Submitted:
16 June 2026
Posted:
18 June 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Value-Attitudes-Behaviour (VAB) Theory
2.2. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
3. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Development
3.1. Relationship Between Subjective Norms (SN) and Purchase Intention (PI)
3.2. Relationship Between Perceived Behavioural Control (PBC) and Purchase Intention
3.3. Relationship Between Attitude (PA) and Purchase Intention, Perceived Behavioural Control, Subjective Norms
3.4. Relationship Between Perceived Animal Welfare Value (PAWV) and Perceived Attitude
3.5. Relationship Between Perceived Green Value (PGV) and Perceived Attitude
3.6. Perceived Behavioural Control Mediates Attitude and Purchase Intention
3.7. Subjective Norms Mediate Attitude and Purchase Intention
3.8. Control Variables of Age and Gender
4. Materials and Methods
5. Results
5.1. Outer Model Results
5.2. Inner Model Results
6. Discussion
6.1. Theoretical Implications
6.2. Managerial Implications
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| PBMA | Plant-based meat alternative |
| UN | United Nations |
| TPB | Theory of Planned Behaviour |
| VAB | Value-Attitude-Behaviour |
| SN | Subjective Norms |
| PI | Purchase intention |
| PGV | Perceived Green Value |
| PAWV | Perceived Animal Welfare Value |
| PA | Perceived Attitude |
| PBC | Perceived Behavioural Control |
References
- Beier, F.D.; Dietrich, J.P.; Heinke, J.; Abrahao, G.; Von Jeetze, P.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Crawford, M.; Humpenöder, F.; Merfort, L.; Weindl, I.; et al. Planetary Boundaries under a Land-Based Climate Change Mitigation Scenario with a Food Demand Transformation: A Modelling Study. Lancet Planet. Health 2025, S2542519625000877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aliouche, H. What Are the Negative Health Effects of Eating Meat? Available online: https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-Are-the-Negative-Health-Effects-of-Eating-Meat.aspx (accessed on 14 October 2025).
- United Nations Goal 12 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal12 (accessed on 14 October 2025).
- United Nations Environment Programme Frontiers. What’s Cooking? An Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Selected Novel Alternatives to Conventional Animal Products; United Nations Environment Programme, 2023; ISBN 978-92-807-4103-2. [Google Scholar]
- Human Sciences Research Council National Food and Nutrition Security Survey. Report South Africa; Human Sciences Research Council: Pretoria, 2024; ISBN 978-0-6397-6316-3. [Google Scholar]
- Future Marketing Insights Meat Alternative Market Size, Trends & Forecast 2024 to 2034. Available online: https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/meat-alternatives-market (accessed on 15 October 2025).
- Jenni, S.; Trenkenschuh, M.; Tan, N.P.-J.; Bleidorn, W.; Hopwood, C.J. Associations between Romantic Partners’ Dietary Motives and Their Plant-Based Meat Alternative Consumption. Appetite 2026, 216, 108260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Onwezen, M.C.; Bouwman, E.P.; Reinders, M.J.; Dagevos, H. A Systematic Review on Consumer Acceptance of Alternative Proteins: Pulses, Algae, Insects, Plant-Based Meat Alternatives, and Cultured Meat. Appetite 2021, 159, 105058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Onwezen, M.C.; Dagevos, H. A Meta-Review of Consumer Behaviour Studies on Meat Reduction and Alternative Protein Acceptance. Food Qual. Prefer. 2024, 114, 105067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coop Plant Based Food Report 2025 von Coop. Available online: https://www.coop.ch/de/cmsContentPage (accessed on 15 October 2025).
