Next Article in Journal
On-Line Detection Method of Salted Egg Yolks with Impurities Based on Improved YOLOv7 Combined with DeepSORT
Previous Article in Journal
Elderflowers (Sambuci flos L.): A Potential Source of Health-Promoting Components
Previous Article in Special Issue
Consumer Response to Novel Foods: A Review of Behavioral Barriers and Drivers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 13
Issue 16
10.3390/foods13162561
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Consumer Values, Attitudes, and Behavior towards Plant-Based Alternatives

by
Cho-I Park
1 and
Young Namkung
2,*
1
Smart Tourism Education Platform, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02447, Republic of Korea
2
College of Hotel & Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02447, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2024, 13(16), 2561; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13162561
Submission received: 18 June 2024 / Revised: 9 August 2024 / Accepted: 12 August 2024 / Published: 16 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Exploring the Rise of Alternative Foods: A Consumer Behavior Perspective)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study investigated the impact of consumer values and attitudes to consuming plant-based alternatives (PBAs), using the value–attitude–behavior framework. The research model and hypotheses were tested using a two-step approach to structural equation modeling on 392 responses collected from PBA consumers through a research company in Korea in November 2023. The results indicated that environmental consciousness and health consciousness significantly affected attitudes toward PBAs. Also, positive attitudes toward PBAs were critical for the formation of repurchase intentions for PBAs and PBA restaurant visit behavior. Our study contributes to both academics and PBA practitioners by showing how consumer values are associated with attitudes, PBAs repurchase intentions, and PBAs restaurant visits.

1. Introduction

Meat production accounts for 57% of global greenhouse gas emissions from all food production, which is twice that from plant-based food production [1]. Switching to a plant-based diet could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 49% globally [2]. The foodservice industry is recognized as a significant contributor to global climate change in terms of food production and consumption [3]. Accordingly, major quick-service restaurant chains such as Burger King and Subway have added ‘meat-like’ menus [4]. Starbucks, a global coffee brand, is committed to sustainability by adding and expanding its plant-based menu across its beverage and food offerings, aiming to reduce its carbon footprint by 50% [5].
Health consciousness and environmental sustainability have often been discussed as important factors in developing plant-based alternatives (PBAs) [6,7]. Consumer research also has reported that the biggest market drivers for PBA purchases are health and environmental consciousness. A recent study by Bakr, Al-Bloushi, and Mostafa (2023) highlighted the importance of environmental consciousness in consumers’ positive attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to plant-based meat alternatives [8]. In addition, consumers’ consciousness of health issues is the strongest factor in their intention to purchase PBAs [9]. Therefore, consumer awareness is a criterion that can be used to select food and justify food-related behavior [10]. Shifting towards a plant-based diet, from the consumers’ point of view, has positive health benefits [11,12] and may also significantly improve environmental sustainability [13]. In addition, from a business perspective, understanding consumers’ attitudes toward products and their purchasing behavior, can help businesses to develop insights on sustainable marketing models in the market [14].
In the hospitality domain, numerous studies have identified the importance of the ‘Value-Attitude-Behavior (VAB)’ theory in explaining consumers’ sustainable behavior [15,16]. This theory, propounded by Homer and Kahle (1988) [17], focuses on consumers’ personal values influencing their decision-making processes [18]. The extant literature on consumer behavior suggests that both altruistic and egoistic values play an important role in determining eco-friendly behavior [19,20]. Health consciousness is an egoistic value that benefits the individual, while environmental consciousness is an altruistic value because it helps the environment rather than the individual [21]. In accordance with recent research on PBAs [8,22], this study considers health consciousness as an egoistic value and environmental consciousness as an altruistic value.
Based on an extensive literature review, we found that several studies have been conducted using consumers’ purchase intention as a final variable. Although the recent increase in PBAs in the foodservice industry has received considerable attention, the existing literature has not yet investigated the influence of the preceding variables on customers’ visits to restaurants featuring PBAs. Furthermore, most of the research on PBAs has focused solely on plant-based meat alternatives. Also, prior research noted an ‘intention-behavior gap’ [23]. Does this gap really exist?
Given this research gap, this study aimed to (1) investigate the impact of consumers’ values (health consciousness, environmental consciousness) on their attitudes toward PBAs and (2) examine the relationship between attitudes, PBAs repurchase intentions, and PBAs restaurant visits. To achieve the research purpose, we first present the conceptual background and develop the hypotheses. Then, we describe the research methodology and present the data analysis and results. Finally, we present the theoretical and managerial implications of the study results and discuss the limitations of the study and directions for future research.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Literature Review

