Next Article in Journal
Substitution of Conventional Vehicles in Municipal Mobility
Previous Article in Journal
Hydrolysis Optimization of Thraustochytrid (Heterotrophic Protist) Biomass for the Production of a New and Sustainable Ingredient for the Aquafeed Industry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 14
10.3390/su16146053
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Understanding Consumers’ Willingness to Pay More and Choice Behavior for Organic Food Products Considering the Influence of Skepticism

by
Mohd Salman Shamsi
1 and
Arif Abad
2,*
1
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Tabuk, Tabuk 71491, Saudi Arabia
2
Symbiosis Institute of Business Management Nagpur, Constituent of Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune 440008, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(14), 6053; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146053 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 3 June 2024 / Revised: 6 July 2024 / Accepted: 10 July 2024 / Published: 16 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Food)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this research is to uncover consumers’ willingness to pay more (WTPM) and their choice behavior (CB) for organic food products using the Theory of Consumption Values (TCV) while also examining how skepticism toward organic labeling impacts the relationship between WTPM and CB. This study includes 374 survey responses collected using purposive sampling. The statistical software package IBM SPSS 28 was utilized for factor analysis and reliability, while CFA, validity, and structural assessments were carried out using AMOS 28 software. Process Macro 4.1 was employed to study the interaction of skepticism. This study reveals that consumers favor organic foods due to various values: price, social, emotional, epistemic, and conditional. Despite this, only price value directly affects the willingness to pay more. Once committed, consumers are willing to pay more, yet skepticism can hinder this commitment. Marketers should highlight the health, eco-friendliness, and value benefits of organic food products through advertisements and infomercials linking organics to daily life. Emotional appeals can stress the harms of non-organic foods, though skepticism must be managed delicately by gaining consumers’ trust.

1. Introduction

In this fast-moving world, not just production but also consumption habits are changing rapidly. The growing health consciousness, environmental concern, and market dynamism have acted as catalysts for consumers’ inclination toward organic food products [1,2]. These products are made with no or negligible amounts of harmful chemicals, colors, and additives that could otherwise contribute to human health adversities along with environmental degradation [1,3]. In pursuit of living a healthier life, consumers have started using products that are not just healthy but environmentally friendly, too [4]. Thus, for the greater environmental good, these food products are gaining much attention around the globe [5]. These products can be labeled as organic if they abide by the rules set by different regulatory bodies concerning the use of harmful chemicals in the form of fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators, etc. [6].
Organic food products have many benefits over their non-organic counterparts. Scientific inquiries have confirmed lower levels of agrochemical residue in human bodies for those who consume organic foods [7,8]. The cultivation of food organically also helps ease the pressure on the environment through soil and water conservation, along with a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions [9]. This not only helps safeguard the environment but also maintains a healthier biodiversity for the creatures on/in land, air, and water [9]. The norms for labeling a food product as organic prohibit the usage of genetically modified organisms/foods that are otherwise linked to the probability of creating illness and pollution [10], thereby adding to the value organic food products hold. Additionally, organic food products have also been tried and tested for better nutritional value. Studies have affirmed the presence of higher amounts of nutrients like Vitamin C, Iron, Omega-3 fatty acids, and Magnesium in organic food products compared to non-organically grown foods, including both vegetables and meat [11]. These advantages are pushing consumers around the globe toward organic food products. The display of these products across offline and online marketplaces is increasing more than ever. Studies have suggested a great interest and consumption intention toward organic food [1,6,12]. The global market for organic food products stood at USD 185.3 billion in 2022, with an expected growth of around 12% (CAGR) during 2023–2028 [13], while that of India stood at USD 1278 million in 2022, with an expected growth rate of 23.8% (CAGR) during 2023–2028 [14]. Like other countries, India also regulates the manufacturing, packing, and selling of organic foods under the Food Safety and Standards (Organic Foods) Regulation, 2017. The labeling of any food product as organic is possible only after final product certification under the guidelines laid down by the aforementioned regulations through the National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP) or Participatory Guarantee System for India (PGS-India) [15].
Just like every rose comes with some thorns, organic food products are also exposed to some serious concerns that create hurdles for their consumption. They are usually higher in price than the conventional products. Studies reflect that price is inversely related to the adoption rate of organic food products [6,16], even if the consumers are environmentally conscious. Consumers’ willingness to pay a premium has been pointed out as an important element in shaping their actual use of the product [17]. Another common concern is skepticism about the product being organic. Many consumers develop doubt against the brands due to reported events of false claims, hidden information, exaggeration, etc. [18]. Skepticism regarding organic labeling can create a gap between intention and actual use. The growing popularity, existing concerns, and available statistics provide sufficient motivation for researchers to explore the domain of organic food products. Studies have been carried out around the globe to uncover the purchase/consumption intention [1,4,6,12] and adoption [19,20] of organic food products. However, other crucial research questions relating to a willingness to pay more (WTPM) and organic skepticism have not been explored yet. This gap may put a blindfold over the eyes of academicians and industry practitioners. It may create a lack of understanding regarding what may motivate a consumer to pay a higher price for buying an organic food product. Thus, considering this gap significant, we propose to use the Theory of Consumption Values (TCV) to enhance understanding of the concern. TCV may help us determine the role of various consumption values in articulating consumers’ WTPM along with their choice behavior for organic food products. Further, we intend to inquire about the moderating role of organic skepticism to make the study more robust. Hence, the present study is conducted to answer the following concerns:
  • RQ1. Do the consumption values play a significant role in shaping consumers’ willingness to pay more (WTPM) and choice behavior for organic food products?
  • RQ2. Does skepticism of organic labeling moderate the relationship between WTPM and choice behavior?
The outcome of this study will add quality inputs to the literature and practice. Firstly, the inquiry into the consumers’ WTPM for organic food products will be assessed. There is a huge gap in the existing literature despite it being a major concern. Secondly, the ability of TCV to explain the adoption of organic food products will also be an important achievement of this research. Thirdly, empirically testing the moderating role of organic skepticism will be another crucial element of this study, as skepticism exists among all classes of consumers. The result will help to better understand the consumer behavior concerning the organic food products. These findings will not only be an addition to the existing literature but may also be crucial for various practitioners involved in manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling organic food products.
This study commences with an introduction to the topic and highlights the need and significance of the study. A review of past literature is presented in Section 2, followed by hypothesis development (Section 3), materials and methods (Section 4), and results (Section 5). A detailed discussion, along with a conclusion, is presented in Section 6, while Section 7 gives extensive implications for theory and practice. The study concludes by presenting the limitations and directions for future studies in Section 8.

2. Review of Literature

2.1. Theory of Consumption Values

The theory of consumption values was propounded to explicate the value-backed reasoning concerning consumer behavior [21]. The theory talks about five consumption values that affect consumers’ choices, starting with functional value, followed by social value, emotional value, epistemic value, and conditional value [21]. The theory was established assuming that these values are not dependent on one another, contributing individually to shape a consumption choice. The choice behavior, in a product context, may be understood as a consumer’s response while selecting a product from the available alternatives [22]. Consumers develop various perceptions around the consumption values based on their past experience with the product/service. It is argued that consumers develop a propensity to choose (or avoid) something on the basis of these perceived values [21]. This theory is exceptionally capable of explaining consumers’ decision to use (or not to use) a variety of products [21]. This is evident in various prevailing studies unearthing choice behavior w.r.t. food delivery apps [23], mobile payment apps [24], natural products [4], local food consumption [25], green products [26], and so on. Furthermore, TCV considers both cognitive and emotive elements of consumption, resulting in a holistic and multifaceted comprehension of consumption values [1]. In this parlance, some studies have studied topics related to food choice and consumption using TCV [4,25,27,28]. Thus, it would be logical to apply TCV to study the behavior of organic food consumption to uncover not just choice behavior but also WTPM. TCV may help us dig down the role of various consumption values in articulating consumers’ WTPM along with their choice behavior for organic food products.

2.2. Willingness to Pay More (WTPM)

WTPM may be defined as a customer’s readiness to buy a product at a price higher than the available alternatives [29]. It has been found that consumers may pay more for products or services if the value derived is justified [30]. WTPM has also been seen as a reflection of loyalty, brand equity, brand uniqueness, and emotional brand attachment [29,31,32]. People consume different brands but are ready to pay more for only those brands that provide novel benefits or value [32]. Previous studies have found that consumers are ready to pay high prices if the product provides some value additional to the core benefits, for instance, environment protection [25], health benefits [33], convenience [34], etc. While organic food products are generally priced higher than non-organic alternatives around the world, it has been identified as a strong obstacle to the consumption of organic foods [35]. Thus, consumers’ WTPM must be explored for organic food products, as they have a potential market and are generally priced higher.

3. Hypothesis Development

3.1. Functional Value

FV may be understood as the advantages enjoyed by the consumers through the performance of the product [21]. It derives its roots from the theory of utility [36]. The value is supposed to be based on the utility, benefits, as well as attributes hosted by the product [21]. It may also be translated to the quality offered by the product compared to the price paid for it [37]. Many researchers have associated functional value with the choice behavior of consumers with respect to a wide range of products [4,24] and services [23,24]. Past research has taken price, quality, and health benefits as predictors of functional value for food products [38]. The consumption of organic food is strongly influenced by the gains derived from them [39]. It has been observed that values exhibited by organic foods hold significance in creating consumption intention [40]. In the context of organic food products, functional value (quality) encompasses health benefits, consistent quality, taste, and environmental advantages. While [21] proposed functional value as a factor explaining quality and price value together, [37] proposed it separately for quality and price. Various studies accepted the latter proposition and studied the concept of consumption taking functional value for quality and price separately [38,41]. This study also investigates functional value through the lens of quality and price separately. The utility value provided by a product is also found to be a strong predictor of WTPM [34]. Thus, the following proposition is made:
H1a. 
Functional value (Quality) significantly explains the choice behavior for organic food products.
H1b. 
Functional value (Quality) significantly explains the WTPM for organic food products.
H2a. 
Functional value (Price) significantly explains the choice behavior for organic food products.
H2b. 
Functional value (Price) significantly explains the WTPM for organic food products.

3.2. Social Value

SV is the benefit derived through the usage of a product or service in the form of social association [21]. It is a product’s power to strengthen the belongingness of the user with different demographic groups, preferably among the peers, family, friends, and idols of the user. It may even relate to the image a person wishes to formulate among the social groups [37]. Resultantly, image and affiliation concerns create a significant influence on the consumption decision [21]. The association of social value with organic food products has not been studied much, but earlier studies have presented it as an important predictor for other products and services, namely, hybrid electric cars [42], mobile payment apps [24], food delivery apps [41], online shopping [43], and so on. Past research provides significant evidence to support the idea that people give fair weight to the social value of an offering in shaping their consumption intentions [41,42,44,45] and actual purchase behavior [46]. Few studies have also argued in favor of social value’s role concerning sustainable consumption [46,47]. Thus, the following propositions are made:
H3a. 
Social value significantly explains the choice behavior for organic food products.
H3b. 
Social value significantly explains the WTPM for organic food products.

3.3. Emotional Value

EMV is the comprehended usefulness expected “from a product’s ability to elicit emotions of the individual” [21]. Consumers usually associate different emotions (like fear, horror, and joy) with the products or services they use [21] based on the psychological response generated by their minds after the use of the product. It may be elicited based on the benefits derived from the product along with the social response generated. Ultimately, it plays a crucial role in helping consumers decide whether to utilize or abstain from using a particular product [37]. Understanding the emotional value sought by consumers from products, manufacturers may not only build better products but also portray the right emotion as per consumers’ expectations [42]. Various studies have been conducted, enquiring about emotions as a predictor of behavior [42,46,48]. Some found it to be a significant predictor [25,27,42], while others also opined otherwise [47]. The authors of [24] proved the significant role of emotional value in igniting initial trust among consumers along with generating the adoption behavior for mobile payment apps. Similarly, other studies found it significant in stimulating purchase intention [27,39], attitude [42], WTPM [34], actual purchase [46], and so on.
Thus, the following propositions are made:
H4a. 
Emotional value significantly explains the choice behavior for organic food products.
H4b. 
Emotional value significantly explains the WTPM for organic food products.

3.4. Epistemic Value

Every technology or product possesses the power to “arouse curiosity, provide novelty, and/or satisfy a desire for knowledge” [21]. This ability provides epistemic utility (value) to the consumers. Consumers may experience boredom by consuming a product over a period, which creates an urge to try something different. However, there may be times when it is just the eagerness to observe the attributes of the product or maybe the consumer’s quest to learn more. The desire to break the routine, gain knowledge, or satisfy curiosity can greatly impact consumer behavior [21,37]. Existing literature demonstrates epistemic value as an important variable in shaping consumer behavior. It has been observed that it holds a significant influence on attitude [42], purchase intention [41], technology adoption [24], as well as actual purchase [46] of the products. Although the curiosity around organic food products is relatively higher than that of non-organic counterparts, their association has not been given much attention by studies in the recent past. The existing research has been conducted with respect to local food [25], natural food [4], food delivery apps [41], mobile payment apps [24], and green/sustainable consumption [47]. Additionally, the role of epistemic value in defining WTPM has not been explored by any research. Thus, the following propositions are formulated:
H5a. 
Epistemic value significantly explains the choice behavior for organic food products.
H5b. 
Epistemic value significantly explains the WTPM for organic food products.