- Hopwood, C.J.; Piazza, J.; Chen, S.; Bleidorn, W. Development and Validation of the Motivations to Eat Meat Inventory. Appetite 2021, 163, 105210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Poore, J.; Nemecek, T. Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts through Producers and Consumers. Science 2018, 360, 987–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ali, A.; Bharali, P. The Rise of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Challenges and Perspectives. Food Biosci. 2025, 68, 106640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. Mark. Rev. 2015, 32, 389–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, M.; Qureshi, S.; Akbar, M.H.; Siddiqui, S.A.; Gani, A.; Mushtaq, M.; Hassan, I.; Dhull, S.B. Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Compositional Analysis, Current Development and Challenges. Appl. Food Res. 2022, 2, 100154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, A.; Bharali, P. The Rise of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Challenges and Perspectives. Food Biosci. 2025, 68, 106640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jang, H.-W.; Cho, M. Relationship between Personal Values and Intentions to Purchase Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Application of the Dual Concern Theory. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2022, 19, 8673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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]
- Da Silva, B.D.; Da Costa Marques, J.M.; Conte-Junior, C.A. The Meat Mimicry Dilemma in the Sensory Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Analogue: A Systematic Review. Food Humanit. 2025, 5, 100734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.-Y. Using the Sustainable Modified TAM and TPB to Analyze the Effects of Perceived Green Value on Loyalty to a Public Bike System. Transp. Res. Part Policy Pract. 2016, 88, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govaerts, F.; Ottar Olsen, S. Consumers’ Values, Attitudes and Behaviours towards Consuming Seaweed Food Products: The Effects of Perceived Naturalness, Uniqueness, and Behavioural Control. Food Res. Int. 2023, 165, 112417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Homer, P.M.; Kahle, L.R. A Structural Equation Test of the Value-Attitude-Behavior Hierarchy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 638–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, C.-I.; Namkung, Y. Consumer Values, Attitudes, and Behavior towards Plant-Based Alternatives. Foods 2024, 13, 2561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sheikh, A.A.; Yousaf, M.F.; Alshuaibi, M.S.; Tariq, B.; Durrani, S.; Hameed, I.; Raza, S.H.; Yousaf, M.; Badawy, M. Modeling a Value-Attitude-Behavior Framework and Personality Traits: Examining Consumers’ Green Purchase Behavior for Environmentally Friendly Technology Products. Discov. Sustain. 2025, 6, 779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.-F.; Wu, Y.-T.; Ye, J.-H.; Ye, J.-N. Information Spread Behavior of Clubhouse: A Value-Attitude-Behavior Model Perspective. Heliyon 2024, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, M.J.; Hall, C.M. Do Value-Attitude-Behavior and Personality Affect Sustainability Crowdfunding Initiatives? J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 280, 111827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bąkowska, M.; Pilarczyk, R.; Kwita, E.; Tomza-Marciniak, A.; Udała, J.; Pilarczyk, B. Meat Substitutes, or Plant-Based Meat Alternatives (PBMAs), as an Opportunity for Sustainable Food Production. Sustainability 2026, 18, 2375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Liu, J.; Li, X. Value Delivery in Green Consumption: The Effect of Advertisement Value Proposition on Consumer Perception and Purchase Intention. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1339197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Riemsdijk, L.; Ingenbleek, P.; Van Trijp, H.; Van Der Veen, G. Marketing Animal-Friendly Products: Addressing the Consumer Social Dilemma with Reinforcement Positioning Strategies. Animals 2017, 7, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior: Frequently Asked Questions. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 2, 314–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abu Bakar, A.R.; Mahzan, N.A.; Tarmazi, S.A.A.; Tumin, S.A. Plant-Base Meat as Future Alternative: A Study of Malaysian Consumers Purchase Intention. Malays. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. MJSSH 2023, 8, e002397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodson, G.; Earle, M. Conservatism Predicts Lapses from Vegetarian/Vegan Diets to Meat Consumption (through Lower Social Justice Concerns and Social Support). Appetite 2018, 120, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dilotsotlhe, N.; Chabata, T.T. Beyond Convenience: Understanding the Multifaceted Appeal of Online Grocery Shopping Applications. Retail Mark. Rev. 2024, 20, 105–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharps, M.A.; Fallon, V.; Ryan, S.; Coulthard, H. The Role of Perceived Descriptive and Injunctive Norms on the Self-Reported Frequency of Meat and Plant-Based Meal Intake in UK-Based Adults. Appetite 2021, 167, 105615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Laffan, K.; Lades, L.K.; Delaney, L. Paths That Lead Astray: Examining the Situational Predictors of Intention-Behaviour Gaps in Meat Consumption. J. Environ. Psychol. 