2.1.1. Plant-Based Alternatives (PBAs)

Plant-based alternatives (PBAs) are foods manufactured using proteins extracted from plants. They include plant-based meat alternatives, plant-based milk alternatives, plant-based egg alternatives, and plant-based beverages [24]. Among them, plant-based meat alternatives and plant-based milk alternatives account for an overwhelming proportion of the global alternative food market [24]. The global market size of plant-based meat alternatives is expected to reach 4.04 billion US dollars in 2029. China is the largest plant-based meat alternative market, followed by the US and the UK [25]. Additionally, in 2024, the Asia Pacific region had the highest value of plant-based milk alternatives in the world, amounting to approximately 9.9 billion U.S. dollars, followed by North America and Europe [26]. Research shows that the PBAs consumers tried the most in South Korea in 2022 were plant-based milk alternatives, while only around one in four people had tried plant-based meat alternatives [27]. Accordingly, in this study, considering the current status of the PBA market in Korea, plant-based meat alternatives and plant-based milk alternatives were defined as PBAs and selected as research subjects. Plant-based meat alternatives are made from proteins extracted from plants such as soy and peas [28]. Additionally, plant-based milk alternatives, which are a substitute for cow’s milk, are mixtures of water and plant ingredients extracted from legumes, nuts, cereals, or pseudocereals [29,30]. Therefore, PBAs have nutritional, sensory, and technological properties similar to animal-based products such as meat and milk [31,32]. Both health and environmental consciousness are frequently mentioned as major reasons for developing PBAs [6,33]. Consumer studies report that PBAs offer health benefits and contribute to environmental sustainability. As consumers recognize that reducing meat-based foods in diets can be beneficial for health and the environment, interest in PBAs is also growing [34]. Accordingly, food enterprises are paying more attention to the growth potential of PBAs, and the number of vegetarian restaurants in the foodservice industry is also increasing [35].

2.1.2. Value–Attitude–Behavior (VAB) Framework

The VAB theory, propounded by Homer and Kahle (1988) [17], suggests that consumers’ values are significant in forming attitudes, which in turn result in behavior [18]. Values are defined as the ways in which people are guided to behave [36]. Attitude refers to an individual’s consistent tendency to react favorably or unfavorably toward the objects in question [37], and is based on more constant and enduring values. An individual’s behavior is determined by their values and attitudes [17]. This means that individuals engage in particular behaviors based on the priority of perceived values [38]. Therefore, the VAB theory postulates that an individuals’ values and attitudes are precursors to intention and behavior [39]. Consequently, the hierarchical structure linking values, attitudes, intention, and behavior emphasizes that values are the fundamental factors: based on values and attitudes, an individual manifests an actual behavior [17].

2.2. Hypothesis Development

2.2.1. Values (Health Consciousness, Environmental Consciousness) and Attitudes toward PBAs

Health consciousness means evaluation of one’s readiness to engage in healthy behavior [40] and is an egoistic value that benefits the individual [21]. Consuming PBAs can reduce health risks including cardiovascular diseases [11], cancer, and diabetes, through their antioxidant activities [41]. Consumers tend to perceive plant-based foods as healthy [42]. Therefore, health-conscious consumers are more likely to reduce their intake of animal-based food consumption and increase their intake of plant-based foods [43]. Kumar (2021) reported that consumers’ attitudes toward products perceived as beneficial to personal health are significantly influenced by health consciousness [44]. In addition, some studies have highlighted that PBAs are chosen not only by people with health consciousness but also by people with health problems [28,45]. The results showed that health consciousness may have a positive effect on attitudes toward PBAs. Hence, we proposed the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1.
Consumers’ health consciousness has a positive impact on attitudes toward PBAs.
Consumers’ environmental consciousness has been raised as one of the main reasons for consumers to choose PBAs when purchasing foods [46]. This is a prerequisite for eco-friendly consumption [47,48], and is an altruistic value because it helps the environment rather than the individual [21]. Alibeli and Johnson (2009) defined environmental consciousness as the degree to which an individual recognizes and tries to solve environmental problems [49]. This concept also includes attitudes and evaluations of one’s own and others’ environment-related behavior, and concerns about environmental issues [50]. Profeta et al. (2021) presented environmental consciousness as one of the key values for choosing environmentally friendly foods and demonstrated that it had a positive effect on attitudes toward PBAs [46]. In addition, Bakr, Al-Bloushi and Mostafa (2023) found that environmental consciousness positively impacts attitudes toward plant-based meat alternatives [8]. Therefore, it can be assumed that consumers choosing PBAs based on environmental consciousness have positive attitudes toward PBAs. Hence, we proposed the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2.
Consumers’ environmental consciousness has a positive impact on attitudes toward PBAs.

