Cognition, Value Perception and Purchase Intention of Organic Food—Evidence from China’s Organic Milk Market
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Analysis and Hypothesis
2.1. Consumers’ Cognitive Level and Purchase Intention of Organic Food
2.2. The Mediating Effect of Consumers’ Value Perception
2.3. The Regulating Role of Environmental Protection Awareness and Food Safety Awareness in Consumers’ Cognitive Influence on Value Perception
3. Research and Design
3.1. Data Sources and Model Selection
3.2. Measurements of the Variables
3.2.1. The “Organic” Cognitive Level of Consumers
3.2.2. The Value Perception of Consumers
3.2.3. Consumers’ Purchase Intention, Food Safety Awareness and Environmental Awareness
3.2.4. Control Variables
4. Empirical Results and Analysis
4.1. Descriptive Statistical Analysis
4.2. Tests of the Hypotheses
4.3. Robustness Test
5. Conclusions and Revelations
5.1. Conclusions
- (1)
- Consumers’ “organic” cognitive level positively affects their purchase intention and value perception. This paper found that in the organic food market, cognition, as the basis for the analysis of consumers’ logical thinking, is an important factor in determining their willingness to buy, and the improvement of consumers’ cognitive level is conducive to promoting the cultivation of the organic food market; on the contrary, consumers’ lack of “organic” cognition will limit their willingness to buy and hinder the development of the organic food market.
- (2)
- Value perception plays an intermediary role in the influence of consumers’ “organic” cognitive level on their purchase intention. Compared with consumers’ cognition, value perception is a more direct factor that affects consumers’ willingness to buy. The difference in purchase intention caused by different levels of consumers’ cognition is realized to a certain extent by affecting consumers’ perception of value.
- (3)
- Environmental protection awareness and food safety awareness play a moderating role between consumer perception and value perception. Under the condition of higher environmental protection awareness and food safety awareness, consumer cognition has a stronger positive impact on value perception, while under the condition of insufficient environmental protection awareness and food safety awareness, cognition has less influence on value perception. Thus, the intermediary effect of consumer value perception on the relationship between consumer cognition and purchase intention is also regulated by consumers’ environmental awareness and food safety awareness in the same direction. That is, it produces a regulated intermediary effect.
5.2. Practical Revelations
- (1)
- Cognition is closely related to willingness, and consumers’ lack of “organic” cognition is an important obstacle to the cultivation of the organic food market at present. Therefore, it is necessary to publicize the knowledge of organic food to consumers through diversified ways, including its unique production conditions, production modes, circulation and certification managements, to enhance people’s understanding of the unique properties of organic food. For single organic food suppliers, in addition to further strengthening the information transmission functions such as authentication, brand and traceability system, it is needed to give full attention to the role of modern information technology to achieve real-time information sharing with consumers, display the relevant information of organic food more intuitively, reduce consumers’ sense of uncertainty and enhance their cognition of organic food.
- (2)
- To a large extent, the influence of cognition on purchase intention is achieved through the intermediary role of consumers’ value perception, so it is important to improve consumers’ “organic” cognitive level. The key to keep them paying the bill is to provide differentiated products and services to strengthen consumers’ benign social interaction, and to meet consumers’ diversified value pursuit. For example, through the establishment of a virtual online community with consumers’ participation, consumers can widely communicate, obtain information and knowledge related to organic food consumption, express their own comments and views and gain friendship and recognition on the network platform, enhancing the sense of social participation and community belonging, and effectively enhancing the level of consumers’ sense of value.
- (3)
- As consumers’ awareness of environmental protection and food safety play a moderating role between cognition and value perception, and ultimately affect consumers’ willingness to buy, there are obvious differences between Chinese consumers’ awareness of environmental protection and food safety at present, as revealed by the results. Therefore, it is necessary for the government and enterprises to strengthen the popularization and dissemination of environmental protection and food safety knowledge, enhance consumers’ awareness of environmental protection and food safety and improve the social environment of the cultivation of the organic food market.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chekima, B.; Chekima, K.; Chekima, K. Understanding factors underlying actual consumption of organic food: The moderating effect of future orientation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 74, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laureti, T.; Benedetti, I. Exploring pro-environmental food purchasing behaviour: An empirical analysis of Italian consumers. J. Clean. Prod 2018, 172, 3367–3378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moser, A.K. Consumers’ purchasing decisions regarding environmentally friendly products: An empirical analysis of German consumers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 31, 389–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Činjarević, M.; Agić, E.; Peštek, A. When Consumers are in Doubt, You Better Watch Out! The Moderating Role of Consumer Skepticism and Subjective Knowledge in the Context of Organic Food Consumption, Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business. Spec. Conf. Issue 2018, 21, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Willer, H.; Lernoud, J. The World of Organic Agriculture Statistics and Emerging Trends. 2018. Available online: http://www.organic-world.net/yearbook/yearbook-2018.html (accessed on 10 December 2020).
