Abstract
This study aims to examine the antecedents of consequences of healthiness in the café business context. Additionally, this study attests to the moderating effect of one's concern for health (health concern) between healthiness and attitude. To attain a more vivid response, this research selected Starbucks coffeehouse as a case study. Hygiene, healthiness, and nutritional disclosure are the determinants of healthiness in the café business area. The consequences of healthiness are attitude and purchase intention for café products. Health concern is the moderating variable between healthiness and attitude in the context of café businesses. In order to test the association between attributes, a survey was used. Amazon Mechanical Turk was chosen to recruit survey participants. The valid observation for data analysis was 455 participants. For hypothesis testing, a structural equation model was implemented. Regarding the results, health concern is positively influenced by hygiene and organicness, but healthiness is negatively affected by nutritional disclosure. Moreover, it was found that health concern significantly moderates the relationship between healthiness and attitude, and attitude exerts a positive effect on purchase intention.
Introduction
People are more interested in their health condition because a healthy condition is indispensable for better living with an improved standard of living (Kim et al., 2013; Huang and Lu, 2016; Yoo et al., 2020). Hence, consumers are more interested in healthy products; the café business is not free from this trend. To be specific, the café business allocates its resources to develop a healthy menu by including items such as whole grain bread, organic ingredient sandwiches, decaffeinated coffee, low-fat and low-sugar options, and size choice options (Eat This Not That, 2018; Today, 2020). Such a market trend inspires this research to understand healthiness more from the perspective of consumers. Thus, this research examined the antecedents and consequences of healthiness in the coffee business domain.
As the determinants of healthiness, this study selected hygiene, organicness, and nutritional disclosure. Previous studies addressed that hygiene is indispensable for healthy food because unsanitary conditions contaminate food, which causes disease (Seaman, 2010; Ababio and Lovatt, 2015; Fleetwood, 2019). The second element is organicness, which is associated with non-genetically modified organisms (Non-GMOs), ecofriendly cultivation, and the use of chemical-free fertilizers and pesticides (Davies et al., 1995; Padel and Foster, 2005; Britwum et al., 2021). Prior research also indicates that consumers choose organic food because it can promote health and avoid harmful components. The last determinant of healthiness is nutritional disclosure (de Magistris and Gracia, 2008; Lairon, 2010; Watanabe and Barbirato, 2021). Café food usually contains unhealthy elements such as high calorie content and caffeine (Schubert et al., 2017; Young et al., 2020; Gallivan and Brannon, 2022). Information on unhealthy ingredients such as high sugar levels and high fat levels encourages people to avoid harmful food; therefore, researchers emphasize the disclosure of nutritional information to enable consumers' decision-making (Fernandes et al., 2015; Huang and Lu, 2016; Wang et al., 2016). Thus, information is likely to exert a negative influence on the food healthiness of a coffee shop, which potentially affects the perceived healthiness of café food.
The consequences of healthiness are attitude and purchase intention. Attitude has been studied by numerous researchers because it is an indicator of how consumers feel and evaluate certain products and services (Das, 2014; Hung et al., 2016; Rana and Paul, 2017; Ahmadova and Aliyev, 2021). Moreover, several studies addressed the idea that purchase intention is an attribute directly connected with the revenue of a business, so consumers' higher level of purchase intention enables businesses to attain more earnings (Bian and Forsythe, 2012; Sreen et al., 2018; Kim and Song, 2020). Indeed, numerous studies have adopted purchase intention as the dependent variable (Lusk et al., 2007; Paul and Bhakar, 2018; Lee, 2019; Tran, 2020). Abundance, attitude, and purchase intention are employed in this research.
The next main attribute of this study is to attest to the moderating effect of health concerns between healthiness and attitude. Prior studies have outlined that food consumption patterns appear differently depending on the degree of health concern (Chen, 2011; Singhal, 2017). Therefore, healthy food is likely to be more attractive to highly health-conscious consumers, and such speculation could be applied in and attested to the domain of a café business. Furthermore, extant literature in the café consumer behavior area has rarely researched the moderating effect of health concerns, although many studies have been implemented to understand coffee shop consumer behavior (Thompson and Arsel, 2004; Jang et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2018; Jang and Lee, 2019; Shim et al., 2021). Such a point could be regarded as a research gap. Additionally, it is worth scrutinizing the effect on health concerns because there is a controversy about whether café food can promote a healthy condition or not (Schwarz et al., 1994; Nieber, 2017; Samoggia and Riedel, 2019). By demonstrating the moderating effect of health concerns, this research attempts to reduce the research gap.
This research theoretically contributes to literature on this subject by exposing the association between attributes: hygiene, organicness, nutritional disclosure, healthiness, health concern, attitude, and purchase intention. Ultimately, the outcome of this research might be utilized to increase the earnings of café businesses.
Review of literature
Healthiness and determinants of food healthiness
Food healthiness is an individual's appraisal of the nutritional value of food and its contribution to the individual's health (Provencher et al., 2009; Huang and Lu, 2016). Chan and Zhang (2022) outline that food healthiness is varied depending on the context and food healthiness in varied domains requires further research. Consumers concerned with their health are driving market demand for healthier food options. (Kim et al., 2013; Yoo et al., 2020). Such a demand has led researchers to scrutinize consumer behavior patterns for food health choices. Given this notability, previous studies have discussed the influential attributes of healthiness (Rizk and Treat, 2014; Fernandes et al., 2015).
Scholars have outlined that healthiness could be influenced by various attributes. First, prior studies argue that hygiene determines food healthiness because food prepared with poor sanitation causes disease on consumption (Seaman and Eves, 2006; Seaman, 2010; Ababio and Lovatt, 2015). Okpala and Korzeniowska (2021) also argue that food hygiene is an avenue for the provision of safe food. To be specific, Martins et al. (2012) claimed that foodborne illness causes serious health problems. Fleetwood (2019) also noted that restaurant hygiene inspections negatively impact public health problems. Djekic et al. (2014) documented that transparent food hygiene processes play a significant role in improving business conditions because consumers assess that the food is less detrimental to their health. This implies that hygiene is significantly related to health.
Next, extant literature has documented that organic produce is the second antecedent of healthiness because it is pure, safe, and beneficial for better health conditions (de Magistris and Gracia, 2008; Lairon, 2010; Watanabe and Barbirato, 2021). For instance, Padel and Foster (2005) outline that organic food is regarded as healthy because it is naturally produced and free from pesticides and fertilizer. de Magistris and Gracia (2008) unveiled that individuals pursuing a healthy diet consume more organic food because they believe that it is imperative for promoting positive health conditions. Moreover, Yu and Friedhelm (2018) contend that consumers perceive organic food as healthier because it contains less harmful items. Eyinade et al. (2021) allege that consumers value organic food more because it promotes a positive individual health condition.