2.2.2. Attitudes toward PBAs and PBAs Repurchase Intention

Consumer attitudes are vital because they precede the intention to perform a specific behavior [51]. Pandey, Ritz, and Perez-Cueto (2021) established that consumers’ attitudes toward products influence their consumption intention [52]. Consistent with the research finding [9] that attitudes have the strongest effect on behavioral intention, Bakr, Al-Bloushi, and Mostafa (2022) found that positive attitudes significantly improved consumers’ behavioral intentions relating to [8]. In other words, a favorable attitude toward PBAs can have a positive effect on PBA repurchase intentions. Hence, we proposed the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3.
Attitudes toward PBAs have a positive impact on PBA repurchase intentions.

2.2.3. Attitudes toward PBAs and PBA Restaurant Visits

The link between attitudes and actual behavior varies across studies. Applying the VAB theory in the context of eco-friendly hotels, scholars have argued that positive attitudes actually increase environmentally friendly behavior [16]. Previous studies contended that attitudes are among the strongest drivers of actual behavior [53]. However, some researchers have argued that consumers’ attitudes do not always precede behavior [54,55]. Although there is a mismatch between consumers’ positive attitudes and their corresponding actual behavior, we assume that consumers’ attitudes toward PBAs may result in positive PBA restaurant visits. For this reason, the following hypothesis was proposed.
Hypothesis 4.
Attitudes toward PBAs have a positive impact on PBA restaurant visits.

2.2.4. PBA Repurchase Intention and PBA Restaurant Visits

Although the prevailing opinion is that consumers’ behavioral intention is a critical factor in actual behavior [56], some studies in consumption contexts have not established a causal relationship between intention and behavior [23,57]. In contrast, Agag and Colmekcioglu (2020) found that consumers’ behavioral intentions had a positive effect on actual behavior [58]. Similarly, a study verified that consumers’ intention to consume PBAs is an influential factor in actual consumption [52]. Supporting these results, Chakraborty et al. (2022) noted that purchase intention and buying behavior had a positive association [59]. Therefore, this study assumed that consumers who have a high intention to continue purchasing will also engage in PBA restaurant visit behavior.
Hypothesis 5.
PBA repurchase intention has a positive impact on PBA restaurant visits.
Figure 1 presents the research model and hypotheses.

3. Material and Methods

3.1. Data Collection and Sampling Methods

A preliminary study was conducted with 45 students with experience of consuming PBAs. Based on feedback from this pilot test, ambiguous words and sentences were modified for the final version of the main survey questionnaire. Participants were limited to those over 20 years old who had experienced purchasing PBAs within the last 3 months. According to a prior study, the number of vegetarians in Korea was found to be as low as 1%, with very few strict vegans. In addition, the vegetarian population appeared to be evenly distributed from those in their 20s to those in their 60s, so adults in their 20s or older who had experience purchasing PBAs were judged to be suitable for our research. A self-administered online survey was conducted over a week in November 2023 through a research company in Korea. Based on prior research, all scale items were modified to fit the study’s context. Health and environmental consciousness in the value dimensions were, respectively, assessed using 4 items, adopted from Hansen, Sørensen, and Eriksen (2018), Namkung and Jang (2017), Tarkiainen and Sundqvist (2005), Schlegelmilch, Bohlen, and Diamantopoulos (1996), and Yadav and Pathak (2016) [60,61,62,63,64]. Attitudes toward PBAs were measured with 3 items adopted from Fishbein and Ajzen (1977) and Chen (2007) [65,66]. PBA repurchase intention and PBA restaurant visits were measured with 3 items adopted from Zeithaml et al. (1996) [67]. All survey items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Table 1 displays the demographic characteristics of the sample. The results show that 50.5% of the respondents were female and 49.5% were male. Most of the respondents were in their 20s and 30s, single (54.3%), office workers (43.6%), university students/graduates (79.1%), and Seoul residents (27.3%). In terms of PBA consumption patterns, the most common recently purchased PBAs were plant-based milk alternatives (58.7%), and the places where PBAs were purchased were offline (hypermarkets/warehouses) (43.4%).

3.2. Data Analysis

Data analysis was performed using SPSS 25.0 and AMOS 23.0 statistical software. First, respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics backgrounds and PBA consumption patterns were tested with SPSS 25.0. Second, to confirm the validity and reliability of the study variables, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. Finally, the proposed hypotheses were verified using structural equation modeling (SEM). A total of 8 incomplete responses were eliminated from the original data, and 392 responses were included in the final analysis.

