The determinants of the intention to purchase animal welfare-friendly meat products in Spain
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to analyse the intention to purchase animal welfare-friendly meat products and determine the factors explaining this intention. Additionally, a model of the intention to purchase animal welfare-friendly meat products has been developed based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). This model has been specified as a two-equation multivariate ordered probit model and estimated using data from a survey conducted in Spain in 2008. Results indicate that one of the most important factors associated with the intention to purchase animal welfare-friendly meat products was consumer self-identification with ethical issues. Second, findings suggested that, as the Theory of Planned Behaviour states, other factors related to the intention to purchase these products were attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A social movement has led to increased public concern and interest in the welfare of animals in captivity.
“Although personal and community views vary worldwide, it is well recognized that there is a social movement emerging that has led to increased public concern and interest in the welfare of animals in captivity [1,2,3,4,5].”
From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [2]
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare
Sherwen, S. L., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2019) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani9060366 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
An animal welfare risk assessment process for zoos
Sherwen, S. L., Hemsworth, L. M., Beausoleil, N. J., Embury, A., & Mellor, D. J. (2018) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani8080130 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gracia, A.
- Venue
- Animal Welfare
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2013-05
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 255-265
- ISSN
- 0962-7286 (ISSN-L)
- 2054-1538
- OpenAlex
- W2317359159
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 2.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Animal Welfare (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Consumer behavior in food and health
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Halal products and consumer behavior
- Keywords
- purchase intention, theory of planned behavior, consumer attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, consumer behavior
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
