This research draws on primary data. Primary data collection occurred based upon the conceptual framework developed. The questionnaires were constructed, and a consumer survey conducted. In answering the research objectives in this research, the present study employed a quantitative design using the deductive approach.
5.4.1 Questionnaire development
The first phase focused on questionnaire design. This involves establishing the right scales for each of the constructs in the research theoretical framework. In relation to
guaranteea high standard of the questionnaire, opinions and insights of experts which are gathered in this study involved a consultation with the researcher’s PhD supervisors. Prior to the development of a good questionnaire to measure the constructs in this study, careful consideration was given to reliability and validity. Diamantopoulos, (2005) suggested, in developing a questionnaire based on a conceptual framework, it can be made by either adapting existing published items of the identified constructs or creating new scales. In addition to that, refinement of the measurement instrument is also essential to correctly measure each of the research constructs developed.
In relation to this study, items were adapted from published and verified scales for which reliability and validity are proven. The process of refinement and verification for each
117
of the constructs to fit with the context of this study was made with input from fellow academics, prior to the pre-test.
Subsequently, the developed questionnaires were screened, pre-tested and launched to reach target respondents in the UK, as the representative sample of consumers. The screening process to ensure understanding each of the items, involved some potential respondents, i.e. ten postgraduate students at Newcastle University. Next, a pre-test was conducted with 30 respondents (both academics as well as non-academics). The pre-test provided feedback to the researcher regarding any potential issues with items in the questionnaire.
5.4.2 Constructs measurement and scale modification
The study utilises seven constructs. For each, multiple questions capture the
underlying, latent construct (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 2000). All items in every construct are measured using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). Each construct and associated questions are explained below. In addition to that, further information regarding the questionnaires is presented in the appendices. Specifically: Appendix 1: Survey questionnaire (Yoghurt with Live Cultures); Appendix 2: Survey questionnaire (Cholesterol Lowering Margarine); Appendix 3: EHBM constructs and items (Yoghurt with Live Cultures); Appendix 4: EHBM constructs and items (Cholesterol Lowering Margarine). Appendix 5 summarises the control variables in the EHBM.
5.4.3 Items for EHBM constructs and measures
This section describes the items for each of the EHBM constructs. In summary, there are 39 items for each context (Cholesterol Lowering Margarine and Yoghurt with Live Cultures) investigated in this study. The questions are similar in both contexts. The total number of items for both contexts is thus 78. All items were assessed for reliability and validity. Table 5.2 details the number of items utilised for capturing each construct, along with relevant sources.
118 Table 5-2 Number of Items for each EHBM Construct
Number of items for the subject:
Yoghurt with Live Cultures.
Number of items for the subject: Cholesterol Lowering Margarine. Sources Independent variables 1 Perceived Susceptibility
8 8 Erkin and Ozsoy (2012)
(Cronbach’s alpha 0.98)
2 Perceived Severity 7 7 Deshpande et al., (2009)
(Cronbach alpha 0.86)
3 Perceived Benefits 6 6 Erkin and Ozsoy (2012)
(Cronbach’s alpha 0.99)
4 Perceived Barriers 8 8 Erkin and Ozsoy (2012)
(Cronbach’s alpha 0.99)
5 *Cues to Action 3
1
3
1
Erkin and Ozsoy (2012)
(Cronbach’s alpha 0.97)
Deshpande et al., (2009)
(Cronbach alpha 0.66)
6 *Self-Identity 3 3 Sparks and Guthrie (1998)
(Cronbach’s alpha 0.82)
Dependent variable 1 *Behavioural
Intention
3 3 Sparks and Guthrie (1998)
(Cronbach’s alpha 0.82)
TOTAL ITEMS 39 39
Note: * additional construct that creates EHBM (compared to HBM)
5.4.4 Operationalisation of Consumers’ Perceived Susceptibility
This construct is adapted from the Health Belief Model (Champion and Scott, 1997) and in particular, derives from Erkin and Ozsoy (2012) which measures an individual’s Perceived Susceptibility to influenza. The wording of items from Erkin and Ozsoy (2012) was adapted and refined to fit with the context of functional foods. Eight items are used to measure this construct, as presented in Table 5.3.
119 Table 5-3 Items of Perceived Susceptibility Scale
Items of Perceived Susceptibility Scales
Reference Yoghurt with Live Cultures Cholesterol Lowering Margarine
1 If I do not adopt a healthy lifestyle I could suffer from digestive system problems.
If I do not adopt a healthy lifestyle I could suffer from coronary heart disease.
Erkin and Ozsoy (2012)
2 Someone of my age is at risk of getting digestive system problems.
Someone of my age is at the risk of getting coronary heart disease.
