IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i19p5496-d273512.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Consumption of Organic Foods Contribute to Korean Consumers’ Subjective Well-Being?

Author

Listed:
  • Hyun-Joo Lee

    (Department of Consumer Science, Inha University, Incheon 22212, Korea)

Abstract

The current study used the value-attitude-behavior hierarchical framework as a theoretical foundation to investigate how consumers’ personal values and attitudes influence organic food consumption intention and behavior and how organic food consumption contributes to their perceived subjective well-being. The responses from a total of 420 Korean consumers were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Results of this study indicated that universalism was positively related to attitudes toward environmental and psychological consequences of organic food consumption, whereas benevolence was positively related to attitudes toward health-related consequences. Further, intentions to consume organic foods were positively influenced by attitudes toward health-related and psychological consequences from consuming organic foods, and a positive, significant relation between the intention and the behavior regarding organic food consumption was revealed. Lastly, it was found that organic food consumption significantly affected consumers’ physical, psychological, and social well-being perceptions. Research contributions were discussed, and managerial implications were offered in the conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Hyun-Joo Lee, 2019. "Does Consumption of Organic Foods Contribute to Korean Consumers’ Subjective Well-Being?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-12, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5496-:d:273512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5496/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5496/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Joseph Sirgy & Eda Gurel-Atay & Dave Webb & Muris Cicic & Melika Husic-Mehmedovic & Ahmet Ekici & Andreas Herrmann & Ibrahim Hegazy & Dong-Jin Lee & J. Johar, 2013. "Is Materialism All That Bad? Effects on Satisfaction with Material Life, Life Satisfaction, and Economic Motivation," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 349-366, January.
    2. Graham, Carol & Nikolova, Milena, 2015. "Bentham or Aristotle in the Development Process? An Empirical Investigation of Capabilities and Subjective Well-Being," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 163-179.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Alan B. Krueger, 2006. "Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Renata Nestorowicz & Ewa Jerzyk & Anna Rogala, 2022. "In the Labyrinth of Dietary Patterns and Well-Being—When Eating Healthy Is Not Enough to Be Well," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Marko Ogorevc & Kaja Primc & Renata Slabe-Erker & Barbara Kalar & Miha Dominko & Nika Murovec & Tjaša Bartolj, 2020. "Social Feedback Loop in the Organic Food Purchase Decision-Making Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Ilona Liliána Birtalan & Attila Bartha & Ágnes Neulinger & György Bárdos & Attila Oláh & József Rácz & Adrien Rigó, 2020. "Community Supported Agriculture as a Driver of Food-Related Well-Being," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-17, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nikolova, Milena, 2016. "Minding the happiness gap: Political institutions and perceived quality of life in transition," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 45(S), pages 129-148.
    2. Ratna K. Shrestha & Raunak Shrestha & Sara Shneiderman & Jeevan Baniya, 2023. "Beyond Reconstruction: What Leads to Satisfaction in Post-Disaster Recovery?," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1367-1395, April.
    3. Alexandra Ganglmair-Wooliscroft & Ben Wooliscroft, 2019. "Well-Being and Everyday Ethical Consumption," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 141-163, January.
    4. J. Haavard Maridal, 2017. "A Worldwide Measure of Societal Quality of Life," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 1-38, October.
    5. Castellacci, Fulvio & Tveito, Vegard, 2018. "Internet use and well-being: A survey and a theoretical framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 308-325.
    6. Sun Youn Lee & Fumio Ohtake, 2021. "How Conscious Are You of Others? Further Evidence on Relative Income and Happiness," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(8), pages 3321-3356, December.
    7. Haavard Maridal, J. & Palich, Les & Morgan, Grant & Gardner, Steven & McKinney, Joe & Bolbocean, Corneliu, 2018. "Wellbeing Indices: A Comprehensive Inventory of Standards and a Review of Current Comparative Measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 1-11.
    8. David Patiño & Francisco Gómez-García & Alejandro Marín-Serrano, 2022. "Subjective Well-Being and Aversion to Macroeconomic Losses: New Evidence," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 359-375, February.
    9. Viola Angelini & Laura Casi & Luca Corazzini, 2015. "Life satisfaction of immigrants: does cultural assimilation matter?," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 28(3), pages 817-844, July.
    10. Fulvio Castellacci & Vegard Tveito, 2016. "The Effects of ICTs on Well-being: A Survey and a Theoretical Framework," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20161004, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    11. Fulvio Castellacci, 2023. "Innovation and social welfare: A new research agenda," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1156-1191, September.
    12. Kadir Atalay & Garry Barrett, 2022. "Retirement routes and the well-being of retirees," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 63(5), pages 2751-2784, November.
    13. Lamu, Admassu N. & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2016. "The relative importance of health, income and social relations for subjective well-being: An integrative analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 176-185.
    14. Giacomo Degli Antoni & Chiara Franco, 2022. "The effect of technological behaviour and beliefs on subjective well-being: the role of technological infrastructure," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 553-590, April.
    15. Fluhrer, Svenja & Kraehnert, Kati, 2022. "Sitting in the same boat: Subjective well-being and social comparison after an extreme weather event," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    16. Abel Brodeur, 2012. "Smoking, Income and Subjective Well-Being: Evidence from Smoking Bans," Working Papers halshs-00664269, HAL.
    17. Anna Fabry & Goedele Broeck & Miet Maertens, 2022. "Gender Inequality and Job Satisfaction in Senegal: A Multiple Mediation Model," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 2291-2311, June.
    18. Senik, Claudia, 2009. "Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 408-424, October.
    19. Foliano, Francesca & Tonei, Valentina & Sevilla, Almudena, 2024. "Social restrictions, leisure and well-being," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    20. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5496-:d:273512. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.