Journal List > J Nutr Health > v.47(2) > 1081331

TOOLS
Kim and Seo: Factors influencing on intention to intake fruit: moderating effect of fruit intake habit∗
Research Article

J Nutr Health 2014;47(2):134-144.

Published online: 20 January 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4163/jnh.2014.47.1.134

Factors influencing on intention to intake fruit: moderating effect of fruit intake habit∗

Hyesoo Kim, Sunhee Seo

Department of Nutritional Science and Food Management, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 120–750, Korea

Received 13 December 2013       Revised 8 January 2014       Accepted 21 February 2014

Copyright © 2014 The Korean Nutrition Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to identify factors affecting fruit consumption behavior by application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. In addition, this study examined the moderating effect of a fruit eating habit. Methods: A total of 734 consumers who have ever purchased fruit participated in this study. Results: Results of this study showed that attitudes toward fruit intake, social norms, and perceived behavioral control had significant impacts on the level of fruit intake. Fruit eating habit that showed high correlation with eating behavior was also included in the model identifying factors having an influence on fruit intake. Attitudes toward fruit intake, social norms, and perceived behavioral control had a positive influence on intention to intake fruit. Fruit eating habits played a moderating role in the relationships between intention to intake fruit and real fruit intake. Conclusion: Increasing positive attitudes toward fruit intake, social norms, and perceived behavioral control would be helpful in increasing the amount of fruit intake.

Keywords: theory of planned behavior, fruit intake habit, fruit intake, attitudes towards fruit intake, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control.

References

1. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Korea Health Statistics 2010: Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES V-1). Cheongwon: Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;2011.
2. Kwon JH, Shim JE, Park MK, Paik HY. Evaluation of fruits and vegetables intake for prevention of chronic disease in Korean adults aged 30 years and over: using the Third Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES III), 2005. Korean J Nutr. 2009; 42(2):146–157.
crossref
3. Food and Agriculture Organization (US); World Health Organization. Fruit and vegetable for health: report of a joint FAO/WHO workshop, 1–3 September 2004, Kobe, Japan. Geneva: World Health Organization;2004.
4. Carter P, Gray LJ, Troughton J, Khunti K, Davies MJ. Fruit and vegetable intake and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and metaanalysis. BMJ. 2010; 341:c4229.
crossref
5. Ford ES, Mokdad AH. Fruit and vegetable consumption and diabetes mellitus incidence among U.S. adults. Prev Med. 2001; 32(1):33–39.
crossref
6. Appel LJ, Champagne CM, Harsha DW, Cooper LS, Obarzanek E, Elmer PJ, Stevens VJ, Vollmer WM, Lin PH, Svetkey LP, Stedman SW, Young DR. Writing Group of the PREMIER Collaborative Research Group. Effects of comprehensive lifestyle modification on blood pressure control: main results of the PREMIER clinical trial. JAMA. 2003; 289(16):2083–2093.
crossref
7. Utsugi MT, Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, Kurimoto A, Sato RI, Suzuki K, Metoki H, Hara A, Tsubono Y, Imai Y. Fruit and vegetable consumption and the risk of hypertension determined by self measurement of blood pressure at home: the Ohasama study. Hypertens Res. 2008; 31(7):1435–1443.
crossref
8. Buijsse B, Feskens EJ, Schulze MB, Forouhi NG, Wareham NJ, Sharp S, Palli D, Tognon G, Halkjaer J, Tj⊘nneland A, Jakobsen MU, Overvad K, van der A DL, Du H, S⊘rensen TI, Boeing H. Fruit and vegetable intakes and subsequent changes in body weight in European populations: results from the project on Diet, Obesity, and Genes (DiOGenes). Am J Clin Nutr. 2009; 90(1):202–209.
crossref
9. Epstein LH, Gordy CC, Raynor HA, Beddome M, Kilanowski CK, Paluch R. Increasing fruit and vegetable intake and decreasing fat and sugar intake in families at risk for childhood obesity. Obes Res. 2001; 9(3):171–178.
crossref
10. Dauchet L, Amouyel P, Hercberg S, Dallongeville J. Fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of coronary heart disease: a metaanalysis of cohort studies. J Nutr. 2006; 136(10):2588–2593.
crossref
11. Nikolić M, Nikić D, Petrović B. Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk for developing coronary heart disease. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2008; 16(1):17–20.
crossref
12. Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG, Loria CM, Vupputuri S, Myers L, Whelton PK. Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of cardiovascular disease in US adults: the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Epidemiologic Follow-up Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002; 76(1):93–99.
crossref
13. Boggs DA, Palmer JR, Wise LA, Spiegelman D, Stampfer MJ, Adams-Campbell LL, Rosenberg L. Fruit and vegetable intake in relation to risk of breast cancer in the Black Women's Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2010; 172(11):1268–1279.
crossref
14. Freedman ND, Park Y, Subar AF, Hollenbeck AR, Leitzmann MF, Schatzkin A, Abnet CC. Fruit and vegetable intake and head and neck cancer risk in a large United States prospective cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2008; 122(10):2330–2336.
crossref
15. Millen AE, Subar AF, Graubard BI, Peters U, Hayes RB, Weiss-feld JL, Yokochi LA, Ziegler RG. PLCO Cancer Screening Trial Project Team. Fruit and vegetable intake and prevalence of colorectal adenoma in a cancer screening trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007; 86(6):1754–1764.
16. Johnston KL, White KM. Binge-drinking: A test of the role of group norms in the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Psychol Health. 2003; 18(1):63–77.
crossref
17. Tuu HH, Olsen SO, Thao DT, Anh NT. The role of norms in explaining attitudes, intention and consumption of a common food (fish) in Vietnam. Appetite. 2008; 51(3):546–551.
crossref
18. Rhodes RE, De Bruijn GJ. Automatic and motivational correlates of physical activity: does intensity moderate the relationship? Behav Med. 2010; 36(2):44–52.
crossref
19. Godin G, Amireault S, Béllanger-Gravel A, Vohl MC, Pélrusse L, Guillaumie L. Prediction of daily fruit and vegetable consumption among overweight and obese individuals. Appetite. 2010; 54(3):480–484.
crossref
20. Guillaumie L, Godin G, Vézina-Im LA. Psychosocial determinants of fruit and vegetable intake in adult population: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010; 7:12.
crossref
21. Zoellner J, Krzeski E, Harden S, Cook E, Allen K, Estabrooks PA. Qualitative application of the theory of planned behavior to understand beverage consumption behaviors among adults. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012; 112(11):1774–1784.
crossref
22. Chen MF. Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Qual Prefer. 2007; 18(7):1008–1021.
crossref
23. De Bruijn GJ, Kremers SPJ, De Vet EE, De Nooijer J, Van Mechelen W, Brug J. Does habit strength moderate the intention-behaviour relationship in the Theory of Planned Behaviour? The case of fruit consumption. Psychol Health. 2007; 22(8):899–916.
crossref
24. Arvola A, Vassallo M, Dean M, Lampila P, Saba A, Lähteenmä-ki L, Shepherd R. Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: the role of affective and moral attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Appetite. 2008; 50(2–3):443–454.
crossref
25. Latimer AE, Martin Ginis KA. The importance of subjective norms for people who care what others think of them. Psychol Health. 2005; 20(1):53–62.
crossref
26. Manstead AS, van Eekelen SA. Distinguishing between perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy in the domain of academic achievement intentions and behaviors. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1998; 28(15):1375–1392.
crossref
27. Povey R, Conner M, Sparks P, James R, Shepherd R. Application of the theory of planned behaviour to two dietary behaviours: roles of perceived control and self-efficacy. Br J Health Psychol. 2000; 5(2):121–139.
crossref
28. Sparks P, Guthrie CA, Shepherd R. The dimensional structure of the perceived behavioral control construct. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1997; 27(5):418–438.
29. Aarts H, Paulussen T, Schaalma H. Physical exercise habit: on the conceptualization and formation of habitual health behaviours. Health Educ Res. 1997; 12(3):363–374.
crossref
30. Bamberg S, Ajzen I, Schmidt P. Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: The roles of past behavior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic Appl Soc Psych. 2003; 25(3):175–187.
crossref
31. Brug J, De Vet E, De Nooijer J, Verplanken B. Predicting fruit consumption: cognitions, intention, and habits. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2006; 38(2):73–81.
crossref
32. Reinaerts E, De Nooijer J, Candel M, De Vries N. Explaining school children's fruit and vegetable consumption: the contributions of availability, accessibility, exposure, parental consumption and habit in addition to psychosocial factors. Appetite. 2007; 48(2):248–258.
crossref
33. Kothe EJ, Mullan BA, Butow P. Promoting fruit and vegetable consumption. Testing an intervention based on the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite. 2012; 58(3):997–1004.
crossref
34. Sjoberg S, Kim K, Reicks M. Applying the theory of planned behavior to fruit and vegetable consumption by older adults. J Nutr Elder. 2004; 23(4):35–46.
crossref
35. Cha MH, Kim YK. Consumers'purchasing intentions of organic foods in relation to the perceived health concerns, healthy eating practices and attitudes, and food choice motives. Korean J Community Nutr. 2009; 14(3):286–294.
36. Verplanken B, Orbell S. Reflections on past behavior: a self-report index of habit strength. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2003; 33(6):1313–1330.
37. De Bruijn GJ. Understanding college students'fruit consumption. Integrating habit strength in the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite. 2010; 54(1):16–22.
38. Ahn Y, Kim KW. Beliefs regarding vegetable consumption, self-efficacy and eating behaviors according to the stages of change in vegetable consumption among college students. Korean J Community Nutr. 2012; 17(1):1–13.
crossref
39. Emanuel AS, McCully SN, Gallagher KM, Updegraff JA. Theory of planned behavior explains gender difference in fruit and vegetable consumption. Appetite. 2012; 59(3):693–697.
crossref

