Study On Psychosocial Dispositions of University Students and The Intention To Purchase Organic Food Products

A STUDY ON PSYCHOSOCIAL DISPOSITIONS OF
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND THE INTENTION TO

PURCHASE ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS
NUR IZZATI BINTI SAIN

BACHELOR OF HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (HONS.)
FACULTY OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA
JUNE 2015
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS PSYCHOSOCIAL

DISPOSITIONS AND THE INTENTION TO PURCHASE
ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS
Prepared for:
AZIZ JAMAL
Prepared by:
BACHELOR IN HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (HONS.)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA (UiTM)

FACULTY OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
JUNE 2015
ABSTRACT
Due to increased health awareness, organic food market in Malaysia has grown
rapidly. Literature suggests that the decision to consume organic foods is mostly based on the
arguments that organic food offers superior quality, taste and health benefits. To further
explore these determinants, this current study was conducted to 160 students from
International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). Result from correlational analyses
performed indicated the intention to purchase Organic Food Products was associated with
Self-efficacy (r = .56, p =.00), Subjective Norm (r = .51, p =.00), Perceived Benefits (r = .50,
p =.000 ), Healthy Eating Motivation (r = .46, p =.00), Attitude (r = .45, p =.00), Perceived
Barriers (r = .33 p =.00) and Perceived Behavior Control (r = .32, p =.00). Comparing the
mean scores across respondents socio-demographic profiles, respondents who identified
themselves as non-Malay and those with higher daily meal allowance reported less
favourable attitude towards purchasing organic food products. These groups of respondents,
along with those reported to have normal BMI status perceived little benefits from eating
organic food products. Likewise, more barriers to purchase organic food products were
reported among
non-Malay and students with normal BMI status. Study also found
respondents with higher daily meal allowance had less motivation to eat healthy. The results
of current study provide useful information to both industry and organic food marketers for
developing business and marketing strategies aiming at broadening the market segment to
include university students.
Keyword: Organic Food , Products, Psychosocial Disposition, Attitude, Purchase Intention,

University students, Correlation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my research
supervisor, Mr Aziz Jamal, who patiently guided me from the beginning until the completion
of this research. I am extremely grateful and indebted to him for his intelligent guidance and
extended encouragement.
I would also like to express my appreciation to my friends Seri Norhayati Nordin,
Nihayatul Husna Zamakhsari and Halimahtul Saadiah Mohiddin for helping, supporting, and
providing me with aspiring guidance and friendly advice to complete this study.
Nur Izzati binti Sain

June, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.......................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURE....................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................vi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study.....................................................................1
Statement of the Problem.....................................................................5
Research Objectives.............................................................................6
Research Questions..............................................................................6
Hypothesis............................................................................................7
Significance of the Study.....................................................................8
Definition of Terms............................................................................10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Defining Organic Food Products......................................................13
Theory of Planned Behaviour...........................................................15
Health Belief Model.........................................................................19
Healthy Eating Motivation...............................................................22
Theoretical Framework.....................................................................23
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Research Design.........................................................................25
Population Sample Size.....................................................................26
Sampling Technique...........................................................................27
Unit of Analysis.................................................................................27
Data Collection Procedures................................................................27
Survey Instrument..............................................................................28
Validity of Instruments.......................................................................29
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
Survey Return Rate.......................................................................................31
Part A: Descriptive Analysis ........................................................................32
Part B: Reliability Analysis of Developed Instruments...............................50
Part C: Correlational Analysis.....................................................................60
CHAPTER 5
CONLCUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Conclusion....................................................................................................65
Recommendations........................................................................................75
Recommendations for Future Research........................................................75
REFERENCES.............................................................................................76
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Cover Letter...........................................................................83
Questionnaire.........................................................................86
SPSS Data............................................................................106
Calculation...........................................................................176
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2.0 Theoretical Framework.......................................................................24
LIST OF TABLES
4.0Descriptive Analysis for Demographic Profile........................................

4.0Descriptive Analysis for Education information and BMI......................
4.1Mean and standard deviation for Attitude...............................................
4.2Mean and standard deviation for Behavioural Belief..............................
4.3Mean and standard deviation for Outcome Evaluation...........................
4.4Mean and standard deviation for Subjective Norm.................................
4.5Mean and standard deviation for Normative
Belief.................................
4.6Mean and standard deviation for Motivation to Comply.........................
4.7Mean and standard deviation for Perceived
Behavioural Control.....................................................................................
4.8Mean and standard deviation for Self-efficacy........................................
4.9Mean and standard deviation for Perceived Benefit................................
4.10Mean and standard deviation for Perceived Barrier..............................
4.11Mean and standard deviation for
Healthy Eating Motivation..........................................................................
4.12Mean and standard deviation for Behaviour Intention
4.13Result of Reliability Statistics
4.14 Result of Normality test performed on means scores of HBM
4.15 Result of Normality test performed on means scores of TPB
4.16 Result of Normality test performed on mean scores of HEM,
Self-efficacy and BI Items
4.17 Threshold for Interpreting Effect Size d...............................................
4.18 Mean Score Comparison socio-demographic
Variables for T-test......................................................................................
4.19 Threshold for Interpreting Effect Size..................................................
4.20Mean Score Comparison socio-demographic
Variables for Mann-Whitney........................................................................
4.21 Intercorrelation matrix between HBM and Behaviour.........................
4.22 Intercorrelation matrix between SE,
HEM and Behaviour intention.....................................................................
4.23 Intercorrelation matrix between TPB
and Behaviour Intention...............................................................................
4.24 Intercorrelation matrix between TPB, HBM, SE, HEM
and Behaviour intention................................................................................
4.25 Threshold for Intepreting Effect Size...................................................
4.26 Priori Sample Size Calculation
with given , power & Effect Size..............................................................
4.27Summary of hypothesis statement.........................................................
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the study
33
34
35
36
37
38
49
40
41
42
43
44
47
49
50
51
52
52
53
55
56
58
60
61
62
64
70
70
74
There is a growing demand for organic foods in Malaysia (Cheah , 2009). This
phenomenon is mostly contributed by the increased in the wealth of the population along with
the level of health consciousness; enabling consumers to make informed decisions regarding
food selection. Although not scientifically investigated, the proponents of organic foods
often claim that such foods contain high levels of antioxidants and essential vitamins, that
essentially important for preventing diseases and maintaining good health. For this reason,
the consumption of organic foods is claimed to make a person healthier and more resistant to
serious diseases.
As researchers identified a positive association between consumers
positive attitude and organic foods purchases, perception regarding organic foods to be
healthier than conventional alternatives, was the most important determinant that shapes
customer purchase decision (Chinnici et al., 2002; Harper & Makatouni, 2002).
Nonetheless, organic foods, particularly fruits and vegetables are the foods that free
from synthetic fertiliser and pesticides use. Normally, these food are viewed as healthier,
safer, have better taste, and more nutritious when compared to conventionally produced foods
(Klonsky &Tourte 1998; Goldman & Hylton 1972).
Owing to this fact, many identified organic food products as green foods simply because
they are safe to be consumed, are of fine quality, and are of strict adherence to the principle of
sustainable development (Liu, 2003). As the concept is recently extended to animal products,
organic foods often times advocates humane animal treatment (Liu, 2003). Apart from public
perception regarding the superiority of organic foods in terms of quality and nutritional
values, price also contributes to the publics decision to buy organic foods. In an interesting
study conducted by Rao and Burgen (1992), products with premium price tag were shown to
be able to create consumer belief that such products had high value in return. This belief
would consequently drive consumers willingness to pay.
Although a great majority of consumers would indicate that price is an important
decisional factor, research indicated that it depends on whom price is considered significant.
In the case of products with premium price tag, the excessive price paid above the fair price
is justified by the true value of the product (Rao & Burgen, 1992). Therefore, perceived
true value attached with the premium products might an indicator of consumers demand for
that product (Tse, 2001). Nonetheless, from the economic perspective, the amount of money
that consumers are willing to pay for organic foods seemingly relied on a few factors. For
example, the type of food, the relative cost of a comparable conventionally produced item
and the absolute price of the item (Jolly, 1991) albeit few researchers have discovered that
organic food consumers are less likely to consider price as an important issue, when
compared to those consumers who had never purchased any organic product (Williams &
Hammit, 2001).
Purchase decision for organic food could be driven by general or commodity-specific
concerns.
Examples for general concerns include human health, food safety, and
environmental impact, whereas commodity-specific concerns include freshness, taste and

packaging (Yiridoe et al., 2004). Concerning certain types of organic product such as diary,
meat and poultry, consumers are concerned with the use of antibiotics, man-made chemicals
and artificial hormones in farming industry as most people believe the use of those substances
might cause ill-effects. This argument is consistent with Schifferstein and Ophius (1998)s
work, as they observed organic food buyers tend to be health-conscious and believe the type
of food they choose to eat affects their well-being.
In Malaysia, the increase in the standard of living, household income, education level
along with the increase in awareness towards environment and health, have resulted the
consumers to be more cautious about the food they consume and daily products they use.
Timely, organic food market is available and its popularity is increasing amongst these
health-conscious consumers.
The market for organic foods in Malaysia is small but growing steadily.
The
Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI), an agency that

spearheads the effort to modernise the countrys agricultural sector, acknowledges that the
market size as the statistics revealed 60% of organic food products for local consumption are
actually imported.
Although the factors associated to purchase intention such as availability and price
have been rigorously studied in a number of publication, few studies to date, have been
conducted to examine the psychosocial aspect of consumers that drive their purchase
intention. Therefore, the current study was conducted to determine the association between
psychosocial dispositions of consumers with the intention to purchase food products.
Presently, there is less information about the association between psychosocial
dispositions of consumers and organic food purchases intention. The outcomes of this study
are therefore be able to provide baseline knowledge and viewpoints regarding the likelihood
the psychosocial aspects of consumers to influence the intention to purchase organic foods.
Statement of problem
Currently, organic food market in Malaysia is still small but growing steadily along
with the consumer awareness. With the widespread of information, most consumers are
concerned regarding the chemical use and the residues left in the non-organic food that
perceived to cause ill-effects to their health. This has therefore created a market base for
organically produced foods.
According to Malaysia Department of Agriculture, the area of organic crops
plantation has increased from 130 hectares in 2001 to not less than 2400 hectares in 2007
(DOA, 2009). Although the figure is promisingly increased, the supply for organic food has
never been able to meet the growing demand from the population. As a solution, most of
organic food supplies in Malaysia are largely imported from countries like Thailand, China,
Australia, New Zealand, USA and European countries. Statistically, it is estimated that 60%
to 90% of organic food supply in the local market, including vegetables, fruits, grains, cereals
and beverages, is imported (Rozhan et al., 2009).
The demand for organic foods is largely fueled by the increased of purchasing power
along with the perception that organic products are healthier and with superior quality. Few
local studies had attempted to investigate these factors, and correlate them with purchase
intention. However, psychosocial aspects that drive such perception and behavior intention
had not been studied sufficiently. Therefore, a study that examines various psychosocial
dispositions and the potential impact they might have on purchase intention is warranted.
Research Objectives
The main objective of this study is to identify the relationship between psychosocial
dispositions of students and the intention to purchase organic food products. The specific
objectives are:
1. To determine the level of psychosocial dispositions of university students to purchase

organic food products.
2. To ascertain the level of intention of student to purchase organic food products.
3. To correlate students psychosocial dispositions with the intention to purchase food
products.
Research Questions
To achieve the objectives formulated for the proposed study, the following research questions are
developed:
1. How is organic food products perceived by the respondents?
2. What are the perceived benefits that could be derived from the decision to consume organic
food products?
3. What specific barriers and enablers that characterise respondents decision to purchase
organic food products?
4. To what extent the respondents intent to purchase organic food products?
5. Is there any significant correlation between respondents psychosocial disposition and
intention to consume/purchase organic food products?
Research Hypotheses
To answer the research questions developed, the hypotheses following hypotheses were
constructed:
H1:
Perceived Benefits significantly and positively influences respondents intention to

purchase Organic Food Products.
H2:
Perceived Barriers significantly and negatively influences respondents intention to

H3:
Self-efficacy significantly and positively influences respondents intention to

H4:
Healthy Eating Motivation significantly and positively influences respondents

intention to purchase Organic Food Products.
H5:
Attitudes significantly and positively influences respondents intention to purchase

Organic Food Products.
H6:
Subjective Norms significantly and positively influences respondents

H7:
Perceived Behavioural Control significantly and positively influences

respondents intention to purchase Organic Food Products.
Significance of the Study

As the study was focused on determining psychosocial aspects that
influence organic food purchase intention, it is expected that the result of
this study would provide positive implications and additional information
to the existing body of knowledge. Findings from this study would be
practically significant to agriculture sectors, retailers, business-related stakeholders (such as
marketing agencies and caterers), Ministry of Health (MOH), and public health department,
including nutritionists.
Contribution to the agriculture sector

Findings of study would contribute to a better understanding on the development of
organic market in Malaysia.
Relevant government agencies MARDI, FAMA and Lembaga
Kemajuan Ikan Malaysia, could use the data contained in this study to further promote the
feasibility of organic foods enterprises among local food producers. Existing strategies such
as campaign, seminars, and technical advice, as the mean to encourage local market
participation could be further strengthened by sound evidence provided by this study.
Contribution to the retailers

Data from the study could be used as the basis for marketing strategies and future plan
for market expansion. Information about purchase intention of organic products provides
basis for retailers to better equipped with the current and future demand. Retailers might find
the data contained in the current study provide directions on marketing strategies as aiming at
expanding the supply to local markets to meet the unmet demand.
Contribution to other business stakeholders
This study can be used by the relevant stakeholders to increase the level of
understanding about organic food. Besides, the information will broaden their knowledge as
they would acknowledge the importance in consuming organic food. This research would
help the entity at large to understand their own psychosocial dispositions that might motivate
themselves to becoming one of the customers that consume organic food as way of life. In
addition, they have to be aware and eliminate those negative perceptions or puzzled mind
toward organic food.
Ministry of Health
Information obtained from this study could be used by the Ministry of Health (MOH)
to develop a specific strategy aiming at nurturing the positive attitude towards healthy eating.
As healthy eating attitude contributes directly to organic food purchase intention, the
government specifically the Ministry could provide assistance to agricultural agencies in both
financially and technical knowledge to organize talks, public forums and campaigns. By
organizing such campaigns, level of awareness or intention among Malaysian could be
increased. Many studies posit that high level of awareness would lead individuals to perform
desired behaviour.
Public Health Departments/Institute/Nutritionist

The findings from the current study would also be used to support the public health
departments.
Data would help the department to observe the trend for organic food
consumption. For nutritionists, they could use data from the finding as supporting materials
in their practice especially in providing counselling services requiring nutritional-related
advice. Additionally, the current study would be able to help nutritionist in keeping pace with
trends associated with organic food purchase and intention.
Definition of Terms
Psychosocial disposition
Psychosocial disposition refers to the elements of social determinants such as poverty,
unemployment, and frail social ties (Suissa, 2014). It also includes the support from family
and friends, health status, total annual of household income and education level (Essau et al.,
2014). In the context of this study, psychosocial disposition refer to the tendency of students
social factors which determine their intention to consume organic foods. These factors
include attitude, subjective norms and perceived behaviour control, perceived benefits and
barriers, and healthy eating motivation.
Organic-labelled food
Organic-labelled food is a product that has been tested by an independent accredited
institution and qualified to be issued organic certification (Bauer et al., 2013). For organic
food that has 100% organic seal, it must use ingredients that are produced organically. In
addition, organic food which has organic label, the ingredients must be 95% organically
produced (Winter & Davis, 2006). Other than that, organic food products that have complied
with the rules and standard of organic production are also referred as organic-labelled foods.
They can either be labelled with universal l organic label or supplemented with additional
logos of organic certification (Janssen & Hamm, 2012). In the context of this study, organiclabelled foods refers to any food product, including vegetables, fruits, grains, cereals, and
poultry, that self-labelled, and claimed as organic by the producers.
Chemically-processed food
Chemically processed food could be divided into two, which are processed food and
ultra-processed food. Processed food is food that has been added substances which change
the nature of the food. Ultra-processed food is made mostly or completely from processed
ingredients which usually include little or no whole foods. (Rauber et al., 2014). In general
sense, processed food might also refer to any food that includes preservative, synthetic
vitamins or minerals and advanced typed of packaging. This food typically has long shelf-life
(Monteiro et al., 2011). Other than that, chemically-processed food is the food contains
chemicals which are used as intentional additives in processed foods. This includes
preservatives, antioxidants, surface active agents, food colours, nutritive supplement,
flavouring agents and other functional groupings. As opposed to organic food, processed food
uses chemicals in the process and production of the end product. In the context of this study,
chemically-produced food is generalised to all non-organically-produced products.
Food-induced illness
Food-induced illnesses are also known as food-borne illnesses. Viruses, bacteria,
parasites and prions are the primary pathogens that known to cause food-borne diseases. Most
commonly known pathogens are Salmonella, Campylobacter and E. coli (Newell, D. et al.,
2010). Food-borne illnesses are also condition in which infections or irritations of the
gastrointestinal (GI) tract caused by food or beverages that contain harmful bacteria,
parasites, viruses, or chemicals. (Scallan et al., 2011). In the context of our study, foodinduced illness is generalised as any disease, as perceived by the respondents, that might be
caused by the consumption of foods that not organically produced.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
In Malaysia, the establishment of organic farms was first observed in the early 1990s.
Back then, the farms were mostly located in the states of Penang, Kuantan, Perak, Melaka
and Negeri Sembilan. Local evidence suggests the development was contributed by the
success of organic compost and fertilizers manufacturing, that allows local farmers to
increase their yield.
Today, local organic agricultural sector is still growing, albeit at a slower pace. With
the increased in demand for organic foods from consumers, there is a shortage in the supply
of locally-produced organic products. As a temporary measure to accommodate consumers
demand, most organic foods products are currently imported from countries such as Australia,
New Zealand and Thailand. For local farmers, this phenomenon opens a great opportunity to
generate more revenues by intensifying the production. Strategy to increase the production of
organic food must therefore be developed and be used as a competitive advantage (Rozhan et
al., 2009).
This study was attempted to determine the relationship between the psychosocial
disposition of consumers and their intention to purchase organic food products. The literature
review consists of the discussion of relevant psychosocial aspects that potentially influence
organic food purchase intention.
These psychosocial aspects were abstracted from the
constructs of Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), Health Belief Model (HBM) and Healthy
Eating Motivation (HEM).
Theory of Planned Behaviour
One of the most important elements in TPB is attitude.
Jung (1971) interprets
attitude as a psychological construct that represents an individuals readiness to act or react in

a certain way. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) elaborated attitude by three key features. Firstly,
attitude is linked to an entity (an object, a person or behaviour). Secondly, it includes a
general evaluation of this entity as desirable or not and lastly, it is a physiological
predisposition that might or might not be expressed in certain behaviours.
Relating attitude with intention, positive influence was observed in a number of
studies (Chan, 1999; Chan & Lau, 2000: Dispoto, 1977; Ling-yee, 1997; Maloney & Ward,
1973; Gracia & Magistris, 2007; Kalafatis et al., 1999; Chiou, 1998; Aertsens et al., 2009).
Thematic analysis identified that attitude is mostly underpinned by consumers belief toward
the characteristics of organic food, that could be grouped into three major themes namely the
condition of the product, the state of naturality, and the presence of contamination or any
disturbance from insect or animals that might affect the structure and quality of the food.
Apart from the product characteristics, lifestyle could also potentially influence the
attitude of the consumers. It is empirical to suggest a positive relationship between healthy
lifestyle with the intention to purchase healthier food products. That is, the more people
practice healthy lifestyle, the more likely they are conscious about their health and
consequently choose healthier food to eat. A healthy lifestyle can be defined in situations
when individuals put priority on their health by avoiding any causes that can affect their
health condition badly (Bloch, 1984). In a broader sense, the practice of healthy lifestyle can
also be interpreted as the way of a person reorient this or her life prosperity by expressing it
through the activity, suggestion, decision and interest. Relating healthy lifestyle with food
consumption, a research readily identified that the attitude on organic food consumption was
affected by the kind of lifestyle practiced by consumers (Chen, 2009).
Other determinant that recently known to influence consumers decision to purchase
organic food
is the attitude towards sustainable consumption (Reheul et al., 2001).
Consumers tend to pay attention on the physical attributes of the organic food such as the
type of packaging, the origin of the food, any presence of the product being genetically
modified and also how the organic food is frequently regulated to ensure superior quality. It
is also important to the customers that the organic foods have sustainable characteristics by
looking into the quality, taste, safety, and freshness which can contribute to favourable and
constructive to their health, environment and regional economics.
In addition, other antecedent that is prominent in motivating consumers to buy
organic food is price. Consumers are often felt satisfied when buying organic foods as they
are perceived to have added value to promote good health (Yiridoe et al., 2004). Despite the
fact that the price of organic food is considerably expansive than the alternatives, this
inconvenience is often counterbalanced by the perceived benefits obtained from consuming
organic food.
Other than attitude, perceived behavioural control (PBC) also is one of the
components in TPB. Perceived behavioural control refers to the perception the individuals
regarding their capacity to occupy in a specific behaviour (Azjen, 1991). Examining the
construct, perceived behaviour control concerns with peoples judgment regarding obtainable
resources such as the ability to purchase. In this context, most of measured items within this
domain are directed to determine ones purchasing power of organic foods that generally
perceived to be more expensive. The time available also is relatively important since people
need time to search shops that sell organic food (Tarkiainen & Sundqvist, 2005). According
to Thrgesen (2009), perceived behavioural control is constructed by perceived barriers and
perceived ability affecting the behaviour in purchasing organic food. Availability and price
are examples of perceived barriers that likely to impede the preference of organic food
(Magnussonnn et al., 2001). For perceived abilities, there is positive relationship between
financial resources and willingness to purchase organic food. That is, the higher the income
of consumers, the more purchasing power they have, which in turn makes the consumption of
organic food is affordable (Riefer & Hamm, 2008).
TPB also includes subjective norms in its framework.
It is arguably the most
altruistic variable of the TPB that focuses on the expected reaction of behaviour of significant
individuals in the consumers surroundings. Simply put, it measures the perceived social
pressure to perform or not to perform the behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).
Subjective norm is considered to be a function of salient normative belief. While
subjective norm relates to perceptions of general social pressure, the underlying normative
beliefs are concerned with the likelihood that specific individuals or groups (referents) with
whom the individual is motivated to comply will approve or disapprove of the behaviour
(Armitage & Conner, 2001). In purchasing organic foods, the consumers would react to
surroundings by either purchase, or not to purchase organic food. The action of purchasing is
also influenced by attitudes and behaviour regarding the intentions to purchase organic foods.
The effect of subjective norms on the behaviour intention, as published in literature,
revealed inconsistencies. Tarkianinen and Sundqvist (2005) found no direct and significant
correlation between intention to purchase and subjective norms; although a significant
positive association was found between for organic food consumption through attitudes and
subjective norms. By applying structural equation modelling technique, Bamberg et al.,
(2007) attest that subjective norm is not correlated with intention, but it has have an indirect
influence by impacting perceived behaviour control, attitudes, norms and guilty emotions
regarding pro environmental behaviour. It is believed that people pursue norms of sociality is
not merely due to being succumb to social pressure but also due to the information given
about what the most effective and proper behaviour is (Bamberg et al., 2007).
Health Belief Model