3.5. Conditional Value

CV is achieved by the consumers based on circumstantial benefits received from the product [21]. Sometimes, products or services hold special significance depending on certain situations or events [21]. The ability of a product or service to deliver utility in specific times, places, or situations results in value for the consumers. It holds special significance in helping consumers decide whether to use or not to use the product in consideration [49]. Businesses may utilize these contingencies to make products useful for consumers in specific situations, events, and circumstances [23]. In the present context, it may equate to the utility of organic food products to obtain health benefits, in times of quest for healthy food, or maybe when consumers feel conscious of the environment and (or) health. Despite having the potential to deliver conditional value, organic food products have not been studied in this context, but ample research is available in other contexts [1,41,42,48]. The existing studies demonstrate the role of conditional value in defining purchase intention for food delivery apps [41] and the adoption of mobile payment apps [24]. However, the impact of the conditional value was not visible while testing it for green product purchases [47], building attitudes toward hybrid electric cars [42], as well as local food consumption intention [25]. Moreover, circumstantial factors can play a significant role in determining consumers’ WTPM for products [32]. The WTPM even depends upon the involvement and commitment displayed by the consumers, which may differ based on time and situation [34]. Thus, the following propositions are made:
H6a. 
Conditional value significantly explains the choice behavior for organic food products.
H6b. 
Conditional value significantly explains the WTPM for organic food products.

3.6. Choice Behavior and Willingness to Pay More

Choice behavior may be understood as a consumer’s decision to choose (or not choose) a particular alternative over the other [21]. The consumer’s commitment to select one product or a brand over the other may be sufficient to motivate them to buy the product. Although the relationship between choice behavior and WTPM has not been studied scientifically, there are shreds of evidence to demonstrate consumers’ WTPM based on their purchase intention [50,51]. The purchase intention for environmentally friendly packaging is also found to be associated with WTPM [52]. Thus, we take this limited but statistically proven literature as evidence to propose the following:
H7. 
Choice Behavior significantly impacts consumers’ WTPM for organic food products.

3.7. Skepticism as a Moderator

Skepticism may be understood as a propensity to doubt or question a claim [53]. It is a form of disbelief in the communication made by the other party. Consumers are very much prone to skepticism, especially in the case of products boosting health [54] or environmental benefits [18]. Although consumers use advertisements as a source of information about a product, they are skeptical about the information due to exaggerated claims and false promises made [54]. Skepticism is an important factor to be studied as every marketer aims to build trust and belief to realize their marketing goals [55]. Previous research [53,54,56] has pointed out the strong influence of skepticism over consumer behavior; however, there may be differences among consumers based on levels of skepticism. Studies have inquired about skepticism as an important predictor of consumption behavior w.r.t green products [57], organic food [55], CSR communication [58], environmental cause [53], and online shopping [59], while the authors of [60] studied it as a consequence of behavioral reasoning with regard to healthcare. However, there is a dearth of literature discussing the moderating influence of skepticism over organic consumption. Hence, the following proposition is made:
H8. 
Skepticism significantly moderates the relationship between choice behavior and WTPM.
Based on these hypotheses, this study laid down the theoretical framework shown in Figure 1.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Research Design

This cross-sectional quantitative research investigates how consumption values influence consumers’ WTPM and choice behavior regarding organic food products. This research also focuses on how skepticism moderates the relationship between WTPM and choice behavior. The selection of organic food products is based on the growing awareness of health, environmental concerns, and market trends, which have influenced consumers’ preference for organic food products [1]. According to a recent report, the worldwide market for organic food products was valued at USD 185.3 billion in 2022 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of approximately 12% during the period of 2023–2028. The report also predicts that the worldwide organic food market will grow to USD 363.8 billion by 2028 [13]. The observed trend indicates substantial growth in this particular industry, which in turn has created a sizable market for various business entities. Henceforth, it is essential for researchers to attain a deeper grasp of this sector’s potential. The respondents were selected from India, as it is a significant market for business enterprises operating in the organic food sector [14]. This study used advanced statistical analyses using SPSS 28 and AMOS 28 software packages to rigorously examine various facets of this research. The study delved into moderation analysis, employing Process Macro 4.1 to investigate the moderating impact on the established relationship. These sophisticated statistical methods contribute to the robustness and depth of the findings, enhancing the overall validity and reliability of the research outcomes.

4.2. Questionnaire Development

The data were collected using a meticulously crafted structured questionnaire in English. This study comprises nine constructs that have been evaluated and confirmed in prior research studies [21,29,37,61,62,63] conducted under varying conditions (refer to Table 1). Responses were collected using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Before distributing the questionnaire to the sample, it was pretested for language, context, and content with the help of 50 volunteers, including professors, master’s students, and housewives.

4.3. Population and Data Sources

The target population of this research comprises individuals with a minimum level of intermediate knowledge regarding organic food products. This study has selected India as the geographical location due to its promising market potential for organic food products. India stood at USD 1278 million in 2022 with a 23.8% growth rate (CAGR) during 2023–2028 [14]. This makes India a significant market for business enterprises operating in the organic food product sector as its CAGR approximately doubles the world’s CAGR for organic food products.

4.4. Sample Selection and Survey Administration

The survey employed in this study was conducted using Google Forms. The questionnaire link was distributed through WhatsApp, Facebook, LinkedIn, Email, and QR codes. The target audience included authors’ connections, members of social media groups and pages related to organic food products, and food bloggers. The questionnaire link was also posted on social media as a public post to reach a wider audience. Overall, diverse participation in the survey was targeted. The questionnaire items were adapted from previous studies, as detailed in Table 1. This study utilizes purposive sampling, as respondents must have experience with organic food products. An attempt was made to reach a target of 400 responses, but 374 useful responses were obtained, which might be attributed to the precise nature of the sampling criteria. Additionally, the data-collection process has been conducted on a PAN India basis so that the dataset can represent the whole geographical area to a large extent. The sample size obtained for this study exceeded the number of statements by a factor of ten. In addition, the adequacy of the sample size for model testing was corroborated by prior studies [64].

