.
Doing what my classmates think I should do is
important to me
Doing what my siblings think I should do is
important to me
Following my love ones advice is important to me

Std. Deviation

5.94

1.086

160

4.78

1.525

160

4.38

1.545

160

5.28

1.224

160

3.93

1.857

160

122

Perceived Behavioural Control

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.730
4

Item Statistics
Mean
To decide whether or not to buy and consume
organic food is easy for me
The decision to buy and consume organic food rests
entirely on me
If organic foods were available in the shops, nothing
will prevent me from buying them
No one could easily influence me to buy or not to
buy organic foods

Std. Deviation

4.91

1.357

160

5.83

1.102

160

5.43

1.242

160

5.53

1.341

160

123

Self-Efficacy
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.885
5

Item Statistics
Mean
I am certain that I could get organic foods, even if
they are costly
I am confident that organic food is a better choice
even if most people doubt the benefits
I am sure that I could get organic products, even if
I have to travel far to buy them
I am certain that I could purchase organic
products, even if the selection is limited
I am certain that I could get organic foods, even if
most people disapprove my decision

Std. Deviation

4.50

1.517

160

4.93

1.299

160

4.20

1.525

160

4.43

1.367

160

4.50

1.475

160

124
Health Belief Model (Health and Safety Benefit)
Perceived Benefit
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.919
6

Item Statistics
Mean
I am rest assured that organic food products
contain no harmful chemicals
Organic food products reduce my chance to get
food poisoning
Consuming organic products would keep my health
condition at its best
Organic food products prevent me from getting
serious illnesses
My body immunity will be strengthened if I eat
organic products
I could get more vitamins and minerals from
organic products

Std. Deviation

4.60

1.379

160

4.78

1.311

160

5.07

1.234

160

5.03

1.236

160

4.99

1.320

160

5.28

1.228

160

125

Health Belief Motivation (Environmental Benefit)

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.897
6

Item Statistics
Mean
Organic farming reduces environmental
pollution.
Soil and water contamination could be
prevented by organic farming
The production of organic food is necessarily
energy-efficient
I could protect the environment by buying
organic products
Organic foods are non-genetically modified
products, so it is safe to consume and good for
environment
Organic farming supports community trade

Std. Deviation

5.31

1.144

160

5.28

1.165

160

5.24

1.152

160

5.31

1.122

160

5.08

1.218

160

5.21

1.225

160

126
Perceived Barrier (Cost)
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.819
4

Item Statistics
The cost of organic food products is expensive
Organic food products cost more than theyre
worth
As a student, I can't afford to buy organic foods
Because of my limited financial allowance,
buying organic food products is not an option

Mean
5.48

Std. Deviation
1.176

N
160

4.83

1.314

160

5.08

1.500

160

5.11

1.471

160

Perceived Barrier (Availability)

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.827

Item Statistics
Mean
Organic shops are too far from my
house
It is hard to look for organic foods in
nearby area
Only few shops that I know sell
organic food products
Even if organic food products are
available, the selection is too limited

Std. Deviation

4.98

1.503

160

4.91

1.440

160

4.95

1.382

160

5.09

1.233

160

127

Perceived Barrier (Trust/Distrust)

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.525
5

Item Statistics
Mean
There is a chance that conventional food
products are labelled as organic
The production of claimed organic food
products might not meet the standard
Health benefits from eating organic foods are
not yet proven
Sellers might claim their products are organic to
boost the sales
Nutritional value as labelled in most organic
products might be inaccurate

Std. Deviation

5.06

1.109

160

5.23

3.260

160

4.71

1.344

160

5.41

1.107

160

5.24

1.119

160

128
Healthy Eating Motivation (Intrinsic Motivation)
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.912
5

Item Statistics
Mean
I like to find new way to create meals that are
good for health
It is fun to create meals that are good for my
health
I am interested in eating healthy
I take pleasure in fixing healthy meals
I am satisfied with eating healthy