4. Results and Discussion

To evaluate the validity and reliability of the measurements, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). As shown in Table 2, the measurement model fits the data reasonably well (χ2 = 279.186, df = 109, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.561, CFI = 0.971, NFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.964, IFI = 0.971, RMSEA = 0.063). All standardized coefficients were greater than 0.50, ranging from 0.750 to 0.950, thus confirming convergent validity as described by Hair et al. (2010) [68]. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from 0.878 to 0.950, supporting the internal consistency of items within each construct as they exceeded the reference value of 0.7 [69]. All constructs of average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded the minimum acceptable value of 0.50, ranging from 0.716 to 0.865. In addition, the values for composite construct reliability (CCR) were higher than the threshold value of 0.70, ranging from 0.883 to 0.951, supporting the convergent validity and reliability of the measures [70]. As indicated in Table 3, the AVE values were greater than the squared correlation between the constructs, which is evidence of discriminant validity [70].
Structural equation modeling (SEM) results with standardized path coefficient and t-values are provided in Table 4. The research model had acceptable indicators for the goodness of fit (χ2 = 313.050, df = 113, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.770, CFI = 0.966, NFI = 0.948, TLI = 0.959, IFI = 0.966, RMSEA = 0.067 [70]. Customers’ health consciousness (β = 0.310, p < 0.001) and environmental consciousness (β = 0.414, p < 0.001) positively influenced attitudes toward PBAs. Attitudes toward PBAs had a positive effect on repurchase intention for PBAs (β = 0.853, p < 0.001) and PBA restaurant visits (β = 0.318, p < 0.001). Finally, repurchase intention for PBAs was significantly associated with PBA restaurant visits (β = 0.439, p < 0.001). Thus, all hypotheses were supported. The proposed model assigned 40.1% to attitude, 72.8% to intention, 53.2% to behavior, demonstrating a strong predictive capacity.
The analysis indicated that values (health and environmental consciousness) significantly affected attitudes toward PBAs. Thus, our results supported hypotheses 1 and 2 and were in line with the findings from previous studies [8,9]. The results reflect the increasing consumer demand for sustainable and healthy food products. Attitudes toward PBAs were the crucial factor in creating repurchase intention for PBAs and PBAs restaurant visits. This adds to the literature on the influence of attitudes on intention [8,9] and behavior [16,71], confirming hypotheses 3 and 4, respectively. This implies that consumers’ favorable attitudes are a vital predictor of repurchase intention for PBAs and PBAs restaurant visits. We also found that PBAs repurchase intention had a significant impact on PBAs restaurant visits, confirming hypothesis 5. This is consistent with previous studies [58,59]. The research findings emphasize that values are significant predictors of attitudes towards PBAs. Additionally, in line with previous research concerning food selection behavior, attitudes were crucial in forming intentions and behaviors [71,72].

5. Conclusions

The present study has several theoretical implications. First, VAB appeared to be a robust theoretical framework that was applied to investigate the sequential relationship of values, attitudes, and behaviors with consumer decision-making in the PBA context. Second, this study extended the existing literature, emphasizing the link between intention and behavior. Considering the trend of major PBA manufacturers collaborating with restaurant chains and cafes (e.g., McDonald’s, Starbucks) to add PBA menus to their range [4,73], our study included PBA restaurant visiting behavior as a variable. While most previous studies have dealt with the relationship between attitude and purchase intention, this study extends the research on PBAs by finding significant associations between consumer values, attitudes, repurchase intentions for PBAs, and PBA restaurant visits.
Our findings provide practical implications for PBA brand marketers and foodservice operators. First, our study showed that health and environmental consciousness are essential factors in inducing favorable attitudes toward PBAs, which in turn influence PBAs repurchase intentions and PBA restaurant visits. Therefore, we suggest that PBA companies use the health benefits and environmental sustainability of their products as part of their marketing strategy. When promoting products, for instance, marketers can create favorable attitudes in consumers by providing consumers with practical information about the health benefits and environmental consequences of PBA consumption through their advertisements and SNSs. Second, restaurants could consider adding PBA options to their menus. Furthermore, PBA enterprises could consider partnership with restaurants to promote their products. In the case of a domestic PBA company (e.g., Maeil Dailies), they developed a plant-based beverage menu in collaboration with local cafes and promoted their own products. If restaurants use such methods as a competitive advantage, it can give consumers a novelty dining experience and serve as an opportunity to identify future markets based on consumer responses. As a result, co-developing and promoting plant-based menu items may lead to positive outcomes for both PBA enterprises and restaurants, including increased favorable attitudes, repurchase intentions, and finally restaurant visits. Third, regarding the demographic characteristics of the respondents in our study, more than half were in their 20s and 30s (59.6%), and single (54.3%). PBA companies need to segment consumers considering their influence in society and purchasing power, and it is necessary to appropriately mix PBA products, distribution channels, promotions, and prices to appeal to target consumers. Our results also showed that purchases made through offline stores accounted for the highest percentage of sales (43.4%). This may mean that offline distribution channels need to be strengthened when selling PBAs.
The current study has some limitations. First, our research data were collected from South Korea. Attitudes toward PBAs may differ in countries where meat is an important part of culinary traditions and those where it is not. For example, the US has the world’s highest meat consumption, while India has the highest percentage of vegetarians [74]. India is home to the majority of the vegans in the world, and vegetarian diets are deeply rooted in Indian cuisine [74]. In contrast, overconsumption of meat and a lack of willingness to adopt a plant-based diet are still dominant cultural patterns in most Western societies [75]. Runte et al. (2024) demonstrated cross-cultural differences in perceptions of PBAs among consumers [74]. Similarly, a prior study also reported that plant-based meat alternatives are viewed more favorably in India than in the US [10]. Food, eating, and nutrition are strongly influenced by culture [76]. Cultural aspects such as cultural capital could drive consumers’ food choices [77]. This result suggests that consumer attitudes toward PBAs may vary across cultural differences. Therefore, a follow-up study is necessary to apply our research framework to other countries where PBAs are popular and widely used, or where there are differences in cultural capital. Second, measuring actual behavior is not simple in the case of relatively novel foods such as PBAs. Accordingly, as in most previous studies, our study used behavioral intention scales to measure PBA restaurant visits. However, some research has indicated that there can be an ‘intention-actual behavior gap’ [23]. To fill this gap, we recommend that future studies use items measuring actual behavior or behavioral continuity. Third, considering the revenue growth rate in the PBA market globally, it is necessary to extend research to include various PBA products (such as plant-based egg alternatives or plant-based desserts). For instance, the global vegan desserts market is expected to grow at a CAGR (compound annual growth rate) of 10% from 2021 to 2027, so research on this subject will be meaningful. Fourth, further research should investigate the influence of other variables related to PBA consumption. Product attributes (sensory appeal, price, food safety), situational factors (product availability) and food-related personality traits (food neophobia, food neophilia) can be considered, which have been mentioned as major determinants of consumer purchasing behavior. In doing so, consumer purchasing behavior will be more effectively understood. Finally, this study used cross-sectional data to examine the relationship between consumption values, attitudes, behavioral intention, and behavior relating to PBAs. However, cross-sectional studies only provide static results from those perspectives [78]. In addition, attitudes toward foods could change and improve as familiarity with PBAs increases over time [8]. Therefore, conducting longitudinal studies would be recommended for future research to explore changes in attitude, behavioral intention, and behavior relating to PBA consumption values over time.