4.5. Data Analysis

Following the descriptive analysis, the present investigation utilized IBM SPSS 28 and AMOS 28 to evaluate the hypothesized relationships. The statistical software package IBM SPSS 28 was utilized to conduct exploratory factor analysis to obtain factor loadings, and Cronbach’s alpha was used to ensure internal consistency. On the other hand, confirmatory factor analysis, validity assessment, and structural assessment for hypotheses testing were carried out using the AMOS 28 software. The study investigated the moderating impact through the utilization of Process Macro 4.1 in SPSS 28. The measurement model was initially tested, followed by the structural model in isolation to prevent any potential interaction between the two models. In addition, the present research addressed potential common method bias by employing Harman’s Single Factor technique [65] with the help of SPSS 28 software.
Table 2 furnishes a detailed overview of the surveyed group, shedding light on the distribution of gender, age categories, educational qualifications, and monthly income brackets. Regarding the gender distribution, the participants exhibit a balanced representation, with 46% identified as female and 54% as male. Age-wise, the predominant segment falls within the 20 to 40 age range, constituting a substantial 91.4%, while the 40 to 60 age group makes up 4.3%. Remarkably, there is an absence of respondents aged above 60. Educationally, the dataset underscores diversity, with the largest cohort possessing post-graduate degrees at 45.5%, followed by graduates at 29.4%, and individuals with doctorates at 20.3%. High school and intermediate qualifications are represented by smaller percentages, at 2.1% and 2.7%, respectively. The monthly income distribution shows that the majority (36.9%) earn below 20,000 INR, followed by 21.4% earning between 20,000 INR and 40,000 INR, 18.7% between 40,000 INR and 60,000 INR, and 23% earning above 60,000 INR. In total, the survey encapsulates 374 respondents, delivering a comprehensive depiction of the varied demographic characteristics inherent in the examined population.

5. Results

5.1. Sample Adequacy, Sphericity, Normality, and Common Method Bias

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy reported the value as 0.920, indicative of a robust adequacy level for the sample, as values nearing 1 signify enhanced suitability for factor analysis. Bartlett’s Test encompassed an approximate Chi-Square value of 11,251.049, degrees of freedom (df) totaling 630, and a significance level (Sig.) of 0.000. The noteworthy p-value, below the conventional threshold of 0.05, implies that the correlation matrix does not align with an identity matrix.
Table 1 presents a comprehensive overview of the scale description and loadings concerning various constructs related to consumers’ perceptions of organic food products. Specific items within the SV, EPV, SC, and CB constructs were excluded during the analysis as they failed to meet the predefined factor loading criterion of 0.4 [66]. This rigorous standard ensures that the retained items align closely with the intended measurement constructs, fortifying the overall robustness of the study’s measurement model.
Before conducting CB-SEM, it is recommended that the data be checked for normality. Hence, we checked the data for normality using skewness and kurtosis z-values and obtained satisfactory results as the values lie between the recommended range of −1.96 to +1.96. Additionally, checking the common method bias is also essential in this case, as the data came from a single source. Hence, we checked it using Harman’s single-factor test and did not notice any CMB issue, as the total variance explained by the first factor was found to be below 50% [62].

5.2. Model Fit

Table 3 presents an overview of the adequacy of the statistical model assessed through diverse indices. The ratio of Chi-Square to degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF) was calculated at 2.85, which is below the threshold of 3, indicating an acceptable fit for the model. Both the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) are reported above 0.9 as per the recommendations, with values of 0.92 and 0.906, respectively, indicating a robust fit. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is noted at 0.07, beneath the accepted limit of 0.08, and is considered satisfactory based on the criteria outlined by [67]. The Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) is recorded as 0.05, below the 0.07 threshold, further affirming the model’s fit. To sum up, the model showcases a satisfactory fit across diverse indices, surpassing or meeting established standards and establishing a strong statistical foundation for its practical application [66].

5.3. Reliability and Validity

To guarantee internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability were employed (refer to Table 4), achieving satisfactory values above or approximately equal to 0.7, consistent with the guidelines proposed by [66]. The examination of convergent and divergent validity was extended to validate the designated construct definition [68]. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for all variables consistently exceeded the threshold of 0.5, and CR consistently surpassed 0.7, as evident in Table 4, reinforcing the convergent validity [66]. The Maximum Shared Variance (MSV) for all constructs is less than AVE, confirming discriminant validity. The evaluation of Divergent Validity (DV) included the comparison of the square root of AVE for each construct with inter-construct correlations, displaying contentment in the results obtained (refer to Table 5). These values provide an understanding of the reliability, validity, and inter-construct relationships within the SEM, enhancing confidence in the robustness of the measurement model.

5.4. Results of Hypothesis Analysis

Table 6 provides a detailed overview of the estimates, significance levels, and overall status of each hypothesis in the proposed model. H1a (FVQ→CB) and H1b (FVQ→WTPM) are rejected based on path coefficients of −0.059 and −0.077, with significance levels of 0.470 and 0.369, respectively. On the contrary, H2a (FVP→CB) and H2b (FVP→WTPM) are upheld, supported by notably significant path coefficients of 0.242 and 0.472 at levels of 0.001 and <0.001, respectively. H3a (SV→CB) garners acceptance with a path coefficient of −0.107 and a significance level of 0.014, whereas H3b (SV→WTPM) is dismissed with a path coefficient of 0.022 and a significance level of 0.636. H4a (EMV→CB) is endorsed with a path coefficient of 0.449 and a highly significant level of <0.001, whereas H4b (EMV→WTPM) is refuted with a path coefficient of 0.070 and a significance level of 0.431. H5a (EPV→CB) is confirmed with a path coefficient of −0.135 and a significance level of 0.072, while H5b (EPV→WTPM) is rejected with a path coefficient of 0.006 and a significance level of 0.937. H6a (CV→CB) is supported with a highly significant path coefficient of 0.543 at <0.001, whereas H6b (CV→WTPM) is invalidated with a path coefficient of −0.155 and a significance level of 0.076. Finally, H7 (CB→WTPM) is upheld with a highly significant path coefficient of 0.749 at <0.001. In summary, the model affirms the acceptance of hypotheses concerning paths FVP→CB, FVP→WTPM, SV→CB, EMV→CB, EPV→CB, CV→CB, and CB→WTPM. However, hypotheses related to paths FVQ→CB, FVQ→WTPM, SV→WTPM, EMV→WTPM, EPV→WTPM, and CV→WTPM are rejected based on the observed path estimates and significance levels.

5.5. Moderation Analysis

Table 7 shows the moderating effect of skepticism using Model 1 of process macro 4.1. The moderation analysis introduces skepticism as a moderator in the relationship between CB and WTPM. The hypothesis (H8) suggests that the path coefficient for CB→WTPM is influenced by skepticism. The estimated beta (Β) coefficient is −0.079, with a standard error (SE) of 0.029, resulting in a t-value of 2.749 and a significance level of 0.006. The confidence interval, ranging from 0.0226 to 0.1363, does not include zero. Therefore, skepticism moderates the positive relationship between CB and WTPM, indicating that higher levels of skepticism dampen the willingness of individuals to pay more for organic food products in the context of CB (see Figure 2).