Std. Deviation

5.09

1.359

160

5.47

1.127

160

5.54
5.42
5.64

1.207
1.184
1.107

160
160
160

Healthy Eating Motivation (Integrated Regulation)

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.927

Item Statistics
Eating healthily is an integral part of my life
Eating healthily is congruent with other important
aspects of my life
Eating healthily is base of my life
Regulating my eating behaviors has become a
fundamental part of who I am.
Eating healthily is part of the way I have chosen to
live my way

Mean
Std. Deviation
5.31
1.213

N
160

5.31

1.138

160

5.41

1.178

160

5.18

1.281

160

5.29

1.174

160

129
Healthy Eating Motivation (Identified Regulation)
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.921
5

Item Statistics
Mean
I believe healthy eating will make
my mind and body comfortable
I believe healthy eating will
eventually allow me to feel better
Healthy eating is a way to ensure
long-term health benefits
I believe healthy eating is a good
thing I can do to feel better about
myself in general
Not only eat good food, healthy
eating is a good idea to try to
regulate my eating behaviors

Std. Deviation

5.81

1.031

160

5.88

1.036

160

5.83

1.117

160

5.61

1.208

160

5.61

1.160

160

130
Amotivation
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.910
5

Item Statistics
Mean
In regards to healthy eating, I dont really
know. I truly have the impression that Im
4.05
wasting my time trying to regulate my eating
behaviours
In regards to healthy eating, cant really see
4.18
Im getting out of it
In regards to healthy eating, I dont really
3.88
know why I bother
In regards to healthy eating, I dont know. I
cant see how my efforts to eat healthy are
3.73
helping my health situation
In regards to healthy eating, I think there are
more important things to do than to eat
3.86
healthy

Std. Deviation

1.674

160

1.616

160

1.735

160

1.628

160

1.782

160

131
Behavioural Intention
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
.952
4

Item Statistics
Mean
I plan to buy organic food products on a
4.58
regular basis
I intend to buy organic food products on a
4.69
regular basis
I have decided to buy organic food products
4.58
on a regular basis
I will buy organic food products on a regular
4.63
basis

Std. Deviation

1.394

160

1.388

160

1.399

160

1.461

160

132

Data Distribution Analysis

Statistics
TOTAL_ATT
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Std. Error of
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std. Error of Kurtosis

Statistics
TOTAL_PB
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Std. Error of
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std. Error of Kurtosis

160
0
5.3438
.75803
-.955
.192
3.434
.381

160
0
5.0974
.91216
.081
.192
-.108
.381

Statistics
TOTAL_SN
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Std. Error of
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std. Error of Kurtosis

Statistics
TOTAL_HEM
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Std. Error of
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std. Error of Kurtosis

160
0
4.5604
.68992
-.092
.192
.779
.381

160
0
5.1044
.67022
.065
.192
.060
.381

133

Statistics
TOTAL_PBR
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Std. Error of
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std. Error of Kurtosis

160
0
5.0832
.83707
.179
.192
-.206
.381

Statistics
MEAN_SE
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Std. Error of
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std. Error of Kurtosis

160
0
4.5125
1.19152
-.255
.192
.368
.381

Statistics
MEAN_PBC
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Std. Error of
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std. Error of Kurtosis

Statistics
MEAN_BI
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Std. Error of
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std. Error of Kurtosis

160
0
5.4234
.94002
-.392
.192
-.237
.381

160
0
4.6156
1.31927
-.468
.192
.308
.381

134
Mean Score Comparison
T-Test

Group Statistics
GENDER_BINARY
TOTAL_SN
1
2
TOTAL_HBM 1
2
TOTAL_HEM 1
2
TOTAL_PBR 1
2
MEAN_PBC 1
2
MEAN_SE
1
2
MEAN_BI
1
2

N
61
99
61
99
61
99
61
99
61
99
61
99
61
99

Mean
Std. Deviation
4.5880
.64939
4.5434
.71646
4.9727
.77575
5.1742
.98278
5.0295
.59850
5.1505
.70983
4.9483
.79628
5.1663
.85458
5.1926
.80673
5.5657
.99076
4.4689
.89732
4.5394
1.34482
4.5615
1.07883
4.6490
1.45200