Nutritional disclosure is the third determinant of healthiness. Nutritional disclosure refers to offering food ingredients, nutrition, and producer information to consumers (Huang and Lu, 2016; Adams, 2019; Razzaq et al., 2021). Razzaq et al. (2021) claimed that nutritional disclosure is a critical aspect of the food business because offering food information enables consumers to make better choices. Huang and Lu (2016) demonstrated that nutrition labels significantly affect food healthiness in the area of food packaging businesses. Fernandes et al. (2015) found that food healthiness is significantly determined by nutritional disclosure such as calorie information and menu labeling. Ogundijo et al. (2021) researched the retail market and found that nutritional labeling crucially functioned to build the perception of healthiness. Similarly, Wang et al. (2016) displayed the noteworthy relationship between nutritional disclosure and healthiness by employing snack consumers. Adams (2019) asserted that nutritional disclosure plays a crucial role in consumer decision-making because consumers acquire more information. In a similar vein, Chen et al. (2021) alluded that nutritional disclosure helps consumers reject unattractive food. Café food is characterized by high sugar level, caffeine, and high calories because most café foods are desserts, which is often extra calories after a regular meal (Chan et al., 2009; Morean and Wedel, 2017; Reyes and Cornelis, 2018; Bergeron et al., 2019). Therefore, the nutritional information of café products is likely to contain negative nutrition information such as sugar level, caffeine, and calories, which results in a negative perception of food healthiness. Based on the literature review, this study proposes the following research hypotheses:
H1: Hygiene Exerts a Positive Effect on Healthiness.
H2: Organicness exerts a positive effect on healthiness.
H3: Nutritional disclosure exerts a negative effect on healthiness.
Attitude
Attitude is a sort of consistent preference toward an object (Litvin and MacLaurin, 2001; Wu and Wang, 2014; Lee, 2019). Attitude is established by experience, cognition, assessment, and emotion (Voss et al., 2003; Abzari et al., 2014; Das, 2014; Kwon et al., 2020). In the food service business area, consuming healthy food has become more crucial because personal health condition is influenced by food consumption (Kwun, 2011; Gundersen and Ziliak, 2015; Hsu et al., 2016). Conversely, some studies suggest that unhealthy food causes undesirable results such as depression, high blood pressure, obesity, and heart attack (Hsu et al., 2016; Sezgin and Sanlier, 2016). Hence, food healthiness is an essential element to build a positive attitude. Previous studies exhibited empirical evidence. As an example, Hung et al. (2016) uncovered that meat healthiness significantly affects consumer attitude. Rana and Paul (2017) explored literature and found that food healthiness exerts an effect on attitude. Basha et al. (2015) studied organic food consumers and demonstrated a positive impact of food healthiness on attitude. Ahmadova and Aliyev (2021) found a positive association between food healthiness and attitude by exploring Halal food consumers. Given the review of literature, this research thus presents the following hypothesis:
H4: Healthiness exerts a positive effect on attitude.
Health concerns and the moderating effect
Scholars stated that health concern is an individual's degree of caring about their health condition (Röhr et al., 2005; Sun, 2008). People with a high level of health concerns are very thoughtful when they consume a health-related product (Wandel, 1994; Apaolaza et al., 2018). Food also is influential on health conditions, and health-concerned consumers are more careful in their purchasing decisions (Kähkönen and Tuorila, 1999; Pohjanheimo and Sandell, 2009; Farsalinos et al., 2015). De Canio and Martinelli (2021) also contended that health concern is a central attribute in food marketing because food consumption is linked with consumers' healthier lifestyles. The healthiness of products is more convincing to the health-concerned consumers because they value it more for enhancing their health condition. If high health-conscious people assess a product as promoting health conditions, they are more likely to report a positive evaluation of the product. Namely, the magnitude of the healthiness effect is likely to become greater for highly health-conscious consumers. It also can be inferred that the healthiness of a product can affect variedly depending on the degree of health concern. Indeed, Chen (2011) employed health concerns as a moderator in food purchase decision-making research. Singhal (2017) also demonstrated the moderating effect of health concerns by studying organic food consumers. Ahadzadeh et al. (2018) also disclosed the moderating effect of health concerns for seeking food information using an artificial intelligence system. However, sparse studies about the moderating effect of health concerns have been implemented in the domain of café customers. To affiliate such a research void, the following research hypothesis is proposed:
H5: Health concern significantly moderates the relationship between healthiness and attitude.
Purchase intention
Purchase intention refers to consumers' evaluation of whether they spend money or not; the intention leads to more buying decisions (Chang and Wildt, 1994; Chu and Lu, 2007; Liao et al., 2019). Prior studies also contended that businesses can increase their sales volume based on purchase intentions (Lusk et al., 2007; Bian and Forsythe, 2012; Kim and Song, 2020). This has encouraged many researchers to inspect purchase intention. For instance, Sreen et al. (2018) researched the determinants of green product purchase intention. Filieri et al. (2018) similarly implemented research for online consumers using purchase intention as an explanatory attribute. Ghali-Zinoubi and Toukabri (2019) employed purchase intention as a dependent variable to understand consumer purchase intentions in the organic product market. Along a similar vein, Tran (2020) documented the effect of online reviews on purchase intention in the context of tourism marketing. Robichaud and Yu (2022) revealed the determinants of purchase intention in the domain of coffee businesses. Browsing prior studies, many researchers adopted purchase intention as an explanatory element. It can be inferred that purchase intention is worth exploring. Therefore, this study selects purchase intention as the outcome variable.
Empirical studies revealed a positive association between attitude and purchase intention. Das (2014) showed the positive effect of attitude on purchase intention. Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibáñez (2012) found the positive effect of attitude on purchase intention by studying eco-friendly product consumers. Abzari et al. (2014) found that attitude exerts a positive impact on purchase intention in the social marketing area. Jung and Seock (2016) revealed that apparel consumers' attitude positively affects purchase intention. Similarly, Paul and Bhakar (2018) uncovered that purchase intention is positively influenced by the attitude in the domain of celebrity marketing. Additionally, Lee (2019) demonstrated the positive impact of attitude on purchase intention using commercial sharing system consumers. Given the review of research, this study proposes the following research hypothesis:
H6: Attitude exerts a positive effect on purchase intention.
Methods
Research model and data collection
Figure 1 describes the research model. Healthiness is determined by hygiene, organicness, and nutritional disclosure. Healthiness positively affects attitude; the association between healthiness and attitude is moderated by health concerns. Last, purchase intention is positively influenced by attitude.
Figure 1
Research model.
Amazon Mechanical Turk (http://www.mturk.com) was the main tool for collecting data. Amazon Mechanical Turk is an instrument for online data collection, and the system enables researchers to attract survey participants by offering monetary compensation. Since the system is an American-based survey system, this could become a proper system for attaining American-based survey information. Many prior studies collected data using Amazon Mechanical Turk and reported significant statistical inference (Wong et al., 2014; Lee and Hyun, 2018; Lee et al., 2018; Bahja and Hancer, 2021). The data collection period was from 11 December 2021 to 15 December 2021. This study chose Starbucks as a subject because the coffee shop business is well-known to the public; it allows this researcher to collect the data more easily. The popularity of the business could help this research attain generalizability. Additionally, Starbucks actively has executed a healthiness-related marketing strategy about hygiene management and offers organic ingredients for food; some examples include an open kitchen, sanitation guidelines, vegetable sandwiches, decaffeinated coffee, and reduced-fat menu items (Eat This Not That, 2018; Starbucks, 2021b). Moreover, nutritional disclosure has been implemented at Starbucks to offer information and protect consumer health (Starbucks, 2021a). By integrating the abovementioned aspects, Starbucks is regarded as an appropriate subject for current research. Thus, the survey participants were familiar with Starbucks coffee products and services. This research aimed to collect data from US consumers because Starbucks is a representative American café brand, and most survey participants of Amazon Mechanical Turk are based in the US (Burnham et al., 2018; Struckman-Johnson et al., 2020; Starbucks, 2021b). The survey was implemented nationally without focusing on any certain state of the US because this could enhance the generalizability of the research outcome. At the beginning of the survey, this study requested participants to “Please answer the survey questions based on your Starbucks experience.” Initially, 460 observations were attained, and five observations were eliminated because of either too many missing values or only one-word answers. In consequence, data analysis was implemented using 455 observations (valid sampling rate: 98.91 percent).