Fig. 1.
Research model.
jnh-47-134f1.tif
Table 1.
Demographics of respondents (n = 734)
Demographics Frequency %
Gender Male
Female
Missing		 277
499
23		 35.6
64.1
0.3
Marital status Married
Single
Missing		 320
450
29		 41.1
57.8
1.1
Age 20's
30's
40's
50's
Over 60's
Missing		 348
224
85
8
1
133		 44.7
28.8
10.9
1.0
0.1
14.5
Monthly household income (1,000 won) Less than 2,000
2,001–3,000
3,001–4,000
4,001–5,000
more than 5,000
Missing		 116
151
181
131
168
52		 14.9
19.4
23.2
16.8
21.6
4.1
Education High school diploma
2-year college graduate
4-year college graduate
Master graduate
Missing		 214
120
343
83
39		 27.5
15.4
44.0
10.7
2.4
Occupation Business
Office worker
Government
Housewife
Student
Others		 60
284
32
83
233
107		 7.7
36.5
4.1
10.7
29.9
11.1
Type of household 3 generations
2 generations
1 generation
Single household
Missing		 64
486
85
123
41		 8.2
62.4
10.9
15.8
2.7
Number of family members 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Missing		 123
69
87
202
207
58
14
39		 15.4
8.9
11.2
25.9
26.6
7.4
1.8
2.8
Number of children under 18 0
1
2
More than 3
Missing		 348
127
85
8
231		 44.7
16.3
10.9
1.0
27.1
Table 2.
Reliability analysis of constructs
Constructs Mean 1) SD Cronbach alpha
Emotional attitude toward fruit intake I enjoy to eat fruit.
It is pleasure to eat fruit.
I like to eat fruit.
I think eating fruit is good for health.
I am satisfied with eating fruit.		 3.85
3.83
3.91
4.16
3.95		 0.80
0.81
0.80
0.71
0.75		 0.923
Cognitive attitude toward fruit intake Fruit is easy to spoil.
Fruit is hard to store.
It takes too long to buy fruit.
It is hard to choose a delicious fruit.
Fruit preparation is cumbersome.
The fruit peel is very difficult to clean up.		 2.53
2.66
3.09
2.70
2.87
2.62		 0.83
0.86
0.89
0.96
0.92
1.01		 0.770
Subjective norm Most people important to me I think that you should eat fruit every day.
Most people important to me that I want to eat fruit every day.
My family thinks that I have to eat fruit every day.
My family wants me to eat fruit every day.		 3.37
3.42
3.49
3.50		 0.93
0.94
0.93
0.93		 0.931
Perceived behavioral control I eat fruit every day is completely under my control below.
Eating fruits every day is totally depends on me.
Eating fruits every day is easy for me.
I am convinced that you can eat fruit every day.
I want it easy, I can eat fruit every day.		 3.46
3.60
3.46
3.38
3.71		 1.02
1.01
1.01
1.08
0.94		 0.829
Intention to intake fruit I will eat fruit every day.
I intend to eat fruit every day.		 3.51
3.66		 0.92
0.89		 0.893
Fruit intake habit I frequently eat fruit.
I eat fruit without having to consciously remember.
I do not have a big effort to eat fruit.
Eating fruit is a part of my life.
I realize that I eat fruits before eating the fruit already.
If not eat fruit will get tough if the situation occurred.
Eating fruit is a natural for me.
I have been eating fruit for a long time.		 3.50
3.23
3.55
3.19
2.61
2.59
3.33
3.61		 1.00
1.03
0.90
1.04
1.06
1.16
0.97
0.95		 0.898