Std. Error
Mean
.08315
.07201
.09932
.09877
.07663
.07134
.10195
.08589
.10329
.09958
.11489
.13516
.13813
.14593

135

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances

F
TOTAL_SN

Equal
variances
assumed

.007

Sig.
.935

Equal
variances not
assumed
TOTAL_HBM Equal
variances
assumed

3.012

.085

Equal
variances not
assumed
TOTAL_HEM Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed

1.091

.298

t-test for Equality of Means

Df

Sig. (2tailed)

Mean
Difference

Std. Error
Difference

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower

Upper

.396

158

.693

.04454

.11260

-.17785

.26694

.405

136.681

.686

.04454

.10999

-.17296

.26205

-1.361

158

.175

-.20156

.14808

-.49403

.09090

-1.439

148.459

.152

-.20156

.14008

-.47837

.07524

-1.110

158

.269

-.12100

.10901

-.33631

.09431

-1.156

143.212

.250

-.12100

.10470

-.32795

.08595

136
TOTAL_PBR Equal
variances
assumed

.763

.384

Equal
variances not
assumed
MEAN_PBC

Equal
variances
assumed

3.420

.066

Equal
variances not
assumed
MEAN_SE

Equal
variances
assumed

8.028

.005

Equal
variances not
assumed
MEAN_BI

Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed

7.208

.008

-1.608

158

.110

-.21798

.13558

-.48576

.04979

-1.635

134.047

.104

-.21798

.13331

-.48164

.04568

-2.477

158

.014

-.37303

.15060

-.67047

-.07559

-2.600

146.091

.010

-.37303

.14347

-.65658

-.08948

-.363

158

.717

-.07054

.19448

-.45465

.31357

-.398

156.949

.691

-.07054

.17739

-.42092

.27984

-.406

158

.685

-.08751

.21531

-.51276

.33773

-.436

152.426

.664

-.08751

.20094

-.48450

.30947

137

Group Statistics
ETHNICITY_BINARY
TOTAL_SN
1
2
TOTAL_HBM 1
2
TOTAL_HEM 1
2
TOTAL_PBR 1
2
MEAN_PBC 1
2
MEAN_SE
1
2
MEAN_BI
1
2

N
101
59
101
59
101
59
101
59
101
59
101
59
101
59

Mean
4.6495
4.4079
5.1922
4.9350
5.2099
4.9237
5.0990
5.0561
5.5743
5.1653
4.5941
4.3729
4.7277
4.4237

Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
.67499
.06716
.69416
.09037
.85957
.08553
.98213
.12786
.65261
.06494
.66672
.08680
.86389
.08596
.79555
.10357
.90453
.09000
.95096
.12380
1.19246
.11865
1.18697
.15453
1.30293
.12965
1.33605
.17394

138

Independent Samples Test

Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
Variance
s
t-test for Equality of Means

F
TOTAL_S
N

Equal
varianc
es
assume
d
Equal
varianc
es not
assume
d
TOTAL_H Equal
BM
varianc
es
assume
d
Equal
varianc
es not
assume
d
TOTAL_H Equal
EM
varianc
es
assume
d

Si
g.

.05 .81
6 3

1.0 .31
17 5

.00 .98
0 5

Sig.
(2Mean
taile Differe
d)
nce

95%
Confidence
Interval of
the
Std.
Difference
Error
Differe Low Upp
nce
er
er

df

2.1
62

158 .032

.24160

.11177

.020 .462
84
35

2.1 118.7
.034
46
54

.24160

.11260

.018 .464
64
55

.25722

.550
.14854 .036
59
16

1.6 108.8
.097
72
75

.25722

.562
.15383 .047
11
68

2.6
55

.28617

.10779

1.7
32

158 .085

158 .009

.073 .499
27
07

139
Equal
varianc
es not
assume
d
TOTAL_P Equal
BR
varianc
es
assume
d
Equal
varianc
es not
assume
d
MEAN_PB Equal
C
varianc
es
assume
d
Equal
varianc
es not
assume
d
MEAN_SE Equal
varianc
es
assume
d
Equal
varianc
es not
assume
d
MEAN_BI Equal
varianc
es
assume
d

2.6 119.4
.009
40
00

.66 .41
3 7

.01 .89
7 7

.01 .90
5 4

.10840

.04295

.314
.13755 .228
63
73

.31 129.7
.750
9
25

.04295

.309
.13460 .223
24
34

2.7
08

158 .008

.40900

.15105

.110 .707
66
35

2.6 116.6
.009
72
15

.40900

.15306

.105 .712
86
15

.22118

.606
.19507 .164
45
10

.22118

.606
.19483 .164
86
51

.30399

.729
.21551 .121
64
65

.31
2

1.1
34

158 .755

158 .259

1.1 121.9
.259
35
63

.22 .63
6 5

.071 .500
53
81

.28617

1.4
11

158 .160

140
Equal
varianc
es not
assume
d

1.4 119.0
.164
01
37

.30399

.733
.21694 .125
56
57

141

Group Statistics
BMI_BINARY
TOTAL_SN
1
2
TOTAL_HBM 1
2
TOTAL_HEM 1
2
TOTAL_PBR 1
2
MEAN_PBC 1
2
MEAN_SE
1
2
MEAN_BI
1
2

N
102
58
102
58
102
58
102
58
102
58
102
58
102
58

Mean
4.6261
4.4448
5.1716
4.9670
5.1603
5.0060
5.1704
4.9297
5.5000
5.2888
4.6804
4.2172
4.6152
4.6164

Std.
Deviation
.65730
.73544
.87854
.96237
.67164
.66201
.88620
.72480
.87314
1.04168
1.09662
1.30009
1.26485
1.42134

Std. Error
Mean
.06508
.09657
.08699
.12637
.06650
.08693
.08775
.09517
.08645
.13678
.10858
.17071
.12524
.18663

142

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances

F
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
TOTAL_HBM Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
TOTAL_HEM Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed

Sig.

df

Sig. (2tailed)

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Mean
Std. Error
Difference Difference
Lower
Upper

TOTAL_SN

.804

.322

.000

.371 1.606

158

.110

.18132

.11290

-.04167

.40431

1.557 107.969

.122

.18132

.11645

-.04951

.41215

158

.173

.20461

.14960

-.09086

.50009

1.334 109.895

.185

.20461

.15341

-.09942

.50864

158

.162

.15426

.10989

-.06277

.37129

1.409 120.043

.161

.15426

.10945

-.06244

.37096

.571 1.368

.998 1.404

143
TOTAL_PBR Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
MEAN_PBC Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
MEAN_SE
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
MEAN_BI
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed

3.133

2.569

1.100

.647

.079 1.760

158

.080

.24073

.13676

-.02938

.51084

1.860 138.582

.065

.24073

.12945

-.01522

.49668

158

.173

.21121

.15417

-.09329

.51570

1.305 102.417

.195

.21121

.16181

-.10973

.53214

158

.018

.46315

.19309

.08179

.84451

2.289 102.942

.024

.46315

.20232

.06190

.86440

158

.996

-.00118

.21765

-.43105

.42869

-.005 107.582

.996

-.00118

.22476

-.44671

.44434

.111 1.370

.296 2.399

.423 -.005

144

Group Statistics
YEAR_BINARY
TOTAL_SN
1
2
TOTAL_HBM 1
2
TOTAL_HEM 1
2
TOTAL_PBR 1
2
MEAN_PBC 1
2
MEAN_SE
1
2
MEAN_BI
1
2

N
101
59
101
59
101
59
101
59
101
59
101
59
101
59

Mean
4.5683
4.5469
5.0116
5.2444
5.0302
5.2314
5.0586
5.1252
5.4183
5.4322
4.4317
4.6508
4.5421
4.7415

Std.
Deviation
.70368
.67145
.98326
.76107
.68641
.62697
.84882
.82205
.92744
.96917
1.24474
1.09077
1.30531
1.34466

Std. Error
Mean
.07002
.08742
.09784
.09908
.06830
.08162
.08446
.10702
.09228
.12618
.12386
.14201
.12988
.17506

145

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances

F
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
TOTAL_HBM Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
TOTAL_HEM Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed

Sig.

t-test for Equality of Means

df

Sig. (2tailed)

Mean
Std. Error
Difference Difference

95% Confidence Interval of

the Difference
Lower

Upper

TOTAL_SN

.453

4.860

.662

.502

.189

158

.850

.02142

.11339

-.20254

.24539

.191 126.174

.849

.02142

.11200

-.20022

.24307

158

.120

-.23280

.14879

-.52668

.06108

-1.672 145.832

.097

-.23280

.13925

-.50800

.04240

158

.067

-.20116

.10900

-.41644

.01413

-1.890 130.536

.061

-.20116

.10643

-.41171

.00939

.029 -1.565

.417 -1.845

146
TOTAL_PBR Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
MEAN_PBC Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
MEAN_SE
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
MEAN_BI
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed

.003

.074

.774

.008

.960

.786

-.484

158

.629

-.06652

.13749

-.33808

.20504

-.488 124.692

.626

-.06652

.13633

-.33635

.20331

-.090

158

.929

-.01389

.15452

-.31907

.29130

-.089 117.198

.929

-.01389

.15632

-.32347

.29569

158

.263

-.21916

.19508

-.60447

.16614

-1.163 134.622

.247

-.21916

.18843

-.59183

.15350

158

.358

-.19945

.21628

-.62661

.22772

-.915 118.588

.362

-.19945

.21798

-.63109

.23219

.380 -1.123

.928

-.922

147

Group Statistics
SPENDING_BINARY
TOTAL_SN
1
2
TOTAL_HBM 1
2
TOTAL_HEM 1
2
TOTAL_PBR 1
2
MEAN_PBC 1
2
MEAN_SE
1
2
MEAN_BI
1
2

N
136
24
136
24
136
24
136
24
136
24
136
24
136
24

Mean
4.5662
4.5278
5.0999
5.0833
5.0842
5.2188
5.0662
5.1795
5.4393
5.3333
4.4941
4.6167
4.6287
4.5417

Std.
Deviation
.69163
.69391
.88056
1.09567
.63973
.82893
.83859
.83949
.94158
.94601
1.18007
1.27575
1.28955
1.50482

Std. Error
Mean
.05931
.14164
.07551
.22365
.05486
.16921
.07191
.17136
.08074
.19310
.10119
.26041
.11058
.30717

148

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances

F
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not assumed
TOTAL_HBM Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not assumed
TOTAL_HEM Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not assumed

Sig.

t-test for Equality of Means

df

Mean
Sig. (2-tailed) Difference

Std. Error
Difference

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper

TOTAL_SN

.078

1.783

2.773

.780

.184

.098

.251

158

.802

.03840

.15320

-.26419

.34099

.250

31.606

.804

.03840

.15356

-.27454

.35134

.082

158

.935

.01654

.20259

-.38359

.41668

.070

28.479

.945

.01654

.23605

-.46662

.49971

-.906

158

.366

-.13456

.14847

-.42781

.15869

-.756

28.036

.456

-.13456

.17788

-.49890

.22978

149
TOTAL_PBR Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not assumed
MEAN_PBC Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not assumed
MEAN_SE
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not assumed
MEAN_BI
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not assumed