Measurement and data analysis
Table 1 illustrates the construct and measurement items. All constructs are composed of four items. All the measurement items were referenced by previous studies and adjusted for research. This research adopts seven constructs, namely healthiness, hygiene, organicness, nutritional disclosure, health concern, attitude, and purchase intention. The definition of healthiness is how the café product is assessed to enhance one's health condition (Basha et al., 2015; Huang and Lu, 2016; Ahmadova and Aliyev, 2021). Hygiene is defined as the evaluation of the cleanliness of the café (Chow and Mullan, 2010; Mullan and Wong, 2010; Läikkö-Roto and Nevas, 2014). Organicness in this study stands for the degree to which consumers perceive the café product is dependent on organic ingredients (Paul and Rana, 2012; Teng and Lu, 2016; Asif et al., 2018). This research defines nutritional disclosure as how well the coffee shop menus offer nutritional information (Choi, 2015; Huang and Lu, 2016; Wang et al., 2016). Health concern in this study refers to how an individual takes care of their health condition (Chen, 2011; Farsalinos et al., 2015; Singhal, 2017). Attitude is defined as the overall impression of the café (Das, 2014; Wu and Wang, 2014; Lee, 2019; Kwon et al., 2020), and purchase intention denotes if consumers intend to buy the product and service of the café (Lusk et al., 2007; Bian and Forsythe, 2012; Liao et al., 2019; Kim and Song, 2020).
Table 1
| Construct | Code | Item | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthiness | H1 | Starbucks food and beverage are healthy. | Basha et al., 2015 |
| H2 | Starbucks food improves my health condition. | Huang and Lu, 2016 | |
| H3 | Starbucks provides me with healthy food and beverage. | Ahmadova and Aliyev, 2021 | |
| H4 | My health condition is promoted by Starbucks food and beverage. | ||
| Hygiene | HY1 | Starbucks products are hygienic. | Chow and Mullan, 2010 |
| HY2 | Starbucks products are cooked in clean conditions. | Mullan and Wong, 2010 | |
| HY3 | Cleanliness of Starbucks products is well managed. | Läikkö-Roto and Nevas, 2014 | |
| HY4 | Starbucks food and beverage are sanitary to consume. | ||
| Organic | OR1 | Starbucks food and beverage are organic. | Paul and Rana, 2012 |
| OR2 | Starbucks offers organic products. | Teng and Lu, 2016 | |
| OR3 | Starbucks products provide organic ingredients. | Asif et al., 2018 | |
| OR4 | Starbucks sells organic food. | ||
| Nutrition disclosure | ND1 | Starbucks reveals nutrition information about the product. | Choi, 2015 |
| ND2 | Starbucks discloses the nutrition information of the product. | Huang and Lu, 2016 | |
| ND3 | Starbucks informs nutrition contents of food and beverage. | Wang et al., 2016 | |
| ND4 | Starbucks provides calorie information on food and beverages. | ||
| Health concern | HC1 | I am concerned about my health condition | Chen, 2011 |
| HC2 | I am concerned about gaining weight. | Farsalinos et al., 2015 | |
| HC3 | I am concerned about the diet. | Singhal, 2017 | |
| HC4 | I am concerned about sugar, additive, and cholesterol in food. | ||
| Attitude | AT1 AT2 AT3 AT4 | For me, using Starbucks is bad or good. For me, using Starbucks is unfavorable or favorable. For me, using Starbucks is negative or positive. For me, using Starbucks is stupid or wise. | Das, 2014; Wu and Wang, 2014; Lee, 2019; Kwon et al., 2020 |
| Purchase intention | PI1 | I intend to buy Starbucks product | Lusk et al., 2007 |
| PI2 | I am willing to purchase Starbucks food and beverage. | Bian and Forsythe, 2012 | |
| PI3 | I am going to purchase Starbucks products. | Liao et al., 2019 | |
| PI4 | I will pay for Starbucks food and beverage. | Kim and Song, 2020 |
Construct depiction.
This research first carried out a frequency analysis to acquire demographic information from survey respondents. Confirmatory factor analysis and correlation matrix were performed for ensuring convergent and discriminant validity. Factor loadings (threshold: 0.5) and construct reliability (threshold: 0.7) were applied to appraise convergent validity (Hoyle, 1995; Hair et al., 2010). Researchers documented that, if the square root of the average variance extracted is greater than the correlation coefficient, discriminant validity could be ensured (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hoyle, 1995; Hair et al., 2010). For hypothesis testing, this study utilized a structural equation model. Structural equation modeling refers to a multivariate technique to assess the multivariate causal relationship (Hair et al., 2010); the instrument has been widely used in various studies (Kim et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2021; Ahmad et al., 2022). This study also tested the significance of the coefficient using a p-value of 0.05 as the criterion (Hair et al., 2010). Extant literature stated that the goodness of fit is attested by checking the following: Q (CMIN/degree of freedom) <3; RMR (root mean square residual), GFI (goodness of fit index), NFI (normed fit index), RFI (relative fit index), IFI (incremental fit index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis index), CFI (comparative fit index) >0.8, and RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) <0.05 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hoyle, 1995; Hair et al., 2010). To test the moderating effect of health concern, the high health concern group (N = 271) and the low health concern group (N =184) were separated at first. Then, both models' χ2 values (baseline model vs. nested model) were computed to check the significance model. Afterward, both χ2 values were compared using Δχ2 statistics to check whether both coefficients are significantly different or not; the moderating effect is appraised given the significance of Δχ2 [H0: no moderating effect (Δχ2 = 0), Ha = moderating effect (Δχ2 ≠ 0)] (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998; Hsiao and Lai, 2018).
Results
Demographic information
Table 2 shows the demographic information of survey respondents. Of the total survey respondents. 221 and 234 are men and women, respectively. Monthly household income (Under $2,000: 120, $2,000–3,999: 114, $4,000–5,999: 82, $6,000–7,999: 59, $8,000–9,999:29, and Over $10,000: 51) and age (20s or younger: 126, 30s: 200, 40s: 68, 50s: 33, and older than 60: 28) information is presented in Table 1. Regarding café weekly visiting frequency, 84% of the participants visited less than one time or about 1–3 times.
Table 2
| Item | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | 48.6 | |
| Male | 221 | |
| Female | 234 | 51.4 |
| Monthly household income | ||
| Under $2,000 | 120 | 26.4 |
| $2,000–3,999 | 114 | 25.1 |
| $4,000–5,999 | 82 | 18.0 |
| $6,000–7,999 | 59 | 13.0 |
| $8,000–9,999 | 29 | 6.4 |
| Over $10,000 | 51 | 11.2 |
| Age | ||
| 20s or younger | 126 | 27.7 |
| 30s | 200 | 44.0 |
| 40s | 68 | 14.9 |
| 50s | 33 | 7.3 |
| Older than 60 | 28 | 6.2 |
| Cafe weekly visiting frequency | ||
| Less than 1 time | 216 | 47.5 |
| 1–3 times | 166 | 36.5 |
| 3–5 times | 56 | 12.3 |
| More than 5 times | 17 | 3.7 |
| Total | 455 | 100.0 |
Demographic profile of survey participants (N = 455).
