The Effects of Consumers’ Perceived Values on Intention to Purchase Upcycled Products
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
2.1.1. Upcycled Products and Consumers’ Perceived Value
2.1.2. Upcycled Product Attitude and Purchase Intention
2.1.3. Purchase Experience as a Moderating Variable
2.2. Methodology
2.2.1. Data Collection and Sample
2.2.2. Measures
2.2.3. Method
3. Results
3.1. Measurement Model
3.2. Structural Paths and Hypotheses Tests
3.3. Moderating Effects of Purchase Experience
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Osmani, M.; Glass, J.; Price, A.D. Architects’ perspectives on construction waste reduction by design. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 1147–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, J. Upcycling Becomes a Treasure Trove for Green Business Ideas. 2011. Available online: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/219310 (accessed on 16 February 2019).
- Bridgens, B.; Powell, M.; Farmer, G.; Walsh, C.; Reed, E.; Royapoor, M.; Gosling, P.; Hall, J.; Heidrich, O. Creative upcycling: Reconnecting people, materials and place through making. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teli, M.; Valia, S.P.; Maurya, S.; Shitole, P. Sustainability Based Upcycling and Value Addition of Textile Apparels. 2014. Available online: http://globalilluminators.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MISG-14-144.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2019).
- Ali, N.S.; Khairuddin, N.F.; Zainal Abidin, S. Upcycling: Re-Use and Recreate Functional Interior Space Using Waste Materials. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Dublin, Ireland, 5–6 September 2013; pp. 798–803. [Google Scholar]
- McDonough, W.; Braungart, M. Design for the triple top line: New tools for sustainable commerce. Corp. Environ. Strategy 2002, 9, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- XU, J.; Gu, P. Five principles of waste product redesign under the upcycling concept. In Proceedings of the International Forum on Energy, Environment Science and Materials (IFEESM 2015), Shenzhen, China, 25–26 September 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Sung, K. Sustainable Production and Consumption by Upcycling: Understanding and Scaling-Up Niche Environmentally Significant Behaviour. Ph.D. Thesis, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Park, H.H. The influence of lohas consumption tendency and perceived consumer effectiveness on trust and purchase intention regarding upcycling fashion goods. Int. J. Hum. Ecol. 2015, 16, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, M. When creative consumers go green: Understanding consumer upcycling. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2016, 25, 394–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, X.; Jung, S. Understanding chinese consumers’ intention to purchase sustainable fashion products: The moderating role of face-saving orientation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1570. [Google Scholar]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychol. Rev. 1974, 81, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, H.J.; Lin, L.M. Exploring attitude-behavior gap in sustainable consumption: Comparison of recycled and upcycled fashion products. J. Bus. Res. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salazar-Ordóñez, M.; Rodríguez-Entrena, M.; Cabrera, E.R.; Henseler, J. Understanding product differentiation failures: The role of product knowledge and brand credence in olive oil markets. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 68, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, A.R.; Monroe, K.B. The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 253–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheth, J.N.; Newman, B.I.; Gross, B.L. Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. J. Bus. Res. 1991, 22, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.-S.; Chang, C.-H. Enhance green purchase intentions: The roles of green perceived value, green perceived risk, and green trust. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 502–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slotegraaf, R.J. Keep the door open: Innovating toward a more sustainable future. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2012, 29, 349–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinhilper, R.; Hieber, M. In Remanufacturing-the key solution for transforming” downcycling” into” upcycling” of electronics. 2001. In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, Denver, CO, USA, 7–9 May 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Braungart, M.; McDonough, W.; Bollinger, A. Cradle-to-cradle design: Creating healthy emissions—A strategy for eco-effective product and system design. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1337–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sung, K. A review on upcycling: Current body of literature, knowledge gaps and a way forward. In Proceedings of the ICECESS 2015: 17th International Conference on Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, Venice, Italy, 13–14 April 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Goldsmith, B. Trash or treasure? Upcycling becomes growing green trend. Retrieved 2009, 9, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Paraskevas, D.; Kellens, K.; Dewulf, W.; Duflou, J.R. Sustainable metal management and recycling loops: Life cycle assessment for aluminium recycling strategies. In Re-Engineering Manufacturing for Sustainability; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 403–408. [Google Scholar]
- Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sweeney, J.C.; Soutar, G.N. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. J. Retail. 2001, 77, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holbrook, M.B. Customer value and autoethnography: Subjective personal introspection and the meanings of a photograph collection. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keller, K.L. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, M.; Noble, C.H. Beyond form and function: Why do consumers value product design? J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 613–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, C.; Wang, F.; Huisman, J.; den Hollander, M. Products that go round: Exploring product life extension through design. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 69, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sung, K.; Cooper, T. Sarah turner-eco-artist and designer through craft-based upcycling. Craft Res. 2015, 6, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwan, J.-S. Based on the perspective of sustainability, the characteristics of upcycle fashion design. Fash. Text. Res. J. 2012, 14, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McColl, J.; Canning, C.; McBride, L.; Nobbs, K.; Shearer, L. It’s vintage darling! An exploration of vintage fashion retailing. J. Text. Inst. 2013, 104, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belk, R.W. Possessions and the extended self. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 139–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirgy, M.J.; Grewal, D.; Mangleburg, T.F.; Park, J.-O.; Chon, K.-S.; Claiborne, C.B.; Johar, J.; Berkman, H. Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1997, 25, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sung, K.; Cooper, T.; Kettley, S. An exploratory study on the consequences of individual upcycling: Is it worth making people feel attached to their upcycled products? In Proceedings of the CADBE Doctoral Conference 2015, Nottingham, UK, 8–9 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Mugge, R.; Schoormans, J.P.; Schifferstein, H.N. Product attachment: Design strategies to stimulate the emotional bonding to products. In Product Experience; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Kraus, S.J. Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1995, 21, 58–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kong, H.M.; Ko, E.; Chae, H.; Mattila, P. Understanding fashion consumers’ attitude and behavioral intention toward sustainable fashion products: Focus on sustainable knowledge sources and knowledge types. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2016, 7, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.-S.; Hung, S.-T.; Wang, T.-Y.; Huang, A.-F.; Liao, Y.-W. The influence of excessive product packaging on green brand attachment: The mediation roles of green brand attitude and green brand image. Sustainability 2017, 9, 654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fazio, R.H. Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The mode model as an integrative framework. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Engel, J.; Blackwell, R.; Miniard, P. Consumer Behavior; Dryden: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Homer, P.M.; Kahle, L.R. A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 638–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norman, P.; Smith, L. The theory of planned behaviour and exercise: An investigation into the role of prior behaviour, behavioural intentions and attitude variability. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 25, 403–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrus, G.; Passafaro, P.; Bonnes, M. Emotions, habits and rational choices in ecological behaviours: The case of recycling and use of public transportation. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Linden, S. Charitable intent: A moral or social construct? A revised theory of planned behavior model. Curr. Psychol. 2011, 30, 355–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, G. The fair trade movement: Parameters, issues and future research. J. Bus. Ethics 2004, 53, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pickett-Baker, J.; Ozaki, R. Pro-environmental products: Marketing influence on consumer purchase decision. J. Consum. Mark. 2008, 25, 281–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alba, J.W.; Hutchinson, J.W. Dimensions of consumer expertise. J. Consum. Res. 1987, 13, 411–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bettman, J.R.; Sujan, M. Effects of framing on evaluation of comparable and noncomparable alternatives by expert and novice consumers. J. Consum. Res. 1987, 14, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, C.W.; Lessig, V.P. Familiarity and its impact on consumer decision biases and heuristics. J. Consum. Res. 1981, 8, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, C.W.; Mothersbaugh, D.L.; Feick, L. Consumer knowledge assessment. J. Consum. Res. 1994, 21, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zanna, M.P.; Fazio, R. Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1981, 14, 162–202. [Google Scholar]