6. Discussion and Conclusions

The present study enquires about the impact of various consumption values, namely, functional value, social value, epistemic value, emotional value, and conditional value, on consumer choice behavior and WTPM for organic food products. The study also inspires an understanding of the impact of choice behavior on WTPM for such products, along with the moderating role of skepticism in this relationship. The results obtained were quite interesting, demonstrating the significant impact of functional value (price), social value, epistemic value, emotional value, and conditional value on consumers’ choice behavior, thus accepting H2a, H3a, H4a, H5a, and H6a but rejecting H1a, i.e., the impact of functional value (quality) on choice behavior. Additionally, the results show a significant impact of only functional value (price) on WTPM accepting H2b. Thus, no significant impact of all the other values was observed, rejecting H1b, H3b, H4b, H5b, and H6b.
The rejection of H1a and H1b implies that functional value (quality) has no significant impact on choice behavior and WTPM. This contradicts the basic premise propounded by [21,37], as well as existing findings [24,34,38]. This could have occurred because consumers who are health, environment, and ethics conscious opt for organic food products irrespective of their taste, texture, aroma, size, color, etc. While the genetically modified products and food produced while ignoring ethical and environmental concerns may bear better taste and other quality determinants, organic food products are consumed irrespectively. However, H2a and H2b were accepted, depicting a significant impact of functional value (price) on choice behavior as well as the willingness to pay more. This is quite in line with the existing body of knowledge, as shown by the results of previous studies [37,38,41,46]. This simply implies that when consumers perceive that the benefits received from the product are equal to or more than the price paid, they intend to choose the product. Similarly, consumers pay for products based on the value they perceive. Thus, they will be willing to pay more based on a higher value or benefits obtained [37]. H3a, proposing the impact of social value on choice behavior, was supported by the findings of this study. This result confirms the previous findings, too [23,27,41,43]. This implies that consumers purchase organic food products not only for health or environmental reasons but also to obtain social recognition. Meanwhile, H3b, positing social value’s influence on WTPM, did not find any support. This is in line with [42] but in contrast with the findings of [34,69]. It conveys that although consumers may choose such products based on social value, they may not possess WTPM merely to achieve social value.
H4a and H4b posited the impact of emotional value on choice behavior and WTPM. H4a was accepted, while H4b was rejected based on our results. The acceptance of H4a coincides with the findings of other studies in diverse domains [25,27,42,46]. This simply implies that the emotions ignited by organic food products significantly impact consumers’ choice of such products. Consumers have associated emotions with these products, and those emotions must be taken care of by the marketers. On the other hand, the rejection of H4b is contradictory to the basic premise of the theory [21] and to the findings in branding research, too [32], but coincides with the study concerning green products [47]. Consumers attach their emotions to products and brands and recall them while making purchase intentions/decisions, but paying a price premium is not ignited similarly.
H5a, assuming a significant impact of epistemic value on choice behavior, was accepted, while H5b, which assumed EPV’s impact on WTPM, was rejected. The acceptance of H5a stresses that consumers consume organic food products to gain knowledge about them. This is also opined by previous studies in the context of other products. Consumers not only seek information or knowledge but are also willing to gain experiences with these products. However, they may not be ready to pay a price premium for the sake of experiencing an organic food product in place of a conventional one.
The impact of conditional value was also assumed on choice behavior and WTPM through H6a and H6b, respectively. H6a found affirmation in the results and among the existing studies [24,41]. This gives us an understanding that consumers associate organic food consumption with situational factors, too. They may have certain situations or conditions in which their choice of such products goes high or low. However, the rejection of H6b conveys that situations may not impact their willingness to pay a premium for such products. They may think of adopting organic food but not at a higher price based on situational factors.
This study also aimed to explore the impact of choice behavior on the willingness to pay more (H7), which was supported by the findings and congruence with the existing literature [50,51]. The acceptance of this hypothesis clearly states that once a consumer chooses organic food products, they may be ready to pay more than their conventional counterparts.
This research also hypothesized the moderating role of organic skepticism over the relationship between choice behavior and WTPM (H8). The findings revealed a significant negative role of skepticism, which means that even if the consumer has made a choice of consumption, the skepticism may stop them from paying more for such products. This result also finds support from existing literature, which found a strong influence of skepticism over consumer behavior [53,54,56].

7. Implications

7.1. Theoretical Implications

The outcomes of the present study have notable implications and additions to the body of knowledge concerning the consumption of organic food products. Prior research performed on this perspective has focused mostly on the health-conscious aspect of organic food consumption. However, the present study utilized the Theory of Consumption Values (TCV) to make it a more robust inquiry. On the one hand, consumption is studied from a comprehensive value perspective, while on the other hand, the application of TCV is also tested for an underexplored segment, i.e., organic food products. To utilize TCV, the present study used functional value differently for quality and price as per the suggestions of [37], while many studies combined both. Additionally, this research expanded the theory with the application of value perceptions to generate WTPM. This study, thus, primarily contributes toward expanding the scope of TCV as well as organic food consumption research. Moreover, the consumers’ WTPM is an important aspect that was left unnoticed by the majority of researchers in the organic food consumption domain. As mentioned earlier, too, organic food products are generally priced above their non-organic counterparts. This makes the inquiry into the willingness of consumers quite inevitable. This research also fills in this gap, which can be taken as a stepping stone for further studies.
It is a quite known assertion that consumers develop skepticism against such products based on hyperbolic claims in advertisements, word of mouth, media mistrust, etc. Thus, this study also included skepticism as a moderating variable in the relationship between choice behavior and WTPM. It even produced an interesting finding that even if a consumer is ready to choose such products, skepticism may restrict their willingness to pay more. This reflects the crucial role of skepticism in influencing consumer purchase behavior. This opens a new gateway for research and discussion in the field of consumer behavior as well as food marketing.

7.2. Practical Implications

The present study produces very valuable outputs for marketing and manufacturing practitioners of organic food products, with special reference to the Indian context. Firstly, the affirmation of consumption values’ impact on choice behavior provides a clear understanding to the practitioners that Indian consumers’ choice is a function of multiple values that they seek in the product. Mere focus on branding and too much expenditure on marketing may be in vain, as the choice behavior of consumers is a set of multiple factors. Since the quality perception in the case of food products in India is not just the nutrient content of the food but also the taste, texture, size, color, etc., the producers must take this into cognizance. Marketers must also keep this in mind while crafting the marketing strategies related to such products. The health and environmental factors of organic food products must be highlighted while creating marketing campaigns around the quality of organic food products. The research also points out the significance of price value, social value, emotional value, epistemic value, and conditional value in shaping the choice behavior of consumers. It is evident from the research that these values bear an impact on consumers’ choice behavior; thus, advertisements and other marketing tools can be used to address these values of organic food products to attract consumers. For instance, the usage of such products can be popularized over social media platforms with a story trend, or associating a social image with the usage of these products can create a lot of social value for the product. Similarly, creating emotional campaigns highlighting the adverse effects of non-organic foods on health as well as the environment can create a proper positioning of these products. Likewise, the situational association of these products can be created with ads focusing on a variety of situations in which these products can be used. Also, booklets or a QR code can be used, providing information for alternative uses and additional benefits of these products. The marketers must also note that once choice behavior is generated, consumers are expected to create WTPM, too, as per the research outcomes. However, skepticism may obstruct this behavioral outcome. Thus, skepticism must be addressed very actively by marketers, as this industry is quite sensitive to skepticism and stereotyping. Marketers can devise innovative methods to dispel doubts about organic food products. They can launch campaigns assuring consumers of 100% organic food products, with verification available anytime, anywhere. The company may provide an extensive compensation guarantee if any discrepancies are found. This will create trust among consumers. Moreover, marketers can employ informative and persuasive messaging when crafting advertisements for organic food products. This approach aids in fostering trust by offering abundant information and encouraging consumers to explore alternatives to conventional options.

8. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Our study is not immune to shortcomings. To begin with, the data collection relied on self-administered questionnaires, which could introduce biases despite efforts to address them. This research explores the choice behavior and WTPM for organic food products among Indian consumers using a sample size of 374. Although this sample size is enough to get a representation of the population, a larger sample size with multiple sets can create a better picture of the phenomenon studied. An attempt was made to reach out to a wide audience; however, future studies can use more structured and systematic attempts to ensure a better representation of the population and minimize the probability of bias. Furthermore, this is a cross-sectional study; in future investigations, the utilization of longitudinal or alternative cross-sectional methodologies could provide deeper insights into the phenomena under examination. The concept of environment can also be considered while studying the organic food domain, as these products are not only healthy but also contribute a lot toward environmental sustainability. One more aspect that needs attention is that quality is a function of several items, especially among the food items. Thus, a better understanding could have been created if different elements of functional value (quality), like taste, texture, color, size, etc., were studied separately. Future research in the same domain can take note of this.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S.S. and A.A.; methodology, A.A.; software, M.S.S.; validation, M.S.S. and A.A.; formal analysis, M.S.S.; investigation, M.S.S.; resources, M.S.S. and A.A.; data curation, M.S.S. and A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.S. and A.A.; writing—review and editing, M.S.S. and A.A.; visualization, M.S.S. and A.A.; supervision, M.S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Institutional review was not applicable in this case.

Informed Consent Statement

We declare that all the participants were completely informed about the purpose of the research, and data were thus collected with the complete consent of the respondents. The privacy of responses was also guaranteed.

