Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) values
| ATT | EAW | EMP | FOM | ITU | OFE | SAT | SMD | QLS | TRU | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attitude (ATT) | ||||||||||
| Environmental awareness (EAW) | 0,683 | |||||||||
| Empathy (EMP) | 0,790 | 0,887 | ||||||||
| Form of message (FOM) | 0,569 | 0,691 | 0,719 | |||||||
| Intention to use (ITU) | 0,786 | 0,883 | 0,936 | 0,665 | ||||||
| Offer (OFE) | 0,442 | 0,480 | 0,448 | 0,581 | 0,404 | |||||
| Satisfaction (SAT) | 0,824 | 0,779 | 0,826 | 0,679 | 0,871 | 0,461 | ||||
| Sense of moral obligation (SMO) | 0,892 | 0,758 | 0,827 | 0,603 | 0,851 | 0,437 | 0,838 | |||
| Service quality (QLS) | 0,766 | 0,718 | 0,763 | 0,701 | 0,769 | 0,605 | 0,848 | 0,803 |
Assessment of measurement models using PLS-SEM
| Variable | Indicators | Convergent validity | Internal consistency reliability | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loading | Indicator reliability | Cronbach’s alpha | ρA (rho_A) | Composite reliability ρc | AVE | ||
| >.70 | >.50 | .70–.95 | >.70 | >.70 | >.50 | ||
| Attitude | ATT1 | .925 | .856 | .902 | .903 | 0.939 | .836 |
| ATT2 | .912 | .832 | |||||
| ATT3 | .906 | .821 | |||||
| Environmental awareness | EAW1 | .838 | .702 | .887 | .889 | 0.922 | .746 |
| EAW2 | .891 | .794 | |||||
| EAW3 | .866 | .750 | |||||
| EAW4 | .859 | .738 | |||||
| Empathy | EMP1 | .895 | .801 | .908 | .909 | 0.936 | .785 |
| EMP2 | .887 | .787 | |||||
| EMP3 | .910 | .828 | |||||
| EMP4 | .850 | .723 | |||||
| Form of message | FOM2 | .821 | .674 | .791 | .849 | 0.852 | .546 |
| FOM3 | .855 | .731 | |||||
| FOM4 | .859 | .738 | |||||
| FOM5 | .535 | .286 | |||||
| FOM6 | .546 | .298 | |||||
| Intention to use | ITU1 | .924 | .854 | .816 | .853 | 0.891 | .734 |
| ITU2 | .901 | .812 | |||||
| ITU3 | .733 | .537 | |||||
| Offer | OFE1 | .680 | .462 | .833 | .858 | 0.889 | .668 |
| OFE2 | .871 | .759 | |||||
| OFE3 | .872 | .760 | |||||
| OFE4 | .832 | .692 | |||||
| Service quality | QLS1 | .624 | .389 | .913 | .914 | 0.945 | .852 |
| QLS2 | .799 | .638 | |||||
| QLS3 | .864 | .746 | |||||
| QLS4 | .850 | .723 | |||||
| Satisfaction | SAT1 | .906 | .821 | .917 | .919 | 0.941 | .801 |
| SAT2 | .934 | .872 | |||||
| SAT3 | .929 | .863 | |||||
| Sense of moral obligation | SMO1 | .873 | .762 | .797 | .830 | 0.868 | .624 |
| SMO2 | .892 | .796 | |||||
| SMO3 | .908 | .824 | |||||
| SMO4 | .907 | .823 | |||||
| Trust | TRU3 | .696 | .484 | .663 | .701 | 0.810 | .588 |
| TRU4 | .776 | .602 | |||||
| TRU5 | .823 | .677 | |||||
Results of the significance tests and the path coefficient of the structural model
| Hypothesis | Path | Coefficient | Effect size (f2) | Significant (p <0.05)? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Attitude (ATT) → Form of message (FOM) | .074 | .047 | No (0,305) |
| H2 | Offer (OFE) → Intention to use (ITU) | −.033 | .002 | No (0,405) |
| H3 | Offer (OFE) → Form of message (FOM) | .265 | .095 | Yes (0,000) |
| H4 | Sense of moral obligation (SMO) → Attitude (ATT) | .578 | .377 | Yes (0,000) |
| H5 | Sense of moral obligation (SMO) → Form of message (FOM) | .216 | .024 | Yes (0,009) |
| H6 | Service quality (QLS) → Attitude (ATT) | .143 | .030 | Yes (0,008) |
| H7 | Service quality (QLS) → Satisfaction (SAT) | .740 | 1.209 | Yes (0,000) |
| H8 | Service quality (QLS) → Form of message (FOM) | .249 | .003 | Yes (0,001) |
| H9 | Trust (TRU) → Service quality (QLS) | .677 | .847 | Yes (0,000) |
| H10 | Satisfaction (SAT) → Intention to use (ITU) | .648 | .660 | Yes (0,000) |
| H11 | Form of message (FOM) → Intention to use (ITU) | .209 | .062 | Yes (0,000) |
| H12 | Environmental awareness (EAW) → Sense of moral obligation (SMO) | .686 | .891 | Yes (0,000) |
| H13 | Environmental awareness (EAW) → Attitude (ATT) | −.053 | .003 | No (0,379) |
| H14 | Empathy (EMP) → Trust (TRU) | .630 | .658 | Yes (0,000) |
| H15 | Empathy (EMP) → Attitude (ATT) | .225 | .046 | Yes (0,001) |