Author Contributions

C.-I.P. worked on the conceptual development of the manuscript and data collection and analysis and wrote the manuscript. Y.N. reviewed, edited, and offered overall guidance for publishing the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable. Panel members voluntarily signed up for an online survey company and they received financial benefits for their participation. Their anonymity is guaranteed.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to ethical considerations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Xu, X.; Sharma, P.; Shu, S.; Lin, T.-S.; Ciais, P.; Tubiello, F.N.; Smith, P.; Campbell, N.; Jain, A.K. Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 724–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Poore, J.; Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 2018, 360, 987–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lund-Durlacher, D.; Gössling, S. An analysis of Austria’s food service sector in the context of climate change. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2021, 34, 100342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ye, T.; Mattila, A.S. The effect of ad appeals and message framing on consumer responses to plant-based menu items. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 95, 102917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Failla, J. FLUID SITUATION: More restaurants feature plant-based milk options on the menu. Prep. Foods 2020, 189, 26–28. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ismail, B.P.; Senaratne-Lenagala, L.; Stube, A.; Brackenridge, A. Protein demand: Review of plant and animal proteins used in alternative protein product development and production. Anim. Front. 2020, 10, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vainio, A. How consumers of meat-based and plant-based diets attend to scientific and commercial information sources: Eating motives, the need for cognition and ability to evaluate information. Appetite 2019, 138, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bakr, Y.; Al-Bloushi, H.; Mostafa, M. Consumer intention to buy plant-based meat alternatives: A cross-cultural analysis. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2023, 35, 420–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Marcus, N.; Klink-Lehmann, J.; Hartmann, M. Exploring factors determining German consumers’ intention to eat meat alternatives. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 100, 104610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Grunert, S.C.; Juhl, H.J. Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods. J. Econ. Psychol. 1995, 16, 39–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fehér, A.; Gazdecki, M.; Véha, M.; Szakály, M.; Szakály, Z. A Comprehensive Review of the Benefits of and the Barriers to the Switch to a Plant-Based Diet. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bryant, C.J. We can’t keep meating like this: Attitudes towards vegetarian and vegan diets in the United Kingdom. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, Y.Y.; Hughes, J.; Grafenauer, S. Got Mylk? The emerging role of Australian plant-based milk alternatives as a cow’s milk substitute. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Thøgersen, J.; De Barcellos, M.D.; Perin, M.G.; Zhou, Y. Consumer buying motives and attitudes towards organic food in two emerging markets: China and Brazil. Int. Market. Rev. 2015, 32, 389–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brouwer, A.R.; D’Souza, C.; Singaraju, S.; Arango-Soler, L.A. Value attitude behaviour and social stigma in the adoption of veganism: An integrated model. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 97, 104479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sadiq, M.; Adil, M.; Paul, J. Eco-friendly hotel stay and environmental attitude: A value-attitude-behaviour perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 100, 103094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Homer, P.M.; Kahle, L.R. A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kautish, P.; Sharma, R. Value orientation, green attitude and green behavioral intentions: An empirical investigation among young consumers. Young. Consum. 2019, 20, 338–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tan, L.L.; Abd Aziz, N.; Ngah, A.H. Mediating effect of reasons on the relationship between altruism and green hotel patronage intention. J. Market. Anal. 2020, 8, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Verma, V.K.; Chandra, B.; Kumar, S. Values and ascribed responsibility to predict consumers’ attitude and concern towards green hotel visit intention. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 96, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Magnusson, M.K.; Arvola, A.; Hursti, U.-K.K.; Åberg, L.; Sjödén, P.-O. Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite 2003, 40, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Rahman, I.; Reynolds, D. The influence of values and attitudes on green consumer behavior: A conceptual model of green hotel patronage. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2019, 20, 47–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Birch, D.; Memery, J. Tourists, local food and the intention-behaviour gap. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2020, 43, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Park, M.S.; Park, S.H.; Lee, Y.S. Current Status of Alternative Foods and Countermeasures; Korea Rural Economic Institute: Naju, Republic of Korea, 2020; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  25. STATISTA. Volume of the Meat Substitutes Market Worldwide from 2019 to 2029 (In Million Kilograms). Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1276467/worldwide-meat-substitute-consumption/#statisticContainer (accessed on 27 June 2024).