Data Availability Statement

The data can be made available upon request. Due to privacy restrictions, they cannot be made available publically.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Talwar, S.; Jabeen, F.; Tandon, A.; Sakashita, M.; Dhir, A. What drives willingness to purchase and stated buying behavior toward organic food? A Stimulus–Organism–Behavior–Consequence (SOBC) perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 125882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kazimierczak, R.; Obidzińska, J.; Szumigaj, B.; Dobrowolski, H.; Rembiałkowska, E. Sustainable Foods: Consumer Opinions and Behaviour towards Organic Fruits in Poland. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Feil, A.A.; da Silva Cyrne, C.C.; Sindelar, F.C.W.; Barden, J.E.; Dalmoro, M. Profiles of sustainable food consumption: Consumer behavior toward organic food in southern region of Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chakraborty, D.; Dash, G. Using the consumption values to investigate consumer purchase intentions towards natural food products. Br. Food J. 2023, 125, 551–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pérez, I.A.V.; Toral, J.N.; Vázquez, T.P.; Hernández, F.G.; Ferrer, G.J.; Cano, D.G. Potential for organic conversion and energy efficiency of conventional livestock production in a humid tropical region of Mexico. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kabir, M.R.; Islam, S. Behavioural intention to purchase organic food: Bangladeshi consumers’ perspective. Br. Food J. 2022, 124, 754–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barański, M.; Średnicka-Tober, D.; Volakakis, N.; Seal, C.; Sanderson, R.; Stewart, G.B.; Benbrook, C.; Biavati, B.; Markellou, E.; Giotis, C.; et al. Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: A systematic literature review and meta-analyses. Br. J. Nutr. 2014, 112, 794–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Curl, C.L.; Beresford, S.A.; Fenske, R.A.; Fitzpatrick, A.L.; Lu, C.; Nettleton, J.A.; Kaufman, J.D. Estimating Pesticide Exposure from Dietary Intake and Organic Food Choices: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Environ. Health Perspect. 2015, 123, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Reganold, J.P.; Andrews, P.K.; Reeve, J.R.; Carpenter-Boggs, L.; Schadt, C.W.; Alldredge, J.R.; Ross, C.F.; Davies, N.M.; Zhou, J. Fruit and Soil Quality of Organic and Conventional Strawberry Agroecosystems. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e12346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Domingo, J.L.; Bocio, A. Levels of PCDD/PCDFs and PCBs in edible marine species and human intake: A literature review. Environ. Int. 2007, 33, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Średnicka-Tober, D.; Barański, M.; Seal, C.; Sanderson, R.; Benbrook, C.; Steinshamn, H.; Gromadzka-Ostrowska, J.; Rembiałkowska, E.; Skwarło-Sońta, K.; Eyre, M.; et al. Composition differences between organic and conventional meat: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Nutr. 2016, 115, 994–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Rana, J.; Paul, J. Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food: A review and research agenda. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 38, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Global Organic Food Market to Reach US$ 363.8 Billion by 2028. Available online: https://www.imarcgroup.com/global-organic-food-market (accessed on 6 April 2023).
  14. India Organic Food Market Size, Share, Growth Report 2023–2028. Available online: https://www.imarcgroup.com/indian-organic-food-market (accessed on 24 March 2023).
  15. Jaivik Bharat. Available online: https://jaivikbharat.fssai.gov.in/ (accessed on 26 June 2024).
  16. Kunhikannan, A.; Ramachandran, K.K. The Factors Influencing Consumers Organic Food Products Buying Intention. Acad. Mark. Stud. J. 2020, 24, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  17. Sampa, M.B.; Nomura, H.; Yabe, M.; Aziz, N.H.A.; Aziz, N.A.A. Structural Equation Model for Exploring the Key Drivers of Consumer Behavior towards Environmentally Conscious Organic Food Purchasing in Japan. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Uddin, S.M.F.; Khan, M.N.; Faisal, M.N.; Kirmani, M.D. Demystifying the green purchasing behavior of young consumers: Moderating role of green skepticism. J. Glob. Sch. Mark. Sci. 2023, 33, 264–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nathan, R.J.; Soekmawati; Victor, V.; Popp, J.; Fekete-Farkas, M.; Oláh, J. Food Innovation Adoption and Organic Food Consumerism—A Cross National Study between Malaysia and Hungary. Foods 2021, 10, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Jha, S.P.; Chopra, K. Migrant millennials & their food adoption perspective—A grounded theory approach. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2022, 6, 100072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. 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]
  22. Van Wingerden, M.; Kalenscher, T. Choice Behavior. In Encyclopedia of Computational Neuroscience; Jaeger, D., Jung, R., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tandon, A.; Kaur, P.; Bhatt, Y.; Mäntymäki, M.; Dhir, A. Why do people purchase from food delivery apps? A consumer value perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 63, 102667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chakraborty, D.; Siddiqui, A.; Siddiqui, M.; Rana, N.P.; Dash, G. Mobile payment apps filling value gaps: Integrating consumption values with initial trust and customer involvement. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 66, 102946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shin, Y.H.; Kim, H.; Severt, K. Predicting college students’ intention to purchase local food using the theory of consumption values. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2021, 24, 286–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gonçalves, H.M.; Lourenço, T.F.; Silva, G.M. Green buying behavior and the theory of consumption values: A fuzzy-set approach. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1484–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Köse, S.G.; Kırcova, I. Using theory of consumption values to predict organic food purchase intention: Role of health consciousness and eco-friendly LOHAS tendency. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2021, 19, e0109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lin, J.; Guo, J.; Turel, O.; Liu, S. Purchasing organic food with social commerce: An integrated food-technology consumption values perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 51, 102033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Netemeyer, R.G.; Krishnan, B.; Pullig, C.; Wang, G.; Yagci, M.; Dean, D.; Ricks, J.; Wirth, F. Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. J. Bus. Res. 2004, 57, 209–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gomes, S.; Lopes, J.M.; Nogueira, S. Willingness to pay more for green products: A critical challenge for Gen Z. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 390, 136092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bairrada, C.M.; Coelho, F.; Coelho, A. Antecedents and outcomes of brand love: Utilitarian and symbolic brand qualities. Eur. J. Mark. 2018, 52, 656–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Koskie, M.M.; Locander, W.B. Cool brands and hot attachments: Their effect on consumers’ willingness to pay more. Eur. J. Mark. 2023, 57, 905–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Choi, J.; Park, J.; Jeon, H.; Asperin, A.E. Exploring local food consumption in restaurants through the lens of locavorism. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2021, 30, 982–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Izogo, E.E.; Elom, M.E.; Mpinganjira, M. Examining customer willingness to pay more for banking services: The role of employee commitment, customer involvement and customer value. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2020, 16, 1176–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Di Vita, G.; Pappalardo, G.; Chinnici, G.; La Via, G.; D’Amico, M. Not everything has been still explored: Further thoughts on additional price for the organic wine. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 520–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Marshall, A. Principles of Economics: An Introductory Volume; MacMillan: London, UK, 1890. [Google Scholar]
  37. Sweeney, J.C.; Soutar, G.N. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. J. Retail. 2001, 77, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Perrea, T.; Grunert, K.G.; Krystallis, A. Consumer Value perceptions of food products from emerging processing technologies: A cross-cultural exploration. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Khan, K.; Iqbal, S.; Riaz, K.; Hameed, I. Organic food adoption motivations for sustainable consumption: Moderating role of knowledge and perceived price. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2022, 9, 2143015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Leonidou, L.C.; Eteokleous, P.P.; Christofi, A.-M.; Korfiatis, N. Drivers, outcomes, and moderators of consumer intention to buy organic goods: Meta-analysis, implications, and future agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 151, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kaur, P.; Dhir, A.; Talwar, S.; Ghuman, K. The value proposition of food delivery apps from the perspective of theory of consumption value. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 1129–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zamil, A.M.A.; Ali, S.; Akbar, M.; Zubr, V.; Rasool, F. The consumer purchase intention toward hybrid electric car: A utilitarian-hedonic attitude approach. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1101258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wu, W.; Huang, V.; Chen, X.; Davison, R.M.; Hua, Z. Social value and online social shopping intention: The moderating role of experience. Inf. Technol. People 2018, 31, 688–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Shamsi, M.S.; Abad, A. Creating Purchase Intention through Social Media: The use of AR enabled Social Media Filters. J. Content Community Commun. 