The Health Belief Model was originally used to explain ones preventive health
behaviour (Rosenstock, 1974). This model was initially developed in the 1950s to explain
the reason why tuberculosis medical screening programs offered by the U.S Public Health
Service was not successful (Hochbaum, 1958).According to Conner and Norman (1996),
since the model inception, a broad range of health behaviours and populations has been
studied using HBM.
There are four main constructs of Health Belief Model, which are perceived
seriousness, perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers. Due to the
advancement of knowledge however, this model has been expanded to include cues to action,
and self-efficacy, and other motivating factors relevant to specific study concerning organic
food purchase and intention, there are three relevant HBM psychosocial constructs. There are
Perceived Benefits, Perceived Barriers, and Self-efficacy. Because of the fact that organic
food consumption has not yet scientifically proven to provide superior benefits when
compared to conventional food products, other HBM dimensions, namely Perceived Severity,
Perceived Susceptibility were not reviewed.
The first reviewed HBM dimension is Perceived Benefits. Janz and Becker (1984)
defined perceived benefits as the belief that people have, prompting them to take certain
action as they recognise derivable benefits from performing recommended behaviour.Some
studies revealed that buying pattern of consumers is influenced by several factors such as
environmental and health consciousness, safety and quality concerns and exploratory food
buying behaviour, as well as specific products attributes such as nutritional, value taste,
freshness and price (Fotopoulus & Krystallis, 2002; Davies et al., 1995; Roddy et al., 1994).
There are two types of benefits that commonly associated with organic food consumption
namely the benefits related to personal health and safety, and the benefits to the environment.
Perceived barriers on the other hand are potential negative aspects that obstruct people
from taking certain action or recommended behaviour. Commenting on the utility of HBM
Perceived barriers construct, it is proclaimed as one of the most significant determinant of
behaviour change, with a strong hypothesised predictive value (Janz & Becker, 1984). There
are three barriers that commonly cited to prevent people from buying organic foods. They
include the cost of organic food, the availability of organic food in the markets, and
consumers distrust regarding claimed organic foods themselves.
Gonvindasamy (1999)
affirmed the wide price difference between organic products and the conventional alternatives
inhibit the consumers from buying organic food products regularly. Besides that, the finding
from a study conducted by Zanoli and Naspetti (2004), identified issues related to organic
foods availability. In their study, consumers difficulty in getting organic foods in the market,
due to limited number of sellers and/with limited selection, had caused people to settle for
conventional alternatives even though most of them were highly motivated to consume
organic food products. Having said that, it is prudent to acknowledge behaviour change is
contingent upon the resources for the intended behaviour to take place. With respect to fast
food consumption, although the motivation or intention is high, it is impossible to transform
the intention into practice due to lack of choice (organic food availability).
Other dimension that recently integrated into HBM is self-efficacy. As originally
developed by Bandura (1977), self-efficacy construct measures ones belief in own ability to
do something. Hypothetically, people with high level of self-efficacy choose to perform more
challenging task (Locke & Latham, 1990). Historical account ascertains self-efficacy was
first added to the original four beliefs of HBM shortly after its inception in 1977 (Rosentock
et al.,1988). Self-efficacy in the context of the current study refers to the conviction that one
can successfully execute the behavior purchasing organic food products, with given various
conditions.
Healthy Eating Motivation

Another psychosocial determinant influences the respondents intention to purchase
organic food products is the level of motivation. Various studies identified motivation to eat
healthily influences the pattern of food selection and dietary management. As Healthy Eating
Scale (MHES) originally refined from Regulation of Eating Behavior Scale (REBS), it
evaluates the motivational adaptation toward healthy dietary management (Pelleter et al.,
2004). Examining the constructs of this scale, there are three motivation dimensions
according to different set of behavioural regulatory style. These dimensions are intrinsic
motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. Intrinsic motivation is behaviour that
steered by the individuals themselves while extrinsic motivation is a behaviour that steered
by external forces.
Extrinsic motivation consists of four categories which are external regulation,
introjected regulation, identified regulation and integrated regulation (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
Two categories of extrinsic motivation measured by this scale include integrated regulation
and identified regulation. Defining each category within extrinsic motivation measures,
external regulation is motivated by behaviour to attain reward or to prevent punishment
probability. Identified regulation on the other hand refers to embraced behaviour resulting
from a trusts that performance of such behaviour is useful for his well-being and life (Ryan &
Deci, 2000). For example, a person might be motivated to minimise sugar intake because
such action, according to that person, might cause a healthy blood sugar level, which is
crucial goal to achieve. Integrated regulation whereas, refers to behaviour which is paralleled
to the aims or target of an individual. Using the same example, a person might be able to
minimise her or his sugar intake simply because the performance of such behaviour is
coherent with her or his personal goal.
Unlike motivation dimensions, amotivation is
confined within individuals who unable to notice the probabilities between their actions and
consequences of their actions, resulting them in capable to predict the effects of their
behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 1985). A previous study by Yoshiko et al.,(2012) had used MHES
that have six factor scales to examine healthy eating motivation amongst female
undergraduate students in Japan. Mentioned study modified some of the items contained in
the original scales that previously constructed by Pelletier et al., (2004). For the current study,
healthy eating motivation was measured using modified scales from Yoshiko et al., (2012)
work.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The theoretical framework developed in this study was based on cognitive-psychosocial
constructs taken from the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and Health Belief Model
(HBM). These constructs were strengthen by the inclusion of Healthy Eating Motivation
measure. As the theoretical framework usually illustrates the relationships between variables,
the independent variables (IV) in the current study were the psychosocial dispositions of
respondents intention to purchase organic food products. Measured psychosocial dispositions
were Attitude, Subjective Norms, Perceived Behaviour Control, Perceived Benefits and
Perceived Barriers, and Healthy Eating Motivation. The dependent variable (DV) on the other
hand, focused on measuring respondents behaviour intention to purchase organic food.Figure
2.0 illustrates the
Conceptual framework of the current study.
Figure 2.0
Conceptual framework of the current study that correlates the psychosocial disposition with
the intention to purchase organic food products.
Health Belief Model
Theory of Planned Behaviour
Independent Variable
Dependent Variable
Behaviour Intention to
Purchase Organic Food
Products
Attitude
Subjective Norms
CHAPTER 3
Perceived Behaviour
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Control
The Perceived
primary purpose
Barriersof the current study was to identify the relationship between
psychosocial dispositions and the intention to purchase Organic Food Products. This chapter
comprises ofPerceived
explanation
on the methodological aspects of the current study. Explanation
Benefits
includes the selection of research design, the determination of population and sample size of
the current study,
the sampling technique used, the determination of unit of analysis, and data
Self-efficacy
collection procedures. Elaboration of survey instrument, and effort to maintain the validity of
the instrument used are also provided in this chapter.

Intrinsic Motivation
Integrated Motivation
Research Design
TheIdentified
current study
was designed to be a correlational research. Correlational research
Motivation
is conducted to provide an indication on how two or more things are related with one another
Amotivation
(Salkind, 2014).
The selection of this design was decided because it allows the researcher to
identify any association between studied variables.
Because of the current study was
intended to ascertain of the degree of association between respondents psychosocial

dispositions and their intention to purchase or consume organic foods, the selection of this
design is deemed appropriate.
Population and Sample Size

Population refers to the entire group of people, events, or things of interest that the
researcher wishes to investigate (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). In the context of the current
study, population refers to university students at International Islamic University Malaysia
(IIUM). From reliable sources, it was estimated that there were 37,625 active students
enrolled in various academic disciplines.
Although it is acknowledged that university
students are not currently the main consumer group of the organic food market, determination
of their psychosocial dispositions are important bearing the fact that these students would
become financially independent once they graduated and secured a job. As the university
students would contribute to the future skilled workforce, the likelihood of these students to
be able to afford organic food is high.
Sample on the other hand refers to a subset of the population (Salkind, 2014).
According to Sekaran & Bougie (2013), the factors affecting decisions on sample size are the
research objectives, the extent of precision desired, the acceptable risk in predicting that level
of precision, the amount of variability in the population, and the cost and time constraints
associated with the data collection. Considering these factors, the current study employed
power size estimation technique using G*Power software version 3.1.9.2 designed by Faul,
Erdfelder, Lang and Buchner (Erdfelder et.al, 2007). To enable the current proposed study to
detect small effect size ( = 0.10), at least 616 samples would be required to achieve
statistical power not less than 80% (1- error probability = .80)
Sampling Technique
Sampling technique is the method used by researcher to select the
participants
from
target
population.
The
convenience
sampling
technique was used by the current study due to its simplicity to generate
a sample (Salkind, 2014).
Using this technique, the researcher
conveniently distributed the questionnaires to International Islamic University

Malaysia (IIUM) students as survey respondents. Participation was a voluntary
process and the respondents were required to answer self-administered
questionnaires anonymously.
Unit of Analysis
The unit analysis was the individual respondent participating in the current study.
Responses were obtained from International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) students,
who were currently enrolled in various faculties and field of studies, at the time of data
collection.
Data Collection Procedure

The researcher personally distributed the questionnaire to the respondents who were
willing to participate in this study.
To identify potential respondents, the researcher
approached the students who were at the time, available to complete the questionnaire.
Questionnaire copies were distributed by batches, requiring three weeks for all printed
questionnaire copies to be completely distributed. Respondents were given ample time to
answer the questionnaire and were encouraged to return the completed copies on the same
day for researchers convenience. Assistance was provided by the researcher by answering
the rudiment questions by the respondents, and elaboration of specific question items that
need clarification or further explanation. Each questionnaire copy was attached with a cover
letter describing the title and the main objectives of the study.
Survey Instrument
The type of survey instrument used in this study was a set of questionnaire. The
questionnaire was constructed by three sections.
Section A was focused on collecting
demographic information of the respondents that include age, gender, ethnicity, religion,
marital status, highest academic qualification obtained, the level of academic program
currently enrolled, nature of academic field of enrolled program, year of academic program,
BMI status, and the amount of money usually spent on daily meals. All questions contained
in Section A were closed-ended questions.
The respondents psychosocial dispositions regarding organic food was measured in
Section B of the questionnaire. Items in this part were developed based on TPB, HBM and
HEM constructs. Part B consist of items measuring respondents attitudes (n = 18), subjective
norms (n = 18), perceived behaviour control (n = 4) construct, and self-efficacy (n =
4).Health Belief Model constructs were partially represented by items measuring
respondents perceived benefits (n = 12) and 13 perceived barriers (n = 13).
For Healthy Eating Motivation constructs, items were constructed to measure intrinsic
motivation (n = 5), integrated regulation (n = 5), identified regulation (n = 5) and amotivation
(n = 5). As all measured items were written in statement form, respondents were asked to
indicate their agreements using seven-point likert-type scale, ranging from 1 to indicate
strong disagreement, to 7, indicating strong agreement. Section C on the other hand, focused
on measuring the intention of the respondents to purchase organic food products. This
section consists of four generalised items measuring intention, with seven-point likert-type
option choice to indicate agreement, similar to Section B of the questionnaire.
Validity of Instrument
The main purpose of the validation process is to ensure the measures developed are
reasonably appropriated and relevant with the field of study. In the current study, the
development of items was guided by the researchers supervisor, Mr. Aziz Jamal, who is
known to be an expert in the area of health behaviour. The supervisor provided instruction on
what items should be included or excluded. This process was to ensure the questionnaires
items were consistent with the formulated research objectives and research questions. The
relevance of each item in the questionnaire was carefully checked and reviewed. Necessary
modifications were made to several items that were thought trivial, irrelevant and or requiring
further expansion.
The instrument was also tested for face and content validity. Face validity was a property
intended to measure the appropriateness of questionnaires copy (Salkind, 2014). Simply put, a test
can be said to have face validity to looks like it is going to measure what it is supposed to measure
(Salkind, 2014). To get the questionnaire items face validated, two lecturers from the department of
nutrition and dietetics, faculty of health science, UiTM Puncak Alam were consulted by the
researcher. These individuals were Dr Norazmir bin Md Nor and Miss Naleena Devi d/o Muniandy.
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This chapter presents the results of data analyses performed on collected data.
Discussions are divided into three parts. The first part discusses the findings on demographic
data, and the results of descriptive analyses of each research dimension contained in studied
variables. The second part discusses the result of reliability analysis of developed
instruments, normality test and means scores comparison of all dimensions in this study.
The third part on the other hand discusses the result of correlation analysis performed
on respondents psychosocial disposition and their Behaviour Intention to purchase organic
food products.
Survey Returned Rate

A total of 616 questionnaire copies were conveniently distributed to the
respondents. Of 616 questionnaire copies distributed, only 160 copies were completed and
returned to the researcher. The rate of survey returned is therefore 26%.
Part A: Descriptive Analysis
This part discusses the results of descriptive analyses performed on each questionnaire items.
Question item 1-11: Demographic Profile of Respondents
Item 1to 11 were designed to gather respondents demographic information namely
age, gender, ethnicity, religion, marital status, highest academic qualification obtained, level
of academic program enrolled, academic field of current program, year of academic program,
BMI status, estimated daily meal allowance.
From the total of 160 respondents, the descriptive statistics revealed a great
number of students were from the age group of 21 to 23 years old (63.1%[n=160]) and
female (64.4%[n=160]). Most of the respondents identified themselves as Malay (83.1%
[n=160]) and Islam (90.6% [n=160]). The descriptive statistics also revealed a great number
of students were unmarried (86.9% [n=160]). Table 4.01 summarises the demographic
profiles of the respondents. Table 4.0 summarises the demographic profiles of the
respondents.
Table: 4.0
Characteristic of the respondents (N = 160)
Characteristic
Age (years)
18 20
21 23
24 26
27 29
Gender
Male
Female
4
101
36
19
2.5
63.1
22.5
11.9
100
57
103
35.6
64.4
Ethnicity
Malay
Indian
Chinese
Others
133
9
7
11
83.1
5.6
4.4
6.9
Religion
Islam
Hinduism
Christian
145
8
7
90.6
5.0
4.4
Marital Status
Single
Married
Total (%)
100
100
100
100
139
21
86.9
13.1
When asked regarding their academic information, most respondents reported

SPM/STPM school certificate as their highest educational level attained (54.4% [n=160]).
Most respondents were currently enrolled in bachelors degree programmes (75.0% [n=160])
unrelated to health and medical field (91.9% [n=160]) and currently in the fourth year of
academic programme (41.3% [n=160]). Calculated BMI status based on data (body weight
and height) supplied by the respondents revealed normal value, 18.5 to 24 (62.5% [n=160])
as most frequently reported. Descriptive statistics also revealed that respondents often
allocate RM11 RM20 on daily meals (43.1% [n=160]). Table 4.0 summarises the
demographic profiles of the respondents.
Table: 4.0
Characteristic of the respondents (N = 160)
Characteristic
High Academic
Qualification
87
54.4
Obtained
11
6.9
48
30.0
SPM/STPM
12
7.5
Post-high
2
1.3
School
Certificate
Diploma
Bachelors
Degree
Masters
Degree
Level of
Current
Enrolled
Academic
Programme
Certificate/Diploma
Bachelors Degree
Masters Degree
PhD
Total (%)
100
100
22
120
16
2
13.8
75.0
10.0
1.3
Academic Field of Current Programme

Medical/Health-related
Other
13
147
8.1
91.9
Year of Academic Programme

First Year
Second Year
Third Year
Fourth Year
13
28
53
66
8.1
17.5
33.1
41.3
BMI
Underweight (from 16 to 18.4)
Normal (from 18.5 to 24)
Overweight (from 25 to 29)
Obese (30 and above)
15
100
29
16
9.4
62.5
18.1
10.0
Daily Meals Allowance (RM)

1-10
11-20
21-30
100
100
100
100
37
69
20
23.1
43.1
12.5
31-40
34
21.3
Question item 12 18: Attitude

Items 12 to 18 were taken from the first Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
dimension - Attitude.
Attitude items in this part directly measured respondents
overall evaluation of organic food consumption and purchase.

Descriptive analysis revealed the highest mean was for the item Overall, I
think eating organic products is a healthier choice. (M = 5.72, SD = 1.25), indicated
most respondents were moderately agreed with the statement provided. The lowest
mean score on the other hand, was for the item Overall, organic food products are
just a marketing gimmick. (M = 4.12, SD = 1.45), indicated respondents were
strongly disagreed with the statement. Table 4.1 summarises the mean values for all
Attitude (Direct Measure) items.
Table: 4.1
Item Response for Attitude (N = 160)
Item
Direct Measure
12 Overall, I think eating organic products is a healthier
choice.
.
13 Overall, I think organic food products cost more than
. they're worth*
14 Overall, I think organic food products have superior
. quality.
15 Overall, organic food products are just a marketing
. gimmick*
16 Overall, I think organic food products taste better than
. conventional food.
17 Overall, I think the production of organic food products is
. environmentally friendly.
18 Overall, I think organic foods are more nutritious than
. others.
*Items 13 & 15 were reverse-coded
Mean
SD
5.72
1.25
5.36
1.41
5.67
1.31
4.12
1.46
4.43
1.41
5.37
1.26
5.71
1.26
Question item 19 24: Indirect Measure Behavioural Belief

Questionnaire items 19 24 measured the Attitude of the respondents with a focus to
indirectly assess the respondents Behavioural Belief in regards to the performance of
behaviour (consumption and purchase of organic foods) that associated with certain attributes
or outcomes. Descriptive analysis revealed the highest mean was for the item If I choose to
eat organic foods my body would be healthy (M = 5.61, SD = 1.28), indicated most
respondents were moderately agreed with the statement provided. The lowest mean score on
the other hand, was for the item If I choose to eat organic foods I might have to travel far to
buy them (M = 4.84, SD = 1.63), indicated strongly disagreement. Table 4.2summarises the
mean values for all Behavioral Belief items.
Table: 4.2
Item response for Behavioural Belief (N = 160)
Item
19 If I choose to eat organic foods my body would be healthy.
.
20 If I choose to eat organic foods I would be able to protect the
environment.
.
21 If I choose to eat organic foods I might have to travel far to
buy them*
.
22 If I choose to eat organic foods I would be less likely to suffer
from illness.
.
23 If I choose to eat organic foods my body's immunity could be
strengthened.
.
24 If I choose to eat organic foods I would physically feel better.
.
*Item 21 was reverse-coded
Mean
SD
5.61
1.28
5.42
1.39
4.84
1.63
5.24
1.31
5.34
1.23
5.35
1.16
Questionnaire item 25 30: Outcome Evaluation

Questionnaire items 25 30 were designed to further assess the attitude of the
respondents by measuring their evaluation of behaviour and its possible outcomes.
Outcome Evaluation items were focused on assessing the respondents belief on the
value attached to a behavioral outcome or attributes. The descriptive analysis revealed
the highest mean was for the item It is desirable to me to keep my body healthy. (M
= 6.09, SD = 1.16) indicated most respondents were strongly agreed with the
statement provided. The lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item It is
desirable to me to get organic food where ever they are available (M = 5.43, SD =
1.30), indicating moderately agreement. Table 4.3 summarises the mean values for all
Outcome Evaluation items.
Table: 4.3
Item response for Outcome Evaluation (N = 160)
Item
25 It is desirable to me to keep my body healthy.
.
26 It is desirable to me to be able to protect the environment.
.
27 It is desirable to me to get organic food where ever they are
available.
.
28 It is desirable to me to get protected from illnesses
.
29 It is desirable to me to get my immunity strengthened..
.
30 It is desirable to me to feel better physically.
.
Mean
SD
6.09
1.28
5.89
1.39
5.43
1.63
5.88
1.31
5.91
1.23
5.89
1.16
Questionnaire item 31 35: Subjective Norm Direct Measure