1) 5 point Likert scale, 1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree

Table 3.
Results of hypothesis tests
Hypothesis tests B T value Sig.
H1–1 Emotional attitude toward fruit eating → Intention to intake fruit 0.323 9.003 0.000∗∗∗
H1–2 Cognitive attitude toward fruit eating → Intention to intake fruit 0.101 1.704 0.088
H2 Subjective norm → Intention to intake fruit 0.278 9.432 0.000∗∗∗
H3 Perceived behavioral control → Intention to intake fruit 0.655 8.223 0.000∗∗∗
H4 Intention to intake fruit → Frequency of fruit intake 0.915 9.460 0.000∗∗∗

RMR = 0.048, GFI = 0.885, AGFI = 0.852, RMSEA = 0.076, CFI = 0.920 RMR: root mean-square residual, GFI: goodness of fit index, AGFI: adjusted goodness of fit index, RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation, CFI: Comparative fit index

∗∗∗ : p < 0.001

Table 4.
Comparison of emotional attitude toward fruit intake by gender, marital status, income, and household
  n Mean SD F-value p-value
Gender Male 271 3.7971) 0.689 20.3512) 0.000∗∗∗
Female 461 4.028 0.656
Marital Status Married 294 3.896 0.624 2.4432) 0.119
Single 433 3.977 0.712
Monthly household income (1,000 won) Less than 2,000 100 3.834a 0.698 3.608 0.006∗∗∗
2,001–3,000 146 3.886a 0.668
3,001–4,000 177 3.870a 0.702
4,001–5,000 127 3.954ab 0.623
More than 5,000 160 4.101b 0.678
Type of household Single household 114 3.777 0.646 3.080 0.027∗
1 generation 82 3.971 0.511
2 generations 464 3.981 0.711
3 generations 58 3.862 0.657

1) 5 point Likert scale, 1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree

2) t-value abc means significantly different

∗ : p < 0.05,

∗∗∗ : p < 0.001

Table 5.
Comparison of cognitive attitude toward fruit intake by gender, marital status, income, and household
Demographics n Mean 1) SD F-value p-value
Gender Male
Female		 271
461		 2.707
2.654		 0.649
0.648		 1.150 2) 0.284
Marital Status Married
Single		 294
433		 2.731
2.636		 0.683
0.617		 3.819 2) 0.051
Monthly household income (1,000 won) Less than 2,000
2,001–3,000
3,001–4,000
4,001–5,000
more than 5,000		 100
146
177
127
160		 2.626
2.656
2.757
2.571
2.726		 0.597
0.643
0.666
0.684
0.622		 2.021 0.090
Type of household Single household
1 generation
2 generations
3 generations		 114
82
464
58		 2.605
2.624
2.708
2.696		 0.624
0.626
0.679
0.526		 1.015 0.385