  26. STATISTA. Revenue of Milk Alternatives Worldwide in 2024, by Region (In Billion U.S. Dollars). Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1278546/retail-sales-value-of-milk-and-milk-alternative-worldwide/ (accessed on 31 July 2024).
  27. STATISTA. Meat Substitute Market Size in South Korea from 2016 to 2025 (in Million U.S. Dollars). Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1249233/south-korea-milk-alternatives-market-size/ (accessed on 25 June 2024).
  28. Michel, F.; Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 87, 104063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Röös, E.; Patel, M.; Spångberg, J. Producing oat drink or cow’s milk on a Swedish farm—Environmental impacts considering the service of grazing, the opportunity cost of land and the demand for beef and protein. Agric. Syst. 2016, 142, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sethi, S.; Tyagi, S.K.; Anurag, R.K. Plant-based milk alternatives an emerging segment of functional beverages: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 3408–3423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Gómez, I.; Ibañez, F.C.; Beriain, M.J. Physicochemical and sensory properties of sous vide meat and meat analog products marinated and cooked at different temperature-time combinations. Int. J. Food Prop. 2019, 22, 1693–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tangyu, M.; Muller, J.; Bolten, C.J.; Wittmann, C. Fermentation of plant-based milk alternatives for improved flavour and nutritional value. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 103, 9263–9275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Gantriis, R.F.; Fraga, P.; Perez-Cueto, F.J. Plant-based food and protein trend from a business perspective: Markets, consumers, and the challenges and opportunities in the future. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 61, 3119–3128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Starowicz, M.; Poznar, K.K.; Zieliński, H. What are the main sensory attributes that determine the acceptance of meat alternatives? Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2022, 48, 100924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ploll, U.; Stern, T. From diet to behaviour: Exploring environmental-and animal-conscious behaviour among Austrian vegetarians and vegans. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 3249–3265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schwartz, S.H. Words, deeds and the perception of consequences and responsibility in action situations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1968, 10, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vaske, J.J.; Donnelly, M.P. A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1999, 12, 523–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Beatty, S.E.; Kahle, L.R.; Homer, P.; Misra, S. Alternative measurement approaches to consumer values: The list of values and the Rokeach value survey. Psychol. Mark. 1985, 2, 181–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kahle, L.R. Stimulus condition self-selection by males in the interaction of locus of control and skill–chance situations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1980, 38, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Becker, M.H.; Haefner, D.P.; Kasl, S.V.; Kirscht, J.P.; Maiman, L.A.; Rosenstock, I.M. Selected psychosocial models and correlates of individual health-related behaviors. Med. Care 1977, 15, 27–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Zujko, M.E.; Witkowska, A.M. Antioxidant potential and polyphenol content of beverages, chocolates, nuts, and seeds. Int. J. Food Prop. 2014, 17, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rondoni, A.; Grebitus, C.; Millan, E.; Asioli, D. Exploring consumers’ perceptions of plant-based eggs using concept mapping and semantic network analysis. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 94, 104327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tobler, C.; Visschers, V.H.; Siegrist, M. Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite 2011, 57, 674–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kumar, G.A. Framing a model for green buying behavior of Indian consumers: From the lenses of the theory of planned behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 295, 126487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Szenderak, J.; Frona, D.; Rakos, M. Consumer acceptance of plant-based meat substitutes: A narrative review. Foods 2022, 11, 1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Profeta, A.; Baune, M.