.001

.051

.840

.528

.972

.822

.361

.469

-.610

158

.543

-.11331

.18570

-.48008

.25346

-.610

31.646

.546

-.11331

.18584

-.49201

.26539

.508

158

.612

.10600

.20861

-.30602

.51803

.506

31.580

.616

.10600

.20930

-.32055

.53256

-.463

158

.644

-.12255

.26446

-.64488

.39978

-.439

30.352

.664

-.12255

.27938

-.69284

.44774

.297

158

.767

.08701

.29293

-.49156

.66558

.267

29.264

.792

.08701

.32647

-.58043

.75445

150
Mann-Whitney Test
Descriptive Statistics

Std.
Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum

Percentiles
50th
25th (Median) 75th

TOTAL_ATT
160 5.3437

.75803

1.47

6.95 4.8947

5.3684 5.8421

160 4.5604

.68992

2.33

6.73 4.1333

4.5333 5.0000

160 5.0974

.91216

2.83

7.00 4.5000

5.1667 5.5833

160 5.1044

.67022

3.25

6.95 4.6000

5.0500 5.5500

160 5.0832

.83707

3.08

7.46 4.4808

5.0000 5.6923

.487

TOTAL_SN

TOTAL_HBM

TOTAL_HEM

TOTAL_PBR

GENDER_BINARY
160

1.62

1.00

2.00

2.00

151

Ranks
GENDER_BINARY
N
Mean Rank
TOTAL_ATT 1
61
67.11
2
99
88.75
Total
160
TOTAL_SN
1
61
80.07
2
99
80.76
Total
160
TOTAL_HBM 1
61
75.04
2
99
83.86
Total
160
TOTAL_HEM 1
61
75.75
2
99
83.43
Total
160
TOTAL_PBR 1
61
72.72
2
99
85.29
Total
160

Sum of Ranks
4093.50
8786.50
4884.50
7995.50
4577.50
8302.50
4620.50
8259.50
4436.00
8444.00

152

Descriptive Statistics

N
TOTAL_ATT
160
TOTAL_HBM
160
TOTAL_HEM
160
TOTAL_PBR
160
MEAN_PBC
160
ETHNICITY_BINARY 160

TOTAL_AT
T

Mean
5.3437
5.0974
5.1044
5.0832
5.4234
1.37

Std.
Deviation Minimum Maximum
.75803
1.47
6.95
.91216
2.83
7.00
.67022
3.25
6.95
.83707
3.08
7.46
.94002
2.50
7.00
.484
1
2

Test Statisticsa
TOTAL_S TOTAL_HB
N
M

MannWhitney
2202.500
2993.500
2686.500
U
Wilcoxo
4093.500
4884.500
4577.500
nW
Z
-2.871
-.091
-1.171
Asymp.
Sig. (2.004
.927
.242
tailed)
a. Grouping Variable: GENDER_BINARY

TOTAL_HE
M

Percentiles
50th
25th (Median) 75th
4.8947
5.3684 5.8421
4.5000
5.1667 5.5833
4.6000
5.0500 5.5500
4.4808
5.0000 5.6923
4.8125
5.5000 6.2500
1.00
1.00
2.00

TOTAL_PB
R

2729.500

2545.000

4620.500

4436.000

-1.019

-1.668

.308

.095

153

TOTAL_ATT

TOTAL_HBM

TOTAL_HEM

TOTAL_PBR

MEAN_PBC

Ranks
ETHNICITY_BINARY
1
2
Total
1
2
Total
1
2
Total
1
2
Total
1
2
Total

N
101
59
160
101
59
160
101
59
160
101
59
160
101
59
160

Mean Rank
89.16
65.68

Sum of Ranks
9005.00
3875.00

84.15
74.25

8499.00
4381.00

86.75
69.80

8762.00
4118.00

82.25
77.51

8307.00
4573.00

88.08
67.53

8896.00
3984.00

Test Statisticsa
TOTAL_ATT TOTAL_HBM TOTAL_HEM TOTAL_PBR
MannWhitney
2105.000
2611.000
U
Wilcoxon
3875.000
4381.000
W
Z
-3.094
-1.304
Asymp.
Sig. (2.002
.192
tailed)
a. Grouping Variable: ETHNICITY_BINARY