- FIBL-AMI Survey. 2014. Available online: http://www.biofach.fifibl.org/fifileadmin/documents/de/news/2014/willer-lernoudschaack-2014-biofach-organic-europe.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2021).
- Sheng, G.; Xie, F.; Pang, Y. The Influence of Cognitive-Emotional Interaction on Consumer’s Green Purchase Intention. Bus. Stud. 2019, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Kushwah, S.; Dhir, A.; Sagar, M.; Gupta, B. Determinants of organic food consumption. A systematic literature review on motives and barriers. Appetite 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kushwah, S.; Dhir, A.; Sagar, M. Understanding Consumer Resistance to the Consumption of Organic Food. A Study of Ethical Consumption, Purchasing, and Choice Behaviour. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 77, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xu, W.; Xue, J.; Mao, Y. Asymmetric Information and Organic Food Consumption Behavior. J. Cent. Univ. Financ. Econ. 2017, 3, 59–67. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, L.; Sun, M. Research on Product Scandal, Trust Crisis and Consumer Choice. Soft Sci. 2016, 3, 113–120. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, J.; Li, J.; Yang, X. Why Consumer’s Word is not in Agreement with Their Deed: Study on Factors Impeding Green Consumption Behavior. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2015, 5, 72–80. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, S.; Chen, M.; Xu, Y.; Li, Z. Validation of the Policy of Organic Food Certification in China: From a View of Consumer Trust. J. Public Adm. 2013, 3, 110–118. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, S.; Wang, X.; Lv, S. Brand, Certification and Consumer Trust Tendency—A Case Study of Organic Milk. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2017, 4, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, X.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, P. Analysis on Determinant Factors of Consumer Trust in Organic Agricultural Products—Based on a Consumer Survey in Shenyang. Econ. Fabr. 2016, 6, 36–41. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, P. Upsurge in Organic Food Consumption from an Anthropological Perspective. Ideol. Front 2018, 6, 46–54. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Z.; Qiao, J. Analysis of consumers’ cognition level and influencing factors of certified food—Based on field research in Dalian city. Consum. Econ. 2011, 4, 11–14. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y. An Anlysis on Main Influencing Factors about Organic Food Purchase: Based on the Consumer Suvey in City. Econ. Probl. 2012, 7, 66–69. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, X.; Dong, T.; Yi, G. Analysis of Urban Consumers’ Perception and Purchase Decision towards Organic Food—Based on the investigation on 1017 consumers in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2014, 2, 80–87. [Google Scholar]
- Mielby, H.; Sandøe, P.; Lassen, J. The Role of Scientific Knowledge in Shaping Public Attitudes to GM Technologies. Public Underst. Sci. 2012, 22, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, C.; Zeng, F.; Liu, W. On the Different Effect of the Safety Perception of Agricultural Products on the Choice of Agricultural Products and Channels—An Analysis Based on Consumer Cognitive Behavior Model. J. Beijing Technol. Bus. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2017, 1, 50–60. [Google Scholar]
- Thorsøe, M.H. Maintaining trust and credibility in a continuously evolving organic food system. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2015, 28, 767–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, C.; Chang, Z.; Tran, M.C.; Cohen, D.A. Consumer attitudes toward the purchase of organic products in China. Int. J. Bus. Econ. 2016, 15, 117–144. [Google Scholar]
