Brand expertise, impulsiveness and materialism aggravate unhealthy food products buying among young adults despite pricing and sin tax interventions

Figures & data

Figure 1. Hypothesized model.

Table 1. Respondent’s demographic profile.

	Control group N = 341		Experiment group N = 355
Demographic variable	Frequency	Percentage (%)	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	182	53.40	203	57.20
Female	159	46.60	152	42.80
Monthly pocket money (INR)
₹ <3000	84	24.60	90	25.40
₹ 3001–5000	139	40.80	151	42.50
₹ >5000	118	34.60	114	32.10

Table 2. CFA and SEM model fit indices.

Model	CMIN/DF	GFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
Study model	1.806	0.932	0.980	0.984	0.052
Recommended value	Acceptable 1–4	≥0.90	≥0.95	≥0.95	<0.07
	Wheaton (1987)	Shevlin and Miles (1998)	Hu and Bentler (1999)	Hu and Bentler (1999)	MacCallum et al. (1996)

Table 3. CFA loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, CR, and AVE.

Variable name	Item code	CFA Loading	Alpha (α)	CR	AVE
Purchase intention (PI) Source: Baker and Churchill (1977)			0.862	0.865	0.699
‘I would support the consumption of this product’.	PI1	0.813
‘I would like to try this product’.	PI2	0.879
‘I would buy this product if I happened to see this at a store’.	PI3	0.801
‘I would actively seek out these products to purchase them’.	PI4	0.853
Unhealthy product knowledge (PK) Source: Effertz et al. (2014)			0.847	0.851	0.670
‘I know that this product is harmful to my health and well-being’.	PK1	0.771
‘Compared to others, I am reasonably informed about this product’.	PK2	0.812
‘Long-term consumption of this product can cause serious negative consequences’.	PK3	0.873
Brand expertise (BE) Source: Kleiser and Mantel (1994)			0.867	0.870	0.618
‘I automatically know which brands of these products to buy’.	BE1	0.751
‘Without much effort, I can identify my brand at the store’.	BE2	0.772
‘I know most of the existing brands of these products’.	BE3	0.801
‘I can recognize all of the brands of these products’.	BE4	0.821
Perceived price and tax policy intervention (PTP) Source: Elder et al. (2010)			0.838	0.841	0.571
‘I know that these products are costly due to additional taxes. ‘	PTP1	0.721
‘Government imposes additional taxes to discourage the consumption of these products’.	PTP2	0.752
‘I anticipate that the price of these products would go further up’.	PTP3	0.793
Materialism (MT) Source: Moschis and Churchill (1978)			0.816	0.822	0.623
‘Money can indeed buy happiness’.	MT1	0.774
‘My dream in life is to own expensive things’.	MT2	0.781
‘I buy some things hoping to impress others’.	MT3	0.813
Buying impulsiveness (BI) Source: Rook and Fisher (1995)			0.833	0.838	0.631
‘Others judge me based on the products and brands I use’.	BI1	0.802
‘Sometimes, I feel like buying things head over heels’.	BI2	0.821
‘I often buy products without even thinking’.	BI3	0.813
‘I carefully plan most of my purchases’.	BI4	0.741

Note. AVE = Average variance extracted; CR = Composite reliability.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics, correlations, and discriminant validity.

Variable name	M	SD	PI	PK	BE	PTP	MT	BI
Purchase intention	5.131	1.661	0.836
Unhealthy product knowledge	4.883	1.093	0.262**	0.818
Brand expertise	5.110	1.161	0.381**	0.447**	0.786
Perceived price and Tax policy intervention	4.952	1.445	0.223*	0.308**	0.231**	0.756
Materialism	4.664	1.203	0.495**	0.542**	0.411**	0.218*	0.789
Buying impulsiveness	4.601	1.334	0.428**	0.459**	0.407**	0.296**	0.481**	0.794

Note: Correlations are significant at 1% level** and 5% level*; M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation PI = Purchase intention; PK = Unhealthy product knowledge; BE = Brand Expertise; PTP = Perceived price and tax policy intervention; MT = Materialism; BI = Buying Impulsiveness. Bold diagonal values represent the squared root of AVE for discriminant validity.

Table 5. Discriminate validity.

Variable name	PI	PK	BE	PTP	MT	BI
Purchase intention
Unhealthy product knowledge	0.583
Brand expertise	0.721	0.651
Perceived price and Tax policy intervention	0.602	0.763	0.734
Materialism	0.689	0.638	0.720	0.667
Buying impulsiveness					0.693

PI = Purchase intention; PK = Unhealthy product knowledge; BE = Brand Expertise; PTP = Perceived price and tax policy intervention; MT = Materialism; BI = Buying Impulsiveness. Bold diagonal values represent the squared root of AVE for discriminant validity.

Table 6. Standardized direct effects.

Hypothesis (Path)	Std. estimate	SE	CR	p-Value	Decision
H1: PK → PI	−0.08 ^NS	0.71	−1.521	0.29	Not supported
H2: BE → PI	0.29***	0.66	3.470	<0.01	Supported
H3: PTP → PI	−0.26	0.67	−1.880	0.61	Not supported
H4: MT → PI	0.07***	0.84	3.655	<0.01	Supported
H5: BI → PI	0.95***	0.79	3.734	<0.01	Supported
Adjusted R^2 = 0.341 (34.10%)

Note: ***p-value < 0.01; ^NSp-value > 0.05; S.E. = Standard Error; CR = Critical Ratio; PI = Purchase intention; PK = Unhealthy product knowledge; BE = Brand Expertise; PTP = Perceived price & tax policy intervention; MT = Materialism; BI = Buying Impulsiveness.

Figure 2. Tested model.

Figure A1. KFC chicken and Pepsi drink. Visual Advertisement Cues: Link: KFC IndiaPopcorn Chicken TV Commercial 2011 – YouTube.

Figure A2. McDonald meals and Coca Cola drink. Visual Advertisement Cues: Link: Indulge in the NEW McCheese Burger only at McDonald’s India – YouTube.

Wheaton, B. (1987). Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 118–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shevlin, M., & Miles, J. N. (1998). Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00055-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hu, L., & t., Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Baker, M. J., & Churchill, G. A.Jr. (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(4), 538–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377701400411

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Effertz, T., Franke, M.-K., & Teichert, T. (2014). Adolescents’ assessments of advertisements for unhealthy food: An example of warning labels for soft drinks. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(2), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-013-9248-7

 Google Scholar

Kleiser, S. B., & Mantel, S. P. (1994). The dimensions of consumer expertise: A scale development [Paper presentation]. AMA Summer Educators’ Proceedings.

 Google Scholar

Elder, R. W., Lawrence, B., Ferguson, A., Naimi, T. S., Brewer, R. D., Chattopadhyay, S. K., Toomey, T. L., & Fielding, J. E. (2010). The effectiveness of tax policy interventions for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38(2), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.11.005

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A.Jr. (1978). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(4), 599–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377801500409

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rook, D. W., & Fisher, R. J. (1995). Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1086/209452

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data will be made available upon reasonable request.