1) 5 point Likert scale, 1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree

2) t-value

Table 6.
Comparison of perceived behavioral control by gender, marital status, income, and household
  n Mean 1) SD F-value p-value
Gender Male
Female		 271
461		 3.338
3.631		 0.783
0.761		 24.724 2) 0.000∗∗∗
Marital Status Married
Single		 294
433		 3.654
3.436		 0.693
0.827		 13.846 2) 0.000∗∗∗
Monthly household income (1,000 won) Less than 2,000
2,001–3,000
3,001–4,000
4,001–5,000
More than 5,000		 100
146
177
127
160		 3.258a
3.397ab
3.538bc
3.625cd
3.736d 		0.788
0.777
0.760
0.675
0.826		 7.594 0.000∗∗∗
Type of household Single household
1 generation
2 generations
3 generations		 114
82
464
58		 3.277a
3.678b
3.553b
3.572b 		0.708
0.692
0.817
0.664		 5.218 0.001∗∗∗

1) 5 point Likert scale, 1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree

2) t-value

∗∗∗ : p < 0.001

Table 7.
Comparison of subjective norm by gender, marital status, income, and household
  n Mean 1) SD F-value p-value
Gender Male
Female		 271
61		 3.472
3.431		 0.835
0.855		 0.403 2) 0.526
Marital Status Married
Single		 294
433		 3.461
3.435		 0.780
0.891		 0.166 2) 0.683
Monthly household income (1,000 won) Less than 2,000
2,001–3,000
3,001–4,000
4,001–5,000
More than 5,000		 100
146
177
127
160		 3.223a
3.329ab
3.506bc
3.553c
3.511bc 		0.879
0.824
0.841
0.756
0.917		 3.396 0.009∗∗∗
Type of household Single household
1 generation
2 generations
3 generations		 114
82
464
58		 3.436
3.390
3.447
3.435		 0.778
0.804
0.880
0.831		 0.104 0.958

1) 5 point Likert scale, 1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree

2) t-value

∗∗∗ : p < 0.001

Table 8.
Comparison of fruit intake habit by gender, marital status, income, and household
  n Mean SD F-value p-value
Gender Male
Female		 271
461		 3.046 1)
3.300		 0.737
0.783		 18.157 2) 0.000∗∗∗
Marital Status Married
Single		 294
433		 3.284
3.148		 0.703
0.817		 5.417 2) 0.020∗∗
Monthly household income (1,000 won) Less than 2,000
2,001–3,000
3,001–4,000
4,001–5,000
More than 5,000		 100
146
177
127
160		 2.940a
3.120ab
3.162b
3.293bc
3.363c 		0.789
0.752
0.729
0.692
0.858		 5.634 0.000∗∗∗
Type of household Single household
1 generation
2 generations
3 generations		 114
82
464
58		 2.960a
3.284b
3.228b
3.228b 		0.761
0.672
0.800
0.756		 4.189 0.006∗∗∗

1) 5 point Likert scale, 1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree

2) t-value

∗∗ : p < 0.05,

∗∗∗ : p < 0.001

Table 9.
Comparison of intention to intake fruit by gender, marital status, income, and household
  N Mean 1) SD F-value p-value
Gender Male
Female		 271
461		 3.411
3.691		 0.902
0.819		 18.424 2) 0.000∗∗∗
Marital Status Married
Single		 294
433		 3.714
3.505		 0.772
0.910		 10.4902) 0.001∗∗∗
Monthly household income (1,000 won) Less than 2,000
2,001–3,000
3,001–4,000
4,001–5,000
More than 5,000)		 100
146
177
127
160		 3.315a
3.445ab
3.647bc
3.678c
3.747c 		0.869
0.847
0.888
0.757
0.876		 5.541 0.000∗∗∗
Type of household Single household
1 generation
2 generations
3 generations		 114
82
464
58		 3.351a
3.689b
3.637b
3.491ab 		0.872
0.756
0.876
0.830		 4.015 0.008∗∗∗

1) 5 point Likert scale, 1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree

2) t-value

∗∗∗ : p < 0.001

TOOLS
Similar articles