Table 5 Path analyses results Hypotheses...

Table 5

Path analyses results

Hypotheses	Path	Β	p-value	Decision	R² value
Study 1
H1	EC → ATLSFB	0.303	<0.001	Supported	0.58
H2	CM → ATLSFB	0.410	< 0.001	Supported
H3	GPV → ATLSFB	0.118	< 0.005	Supported
H4	SI → ATLSFB	0.520	< 0.001	Supported
H5	TST → ATLSFB	−0.403	< 0.001	Not supported
H6	ATLSFB → LSFBCI	0.502	< 0.001	Supported	0.46
Study 2
H1	EC → ATGSFB	0.402	<0.001	Supported	0.56
H2	CM → ATGSFB	−0.343	< 0.001	Not supported
H3	GPV → ATGSFB	0.328	< 0.001	Supported
H4	SI → ATGSFB	0.020	> 0.05	Not supported
H5	TST → ATGSFB	−0.504	< 0.001	Not supported
H6	ATGSFB → GSFBCI	0.583	< 0.001	Supported	0.48

Hypotheses	Path	Β	p-value	Decision	R² value
Study 1
H1	EC → ATLSFB	0.303	<0.001	Supported	0.58
H2	CM → ATLSFB	0.410	< 0.001	Supported
H3	GPV → ATLSFB	0.118	< 0.005	Supported
H4	SI → ATLSFB	0.520	< 0.001	Supported
H5	TST → ATLSFB	−0.403	< 0.001	Not supported
H6	ATLSFB → LSFBCI	0.502	< 0.001	Supported	0.46
Study 2
H1	EC → ATGSFB	0.402	<0.001	Supported	0.56
H2	CM → ATGSFB	−0.343	< 0.001	Not supported
H3	GPV → ATGSFB	0.328	< 0.001	Supported
H4	SI → ATGSFB	0.020	> 0.05	Not supported
H5	TST → ATGSFB	−0.504	< 0.001	Not supported
H6	ATGSFB → GSFBCI	0.583	< 0.001	Supported	0.48

Note(s):

EC = environmental concern; SI = social influence; CM = cultural mindfulness; GPV = green perceived value; ATLSFB = attitude towards local sustainable fashion; ATGSFB = attitude towards global sustainable fashion, TST = trust; MAT = materialism; LSFBCI = local sustainable fashion brand consumption intention; GSFBCI = global sustainable fashion brand consumption intention

Source(s): Authors’ own work

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable