Journal List > Korean J Community Nutr > v.16(1) > 1038340

TOOLS
Chung, Kang, and Lee: Usefulness, Attitude for Using and Purchase Intention on Food Labeling of Housewives and University Students
Original Article
Korean Journal of Community Nutrition

Korean Journal of Community Nutrition 2011; 16(1): 86-97.

Published online: 28 February 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2011.16.1.86

Usefulness, Attitude for Using and Purchase Intention on Food Labeling of Housewives and University Students

Hye-Kyung Chung, Ju Hee Kang1, Hae-Young Lee2

Department of Nutrition Services, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

1Department of Food and Nutrition, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.

2Department of Food and Nutrition, Sangji University, Wonju, Korea.

Corresponding author: Hae-Young Lee, Department of Food and Nutrition, Sangji University, 660 Woosan-dong, Wonju 220-702, Korea. Tel: (033) 730-0492, Fax: (033) 738-7740, hy1317@sangji.ac.kr

Received 18 November 2010       Revised 24 January 2011       Accepted 9 February 2011

Copyright © 2011 The Korean Society of Community Nutrition

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the usefulness, attitude for using on food labeling such as nutrition labeling, organic food labeling and food additives labeling, and purchase intention in Korean housewives and university students. A total of 320 subjects participated in study from October to November in 2008. They answered to developed questionnaire and 300 subjects (149 housewives, 151 students) completed all questions. The statistical analyses were performed using by SPSS 17.0 package program. The rates of checking the nutrition labeling, organic food labeling and food additives labeling were 57.3%, 57.2% and 63.3%, respectively. Comparing housewives with university students, housewives showed significantly more positive usefulness, attitude for using, purchase intention in some questions about nutrition labeling, organic food labeling and food additives labeling (p < 0.05). Subjects who checked each food labeling on purchasing had more positive usefulness, attitude for using and purchase intention in all questions (p < 0.01). For nutrition labeling and organic food labeling, usefulness (each value of β was 0.362, 0.354) and attitude for using (each value of β was 0.336, 0.301) were independent factors for purchase intention (p < 0.001). For food additives labeling, only usefulness had an effect on purchase intention. In conclusion, usefulness, attitude for using food labeling and purchase intention were different between housewives and university students. Moreover, usefulness and attitude for using food labeling affected positively on purchase intention.

Keywords: usefulness, attitude for using, purchase intention, food labeling

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1
The rate of subjects who check the nutrition labeling.
kjcn-16-86-g001
Fig. 2
The rate of subjects who check organic food labeling.
kjcn-16-86-g002
Fig. 3
The rate of subjects who check food additives labeling.
kjcn-16-86-g003
Table 1
General characteristics of subjects
kjcn-16-86-i001

***: p < 0.001

1) For housewives

2) For housewives having a child

Table 2
Usefulness, attitude for using and purchase intention about nutrition labeling
kjcn-16-86-i002

*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001

1) Likert-type 5 point scale : 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree

2) Reverse coding

Table 3
Usefulness, attitude for using and purchase intention about organic food labeling
kjcn-16-86-i003

**: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001

1) Likert-type 5 point scale : 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree

2) Reverse coding

Table 4
Usefulness, attitude for using and purchase intention about food additives labeling
kjcn-16-86-i004

*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001

1) Likert-type 5 point scale : 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree

2) Reverse coding

Table 5
Correlation of usefulness, attitude for using with purchase intention about food labeling
kjcn-16-86-i005

***: p < 0.001

1) Correlation coefficient

Table 6
Regression of usefulness and attitude for using on purchase intention about food labeling
kjcn-16-86-i006

1) R = 0.637 R2 = 0.405 adjusted R2 = 0.401 F = 101.150***

2) R = 0.619 R2 = 0.384 adjusted R2 = 0.380 F = 92.440***

3) R = 0.486 R2 = 0.236 adjusted R2 = 0.231 F = 45.961***

**: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001

Notes

This research was supported by Sangji University Research Fund, 2008.

