Cited by 146Environmental Sustainability in BusinessOrganic Food and AgricultureConsumer behavior in food and health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Explaining Chinese Consumers’ Green Food Purchase Intentions during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour

Open access

Abstract

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has strongly influenced consumers’ habits and behaviours, creating a more sustainable and healthier era of consumption. Hence, there is a potential for further expanding the green food sector in China. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is one widely used framework to explain consumers’ food choices. Considering consumers’ internal norms, their perceptions of green food attributes, and the shifting consumer behaviour, our study has extended the TPB framework (E-TPB) by adding constructs of moral attitude, health consciousness, and the impact of COVID-19 (IOC). The results of structural equation modelling among 360 functional samples revealed that the E-TPB model has a superior explanatory and predictive power, compared with the original TPB model regarding Chinese consumers’ green food buying intentions in the current and post-pandemic periods. The path analysis demonstrated that attitude, perceived behavioural control, moral attitude, health consciousness, and IOC have significant positive effects on green food purchase intentions. However, the association between subjective norm and purchase intention varies within the TPB and E-TPB models, which showed a non-significant impact in E-TPB. These findings can generate more suitable managerial implications to promote green food consumption in China during the current and post-pandemic periods.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/foods10061200

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Research model: the white blocks are variables in the standard TPB model; the grey blocks and the white blocks are variables in the E-TPB model; H1, Hypothesis 1; H2, Hypothesis 2; H3, Hypothesis 3; H4, Hypothesis 4; H5, Hypothesis 5; H6, Hypothesis 6; H7, Hypothesis 7.
Figure 1 Research model: the white blocks are variables in the standard TPB model; the grey blocks and the white blocks are variables in the E-TPB model; H1, Hypothesis 1; H2, Hypothesis 2; H3, Hypothesis 3; H4, Hypothesis 4; H5, Hypothesis 5; H6, Hypothesis 6; H7, Hypothesis 7.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 The overview of responses (n = 360): X-axis, seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree); Y-axis, number of responses; AT, attitude; SN, subjective norm; PBC, perceived behavioural control; MA, moral attitude; HC, health consciousness; IOC, impact of COVID-19; PI, purchase intention.
Figure 2 The overview of responses (n = 360): X-axis, seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree); Y-axis, number of responses; AT, attitude; SN, subjective norm; PBC, perceived behavioural control; MA, moral attitude; HC, health consciousness; IOC, impact of COVID-19; PI, purchase intention.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 63 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Paull, 2008, Green Food in China, Elem. J. Bio Dyn. Tasma., 91, 48
  2. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principals and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press. [3rd ed.].
  3. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., and Anderson, R.E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson.
  4. Belk, 1985, Issues in the intention-behavior discrepancy, Res. Consum. Behav., 1, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Qi, X., & Ploeger, A.
Affiliations
University of Kassel (DE)
Corresponding author
Qi, Xin
Venue
Foods
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-05-26
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
1200
ISSN
2304-8158 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3164929864
Cited by
146
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 7
FWCI
24.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Foods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Kobra (Universitätsbibliothek Kassel) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Universität Kassel
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Consumer behavior in food and health
Keywords
green food, purchase intention, theory of planned behavior, COVID-19 pandemic, moral attitudes, health consciousness, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, attitudes, green food consumption, Chinese consumers, sustainable consumption

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review