3 It is likely that I could suffer a digestive system problem.
It is likely that I could suffer coronary heart disease.
4 Anyone may suffer from digestive system problems if they do not adopt a healthy diet.
Anyone may suffer from coronary heart disease if they do not adopt a healthy diet.
5 I might develop a digestive system problem in the future.
I might develop coronary heart disease in the future.
6 I am concerned about getting digestive system problems.
I am concerned about getting coronary heart disease.
7 I could suffer a serious problem with my digestive system in the next year.
I could suffer from coronary heart disease in the next year.
8 The thought of getting digestive system problems, worries me.
The thought of getting coronary heart disease worries me.
5.4.5 Operationalisation of Consumers’ Perceived Severity
This construct is adapted from the Health Belief Model (Champion and Scott, 1997). Specifically, this construct is adapted from Deshpande et al., (2009) which measured
individual Perceived Severity in relation to healthy eating habits. The wording of items from Deshpande et al., (2009) was adapted and refined to fit with the context of functional foods. Table 5.4 presents the seven items that measure this construct.
Table 5-4 Items of Perceived Severity Scale
Items of Perceived Severity Scales
Reference Yoghurt with Live Cultures Cholesterol Lowering Margarine
1 A digestive system problem would distract from my daily work activities.
Coronary heart disease would distract from my daily work activities.
Deshpande et al., (2009)
2 A digestive system problem would have long- lasting effects.
Coronary heart disease would have long-lasting effects.
3 A digestive system problem would make me less active if it was very serious.
Coronary heart disease would make me less active if it was very serious.
4 A digestive system problem would be financially damaging and result in loss of earnings.
Coronary heart disease would be financially damaging and result in loss of earnings.
5 A digestive system problem would harm my career. Coronary heart disease would harm my career.
6 A digestive system problem would affect my social relationships.
Coronary heart disease would affect my social relationships.
7 A digestive system problem would affect my family life.
Coronary heart disease would affect my family life.
5.4.6 Operationalisation of Consumers’ Perceived Benefits
This construct is adapted from the Health Belief Model (Champion and Scott, 1997) and specifically the previous study by Erkin and Ozsoy (2012), which measures an
individual’s Perceived Benefits associated with influenza medication. Again, the wording of items from Erkin and Ozsoy (2012) was adapted and refined to fit the context of this study. Six items were used to measure this construct as described in Table 5.5.
120 Table 5-5 Items of Perceived Benefits Scale
Items of Perceived Benefits Scales
Reference Yoghurt with Live Cultures Cholesterol Lowering Margarine
1 Consuming yoghurt with live cultures would protect me from getting digestive system problems.
Consuming cholesterol lowering margarine would protect me from getting coronary heart disease.
Erkin and Ozsoy (2012)
2 Consuming yoghurt with live cultures would protect others in my household from getting digestive system problems.
Consuming cholesterol lowering margarine would protect others in my household from getting coronary heart disease.
3 The health benefits of consuming yoghurt with live cultures would help me avoid being absent from work.
The health benefits of consuming cholesterol lowering margarine would help me avoid being absent from work.
4 Consuming yoghurt with live cultures would be beneficial for my digestive system health.
Consuming cholesterol lowering margarine would be beneficial for the health of my heart in particular.
5 Consuming yoghurt with live cultures would give me more confidence that I can avoid digestive system problems.
Consuming cholesterol lowering margarine would give me more confidence that I can avoid coronary heart disease.
6 Consuming yoghurt with live cultures would reduce the likelihood of getting other diseases related to an unhealthy digestive system.
Consuming cholesterol lowering margarine would reduce the likelihood of getting other diseases related to an unhealthy cardiovascular system.
5.4.7 Operationalisation of Consumers’ Perceived Barriers
This construct is adapted from the Health Belief Model (Champion and Scott, 1997). In particular, the measurements of this construct are based on Erkin and Ozsoy (2012). Again, the wording of items was adapted to fit with the context of functional foods. Table 5.6 presents the six items utilised to measure this construct.
Table 5-6 Items of Perceived Barriers Scale
Items of Perceived Barriers Scales
Reference Yoghurt with Live Cultures Cholesterol Lowering Margarine
1 Consuming yoghurt with live cultures is not convenient for me.
Consuming cholesterol lowering margarine is not convenient for me.
Erkin and Ozsoy (2012)
2 In order to obtain the benefits of consuming yoghurt with live cultures, I would have to give up some of my favourite snacks/ foods.
In order to obtain the benefits of consuming cholesterol lowering margarine, I would have to give up some of my favourite snacks/ foods.
3 I don’t like the taste of yoghurt with live cultures. I don’t like the taste of cholesterol lowering margarine.
4 I think it would take too much effort to change my diet to include frequent consumption of yoghurt with live cultures.
I think it would take too much effort to change my diet to include frequent consumption of cholesterol lowering margarine.
5 Consuming yoghurt with live cultures would interfere with my daily routine.
Consuming cholesterol lowering margarine would interfere with my daily routine.
6 Consuming yoghurt with live cultures might be risky for those who are intolerant to dairy products.
Consuming cholesterol lowering margarine might be risky for those having certain food allergies.
7 It is too difficult to frequently consume yoghurt with live cultures as the price is higher than alternative food products.
It is too difficult to frequently consume cholesterol lowering margarine as the price is higher than alternative ordinary margarine.
8 I am concerned about the uncertainty of the benefits of consuming yoghurt with live cultures.
I am concerned about the uncertainty of the benefits of consuming cholesterol lowering margarine.
121
5.4.8 Operationalisation of Consumers’ Cues to Action
This construct is adapted from the Health Belief Model (Champion and Scott, 1997) with a combination of items used by Erkin and Ozsoy (2012) and Deshpande et al., (2009) which measure individuals’ Cues to Action relating to influenza and healthy eating habits respectively. The wordings of items are again modified and refined to fit the context of functional foods, with 3 items derived from Erkin and Ozsoy (2012) and one item from Deshpande et al., (2009). Table 5.7 presents the list of items used to measure the construct Cues to Action in this study.
Table 5-7 Items of Cues to Action Scale
Items of Cues to Action Scales
References Yoghurt with Live Cultures Cholesterol Lowering Margarine
1 I would more likely consume yoghurts with live cultures if recommended by a doctor.
I would more likely consume cholesterol lowering margarine if recommended by a doctor.
Erkin and Ozsoy (2012)
2 I would more likely consume yoghurts with live cultures if recommended by my family.
I would more likely consume cholesterol lowering margarine if recommended by my family.
3 I would more likely consume yoghurts with live cultures if its health benefits were advertised in the mass media (press, magazines, newspaper, radio, television, and internet).
I would more likely consume cholesterol lowering margarine if its health benefits were advertised in the mass media (press, magazines, newspaper, radio, television, and internet).
4 I would more likely consume yoghurts with live cultures if recommended by my friends and colleagues.
I would more likely consume cholesterol lowering margarine if recommended by my friends and colleagues.
Deshpande et al., (2009)
5.4.9 Operationalisation of Self-Identity
This construct is adapted from a modified version of the Theory of Planned Behaviour developed by Sparks and Guthrie (1998) that measures an individual’s Self-Identity. The wordings of items are modified and refined to fit the context of functional foods. The measure of the construct of Self-Identity utilises three items, as presented in Table 5.8. Table 5-8 Items of Self-Identity Scale
Items of Self-Identity Scales
Reference Yoghurt with Live Cultures Cholesterol Lowering Margarine
1 “I think of myself as the sort of person who is
concerned about the long-term health effects of my food choices” (Sparks and Guthrie, 1998, p. 1399).
“I think of myself as the sort of person who is concerned about the long-term health effects of my food choices” (Sparks and Guthrie, 1998, p.
1399). Sparks and
Guthrie (1998)
2 “I think of myself as someone who generally thinks
carefully about the health consequences of my food choices” (Sparks and Guthrie, 1998, p. 1399).
“I think of myself as someone who generally thinks carefully about the health consequences of my food choices” (Sparks and Guthrie, 1998, p. 1399).
3 “I think of myself as a health-conscious person” (Sparks
and Guthrie, 1998, p. 1399).
“I think of myself as a health-conscious person” (Sparks and Guthrie, 1998, p. 1399).
122
5.4.10 Operationalisation of Consumers’ Behavioural Intention (endogenous construct)
This construct is adapted from the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1985). In particular, this construct is derived from the previous study by Sparks and Guthrie (1998) that measures an individual’s Behavioural Intention in the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Again, the wordings of items are adapted and refined to fit the context of functional foods in this study. The measure of the construct of Behavioural Intention utilises three items as presented in Table 5.9.
Table 5-9 Items of Behavioural Intention Scale
Items of Behavioural Intention Scales
Reference Yoghurt with Live Cultures Cholesterol Lowering Margarine
1 I will make an effort in future to eat yoghurt with live cultures.
I will make an effort in future to eat cholesterol lowering margarine.
Sparks and Guthrie (1998)
2 I would encourage my friends and family to eat yoghurt with live cultures in the future.
I would encourage my friends and family to eat cholesterol lowering margarine in the future.
3 In the future, I intend to eat a diet that includes yoghurt with live cultures even if is more expensive.
In the future, I intend to eat a diet that includes cholesterol lowering margarine even it is more expensive.
5.4.11 Form of response
According to Alreck and Settle, (2004) to measure latent (unobservable) constructs, the utilisation of rating scales is very popular and common in social science research. In relation to the instrument in this study, all constructs are measured on seven-point Likert-type scales. Preston and Colman, (2000) argued that despite a five-point scale being considered adequate, a seven-point scale allows for a finer level of detail. In addition to that, no undue cognitive burden is placed to the respondent. Furthermore, optimal information together with higher scale reliability is associated with a seven-point Likert scale (Churchill and Peter, 1984). In relation to the analysis, Likert scale data are treated as metric data. Whilst, demographic data is treated as nominal (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).
5.4.12 Question wording
The process of composing the questions drew on several previous studies. In
particular, the questionnaire items were composed with reference to previously published and validated questionnaires on influenza (Erkin and Ozsoy, 2012), healthy eating habits
(Deshpande et al., 2009) and Self-Identity (Sparks and Guthrie, 1998) and then adapted to the context of this study.
123
In order to ensure the interpretation of the questions was consistent, the questionnaire used simple words, and attempted to avoid ambiguity and double-barrelled questions that would bring confusion, (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2005).
5.4.13 Question sequence
According to Tourangeau et al. (2000), the sequencing of questions can significantly affect the answers of respondents. Applying the guidelines from Dillman (2000) and
Churchill and Iacobucci (2005), helped sequence the questions appropriately. Details of construction of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2. Table 5.10 summarises the structure of the questionnaire.
The questionnaire comprises of 9 sections. The first section captures demographic elements such as gender, age, education and income. Section Two asks respondents about purchasing frequency, the occasion of consumption, prices and where they buy functional food products. Section Three to Section Nine measures respondents’ attitudes to one of the two different types of functional foods. Specifically, Sections 3 to 9 cover, in turn, the scales for Perceived Susceptibility, Perceived Severity, Perceived Benefits, Perceived Barriers, Cues to Action, Self-Identify and Behavioural Intention. Respondents were only required to answer questions relating to either Yoghurt with Live Cultures or Cholesterol Lowering Margarine. Following the pre-test, the final questionnaire was uploaded by Qualtrics.com for distribution to selected panels.
Table 5-10 Questionnaire Structure
Section Construct/ Variable Items Scale Source
I About yourself 4 Categorical format
(multiple choice) Author II Purchase of functional foods 4 Categorical format (multiple choice) Author
III Perceived Susceptibility 8 Seven-point Likert scale Erkin and Ozsoy (2012) IV Perceived Severity 7 Seven-point Likert scale Deshpande et al., (2009) V Perceived Benefits 6 Seven-point Likert scale Erkin and Ozsoy (2012) VI Perceived Barriers 8 Seven-point Likert scale Erkin and Ozsoy (2012) VII Cues to Action 4 Seven-point Likert scale Erkin and Ozsoy (2012) Deshpande et al., (2009) VIII Self-Identity 3 Seven-point Likert scale Sparks and Guthrie
(1998) IX Behavioural Intention 3 Seven-point Likert scale Sparks and Guthrie
(1998)
TOTAL:
124
5.4.14 Pre-test the questionnaire
Prior to conducting the pre-test, the questionnaire was refined drawing on inputs from individuals that have expertise in scale development to refine the construct measures
(Zikmund, 2000; Diamantopoulos, 2005). This involved two academic staff members of the Newcastle University Business School with experience in scale development as research experts. They commented on the structure of the questionnaire, the wording, as well as scale items to be used to measure the EHBM constructs. Such an exercise helps ensure that the scales measure what they are intended to capture.
In order to find any possible flaws, requires the trial administration of an instrument. Since a questionnaire is an instrument to gather data from respondents, it is essential to ensure the requirement and content of the questionnaire is understood. Such measures known as a pre-test (Polit and Hungler 1995). For this study in particular, prior to the actual data collection, a pre-test of the questionnaire was conducted to get feedback from the
respondents. The process involved those who are not included in the main data collection, comprising thirty participants. The sample comprised PhD postgraduate students registered at Newcastle University. The pre-test questionnaire revealed unexpected mistakes. It involved a minor error in the wording and was corrected accordingly. Following the pre-test of the questionnaire, an analysis using SPSS software was made to the data. This process is essential to check the completeness of responses as well as to examine the reliability. The result shows that the respondents were able to complete the questionnaire within 10 to 15 minutes on average. In addition to that, respondents’ feedback on the quality of the
questionnaire was solicited at the end of the pre-test. This involved questions regarding the length of the questionnaire, content, the font, wording, clarity of instruction and the layout.