2023, 89, 102045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wensing, J.; Polman, D.; Lopez-Rivas, J.D.; Cremades, R.; Van Leeuwen, E. Green Meal? The Role of Situational Contexts for Real-Time Vegetarian Meal Choices. J. Environ. Psychol. 2024, 98, 102403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Hu, X.; Wise, K. How Playable Ads Influence Consumer Attitude: Exploring the Mediation Effects of Perceived Control and Freedom Threat. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2021, 15, 295–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, X.; Li, J.; Si, H.; Wu, P. Attention Marketing in Fragmented Entertainment: How Advertising Embedding Influences Purchase Decision in Short-Form Video Apps. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2024, 76, 103572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoon, H.J.; Huang, Y.; Yim, M.Y.-C. Native Advertising Relevance Effects and the Moderating Role of Attitudes toward Social Networking Sites. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2023, 17, 215–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chabata, T.T.; Senooane, B.C. Consumption of Sustainable Renewable Energy by Generation Z from a Utilitarian Perspective. Interdiscip. J. Manag. Sci. 2025, 2, a01. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.-S. Towards Environmentally Sustainable Diets: Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions for Plant-Based Meat Alternatives in Taiwan. Nutrients 2022, 14, 3853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Knaapila, A.; Michel, F.; Jouppila, K.; Sontag-Strohm, T.; Piironen, V. Millennials’ Consumption of and Attitudes toward Meat and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives by Consumer Segment in Finland. Foods 2022, 11, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ruby, M.B. Vegetarianism. A Blossoming Field of Study. Appetite 2012, 58, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sharma, A.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Arya, V.; Siddiqui, M.Q. Does SMS Advertising Still Have Relevance to Increase Consumer Purchase Intention? A Hybrid PLS-SEM-Neural Network Modelling Approach. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 124, 106919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Sun, S. Assessing Beliefs, Attitudes, and Behavioral Responses toward Online Advertising in Three Countries. Int. Bus. Rev. 2010, 19, 333–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, H.S. Relationships among Attitudes and Subjective Norms: Testing the Theory of Reasoned Action across Cultures. Commun. Stud. 2000, 51, 162–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagger, M.S.; Hamilton, K. Longitudinal Tests of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta-Analysis. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2024, 35, 198–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karjaluoto, H.; Shaikh, A.A.; Saarijärvi, H.; Saraniemi, S. How Perceived Value Drives the Use of Mobile Financial Services Apps. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 47, 252–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romão, B.; Sommo, M.; Zandonadi, R.P.; De Holanda, M.E.M.; Borges, V.R.P.; Saraiva, A.; Raposo, A. Sustainability of Key Proteins in Plant-Based Meat Analogs Production: A Worldwide Perspective. Sustainability 2025, 17, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehner, E.; Ehlers, M.-H.; Herrmann, M.; Höchli, B.; Holenweger, G.; Mann, S.; Messner, C.; Nemecek, T.; Closa, A.R.; Schäfer, O.; et al. Fleisch- und Milchersatzprodukte – besser für Gesundheit und Umwelt?: Auswirkungen auf Ernährung und Nachhaltigkeit, die Sicht der Konsumentinnen und Konsumenten sowie ethische und rechtliche Überlegungen; vdf Hochschulverlag AG, 2024; ISBN 978-3-7281-4193-4. [Google Scholar]
- Rubio, N.R.; Xiang, N.; Kaplan, D.L. Plant-Based and Cell-Based Approaches to Meat Production. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 6276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- United Nations Environment Programme Frontiers. What’s Cooking? An Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Selected Novel Alternatives to Conventional Animal Products; United Nations Environment Programme, 2023; ISBN 978-92-807-4103-2. [Google Scholar]