- Ahn, C.-H.; Jung, S. Characteristics of purchasers and non-purchasers of environmental products. Home Manag. Assoc. Korea 2004, 22, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sung, K.; Cooper, T.; Kettley, S. Individual Upcycling Practice: Exploring the Possible Determinants of Upcycling Based on a Literature Review. In Proceedings of the Sustainable Innovation Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 3–4 November 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Snoj, B.; Pisnik Korda, A.; Mumel, D. The relationships among perceived quality, perceived risk and perceived product value. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2004, 13, 156–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gentile, C.; Spiller, N.; Noci, G. How to sustain the customer experience:: An overview of experience components that co-create value with the customer. Eur. Manag. J. 2007, 25, 395–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarkson, J.J.; Janiszewski, C.; Cinelli, M.D. The desire for consumption knowledge. J. Consum. Res. 2012, 39, 1313–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leder, H.; Belke, B.; Oeberst, A.; Augustin, D. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. Br. J. Psychol. 2004, 95, 489–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jacobsen, T. Beauty and the brain: Culture, history and individual differences in aesthetic appreciation. J. Anat. 2010, 216, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gardial, S.F.; Clemons, D.S.; Woodruff, R.B.; Schumann, D.W.; Burns, M.J. Comparing consumers’ recall of prepurchase and postpurchase product evaluation experiences. J. Consum. Res. 1994, 20, 548–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, H.R. Antecedents and consequences of consumer value assessments: Implications for marketing strategy and future research. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2001, 8, 299–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simintiras, A.; Diamantopoulos, A.; Ferriday, J. Pre-purchase satisfaction and first-time buyer behaviour: Some preliminary evidence. Eur. J. Mark. 1997, 31, 857–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boztepe, S. User value: Competing theories and models. Int. J. Des. 2007, 1, 55–63. [Google Scholar]
- McCright, A.M.; Dentzman, K.; Charters, M.; Dietz, T. The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 044029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jung Choo, H.; Moon, H.; Kim, H.; Yoon, N. Luxury customer value. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2012, 16, 81–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Till, B.D.; Busler, M. The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs. J. Advert. 2000, 29, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Kim, J.; Yu, J. Effects of congruence of product, visual image, and consumer self-image on art infusion advertising. Soc. Behav. Personal. 2015, 43, 1725–1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Routledge: Abington, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- MacKinnon, D.P.; Lockwood, C.M.; Williams, J. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2004, 39, 99–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis, 3rd ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sania, U.; Kalpina, K.; Javed, H. Diversity, employee morale and customer satisfaction: The three musketeers. J. Econ. Bus. Manag. 2015, 3, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, M.H. Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 2003, 84, 2809–2815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahluwalia, R. How prevalent is the negativity effect in consumer environments? J. Consum. Res. 2002, 29, 270–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, K.; Lee, J. Antecedents and consequences of ecotourism behavior: Independent and interdependent self-construals, ecological belief, willingness to pay for ecotourism services and satisfaction with life. Sustainability 2018, 10, 789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guido, G.; Prete, M.I.; Peluso, A.M.; Maloumby-Baka, R.C.; Buffa, C. The role of ethics and product personality in the intention to purchase organic food products: A structural equation modeling approach. Int. Rev. Econ. 2010, 57, 79–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kempton, W.; Boster, J.S.; Hartley, J.A. Environmental Values in American Culture; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Luchs, M.G.; Naylor, R.W.; Irwin, J.R.; Raghunathan, R. The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. J. Mark. 2010, 74, 18–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalogeras, N.; Valchovska, S.; Baourakis, G.; Kalaitzis, P. Dutch consumers’ willingness to pay for organic olive oil. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2009, 21, 286–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulaga, W. Capturing value creation in business relationships: A customer perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2003, 32, 677–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980; ISBN 0139364439. [Google Scholar]
- Straughan, R.D.; Roberts, J.A. Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. J. Consum. Mark. 1999, 16, 558–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Y.; Choi, S.M. Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and pce. ACR N. Am. Adv. 2005, 32, 592–599. [Google Scholar]
Measure | Definition | Measurement | Sources |
---|---|---|---|
Green value | The degree of customer perception of environmental needs, sustainable expectations, and green impact from upcycled products |
| [11,17] |
Functional value | The degree of customer perception of the functional, utilitarian, and physical performance of upcycled products |
| [11,25] |
Emotional value | The degree of customer perception of the capacity to arouse feelings or affective states of upcycled products |
| [11,25] |
Aesthetic value | The degree of customer perception of the attractiveness and beauty of upcycled products |
| [28] |
Social value | The degree of customer perception of the ability to increase perceived status or self-esteem of upcycled products |
| [11,25] |
Self-expression value | The degree of customer perception of reflective self-identity and personality from upcycled products |
| [66] |
Product attitude | The degree of consumer thought and beliefs around upcycled products |
| [67] |
Purchase intention | The degree of willingness to purchase upcycled products |
| [68] |
Construct | Factor Loadings | Cronbach’s α | Composite Reliability (CR) | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Green value | 0.758 | 0.78 | 0.544 | |
GV1 | 0.841 | |||
GV2 | 0.432 | |||
GV3 | 0.703 | |||
GV4 | 0.656 | |||
Functional value | 0.893 | 0.897 | 0.744 | |
FV1 | 0.811 | |||
FV2 | 0.891 | |||
FV3 | 0.884 | |||
Emotional value | 0.938 | 0.938 | 0.752 | |
EV1 | 0.908 | |||
EV2 | 0.908 | |||
EV3 | 0.807 | |||
EV4 | 0.884 | |||
EV5 | 0.825 | |||
Aesthetic value | 0.828 | 0.838 | 0.634 | |
AV1 | 0.751 | |||
AV2 | 0.866 | |||
AV3 | 0.766 | |||
Social value | 0.912 | 0.915 | 0.731 | |
SV1 | 0.854 | |||
SV2 | 0.92 | |||
SV3 | 0.906 | |||
SV4 | 0.725 | |||
Self-expression value | 0.822 | 0.833 | 0.629 | |
SEV1 | 0.83 | |||
SEV2 | 0.899 | |||
SEV3 | 0.625 | |||
Product attitude | 0.911 | 0.911 | 0.773 | |
PA1 | 0.871 | |||
PA2 | 0.878 | |||
PA3 | 0.889 | |||
Purchase intention | 0.908 | 0.907 | 0.765 | |
PI1 | 0.839 | |||
PI2 | 0.881 | |||
PI3 | 0.902 |
Mean | S.D. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | GV | 5.71 | 0.99 | 0.738 * | |||||||
2 | FV | 5.34 | 1.27 | 0.468 | 0.863 * | ||||||
3 | EV | 5.50 | 1.29 | 0.578 | 0.773 | 0.867 * | |||||
4. | AV | 5.28 | 1.73 | 0.528 | 0.778 | 0.655 | 0.796 * | ||||
5 | SV | 4.01 | 1.25 | 0.306 | 0.466 | 0.463 | 0.480 | 0.855 * | |||
6 | SEV | 5.06 | 1.39 | 0.502 | 0.661 | 0.785 | 0.558 | 0.729 | 0.793 * | ||
7 | PA | 5.47 | 1.29 | 0.549 | 0.661 | 0.798 | 0.387 | 0.733 | 0.680 | 0.879 * | |
8 | PI | 5.54 | 1.40 | 0.496 | 0.657 | 0.760 | 0.374 | 0.725 | 0.658 | 0.790 | 0.875* |
H | Path | β | S.E. | C.R. | Result | R2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | GV → PA | 0.285 * | 0.089 | 3.223 | Accepted | |
H2 | FV → PA | −0.264 | 0.154 | −1.719 | Rejected | |
H3 | EV → PA | 0.573 ** | 0.142 | 4.027 | Accepted | |
H4 | AV → PA | 0.535 ** | 0.257 | 2.079 | Accepted | |
H5 | SV → PA | −0.009 | 0.038 | −0.229 | Rejected | |
H6 | SEV → PA | −0.103 | 0.149 | −0.697 | Rejected | 0.66 |
H7 | PA → PI | 0.962 | 0.46 | 20.970 | Accepted | 0.74 |
IV | M | DV | Effect of IV on M (a) | Effect of M on DV (b) | Direct Effect (c‘) | Indirect Effect (a*b) | Total Effect (c) | 95% CI | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GV | PA | PI | 0.743 ** | 0.963 ** | −0.013 | 0.715 ** | 0.703 ** | (0.608 0.772) | Full |
EV | PA | PI | 0.847 ** | 0.815 ** | 0.165 * | 0.702 ** | 0.867 ** | (0.581 0.846) | Partial |
AV | PA | PI | 0.841 ** | 0.843 ** | 0.131 * | 0.708 ** | 0.839 ** | (0.580 0.866) | Partial |
Model | χ2 | df | CFI | RMSEA | △χ2 | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Free model | 44.099 | 12 | 0.989 | 0.079 | ||
Constrained model 1 (GV → PA) | 53.086 | 13 | 0.982 | 0.086 | 8.99 | <0.001 |
Constrained model 2 (FV →PA) | 51.615 | 13 | 0.983 | 0.085 | 7.52 | <0.001 |
Constrained model 3 (EV →PA) | 45.628 | 13 | 0.986 | 0.078 | ||
Constrained model 4 (AV →PA) | 44.146 | 13 | 0.987 | 0.077 | ||
Constrained model 5 (SV →PA) | 44.100 | 13 | 0.987 | 0.077 | ||
Constrained model 6 (SEV →PA) | 45.986 | 13 | 0.986 | 0.076 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yu, S.; Lee, J. The Effects of Consumers’ Perceived Values on Intention to Purchase Upcycled Products. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1034. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041034
Yu S, Lee J. The Effects of Consumers’ Perceived Values on Intention to Purchase Upcycled Products. Sustainability. 2019; 11(4):1034. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041034
Chicago/Turabian StyleYu, Somi, and Jieun Lee. 2019. "The Effects of Consumers’ Perceived Values on Intention to Purchase Upcycled Products" Sustainability 11, no. 4: 1034. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041034
APA StyleYu, S., & Lee, J. (2019). The Effects of Consumers’ Perceived Values on Intention to Purchase Upcycled Products. Sustainability, 11(4), 1034. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041034