- Sheth, J.N.; Newman, B.I.; Gross, B.L. Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory of Consumption Values. J. Bus. Res. 1991, 22, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryła, P. Organic food consumption in Poland: Motives and barriers. Appetite 2016, 105, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sidali, K.L.; Schulze, B. Current and future trends in consumers’ preference for farm tourism in Germany. Leisure/Loisir 2010, 34, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemmerling, S.; Obermowe, T.; Canavari, M.; Sidali, K.L.; Stolz, H.; Spiller, A. Organic food labels as a signal of sensory quality—Insights from a cross-cultural consumer survey. Org. Agric. 2013, 3, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchand, A.; Walker, S. Product development and responsible consumption: Designing alternatives for sustainable lifestyles. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 11, 1163–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ford, G.T.; Smith, D.B.; Swasy, J.L. An empirical test of the search, experience and credence attributes framework. Adv. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 239–244. [Google Scholar]
- Xia, T. Quality perception, Value perception and Purchase Intention: An adaptive mediation model based on empirical sampling method. Bus. Econ. Res. 2019, 17, 75–78. [Google Scholar]
- Bauer, H.H.; Heinrich, D.; Schäfer, D.B. The effects of organic labels on global, local, and private brands: More hype than substance? J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1035–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, H.; Tong, L.; Jin, Y.; Chen, D. Identification and Characteristics of Ecological Consumers—An Example of 952 Sample Data of Harbin. Soft Sci. 2013, 1, 74–79. [Google Scholar]
- Bryl, P. Organic food online shopping in Poland. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 1015–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarkiainen, A.; Sundqvist, S. Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 808–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yu, W.; Mao, Z. Study on the Influence Mechanism of Advertising Message Framing on Organic Food Purchase Intention. Soft Sci. 2019, 1, 130–133. [Google Scholar]
Variables | Definition of the Variables | Mean | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|
Dependent variable | |||
Purchase Intention | According to the answer of the item, it is transformed into an ordered variable of [1–5] | 2.260 | 0.948 |
Key explanatory variable | |||
“Organic” cognitive level | According to the actual answer of the 5 question items, 1 point for each correct answer, the score interval is [0, 5] | 3.110 | 1.111 |
Mediating variable | |||
Health value perception | According to the answers to the 2 items, the Likert 7-level scale was used to assign and add, and the variable interval is [2, 14] | 3.235 | 0.762 |
Environmental value perception | According to the answers to the question items, the Likert 7-level scale was used to assign and add, and the variable interval is [1, 7] | 10.64 | 1.789 |
Moderator | |||
Food safety awareness | According to the answer of the item, the Likert 7-level scale was used to assign value | 4.986 | 1.323 |
Environmental awareness | According to the item, the Likert 7-level scale was used to assign value | 5.304 | 1.338 |
Control variable | |||
Gender | Female = 1, male = 0 | 0.721 | 0.449 |
Age | values assigned to the 5 age groups: 30 and below = 1, 31–40 = 2, 41–50 = 3, 51–60 = 4, 61 and above = 5 | 2.082 | 0.900 |
Occupation | Institutional occupation (government agencies, public institutions, state-owned enterprises) = 1; Non-institutional occupation (private enterprises, self-employed, other) = 0 | 0.654 | 0.476 |
Social trust level | According to the answer of the item, the Likert 7-level scale was used to assign value | 4.722 | 1.283 |
Family (per capita) annual income level | 10,000 yuan and below = 1, 10,000–20,000 yuan = 2, 20,000–35,000 yuan = 3, 35,000–50,000 yuan = 4, 50,000–70,000 yuan = 5, 70,000–100,000 yuan = 6, 100,000 yuan and above = 7 | 5.133 | 1.834 |
Family structure | Is there elderly or children in the family: yes = 1, no = 0 | 0.798 | 0.402 |
Area | Eastern China = 1, Central China = 2, Western China = 3 | 2.006 | 0.815 |
Purchase Intention | “Organic” Cognitive Level | Environmental Value Perception | Health Value Perception | Food Safety Awareness | Environmental Awareness | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Purchase Intention | 1 | |||||
“Organic” cognitive level | 0.116 *** | 1 | ||||
Environmental value perception | 0.293 *** | 0.147 *** | 1 | |||
Health value perception | 0.265 *** | 0.220 *** | 0.450 *** | 1 | ||
Food safety awareness | 0.189 *** | 0.135 *** | 0.284 *** | 0.374 *** | 1 | |
Environmental awareness | 0.187 *** | 0.151 *** | 0.270 *** | 0.367 *** | 0.806 *** | 1 |
Variables | (1) H1 | (2) H2a | (3) H2b | (4) H3a | (5) H3b | (6) H3a | (7) H3b |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
“Organic” cognitive level | 0.129 ** | 0.170 *** | 0.256 *** | 0.094 * | 0.089 * | ||
(0.052) | (0.053) | (0.051) | (0.053) | (0.053) | |||
Environmental value perception | 0.617 *** | 0.605 *** | |||||
(0.086) | (0.086) | ||||||
Health value perception | 0.206 *** | 0.198 *** | |||||
(0.037) | (0.037) | ||||||
Environmental awareness | 0.090 | 0.130 * | 0.165 ** | 0.077 | 0.058 | 0.070 | 0.052 |
(0.070) | (0.076) | (0.072) | (0.070) | (0.072) | (0.071) | (0.072) | |
Food safety awareness | 0.140 ** | 0.275 *** | 0.304 *** | 0.078 | 0.094 | 0.078 | 0.095 |
(0.067) | (0.076) | (0.071) | (0.068) | (0.067) | (0.068) | (0.067) | |
Gender | −0.089 | 0.146 | 0.076 | −0.117 | −0.105 | −0.124 | −0.110 |
(0.118) | (0.124) | (0.122) | (0.119) | (0.118) | (0.119) | (0.118) | |
Age | −0.223 *** | −0.019 | −0.017 | −0.232 *** | −0.224 *** | −0.229 *** | −0.221 *** |
(0.067) | (0.071) | (0.060) | (0.068) | (0.067) | (0.068) | (0.067) | |
Occupation | 0.298 ** | 0.050 | 0.150 | 0.275 ** | 0.261 ** | 0.279 ** | 0.266 ** |
(0.118) | (0.122) | (0.114) | (0.120) | (0.119) | (0.120) | (0.119) | |
Social trust level | 0.179 *** | 0.173 *** | 0.340 *** | 0.151 *** | 0.129 *** | 0.149 *** | 0.128 *** |
(0.044) | (0.049) | (0.054) | (0.044) | (0.045) | (0.044) | (0.045) | |
Family structure | 0.363 *** | 0.027 | 0.224 * | 0.387 *** | 0.367 *** | 0.376 *** | 0.356 *** |
(0.134) | (0.142) | (0.131) | (0.142) | (0.136) | (0.142) | (0.136) | |
Family income | 0.043 | 0.071 ** | 0.102 *** | 0.033 | 0.032 | 0.026 | 0.026 |
(0.034) | (0.033) | (0.033) | (0.034) | (0.034) | (0.034) | (0.034) | |
Area | 0.086 | 0.111 | −0.015 | 0.050 | 0.082 | 0.065 | 0.095 |
(0.070) | (0.071) | (0.066) | (0.070) | (0.070) | (0.071) | (0.070) | |
Wald X2 | 94.9 | 124.9 | 238.1 | 136.3 | 113.3 | 139.6 | 114.6 |
Prob > X2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.0353 | 0.0554 | 0.0647 | 0.0536 | 0.0448 | 0.0547 | 0.0457 |
Observations | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 |
Variable | (1) H4a | (2) H4b | (3) H5a | (4) H5a | (5) H5b | (6) H5b |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
“Organic” cognition | 0.129 ** | −0.128 | 0.133 ** | −0.187 | ||
(0.052) | (0.198) | (0.052) | (0.194) | |||
Environmental awareness | 0.213 *** | 0.202 *** | 0.044 | |||
(0.046) | (0.046) | (0.127) | ||||
Food safety awareness | 0.217 *** | 0.208 *** | 0.024 | |||
(0.044) | (0.044) | (0.117) | ||||
“Organic” cognitive level * environmental protection awareness | 0.052 * | |||||
(0.029) | ||||||
“Organic” cognitive level * Food safety awareness | 0.061 * | |||||
(0.035) | ||||||
Gender | −0.074 | −0.082 | −0.084 | −0.080 | −0.092 | −0.093 |
(0.118) | (0.118) | (0.118) | (0.118) | (0.118) | (0.118) | |
Age | −0.229 *** | −0.226 *** | −0.225 *** | −0.227 *** | −0.221 *** | −0.225 *** |
(0.067) | (0.067) | (0.067) | (0.067) | (0.067) | (0.067) | |
Professional | 0.292 ** | 0.296 ** | 0.297 ** | 0.299 ** | 0.301 ** | 0.302 ** |
(0.117) | (0.118) | (0.118) | (0.118) | (0.118) | (0.118) | |
Social trust level | 0.184 *** | 0.191 *** | 0.180 *** | 0.179 *** | 0.185 *** | 0.186 *** |
(0.044) | (0.044) | (0.044) | (0.044) | (0.044) | (0.044) | |
Family structure | 0.382 *** | 0.392 *** | 0.364 *** | 0.358 *** | 0.374 *** | 0.371 *** |
(0.134) | (0.133) | (0.134) | (0.134) | (0.133) | (0.133) | |
Household income | 0.055 | 0.055 | 0.045 | 0.044 | 0.044 | 0.043 |
(0.034) | (0.034) | (0.034) | (0.034) | (0.034) | (0.034) | |
Area | 0.065 | 0.068 | 0.085 | 0.081 | 0.088 | 0.082 |
(0.069) | (0.070) | (0.070) | (0.070) | (0.070) | (0.070) | |
Wald X2 | 84.8 | 87.87 | 91.8 | 94.5 | 94.3 | 99.66 |
Prob > X2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.0318 | 0.0326 | 0.034 | 0.0346 | 0.0348 | 0.0357 |
Observations | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 |
Coefficient | Standard Error | 95% Confidence Interval | Environmental Awareness | Food Safety Awareness | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mediating effect of environmental value perception | 0.027 | 0.008 | (0.013, 0.047) | M − SD | |
0.032 | 0.006 | (0.02, 0.046) | M | ||
0.035 | 0.09 | (0.019, 0.058) | M + SD | ||
Mediating effect of health value perception | 0.006 | 0.007 | (−0.007, 0.02) | M − SD | |
0.02 | 0.006 | (0.009, 0.036) | M | ||
0.036 | 0.008 | (0.022, 0.054) | M + SD |
Variables | (1) H1 | (2) H2a | (3) H2b | (4) H3a | (5) H3b | (6) H3a | (7) H3b |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
“Organic” cognition | 0.128 ** | 0.158 *** | 0.245 *** | 0.098 * | 0.091 * | ||
(0.052) | (0.052) | (0.050) | (0.052) | (0.052) | |||
Environmental value perception | 0.609 *** | 0.597 *** | |||||
(0.086) | (0.087) | ||||||
Health value perception | 0.203 *** | 0.195 *** | |||||
(0.037) | (0.037) | ||||||
Wald X2 | 100.3 | 129.5 | 232.9 | 141.8 | 118 | 145.5 | 120 |
Prob > X2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.0366 | 0.0565 | 0.0643 | 0.0541 | 0.0456 | 0.0554 | 0.0467 |
Observations | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 |
Variables | (1) H4a | (2) H5a | (3) H5a | (4) H4b | (5) H5b | (6) H5b |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
“Organic” cognition | 0.136 *** | 0.140 | 0.135 *** | −0.176 | ||
(0.051) | (0.233) | (0.051) | (0.191) | |||
Environmental awareness | 0.221 *** | 0.209 *** | 0.211 | |||
(0.051) | (0.051) | (0.137) | ||||
Food safety awareness | 0.217 *** | 0.207 *** | 0.029 | |||
(0.044) | (0.044) | (0.115) | ||||
“Organic” awareness level * Willingness to pay for environmental protection | 0.001 | |||||
(0.043) | ||||||
“Organic” cognitive level * Food safety risk perception | 0.059 * | |||||
(0.035) | ||||||
Wald X2 | 82.3 | 92.6 | 92.8 | 87.8 | 94.56 | 100.1 |
Prob > X2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.0306 | 0.033 | 0.033 | 0.0325 | 0.0349 | 0.0358 |
Observations | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 | 1113 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yuan, X.; Xiao, Y. Cognition, Value Perception and Purchase Intention of Organic Food—Evidence from China’s Organic Milk Market. Sustainability 2021, 13, 910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020910
Yuan X, Xiao Y. Cognition, Value Perception and Purchase Intention of Organic Food—Evidence from China’s Organic Milk Market. Sustainability. 2021; 13(2):910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020910
Chicago/Turabian StyleYuan, Xiaohui, and Yacheng Xiao. 2021. "Cognition, Value Perception and Purchase Intention of Organic Food—Evidence from China’s Organic Milk Market" Sustainability 13, no. 2: 910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020910