Confirmatory factor analysis results and descriptive statistics of measurement items
Table 3 reveals the results of the confirmatory factor analysis. Factor loadings are significant given the p-value, and all the values are greater than the cutoff value. Construct reliability values are also >0.7. Given the results, the validity and reliability of measurement items are statistically acceptable. The goodness of fit indices also suggests that the results of confirmatory factor analysis are appropriate. All things considered, the convergent validity of measurement items are confirmed. Table 3 additionally provides mean and standard deviation values. Considering mean values, the mean values of hygiene are highest (range: 3.92–4.11), whereas the mean values of healthiness are lowest (range: 2.79-3.14). The goodness of fit indices showed that the results of confirmatory factor analysis are suitable (χ2 = 713.819 df = 329 Q(χ2/df) = 2.170 RMR = 0.051 GFI = 0.898 NFI = 0.934 RFI = 0.924 IFI = 0.963 TLI = 0.957 CFI = 0.963 RMSEA = 0.051).
Table 3
| Construct (AVE) | Code | Mean(SD) | Loading | t-value | Construct reliability (CR) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthiness (0.784) | H1 | 3.19(1.18) | 0.900 | 0.935 | |
| H2 | 2.88(1.26) | 0.908 | 29.980* | ||
| H3 | 3.14(1.19) | 0.886 | 28.303* | ||
| H4 | 2.79(1.30) | 0.846 | 25.560* | ||
| Hygiene (0.591) | HY1 | 3.92(0.97) | 0.715 | 0.852 | |
| HY2 | 4.06(0.84) | 0.799 | 15.652* | ||
| HY3 | 4.04(0.85) | 0.783 | 15.372* | ||
| HY4 | 4.11(0.88) | 0.776 | 15.242* | ||
| Organicness (0.699) | OR1 | 3.12(1.15) | 0.771 | 0.902 | |
| OR2 | 3.44(1.06) | 0.873 | 19.928* | ||
| OR3 | 3.43(1.05) | 0.868 | 19.790* | ||
| OR4 | 3.35(1.06) | 0.827 | 18.719* | ||
| Nutritional disclosure (0.665) | ND1 | 3.89(0.95) | 0.862 | 0.888 | |
| ND2 | 3.81(1.01) | 0.770 | 19.191* | ||
| ND3 | 3.86(0.95) | 0.846 | 22.028* | ||
| ND4 | 3.98(0.96) | 0.780 | 19.571* | ||
| Health concern (0.602) | HC1 | 3.75(1.21) | 0.746 | ||
| HC2 | 3.62(1.32) | 0.770 | 15.788* | ||
| HC3 | 3.66(1.25) | 0.875 | 17.350* | 0.857 | |
| HC4 | 3.78(1.16) | 0.701 | 14.351* | ||
| Attitude (0.785) | AT1 | 3.77(1.11) | 0.907 | 0.936 | |
| AT2 | 3.77(1.15) | 0.909 | 31.231* | ||
| AT3 | 3.80(1.13) | 0.911 | 31.485* | ||
| AT4 | 3.53(1.09) | 0.814 | 24.222* | ||
| Purchase intention (0.807) | PI1 | 3.81(1.17) | 0.890 | 0.857 | |
| PI2 | 3.87(1.12) | 0.899 | 28.972* | ||
| PI3 | 3.81(1.16) | 0.918 | 30.530* | ||
| PI4 | 3.90(1.16) | 0.887 | 28.098* |
Mean value and confirmatory factor analysis results.
AVE stands for average variance extracted, *p < 0.05.
Goodness of fit indices: Goodness of fit indices: χ2 = 713.819 df = 329 Q(χ2/df) = 2.170 RMR = 0.051 GFI = 0.898 NFI = 0.934 RFI = 0.924 IFI = 0.963 TLI = 0.957 CFI = 0.963 RMSEA = 0.051.
Correlation matrix and discriminant validity
Table 4 is the results of the correlation matrix. The diagonal values are the square root of AVE. All the diagonal values are greater than the correlation coefficients in its column. It means that the discriminant validity is ensured by the results of the analysis. Healthiness positively correlates with hygiene (r = 0.413, p < 0.05), organicness (r = 0.689, p < 0.05), nutritional disclosure (r = 0.303, p < 0.05), attitude (r = 0.660, p < 0.05), and purchase intention (r = 0.550, p < 0.05). Attitude also positively correlates with hygiene (r = 0.629, p < 0.05), organicness (r = 0.476, p < 0.05), and nutritional disclosure (r = 0.423, p < 0.05). Next, purchase intention positively correlates with hygiene (r = 0.645, p < 0.05), organicness (r = 0.417, p < 0.05), nutritional disclosure (r = 0.499, p < 0.05), and attitude (r = 890, p < 0.05).
Table 4
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Hygiene | 0.769 | ||||||
| 2. Organicness | 0.473* | 0.836 | |||||
| 3. Nutritional disclosure | 0.666* | 0.468* | 0.815 | ||||
| 4. Healthiness | 0.413* | 0.689* | 0.303* | 0.885 | |||
| 5. Attitude | 0.629* | 0.476* | 0.423* | 0.660* | 0.886 | ||
| 6. Purchase intention | 0.645* | 0.417* | 0.499* | 0.550* | 0.890* | 0.898 | |
| 7. Health concerns | 0.187* | 0.182* | 0.203* | 0.219* | 0.071 | 0.063 | 0.776 |
Correlation matrix results.
Diagonal is the square root of average variance extracted (AVE), p <0.05.
Results of structural equation model
Table 5 depicts the results of the structural equation model. Given the goodness of fit indices, the results are statistically significant (χ2 = 707.535 df = 244 Q(χ2/df) = 2.900 RMR = 0.119 GFI = 0.881 NFI = 0.928 RFI = 0.887 IFI = 0.951 TLI = 0.935 CFI = 0.941 RMSEA = 0.050). The results revealed that the healthiness of a café is positively determined by hygiene (β = 0.222, p < 0.05) and organicness (β = 0.645, p < 0.05), whereas healthiness is negatively influenced by nutritional disclosure (β = −0.129, p < 0.05). The results also exhibited that healthiness (β = 0.663, p < 0.05) positively affected attitude; both the high health concern group with healthiness (β = 0.734, p < 0.05) and the low health concern group with healthiness (β = 0.463, p < 0.05) positively affected attitude. Finally, attitude exerted a positive impact on purchase intention (β = 0.888, p < 0.05). H1, H2, H3, H4, and H6 are supported.
Table 5
| H | Path | Standardized β | t-value | p-value | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Hygiene → Healthiness | 0.222 | 3.63 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H2 | Organicness → Healthiness | 0.645 | 11.88 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H3 | Nutritional disclosure → Healthiness | −0.129 | −2.18 | 0.029 | Supported |
| H4 | Healthiness → Attitude | 0.663 | 15.36 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H5 | Healthiness (H) → Attitude | 0.734 | 21.24 | 0.000 | Supported |
| Healthiness (L) → Attitude | 0.463 | 6.01 | 0.000 | ||
| H6 | Attitude → Purchase intention | 0.888 | 23.52 | 0.000 | Supported |
Results of hypothesis testing.
*p <0.05, High health concern group (H) (N = 271), Low health concern group (L) (N = 184).
Goodness of fit indices for the structural model.
χ2 = 707.535 df = 244 Q(χ2/df) = 2.900 RMR = 0.119 GFI = 0.881 NFI = 0.928 RFI = 0.887 IFI = 0.951 TLI = 0.935 CFI = 0.941 RMSEA = 0.050.
Goodness of fit indices for the baseline model (Health concern).
χ2 = 1,756.280 df = 733 Q(χ2/df) = 2.396 RMR = 0.130 GFI = 0.860 NFI = 0.911 RFI = 0.899 IFI = 0.946 TLI = 0.939 CFI = 0.946 RMSEA = 0.039.
Table 6 exhibited the results of the structural invariance test. The baseline model is statistically noteworthy regarding goodness of fit indices (χ2 = 1756.280 df = 733 Q(χ2/df) = 2.396 RMR = 0.130 GFI = 0.860 NFI = 0.911 RFI = 0.899 IFI = 0.946 TLI = 0.939 CFI = 0.946 RMSEA = 0.039). For checking the moderating effect, this study carried out a structural invariance test with health concerns as the moderator. χ2 of the baseline model is 1,756.280 and its degree of freedom is 733; χ2 of the nested model is 1,761.013. By computing Δχ2, a significant difference was identified (Δχ2 = 4.733, p < 0.05), suggesting that healthiness exerted significantly difference impact on attitude by comparing both the high health concern group and the low health concern group. Therefore, H5 is supported given the results of structural invariance appraisal. Figure 2 summarizes the results of hypothesis testing.
Table 6
| Path | High health concern | Low health concern | Baseline model | Nested model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β (t-value) | β(t-value) | χ2 (df) | χ2 (df) | |
| Healthiness → Attitude | 0.734 (21.24)* | 0.463 (6.01) * | χ2 = 1,756.280 (733) | χ2 = 1,761.013 (734) |
The structural invariance assessment for health concern.
*p <0.05, High health concern group (N = 271), Low health concern group (N = 184).
Goodness of fit indices for baseline model (Health concern).
Chi-square difference test: Δχ2 = 1,761.013–1,756.280 = 4.733* H5 is supported.
Figure 2
Results of structural equation model.
Discussion
This research aimed to investigate the antecedents and consequences of healthiness in the domain of café businesses. The results implied that hygiene and organic elements resulted in higher levels of healthiness for café products. The results for both hygiene (Djekic et al., 2014; Fleetwood, 2019) and organicness (de Magistris and Gracia, 2008; Yu and Friedhelm, 2018) are aligned with the findings of extant literature. Concerning the magnitude, organicness exerted a stronger impact than hygiene. It can be inferred that consumers place more value on promoting health conditions by consuming food as compared to the clean cooking process. In contrast, nutritional disclosure led consumers to perceive café products as unhealthy. The findings support the prior studies' arguments that café products' nutritional information reveals high levels of sugar and caffeine, which could build negative perception for consumers in terms of healthiness (Morean and Wedel, 2017; Reyes and Cornelis, 2018; Bergeron et al., 2019). Wang et al. (2016) found that the nutritional disclosure symbol exerts a positive effect on consumer perception, while the results of the current study showed that nutritional disclosure information including caffeine and calories brought about a negative healthiness perception by consumers. Healthiness also appeared as a significant determinant of attitude, meaning that offering healthy food and beverages could build more positive attitudes for coffee product consumers. The results confirmed the outcomes of prior research regarding the relationship between healthiness and attitude in the café business domain (Hung et al., 2016; Rana and Paul, 2017). Next, this research revealed that health concern was a substantial moderator between healthiness and attitude. To be specific, if an individual is concerned more about their health condition, food healthiness more strongly establishes a positive attitude in those café consumers than in low-level health-conscious customers. This finding supports the prior studies' claim that health concern plays an essential moderating role (Singhal, 2017; Ahadzadeh et al., 2018). To be specific, Singhal (2017) found that consumers who are health concerned were more sensitive to building a positive perception of the organic food product. The results of this research also unveiled that café consumers with high health concerns were more keenly influenced by the healthiness of food toward building a positive attitude. Last, the results illustrated that positive attitudes could play a critical role in accomplishing sales growth of a business by stimulating purchase intention, which externally validated the findings of previous research in the context of café businesses (Paul and Bhakar, 2018; Lee, 2019).
Conclusion
Theoretical contribution
This study investigated the determinants of healthiness in the domain of a café businesses. The results showed that hygiene and organicness positively affected the perceptions of healthiness, while it was found that nutritional disclosure negatively impacted the perception of healthiness of café businesses. Next, this study revealed that attitude is positively influenced by the healthiness of a café; the association between healthiness and attitude is significantly moderated by health concerns. Last, this study uncovered that purchase intention is positively impacted by attitude. This study has theoretical contributions. First, this research demonstrated the moderating effect of health concerns in the café business sector. Even though researchers have implemented bountiful research in the café business consumer behavior domain (Thompson and Arsel, 2004; Jang et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2018; Jang and Lee, 2019; Shim et al., 2021), the moderating effect of health concern could be a research gap. This research gap encouraged us to research and inspect the moderating effect of health concerns and this study documented its substantial effect, which is the theoretical contribution of the current work. Second, this research proposed healthiness's three antecedents: hygiene, organicness, and nutritional disclosure. The finding presented an essential link between these three variables and healthiness. Since the healthiness of food could be defined variedly depending on the sort of food, it is valuable to clearly define food healthiness in the context of the café business. The last contribution of this research is to validate the findings from prior studies on the association between attitude and purchase intention in the coffee shop consumer research area (Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2012; Abzari et al., 2014; Paul and Bhakar, 2018; Lee, 2019).
Practical implication
This study presents practical implications. Coffee shop managers need to more thoroughly manage the cleanliness of store areas, namely dining areas, restrooms, and kitchen conditions. A fresh and clean store atmosphere is likely to enhance the perception of the healthiness of the product for customers. Additionally, hygiene-related aspects could reduce the concern of consumers by protecting consumers from COVID-19. Café managers might choose organic products as well as emphasize the organic aspects of products to enhance the perception of healthiness. This could also be applied to the packaging for coffee bean sales by upgrading the visibility of the organic mark more. Compared to hygiene, organic features might become the priority as it is likely to provide more effective resource allocation to achieve a healthy product image. The results showed a negative association between healthiness and nutritional disclosure. Given the results, café managers might conservatively approach presenting nutritional information of café products because it could diminish the health image of coffee shop food and beverages. However, coffee business managers should keep in mind that excessively screening nutritional information might undermine the business reputation, which is likely to result in a huge amount of loss in the market as the business could be regarded as a socially irresponsible one. Additionally, coffee shop managers should relay food healthiness to customers because healthiness plays an imperative role in fostering a positive attitude. Café managers also need to invest in a healthy menu (e.g., decaffeinated coffee options, low calorie coffee and tea, and food products with healthy ingredients) development because it affects customers who are health concerned more convincingly. Finally, coffee shop business managers could carry out a strategy that includes corporate social responsibility and public relations, which build a positive attitude because it helps businesses achieve more sales by indirectly stimulating purchase intention.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
This study has limitations. First, the determinants of healthiness were constrained to three attributes. Future research could examine the more diverse antecedents of healthiness. Moreover, the survey participants were limited to Americans. To attain the generalizability of the results in the current study, researchers need to explore other geographical area cases because the markets perceive coffee shop products in different ways. Future studies additionally could consider various consequences (e.g., intention to revisit, value, and risk) to examine consumer behavior, which might become the avenue to make café business consumer studies more bountiful. Furthermore, future research might consider the attitude-behavior theory as a theoretical foundation for understanding consumer behavior in the café business domain. Such an effort might become the avenue to theoretically make the café consumer literature more fertile.
Funding
This work was supported by Dong-A University.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
MS: research design and writing. WL: data analysis and writing. JM: administration and writing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AbabioP. F.LovattP. (2015). A review on food safety and food hygiene studies in Ghana. Food Control.47, 92–97. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.06.041
2
AbzariM.GhassemiR. A.VostaL. N. (2014). Analysing the effect of social media on brand attitude and purchase intention: the case of Iran Khodro Company. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.143, 822–826. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.483
3
AdamsR. (2019). A retrospective look at the common sense nutrition disclosure act: Small business lifeline or an impediment to informed consumer decision making?. Bus. Soc. Rev.124, 515–522. 10.1111/basr.12189
4
AhadzadehA. S.SharifS. P.OngF. S. (2018). Online health information seeking among women: the moderating role of health consciousness. Online Inf. Rev.42, 58–72. 10.1108/OIR-02-2016-0066
5
AhmadN.UllahZ.AlDhaenE.HanH.ScholzM. (2022). A CSR perspective to foster employee creativity in the banking sector: the role of work engagement and psychological safety. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.67, 102968. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102968
6
AhmadovaE.AliyevK. (2021). Determinants of attitudes towards Halal products: empirical evidence from Azerbaijan. J. Islam. Mark.12, 55–69. 10.1108/JIMA-04-2019-0068
7
ApaolazaV.HartmannP.D'SouzaC.LópezC. M. (2018). Eat organic–Feel good? The relationship between organic food consumption, health concern and subjective wellbeing. Food Qual. Prefer.63, 51–62. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.07.011
8
AsifM.XuhuiW.NasiriA.AyyubS. (2018). Determinant factors influencing organic food purchase intention and the moderating role of awareness: a comparative analysis. Food Qual. Prefer.63, 144–150. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.08.006
9
BahjaF.HancerM. (2021). Eco-guilt in tourism: Do tourists intend to behave environmentally friendly and still revisit?. J. Dest. Mark. Manage.20, 100602. 10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100602
10
BashaM.MasonC.ShamsudinM.HussainH.SalemM. (2015). Consumers attitude towards organic food. Procedia Eco. Finance31, 444–452. 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01219-8
11
BergeronS.DoyonM.SaulaisL.LabrecqueJ. (2019). Using insights from behavioral economics to nudge individuals towards healthier choices when eating out: a restaurant experiment. Food Qual. Prefer.73, 56–64. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.12.001
12
BianQ.ForsytheS. (2012). Purchase intention for luxury brands: a cross cultural comparison. J. Bus. Res.65, 1443–1451. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.010
13
BritwumK.BernardJ. C.AlbrechtS. E. (2021). Does importance influence confidence in organic food attributes?. Food Qual. Prefer.87, 104056. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104056
14
BurnhamM. J.LeY. K.PiedmontR. L. (2018). Who is Mturk? Personal characteristics and sample consistency of these online workers. Mental Health, Religion Cult.21, 934–944. 10.1080/13674676.2018.1486394
15
ChanE.ZhangL. S. (2022). Is this food healthy? The impact of lay beliefs and contextual cues on food healthiness perception and consumption. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 101348. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101348
16
ChanJ. M.WangF.HollyE. A. (2009). Sweets, sweetened beverages, and risk of pancreatic cancer in a large population-based case–control study. Cancer Causes Control.20, 835–846. 10.1007/s10552-009-9323-1
17
ChangT.WildtA. (1994). Price, product information, and purchase intention: an empirical study. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.22,16–27. 10.1177/0092070394221002
18
ChenM. (2011). The joint moderating effect of health consciousness and healthy lifestyle on consumers' willingness to use functional foods in Taiwan. Appetite.57, 253–262. 10.1016/j.appet.2011.05.305
19
ChenT.RazzaqA.QingP.CaoB. (2021). Do you bear to reject them? The effect of anthropomorphism on empathy and consumer preference for unattractive produce. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.61, 102556. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102556
20
ChoiJ. (2015). The impact of disclosure of nutrition information on consumers' behavioral intention in Korea. J. Am. Coll. Nutr.34, 378–384. 10.1080/07315724.2014.939785
21
ChowS.MullanB. (2010). Predicting food hygiene. An investigation of social factors and past behaviour in an extended model of the Health Action Process Approach. Appetite.54, 126–133. 10.1016/j.appet.2009.09.018
22
ChuC. W.LuH. P. (2007). Factors influencing online music purchase intention in Taiwan: an empirical study based on the value-intention framework. Int. Res.17,139–155. 10.1108/10662240710737004
23
DasG. (2014). Factors affecting Indian shoppers? attitude and purchase intention: An empirical check. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.21, 561–569. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.04.005
24
DaviesA.TitteringtonA.CochraneC. (1995). Who buys organic food? A profile of the purchasers of organic food in Northern Ireland. Br. Food J.97, 17–23. 10.1108/00070709510104303
25
De CanioF.MartinelliE. (2021). EU quality label vs organic food products: A multigroup structural equation modeling to assess consumers' intention to buy in light of sustainable motives. Int. Food Res. J.139, 109846. 10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109846
26
de MagistrisT.GraciaA. (2008). The decision to buy organic food products in Southern Italy. Br. Food J.110, 929–947. 10.1108/00070700810900620
27
DjekicI.SmigicN.KalogianniE. P.RochaA.ZamioudiL.PachecoR. (2014). Food hygiene practices in different food establishments. Food Control.39, 34–40. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.10.035
28
Eat This Not That. (2018). 28 Starbucks Items Diet Experts Love. Available online at: https://www.eatthis.com/starbucks-menu-items/ (accessed December 27, 2021).
29
EyinadeG.MushunjeA.YusufS. (2021). The willingness to consume organic food: a review. Food Agri. Immunol.32, 78–104. 10.1080/09540105.2021.1874885
30
FarsalinosK. E.VoudrisV.PoulasK. (2015). Are metals emitted from electronic cigarettes a reason for health concern? A risk-assessment analysis of currently available literature. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health.12, 5215–5232. 10.3390/ijerph120505215
31
Fernandes A. de Oliveira R. Rodrigues V. Fiates G. da Costa Proença R. (2015), “Perceptions of university students regarding calories, food healthiness, the importance of calorie information in menu labelling. Appetite. 91, 173–178. 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.042
32
FilieriR.McLeayF.TsuiB.LinZ. (2018). Consumer perceptions of information helpfulness and determinants of purchase intention in online consumer reviews of services. Information and Management55,956–970. 10.1016/j.im.2018.04.010
33
FleetwoodJ. (2019). Scores on doors: restaurant hygiene ratings and public health policy. J. Public Health Policy.40, 410–422. 10.1057/s41271-019-00183-4
34
FornellC.LarckerD. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Marketing Res.18, 39–50. 10.1177/002224378101800104
35
GallivanN. P.BrannonL. A. (2022). Specialty coffee consumption intervention illustrates the utility of behavior feedback messages. Eat. Behav.45, 101630. 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2022.101630
36
Ghali-ZinoubiZ.ToukabriM. (2019). The antecedents of the consumer purchase intention: Sensitivity to price and involvement in organic product: moderating role of product regional identity. Trends Food Sci. Technol.90,175–179. 10.1016/j.tifs.2019.02.028
37
GundersenC.ZiliakJ. P. (2015). Food insecurity and health outcomes. Health Aff.34, 1830–1839. 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0645
38
HairJ.AndersonR.BabinB.BlackW. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective (7th edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, NJ: Pearson.
39
HartmannP.Apaolaza-IbáñezV. (2012). Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: the roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. J. Bus. Res.65, 1254–1263. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.11.001
40
HoyleR. (1995). Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. New York, NY: Sage.
41
HsiaoY.LaiM. (2018). The impact of partial measurement invariance on testing moderation for single and multi-level data. Front. Psychol.9, 740. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00740
42
HsuS.ChangC.LinT. (2016). An analysis of purchase intentions toward organic food on health consciousness and food safety with/under structural equation modeling. Br. Food J.118, 200–216. 10.1108/BFJ-11-2014-0376
43
HuangL.LuJ. (2016). The impact of package color and the nutrition content labels on the perception of food healthiness and purchase intention. J. Food Prod. Mark.22, 191–218. 10.1080/10454446.2014.1000434
44
HungY.de KokT. M.VerbekeW. (2016). Consumer attitude and purchase intention towards processed meat products with natural compounds and a reduced level of nitrite. Meat Sci.121, 119–126. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.06.002
45
JangH. W.LeeS. B. (2019). Applying effective sensory marketing to sustainable coffee shop business management. Sustainability.11, 6430. 10.3390/su11226430
46
JangY. J.KimW. G.LeeH. Y. (2015). Coffee shop consumers' emotional attachment and loyalty to green stores: The moderating role of green consciousness. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.44, 146–156. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.10.001
47
JungN. Y.SeockY. K. (2016). The impact of corporate reputation on brand attitude and purchase intention. Fashion Textiles.3, 1–15. 10.1186/s40691-016-0072-y
48
KähkönenP.TuorilaH. (1999). Consumer responses to reduced and regular fat content in different products: effects of gender, involvement and health concern. Food Qual. Prefer.10, 83–91. 10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00043-3
49
KimH.ParkJ.KimM.RyuK. (2013). Does perceived restaurant food healthiness matter? Its influence on value, satisfaction and revisit intentions in restaurant operations in South Korea. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.33, 397–405. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.10.010
50
KimJ. H.SongH. (2020). The influence of perceived credibility on purchase intention via competence and authenticity. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.90, 102617. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102617
51
KimJ. J.KimI.HwangJ. (2021). A change of perceived innovativeness for contactless food delivery services using drones after the outbreak of COVID-19. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.93, 102758. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102758
52
KimS. H.KimM.HollandS. (2018). How customer personality traits influence brand loyalty in the coffee shop industry: the moderating role of business types. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm.19, 311–335. 10.1080/15256480.2017.1324340
53
KwonJ.LeeY. M.WenH. (2020). Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors about dining out with food allergies: a cross-sectional survey of restaurant customers in the United States. Food Control.107, 106776. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106776
54
KwunD. J. (2011). Effects of campus foodservice attributes on perceived value, satisfaction, and consumer attitude: a gender-difference approach. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.30, 252–261. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.09.001
55
Läikkö-RotoT.NevasM. (2014). Restaurant business operators' knowledge of food hygiene and their attitudes toward official food control affect the hygiene in their restaurants. Food Control.43, 65–73. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.02.043
56
LaironD. (2010). Nutritional quality and safety of organic food. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.30, 33–41. 10.1051/agro/2009019
57
LeeH. (2019). The effect of anti-consumption lifestyle on consumer's attitude and purchase intention toward commercial sharing systems. Asia Pacific J. Mark. Logist.31, 1422–1441. 10.1108/APJML-06-2018-0218
58
LeeK. H.HyunS. S. (2018). The effects of tourists' knowledge-sharing motivation on online tourist community loyalty: the moderating role of ambient stimuli. Curr. Issues Tour.21, 1521–1546. 10.1080/13683500.2016.1145197
59
LeeW. S.LeeJ. K.MoonJ. (2018). Study on the preference for capsule hotel attributes using a choice experiment. Tourism Econ.24, 492–499. 10.1177/1354816618765345
60
LiaoS. H.ChungY. C.ChangW. J. (2019). Interactivity, engagement, trust, purchase intention and word-of-mouth: a moderated mediation study. Int. J. Serv. Technol.25,116–137. 10.1504/IJSTM.2019.098203
61
LitvinS. W.MacLaurinD. J. (2001). Consumer attitude and behavior. Ann. Tour. Res.28, 821–823. 10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00072-4
62
LuskJ. L.McLaughlinL.JaegerS. R. (2007). Strategy and response to purchase intention questions. Mark. Lett.18, 31–44. 10.1007/s11002-006-9005-7
63
MartinsR.HoggT.OteroJ. (2012). Food handlers' knowledge on food hygiene: The case of a catering company in Portugal. Food Control.23, 184–190. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.07.008
64
MoreanM. E.WedelA. V. (2017). Vaping to lose weight: Predictors of adult e-cigarette use for weight loss or control. Addict. Behav.66, 55–59. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.10.022
65
MullanB.WongC. (2010). Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to design a food hygiene intervention. Food Control.21, 1524–1529. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.04.026
66
NieberK. (2017). The impact of coffee on health. Planta Med.83, 1256–1263. 10.1055/s-0043-115007
67
OgundijoD.TasA.OnarindeB. (2021). An assessment of nutrition information on front of pack labels and healthiness of foods in the United Kingdom retail market. BMC Public Health.21, 1–10. 10.1186/s12889-021-10255-4
68
OkpalaC.KorzeniowskaM. (2021). Understanding the relevance of quality management in agro-food product industry: from ethical considerations to assuring food hygiene quality safety standards and its associated processes. Food Rev. Int.1–74. 10.1080/87559129.2021.1938600
69
PadelS.FosterC. (2005). Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour: Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food. Br. Food J.107, 606–625. 10.1108/00070700510611002
70
PaulJ.BhakarS. (2018). Does celebrity image congruence influences brand attitude and purchase intention?. J. Promotion Manag.24, 153–177. 10.1080/10496491.2017.1360826
71
PaulJ.RanaJ. (2012). Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food. J. Consumer Market.29, 412–422. 10.1108/07363761211259223
72
PohjanheimoT.SandellM. (2009). Explaining the liking for drinking yoghurt: the role of sensory quality, food choice motives, health concern and product information. Int. Dairy J.19, 459–466. 10.1016/j.idairyj.2009.03.004
73
ProvencherV.PolivyJ.HermanC. P. (2009). Perceived healthiness of food. If it's healthy, you can eat more!. Appetite.52, 340–344. 10.1016/j.appet.2008.11.005
74
RanaJ.PaulJ. (2017). Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food: a review and research agenda. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.38, 157–165. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.06.004
75
RazzaqA.TangY.QingP. (2021). Towards sustainable diets: understanding the cognitive mechanism of consumer acceptance of biofortified foods and the role of nutrition information. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health.18, 1175. 10.3390/ijerph18031175
76
ReyesC. M.CornelisM. C. (2018). Caffeine in the diet: country-level consumption and guidelines. Nutrients.10, 1772. 10.3390/nu10111772
77
RizkM. T.TreatT. A. (2014). An indirect approach to the measurement of nutrient- specific perceptions of food healthiness. Ann. Behav. Med.48, 17–25. 10.1007/s12160-013-9569-4
78
Robichaud Z. and Yu, H.. (2022). Do young consumers care about ethical consumption? Modelling Gen Z's purchase intention towards fair trade coffee. Br. Food J. 124, 2740–2760. 10.1108/BFJ-05-2021-0536
79
RöhrA.LüddeckeK.DruschS.MüllerM. J.AlvenslebenR. V. (2005). Food quality and safety—-consumer perception and public health concern. Food Control. 16, 649–655. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2004.06.001
80
SamoggiaA.RiedelB. (2019). Consumers' perceptions of coffee health benefits and motives for coffee consumption and purchasing. Nutrients.11, 653. 10.3390/nu11030653
81
SchubertM.IrwinC.SeayR.ClarkeH.AllegroD.DesbrowB. (2017). Caffeine, coffee, and appetite control: a review. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr.68, 901–912. 10.1080/09637486.2017.1320537
82
SchwarzB.BischofH. P.KunzeM. (1994). Coffee, tea, and lifestyle. Prev. Med.23, 377–384. 10.1006/pmed.1994.1052
83
SeamanP. (2010). Food hygiene training: Introducing the food hygiene training model. Food Control21, 381–387. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.08.005
84
SeamanP.EvesA. (2006). The management of food safety—the role of food hygiene training in the UK service sector. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.25, 278–296. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2005.04.004
85
SezginA. C.SanlierN. (2016). Street food consumption in terms of the food safety and health. J. Human Sci.13, 4072–4083. 10.14687/jhs.v13i3.3925
86
ShimJ. M.LeeW. S.MoonJ.SongM. (2021). Coffee shop corporate social responsibility (CSR) and reuse intention using triple bottom line theory. Br. Food J.123, 4421–4435. 10.1108/BFJ-12-2020-1134
87
SinghalN. (2017). A study of consumer behavior towards organic food and the moderating effects of health consciousness. IUP J. Market. Manag. 16, 45–79. Retrieved from: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/study-consumer-behavior-towards-organic-food/docview/1936442431/se-2
88
SreenN.PurbeyS.SadaranganiP. (2018). Impact of culture, behavior and gender on green purchase intention. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.41, 177–189. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.12.002
89
Starbucks. (2021a). Nutrition. Available online at: https://www.starbucks.co.uk/nutrition (accessed December 27, 2021).
90
Starbucks. (2021b). We Care About You. Available online at: https://www.starbucks.ph/about-~us/newsroom/customer-experience-feature/store-safety-guidelines.html (accessed December 27, 2021).
91
SteenkampJ.BaumgartnerH. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross- national consumer research. J. Consumer Res.25, 78–90. 10.1086/209528
92
Struckman-JohnsonC.AndersonP. B.SmeatonG. (2020). Predictors of female sexual aggression among a US MTurk sample: the protective role of sexual assertiveness. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice.36, 499–519. 10.1177/1043986220936100
93
SunY. H. (2008). Health concern, food choice motives, and attitudes toward healthy eating: The mediating role of food choice motives. Appetite.51, 42–49. 10.1016/j.appet.2007.11.004
94
TengC.LuC. H. (2016). Organic food consumption in Taiwan: motives, involvement, and purchase intention under the moderating role of uncertainty. Appetite.105, 95–105. 10.1016/j.appet.2016.05.006
95
ThompsonC. J.ArselZ. (2004). The Starbucks brandscape and the discursive mapping of local coffee shop cultures. J. Consumer Res.31, 631–642. 10.1086/425098
96
Today. (2020). 10 healthiest bites to order at Starbucks. Available online at: https://www.today.com/food/best-healthy-starbucks-foods-t109680 (accessed December 27, 2021).
97
TranL. T. (2020). Online reviews and purchase intention: a cosmopolitanism perspective. Tourism Manag. Persp.35, 100722. 10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100722
98
VossK. E.SpangenbergE. R.GrohmannB. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. J. Marketing Res.40, 310–320. 10.1509/jmkr.40.3.310.19238
99
WandelM. (1994). Understanding consumer concern about food-related health risks. Br. Food J.96, 35–40. 10.1108/00070709410076342
100
WangQ.OostindjerM.AmdamG.EgelandsdalB. (2016). Snacks with nutrition labels: tastiness perception, healthiness perception, and willingness to pay by Norwegian adolescents. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav.48, 104–111. 10.1016/j.jneb.2015.09.003
101
WatanabeE. S.BarbiratoL. L. (2021). Certification label and fresh organic produce category in an emerging country: an experimental study on consumer trust and purchase intention. Br. Food J.123, 2258–2271. 10.1108/BFJ-09-2020-0808
102
WongA.KimS. S.KimJ.HanH. (2021). How the COVID-19 pandemic affected hotel employee stress: Employee perceptions of occupational stressors and their consequences. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.93, 102798. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102798
103
WongJ.NewtonJ.NewtonF. (2014). Effects of power and individual-level cultural orientation on preferences for volunteer tourism. Tourism Manag.42, 132–140. 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.11.004
104
WuS. I.WangW. H. (2014). Impact of CSR perception on brand image, brand attitude and buying willingness: a study of a global café. Int. J. Marketing Stud.6, 43. 10.5539/ijms.v6n6p43
105
YooS.LeeS.JeonH. (2020). The role of customer experience, food healthiness, and value for revisit intention in Grocerant. Sustainability.12, 2359. 10.3390/su12062359
106
YoungD. R.SidellM. A.GrandnerM. A.KoebnickC.TroxelW. (2020). Dietary behaviors and poor sleep quality among young adult women: watch that sugary caffeine!. Sleep Health.6, 214–219. 10.1016/j.sleh.2019.12.006
107
YuB. Z.FriedhelmD. (2018). Role of organic products in the implementation of the state policy of healthy nutrition in the Russian Federation. Foods Raw Material.6, 4–13. 10.21603/2308-4057-2018-1-4-13
Summary
Keywords
healthiness, hygiene, organic, nutrition disclosure, health concern, attitude, purchase intention
Citation
Song M, Lee WS and Moon J (2022) Antecedents and consequences of healthiness in café service: Moderating effect of health concern. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6:913291. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.913291
Received
05 April 2022
Accepted
21 June 2022
Published
14 September 2022
Volume
6 - 2022
Edited by
Reza Rastmanesh, American Physical Society, United States
Reviewed by
Mohd Sadiq, University of Otago, New Zealand; Amar Razzaq, Huanggang Normal University, China
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Song, Lee and Moon.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Joonho Moon joonhomoon0412@gmail.com
This article was submitted to Nutrition and Sustainable Diets, a section of the journal Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.