MEAN_PBC

2348.000

2803.000

2214.000

4118.000

4573.000

3984.000

-2.234

-.625

-2.718

.025

.532

.007

154
Descriptive Statistics

Std.
Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum

25th

Percentiles
50th
(Median) 75th

TOTAL_ATT
160 5.3437

.75803

1.47

6.95 4.8947

5.3684 5.8421

160 5.0974

.91216

2.83

7.00 4.5000

5.1667 5.5833

160 5.1044

.67022

3.25

6.95 4.6000

5.0500 5.5500

160 5.0832

.83707

3.08

7.46 4.4808

5.0000 5.6923

MEAN_PBC
160 5.4234
YEAR_BINARY 160
1.37

.94002
.484

2.50
1

7.00 4.8125
2
1.00

5.5000 6.2500
1.00
2.00

TOTAL_HBM

TOTAL_HEM

TOTAL_PBR

155

YEAR_BINARY
TOTAL_ATT 1
2
Total
TOTAL_HBM 1
2
Total
TOTAL_HEM 1
2
Total
TOTAL_PBR 1
2
Total
MEAN_PBC 1
2
Total

TOTAL_AT
T

Ranks
N
101
59
160
101
59
160
101
59
160
101
59
160
101
59
160

Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
77.63
7840.50
85.42
5039.50

Test Statisticsa
TOTAL_HB TOTAL_HE
M
M

MannWhitney
2689.500
2507.500
U
Wilcoxo
7840.500
7658.500
nW
Z
-1.026
-1.671
Asymp.
Sig. (2.305
.095
tailed)
a. Grouping Variable: YEAR_BINARY

75.83
88.50

7658.50
5221.50

75.24
89.50

7599.50
5280.50

79.28
82.58

8007.50
4872.50

79.88
81.57

8067.50
4812.50

TOTAL_PB MEAN_PB
R
C

2448.500

2856.500

2916.500

7599.500

8007.500

8067.500

-1.879

-.435

-.224

.060

.663

.823

156

Descriptive Statistics

N
TOTAL_ATT 160
TOTAL_HBM 160
TOTAL_HEM 160
TOTAL_PBR 160
MEAN_PBC
160
BMI_BINARY 160

TOTAL_ATT

Mean
5.3437
5.0974
5.1044
5.0832
5.4234
1.36

Std.
Deviation Minimum Maximum
.75803
1.47
6.95
.91216
2.83
7.00
.67022
3.25
6.95
.83707
3.08
7.46
.94002
2.50
7.00
.482
1
2

Ranks
BMI_BINARY
N
1
102

2
Total
TOTAL_HBM 1
2
Total
TOTAL_HEM 1
2
Total
TOTAL_PBR 1
2
Total
MEAN_PBC
1
2
Total

58
160
102
58
160
102
58
160
102
58
160
102
58
160

Percentiles
50th
th
25
(Median) 75th
4.8947
5.3684 5.8421
4.5000
5.1667 5.5833
4.6000
5.0500 5.5500
4.4808
5.0000 5.6923
4.8125
5.5000 6.2500
1.00
1.00
2.00

Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
83.68
8535.00
74.91

4345.00

85.56
71.59

8727.50
4152.50

84.99
72.61

8668.50
4211.50

85.15
72.32

8685.50
4194.50

83.71
74.86

8538.00
4342.00

157

TOTAL_AT
T

Test Statisticsa
TOTAL_HB TOTAL_HE
M
M

MannWhitney
2634.000
2441.500
U
Wilcoxo
4345.000
4152.500
nW
Z
-1.150
-1.835
Asymp.
Sig. (2.250
.067
tailed)
a. Grouping Variable: BMI_BINARY

TOTAL_PB MEAN_PB
R
C

2500.500

2483.500

2631.000

4211.500

4194.500

4342.000

-1.625

-1.685

-1.165

.104

.092

.244

Descriptive Statistics

TOTAL_ATT
TOTAL_HBM
TOTAL_HEM
TOTAL_PBR
MEAN_PBC
SPENDING_BIN
ARY

N
16
0
16
0
16
0
16
0
16
0
16
0

Std.
Deviati Minimu Maximu
Mean
on
m
m
5.343
.75803
1.47
6.95
7
5.097
.91216
2.83
7.00
4
5.104
.67022
3.25
6.95
4
5.083
.83707
3.08
7.46
2
5.423
.94002
2.50
7.00
4
1.15

.358

Percentiles
50th
(Media
25th
n)
75th
4.894
5.842
5.3684
7
1
4.500
5.583
5.1667
0
3
4.600
5.550
5.0500
0
0
4.480
5.692
5.0000
8
3
4.812
6.250
5.5000
5
0
1.00

1.00

1.00

158

TOTAL_ATT

TOTAL_HBM

TOTAL_HEM

TOTAL_PBR

MEAN_PBC

Ranks
SPENDING_BINARY
N
Mean Rank
1
136
80.54
2
24
80.29
Total
160
1
136
80.70
2
24
79.35
Total
160
1
136
79.46
2
24
86.40
Total
160
1
136
79.50
2
24
86.17
Total
160
1
136
81.47
2
24
75.00
Total
160

TOTAL_AT
T

Test Statisticsa
TOTAL_HB TOTAL_HE
M
M

MannWhitney
1627.000
1604.500
1490.500
U
Wilcoxo
1927.000
1904.500
10806.500
nW
Z
-.024
-.132
-.676
Asymp.
Sig. (2.981
.895
.499
tailed)
a. Grouping Variable: SPENDING_BINARY

Sum of Ranks
10953.00
1927.00
10975.50
1904.50
10806.50
2073.50
10812.00
2068.00
11080.00
1800.00

TOTAL_PB MEAN_PB
R
C
1496.000

1500.000

10812.000

1800.000

-.650

-.633

.516

.527

159
Correlation Analysis

TOTAL_SN
TOTAL_HBM
TOTAL_HEM
TOTAL_PBR
MEAN_PBC
MEAN_SE
MEAN_BI

Descriptive Statistics
Mean
Std. Deviation
4.5604
.68992
5.0974
.91216
5.1044
.67022
5.0832
.83707
5.4234
.94002
4.5125
1.19152
4.6156
1.31927

N
160
160
160
160
160
160
160

160

Correlations
TOTAL_SN TOTAL_HBM TOTAL_HEM TOTAL_PBR MEAN_PBC MEAN_SE MEAN_BI
TOTAL_SN

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1tailed)
N
TOTAL_HBM Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1tailed)
N
TOTAL_HEM Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1tailed)
N
TOTAL_PBR Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1tailed)
N
MEAN_PBC
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1tailed)

.422**

.520**

.242**

.320**

.561**

.496**

.000

.000

.001

.000

.000

.000

160

160

160

160

160

160

160

.422**

.579**

.213**

.543**

.609**

.453**

.000

.003

.000

.000

.000

.000
160

160

160

160

160

160

160

.520**

.579**

.247**

.461**

.556**

.479**

.000

.000

.001

.000

.000

.000

160

160

160

160

160

160

160

.242**

.213**

.247**

.239**

.192**

.211**

.001

.003

.001

.001

.008

.004

160

160

160

160

160

160

160

.320**

.543**

.461**

.239**

.494**

.388**

.000

.000

.000

.001

.000

.000

161
N
160
160
MEAN_SE
Pearson
.561**
.609**
Correlation
Sig. (1.000
.000
tailed)
N
160
160
MEAN_BI
Pearson
.496**
.453**
Correlation
Sig. (1.000
.000
tailed)
N
160
160
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

160

160

160

160

160

.556**

.192**

.494**

.562**

.000

.008

.000

160

160

160

160

160

.479**

.211**

.388**

.562**

.000

.004

.000

.000

160

160

160

160

.000

160

162

Correlations

TOTAL_ATT MEAN_BI
Spearman's rho TOTAL_ATT Correlation Coefficient
1.000

.452**

Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Correlation Coefficient

.
160
.452**

.000
160
1.000

Sig. (1-tailed)
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

.000
160

.
160

MEAN_BI