-C.; Smetana, S.; Bornkessel, S.; Heinz, V.; Terjung, N.; Enneking, U.; Broucke, K.; Van Royen, G.; Weiss, J.; et al. Preferences of german consumers for meat products blended with plant-based proteins. Sustainability 2021, 13, 650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dembkowski, S. The environmental value-attitude-system model understanding the divergence between stated environmental consciousness and overt consumer behaviour. Eco-Manag. Audit. 1998, 5, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mintu-Wimsatt, A.T. Environmental Marketing: Strategies, Practice, Theory, and Research; Haworth Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  49. Alibeli, M.; Johnson, C. Environmental Concern: A Cross National Analysis. J. Int. Cross-Cult. Stud. 2009, 3, 1. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kim, Y.; Choi, S.M. Antecedents of Green Purchase Behavior: An Examination of Collectivism, Environmental Concern, and PCE. Adv. Consum. Res. 2005, 32, 592. [Google Scholar]
  51. Armstrong, G.; Kotler, P. Principle of Marketing; Prentice Hall: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  52. Pandey, S.; Ritz, C.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A. An Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Predict Intention to Consume Plant-Based Yogurt Alternatives. Foods 2021, 10, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dhir, A.; Sadiq, M.; Talwar, S.; Sakashita, M.; Kaur, P. Why do retail consumers buy green apparel? A knowledge-attitude-behaviour-context perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 59, 102398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nguyen, T.T.H.; Yang, Z.; Nguyen, N.; Johnson, L.W.; Cao, T.K. Greenwash and green purchase intention: The mediating role of green skepticism. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schäufele, I.; Janssen, M. How and why does the attitude-behavior gap differ between product categories of sustainable food? Analysis of organic food purchases based on household panel data. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 595636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Singh, A.; Verma, P. Factors influencing Indian consumers’ actual buying behaviour towards organic food products. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Agag, G.; Colmekcioglu, N. Understanding guests’ behavior to visit green hotels: The role of ethical ideology and religiosity. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 91, 102679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chakraborty, D.; Siddiqui, A.; Siddiqui, M.; Alatawi, F.M.H. Exploring consumer purchase intentions and behavior of buying ayurveda products using SOBC framework. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 65, 102889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hansen, T.; Sørensen, M.I.; Eriksen, M.-L.R. How the interplay between consumer motivations and values influences organic food identity and behavior. Food Policy 2018, 74, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Namkung, Y.; Jang, S. Are Consumers Willing to Pay more for Green Practices at Restaurants? J. Host. Tour. Res. 2017, 41, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tarkiainen, A.; Sundqvist, S. Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic Food. Br. Food 2005, 107, 808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Schlegelmilch, B.B.; Bohlen, G.M.; Diamantopoulos, A. The link between green purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness. Eur. J. Mark. 1996, 30, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yadav, R.; Pathak, G.S. Intention to purchase organic food among young consumers: Evidences from a developing nation. Appetite 2016, 96, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  66. Chen, M.F. Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 1008–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L.; Parasuraman, A. The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality. J. Mark. 1996, 60, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hair, J.F. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  69. Nunnally, J.C. An Overview of Psychological Measurement. In Clinical Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: A Handbook; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1978; pp. 97–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nguyen, N.P.T.; Dang, H.D. Organic food purchase decisions from a context-based behavioral reasoning approach. Appetite 2022, 173, 105975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Kopplin, C.S.; Rausch, T.M. Above and beyond meat: The role of consumers’ dietary behavior for the purchase of plant-based food substitutes. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2022, 16, 1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pingali, P.; Boiteau, J.; Choudhry, A.; Hall, A. Making meat and milk from plants: A review of plant-based food for human and planetary health. World Dev. 2023, 170, 106316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Runte, M.; Guth, J.N.; Ammann, J. Consumers’ perception of plant-based alternatives and changes over time: A linguistic analysis across three countries and ten years. Food Qual. Prefer. 2024, 113, 105057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Schösler, H.; de Boer, J.; Boersema, J.J.; Aiking, H. Meat and masculinity among young Chinese, Turkish and Dutch adults in the Netherlands. Appetite 2015, 89, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Sobal, J. Cultural comparison research designs in food, eating, and nutrition. Food Qual. Prefer. 1998, 9, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Enriquez, J.P.; Archila-Godinez, J.C. Social and cultural influences on food choices: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 3698–3704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Talwar, S.; Dhir, A.; Kaur, P.; Mäntymäki, M. Why do people purchase from online travel agencies (OTAs)? A consumption values perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 88, 102534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 13 02561 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Foods 13 02561 g001