References

1. An HK, Jin YH. Effect of the consumer recognition about food additives on the behavioral intention: Focused on the madiating effect of perceived risk. J Foodserv Manage. 2009. 12(4):441–459.
2. Arvola A, Vassallo M, Dean M, Lampila P, Saba A, Lahteenmaki L, Shepherd R. Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: The role of affective and moral attitudes in the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite. 2007. 50(2-3):443–454.
3. Bae KG. Current situation of agricultural organic products and organic processing food. Food Sci Ind. 2006. 39(3):35–51.
4. Balasubramanian SK, Cole CA. Consumers' search and use of nutrition information: The challenge and promise of th nutrition labeling and education act. J Marketing. 2002. 66:112–127.
5. Borra S. Consumer perspectives on food labels. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006. 83(5):1235S.
6. Burton S, Andrews JC. Age, product nutrition, and label format effects on consumer perceptions and product evaluations. J Consum Aff. 1996. 30(1):68–89.
7. Tracking Nutrition Trends VI 2006. 2006. cited 2011 Jan 30. Canadian Council of Food and Nutrition;Available from http://www.ccfn.ca/pdfs/TNT_VI_Report_%202006.pdf.
8. Chang NS. Food/nutrition attitudes views and practices of adults in Seoul area. Korean J Nutr. 1997a. 30(3):360–369.
9. Chang SO. A study on the current nutrition labeling practices for the processed foods retailed in the supermarket in Korea. Korean J Nutr. 1997b. 30(1):100–108.
10. Chang SO. A study of the comprehension and preference of consumers to four different formats of nutrition label. Korean J Nutr. 1997c. 30(6):679–689.
11. Chen MF. Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic food in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Qual Prefer. 2007. 18(7):1008–1021.
12. Choi JH, Chung YJ. Consumer preferred formats of nutrition labels. Korean J Community Nutr. 2003. 8(2):220–230.
13. Chung EJ, Jeon JS, Ahn HS. Reading and understanding of food & nutrition labels and dietary behaviors of female middle and high school students. J Korean Diet Assoc. 2010. 16(3):239–254.
14. Chung JY, Kim MJ. Using and understanding of nutrition labels and related factors among female adults in the Seoul area. Korean J Community Nutr. 2007. 12(4):417–425.
15. Davis FD. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems : Theory and results. 1986. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology;Doctoral Dissertation.
16. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989. 13(3):319–340.
17. Han MY, Ahn MS. A study on the purchase action of processed foods and the recognition for food additives of urban housewives. Korean J Diet Cult. 1998. 13(2):119–126.
18. Hawkes C. Nutrition labels and health claims: The global regulatory environment. World Health Organization report. 2004. Geneva:
19. Heijden HVD, Verhagen T, Creemers M. Understanding online purchase intention: Contributions from technology and trust perspectives. European J Information Systems. 2003. 12:41–48.
20. Hyun TS, Kim WS. A study on the perception and consumption of imported and organic produce of urban housewives. Korean J Community Nutr. 1997. 2(1):74–85.
21. Jeon HR, Jae MK. Consumer consciousness toward wellbeing and well-being oriented consumer behaviors according to the dietary life: Focused on purchasing, using, and disposal behavior of married women. J Korean Living Sci Assoc. 2007. 16(5):957–967.
22. Joo NM, Yoon JY, Kim OS, Ko YJ, Jung HA, Choi EY. A survey on the recognition and satisfaction of food labeling system in Seoul and Geongsangnam-do area. Korean J Food Cult. 2005. 20(5):525–531.
23. Joo NM, Yoon JY, Kim OS, Park SH, Ko YJ, Kim JY. A study on the awareness of female consumers for nutrition labeling system. Korean J Food Cult. 2006. 21(2):209–215.
24. Wills JM, Schmidt DB, Pillo-Blocka F, Cairns G. Exploring global consumer attitudes toward nutrition information on food labels. Nutr Rev. 2009. 67(Suppl 1):S102–S106.
25. Jun SI. Problems in the delivery of food additives information and government strategies for them. 2006. Korea Food & Drug Administration.
26. Kang JH, Jeong HG. Measuring the effects of belief, subjective norm, moral feeling and attitude on intention to consume organic beef. Korean J Food Cult. 2008. 23(3):301–307.
27. Kim HC, Kim MR. Consumers' recognition and information need about food safety: Focused on pesticide residues, foodborne illness, and food additives. Korean J Diet Cult. 2001. 16(4):296–309.
28. Kim HC, Kim MR. Consumer attitudes towards food additives. J East Asian Soc Diet Life. 2005. 15(1):126–135.
29. Kim SY, Nayga RM, Capps O. Food label use, self-selectivity, and diet quality. J Consum Aff. 2001. 35(2):246–363.
30. Klaus GG, Josephine MW. A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. J Public Health. 2007. 15:385–399.
31. Ko SY, Kim KW. Nutrition label use, self-efficacy, snacking and eating behavior of middle school students in Kyunggi area. Korean J Community Nutr. 2010. 15(4):513–524.
32. Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Fourth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES IV-1). 2008. 195–197.
33. Korea Food & Drug Administration. Food labeling standard. 2010a. cited 2010 November 8. Available from http://nutrition.kfda.go.kr/nutrition.
34. Korea Food & Drug Administration. Food labeling. 2010b. cited 2010 November 8. Available from http://www.foodnara.go.kr.
35. Kreuter MW, Brennan LK, Sharff DP, Lukwago SN. Do nutrition label readers eat healthier diets? Behavioral correlates of adults' use of food labels. Am J Prev Med. 1997. 13(4):277–283.
36. Kwon KI, Yoon SW, Kim SJ, Kang HN, Kim HN, Kim JY, Kim SY, Kim KL, Jung SM, Ock SW, Lee EJ, Kim JW, Kim MC, Park HK. A survey on customers' perceptions of nutrition labeling for processed food and restaurant meal. Korean J Nutr. 2010. 43(2):181–188.
37. Lee HY, Kim MK. Dietary behavioral correlates of nutrition label use in Korean women. Korean J Nutr. 2008. 41(8):839–850.
38. Lee IS, Choi BS, You DR, Park YM. College students characteristics and utilization of the nutrition labels on food package. Korean J Diet Cult. 2002. 17(3):299–308.
39. Lee JS. Awareness on nutrition labeling of the processed food among elementary school teachers in Busan. Korean J Community Nutr. 2009. 14(4):430–440.
40. Lee JW, Kim DS. Recognition of processed foods may affect the use of food labelings in middle school students. J Korean Diet Assoc. 2003. 9(3):185–196.
41. Moorman C. The effects of stimulus and consumer characteristics on the utilization of nutrition information. J Consum Res. 1990. 17(3):362–374.
42. Myung CO, Park YSm, Lee KW. A study on college students' awareness and life pattern on well-being. J East Asian Soc Diet Life. 2007. 17(1):27–42.
43. Park SJ, You SY. A study of the effect of health motivation and environmental concern on choosing organic food. Consumption Cult Study. 2007. 10(4):107–126.
44. Satia JA, Galanko JA, Neuhouser ML. Food nutrition label use is associated with demographic, behavioral, and psycosocial factors and dietary intake among African Americans in North Carolina. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005. 105(3):392–402.
45. Sohn CH. Perception of nutrition labeling on restaurant menus among adults in Suwon. Korean J Community Nutr. 2009. 14(4):420–429.
46. Suh BW. A study on the relationship between TV program related to health and diet and consumers' diet life. Korean J Food Mark Econ. 2009. 25(2):29–48.
47. Wonnancott J. Food additives. Nutr Food Sci. 1986. 86(1):20–21.
48. You SY, Park JH. An analysis of exploring the relationship between consumer concerns and changed behavior associated with the food safety and the influencing factors : Residue, microorganism, growth hormone, irradiation, food additives. Rev Bus Econ. 2005. 18(6):2841–2858.
49. You SY, Park SJ, Yoon HY, Chinaxuefei . A study of influencing factors of behavioral intention for organic food. Industrial Economic Study. 2008. 21(1):441–460.
50. Zarkin GA, Dean N, Nauskopf JA, Williams R. Potential health benefits of nutrition label changes. Am J Public Health. 1993. 83(5):717–724.
TOOLS
Similar articles