Questionnaire items 31 to 35 were taken from the second TPB dimension
Subjective Norm. These first four items were designed to directly measure
respondents belief about whether people approve or disapprove the decision to
perform the behaviour. The descriptive analysis revealed the highest mean was for
the item Most people I know believe that eating organic food is a healthier choice.
(M = 4.76, SD = 1.53), indicated most respondents were moderately agreed with the
statement provided. The lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item
People who are important to me think that I should NOT waste my money on organic
products (M = 3.97, SD = 1.69), indicating the respondents were neither agreed nor
disagreed with the statement provided. Table 4.4 summarises the mean values for
Subjective Norm (Direct Measure) items.
Table: 4.4
Item response for Subjective Norm (N = 160)
Item
31 Most people who are important to me want me to choose
organic food.
.
32 Most people I know believe that eating organic food is a
healthier choice.
.
33 People who are important to me want me to eat organic foods.
.
34 I am expected to choose organic over conventional food.
.
35 People who are important to me think that I should NOT
waste my money on organic products*
.
*Item 35 was reverse-coded
Mean
SD
4.44
1.67
4.76
1.53
4.49
1.59
4.60
1.56
3.97
1.69
Question item 36 40: Subjective Norm Indirect Measure Normative Belief

Items 36 40 were design to indirectly measure the Subjective Norms of the
respondents by assessing the Normative Belief. Normative Belief Items in the current
study measures the belief about whether each referent (significantly important to the
respondents) approves or disapproves of the behaviour. Descriptive analysis revealed
the highest mean was for the item My parents think I SHOULD eat organic
foods.(M = 4.72, SD = 1.54), indicating most respondents were moderately agreed
with the statement provided. The lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the
item My close friends would DISAPPROVE my preference for organic foods.(M =
3.52, SD = 1.55), indicating the respondents uncertainty. Table 4.5 summarises the
mean values for all Subjective Norm (Normative Belief) items.
Table: 4.5
Item
Indirect measure (Normative Belief)
36 My parents think I SHOULD eat organic foods.
Mean
SD
.
37 My close friends would DISAPPROVE my preference for
organic foods*
.
38 My classmates think I SHOULD eat organic foods.
4.72
1.54
3.52
1.55
4.20
1.35
4.39
1.48
3.64
1.59
.
39 My siblings think I SHOULD eat organic foods.
.
40
My loved one thinks I SHOULD NOT waste my money on

organic foods*
.
*Items 37&40 were reverse-coded
Question item 41 45: Subjective Norm Indirect Measure Motivation to Comply

Items 41 45 were also designed to indirectly measure the Subjective Norm by
assessing the respondents Motivation to Comply. Items within this Attitude sub-dimension
measures respondents motivation to do what each referent thinks. Descriptive analysis
revealed the highest mean was for the item Doing what my parents think I should do is
important to me (M = 5.91, SD = 1.19), indicating moderate agreement with the statement
provided. The lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item Following my love
ones advice is important to me (M = 3.89, SD = 1.86), indicating the respondents were
neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. Table 4.6 summarises the mean values for
all Subjective Norm (Motivation to Comply) items.
Table: 4.6
Item
Indirect measure (Motivation to Comply
41 Doing what my parents think I should do is important to
me.
.
42 My close friends approval of what I do is important to
me.
.
43 Doing what my classmates think I should do is important
to me.
.
44 Doing what my siblings think I should do is important to
me.
.
45 Following my love ones advice is important to me.
.
Mean
SD
5.91
1.19
4.42
1.80
4.23
1.61
5.08
1.36
3.89
1.86
Question item 46 49: Perceived Behavior Control

Questionnaire items 46 49 were taken from the third TPB dimension - Perceived
Behavioural Control. This dimension measures respondents overall perceived control over
the performance of the behaviour. Descriptive analysis revealed the highest mean was for the
item The decision to buy and consume organic food rests entirely on me.(M = 5.68, SD =
1.20), indicating most respondents were moderately agreed with the statement provided. The
lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item To decide whether or not to buy and
consume organic food is easy for me(M = 4.75, SD = 1.37), indicating slight agreement
with the statement.
Table 4.7summarises the mean values for all Perceived Behaviour
Control items.
Table: 4.7
Item response for Perceived Behavioral control (N = 160)
Item
46 To decide whether or not to buy and consume
organic food is easy for me.
.
47 The decision to buy and consume organic food rests
entirely on me.
.
48 If organic foods were available in the shops, nothing
will prevent me from buying them.
.
49 No one could easily influence me to buy or not to
buy organic foods.
.
Mean
SD
4.75
1.37
5.68
1.120
5.47
1.33
5.41
1.41
Questionnaire item 50 -54 Self-efficacy

Items 50 54 were developed to measure respondents Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy in
the context of the current study refers to the conviction that one can successfully execute the
behaviour required to produce outcomes. Descriptive analysis revealed the highest mean was
for the item I am confident that organic food is a better choice even if most people doubt the
benefits. (M = 5.13, SD = 1.23), indicating most respondents were moderately agreed with
the statement provided. The lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item I am
sure that I could get organic products, even if I have to travel far to buy them. (M = 4.24,
SD = 1.54), indicating most respondents were neither agreed nor disagreed with the
statement. Table 4.8 summarises the mean values for all Self-efficacy items.
Table: 4.8
Item response for Self-efficacy (N = 160)
Item
50 I am certain that I could get organic foods, even if they
. are costly.
51 I am confident that organic food is a better choice even
. if most people doubt the benefits
52 I am sure that I could get organic products, even if I
have to travel far to buy them
53 I am certain that I could purchase organic products,
even if the selection is limited.
54 I am certain that I could get organic foods, even if most
. people disapprove my decision.
Questionnaire item 55 66: Perceived Benefit
Mean
SD
4.28
1.61
5.13
1.23
4.24
1.54
4.39
1.32
4.62
1.36
Questionnaire items 55 to 66 were designed to represent HBM dimension - Perceived

Benefits. This dimension measures the perception of potential positive aspects of a specific
action that facilitates a person to undertake the recommended behavior. The construct of this
dimension were divided into two major benefits namely Health &Safety Benefits and
Environment Benefits. Descriptive analysis revealed the highest mean was for the health &
safety benefits-related item I could get more vitamins and minerals from organic products.
(M = 5.35, SD = 1.27), indicated most respondents were moderately agreed with the
statement provided. The lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item in measuring
the same domain I am rest assured that organic food products contain no harmful
chemicals. (M = 4.85, SD = 1.46), indicating neither agreed nor disagreed with the
statement. Table 4.9 summarises the mean values for all Perceived Benefit items.
Table: 4.9
Item response for Perceived Benefit (N = 160)
Item
Health and Safety Benefit
55 I am rest assured that organic food products contain no
. harmful chemicals.
56 Organic food products reduce my chance to get food
. poisoning.
57 Consuming organic products would keep my health
. condition at its best.
58 Organic food products prevent me from getting serious
. illnesses.
59 My body immunity will be strengthened if I eat organic
. products.
60 I could get more vitamins and minerals from organic
. products.
Mean
SD
4.85
1.46
4.99
1.38
5.21
1.29
5.09
1.18
5.04
1.27
5.35
1.27
Table: 4.9
Item response for Perceived Benefit (N = 160)
Item
Environment
Benefit
61 Organic farming reduces environmental pollution
.
62 Soil and water contamination could be prevented by organic
. farming.
63 The production of organic food is necessarily energy. efficient.
64 I could protect the environment by buying organic products.
.
65 Organic foods are non-genetically modified products, so it is
. safe to consume and good for environment.
66 Organic farming supports community trade.
.
Mean
SD
5.23
1.39
5.19
1.34
5.21
1.24
5.19
1.25
5.23
1.30
5.14
1.27
Question item 67 79: Perceived Barrier

Items 67 79 were represented the HBM dimension - Perceived Barriers. This
dimension measures respondents perception on the potential negative aspects on a particular
health action that may act as impediments to undertaking the recommended behaviour.
Respondents evaluation covers three aspects namely cost, availability and, trust/distrust.
Descriptive analysis revealed the highest mean was for the item The cost of organic food
products is expensive (M = 5.61, SD = 1.36), indicating most respondents were strongly
agreed with the cost-related statement provided. The lowest mean score on the other hand,
was drawn from distrust-related barrier item Health benefits from eating organic foods are
not yet proven (M = 4.36 SD = 1.45), indicating the respondents were neither agreed nor
disagreed with the statement. Table 4.10 summarises the mean values for all Perceived
Barrier items.
Table: 4.10
Item response for Perceived Barrier (N = 160)
Item
Cost
67 The cost of organic food products is expensive
.
68 Organic food products cost more than theyre worth.
.
69 As a student, I can't afford to buy organic foods.
.
70 Because of my limited financial allowance, buying
. organic food products is not an option.
Availability
71 Organic shops are too far from my house.
.
72 It is hard to look for organic foods in nearby area.
.
73 Only few shops that I know sell organic food products.
.
74 Even if organic food products are available, the selection
. is too limited.
Trust/Distrust
75 There is a chance that conventional food products are
. labelled as organic.
76 The production of claimed organic food products might
. not meet the standard.
77 Health benefits from eating organic foods are not yet
. proven.
78 Sellers might claim their products are organic to boost
. the sales.
79 Nutritional value as labelled in most organic products
. might be inaccurate.
Mean
SD
5.61
1.36
4.95
1.39
5.23
1.56
5.25
1.51
5.16
1.49
5.26
1.49
5.16
1.51
5.33
1.26
5.03
1.32
4.78
1.30
4.36
1.45
5.08
1.29
4.99
1.29
Questionnaire item 80 99: Healthy Eating Motivation

Questionnaire items 80-94 were designed to measure respondents healthy eating
motivation. The construct of this dimension was further divided into sub-dimensions namely
Intrinsic Motivation, Integrated Regulation, Identified regulation and Amotivation.
Descriptive analysis revealed the highest mean was for the item from identified regulation
sub-dimension I believe healthy eating will eventually allow me to feel better (M = 6.04,
SD = 1.08), indicated most respondents were moderately agreed with the statement provided.
The lowest mean score on the other hand, was for the item representing amotivation subdimension In regards to healthy eating I dont know. I cant see how my efforts to eat healthy
are helping my health situation. (M = 3.52, SD = 1.75), indicating the respondents were
neither agreed nor disagreed. Table 4.11 summarises the mean values for all Healthy Eating
Motivation items.
Table: 4.11
Item response for Healthy Eating Motivation (N = 160)
Item
Intrinsic Motivation
80 I like to find new way to create meals that are good for
. health.
81 It is fun to create meals that are good for my health.
.
82 I am interested in eating healthy
.
83 I take pleasure in fixing healthy meals.
.
84 I am satisfied with eating healthy
.
Integrated Regulation
85 Eating healthily is an integral part of my life.
.
86 Eating healthily is congruent with other important aspects of
. my life.
87 Eating healthily is base of my life.
.
Mean
SD
5.23
1.40
5.68
1.12
5.86
1.10
5.83
1.17
5.88
1.08
5.63
1.32
5.59
1.30
5.71
1.18
88
.
89
.
Regulating my eating behaviours has become a fundamental

part of who I am.
Eating healthily is part of the way I have chosen to live my
way.
5.61
1.31
5.64
1.28
Table: 4.11
Item response for Healthy Eating Motivation (N = 160)
Item
Identified
Regulation
90 I believe healthy eating will make my mind and body
. comfortable.
91 I believe healthy eating will eventually allow me to feel
. better
92 Healthy eating is a way to ensure long-term health benefits.
.
93 I believe healthy eating is a good thing I can do to feel better
. about myself in general.
94 Not only eat good food, healthy eating is a good idea to try
. to regulate my eating behaviours.
A motivation
95 In regards to healthy eating I dont really know. I truly have
the impression that Im wasting my time trying to regulate
.
my eating behaviours.
96 In regards to healthy eating I cant really see Im getting out
of it.
.
97 In regards to healthy eating I dont really know why I bother.
.
98 In regards to healthy eating I dont know. I cant see how my
efforts to eat healthy are helping my health situation.
.
99 In regards to healthy eating I think there are more important
things to do than to eat healthy.
.
Mean
SD
6.01
1.12
6.04
1.08
6.01
1.20
5.89
1.19
5.84
1.20
3.77
1.73
3.98
1.66
3.56
1.79
3.52
1.75
3.61
1.87
Question item 100 103: Behaviour Intention

Questionnaire items 100 103 were designed to measure the respondents Behaviour
Intention. Items within this construct measure respondents perceived likelihood or
subjective probability that the person would purchasing organic food products. Descriptive
analysis revealed the highest mean was for the item I plan to buy organic food products on a
regular basis. (M = 4.79, SD = 1.32), and for the item I intend to buy organic food
products on a regular basis. (M = 4.79, SD = 1.30), indicating most respondents were
neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement provided. The lowest mean score on the
other hand, was for the item I have decided to buy organic food products on a regular
basis.(M = 4.72, SD = 1.31), indicating similar level of agreement. Table 4.12 summarises
the mean values for all Behaviour Intention items.
Table: 4.12
Item response for Behavior Intention (N = 160)
Item
100 I plan to buy organic food products on a regular basis.
.
101 I intend to buy organic food products on a regular basis
.
102 I have decided to buy organic food products on a
. regular basis.
103 I will buy organic food products on a regular basis.
.
Mean
SD
4.79
1.32
4.79
1.30
4.72
1.31
4.77
1.31
Part B: Reliability Analysis of Developed Instruments

To measure the internal consistency of TPB-based scales developed for the current
study, reliability statistics were computed. Results revealed that all items summated to
represent TPB dimensions were satisfactorily consistent, as evidenced by the Cronbachs
alpha values (>.70). Table 4.13 summarises the result of reliability statistics for TPB,
HBM, HEM, Self-efficacy and Behavioural Intention based questionnaire items.
Table: 4.13
Reliability Statistics for the TPB, HBM, HEM, Self-efficacy and Behavioural Intention
Questionnaire Items (N = 160)
Dimension
Cronbachs Alpha
TPB
Attitude
.94
Subjective Norm
.92
Perceived Behaviour Control
.75
HBM
Perceive d Benefit
Perceive Barrier
Self-efficacy, Healthy Eating Motivation and Behavioural Intention
Self-efficacy
Behaviour Intention
.95
.90
.87
.91
.97
Data Distribution Analysis

To analyse the distribution of data supplied by the respondents, computed mean
scores for HBM-based Perceived Benefits and Perceived Barriers were checked using
Standard Deviation (SD), Skewness and Kurtosis values. In the current study, the researcher
used the threshold 1 to indicate normal distribution. Results from the analysis revealed the
standard deviation and skewness values for all dimensions were normal. Examining the
kurtosis values, Perceived Benefit and Perceived Barrier scale were somewhat leptokurtosed
(Kurtosis = +1.96) and (Kurtosis = +1.98). Because of data were not normally distributed,
non-parametric test, Mann-whitney U, would be used to compare mean score between
groups, and Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient test for determining the association
between variables. Data distribution for TPB scales is summarised in Table 4.14.
Table: 4.14
Result of Normality test performed on means scores of Health Belief Model (HBM)
dimensions (N = 160)
Dimension
1. Perceived Benefit Overall
2. Perceived Barrier Overall
Mean
5.14
4.01
SD
.71
1.22
Skewness
-.93
-.56
Kurtosis
1.96
1.98
Computed mean scores for all TPB dimensions were also checked using Standard Deviation,
Skewness and Kurtosis values. Results for the analysis revealed the standard deviation,
skewness and kurtosis values for all dimensions were within normal limit. Data distribution
for TPB scales are summarised in Table 4.15.
Table: 4.15
Result of Normality test performed on means scores of Theory of Planned Behavior
(TPB) dimensions (N = 160)
Dimension
Mean
SD
Skewness Kurtosi
1 Attitude Overall
4.58
.91
-1.58
s
4.63
.
2 Subjective Norm Overall
4.42
1.06
-.44
.65
.
3 Perceived Behaviour Control
5.33
1.01
-1.11
2.40
.
Self-efficacy, Healthy Eating Motivation and Behaviour Intention dimensions mean
scores also were computed and checked using similar method. Results from the analyses
revealed the standard deviation values for all dimensions were normal; however, Behavior
Intention scale was slightly high (SD = 1.26). Examining the kurtosis values, Self-efficacy
was rather platykurtosed (Kurtosis = -3.62) and Behaviour Intention scales was somewhat
leptokurtosed (Kurtosis = .164 Because of data anomaly was observed in these scales, nonparametric test- Mann-Whitney U, would be used to compare means between groups, and
Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient test would be performed to determine the association
between variables. Data distribution for Self-efficacy, Healthy Eating Motivation and
Behaviour Intention scales is summarised in Table 4.16.
Table: 4.16
Result of Normality test performed on means scores of Self-efficacy, Healthy Eating
Motivation and Behaviour Intention dimensions (N = 160)
Dimension
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
1 Self-efficacy
4.53
1.15
-.199
-.362
.
2 Healthy Eating Motivation
5.24
.82
-1.26
5.11
.
3 Behaviour Intention
4.77
1.26
-.29
.164
Mean Comparison
To determine if there was significant difference of Self-efficacy, Subjective Norm and
Behavioral Intention mean scores when compared across respondents age groups, gender,
ethnicity, year of academic program, BMI status and daily meal allowance, a T-Test was
computed. The difference would be considered statistically significant if the significant value
(represented by p-value) was equal or smaller than 0.05. The effect size of mean difference
(d-value) was calculated manually using the following formula:
x1 x2
( 21 + 22 )/2
d=
Where:
X1= Mean for group 1
X2= Mean for group 2
= Variance of group 1
= Variance of group 1
The effect size of each statistically differentiated mean score would be interpreted
using guideline by Cohen (1988). Table 4.17 shows Cohens d values with the corresponding
interpretation of difference magnitude.
Table 4.17
Threshold for Interpreting Effect Size d
d
.20
.50
.80
Source: Cohen (1988)
Difference magnitude
Small
Medium
Large
The result of mean analyses performed unable to determine any statistically

significant difference between Self-efficacy mean score and respondents age and gender as
the p-value = .92, larger than 0.05. When ethnicity groups were compared with Selfefficacy, Subjective Norm and Behavioural Intention mean scores, the results also failed to
demonstrate any significant difference.
Additionally, respondents academic year also did not statistically differentiate Selfefficacy, Subjective Norm and Behavioural Intention mean scores as the p-values were larger
than 0.05.
Similar finding were also observed when the mean scores of Self-efficacy,
Subjective Norm and Behavioural Intention were compared with respondents BMI status.
Respondents daily meal spending allowance did not differentiate Self-efficacy, Subjective
Norm and Behavioural Intention mean scores likewise. Table 4.18 summarises the result of
mean comparison analyses performed.
Table: 4.18
Mean Score Comparison on Selected Respondents Socio-demographic Variables
(N = 160)
Sociodemographic
variables
Mean (SD) of self-reported score for TPB dimensions

SE
SN
BI
Age
<24
>24
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Malay
Other
4.52 (1.06)
4.55 (1.32)
t=-.09
p =.92
d=-.02
4.41 (.97)
4.42 (1.23)
t=-.05
p =.96
d=-.01
4.80 (1.35)
4.70 (1.35)
t=.42
p=.66
d=.07
4.52 (1.31)
4.54 (1.06)
t=-.10
p =.92
d=-.02
4.32 (1.28)
4.47 (.93)
t=-.74
p =.45
d=-.12
4.91(1.43)
4.68 (1.15)
t=1.03
p =.30
d=.18
4.62 (1.08)
4.10 (1.40)
t=1.84
p =.07
d=.42
4.47 (.97)
4.13 (1.41)
t=1.19
p =.24
d=.28
4.83 (1.25)
4.44 (1.27)
t=1.48
p =.14
d=.32
Year of Academic Program

Final
4.55 (1.12)
4.41 (1.07)
Other
4.48 (1.24)
4.45 (1.06)
t=-.33
t=.20
p =.74
p =.84
d=-.06
d=.04
BMI
Normal
4.43 (1.16)
4.35 (1.04)
Other
4.71 (1.12)
4.52 (1.10)
t=-.1.5
t=-.94
p =.13
p =.34
d=-.24
d=-.16
Daily Meals
Allowance (RM)
<20
4.62 (1.18)
4.46 (1.14)
>20
4.36 (1.08)
4.33 (.90)
t=1.40
t=.79
p =.16
p =.42
d=.23
d=.13
*SE = Self-efficacy, SN = Subjective Norms, BI = Behaviour Intention.
4.84 (1.23)
4.54 (1.33)
t=-1.30
p = .19
d=-.24
4.66 1.30)
4.95 (1.18)
t=-1.47
p =.14
d=-.24
4.87 (.1.29)
4.56 (1.17)
t=1.56
p = .12
d=.26
Because of the mean scores for Attitude, Perceived Behavior Control, Perceived
Benefit, Perceived Barrier and Healthy Eating Motivation scales were not normally
distributed; mean comparison analyses were performed using non-parametric Mann-Whitney
U test. The difference would be considered statistically significant if the significant value
(represented by p-value) was equal or smaller than 0.05. The effect size of mean difference
(r-value) was calculated manually using the following formula:
r=
Z
N
Where,
Z= Z statistic
N= Total number of respondents
The effect size of each statistically differentiated mean score would be interpreted
using guideline by Rosenthal (1994) and Rosenthal and Rosnow (1984). Table 4.19 shows
Cohens r values with the corresponding interpretation of difference size magnitude.
Table 4.19
Threshold for Interpreting Effect Size
r equivalent to d
Interpretation of size of difference
.10
Small
.24
Medium
.37
Large
Source: Rosenthal (1994);Rosenthal & Rosnow (1984)
Overall, only a few mean scores were statistically differentiated by respondents

groups of socio-demographic variables, as evidenced by the test results obtained. In
particular, Malay students and those with BMI values other than normal, perceived more
benefits from eating organic food products when compared to non-Malay respondents and
those with normal BMI status (U = 1130.50, p = .00, r = -.23) and (U = 2327.50, p = .02, r =
-.18).
Additionally, Malay and those who reported to spend less than RM20 on daily meals
rated Attitude items higher when compared to non-Malay and privileged students, identified
by higher spending allowance (U = 1348.00, p = .04, r -.16) and (U = 2241.50, p = .03, r
-.17). BMI status of the respondents was also observed to statistically differentiate the mean
score of Perceived Barriers. In particular, Malay students and those with exceeding normal
BMI status rated more barriers when compared to non-Malay respondents and those with
normal BMI status respondents (U = 2209.50, p=.01, r = -.22) and (U = 1219.50, p=.00, r =
-.20).
The amount of money spent on daily meals was also demonstrated to differentiate the
mean scores statistically. Respondents who reported to spend less than RM20 on daily meals
perceived more benefits when compared to those privileged respondents who reported to
spend more than RM20 on daily meals (U = 2249.00, p=.03, r = -.17). Similarly, statistically
significant difference was observed on Healthy Eating Motivation mean score. Interpreting
the result, respondents who as those who spend less than RM20 on daily means rated the
items higher when compared to the group counterparts (U = 2139.50, p = .01, r = -.20).
Although statistically differences were observed among few tested variables, the
effect size were rather large (r=.6 to r=.23). Calculated power analyses indicated that in
order for the current study to accept small effect size, at least 650 samples were required.
Because the current study only employed 160 samples, the results were therefore
underpowered and must be interpreted with cautions. Table 4.20 summarises the result of
mean comparison analysis performed.
Table: 4.20
Mean Score Comparison on Selected Respondents Socio-demographic Variables (N=160)
Sociodemographic
variables
Age
<24
Mean (Sum of Ranks) of self-reported score for TPB, HBM & HEM
dimensions
Attitude
PBC
P. Benefit
PBR
HEM
82.04
(8614.50)
77.55
(4265.50)
U=2725.50
r = -.04
p = ..56
76.22
(8003.50)
88.66
(4876.50)
U = 2438.50
r = -.12
p = .11
81.66
(8574.50)
78.28
(4305.50)
U = 2765.50
r = -.03
p =.66
83.86
(8805.50)
74.08
(4074.50)
U = 4074.50
r = -.10
p = .20
77.01
(8086.50)
87.15
(4793.50)
U =2521.50
r =-.10
p = .19
83.18
(4741.50)
79.01
(83138.50)
U=2782.50
r = -.04
p = .59
89.69
(5112.50)
75.41
(7767.50)
U = 2411.50
r = -.14
p = .06
81.99
(4673.50)
77.67
(8206.50)
U = 2850.50
r = -.02
p = .76
75.95
(4239.00)
83.02
(8551.00)
U = 2676.00
r = -.07
p = .36
84.37
(4809.00)
78.36
(8071.00)
U =2715.00
r = -.06
p = .43
83.86
(1154.00)
63.93
(1726.00)
U=1348.00
r = -.16
p = .04
80.60
(1072.00)
80.00
(2160.00)
U =1782.00
r = -.04
p = .95
85.50
(11371.50)
55.87
(1508.50)
U = 1130.50
r = -.23
p = .00
84.83
(11282.50)
59.17
(1597.50)
U = 1219.50
r = -.20
p = .00
81.59
(10851.50)
75.13
(2028.50)
U =1650.50
r = -.05
p = .51
Year of Academic Program

Final
83.53
(9940.00)
Other
71.71
(2940.00)
U=2079.00
r = -.11
p = .16
82.59
(9828.50)
74.43
(3051.50)
U = 2190.50
r = -.07
p = .33
82.60
(9829.00)
74.41
(3051.00)
U = 2190.00
r = -.07
p = .33
82.90
(9865.50)
73.52
(3014.50)
U = 2153.50
r = -.08
p = .26
82.88
(9862.50)
73.60
(3017.50)
U = 2156.50
r = -.08
p = .27
>24
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Malay
Other
*HEM = Healthy Eating Motivation, PBC= Perceived Behaviour Control, PBR= Perceive Barriers.
Table: 4.20
Mean Score Comparison on Selected Respondents Socio-demographic Variables (N=160)
Sociodemographic
variables
BMI Status
Normal
Mean (Sum of Ranks) of self-reported score for TPB, HBM & HEM
dimensions
Attitude
PBC
P. Benefit
PBR
HEM
74.96
(7496.00)
Other
89.73
(5384.00)
U=
2446.000
r = -.15
p = .05
Daily Meals Allowance (RM)
<20
86.35
(9153.50)
>20
69.01
(3726.50)
U=
2241.500
r = -.17
p = .03
76.91
(7690.50)
96.49
(5189.50)
U
=2640.500
r = -.10
p = .20
81.90
(8681.00)
77.76
(4199.00)
U
=2714.000
r = -.04
p = .59
73.78
(7377.50)
91.71
(5502.50)
72.60
(7259.50)
93.68
(5620.50)
U = 2327.500
U = 2209.500
r = -.18
p = .02
r = -.22
p = .01
86.28
(9146.00)
65.15
(3734.00)
82.97
(8795.00)
75.65
(4085.00)
U = 2249.000
U = 2600.000
r = -.17
p = .03
r = -.07
p = .34
82.10
(8210.00)
77.83
(4670.00)
U
=2840.000
r = -.04
p = .57
87.32
(9255.50)
67.12
(3624.50)
U
=2139.500
r = -.20
p = .01
*HEM = Healthy Eating Motivation, PBC= Perceived Behaviour Control, PBR= Perceive Barriers.
Correlational Analysis Table

A correlational analysis was performed on two HBM dimensions. Because of the
mean score for Behavior Intention was not normally distributed, a Spearmans Rank Order
Correlation test was chosen for this purpose. The result indicated a strong (Cohen, 1988) and
statistically significant correlation between Behaviour Intention, and Perceived Benefit(r = .
50. p = .00). On the other hand, Perceived Barrier show moderate correlation with Behaviour
Intention (Cohen, 1988),(r = .33. p = .00).Correlation values were positive; indicating the
stronger the agreement of respondents on the items represented by those dimensions, the
more likely the respondents showed strong intention to purchase Organic Food Products.
Table 4.21summarises the result of correlational analysis performed.
Table: 4.21
The result of correlational analysis performed on two Health Belief Model (HBM)
dimension scores and Behavioral Intention score, to purchase organic food
products(N = 160)
Variable
1
2
3
1. Perceived Benefits
2. Perceived Barriers
.45**
3. Behavioral Intention
.50**
.33**
*p <0.05 **p<0.01
A correlational analysis was performed on Self-efficacy and Healthy Eating

Motivation dimensions. Because of the mean score for Behavior Intention was not
normally distributed, a Spearmans Rank Order Correlation test was chosen for this
purpose. The result indicated a strong (Cohen, 1988) and statistically significant
correlation between Behaviour Intention and Self-efficacy(r = .56. p = .00),and
Healthy Eating Motivation(r = .46. p = .00). Correlation values were positive;
indicating the stronger the agreement of respondents on the items represented by
those dimensions, the more likely the respondents showed strong intention to
purchase Organic Food Products. Table 4.22summarises the result of correlational
analysis performed.
The result of correlational analysis performed on Self-efficacy and Healthy Eating
Motivation scores with Behavior Intention score to purchase Organic Food Products
(N = 160)
Dimension
1
2
3
1. Self efficacy
2. Healthy Eating Motivation
.34**
.56**
.46**
*p <0.05 **p<0.01
A correlational analysis was also performed on all TPB dimensions using Spearman
Rank Order Correlation.
The result indicates strong (Cohen, 1988), and statistically
significant correlation between Behaviour Intention and Subjective Norm(r = .51p = .00) and
Attitude (r = .45p = .00). Perceived Behaviour Control also statistically and significantly
correlated with behaviour intention but with moderate effect size(r = .32. p = .00). All
coefficient values were positive; indicating the stronger the agreement of respondents on the
items represented by those dimensions, the more likely the respondents showed strong
intention to purchase Organic Food Products. Table 4.23summarises the result of
correlational analysis performed.
Table: 4.23
The result of correlational analysis performed on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
dimensions scores and Behaviour intention score, to purchase Organic Food Products(N =
160)
Dimension
1. Attitude
2. Subjective Norm
3. Perceived Behavior Control
*p <0.05 **p<0.01
1
.49**
.43**
.45**
2
.38**
.51**
3
.32**
4
-
Based on the result of correlational analyses, statistically significant association were

observed among all tested variables. The effect sizes ranged from medium to large (r=.32 to .
56). Calculated power analyses indicated that in order for the current study to accept
moderate effect size, at least 67 samples were required. Because of the current study
employed 160 respondents, it has sufficient power for the researcher to accept the findings.
Table 4.24 summarises the results of inter-correlation analysis perform on all research
variables in the current study.
Table: 4.24
Inter-correlation matrix between individual dimensions of Health Belief Model (HBM),
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and Healthy Eeating Motivation (HEM) and
behaviour intention to purchase organic food products (N = 160)
Dimension
1. Attitude
subjective
Norm
.49**
Perceive
3. Behaviour
Control
.43**
.38**
4. Self-efficacy
.37**
.65**
.42**
5.
Perceived
Benefit
.68**
.58**
.28**
.47**
6.
Perceived
Barrier
.45**
.29**
.21**
.16**
.45**
.44**
.46**
.47**
.34**
.41**
.36**
.51**
.32**
.56**
.50**
.33**
.46**
2.
Healthy
7. Eating
Motivation
Behavioural
.45**
Intention
*p <0.05 **p <0.01
8.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter consists of summary of findings, conclusion and recommendations

drawn from results of the data analyses. The conclusion part focuses on the answering the
research questions developed in earlier chapter.
Consumer decision whether or not to buy organic food products is influenced by
several factors. Many studies conducted in the past reported that one major factor that that
limit the consumption, along with purchase intention of organic food is the price. There are,
however, possibilities that this decision is influenced by other additional factors uncovered by
the past studies. Hence, determination of other additions would be able to provide useful
information to the industry especially organic food marketers. By correctly determining these
possible factors, a focused and targeted organic food marketing strategy could be developed.
Demographic profile
Most of the respondents were female (n=103, 64.4%) and reported to aged between
21 to 23 years old (n=101, 63.1%). A great majority of the respondents were Malays (n=133,
83.1%) and Islam as their religion (n=145, 90.6%).The most reported marital status was
unmarried (n=139, 86.9%). A great majority of the respondents had SPM/STPM school
certificate as their highest educational level attained (n=87, 54%). When asked regarding the
level of academic programme that the respondents were currently enrolled, most of the
respondents were currently enrolled in bachelors degree programme (n=120, 75.0%).
Majority of the respondents were also reported to study in academic programme that
unrelated to health and medical field (n=147, 91.9%).In addition, most of the respondents
were in the fourth year of academic programme (n=66, 41.3%).
Calculated BMI status revealed that most of the respondents were within the normal
range of 18.5 to 24of BMI values (n=100, 62.5%). This proportion was followed by the
respondents with overweight status (n=29, 18.1%) and obese (n=16, 10.0%). When asked to
estimate the total spending on daily meals, most of the respondents spend between RM11 RM20 (n=69, 43.1%) daily, followed by RM1 RM10 (n=37, 23.1%) daily.
Research Objective 1:
To determine the attitudes of university students to purchase Organic Food Products.
Research Question 1:
How is Organic Food Products perceived by the students?
From the descriptive analysis performed on Attitude items, the results revealed that
majority of the respondents perceived organic food as healthy products. Overall mean score
for Attitude dimension that comprised both direct and indirect measures was (M = 5.43, SD
= .91). This mean value could be interpreted as slight agreement for overall attitude
dimension items, signifying positive attitude towards organic food consumption and
purchase.
Other studies highlighted consumers were mostly perceived organic food as
healthy products and subsequently motivate them to purchase organic food (Davies et al.,
1995). Quiet number of studies identified the important reason organic food purchase is
because of health concern (Padel & Foster, 2005; Wandel & Bugge, 1997; Tregear et al.,
1994).
What are the perceived benefits that could be derived from the decision to consume
Organic Food Products?
Health and Safety Benefit, and Environment Benefit were the perceived benefits that
could be derived from the decision to regularly engage in Organic Food Products. Overall
mean score for Perceived Benefit items was M = 5.14 (SD = 1.05). The respondents were
moderately agreed that consumption of organic food might contribute to better health, and at
the same time consumption of organic food might be able to protect the environment.
Consumers were getting more concerned with the chemically processed food as
reported by Crosby et al., (1981), environmental concern is a strong attitude towards
preserving environment. Food safety being stressed as a main factor for purchasing organic
food (Padel & Foster, 2005; Schifferstein & Oude Ophius, 1998).
What specific barriers and enablers that characterise students decision to purchase Organic
Food Products?
There were three main barriers that had been proposed in this research namely cost,
availability and trust/distrust. Slight agreement was shown for overall mean score for
perceived barrier (M = 5.09, SD = .95). Most of the respondents recognised cost of the
organic food as specific barriers and enablers that characterised students decision to purchase
Organic Food Products. Lack of organic food availability in store was one of the barriers that
limit consumer purchase intention (Davies et al., 1995). Haest (1990) reported that the main
barriers for not purchasing organic food is high price premiums. High cost of organic food
consumption has been highlighted in the marketing literature as the main barriers (Valindigni
et al., 2002).
To ascertain the level of intention of student to purchase Organic Food Products.
To what extent the student intent to purchase Organic Food Products ?
Based on the analysis, the overall mean score for students intention to purchase
Organic Food Products was (M = 4.77, SD = 1.26). Interpreting this mean value, most of the
respondents were uncertain in their intention to buy organic food products on a regular basis.
T o correlate students psychosocial dispositions with the intention to purchase Organic Food
Products.
Is there any significant correlation between students psychosocial dispositions and intention
to consume/purchase Organic Food Products?
Correlational analyses were performed to determine the association between students
attitude and Behavior Intention to purchase Organic Food Products.
To determine the
presence (or absence) or significant correlation between variables, results from correlational
analyses, namely level of significant (represented by p-value) and effect size (represented by
r-value) were examined. An association between variables is said to be statistically if the pvalue is less than .05 (Cohen, 1988). To observe the effect size (r-value) of a statistically
significant association, the following threshold and interpretation will be used:
Table 4.25
Threshold for Interpreting Effect Size
R
.10
.30
.50
.70
Interpretation
Effect size
Strength of association
Small
Medium
Large
Very large
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Very strong
Source:
Cohen
(1988)
Another important aspects to be considered when interpreting statistical test is the

power of the study to detect an effect of a given simple size with a given degree of
confidence (Nakagawa & Cuthill, 2007). Determination of study power could be performed
using power analysis. In the current study, power analysis was performed using G*power
Version 3.1.9.2, a statistical software developed by Faul, Buncher & Lang (Faul et al, 2007;
Fault et al, 2009). Using a correlation normal bivariate model with 80% achieved power (1-
error prob = .80) as criteria, this study required at least 616 samples to detect small effect
size, 67 samples to detect medium effect size and 23 samples to detect large effect size.
Table 4.26 presents the effect size with given sample size required to detect significant
association.
Table 4.26
Priori sample size calculation with given , power and effect size
*r
Sample size required
(1 error prob = .80)
.10
616
.30
67
.50
23
.70
11
*significant level(1-tailed) was set at .05
In the current study, post- hoc power analyses were performed on any association between
variables that found to be statistically significant. The alternate hypotheses developed for the
current study would only be accepted if the achieved power was equal or exceeded 80%.
H1:
Perceived Benefits significantly and positively influences respondents intention to

Correlation analysis using Spearmans Rank-order Correlation performed between
Perceive Benefits and Behaviour Intention to purchase Organic Food Products
showed a significant positive correlation, with a large effect size (r= .50, p=.00).
Post-hoc power analysis performed indicated sufficient sample size power to
accept the alternate hypothesis (H1) as 100% power (1 error prob = 1) was
achieved. Given this condition, alternate hypothesis (H 1) developed for the current
study was accepted.
H2:
Perceived Barriers significantly and negatively influences respondents intention to

Perceive Barriers and Behaviour Intention to purchase Organic Food Products
revealed a positive correlation, with a medium effect size (r= .33, p=.00). Given
this condition, alternate hypothesis (H2) developed for the current study was
rejected.
H3:
Self -efficacy significantly and positively influences respondents intention to

Self-efficacy and Behaviour Intention to purchase Organic Food Products showed a
significant and positive correlation with a large effect size (r= .56, p=.00). Post-hoc
power analysis performed indicated sufficient sample size power to accept the
alternate hypothesis (H3) as 100% power (1 error prob = 1) was achieved. Given
accepted.
H4:
Attitudes significantly and positively influences respondents intention to purchase

Organic Food Products.
Attitudes and Behaviour Intention to purchase Organic Food Products revealed that
there was a positive relationship between Attitude and Behaviour Intention of
respondents, (r= .45, p=.00), with a medium effect size. Post-hoc power analysis
performed indicated sufficient sample size power to accept the alternate hypothesis
(H4) as 99% power (1 error prob = .99) was achieved. Given this condition,
alternate hypothesis (H4) developed for the current study was accepted.
H5:
Subjective Norms significantly and positively influences respondents intention to

Subjective Norms
and Behaviour Intention to purchase Organic Food Products
showed a significant positive correlation between Subjective Norms and Behaviour

Intention to purchase Organic Food Products, with a large effect size (r= .51, p=.00).
Post- hoc power analysis performed indicated sufficient sample size power to accept
the alternate hypothesis (H5) as 100% power (1 error prob = 1) was achieved.
Given this condition, alternate hypothesis (H 5) developed for the current study was
accepted.
H6:
Perceived Behavioral Control significantly and positively influences respondents

Perceive Behavioural control and Behaviour Intention to purchase Organic Food
Products revealed a significant correlation between Perceived Behaviour Control and
Behaviour Intention to purchase Organic Food Products (r= .32, p=.00).
The
coefficient value indicated a positive correlation with a medium effect size. Post-hoc
power analysis performed indicated sufficient sample size power to accept the
alternate hypothesis (H6) as 99% power (1 error prob = .99) was achieved. Given
accepted.
H7:
Healthy Eating Motivation significantly and positively influences respondents

intention to purchase Organic Food Products regularly.
Healthy Eating Motivation and Behaviour Intention to purchase Organic Food
Products revealed that the relationship between Health Eating Motivation and
Behaviour Intention to purchase Organic Food Products was significant and positive
with a medium effect size (r= .46, p=.00). Post-hoc power analysis performed
indicated sufficient sample size power to accept the alternate hypothesis (H 6) as 99%
power (1 error prob = .99) was achieved.
Given this condition, alternate
hypothesis (H6) developed for the current study was accepted.
Table 4.27
Summary of the Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesi
s
Statement
Result
H1
Perceived Benefits significantly and positively influences respondents

r= .50, p=.0
H2
Perceived Barriers significantly and negatively influences respondents

r= .33, p=.0
H3
Self- efficacy significantly and positively influences respondents intention to

r= .56, p=.0
H4
Attitudes significantly and positively influences respondents intention to

r= .45, p=.0
H5
Subjective Norms significantly and positively influences respondents

r= .51, p=.0
H6
Perceived Behavioural Control significantly and positively influences

respondents intention to purchase Organic Food Products.
r= .32, p=.0
H7
Health Eating Motivation significantly and positively influences respondents

r= .46, p=.0
75
Recommendations
The current study found a significant differences in perception regarding the

consumption of organic foods when ethnicity groups of respondents were compared. NonMalay students perceived more barriers and perceived little benefits of getting and consuming
organic food products, when compared with Malay students. In order to obtain the trust and
confidence of consumers to purchase organic food products, it is important to look at the
factors such as perceived barriers and perceived benefits. Thus, it is recommended that,
organic food producers to organize campaign to raise consumers awareness about organic
agriculture to improve their understanding and support towards organic food market and its
development. To increase the acceptance and the presence of organic food products, it is
recommended to the organic food retailer to organize promotion on a regular basis by issuing
discount coupons to the students. Additionally, it is recommended that the cost of the organic
food products to be reduced, so that the students could afford to buy them.
Future researchers are recommended to include moderation and mediation analyses in their
studies. The analyses can be done by identifying the factors that potentially moderate the
intention to purchase organic food products. Additionally, to ensure better understanding of
organic foods attitude and purchase intention, it is recommended that additional variables
such as freshness, presentation, and knowledge of organic food products to be further
examined.
76
References
Aertsens, Verbeke & Mondelaers. (2009). Personal determinants of organic food

consumption: a review, British Food Journal, 111 (10), 1140-1167.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Organizational Behaviour & Human
Decision Processes, 50 (2) , 179-211.
Armitage, C. J. & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. A
Meta-analytic Review, 40, 471-499.
Bamberg, S., Hunecke, M. & Blobau M., A. (2007). Social context, personal norms & the
use of public transportation: two field studies. Journal of Environmenta Psychology,
27 (3), 190-203.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215
Bauer, H., Heinrich, D., & Schafer, D. (2013). The effects of organic labels on global, local,
and private brands: More hype than substance? Journal of Business Research, 66 (8),
1035-1043.
Bloch, P. (1984). The wellness movement: Imperatives for health care marketers. Journal of
Health Care Marketing, 4(1), 9-16.
Byrne, P. J., Toensmeyer, U. C., & German, C. L. (1991). Analysis of consumer attitude
toward organic produce purchase likelihood. Journal of Food Distribution Research,
22 (2), 49-62.
Chan, R.Y.K. (1999). Environmental attitudes and behavior of consumers in china: Survey
findings and implications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 11 (4), 2552.
Chan, R.Y.K., & Lau, L.B.Y. (2000). Antecedents of green purchases: A survey in China.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17 (4), 338-357.
Cheah, C. M. (2009). A study on consumers green purchasing intention. Masters Thesis,
College of Business, University Utara Malaysia, Malaysia.
77
Chen, M. F. (2009). Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods
in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Quality and
Preference,18 (7), 1008-1021.
Chinnici, G., DAmico, M., & Pecorino, B. (2002). A multivariate statistical analysis on the
consumers of organic products. British Food Journal, 104 (3/4/5), 187-199.
Chiou, J.S. (1998). The effects of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control
on consumers purchase intentions: The moderating effects of product knowledge and
attention to social comparison information. Proc. Natl. Sci. Counc. ROC (C), 9 (2),
298-308.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition.
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conner, M. & Norman, P. (1996). Predicting Health Behavior. Search and Practice with
Social Cognition Models. Open University Press: Ballmore: Buckingham.
Crosby, L.A., J.D. Gill., & J.R. Taylor (1981). Consumer voter behaviour in the passage of
the Michigan Container Law Journal of marketing, Vo.45, 349-354
Davies, A., Titterington, A.J. & Cochrane, C. (1995). Who buys organic food? A profile of the
purchasers of organic food in Northern Ireland. British Food Journal, 97 (10), 17-23.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Dispoto, R.G. (1977). Interrelationships among measures of environmental acitivity,
emotionality and knowledge. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37 (2),
451-459.
DOA. (2009). Statistics on organic production, Department of Agriculture, Malaysia.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Texas: Fort worth,
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower: A general power analysis program.
Journal of Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computer, 28 (1), 1-11.
78
Essau, C., Lewinsohn, P., & Olaya, B. (2014). Anxiety Diorders in adolescents and
psychosocial outcomes at age 30. Journal of Affective Disorders, 163, 125-132.
Fotopoulos, C.& A. Krystallis, 2002. Organic product avoidance. Reasons for rejection and
potential buyers identification in a countrywide survey. British Food J., 104(3-5):
233-260.
Goldman, M. C. & Hylton, W. (1972). The Basic Book of Organically Grown Foods.
Erasmus, Pennsylvania: Rodale Press.
Govindasamy, R & Italia J. (1999). Predicting willingness to pay a premium for organically
grown fresh produce Journal of Food Distribution research, 30( 2), 44 -53.
Gracia, A., & Magistris, T. (2007). Organic food product purchase behaviour: a pilot study for
urban consumers in the South of Italy. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 5
(4), 439-451.
Haest, C., (1990). From Farmer to Shelf: Trade of Organically Grown Products. Ecology and
Farming, 1: 9-11.
Harper, G. C. & Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food productions and
farm animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104 (3/4/5), 287-299.
Hochbaum, G.M. (1958). Public participation in Medical Screening Programs: A Sociopsychological Study (Public Health Service Publication No. 572). Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2012). Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer
preferences and willingness-to-pay for different certification logos. Journal of Food
Quality and Preference, 25 (1), 9-22.
Janz, N.K., & Becker, M.H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A decade later. Health
Education Quarterly, 11 (1), 1-47.
Jolly, D.A. (1991). Differences between buyers and nonbuyers of organic produce and
willingness to pay organic price premiums. Journal of Agribusiness, 9 (1), 97-111.
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological Types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
79
Kalafatis, S. P., Michael., Robert, E., & Markos H. T. (1999). Green marketing and Ajzens
theory of planned behavior: A cross-market examination. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 16 (5), 441-460.
Klonsky, K. & Tourte, L. (1998). Organic agricultural production in the United States:
Debates and directions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80 (5), 11191124.
Li, L. Y. (1997). Effect of collectivist orientation and ecological attitude on actual
environmental commitment: The moderating role of consumer demographics and
product involvement. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9, 31-53
Liu, L. J. (2003 July). Enhancing sustainable development through developing green food:
Chinas option. Paper presented for Mission of China to the United Nations in
Geneva.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Magnusson, M.K., Arvola, A., & Hursti, U. K. K. (2001). Attitudes towards organic foods
among Swedish consumers. British Food Journal, 103 (3), 209-227.
Maloney, M.P., & Ward, M.P. (1973). Ecology: Lets hear from the people: An objective scale
for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist,
28 (7), 583-586.
Monteiro, C., Levy, R.., & Claro, R. (2011). Increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods
and likely impact on human health: evidence from Brazil. Journal of Public Health
Nutrition, 14 (1), 5-13.
Nakagawa, S & Cuthill, I.C (2007) Effect size, Confidence interval and Statistical
significance: a practical guide for biologist. Biological Reviews. vol 82: 591-605.
Newell, D., Koopmans, M., Verhoef, L., Duizer, E., & Sprong, H. (2010). Food-borne
diseases The challenges of 20 years ago still persist while new ones continue to
emerge. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 139, 3-15.
80
Padel, S., Foster, C. (2005). Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour:
Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food. British Food Journal,
107 (8), 606 625.
Pelletier, L. G., Dion, S. C., Angelo, M., S., & Reid, R. (2004). Why Do You Regulate What
You Eat? Relationships Between Forms of Regulation, Eating Behaviors, Sustained
Dietary Behavior Change, and Psychological Adjustment. Motivation and Emotion,
28 (3), 245-277.
Rauber, F., Campagnolo, P., & Hoffman, D. (2014). Consumption of ultra-processed food
products and its effects on childrens lipid profiles: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardivascular Disease. 1-7.
Rao, A. R., & Bergen, M. E. (1992). Price Premium Variations as a Consequence of Buyers'
lack of Information'. Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (3), 412-423.
Reheul, D., E. Mathijs, & J. Relaes. (2001). Elements for a future view with respect to
sustainable agri-and horticulture in Flanders, Dissertation abstract Sustainable
Agriculture, Stedula, Ghent.
Riefer, A. and Hamm, U. (2008). Changes in families organic food consumption. Paper
presented at 12th Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists.
Roddy, G., C. Cowan and G. Hutchinson, 1994. Organic food: a description of Irish market.
British Food J., 96(4): 3-10.
Rosenthal, R (1994). Parametric measures of effort size. The Handbook of Research
synthesis (eds. Cooper, H.Q Hedges, LV) Sage; New York.
Rosentock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education
Monographs, 2, 328-335.
Rosentock, I.M, Strecher, V.J., & Becker, M.H. (1988). Social learning theory and the Health
Belief Model. Health Education Quarterly, 15(2), 175-183.
81
Rosnow, RL (1984), Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis: New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Rozhan, A. B., Ahmad Zairy, Z., & Abu Kasim, A. (2009). Consumers perceptions,
consumption and preference on organic product: Malaysian perspective. Journal of
Economic and Technology Management, 4, 95-107.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and The Facilitation Of
Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development and Well-being. American Psychologist, 55,
68-78.
Salkind, J. N. (2014). Exploring Research. United States of America: Pearson Education
Limited.
Scallan, E., Hoekstra, R., Angulo, F., Tauxe, R., & Widdowson, M. (2011). Foodborne Illness
Acquired in the United States Major Pathogens. Journal of Emerging Infectious
Diseases, 17 (1), 1-9.
Schifferstein, H.N.J. & Oude Ophuis, P.A.M. (1998). Health-related determinants of organic
foods consumption in The Netherlands. Food Quality and Preference, 9 (3), 119-133.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business United Kingdom: John
Willey & Sons Ltd.
Suissa, A. J. (2014). Cyberaddictions: Toward a psychosocial perspective. Journal of
Addictive Behaviors, 39 (12), 1914-1918.
Tarkiainen, A. & Sundquist, S. (2005). Subjective norms, attitudes & intentions of Finnish
consumers in buying organic foods. British Food Journal, 107 (11), 808-822.
Thgersen, J. (2009). Traditional Food Production Facing Sustainability: A European
Challenge. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Tregear, A., Dent, J.B. and McGregor, M.J. (1994). The demand for organically grown
produce. British Food Journal,. 96 (4), 21-5.
Tse, A. C. B. (2001). How much more are consumers willing to pay for a higher level of
service? A preliminary survey. Journal of Services Marketing, 15 (1), 11-17.
82
Vindigni, G., M.A. Janssen & W. Jager, 2002.Organic food consumption a multi-theoretical
framework of consumer decision making. British Food J., 104(8): 624-642, DOI
10.1108/00070700210425949.
Wandel, M. and Bugge, A. (1997). Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of food
quality. Food Quality and Preference, 8(1),19-26.
Williams, P. R. D., & Hammit, J. K. (2001). Perceived risks of conventional and organic
produce: pesticides, pathogens, and natural toxins. Risk Analysis, 21, 319-330.
Winter, C., & Davis, S. (2006). Organic foods. Journal of Food Science, 71 (9), 117-124.
Yiridoe, E. K., Bonti-Ankomah, S., & Martin, R. C. (2004). Comparison of consumer
perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: a
review and update of the literature. Journal of Renewable Agriculture and Food
Systems, 20 (4), 193-205.
Yoshiko, K., Makoto, I., Roth, R., Tomoko, H., & Greimel, E. (2012). Psychometric
Validation of the Motivation for Healthy Eating Scale (MHES). Scientific Research:
Psychology, 4 (2), 136-141.
Zanoli, R., & Naspetti, S. (2002). Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: A
means-end approach. British Food Journal, 104, 8, ISSN 0007-070X, 643-653.
84
APPENDIX A: Cover Letter
85
Center for Management and Administration Studies

Faculty of Business Management
Universiti Teknologi MARA
Puncak Alam Campus
Dear Respondent,
A STUDY ON PSYCHOSOCIAL DISPOSITIONS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND

THE INTENTION TO PURCHASE ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS.
As a final year student of Bachelors Degree of Health Administration (Hons.), I am in the process of
completing a research with a title The Correlates of University Students Psychosocial Dispositions
and Intention to Purchase Organic Food Products.
As one of identified potential respondents for this study, I would be grateful if you could spend some
time to complete this questionnaire. Your assistance in providing valuable input for this study would
be very much appreciated.
Rest assured that all data collected would be treated with the strictest CONFIDENTIALITY. The
results would not be individually identified and only aggregated data would be analysed and reported
Should you have queries regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact me:
Phone no.: 018-3924162
Email: N.izzati_s@yahoo.com
Your cooperation is highly appreciated. Thank you.

Yours Sincerely,
________________________
Researcher
86
Pusat Pengajian Pengurusan dan Pentadbiran

Fakulti Pengurusan Perniagaan
Universiti Teknologi MARA
Kampus Puncak Alam
Kepada Responden,
KAJIAN MENGENAI HUBUNG KAIT DI ANTARA PEMBAWAAN PSIKOSOSIAL
PELAJAR UNIVERSITI DENGAN NIAT UNTUK MEMBELI PRODUK MAKANAN
ORGANIK.
Sebagai pelajar tahun akhir Ijazah Sarjana Muda Pentadbiran Kesihatan (Kepujian), saya kini dalam
proses menyiapkan penyelidikan yang bertajuk Hubung Kait di antara Pembawaan Psikososial
Pelajar Universiti dengan Niat untuk Membeli Produk Makanan Organik.
Memandangkan anda adalah salah seorang daripada responden yang telah dikenal pasti berpotensi
untuk kajian ini, saya berbesar hati sekiranya anda dapat meluangkan masa untuk melengkapkan
borang soal selidik ini. Bantuan anda dalam memberikan pandangan dan input yang berharga untuk
kajian ini amatlah dihargai.
Semua data yang dikumpul akan dianggap SULIT. Keputusan tidak akan digunakan untuk mengenal
pasti individu dan hanya data yang telah digabungkan sahaja akan dianalisis dan dilaporkan.
Sekiranya anda mempunyai sebarang pertanyaan yang lebih lanjut mengenai kajian ini, sila hubungi
saya:
No. telefon: 018-3924162
Emel: N.izzati_s@yahoo.com
Kerjasama anda amat dihargai. Sekian, terima kasih.

Yang benar,
__________________________
Penyelidik
87
APPENDIX B: Questionnaire
87
BAHAGIAN A: LATAR BELAKANG DEMOGRAFIK
SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND
INSTRUCTION:
1.
Please tick () for the best answer that represents you and fill-in your response in the blanks
provided.
Umur (Age)
18 20 tahun
18 20 years old
21 23 tahun
21 23 years old
24 26 tahun
24 26 years old
ARAHAN:
Sila tandakan () pada jawapan yang paling tepat mengenai anda dan isikan
jawapan pada tempat kosong yang disediakan.
27 tahun dan ke atas
27 years old and above
2.
Jantina (Gender)
Lelaki (Male)
Perempuan (Female)
3.
Bangsa (Ethnicity)
Melayu (Malay)
India (India)
Cina (Chinese)
Lain-lain (Others)
Nyatakan (Please state): ___________________
4.
Agama (Religion)
Islam
Buddha
(Islam)
(Buddhism)
88
Hindu
Kristian
(Hinduism)
(Christianity)
Lain-lain (Others)
Nyatakan (Please state): __________________
5.
Taraf Perkahwinan (Marital Status)

Bujang
(Single)
Berkahwin
(Married)
6.
Tahap Pendidikan Tertinggi (Highest academic qualification obtained)

SPM/STPM
Ijazah
(SPM/STPM)
(Degree)
Sijil lepasan sekolah
Master
(Post-high school certificate)
(Master)
Diploma
(Diploma)
7.
Tahap Program Akademik Sedang dalam Pengajian (Level of current enrolled academic programme)
Certificate/Diploma
Master
(Sijil/Diploma)
(Master)
Ijazah
(Degree)
PhD
(Phd)
8.
Program yang sedang diambil (Academic field of current programme)

Berkaitan Kesihatan/Perubatan
Lain-lain (Others)
Nyatakan (Please state)
(Medical/Health-related)
______________________
9.
10.
Tahun Pengajian (Year of academic programme)

Tahun Pertama
Tahun Ketiga
(First Year)
(Third Year)
Tahun Kedua
Tahun Keempat
(Second Year)
(Fourth Year)
Berapakah berat anda?

(What is your current body weight?)
Sila isi dalam kilogram (kg) ATAU paun (lbs).

(Please fill either in kilogram (kg) OR pound (lbs.)
.................... kg
..................... lbs.
Berapakah ketinggian anda?

(What is your current height?)
Sila isi dalam sentimeter (cm) ATAU (kaki/inci).

(Please fill either in centimetre (cm) OR (feet/inches)
.................... cm
.................... inches
11. Berapa jumlah wang yang selalunya dibelanjakan oleh anda untuk hidangan harian
berikut:
How much money do you usually spend on the following daily meals:
Nota: Tandakan 0 sekiranya tidak berkenaan/ Write 0 if the meal is not applicable.
Sarapan
Breakfast
RM:. . . . . . . . . . ./Sehari (Daily)
Minum pagi (9 10am)

Morning Break
RM:. . . . . . . . . . ./Sehari (Daily)
Makan tengahari
Lunch
RM:. . . . . . . . . . ./Sehari (Daily)
Minum petang (3 4pm)

Evening snack
RM:. . . . . . . . . . ./Sehari (Daily)
Makan malam
Dinner
RM:. . . . . . . . . . ./Sehari (Daily)
Makan lewat malam

RM:. . . . . . . . . . ./Sehari (Daily)
Late Night
Snack/Supper
BAHAGIAN
B: PEMBAWAAN PSIKOSOSIAL TERHADAP
PEMAKANAN PRODUK ORGANIK.
12.
Secara keseluruhan, saya fikir produk

makanan organik adalah pilihan terbaik.
Overall, I think eating organic products is a healthier
choice.
13.
Secara keseluruhan, saya fikir harga produk

makanan organik melebihi dari nilainya.
Overall, I think organic food products cost more than
they're worth
14.
Secara keseluruhan, produk makanan organik

mempunyai kualiti yang tinggi.
Overall, I think organic food products have superior
quality.
SETUJU
Moderately Agree
Slightly Agree
Unsure
Moderately Disagree
Slightly Disagree
DM
Strongly Disagree
AT
TIDAK PASTI
The following statements are intended to examine the attitudes towards eating organic foods.
Please circle for the scale that best represents your agreement
SEDIKIT TIDAK SETUJU
INSTRUCTION:
TIDAK SETUJU
Berikut merupakan pernyataan bertujuan untuk mengukur sikap anda terhadap

pemakanan produk organik. Sila bulatkan pada skala yang paling tepat mewakili
jawapan anda.
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU
ARAHAN:
SEDIKIT SETUJU
SECTION B: PSYCHOSOCIAL DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS
SANGAT SETUJU
SETUJU
Strongly Agree
Moderately Agree
SEDIKIT SETUJU
TIDAK SETUJU
Secara keseluruhan, saya fikir pemprosesan

produk makanan organik ialah mesra alam.
Overall, I think the production of organic food products
is environmentally friendly.
18.
Secara keseluruhan, saya fikir produk

makanan organik mempunyai rasa yang lebih
baik daripada makanan biasa.
Overall, I think organic food products taste better than
conventional food.
17.
Slightly Agree
16.
Moderately Disagree
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU
Overall, organic food products are just a marketing

gimmick.
TIDAK PASTI
Secara keseluruhan, produk makanan organik

hanyalah gimik pasaran.
Unsure
15.
Secara keseluruhan, saya fikir makanan

organik lebih berkhasiat daripada yang lain.
Overall, I think organic foods are more nutritious than
others.
BB
IM
Sekiranya saya memilih untuk makan makanan organik

If I choose to eat organic foods
19.
badan saya akan sihat.

my body would be healthy.
20.
saya mampu melindungi persekitaran.

I would be able to protect the environment.
21.
saya mungkin perlu berjalan jauh untuk

membeli makanan organik.
SANGAT SETUJU
Strongly Agree
SETUJU
Moderately Agree
SEDIKIT SETUJU
Slightly Agree
TIDAK PASTI
Unsure

Slightly Disagree
TIDAK SETUJU
Moderately Disagree
Strongly Disagree
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU
I might have to travel far to buy them.
Sekiranya saya memilih untuk makan makanan organik

If I choose to eat organic foods
22.
peluang untuk saya mendapat penyakit

adalah kurang.
I would be less likely to suffer from illness.
23.
imun tubuh badan saya lebih kuat.

my body's immunity could be strengthened.
24.
secara fizikal, saya merasa baik.

I would physically feel better.
OE
Adalah menjadi keinginan saya untuk...

It is desirable to me to
25.
memastikan tubuh badan saya sihat.

keep my body healthy.
26.
mampu untuk melindungi persekitaran.

be able to protect the environment.
27.
mendapatkan produk makanan organik di

mana sahaja ianya boleh didapati.
get organic food where ever they are available.
28.
mendapat perlindungan daripada penyakit.

get protected from illnesses.
29.
mendapatkan imun sistem yang kuat.

get my immunity strengthened.
merasa baik secara fizikal.
DM
31.
Kebanyakan mereka yang penting bagi saya

mahukan saya memilih makanan organik.
SANGAT SETUJU
SETUJU
Strongly Agree
Slightly Agree
Moderately Agree
SEDIKIT SETUJU
TIDAK PASTI
Unsure
Moderately Disagree
SN
TIDAK SETUJU
feel better physically.
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU
30.
Most people who are important to me want me to choose

organic food.
32.
Kebanyakan mereka yang saya kenal percaya

memakan makanan organik adalah pilihan yang
sihat.
Most people I know believe that eating organic food is a
healthier choice.
33.

mahukan saya memakan makanan organik.
People who are important to me want me to eat organic
foods.
34.
Saya diharapkan untuk memilih makanan

organik berbanding makanan konvensional.
I am expected to choose organic over conventional food.
35.

merasakan saya TIDAK patut membazirkan
wang untuk makanan organik.
People who are important to me think that I should NOT
waste my money on organic products.
SETUJU
Moderately Agree
SEDIKIT SETUJU
Slightly Agree
TIDAK PASTI
Unsure
TIDAK SETUJU
Moderately Disagree
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

NB
IM
36.
Ibu bapa saya merasakan saya PATUT makan

makanan organik.
My parents think I SHOULD eat organic foods.
37.
Teman rapat saya akan TIDAK BERSETUJU

mengenai pilihan terhadap makanan organik.
My close friends would DISAPPROVE my preference for
organic foods.
38.
Rakan sekelas saya merasakan saya PATUT

makan makanan organik.
My classmates think I SHOULD eat organic foods.
39.
Adik-beradik saya merasakan saya PATUT

makan makanan organik.
My siblings think I SHOULD eat organic foods.
40.
Kekasih saya merasakan saya TIDAK PATUT

membazirkan duit saya untuk membeli makanan
organik.
My loved one thinks I SHOULD NOT waste my money on
organic foods.
IM
41.
Melakukan perkara yang ibu bapa saya

sarankan adalah penting bagi saya.
SETUJU
Moderately Agree
SEDIKIT SETUJU
Slightly Agree
TIDAK PASTI
Unsure
TIDAK SETUJU
Moderately Disagree
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

MTC
Doing what my parents think I should do is important to

me.
42.
Keizinan teman rapat mengenai perkara yang

saya lakukan adalah penting bagi saya.
My close friends approval of what I do is important to me.
43.
Melakukan perkara yang disarankan rakan

sekelas adalah penting bagi saya.
Doing what my classmates think I should do is important
to me.
44.
Melakukan perkara yang disarankan adikberadik saya adalah penting bagi saya.
Doing what my siblings think I should do is important to
me.
45.
Mengikut nasihat kekasih saya adalah penting

bagi saya.
Following my love ones advice is important to me.
PBC
46.
Untuk membuat keputusan samada ingin

membeli atau menggunakan makanan organik
adalah mudah bagi saya.
To decide whether or not to buy and consume organic food
is easy for me.
SANGAT SETUJU
SETUJU
Strongly Agree
Slightly Agree
Moderately Agree
SEDIKIT SETUJU
TIDAK PASTI
Unsure
TIDAK SETUJU
Moderately Disagree
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

47.
Keputusan untuk membeli dan menggunakan

makanan organik bergantung kepada saya.
The decision to buy and consume organic food rests

entirely on me.
48.
Sekiranya makanan organik mudah didapati

tiada yang dapat menghalang saya untuk
membelinya.
If organic foods were available in the shops, nothing will
prevent me from buying them.
49.
Tiada siapa boleh mempengaruhi saya untuk

membeli atau tidak membeli makanan organik.
No one could easily influence me to buy or not to buy
organic foods.
SE
50.
Saya merasakan saya boleh mendapatkan

makanan organik walaupun ianya mahal.
I am certain that I could get organic foods, even if they are

costly.
51.
Saya yakin bahawa makanan organik adalah

pilihan yang terbaik, walaupun kebanyakan
orang meragui kebaikannya.
I am confident that organic food is a better choice even if
most people doubt the benefits.
52.
Saya pasti yang saya boleh mendapatkan

makanan organik walaupun terpaksa berjalan
jauh.
I am sure that I could get organic products, even if I have
to travel far to buy them.
53.
Saya merasakan saya boleh membeli makanan

organik walaupun pilihannya terhad.
I am certain that I could purchase organic products, even
54.
SANGAT SETUJU
SETUJU
Strongly Agree
Moderately Agree
SEDIKIT SETUJU
TIDAK PASTI
Slightly Agree
Saya merasakan saya boleh mendapatkan

makanan organik walaupun kebanyakan orang
tidak bersetuju dengan keputusan saya.
Unsure
TIDAK SETUJU
Moderately Disagree
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU
if the selection is limited.
I am certain that I could get organic foods, even if most

people disapprove my decision.
HBM - PB
H & SB
55.
Saya tetap yakin produk makanan organik

tidak mengandungi bahan kimia yang
berbahaya.
I am rest assured that organic food products contain no
harmful chemicals.
56.
Makanan organik mengurangkan risiko saya

mendapat keracunan makanan.
Organic food products reduce my chance to get food
poisoning.
57.
Menggunakan produk organik memastikan

kesihatan saya di tahap yang baik.
Consuming organic products would keep my health
condition at its best.
58.
Produk makanan organik mengelakkan saya

daripada mendapat penyakit-penyakit yang
serius.
Organic food products prevent me from getting serious
illnesses.
59.
Imuniti badan saya menjadi kuat sekiranya

saya memakan produk organik.
SANGAT SETUJU
SETUJU
Strongly Agree
Moderately Agree
SEDIKIT SETUJU
Unsure
TIDAK PASTI
TIDAK SETUJU
Saya boleh mendapat lebih vitamin dan

mineral daripada produk organik.
Slightly Agree
60.
Moderately Disagree
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU
My body immunity will be strengthened if I eat organic

products.
I could get more vitamins and minerals from organic

products.
EB
61.
Perladangan organik mengurangkan

pencemaran alam sekitar.
Organic farming reduces environmental pollution.
62.
Pencemaran ke atas tanah dan air boleh

dielakkan dengan perladangan organik.
Soil and water contamination could be prevented by
organic farming.
63.
Penghasilan makanan organik semestinya

menggunakan tenaga yang cekap.
The production of organic food is necessarily energyefficient.
64.
Saya boleh melindungi alam sekitar dengan

membeli produk organik.
I could protect the environment by buying organic
products.
65.
Makanan organik tidak diubahsuai secara

genetik, jadi ia selamat untuk digunakan dan
baik untuk persekitaran.
Organic foods are non-genetically modified products, so
it is safe to consume and good for environment.
66.
Penanaman organik menyokong komuniti
perdagangan.
67.
Harga produk makanan organik adalah mahal.

The cost of organic food products is expensive.
68.
Nilai produk makanan organik adalah tidak

setimpal dengan harganya.
SANGAT SETUJU
Strongly Agree
SETUJU
Moderately Agree
SEDIKIT SETUJU
Slightly Agree
TIDAK PASTI
Unsure
TIDAK SETUJU
Slightly Disagree
CS
Moderately Disagree
PBR
Strongly Disagree
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU
Organic farming supports community trade.
Organic food products cost more than theyre worth.
69.
Sebagai pelajar, saya tidak mampu membeli

makanan organik.
As a student, I can't afford to buy organic foods.
70.
Disebabkan peruntukan kewangan saya yang

terhad, membeli makan organik bukan pilihan
saya.
Because of my limited financial allowance, buying organic
food products is not an option.
AVL
71.
Kedai organik sangat jauh dari kawasan

perumahan saya.
Organic shops are too far from my house.
72.
Ianya suasah untuk mencari makanan organik di

kawasan berhampiran.
It is hard to look for organic foods in nearby area.
73.
Hanya beberapa kedai yang saya tahu menjual
produk makanan organik.
Walaupun makanan organik boleh didapati,

pilihannya adalah sangat terhad.
SANGAT SETUJU
SETUJU
Strongly Agree
Slightly Agree
Moderately Agree
SEDIKIT SETUJU
TIDAK PASTI
Unsure

Slightly Disagree
TIDAK SETUJU
Moderately Disagree
74.
Strongly Disagree
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU
Only few shops that I know sell organic food products.
Even if organic food products are available, the selection

is too limited.
TRS
75.
Ada kebarangkalian produk makanan

konvensional dilabel sebagai organik.
There is a chance that conventional food products are
labelled as organic.
76.
Pemprosesan makanan organik mungkin tidak

menepati tahap piawaian.
The production of claimed organic food products might
not meet the standard.
77.
Kebaikan kesihatan memakan makanan organik

masih belum terbukti.
Health benefits from eating organic foods are not yet
proven.
78.
Penjual mungkin mengaku produk mereka

adalah organik untuk meningkatkan jualan.
Sellers might claim their products are organic to boost the
sales.
79.
Nilai nutrisi seperti yang dilabel dalam

kebanyakan produk makanan organik mungkin
tidak tepat.
INM
80.
Saya suka mencipta hidangan baru yang baik

untuk kesihatan.
I like to find new way to create meals that are good for
health.
81.
Ia adalah sesuatu yang menyeronokkan untuk

menyediakan hidangan yang baik untuk
kesihatan saya.
SANGAT SETUJU
SETUJU
Strongly Agree
Slightly Agree
Moderately Agree
SEDIKIT SETUJU
TIDAK PASTI
Unsure
TIDAK SETUJU
Moderately Disagree
Slightly Disagree
HEM
Strongly Disagree
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU
Nutritional value as labelled in most organic products

might be inaccurate.
It is fun to create meals that are good for my health.
82.
Saya berminat mengamalkan pemakanan yang

sihat.
I am interested in eating healthy.
83.
Saya berasa seronok dalam menyediakan

hidangan yang sihat.
I take pleasure in fixing healthy meals.
84.
Saya berpuas hati dengan cara pemakanan

yang sihat.
I am satisfied with eating healthy.
IR
85.
Pemakanan yang sihat adalah sebahagian

daripada hidup saya.
Eating healthily is an integral part of my life.
Pemakanan yang sihat adalah asas kepada

kehidupan saya.
Eating healthily is base of my life.
88.
Mengawal tabiat pemakanan telah menjadi

sebahagian asas daripada diri saya.
SETUJU
Moderately Agree
Unsure
SEDIKIT SETUJU
TIDAK PASTI
Slightly Agree
Strongly Disagree
87.
Slightly Disagree
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU
Eating healthily is congruent with other important

aspects of my life.
TIDAK SETUJU
Pemakanan yang sihat selaras dengan aspek

lain dalam kehidupan saya.
Moderately Disagree
86.
Regulating my eating behaviors has become a

fundamental part of who I am.
89.
Pemakanan yang sihat adalah jalan yang telah

saya pilih dalam kehidupan.
Eating healthily is part of the way I have chosen to live my
way.
IDR
90.
Saya percaya pemakanan yang sihat akan

membuatkan minda dan tubuh badan saya
selesa.
I believe healthy eating will make my mind and body
comfortable.
91.
Saya percaya pemakanan yang sihat akan

membuatkan saya berasa lebih baik.
I believe healthy eating will eventually allow me to feel
better.
92.
Pemakanan yang sihat adalah satu cara
mengekalkan kesihatan jangka panjang.
Saya percaya pemakanan yang sihat adalah satu

perkara yang baik dan membuatkan saya berasa
lebih baik tentang diri sendiri secara amnya.
SANGAT SETUJU
SETUJU
Strongly Agree
Slightly Agree
Moderately Agree
SEDIKIT SETUJU
TIDAK PASTI
Unsure

Slightly Disagree
TIDAK SETUJU
Moderately Disagree
93.
Strongly Disagree
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU
Healthy eating is a way to ensure long-term health

benefits.
I believe healthy eating is a good thing I can do to feel

better about myself in general.
94.
Bukan sahaja makan makanan yang bagus,

malah pemakanan yang sihat adalah salah satu
cara untuk mengawal tabiat pemakanan saya.
Not only eat good food, healthy eating is a good idea to
try to regulate my eating behaviors.
AMT
Merujuk kepada pemakanan yang sihat...

In regards to healthy eating...
95.
saya kurang pasti. Saya mempunyai

pandangan yang saya akan membazir masa
dengan cuba mengawal tabiat makan saya.
I dont really know. I truly have the impression that Im
wasting my time trying to regulate my eating behaviours.
96.
saya tidak begitu jelas dengan apa yang saya

boleh perolehi.
I cant really see Im getting out of it.
97.
saya tidak tahu kenapa saya perlu peduli.

I dont really know why I bother.
99.
saya rasa ada perkara yang lebih penting

boleh dibuat selain makan secara sihat.
I think there are more important things to do than to eat
healthy.
SETUJU
Moderately Agree
SEDIKIT SETUJU
Slightly Agree
TIDAK PASTI
Unsure
TIDAK SETUJU
Slightly Disagree
I dont know. I cant see how my efforts to eat healthy

are helping my health situation.
Moderately Disagree
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU

saya tidak tahu. Saya tidak nampak
bagaimana usaha saya untuk makan secara sihat
dapat membantu keadaan kesihatan saya.
Strongly Disagree
98.
ARAHAN:
Di bawah merupakan pernyataan mengenai niat anda untuk makan

makanan dan produk organik. Sila bulatkan pada skala yang paling
BAHAGIAN C: NIAT UNTUK
MEMBELI
PRODUK
MAKANAN ORGANIK
tepat
mewakili jawapan
anda.
100.
Saya bercadang untuk membeli produk

makanan organik secara berkala.
SANGAT SETUJU
Strongly Agree
SETUJU
Moderately Agree
SEDIKIT SETUJU
Slightly Agree
TIDAK PASTI
Unsure
TIDAK SETUJU

Slightly Disagree
BI
Moderately Disagree
Strongly Disagree
SANGAT TIDAK SETUJU
SECTION C: BEHAVIORAL INTENTION TO PURCHASE ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS

INSTRUCTION:
The following statements are intended to examine your intention towards eating
organic foods. Please circle the best scale that best represents your agreement.
I plan to buy organic food products on a regular basis.
101.
Saya berniat untuk membeli makanan organik

secara berkala.
I intend to buy organic food products on a regular basis.
102.
Saya membuat keputusan untuk membeli

produk makanan organik secara berkala.
I have decided to buy organic food products on a regular
basis.
103.
Saya akan membeli produk makanan organik

secara berkala.
I will buy organic food products on a regular basis.
Borang Soal Selidik Tamat

End of Questionnaire
**Terima kasih kerana meluangkan masa menjawab borang soal selidik ini**
** Thank you very much for spending time in completing this questionnaire**
APPENDIX C: Data Analysis
Section A: Demographic Profiles of Respondents (Descriptive Statistics)
age of the respondent

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
18-20 years old
2.5
2.5
2.5
21-23 years old
101
63.1
63.1
65.6
24-26 years old
36
22.5
22.5
88.1
27 years old and above
19
11.9
11.9
100.0
160
100.0
100.0
Total
gender of the respondent

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
male
Valid
57
35.6
35.6
35.6
female
103
64.4
64.4
100.0
Total
160
100.0
100.0
ethnicity of the respondent

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
malay
133
83.1
83.1
83.1
indian
5.6
5.6
88.8
chinese
4.4
4.4
93.1
others
11
6.9
6.9
100.0
Total
160
100.0
100.0
religion of the respondent

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
islam
145
90.6
90.6
90.6
hindu
5.0
5.0
95.6
kristian
4.4
4.4
100.0
160
100.0
100.0
Total
status of the respondent

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
single
Valid
married
Total
139
86.9
86.9
86.9
21
13.1
13.1
100.0
160
100.0
100.0
high academic qualification obtained

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
spm/stpm
87
54.4
54.4
54.4
post-high school certificate
11
6.9
6.9
61.3
Diploma
48
30.0
30.0
91.3
Degree
12
7.5
7.5
98.8
Master
1.3
1.3
100.0
160
100.0
100.0
Total
level of current enrolled academic programme

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
certificate/diploma
Valid
22
13.8
13.8
13.8
Degree
120
75.0
75.0
88.8
Master
16
10.0
10.0
98.8
1.3
1.3
100.0
160
100.0
100.0
Phd
Total
academic field of current programme

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
medical/health-related
Valid
13
8.1
8.1
8.1
Others
147
91.9
91.9
100.0
Total
160
100.0
100.0
year of academic programme

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
first year
13
8.1
8.1
8.1
second year
28
17.5
17.5
25.6
third year
53
33.1
33.1
58.8
fourth year
66
41.3
41.3
100.0
160
100.0
100.0
Total
body mass index of the respondent

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Underweight
15
9.4
9.4
9.4
100
62.5
62.5
71.9
Overweight
29
18.1
18.1
90.0
Obese
16
10.0
10.0
100.0
Total
160
100.0
100.0
Normal
Valid
Total spending
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1-10
37
23.1
23.1
23.1
11-20
69
43.1
43.1
66.3
21-30
20
12.5
12.5
78.8
31-40
34
21.3
21.3
100.0
Total
160
100.0
100.0
Mean and standard deviation

Attitude (Direct Measure)
Statistics
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Overall, I
Overall, I
Overall, I
Overall,
Overall, I think Overall, I think the
Overall, I
think
think
think
organic
organic food
production of
think
eating
organic
organic
food
products taste
organic food
organic
organic
food
food
products
better than
products is
foods are
products
products
products
are just a
conventional
environmentally
more
is a
cost more
have
marketing
food.
friendly.
nutritious
healthier
than
superior
gimmick
choice.
they're
quality.
than
others.
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
5.72
5.36
5.67
4.12
4.43
5.37
5.71
1.245
1.411
1.311
1.455
1.408
1.257
1.262
Statistics
ATT2_REVERSED
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
2.6438
Std. Deviation
1.41131
Statistics
ATT4_REVERSED
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
160
0
3.8813
1.45530
Behavioral Belief (Indirect Measure)
Statistics
if i choose to if i choose to eat if i choose to if i choose to if i choose to eat
if i choose to
eat organic
organic foods I
eat organic
eat organic
organic foods my
eat organic
foods my
would be able to
foods I
foods I
body's immunity
foods I would
body would
protect the
might have
would be
could be
physically feel
be healthy
environment
to travel far
less likely to
strengthened.
better.
to buy them.
suffer from
illness.
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
160
160
160
160
160
160
5.61
5.42
4.84
5.24
5.34
5.35
1.279
1.394
1.631
1.305
1.229
1.161
Statistics
BB3_REVERSED
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
160
0
3.1563
1.63125
Outcome Evaluation (Indirect Measure)
Statistics
It is
It is desirable to It is desirable It is desirable
It is desirable
It is desirable to
desirable to
me to be able to
to me to get
to me to get
to me to get my
me to feel
me to keep
protect the
organic food
protected
immunity
better
my body
environment.
where ever
from
strengthened.
physically.
they are
illnesses.
healthy.
available.
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
160
160
160
160
160
160
6.09
5.89
5.43
5.88
5.91
5.89
1.159
1.160
1.296
1.261
1.196
1.264
Subjective Norm (Direct Measure)
Statistics
Most people who
Most people I
People who are
I am expected to
People who are
are important to
know believe that
important to me
choose organic
important to me
me want me to
eating organic
want me to eat
choose organic
food is a healthier
organic foods.
food.
choice.
over conventional think that I should

food
NOT waste my
money on organic
products.
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
160
160
160
160
160
4.44
4.76
4.49
4.60
3.97
1.666
1.527
1.590
1.563
1.691
SN5_REVERSED
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
160
0
4.0313
1.69135
Normative Belief (Indirect Measure)
Statistics
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
My parents think I
My close friends
My classmates
My siblings think
My loved one
SHOULD eat
would
think I SHOULD
I SHOULD eat
thinks I SHOULD
organic foods.
DISAPPROVE
eat organic foods.
organic foods.
NOT waste my
my preference for
money on organic
organic foods.
foods.
160
160
160
160
160
4.72
3.52
4.20
4.39
3.64
1.543
1.550
1.350
1.484
1.592
Statistics
NB2_REVERSED
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
4.4813
Std. Deviation
1.54989
Statistics
NB5_REVERSED
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
160
0
4.3625
1.59199
Motivation To Comply (Indirect Measure)

Statistics
Doing what my
My close friends
Doing what my
parents think I
approval of what I classmates think I
Doing what my
Following my
siblings think I
love ones advice

is important to me
should do is
do is important to
should do is
should do is
important to me.
me
important to me.
important to me.
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
160
160
160
160
160
5.91
4.42
4.23
5.08
3.89
1.194
1.800
1.614
1.358
1.860
Perceived Behavioral Control

Statistics
To decide whether
The decision to
If organic foods
No one could
or not to buy and
buy and consume
were available in
easily influence
consume organic
organic food rests the shops, nothing
me to buy or not
food is easy for
entirely on me.
me.
will prevent me
to buy organic
from buying
foods.
them.
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
160
160
160
160
4.75
5.68
5.47
5.41
1.369
1.199
1.327
1.411
Self Efficacy
Statistics
I am certain that I
I am confident
I am sure that I
I am certain that I
I am certain that I
could get organic
that organic food
could get organic
could purchase
could get organic
foods, even if
is a better choice
products, even if I
organic products,
foods, even if
they are costly.
even if most
have to travel far
even if the
most people
people doubt the
to buy them.
selection is
disapprove my
limited.
decision.
benefits.
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
160
160
160
160
160
4.28
5.13
4.24
4.39
4.62
1.606
1.234
1.540
1.318
1.359
Perceived Benefit
Statistics
I am rest
Organic
Consumin
Organic
My body
I could
Organic
Soil and
The
I could
Organic
Organic
assured
food
g organic
food
immunity
get more
farming
water
productio
protect the
foods are
farming
that
products
products
products
will be
vitamins
reduces
contaminatio
n of
environmen
non-
supports
organic
reduce
would
prevent
strengthene
and
environmenta
n could be
organic
t by buying
genetically
communit
food
my
keep my
me from
d if I eat
minerals
l pollution.
prevented by
food is
organic
modified
y trade.
products
chance to
health
getting
organic
from
organic
necessaril
products.
products, so
contain
get food
condition
serious
products.
organic
farming.
y energy-
it is safe to
efficient.
consume
no
poisoning at its best. illnesses
harmful
products
and good
chemicals
for
environment
.
Valid
N Missin
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
4.85
4.99
5.21
5.09
5.04
5.35
5.23
5.19
5.21
5.19
5.23
5.14
1.459
1.380
1.289
1.184
1.268
1.265
1.388
1.342
1.241
1.250
1.295
1.273
g
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Perceived Barrier
Statistics
The cost
Organic
As a
Because
Organic
It is hard
Only
Even if
There is a
of organic
food
student, I
of my
shops
to look
few
organic
chance that
food
products
can't
limited
are too
for
shops
food
products
cost
afford to
financial
far from
organic
that I
products
food
is
more
buy
allowance,
my
foods in
know
are
expensive
than
organic
buying
house.
nearby
sell
theyre
foods.
organic
area.
worth.
Health
Sellers
Nutritional
production benefits
might
value as
from
claim
labeled in
organic
eating
their
most
products are
food
organic
products
organic
available,
labeled as
products
foods
are
products
organic
the
organic.
might not
are not
organic
might be
food
food
selection
meet the
yet
to boost
inaccurate.
products
products.
is too
standard.
proven.
the sales.
is not an
The
conventional of claimed
limited.
option.
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std.
Deviation
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
5.61
4.95
5.23
5.25
5.16
5.26
5.16
5.33
5.03
4.78
4.36
5.08
4.99
1.364
1.391
1.562
1.505
1.487
1.489
1.513
1.262
1.317
1.302
1.451
1.288
1.291

Statistics
I like
Eating
Regulating
Eating
I believe
I believe Healthy
fun to intereste pleasur satisfie
healthil healthily healthil
my eating
healthil
healthy
healthy
find
create
d in
e in
d with
y is an
behaviors
y is part
eating will
new
meals
eating
fixing
eating
integral congruen base of
has
of the
way
that
healthy.
become a
to
are
create
to
It is
I am
I take
I am
Eating
Eating
is
y is
Not only
eating
believe
eat good
eating
is a
healthy
food,
make my
will
way to
eating
healthy
way I
mind and
eventuall
ensure
is a
eating is
healthy healthy
part of
t with
meals.
my life.
other
fundament
have
body
y allow
long-
good
a good
good
importan
al part of
chosen
comfortabl
me to
term
thing I
idea to
meals
for
t aspects
who I am.
to live
e.
feel
health
can do
try to
that
my
of my
are
health
life.
good
my life.
my way
better
benefits to feel
.
regulate
better
my eating
about
behaviors
for
myself
health
in
general
.
Valid
N Missin
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
5.23
5.68
5.86
5.83
5.88
5.63
5.59
5.71
5.61
5.64
6.01
6.04
6.01
5.89
5.84
1.401
1.124
1.098
1.169
1.084
1.316
1.300
1.184
1.313
1.276
1.116
1.075
1.200
1.185
1.197
g
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistics
In regards to healthy
eating I dont really
eating I cant really see
eating I dont really
eating I dont know. I
eating I think there are
know. I truly have the
Im getting out of it
know why I bother
cant see how my efforts
more important things to
impression that Im
to eat healthy are helping
do than to eat healthy.
wasting my time trying
my health situation
to regulate my eating
behaviours.
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
160
160
160
160
160
3.77
3.98
3.56
3.52
3.61
1.731
1.658
1.790
1.745
1.870
Statistics
AMT1_R
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
4.2313
Std. Deviation
1.73104
Statistics
AMT2_R
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
4.0188
Std. Deviation
1.65773
Statistics
AMT3_R
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
4.4438
Std. Deviation
1.79007
Statistics
AMT4_R
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
4.4813
Std. Deviation
1.74461
Statistics
AMT5_R
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
160
0
4.3938
1.87031
Behavioral Intention
Statistics
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
I plan to buy
I intend to buy
I have decided
I will buy organic
organic food
organic food
to buy organic
food products on
products on a
products on a
food products on
a regular basis.
regular basis.
regular basis
a regular basis.
160
160
160
160
4.79
4.79
4.72
4.77
1.324
1.300
1.314
1.314
Section B: Reliability Analysis of Developed Instruments

Attitude (Direct Measure)
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.803
Item Statistics
Mean
Overall, I think eating organic
Std. Deviation
5.72
1.245
160
5.36
1.411
160
5.67
1.311
160
4.12
1.455
160
4.43
1.408
160
5.37
1.257
160
5.71
1.262
160
products is a healthier choice.

Overall, I think organic food
products cost more than they're
products have superior quality.
Overall, organic food products
are just a marketing gimmick
products taste better than
conventional food.
Overall, I think the production
of organic food products is
environmentally friendly.
Overall, I think organic foods
are more nutritious than others.
Behavioral Belief (Indirect

Measure)
Scale StatisticsReliability Statistics
Mean
Variance
36.37
Cronbach's
of Items
Std.
DeviationAlpha N ofNItems
6.340.895
40.197
Item Statistics
Mean
if i choose to eat organic foods
Std. Deviation
5.61
1.279
160
5.42
1.394
160
4.84
1.631
160
5.24
1.305
160
5.34
1.229
160
5.35
1.161
160
my body would be healthy

I would be able to protect the
environment
I might have to travel far to buy
them.
I would be less likely to suffer
from illness.
my body's immunity could be
strengthened.
Scale Statistics
Mean
31.80
Variance
42.551
Std. Deviation
6.523
N of Items
6
Behavioral Belief (Outcome Evaluation)
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.938
Item Statistics
Mean
It is desirable to me to keep my
Std. Deviation
6.09
1.159
160
5.89
1.160
160
5.43
1.296
160
5.88
1.261
160
5.91
1.196
160
5.89
1.264
160
body healthy.
It is desirable to me to be able
to protect the environment.
It is desirable to me to get
organic food where ever they
are available.
protected from illnesses.
It is desirable to me to get my
immunity strengthened.
It is desirable to me to feel
better physically.
Scale Statistics
Mean
35.08
Variance
41.232
Std. Deviation
6.421
N of Items
6
Att Overall
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.941
19
Item Statistics
Mean
Overall, I think eating organic
Std. Deviation
5.72
1.245
160
5.36
1.411
160
5.67
1.311
160
4.12
1.455
160
4.43
1.408
160
5.37
1.257
160
5.71
1.262
160
5.61
1.279
160
5.42
1.394
160
4.84
1.631
160
5.24
1.305
160
5.34
1.229
160
products is a healthier choice.

products cost more than they're
products have superior quality.
Overall, organic food products
are just a marketing gimmick
products taste better than
conventional food.
Overall, I think the production
of organic food products is
environmentally friendly.
Overall, I think organic foods
are more nutritious than others.
my body would be healthy
I would be able to protect the
environment
I might have to travel far to buy
them.
I would be less likely to suffer
from illness.
my body's immunity could be
strengthened.
5.35
1.161
160
6.09
1.159
160
5.89
1.160
160
5.43
1.296
160
5.88
1.261
160
5.91
1.196
160
5.89
1.264
160

It is desirable to me to keep my
body healthy.
It is desirable to me to be able
to protect the environment.
organic food where ever they
are available.
protected from illnesses.
It is desirable to me to get my
immunity strengthened.
It is desirable to me to feel
better physically.
Scale Statistics
Mean
103.25
Variance
297.208
Std. Deviation
17.240
N of Items
19
Subjective Norm ( Direct Measure)

Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.888
Item Statistics
Mean
Most people who are important
Std. Deviation
4.44
1.666
160
4.76
1.527
160
4.49
1.590
160
4.60
1.563
160
3.97
1.691
160
to me want me to choose
organic food.
Most people I know believe
that eating organic food is a
healthier choice.
People who are important to me
want me to eat organic foods.
I am expected to choose
organic over conventional food
think that I should NOT waste
my money on organic products.
Scale Statistics
Mean
22.26
Variance
44.673
Std. Deviation
6.684
N of Items
5
Normative belief (indirect measure)
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.824
Item Statistics
Mean
My parents think I SHOULD
Std. Deviation
4.72
1.543
160
3.52
1.550
160
4.20
1.350
160
4.39
1.484
160
3.64
1.592
160
eat organic foods.

My close friends would
DISAPPROVE my preference
for organic foods.
My classmates think I
SHOULD eat organic foods.
My siblings think I SHOULD
eat organic foods.
My loved one thinks I
SHOULD NOT waste my
money on organic foods.
Scale Statistics
Mean
20.46
Variance
33.307
Std. Deviation
5.771
N of Items
5
Motivation To Comply (Indirect Measure)
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.789
Item Statistics
Mean
Doing what my parents think I
Std. Deviation
5.91
1.194
160
4.42
1.800
160
4.23
1.614
160
5.08
1.358
160
3.89
1.860
160
should do is important to me.

My close friends approval of
what I do is important to me
Doing what my classmates
think I should do is important
to me.
Doing what my siblings think I
Following my love ones advice
is important to me
Scale Statistics
Mean
23.53
Variance
34.087
Std. Deviation
5.838
N of Items
5
Subjective Norm Overall
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.916
15
Item Statistics
Mean
Most people who are important
Std. Deviation
4.44
1.666
160
4.76
1.527
160
4.49
1.590
160
4.60
1.563
160
3.97
1.691
160
4.72
1.543
160
3.52
1.550
160
4.20
1.350
160
4.39
1.484
160
3.64
1.592
160
5.91
1.194
160
4.42
1.800
160
to me want me to choose
organic food.
Most people I know believe
that eating organic food is a
healthier choice.
want me to eat organic foods.
I am expected to choose
organic over conventional food
think that I should NOT waste
my money on organic products.
My parents think I SHOULD
eat organic foods.
My close friends would
DISAPPROVE my preference
for organic foods.
My classmates think I
SHOULD eat organic foods.
My siblings think I SHOULD
eat organic foods.
My loved one thinks I
SHOULD NOT waste my
money on organic foods.
Doing what my parents think I
My close friends approval of
what I do is important to me
Doing what my classmates
4.23
1.614
160
5.08
1.358
160
3.89
1.860
160
think I should do is important

to me.
Doing what my siblings think I
Following my love ones advice
is important to me
Scale Statistics
Mean
66.25
Variance
254.377
Std. Deviation
15.949
N of Items
15
Perceived Behavioral Control
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.752
Item Statistics
Mean
To decide whether or not to buy
Std. Deviation
4.75
1.369
160
5.68
1.199
160
5.47
1.327
160
5.41
1.411
160
and consume organic food is

easy for me.
The decision to buy and
consume organic food rests
entirely on me.
If organic foods were available
in the shops, nothing will
prevent me from buying them.
No one could easily influence
me to buy or not to buy organic
foods.
Scale Statistics
Mean
21.31
Variance
16.189
Std. Deviation
4.024
N of Items
4
Self Efficacy
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.871
Item Statistics
Mean
I am certain that I could get
Std. Deviation
4.28
1.606
160
5.13
1.234
160
4.24
1.540
160
4.39
1.318
160
4.62
1.359
160
organic foods, even if they are

costly.
I am confident that organic
food is a better choice even if
most people doubt the benefits.
I am sure that I could get
organic products, even if I have
to travel far to buy them.
I am certain that I could
purchase organic products, even
if the selection is limited.
I am certain that I could get
organic foods, even if most
people disapprove my decision.
Scale Statistics
Mean
22.66
Variance
33.168
Std. Deviation
5.759
N of Items
5
Health Belief Model (Health and Safety Benefit)

Perceived Benefit
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.919
Item Statistics
I am rest assured that organic
Mean
Std. Deviation
4.85
1.459
160
4.99
1.380
160
5.21
1.289
160
5.09
1.184
160
5.04
1.268
160
5.35
1.265
160
food products contain no

harmful chemicals.
Organic food products reduce
my chance to get food
poisoning.
Consuming organic products
would keep my health
Organic food products prevent
me from getting serious
illnesses.
My body immunity will be
strengthened if I eat organic
products.
I could get more vitamins and
minerals from organic products.
Scale Statistics
Mean
Variance
Std. Deviation
N of Items
30.53
43.987
6.632
Health Belief Motivation (Environmental Benefit)
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.945
Item Statistics
Mean
Organic farming reduces
Std. Deviation
5.23
1.388
160
5.19
1.342
160
5.21
1.241
160
5.19
1.250
160
5.23
1.295
160
5.14
1.273
160
environmental pollution.
Soil and water contamination
could be prevented by organic
farming.
The production of organic food
is necessarily energy-efficient.
I could protect the environment
by buying organic products.
Organic foods are nongenetically modified products,
so it is safe to consume and
good for environment.
Organic farming supports
community trade.
Scale Statistics
Mean
31.19
Variance
47.679
Std. Deviation
6.905
N of Items
6
Perceived Benefit Overall (Health Belief Model)
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.950
12
Item Statistics
Mean
I am rest assured that organic
Std. Deviation
4.85
1.459
160
4.99
1.380
160
5.21
1.289
160
5.09
1.184
160
5.04
1.268
160
5.35
1.265
160
5.23
1.388
160
5.19
1.342
160
5.21
1.241
160
5.19
1.250
160
5.23
1.295
160
food products contain no

harmful chemicals.
Organic food products reduce
my chance to get food
poisoning.
Consuming organic products
would keep my health
Organic food products prevent
me from getting serious
illnesses.
My body immunity will be
strengthened if I eat organic
products.
I could get more vitamins and
minerals from organic products.
Organic farming reduces
environmental pollution.
Soil and water contamination
could be prevented by organic
farming.
The production of organic food
is necessarily energy-efficient.
I could protect the environment
by buying organic products.
Organic foods are nongenetically modified products,
so it is safe to consume and
good for environment.
Organic farming supports
5.14
1.273
160
community trade.
Scale Statistics
Mean
61.72
Variance
158.543
Std. Deviation
12.591
N of Items
12
Perceived Barrier (Cost)
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.842
Item Statistics
Mean
The cost of organic food
Std. Deviation
5.61
1.364
160
4.95
1.391
160
5.23
1.562
160
5.25
1.505
160
products is expensive
Organic food products cost
more than theyre worth.
As a student, I can't afford to
buy organic foods.
Because of my limited financial
allowance, buying organic food
products is not an option.
Scale Statistics
Mean
21.04
Perceived Barrier (Availability)
Variance
23.080
Std. Deviation
4.804
N of Items
4
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.876
Item Statistics
Mean
Organic shops are too far from
Std. Deviation
5.16
1.487
160
5.26
1.489
160
5.16
1.513
160
5.33
1.262
160
my house.
It is hard to look for organic
foods in nearby area.
Only few shops that I know sell
Even if organic food products
are available, the selection is
too limited.
Scale Statistics
Mean
20.91
Variance
24.199
Std. Deviation
4.919
N of Items
4
Perceived Barrier (Trust/Distrust)
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.865
Item Statistics
Mean
There is a chance that
Std. Deviation
5.03
1.317
160
4.78
1.302
160
4.36
1.451
160
5.08
1.288
160
4.99
1.291
160
conventional food products are

The production of claimed
organic food products might not
meet the standard.
Health benefits from eating
organic foods are not yet
proven.
Sellers might claim their
products are organic to boost
the sales.
Nutritional value as labelled in
most organic products might be
inaccurate.
Scale Statistics
Mean
24.24
Variance
28.799
Std. Deviation
5.366
N of Items
5
Perceived Barrier Overall

Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.900
13
Item Statistics
Mean
The cost of organic food
Std. Deviation
5.61
1.364
160
4.95
1.391
160
1.562
160
products is expensive
Organic food products cost
more than theyre worth.
As a student, I can't afford to
buy organic Mean
foods.
5.23
Scale Statistics
Variance
Because of my limited
financial
66.18
151.319
Std. Deviation
5.25 12.301
N of Items
1.505 13
160
allowance, buying organic food

products is not an option.
Organic shops are too far from
5.16
1.487
160
5.26
1.489
160
5.16
1.513
160
5.33
1.262
160
5.03
1.317
160
4.78
1.302
160
4.36
1.451
160
5.08
1.288
160
4.99
1.291
160
my house.
It is hard to look for organic
foods in nearby area.
Only few shops that I know sell
Even if organic food products
are available, the selection is
too limited.
There is a chance that
conventional food products are
The production of claimed
organic food products might not
meet the standard.
Health benefits from eating
organic foods are not yet
proven.
Sellers might claim their
products are organic to boost
the sales.
Nutritional value as labelled in
most organic products might be
inaccurate.
Health Eating Motivation (Intrinsic Motivation)
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.908
Item Statistics
Mean
I like to find new way to create
Std. Deviation
5.23
1.401
160
5.68
1.124
160
5.86
1.098
160
5.83
1.169
160
5.88
1.084
160
meals that are good for health.

It is fun to create meals that are
good for my health.
I am interested in eating
healthy.
I take pleasure in fixing healthy
meals.
I am satisfied with eating
healthy.
Scale Statistics
Mean
28.47
Variance
25.496
Std. Deviation
5.049
N of Items
5
Health yEating Motivation (Integrated Regulation)
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.956
Item Statistics
Mean
Eating healthily is an integral
Std. Deviation
5.63
1.316
160
5.59
1.300
160
5.71
1.184
160
5.61
1.313
160
5.64
1.276
160
part of my life.
Eating healthily is congruent
with other important aspects of
my life.
Eating healthily is base of my
life.
Regulating my eating behaviors
has become a fundamental part
of who I am.
Eating healthily is part of the
way I have chosen to live my
way
Scale Statistics
Mean
28.19
Variance
34.694
Std. Deviation
5.890
N of Items
5
Healthy Eating Motivation (Identified Regulation)
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.951
Item Statistics
Mean
I believe healthy eating will
Std. Deviation
6.01
1.116
160
6.04
1.075
160
6.01
1.200
160
5.89
1.185
160
5.84
1.197
160
make my mind and body

comfortable.
eventually allow me to feel
better
Healthy eating is a way to
ensure long-term health
benefits.
I believe healthy eating is a
good thing I can do to feel
Not only eat good food, healthy
eating is a good idea to try to
regulate my eating behaviors.
Scale Statistics
Mean
29.79
Variance
27.955
Std. Deviation
5.287
N of Items
5
AMotivation
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.908
Item Statistics
Mean
In regards to healthy eating I
Std. Deviation
3.77
1.731
160
3.98
1.658
160
3.56
1.790
160
3.52
1.745
160
3.61
1.870
160
dont really know. I truly have

the impression that Im wasting
my time trying to regulate my
eating behaviours.
cant really see Im getting out
of it
dont really know why I bother
dont know. I cant see how my
efforts to eat healthy are
helping my health situation
think there are more important
Scale Statistics
Mean
18.43
Variance
56.700
Std. Deviation
7.530
N of Items
5
Healthy Eating Motivation Overall
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.907
20
Item Statistics
Mean
I like to find new way to create
Std. Deviation
5.23
1.401
160
5.68
1.124
160
5.86
1.098
160
5.83
1.169
160
5.88
1.084
160
5.63
1.316
160
5.59
1.300
160
5.71
1.184
160
5.61
1.313
160
5.64
1.276
160
6.01
1.116
160
6.04
1.075
160
meals that are good for health.

It is fun to create meals that are
good for my health.
I am interested in eating
healthy.
I take pleasure in fixing healthy
meals.
I am satisfied with eating
healthy.
Eating healthily is an integral
part of my life.
Eating healthily is congruent
with other important aspects of
my life.
Eating healthily is base of my
life.
Regulating my eating behaviors
has become a fundamental part
of who I am.
Eating healthily is part of the
way I have chosen to live my
way
make my mind and body
comfortable.
eventually allow me to feel
better
Healthy eating is a way to
6.01
1.200
160
5.89
1.185
160
5.84
1.197
160
3.77
1.731
160
3.98
1.658
160
3.56
1.790
160
3.52
1.745
160
3.61
1.870
160
ensure long-term health

benefits.
I believe healthy eating is a
good thing I can do to feel
Not only eat good food, healthy
eating is a good idea to try to
regulate my eating behaviors.
dont really know. I truly have
the impression that Im wasting
my time trying to regulate my
eating behaviours.
cant really see Im getting out
of it
dont really know why I bother
dont know. I cant see how my
efforts to eat healthy are
helping my health situation
think there are more important
Scale Statistics
Mean
104.88
Variance
270.110
Std. Deviation
16.435
N of Items
20
Behavioral Intention
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.970
Item Statistics
Mean
I plan to buy organic food
Std. Deviation
4.79
1.324
160
4.79
1.300
160
4.72
1.314
160
4.77
1.314
160
products on a regular basis.

I intend to buy organic food
products on a regular basis
I have decided to buy organic
food products on a regular
basis.
I will buy organic food
products on a regular basis.
Scale Statistics
Mean
19.06
Variance
25.317
Std. Deviation
5.032
N of Items
4
Data Distribution Analysis
Statistics
MEAN_ATT
N
Valid
Missing
160
0
Mean
4.7741
Std. Deviation
.67549
Skewness
-.242
Std. Error of Skewness

Kurtosis
.192
-.034
Std. Error of Kurtosis
.381
Statistics
MEAN_BB
N
Valid
Missing
160
0
Mean
5.0188
Std. Deviation
.79106
Skewness
-.916

Kurtosis
.192
1.061
.381
Statistics
MEAN_OE
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Kurtosis
160
0
5.8469
1.07021
-1.653
.192
3.691
.381
Statistics
TOTAL_ATT
N
Valid
Missing
160
0
Mean
5.4342
Std. Deviation
.90735
Skewness
-1.584

Kurtosis
.192
4.635
.381
Statistics
MEAN_SN
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
4.4650
Std. Deviation
1.03488
Skewness
-.206

Kurtosis
.192
-.435
.381
Statistics
MEAN_NB
N
Valid
Missing
160
0
Mean
4.4300
Std. Deviation
.75376
Skewness
.869
.192
Kurtosis
1.357
.381
Statistics
MEAN_MTC
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
4.7050
Std. Deviation
1.16769
Skewness
-.357
.192
Kurtosis
.054
.381
Statistics
TOTAL_SN
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
4.4167
Std. Deviation
1.06328
Skewness
-.442
.192
Kurtosis
.652
.381
Statistics
MEAN_PBC
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Kurtosis
160
0
5.3266
1.00588
-1.106
.192
2.398
.381
Statistics
MEAN_SE
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
4.5325
Std. Deviation
1.15184
Skewness
-.199

Kurtosis
.192
-.362
.381
Statistics
MEAN_HSB
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
5.0875
Std. Deviation
1.10538
Skewness
-.843

Kurtosis
.192
1.193
.381
Statistics
MEAN_EB
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Kurtosis
160
0
5.1990
1.15084
-.764
.192
1.250
.381
Statistics
TOTAL_PB
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
5.1432
Std. Deviation
1.04928
Skewness
-.931

Kurtosis
.192
1.956
.381
Statistics
MEAN_CS
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
5.2594
Std. Deviation
1.20105
Skewness
-.531
.192
Kurtosis
.179
.381
Statistics
MEAN_AVL
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
160
0
5.2266
1.22980
-.631
.192
Kurtosis
.217
.381
Statistics
MEAN_TRS
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
4.8475
Std. Deviation
1.07329
Skewness
-.362
.192
Kurtosis
.798
.381
Statistics
TOTAL_PBR
N
Valid
Missing
160
0
Mean
5.0909
Std. Deviation
.94624
Skewness
-.557

Kurtosis
.192
1.981
.381
Statistics
MEAN_INM
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Kurtosis
160
0
5.6938
1.00987
-1.200
.192
2.845
.381
Statistics
MEAN_IR
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
5.6375
Std. Deviation
1.17804
Skewness
-1.174

Kurtosis
.192
1.359
.381
Statistics
MEAN_IDR
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
160
0
5.9575
Std. Deviation
1.05744
Skewness
-1.635

Kurtosis
.192
3.788
.381
Statistics
MEAN_AMT
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
160
0
3.6863
1.50598
Skewness
.157
.192
Kurtosis
-.719
.381
Statistics
TOTAL_HEM
N
Valid
Missing
160
0
Mean
5.2438
Std. Deviation
.82175
Skewness
-1.256

Kurtosis
.192
5.110
.381
Statistics
MEAN_BI
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
160
0
4.7656
1.25790
-.285
.192
Kurtosis
.164
.381
Mean Score Comparison

T-Test
Group Statistics
AGE_BINARY
MEAN_SE
MEAN_BI
TOTAL_SN
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
<24
105
4.5257
1.06311
.10375
>24
55
4.5455
1.31513
.17733
<24
105
4.7976
1.21494
.11857
>24
55
4.7045
1.34551
.18143
<24
105
4.4133
.97189
.09485
>24
55
4.4230
1.22868
.16568
independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of Variances
F
Sig.
df
Sig. (2-
Mean
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval
tailed)
Difference
Difference
of the Difference
Lower
Equal variances
MEAN_SE
4.154
.043
Upper
-.103
158
.918
-.01974
.19232
-.39960
.36012
-.096
91.714
.924
-.01974
.20545
-.42780
.38832
.443
158
.658
.09307
.20991
-.32151
.50766
.429
100.460
.669
.09307
.21674
-.33690
.52305
-.055
158
.957
-.00970
.17754
-.36036
.34096
-.051
90.167
.960
-.00970
.19090
-.38895
.36956
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Equal variances
MEAN_BI
.360
.550
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Equal variances
TOTAL_SN
3.348
.069
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Group Statistics
ETNICITYBINARY
MEAN_SE
MEAN_BI
TOTAL_SN
Mean
MALAY
NON-MALAY
MALAY
NON-MALAY
MALAY
NON-MALAY
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
133
4.6211
1.08020
.09366
27
4.0963
1.39711
.26887
133
4.8327
1.24876
.10828
27
4.4352
1.27399
.24518
133
4.4742
.97354
.08442
27
4.1333
1.41482
.27228
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
Sig. (2tailed)
Mean
Std. Error
Difference Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Equal variances
MEAN_SE
4.133
.044 2.184
Upper
158
.030
.52476
.24030
.05014
.99938
1.843 32.599
.074
.52476
.28472
-.05478
1.10430
158
.135
.39752
.26447
-.12484
.91988
1.483 36.855
.147
.39752
.26803
-.14562
.94066
158
.129
.34085
.22351
-.10060
.78231
1.196 31.182
.241
.34085
.28507
-.24041
.92211
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
MEAN_BI
.362
.548 1.503
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
TOTAL_SN
5.056
.026 1.525
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Group Statistics
GENDER_BINARY
MEAN_SE
MEAN_BI
TOTAL_SN
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
57
4.5193
1.31413
.17406
Levene's Test for
103
4.5398
1.05824
.10427
Equality of
57
4.9123
1.42873
.18924
Variances
103
4.6845
1.15202
.11351
F
Sig.
t 57 df 4.3240
Sig. (2Mean1.27848
Std. Error
95%
Confidence
.16934
2.00
tailed)
4.4680
103
.92602
Interval of the
.09124
Difference
Lower
Equal variances
MEAN_SE
5.832
.017 -.108
Upper
158
.915
-.02051
.19074
-.39724
.35623
-.101 96.576
.920
-.02051
.20290
-.42324
.38222
158
.274
.22781
.20752
-.18206
.63769
1.032 96.676
.304
.22781
.22067
-.21018
.66581
158
.414
-.14398
.17571
-.49103
.20306
-.749 89.113
.456
-.14398
.19236
-.52619
.23822
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
MEAN_BI
1.261
.263 1.098
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
TOTAL_SN
10.699
.001 -.819
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Group Statistics
YEAR_BINARY
MEAN_SE
MEAN_BI
TOTAL_SN
Mean
NON-GRADUATING
GRADUATING
4.4780
1.24167
.19392
119
4.5513
1.12415
.10305
41
4.5366
1.33060
.20781
119
4.8445
1.22776
.11255
41
4.4455
1.06369
.16612
119
4.4067
1.06746
.09785
NON-GRADUATING
GRADUATING
Std. Error Mean
41
NON-GRADUATING
GRADUATING
Std. Deviation

Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
Sig. (2tailed)
Mean
Std. Error
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Equal variances
MEAN_SE
.957
.330 -.350
Upper
158
.727
-.07321
.20916
-.48633
.33991
-.333 64.051
.740
-.07321
.21960
-.51190
.36548
158
.177
-.30795
.22719
-.75668
.14078
- 65.013
.197
-.30795
.23633
-.77993
.16402
158
.841
.03881
.19313
-.34265
.42026
.201 69.729
.841
.03881
.19280
-.34574
.42336
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
MEAN_BI
.017
.896
assumed
1.355
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
TOTAL_SN
1.303
.251
.617
.201
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Group Statistics
SPENDING_BINARY
MEAN_SE
MEAN_BI
TOTAL_SN
UNDER PRIVILEGED
PRIVILEGED
UNDER PRIVILEGED
PRIVILEGED
UNDER PRIVILEGED
PRIVILEGED
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
106
4.6208
1.18078
.11469
54
4.3593
1.08254
.14732
106
4.8726
1.29387
.12567
54
4.5556
1.16723
.15884
106
4.4610
1.13898
.11063
54
4.3296
.89998
.12247

Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
Sig. (2tailed)
Mean
Std. Error
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Equal variances
MEAN_SE
.220
.640 1.362
Upper
158
.175
.26150
.19206
-.11784
.64083
1.401 115.330
.164
.26150
.18669
-.10830
.63129
158
.132
.31709
.20946
-.09661
.73079
1.566 116.983
.120
.31709
.20254
-.08404
.71821
158
.462
.13138
.17802
-.22024
.48299
.796 130.814
.427
.13138
.16504
-.19511
.45787
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
MEAN_BI
1.289
.258 1.514
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
TOTAL_SN
3.252
.073
.738
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Group Statistics
BMI_BINARY
MEAN_SE
MEAN_BI
TOTAL_SN
Mean
NORMAL
NOT NORMAL
NORMAL
NOT NORMAL
NORMAL
NOT NORMAL
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
100
4.4280
1.16481
.11648
60
4.7067
1.11779
.14431
100
4.6550
1.29723
.12972
60
4.9500
1.17693
.15194
100
4.3540
1.04045
.10404
60
4.5211
1.10117
.14216

Levene's Test
for Equality
of Variances
F
Sig.
df
Sig.
(2-
Mean
Std. Error
tailed)
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Equal
.019
.891
variances
MEAN_SE
158
.139
-.27867
.18738
1.487
-.6487
Upper
.09143
assumed
Equal
variances
128.435
.135
-.27867
.18545
1.503
-.6456
.08827
not assumed
Equal
.273
.602
variances
MEAN_BI
158
.152
-.29500
.20472
1.441
-.6993
.10934
assumed
Equal
variances
133.947
.142
-.29500
.19979
1.477
-.6901
.10014
not assumed
Equal
.310
.578
-.962
158
.337
-.16711
.17367
variances
TOTAL_SN
-.5101
.17591
assumed
Equal
variances
not assumed
-.949
118.818
.345
-.16711
.17617
-.5159
5
.18172
Mean Score Comparison

Mann Whitney Test
Ranks
AGE_BINARY
TOTAL_ATT
MEAN_PBC
TOTAL_PB
TOTAL_PBR
TOTAL_HEM
Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
<24
105
82.04
8614.50
>24
55
77.55
4265.50
Total
160
<24
105
76.22
8003.50
>24
55
88.66
4876.50
Total
160
<24
105
81.66
8574.50
>24
55
78.28
4305.50
Total
160
<24
105
83.86
8805.50
>24
55
74.08
4074.50
Total
160
<24
105
77.01
8086.50
>24
55
87.15
4793.50
Total
160
Test Statisticsa
TOTAL_ATT
MEAN_PBC
TOTAL_PB
TOTAL_PBR
TOTAL_HEM
Mann-Whitney U
2725.500
2438.500
2765.500
2534.500
2521.500
Wilcoxon W
4265.500
8003.500
4305.500
4074.500
8086.500
-.582
-1.622
-.439
-1.269
-1.315
.560
.105
.661
.204
.188
Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Grouping Variable: AGE_BINARY
Ranks
GENDER_BINARY
TOTAL_ATT
MEAN_PBC
TOTAL_PB
TOTAL_PBR
TOTAL_HEM
Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
1.00
57
83.18
4741.50
2.00
103
79.01
8138.50
Total
160
1.00
57
89.69
5112.50
2.00
103
75.41
7767.50
Total
160
1.00
57
81.99
4673.50
2.00
103
79.67
8206.50
Total
160
1.00
57
75.95
4329.00
2.00
103
83.02
8551.00
Total
160
1.00
57
84.37
4809.00
2.00
103
78.36
8071.00
Total
160
Test Statisticsa
TOTAL_ATT
MEAN_PBC
TOTAL_PB
TOTAL_PBR
TOTAL_HEM
Mann-Whitney U
2782.500
2411.500
2850.500
2676.000
2715.000
Wilcoxon W
8138.500
7767.500
8206.500
4329.000
8071.000
-.545
-1.877
-.303
-.925
-.786
.586
.060
.762
.355
.432
Z
a. Grouping Variable: GENDER_BINARY
Ranks
ETNICITYBINARY
MALAY
TOTAL_ATT
MEAN_PBC
TOTAL_PB
TOTAL_PBR
TOTAL_HEM
NON-MALAY
Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
133
83.86
11154.00
27
63.93
1726.00
Total
160
MALAY
133
80.60
10720.00
27
80.00
2160.00
NON-MALAY
Total
160
MALAY
133
85.50
11371.50
27
55.87
1508.50
NON-MALAY
Total
160
MALAY
133
84.83
11282.50
27
59.17
1597.50
NON-MALAY
Total
160
MALAY
133
81.59
10851.50
27
75.13
2028.50
NON-MALAY
Total
160
Test Statisticsa
TOTAL_ATT
MEAN_PBC
TOTAL_PB
TOTAL_PBR
TOTAL_HEM
Mann-Whitney U
1348.000
1782.000
1130.500
1219.500
1650.500
Wilcoxon W
1726.000
2160.000
1508.500
1597.500
2028.500
-2.040
-.062
-3.034
-2.626
-.661
.041
.951
.002
.009
.509
Z
a. Grouping Variable: ETNICITYBINARY
Ranks
YEAR_BINARY
Mean Rank
NON-GRADUATING
TOTAL_ATT
41
71.71
2940.00
GRADUATING
119
83.53
9940.00
Total
160
41
74.43
3051.50
GRADUATING
119
82.59
9828.50
Total
160
41
74.41
3051.00
GRADUATING
119
82.60
9829.00
Total
160
41
73.52
3014.50
GRADUATING
119
82.90
9865.50
Total
160
41
73.60
3017.50
GRADUATING
119
82.88
9862.50
Total
160
NON-GRADUATING
MEAN_PBC
NON-GRADUATING
TOTAL_PB
NON-GRADUATING
TOTAL_PBR
NON-GRADUATING
TOTAL_HEM
Sum of Ranks
Test Statisticsa
TOTAL_ATT
MEAN_PBC
TOTAL_PB
TOTAL_PBR
TOTAL_HEM
Mann-Whitney U
2079.000
2190.500
2190.000
2153.500
2156.500
Wilcoxon W
2940.000
3051.500
3051.000
3014.500
3017.500
-1.410
-.979
-.977
-1.119
-1.107
.159
.328
.329
.263
.268
Z
a. Grouping Variable: YEAR_BINARY
Ranks
SPENDING_BINARY
UNDER PRIVILEGED
TOTAL_ATT
MEAN_PBC
TOTAL_PB
TOTAL_PBR
TOTAL_HEM
Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
106
86.35
9153.50
54
69.01
3726.50
PRIVILEGED
Total
160
UNDER PRIVILEGED
106
81.90
8681.00
54
77.76
4199.00
PRIVILEGED
Total
160
UNDER PRIVILEGED
106
86.28
9146.00
54
69.15
3734.00
PRIVILEGED
Total
160
UNDER PRIVILEGED
106
82.97
8795.00
54
75.65
4085.00
PRIVILEGED
Total
160
UNDER PRIVILEGED
106
87.32
9255.50
54
67.12
3624.50
PRIVILEGED
Total
160
Test Statisticsa
TOTAL_ATT
MEAN_PBC
TOTAL_PB
TOTAL_PBR
TOTAL_HEM
Mann-Whitney U
2241.500
2714.000
2249.000
2600.000
2139.500
Wilcoxon W
3726.500
4199.000
3734.000
4085.000
3624.500
-2.240
-.537
-2.215
-.946
-2.608
.025
.591
.027
.344
.009
Z
a. Grouping Variable: SPENDING_BINARY
Ranks
BMI_BINARY
NORMAL
TOTAL_ATT
MEAN_PBC
TOTAL_PB
TOTAL_PBR
TOTAL_HEM
Mean Rank
Sum of Ranks
100
74.96
7496.00
60
89.73
5384.00
NOT NORMAL
Total
160
NORMAL
100
76.91
7690.50
60
86.49
5189.50
NOT NORMAL
Total
160
NORMAL
100
73.78
7377.50
60
91.71
5502.50
NOT NORMAL
Total
160
NORMAL
100
72.60
7259.50
60
93.68
5620.50
NOT NORMAL
Total
160
NORMAL
100
82.10
8210.00
60
77.83
4670.00
NOT NORMAL
Total
160
Test Statisticsa
TOTAL_ATT
MEAN_PBC
TOTAL_PB
TOTAL_PBR
TOTAL_HEM
Mann-Whitney U
2446.000
2640.500
2327.500
2209.500
2840.000
Wilcoxon W
7496.000
7690.500
7377.500
7259.500
4670.000
-1.953
-1.274
-2.374
-2.788
-.564
.051
.203
.018
.005
.573
Z
a. Grouping Variable: BMI_BINARY
Correlation Analysis
Correlations
TOTAL_ATT
Correlation Coefficient
TOTAL_ATT
.459**
.000
.000
160
160
160
160
.499**
1.000
.384**
.518**
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
160
160
160
160
**
**
1.000
.326**
.430
.384
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
160
160
160
160
.459**
.518**
.326**
1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
160
160
160
160
MEAN_BI
.430
MEAN_BI
**
.000
MEAN_PBC
.499
MEAN_PBC
**
Spearman's rho
1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
TOTAL_SN
TOTAL_SN
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
Correlations
MEAN_SE
.564**
.000
.000
160
160
160
.349**
1.000
.466**
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
160
160
160
**
**
1.000
TOTAL_HEM
MEAN_BI
1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Spearman's rho
MEAN_BI
**
MEAN_SE
TOTAL_HEM
.564
.349
.466
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
160
160
160
Correlations
TOTAL_PB
.505**
.000
.000
160
160
160
.450**
1.000
.335**
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
160
160
160
**
**
1.000
TOTAL_PBR
MEAN_BI
1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Spearman's rho
MEAN_BI
**
TOTAL_PB
TOTAL_PBR
.505
.450
.335
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
160
160
160
Correlations
Correlation
TOTAL
TOTA
MEAN
MEA
TOTA
_ATT
L_SN
_PBC
N_SE
L_PB
1.000
.499
**
.430
**
.372
**
.689
TOTAL TOTAL_
_PBR
**
.450
HEM
**
.441
MEA
N_BI
**
.459**
TOTAL_ Coefficient
ATT
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
.499**
1.000
.384**
.651**
.586**
.297**
.467**
.518**
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
**
**
1.000
**
**
**
**
.326**
N
Correlation
TOTAL_ Coefficient
SN
Correlation
.430
.384
.424
.474
.217
.477
MEAN_
Coefficient
PBC
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.003
.000
.000
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
.372**
.651**
.424**
1.000
.497**
.167*
.349**
.564**
Correlation
MEAN_
Coefficient
SE
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.017
.000
.000
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
**
**
**
**
1.000
**
**
.505**
Spearman
's rho
Correlation
.689
.586
.474
.497
.450
.412
TOTAL_ Coefficient
PB
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
.450**
.297**
.217**
.167*
.450**
1.000
.362**
.335**
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.003
.017
.000
.000
.000
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
**
**
**
**
**
**
1.000
.466**
Correlation
TOTAL_ Coefficient
PBR
Correlation
.441
.467
.477
.349
.412
.362
TOTAL_ Coefficient
HEM
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
.459**
.518**
.326**
.564**
.505**
.335**
.466**
1.000
Correlation
MEAN_
Coefficient
BI
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
APPENDIX D: Calculation

Study On Psychosocial Dispositions of University Students and The Intention To Purchase Organic Food Products

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Study On Psychosocial Dispositions of University Students and The Intention To Purchase Organic Food Products

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A STUDY ON PSYCHOSOCIAL DISPOSITIONS OF

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND THE INTENTION TO

NUR IZZATI BINTI SAIN

FACULTY OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS PSYCHOSOCIAL

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA (UiTM)

Keyword: Organic Food , Products, Psychosocial Disposition, Attitude, Purchase Intention,

Nur Izzati binti Sain

4.0Descriptive Analysis for Demographic Profile........................................

Background of the study

As researchers identified a positive association between consumers

environmental impact, whereas commodity-specific concerns include freshness, taste and

Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI), an agency that

1. To determine the level of psychosocial dispositions of university students to purchase

Perceived Benefits significantly and positively influences respondents intention to

Perceived Barriers significantly and negatively influences respondents intention to

Self-efficacy significantly and positively influences respondents intention to

Healthy Eating Motivation significantly and positively influences respondents

Attitudes significantly and positively influences respondents intention to purchase

Subjective Norms significantly and positively influences respondents

Perceived Behavioural Control significantly and positively influences

Significance of the Study

Contribution to the agriculture sector

Relevant government agencies MARDI, FAMA and Lembaga

Contribution to the retailers

Public Health Departments/Institute/Nutritionist

These psychosocial aspects were abstracted from the

Jung (1971) interprets

attitude as a psychological construct that represents an individuals readiness to act or react in

is the attitude towards sustainable consumption (Reheul et al., 2001).

It is arguably the most

Health Belief Model

Healthy Eating Motivation

Unlike motivation dimensions, amotivation is

Health Belief Model

Theory of Planned Behaviour

the instrument used are also provided in this chapter.

identify any association between studied variables.

Because of the current study was

intended to ascertain of the degree of association between respondents psychosocial

Population and Sample Size

Although it is acknowledged that university

Using this technique, the researcher

conveniently distributed the questionnaires to International Islamic University

Data Collection Procedure

To identify potential respondents, the researcher

Section A was focused on collecting

Survey Returned Rate

When asked regarding their academic information, most respondents reported

Academic Field of Current Programme

Year of Academic Programme

Daily Meals Allowance (RM)

Question item 12 18: Attitude

Attitude items in this part directly measured respondents

overall evaluation of organic food consumption and purchase.

Question item 19 24: Indirect Measure Behavioural Belief

Questionnaire item 25 30: Outcome Evaluation

Questionnaire item 31 35: Subjective Norm Direct Measure

Question item 36 40: Subjective Norm Indirect Measure Normative Belief

My loved one thinks I SHOULD NOT waste my money on

Question item 41 45: Subjective Norm Indirect Measure Motivation to Comply

Question item 46 49: Perceived Behavior Control

Table 4.7summarises the mean values for all Perceived Behaviour