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample (n = 392).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample (n = 392).
Demographic Characteristicsn%Demographic Characteristicsn%
Gender Marital Status
  Male19449.5  Single21352.0
  Female19850.5  Married17748.0
  Others20.5
Age Occupation
  20–2911729.8  Student358.9
  30–3911729.8  Office worker17143.6
  40–499825.0  Service worker328.2
  Avove 506015.3  Public officer256.4
Education   Professional worker328.2
  High school graduate or below4210.7  Self-employed287.1
  College/University31079.1  Housewife4511.5
  Graduated school and above4010.2  Others246.1
Monthly household income Household size
  ≤1999 thousand won5012.8  One person (self)8521.7
  2000–3999 thousand won18246.4  Two persons7118.1
  4000–5999 thousand won7819.9  Three persons9624.5
  6000–7999 thousand won5113.0  Four persons11830.1
  ≥8000 thousand won317.9  Five persons or more225.6
Table 2. Results confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 2. Results confirmatory factor analysis.
ConstructsM ± S.D.Standardized
Loading		AVECCRCronbach’s α
VHCI choose food carefully for my health.5.10 ± 1.170.8130.7300.9150.915
I think about my health issues often.5.29 ± 1.190.865
I pay a lot of attention to my health.5.20 ± 1.180.880
I try to choose healthy foods.5.29 ± 1.190.859
ECI am interested in environmental protection.4.97 ± 1.290.8720.7420.9200.897
I buy products that have a less harmful impact on the environment.4.70 ± 1.290.887
I tend to be conscious of environmental issues when purchasing products.5.43 ± 1.210.896
I buy products that have less impact on the environment if the products are otherwise the same.5.15 ± 1.300.786
AATTChoosing PBAs was a wise decision.4.68 ± 1.170.8820.7160.8830.878
I am satisfied with choosing to eat PBAs.4.81 ± 1.140.899
PBAs are trustworthy.4.96 ± 1.020.750
BPRII plan to continue purchasing PBAs in the future.4.89 ± 1.250.7930.7610.9050.897
I would like to spread information about PBAs.4.59 ± 1.250.896
I would like to share product information about PBAs with my friends.4.59 ± 1.300.922
PRVIf I have the chance, I will visit a PBAs restaurant.4.33 ± 1.440.9250.8650.9510.950
I will visit PBAs restaurants.4.21 ± 1.440.950
I would like to visit a restaurant if it has a PBAs menu.4.26 ± 1.410.915
χ2 = 279.186, df = 109, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.561, CFI = 0.971, NFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.964, IFI = 0.971, RMSEA = 0.063. HC: health consciousness, EC: environmental consciousness, ATT: attitudes toward PBAs, PRI: PBA repurchase intention, PRV: PBA restaurant visit.
Table 3. Correlations and discriminant validity.
Table 3. Correlations and discriminant validity.
HCECATTRIRV
HC0.730 a
EC0.520 b
(0.270) c		0.742
ATT0.511
(0.261)		0.533
(0.284)		0.716
PRI0.492
(0.207)		0.603
(0.364)		0.834
(0.696)		0.761
PRV0.369
(0.136)		0.512
(0.262)		0.679
(0.461)		0.709
(0.503)		0.865
Note: a Average variance extracted (AVE); b correlation (R); c squared correlation (R2).
Table 4. Results of hypothesis testing.
Table 4. Results of hypothesis testing.
Hypothesized PathStandardized
Estimate		C.R.PResults
H1HC → ATT0.310 5.600 ***0.000 Supported
H2EC → ATT0.414 7.433 ***0.000
H3ATT → PRI0.853 16.265 ***0.000
H4ATT → PRV0.318 3.419 ***0.000
H5PRI → PRV0.439 4.697 ***0.000
χ2 = 313.050, df = 113, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.770, CFI = 0.966, NFI = 0.948, TLI = 0.959, IFI = 0.966, RMSEA = 0.067. *** p < 0.001. Total variance explained (R2): R2 for attitude toward PBAs = 0.401; R2 for PBA repurchase intention = 0.728; R2 for PBA restaurant visit = 0.532.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Park, C.-I.; Namkung, Y. Consumer Values, Attitudes, and Behavior towards Plant-Based Alternatives. Foods 2024, 13, 2561. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13162561

AMA Style

Park C-I, Namkung Y. Consumer Values, Attitudes, and Behavior towards Plant-Based Alternatives. Foods. 2024; 13(16):2561. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13162561

Chicago/Turabian Style

Park, Cho-I, and Young Namkung. 2024. "Consumer Values, Attitudes, and Behavior towards Plant-Based Alternatives" Foods 13, no. 16: 2561. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13162561

APA Style

Park, C. -I., & Namkung, Y. (2024). Consumer Values, Attitudes, and Behavior towards Plant-Based Alternatives. Foods, 13(16), 2561. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13162561

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop