Journal List > J Nutr Health > v.53(1) > 1143041

TOOLS
Jung and Kim: Relationship between job stress, health functional food selection attributes, and consumption values among workers for information technology in Gyeonggi area
Research Article

J Nutr Health 2020;53(1):54-67.

Published online: 10 February 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4163/jnh.2020.53.1.54

Relationship between job stress, health functional food selection attributes, and consumption values among workers for information technology in Gyeonggi area

Ji-Eun Jung1, Sung-Eun Kim2,

1 Major in Nutrition Education, Graduate School of Education, Sookmyung Women's University, Seoul 04310, Korea

2 Department of Food and Nutrition, Sookmyung Women's University, Seoul 04310, Korea

Correspondence to Sung-Eun Kim Department of Food and Nutrition, Sookmyung Women's University, 100 Cheongpa-ro 47-gil, Yongsan-gu, Seoul 04310, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2077-7722 E-mail: sekim@sookmyung.ac.kr

ORCID iDs Ji-Eun Jung https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9865-5096 Sung-Eun Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1472-2405

Funding This research was supported by Sookmyung Women's University Research Grants (1-1903-1319).

Conflict of Interest There are no financial or other issues that might lead to conflict of interest.

Received 15 November 2019       Revised 21 January 2020       Accepted 22 January 2020

Copyright © 2020 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

This study examined the relationship between job stress, attributes of health functional food (HFF) selection, and consumption values for information technology (IT) workers, and analyzed the factors influencing the selection of HFF to improve health by making the right choice of HFFs.

Methods

Three hundred forty IT workers in Gyeonggi area participated in the study. The participants were divided into low or high job stress group. The differences in participants' general characteristics, attributes of HFF selection, and HFF consumption values were investigated, and the mediating effects of HFF consumption values on the relationship between job stress levels and the HFF selection attributes were analyzed.

Results

Job stress levels were high in those IT workers with a length of service < 5 years (p = 0.013). The group with lower job stress levels had a higher tendency to consider the ingredients contained in HFF products (p < 0.001), and their efficacy (p = 0.047). They also showed greater emotional value for a sense of security from consuming HFFs to stay healthy (p = 0.047). The group with higher job stress levels had greater epistemic value in that their choice of HFFs differentiated them from the other workers (p = 0.036). Higher job stress was associated with less consideration of the intrinsic attributes such as ingredients and efficacy of the HFF selection attributes (p = −0.113), emotional value of the HFF consumption values (p = −0.136), and the functional value such as practicality, price, and safety (p = −0.134). The job stress level influenced the intrinsic attributes through the functional and emotional values, demonstrating that the functional and emotional values had appropriate mediating effects on the relationship between job stress levels and intrinsic attributes.

Conclusion

Education needs to be provided for workers to relieve job stress and improve the functional and emotional values, which contributes to choosing the appropriate HFFs.

Keywords: workers, job stress, functional food, food selection, consumption

References

1. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (KR). Laws of health functional food [Internet]. Cheongju: Ministry of Food and Drug Safety;2015. [cited 2019 Oct 3]. Available from:. http://www.law.go.kr/lsSc.do?menuId=0&p1=&subMenu=1&nwYn=1&query=%EA%B1%B4%EA%B0%95%EA%B8%B0%EB%8A%A5%EC%8B%9D%ED%92%88&x=0&y=0.
2. Kim HK. Current status and prospect of nutraceuticals. Food Ind Nutr. 2004; 9(1):1–14.
3. Baek EY, Jeong WY. Determinants of health oriented consumption. Consumption Cult Study. 2006; 9(2):25–48.
4. Lee SJ, Kim SH. Consumption of health functional foods and related factors in male workers in Gyeongnam. J East Asian Soc Diet Life. 2014; 24(5):604–613.
crossref
5. Hong YH, Lee EH, Lim HS, Chyun JH. Dietary habits and the perception and intake of health functional foods in male office workers by age. J East Asian Soc Diet Life. 2015; 25(2):340–351.
crossref
6. Jun BH, Lee HG. An investigation of the intake of the health food among the salary men in Seoul. Korean J Soc Food Sci. 2000; 16(1):9–16.
7. Ohn J, Kim JH. Intake pattern and needs assessment for the development of web-contents on health functional foods according to age of adults. Korean J Community Nutr. 2012; 17(1):26–37.
crossref
8. Kim HC, Kim MR. A study on health-functional foods intake pattern of consumers in Busan and Gyeongnam region. J Korean Living Sci Assoc. 2006; 15(2):341–352.
9. Kim MR, Lim MK. A comparison of the characteristics between intake and non-intake respondents of health foods, and analysis of factors affecting the willingness to consume health foods in Busan and Gyeongnam region. J East Asian Soc Diet Life. 2007; 17(6):798–807.
10. Cha MH, Kim YK. Moderating effect of health motivation, health concern and food involvement on the relationship between consumption value and purchasing intentions of healthy functional food. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 2008; 37(11):1435–1442.
crossref
11. Kim JH, Lee MJ, Yang IS, Moon SJ. Analysis of factors affecting Korean eating behavior. Korean J Diet Cult. 1992; 7(1):1–8.
12. Seol SC, Park WJ, Woo SK. A study on the analysis of differences made by characteristics, selection attributes and consumption behavior based on types of consumers of health functional foods. J Tourism Leis Res. 2014; 26(1):463–482.
13. Yoon GS, Kim SY. Influences of job stress and burnout on turnover intention of nurses. J Korean Acad Nurs Adm. 2010; 16(4):507–516.
crossref
14. Jarczok MN, Jarczok M, Mauss D, Koenig J, Li J, Herr RM, et al. Autonomic nervous system activity and workplace stressors–a systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013; 37(8):1810–1823.
crossref
15. Ahn KY. A study of the moderating effect of social support on the relationship between job stress responses and occupational accident/illness. J Korea Saf Manag Sci. 2008; 10(4):57–63.
16. Hahn DW, Lee SW. Organization-level determinants of job stress and physical illness in Information Technology (IT) industry. Korean J Health Psychol. 2002; 7(3):369–389.
17. Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;1993.
18. Lee MS, Kim SE. Study on relationship between elderly group lifestyle and selection attributes in the health functional foods. Korean J Clin Pharm. 2015; 25(4):286–295.
19. Noh WH, Ahn SH, Yang LL, Song YW. The influence of consumption value towards attitude and purchase intention perceived by Chinese consumers in the context of healthy functional foods. Korean-Chinese Soc Sci Stud. 2012; 10(2):179–206.
20. Sheth JN, Newman BI, Gross BL. Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values. J Bus Res. 1991; 22(2):159–170.
crossref
21. Kim SJ, Son IC. An empirical study on purchasing behavior of health functional food consumers. Glob Bus Adm Rev. 2006; 3(1):1–19.
22. Chang SJ, Koh SB, Kang D, Kim SA, Kang MG, Lee CG, et al. Developing an occupational stress scale for Korean employees. Ann Occup Environ Med. 2005; 17(4):297–317.
crossref
23. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986; 51(6):1173–1182.
crossref
24. Jung HS, Jhang WG, Choi EH. Health habits and job stress among IT workers according to employment type. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg. 2017; 27(4):371–379.
25. Lee CH, Lee EJ, Ro SO. A survey on the consumer attitude toward health food in Korea (2): consumer perception on health and food habit. Korean J Diet Cult. 1996; 11(4):487–495.
26. Moon TE. Research on the workers' awareness and the status of the current working conditions in domestic IT and non-IT industries. J Digit Policy Manag. 2012; 10(9):225–238.
27. Park EY, Park HC, Park KS, Son SJ. Relationship between stress and health behaviors practice. J Korean Acad Fam Med. 2000; 21(11):1436–1450.
28. Oh JK. Structural modeling of stress, life style and health status in industrial employees. Korean J Occup Environ Med. 2000; 12(1):26–40.
crossref
29. Kim YS, Lee KO, Kim MJ. A study in the propensity for symbolic consumption of adolescents. J Korean Living Sci Assoc. 2005; 14(2):277–292.
30. Lee KM. Influence of self-esteem and daily hassles on the compensatory consumption behavior [master's thesis]. Seoul: Hanyang University;2009.
31. Kim N, Park YI, Joo N. Structural relations of convenience-processed food purchasing attitude and selection attribute according to housewives' stress: focus on housewives in Seoul and Gyeonggi Areas. J Korean Diet Assoc. 2019; 25(4):257–268.
32. Won JH, Chung JE. The segmentation of single-person households based on Sheth's theory of consumption values. J Consum Stud. 2015; 26(1):73–99.
33. Nam SJ. Individualism/collectivism and consumption values on the consumption self-regulation. Consumption Cult Study. 2007; 10(3):59–86.
34. Kim DW. A study on consumption values: focused on market [master's thesis]. Seoul: Seoul National University;1994.
35. Reynolds TJ, Gutman J. Advertising is image management. J Advert Res. 1984; 24(1):27–36.
36. Peter JP, Olson JC. Consumer behavior and marketing strategy. Boston (MA): McGraw-Hill;1999.
37. Park CI, Lee KS, Kim JA, Koo JW, Yim HW, Ahn BY, et al. Need assessment for developing of health promotion program in a computer company. Korean J Occup Health. 1997; 36(4):125–136.

Fig. 1.
The mediating effect models for consumption values on the path from the job stress levels (predictor) to the intrinsic attributes among health functional food selection attributes (outcome). (A) Functional value subscale of health functional food consumption value; (B) Emotional value subscale of health functional food consumption value. 1) Indicates the path coefficient when controlled by health functional food consume value (mediator).
jnh-53-54f1.tif
Table 1.
General characteristics of the participants according to job stress level
Variable Number (Total = 340) Level of job stress χ2 (p-value)
Low (n = 160) High (n = 180)
Sex       0.011 (0.918)
  Male 152 (44.7) 72 (45.0) 80 (44.4)  
  Female 188 (55.3) 88 (55.0) 100 (55.6)  
Age (yrs)       7.062 (0.029*)
  < 30 122 (35.9) 46 (28.7) 76 (42.2)  
  ≥ 30 to < 50 147 (43.2) 79 (49.4) 68 (37.8)  
  ≥ 50 71 (20.9) 35 (21.9) 36 (20.0)  
Level of education       0.358 (0.550)
  Junior college graduate or below 88 (25.9) 39 (24.4) 49 (27.2)  
  Undergraduates or above 252 (74.1) 121 (75.6) 131 (72.8)  
Length of service (yrs)       8.636 (0.013*)
  < 5 165 (48.5) 68 (42.5) 97 (53.9)  
  ≥ 5 to < 20 104 (30.6) 48 (30.0) 56 (31.1)  
  ≥ 20 71 (20.9) 44 (27.5) 27 (15.0)  
Monthly income       15.625 (< 0.001***)
  < KRW 2 million 55 (16.2) 21 (13.1) 34 (18.9)  
  ≥ KRW 2 million to < 3 million 128 (37.6) 47 (29.4) 81 (45.0)  
  ≥ KRW 3 million 157 (46.2) 92 (57.5) 65 (36.1)  

Data are presented as number (%).

* p < 0.05;

*** p < 0.001.

Table 2.
Health functional food selection attributes according to job stress level1)
Variable Level of job stress t (p-value)
Low (n = 160) High (n = 180)
Intrinsic attributes      
  1. I choose a health functional food considering the ingredients contained in the food. 4.39 ± 0.65 4.07 ± 0.72 4.484 (< 0.001***)
  2. I choose a health functional food considering the content of domestic ingredients and the country of origin. 3.98 ± 0.96 3.86 ± 0.82 1.183 (0.238)
  3. I choose a health functional food considering the efficacy of the food. 4.42 ± 0.72 4.27 ± 0.68 1.996 (0.047*)
  4. I choose a health functional food considering the scientific evidence of its efficacy. 3.98 ± 0.91 3.96 ± 0.82 0.274 (0.785)
  5. I choose a health functional food, considering that the food is suitable for my constitution. 4.06 ± 0.90 3.93 ± 0.84 1.364 (0.173)
Extrinsic attributes      
  6. I choose a health functional food considering the design aspects of its packaging (color, material, etc.). 2.82 ± 1.07 2.87 ± 0.95 −0.485 (0.628)
  7. I choose a health functional food whose packaging is hygienic and safe. 4.09 ± 0.89 4.03 ± 0.78 0.601 (0.548)
  8. I choose a health functional food that is easy to store and carry. 3.84 ± 0.97 3.84 ± 0.72 −0.007 (0.994)
  9. I choose a health functional food that I can buy easily anytime. 3.67 ± 0.95 3.58 ± 0.76 0.970 (0.333)
  10. I choose a health functional food after listening to a customer consultant's professional explanation. 3.39 ± 1.03 3.38 ± 0.92 0.151 (0.880)
  11. I choose a health functional food, considering the brand image of the concerned manufacturer and sales company. 3.74 ± 0.84 3.70 ± 0.88 0.402 (0.688)
  12. I choose a health functional food that is advertised in the media. 3.11 ± 0.96 3.16 ± 0.92 −0.484 (0.629)
  13. I choose a lower priced one if the quantity is the same. 3.70 ± 0.97 3.65 ± 0.91 0.491 (0.624)
  14. I choose a health functional food, considering after-sales service such as exchange and refund. 3.33 ± 1.02 3.37 ± 0.95 −0.332 (0.740)

Data are presented as mean ± SD.

1) The scores of the items regarding Health functional food selection attributes are assessed on a 5-point Likert scale, whereby the higher the score, the higher health functional food selection attributes (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).

* p < 0.05;

*** p < 0.001.

Table 3.
Health functional food consumption values according to job stress level1)
Variable Level of job stress t (p-value)
Low (n = 160) High (n = 180)
Functional value      
  1. It is practical to consume health functional food. 3.87 ± 0.73 3.77 ± 0.73 1.293 (0.197)
  2. A reasonable price of health functional food is important. 4.24 ± 0.64 4.11 ± 0.74 1.756 (0.080)
  3. The safety of health functional food is important. 4.65 ± 0.60 4.53 ± 0.66 1.790 (0.074)
Conditional value      
  1. I become more interested in health functional food when people around me or myself get sick. 4.17 ± 0.87 3.99 ± 0.85 1.931 (0.054)
  2. I become more interested in health functional food during the holidays and sale times. 3.46 ± 0.98 3.37 ± 1.04 0.767 (0.444)
  3. I think health functional food is fine for gifts. 3.84 ± 0.83 3.80 ± 0.76 0.435 (0.664)
Social value      
  1. I think of people's reactions to consuming health functional food. 3.04 ± 1.22 2.98 ± 1.08 0.431 (0.667)
  2. It is important to express my dignity by choosing health functional food. 2.46 ± 1.12 2.52 ± 1.06 −0.559 (0.576)
  3. I consider that a health functional food is a good match for my group. 2.35 ± 1.15 2.55 ± 1.12 −1.626 (0.105)
Emotional value      
  1. The pleasure of consuming health functional food I want is important. 3.43 ± 0.92 3.37 ± 0.96 0.569 (0.570)
  2. I feel satisfied with health functional food. 3.44 ± 0.83 3.31 ± 0.90 1.468 (0.143)*
  3. It is important to feel safe consuming health functional food to stay healthy. 3.88 ± 0.80 3.70 ± 0.82 1.991 (0.047*)
Epistemic value      
  1. I should buy health functional food that provokes my curiosity. 2.54 ± 0.95 2.67 ± 0.99 −1.167 (0.244)
  2. I become fond of health functional food that is unique in design and packaging. 2.43 ± 0.97 2.60 ± 1.02 −1.561 (0.119)*
  3. It is important for me to choose a health functional food that differentiates me from others. 2.45 ± 1.01 2.69 ± 1.07 −2.107 (0.036*)

Data are presented as mean ± SD.

1) The scores of the items regarding Health functional food selection attributes are assessed on a 5-point Likert scale, whereby the higher the score, the higher health functional food selection attributes (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).

* p < 0.05.

Table 4.
Correlation analysis between the constructs
Variable   Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Job stress   2.29 0.33 1              
Selection attribute 2. Intrinsic attribute 4.09 0.65 −0.113* 1            
  3. Extrinsic attribute 3.51 0.59 −0.090 0.562*** 1          
Consumption values 4. Functional value 4.19 0.51 −0.134* 0.509*** 0.262*** 1        
  5. Conditional value 3.77 0.69 −0.084 0.394*** 0.347*** 0.420*** 1      
  6. Social value 2.65 0.99 −0.001 0.198*** 0.503*** −0.004*** 0.360*** 1***    
  7. Emotional value 3.52 0.76 −0.136* 0.400*** 0.426*** 0.374*** 0.521*** 0.428*** 1  
  8. Epistemic value 2.57 0.89 0.007 0.171** 0.492*** −0.005 0.311*** 0.616*** 0.470*** 1

* p < 0.05;

** p < 0.01;

*** p < 0.001.

Table 5.
Regression analysis of job stress level, health functional food selection attributes, and health functional food consumption values
Independent variable Dependent variable B SE β R2 t (p-value)
Job stress level Intrinsic attribute −0.225 0.108 −0.113 0.013 −2.086 (0.038*)
  Extrinsic attribute −0.162 0.098 −0.090 0.008 −1.655 (0.099)
Consumption value            
  Functional value Intrinsic attribute 0.648 0.060 0.509 0.259 10.879 (< 0.001***)
  Conditional value   0.374 0.047 0.155 0.394 7.877 (< 0.001***)
  Social value   0.130 0.035 0.198 0.039 3.715 (< 0.001***)
  Emotional value   0.345 0.043 0.400 0.160 8.014 (< 0.001***)
  Epistemic value   0.126 0.040 0.171 0.029 3.190 (0.002**)
  Functional value Extrinsic attribute 0.302 0.061 0.262 0.068 4.983 (< 0.001***)
  Conditional value   0.299 0.044 0.347 0.121 6.811 (< 0.001***)
  Social value   0.300 0.028 0.503 0.253 10.699 (< 0.001***)
  Emotional value   0.333 0.038 0.426 0.182 8.660 (< 0.001***)
  Epistemic value   0.329 0.032 0.492 0.242 10.386 (< 0.001***)
Job stress level Functional value −0.210 0.084 −0.134 0.018 −2.489 (0.013*)
  Conditional value −0.177 0.114 −0.084 0.007 −1.550 (0.122)
  Social value −0.002 0.165 −0.001 0.000 −0.010 (0.992)
  Emotional value −0.314 0.125 −0.136 0.018 −2.515 (0.012*)
  Epistemic value 0.020 0.147 0.007 0.000 0.136 (0.892)

* p < 0.05;

** p < 0.01;

*** p < 0.001.

Table 6.
Mediating effect of functional value subscale of health functional food consumption value
Step Explanatory variable → Dependent variable B SE β t (p-value)
Step 1 Stress level → Functional value −0.210 0.084 −0.134 −2.489 (0.013*)
    F (p-value) = 6.193 (0.013*)   R2 (adj-R2) = 0.018 (0.015)  
Step 2 Functional value → Intrinsic attribute 0.648 0.060 0.509 10.879 (< 0.001***)
    F (p-value) = 118.345 (< 0.001***)   R2 (adj-R2) = 0.259 (0.257)  
Step 3 Stress level → Intrinsic level −0.225 0.108 −0.113 −2.086 (0.038*)
    F (p-value) = 4.352 (0.038*)   R2 (adj-R2) = 0.013 (0.010)  
Step 4 Stress level → Intrinsic attribute −0.090 0.094 −0.045 −0.958 (0.339)
  Functional value → Intrinsic attribute 0.641 0.060 0.503 10.651 (< 0.001***)
    F (p-value) = 59.617 (< 0.001***)   R2 (adj-R2) = 0.261 (0.257)  

* p < 0.05;

*** p < 0.001.

Table 7.
Mediating effect of emotional value subscale of health functional food consumption value
Step Explanatory variable → Dependent variable B SE β t (p-value)
Step 1 Stress level → Emotional value −0.314 0.125 −0.136 −2.515 (0.012*)
    F (p-value) = 6.327 (0.012*)   R2 (adj-R2) = 0.018 (0.015)  
Step 2 Emotional value → Intrinsic attribute 0.345 0.043 0.400 8.014 (< 0.001***
    F (p-value) = 64.229 (< 0.001***)   R2 (adj-R2) = 0.160 (0.157)  
Step 3 Stress level → Intrinsic attribute −0.225 0.108 −0.113 −2.086 (0.038*)
    F (p-value) = 4.352 (0.038*)   R2 (adj-R2) = 0.013 (0.010)  
Step 4 Stress level → Intrinsic attribute −0.119 0.100 −0.060 −1.187 (0.236)
  Emotional value → Intrinsic attribute 0.338 0.043 0.392 7.784 (< 0.001***
    F (p-value) = 32.857 (< 0.001***)   R2 (adj-R2) = 0.163 (0.158)  

* p < 0.05;

*** p < 0.001.

TOOLS
Similar articles