- Hartmann, P.; Apaolaza Ibáñez, V.; Forcada Sainz, F.J. Green Branding Effects on Attitude: Functional versus Emotional Positioning Strategies. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2005, 23, 9–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, L.; Wang, S.; Zhao, D.; Li, J. The Intention to Adopt Electric Vehicles: Driven by Functional and Non-Functional Values. Transp. Res. Part Policy Pract. 2017, 103, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornara, F.; Pattitoni, P.; Mura, M.; Strazzera, E. Predicting Intention to Improve Household Energy Efficiency: The Role of Value-Belief-Norm Theory, Normative and Informational Influence, and Specific Attitude. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, J.; Modi, A.; Patel, J. Predicting Green Product Consumption Using Theory of Planned Behavior and Reasoned Action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, P.; Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. Consumer Attitude and Purchase Intention toward Green Energy Brands: The Roles of Psychological Benefits and Environmental Concern. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1254–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, M.-F.; Tung, P.-J. Developing an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Model to Predict Consumers’ Intention to Visit Green Hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 36, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pilar Zirena-Bejarano, P.; Chavez Zirena, E.M. Mediating Effect of Subjective Norms in the Relationship Between Attitude and Online Purchase Decision. Indian J. Mark. 2023, 53, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Barbera, F.; Ajzen, I. Control Interactions in the Theory of Planned Behavior: Rethinking the Role of Subjective Norm. Eur. J. Psychol. 2020, 16, 401–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, S.; Fan, J.; Zhao, D.; Yang, S.; Fu, Y. Predicting Consumers’ Intention to Adopt Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Using an Extended Version of the Theory of Planned Behavior Model. Transportation 2016, 43, 123–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.T.; Thi Thu Truong, H.; Le-Anh, T. Online Purchase Intention Under the Integration of Theory of Planned Behavior and Technology Acceptance Model. Sage Open 2023, 13, 21582440231218814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guenther, P.; Guenther, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Zaefarian, G.; Cartwright, S. PLS-SEM and Reflective Constructs: A Response to Recent Criticism and a Constructive Path Forward. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2025, 128, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarstedt, M.; Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M. “PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet” – Retrospective Observations and Recent Advances. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2023, 31, 261–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, Z.; Khan, A.; Nazish, M.; Arwab, M. A Fusion of TAM and TPB with Halal Product Knowledge and Religiosity to Understand Online Purchase Intentions of Halal Cosmetics among Muslims Gen Z. J. Islam. Mark. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verma, S.M.; Bose, I.; Srivastava, A.; Sharma, V. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Synergizing Sustainable Technologies and Management Practices (STAMP 2024); Springer Nature, 2025; ISBN 978-94-6463-682-6. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, L.H.; Kian Lam, T.; Mey, L.P. Tailoring the Digital Pitch: Gender-Specific Strategies for Maximizing Social Media Ad Impact on Purchase Intention. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gurung, G.; Ojha, A.; Kharel, S.; Simkhada, B. Drivers of Consumer Purchase Intention Toward Life Insurance: Mediating Role of Persuasion. Nepal. J. Insur. Soc. Secur. 2025, 8, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dos Santos, J.I.A.S.; Pinheiro, A.B.; Prado, P.H.M.; Da Costa, M.F. Unveiling Consumer Perspectives of Plant-Based Meats: Insights from a Comprehensive Review of the Literature. Sustainability 2024, 16, 10836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chabata, T.T. Do Female Consumers Care About the Continuance Use of Grocery Applications? Antecedents, Drivers, and Consequences of Hedonic Value and User Experience. Stud. Media Commun. 2025, 14, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chabata, T.T.; Nel, J.; Maziriri, E.T. Experiential Value and Continuance Use of Retailers’ Mobile Apps: Emerging Market Perspective. South Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 2024, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Mitchell, R.; Gudergan, S.P. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in HRM Research. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 1617–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); SAGE, 2014; ISBN 978-1-4522-1744-4. [Google Scholar]
- Peterson, M.; Minton, E.A.; Liu, R.L.; Bartholomew, D.E. Sustainable Marketing and Consumer Support for Sustainable Businsses. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Page, M.; Brunsveld, N. Essentials of Business Research Methods, 4th ed.; Routledge, 2019; ISBN 978-0-429-20337-4. [Google Scholar]
- Kock, N. Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full Collinearity Assessment Approach. Int. J. E-Collab. 2015, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senooane, B.; Chabata, T. Understanding Consumer Value Dimensions in the Usage of Residential Solar Energy Among Generation Z. J. Consum. Sci. 2026, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, F.F. Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 2007, 14, 464–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research; Psychology Press, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Han, H.; Hsu, L.-T.; Sheu, C. Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Green Hotel Choice: Testing the Effect of Environmental Friendly Activities. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giles, M.; Cairns, E. Blood Donation and Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour: An Examination of Perceived Behavioural Control. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 34, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, Y.; Farris, K.B.; Nayakankuppam, D.; Doucette, W.R. Establishing the Approach of Norm Balance toward Intention Prediction across Six Behaviors under the Theory of Planned Behavior. Pharmacy 2023, 11, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pan, J.; Wu, K.-S.; Liu, H.-T. Unpacking Consumer Purchase Intentions Toward Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: An Integrated TPB–VAB Approach Using PLS-SEM, fsQCA, and NCA. Foods 2025, 14, 3525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ma, C.-C.; Chang, H.-P. The Effect of Novel and Environmentally Friendly Foods on Consumer Attitude and Behavior: A Value-Attitude-Behavioral Model. Foods 2022, 11, 2423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alessandrini, R.; Brown, M.K.; Pombo-Rodrigues, S.; Bhageerutty, S.; He, F.J.; MacGregor, G.A. Nutritional Quality of Plant-Based Meat Products Available in the UK: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Nutrients 2021, 13, 4225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mariani, A.; Annunziata, A. Young Consumers’ Intention to Consume Innovative Food Products: The Case of Alternative Proteins. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


| Age | Gender | PA | PAWV | PBC | PGV | PI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||||||
| Gender | 0,071 | ||||||
| PA | 0,04 | 0,05 | |||||
| PAWV | 0,079 | 0,082 | 0,507 | ||||
| PBC | 0,078 | 0,07 | 0,862 | 0,462 | |||
| PGV | 0,045 | 0,038 | 0,845 | 0,403 | 0,744 | ||
| PI | 0,036 | 0,087 | 0,814 | 0,356 | 0,816 | 0,718 | |
| SN | 0,069 | 0,08 | 0,616 | 0,521 | 0,768 | 0,54 | 0,602 |
| Age | Gender | PA | PAWV | PBC | PGV | PI | SN | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 1 | |||||||
| Gender | 1 | |||||||
| PA1 | 0,798 | |||||||
| PA2 | 0,87 | |||||||
| PA3 | 0,885 | |||||||
| PA4 | 0,886 | |||||||
| PA5 | 0,879 | |||||||
| PAWV1 | 0,851 | |||||||
| PAWV2 | 0,899 | |||||||
| PAWV3 | 0,918 | |||||||
| PBC1 | 0,836 | |||||||
| PBC2 | 0,854 | |||||||
| PBC3 | 0,87 | |||||||
| PBC4 | 0,895 | |||||||
| PBC5 | 0,401 | |||||||
| PGV1 | 0,854 | |||||||
| PGV2 | 0,839 | |||||||
| PGV3 | 0,845 | |||||||
| PGV4 | 0,811 | |||||||
| PI1 | 0,901 | |||||||
| PI2 | 0,914 | |||||||
| PI3 | 0,888 | |||||||
| SN1 | 0,907 | |||||||
| SN2 | 0,898 | |||||||
| SN3 | 0,89 | |||||||
| SN4 | 0,885 |
| Cronbach's alpha | Composite reliability (rho_a) | Composite reliability (rho_c) | Average variance extracted (AVE) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PA | 0,915 | 0,917 | 0,936 | 0,746 |
| PAWV | 0,868 | 0,876 | 0,919 | 0,792 |
| PBC | 0,837 | 0,889 | 0,889 | 0,63 |
| PGV | 0,858 | 0,858 | 0,904 | 0,701 |
| PI | 0,884 | 0,886 | 0,928 | 0,812 |
| SN | 0,917 | 0,923 | 0,942 | 0,801 |
| VIF | |
|---|---|
| PA1 | 2,025 |
| PA2 | 2,647 |
| PA3 | 3,206 |
| PA4 | 3,298 |
| PA5 | 2,872 |
| PAWV1 | 1,868 |
| PAWV2 | 2,731 |
| PAWV3 | 2,822 |
| PBC1 | 2,257 |
| PBC2 | 2,26 |
| PBC3 | 2,657 |
| PBC4 | 2,808 |
| PBC5 | 1,132 |
| PGV1 | 2,152 |
| PGV2 | 2,046 |
| PGV3 | 2,039 |
| PGV4 | 1,76 |
| PI1 | 2,635 |
| PI2 | 2,747 |
| PI3 | 2,258 |
| SN1 | 3,158 |
| SN2 | 3,024 |
| SN3 | 3,186 |
| SN4 | 3,002 |
| Saturated model | Estimated model | |
|---|---|---|
| SRMR | 0,053 | 0,079 |
| d_ULS | 0,995 | 2,772 |
| d_G | 0,399 | 0,571 |
| Chi-square | 1214,618 | 1562,17 |
| NFI | 0,871 | 0,834 |
| Hypothesis | Beta | t-value | p-Value | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1: SN -> PI | 0.026 | 0.043 | 0.100 | Not supported |
| H2: PBC -> PI | 0.457 | 6.743 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H3: PA -> PI | 0.284 | 7.322 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H4: PA -> PBC | 0.237 | 5.461 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H5: PA -> SN | 0.337 | 4.683 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H6: PAWV -> PA | 0.393 | 4.218 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H7: PGV-> PA | 0.417 | 3.971 | 0.000 | Supported |
| Hypothesis | Original sample (O | Sample mean (M) | Standard deviation (STDEV) | t-value | p-Value | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H8: PA -> PBC -> PI | 0.167 | 0.169 | 0.026 | 6.346 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H9: PA -> SN -> PI | 0.16 | 0.161 | 0.025 | 1.436 | 0.141 | Not supported |
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. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).