Do consumers repurchase and recommend plant-based meat? Integrating the theories of product evaluation, protection motivation, and brand equity Available to Purchase

In the plant-based meat consumption literature, it remains unclear why consumers are willing to continue purchasing and actively engage in word-of-mouth communication after their initial purchase. Therefore, based on product evaluation theory, protection motivation theory, and brand equity theory, this study aims to examine which factors serve as important drivers of consumers' repurchase intentions and word-of-mouth intentions for plant-based meat.

Cross-sectional data were collected through an online survey in the UK (n = 399). The structural model was analyzed using PLS-SEM. The moderation effect was tested using SPSS PROCESS macro.

Utilitarian value, hedonic value, protection motivation, and brand preference are significant drivers of repurchase intention (R² = 0.676) and word-of-mouth intention (R² = 0.708). Notably, in the post-purchase decision-making process, consumers primarily emphasize utilitarian value. The results also indicate that specific antecedents shape utilitarian value, hedonic value, protection motivation, and brand preference. For instance, consumers who find plant-based meat more appealing in taste, nutrition, and price, and easier to access through convenient channels, tend to report stronger perceptions of utilitarian value. Moreover, the findings indicate that psychological discomfort weakens the positive associations of hedonic value, protection motivation, and brand preference with the outcome variables.

Companies should consider the promotional strategies of plant-based meat by not only sustainable appeals but also its perceived values (e.g. improving flavor and healthfulness), protection motivation (e.g. self-efficacy enhancement), and brand preference (e.g. brand loyalty creation).

This study constructs a theoretical framework for explaining post-purchase decisions about plant-based meat by integrating three theoretical perspectives. In addition, it verifies that hedonic value, protection motivation, and brand preference are less effective in consumer groups with higher psychological discomfort.