Table 7.
Logistic regression on the relationship between consumers’ perception of coffee health benefits and motives for coffee consumption and purchasing.
| B | S.E. | Wald | Sig. | Exp(B) | Tolerance | VIF | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Habit/pleasure | −1.037 | 0.433 | 5.744 | 0.017 | ** | 0.355 | 0.980 | 1.020 |
| Social | −0.359 | 0.440 | 0.664 | 0.415 | 0.699 | 0.912 | 1.097 | |
| Energy | −0.510 | 0.838 | 0.370 | 0.543 | 0.601 | 0.714 | 1.401 | |
| Price | 0.706 | 0.373 | 3.585 | 0.058 | * | 2.027 | 0.961 | 1.041 |
| Sustainability | −0.627 | 0.631 | 0.987 | 0.320 | 0.534 | 0.755 | 1.325 | |
| Aroma | −0.816 | 0.412 | 3.925 | 0.048 | ** | 0.442 | 0.972 | 1.028 |
| Constant | 2.099 | 1.403 | 2.236 | 0.135 | 8.155 |
Dependent variable: level of coffee health benefit perception—(0) negative and neutral (average value below or equal to 3) vs. (1) positive (average value above 3). Note: *, ** significant at p < 0.10; p < 0.05. Omnibus tests: 0; VIF: between 1.020 and 1.041; Nagelkerke R-square: 0.313. The limited number of consumers with positive perceptions of coffee’s health benefits and with consumption behavior driven by therapeutic motives (one consumer) suggests not including the therapeutic component in the regression exercise. VIF: variable inflation factor.