2023, 17, 46–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sharma, N.; Khatri, B.; Khan, S.A.; Shamsi, M.S. Extending the UTAUT Model to Examine the Influence of Social Media on Tourists’ Destination Selection. Indian J. Mark. 2023, 53, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cao, D.; Zheng, Y.; Liu, C.; Yao, X.; Chen, S. Consumption values, anxiety and organic food purchasing behaviour considering the moderating role of sustainable consumption attitude. Br. Food J. 2021, 124, 3540–3562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Suki, N.M. Consumer environmental concern and green product purchase in Malaysia: Structural effects of consumption values. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 132, 204–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chakraborty, D.; Paul, J. Healthcare apps’ purchase intention: A consumption values perspective. Technovation 2023, 120, 102481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Khan, S.N.; Mohsin, M. The power of emotional value: Exploring the effects of values on green product consumer choice behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 150, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Barber, N.; Kuo, P.; Bishop, M.; Goodman, R. Measuring psychographics to assess purchase intention and willingness to pay. J. Consum. Mark. 2012, 29, 280–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Irfan, M.; Zhao, Z.-Y.; Li, H.; Rehman, A. The influence of consumers’ intention factors on willingness to pay for renewable energy: A structural equation modeling approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 21747–21761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. De Canio, F. Consumer willingness to pay more for pro-environmental packages: The moderating role of familiarity. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 339, 117828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Stadlthanner, K.A.; Andreu, L.; Font, X.; Ribeiro, M.A.; Currás-Pérez, R. How environmental gain messages affect cause involvement, attitude and behavioural intentions: The moderating effects of CSR scepticism and biospheric values. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2022, 27, 781–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ringold, D.J. Scepticism of food labelling versus food advertising: A replication and extension. J. Mark. Manag. 2021, 37, 1169–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Golob, U.; Koklic, M.K.; Podnar, K.; Zabkar, V. The role of environmentally conscious purchase behaviour and green scepticism in organic food consumption. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2411–2424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Saraireh, S. Green purchasing, environmental concern, and subjective knowledge in Saudi Arabia: The moderating effect of green skepticism. Uncertain Supply Chain. Manag. 2023, 11, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Srivastava, V. Modelling antecedents of scepticism towards green advertising: Evidence from India. Int. J. Internet Mark. Advert. 2018, 12, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dhanesh, G.S.; Nekmat, E. Facts Over Stories for Involved Publics: Framing Effects in CSR Messaging and the Roles of Issue Involvement, Message Elaboration, Affect, and Skepticism. Manag. Commun. Q. 2019, 33, 7–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Soopramanien, D. Conflicting attitudes and scepticism towards online shopping: The role of experience. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2011, 35, 338–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hajiheydari, N.; Delgosha, M.S.; Olya, H. Scepticism and resistance to IoMT in healthcare: Application of behavioural reasoning theory with configurational perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 169, 120807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mohr, L.A.; Eroǧlu, D.; Ellen, P.S. The Development and Testing of a Measure of Skepticism Toward Environmental Claims in Marketers’ Communications. J. Consum. Aff. 1998, 32, 30–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L.; Parasuraman, A. The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality. J. Mark. 1996, 60, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lin, P.-C.; Huang, Y.-H. The influence factors on choice behavior regarding green products based on the theory of consumption values. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 22, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pugh, S.D.; Groth, M.; Hennig-Thurau, T. Willing and able to fake emotions: A closer examination of the link between emotional dissonance and employee well-being. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 377–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. JHair, F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  67. MacCallum, R.C.; Hong, S. Power Analysis in Covariance Structure Modeling Using GFI and AGFI. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1997, 32, 193–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Multivariate Applications Series; N. Y. Taylor Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 2010; Volume 396, p. 7384. [Google Scholar]
  69. Yung, E.H.; Chan, E.H. Evaluation of the social values and willingness to pay for conserving built heritage in Hong Kong. Facilities 2015, 33, 76–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 06053 g001
Figure 1. Theoretical framework.
Figure 1. Theoretical framework.
Sustainability 16 06053 g001
Sustainability 16 06053 g002
Figure 2. Moderating effect.
Figure 2. Moderating effect.
Sustainability 16 06053 g002
Table 1. Scale description and loadings.
Table 1. Scale description and loadings.
NameStatementsEFA LoadingsCFA LoadingsSource
FVQOrganic food products have consistent quality [FVQ1]0.7410.638[37]
Organic food products are well made [FVQ2]0.8010.719
Organic food products have an acceptable standard of quality [FVQ3]0.7510.778
Organic food products would perform consistently [FVQ4]0.7340.772
FVPOrganic food products are reasonably priced [FVP1]0.6930.755
Organic food products offer value for money [FVP2]0.6880.826
Organic food is a good product for the price [FVP3]0.7490.866
Organic food products would be economical [FVP4]0.6870.661
SVI think using organic food products will help improve my social image [SV1]0.7910.728[21,37]
The people who are important to me use organic food products [SV2]0.609Removed
I think using organic food products will help feel more acceptable [SV3]0.8220.923
Organic food products would improve the way I am perceived [SV4]0.7910.910
EMVI feel relaxed while using organic food products [EMV1]0.5980.856[21]
I enjoy using organic food products [EMV2]. 0.6670.923
Using organic food products gives me pleasure [EMV3]0.7050.890
Using organic food products is interesting to me [EMV4]0.529Removed
EPVI am fascinated by organic food products [EPV1]0.526Removed[21]
I am curious about people who use organic food products [EPV2]0.7920.727
I am interested in seeking novel information about organic food products [EPV3]0.6440.765
I feel using organic food products helps me acquire knowledge [EPV4]0.6460.825
CVI believe I will use organic food products when I have to take care of my health [CV1] 0.8040.809[63]
I believe I will use organic food products when I don’t want to compromise my health [CV2]0.7770.881
I believe I will use organic food products whenever there is a need to eat healthy [CV3]0.8370.931
I believe I will use organic food products when health-friendly meals are required to be made [CV4]0.7920.863
SCMost health claims made on organic food products or in the advertisements of organic food products are misleading [SC1]0.847Removed[61]
I doubt the organic claims made on organic food product packages [SC2]0.9130.912
I doubt the organic claims made on organic food product advertising [SC3]0.9120.900
Most organic claims on package labels or in advertising of organic food products are intended to mislead the consumers [SC4]0.8850.815
CBI make a special effort to buy organic food products that are free from synthetic chemicals and genetically modified components [CB1]<0.4
(Removed)		Removed[63]
I have switched to organic food products for health reasons [CB2]0.5410.816
When I have a choice between two equal products, I purchase organic food products as these products have a less harmful impact on people and the environment [CB3]0.5450.842
I make a special effort to buy organic food products that are complementing a healthy lifestyle [CB4]0.5830.841
WTPMI will continue to purchase organic food products even if there is a slight increase in the prices [WTPM1]0.7680.861[29,62]
I’m willing to pay more for organic food products than inorganic food products [WTPM2]0.8260.882
Even if the price of organic food goes up, I will willingly pay it to adopt a healthy lifestyle [WTPM3]0.8110.907
I would be willing to buy organic food products even at a higher price [WTPM4]0.8040.840
Table 2. Demographic description.
Table 2. Demographic description.
Demographic FactorFrequencyPercentage
Gender
Female17246
Male20254
Age
Below 20164.3
20–4034291.4
40–60164.3
Qualification
High School82.1
Intermediate 102.7
Graduation11029.4
Post-Graduation17045.5
Doctorate7620.3
Monthly Income
Below 20,000 INR13836.9
20,000–40,000 INR8021.4
40,000–60,000 INR7018.7
Above 60,000 INR8623
Total374100
Table 3. Model fit.
Table 3. Model fit.
Fit MeasureValue ObtainedRemark
CMIN/DF2.85Accepted (<3)
CFI0.92Accepted (>0.9)
TLI0.906Accepted (>0.9)
RMSEA0.07Accepted (<0.08)
RMR0.05Accepted (<0.07)
Table 4. Reliability and Validity.
Table 4. Reliability and Validity.
Cronbach’s αCRAVEMSV
FVQ0.8350.8180.5310.372
FVP0.8560.8610.6100.511
SV0.8770.8920.7370.362
EMV0.9160.9200.7920.546
EPV0.8530.8170.5980.523
CV0.9250.9270.7610.554
CB0.8720.8720.6940.653
WTPM0.9260.9270.7620.653
SC0.9150.9090.7690.031
Table 5. Divergent Validity.
Table 5. Divergent Validity.
CBFVQFVPSVEMVEPVCVWTPMSC
CB0.833
FVQ0.4670.729
FVP0.5980.5870.781
SV0.3960.4370.6020.858
EMV0.7390.6100.6670.5890.890
EPV0.5780.4690.5680.5690.7230.773
CV0.7440.4300.5010.4340.6460.6920.872
WTPM0.8080.4630.7150.4620.6910.5350.5720.873
SC0.1090.0520.006−0.023−0.0110.1770.1490.0180.8777
Table 6. Results of path analysis.
Table 6. Results of path analysis.
HypothesisPathEstimateSignificanceStatus
H1aFVQ→CB−0.0590.470Reject
H1bFVQ→WTPM−0.0770.369Reject
H2aFVP→CB0.2420.001Accept
H2bFVP→WTPM0.472<0.001Accept
H3aSV→CB−0.1070.014Accept
H3bSV→WTPM0.0220.636Reject
H4aEMV→CB0.449<0.001Accept
H4bEMV→WTPM0.0700.431Reject
H5aEPV→CB−0.1350.072Accept
H5bEPV→WTPM0.0060.937Reject
H6aCV→CB0.543<0.001Accept
H6bCV→WTPM−0.1550.076Reject
H7CB→WTPM0.749<0.001Accept
Table 7. Moderation analysis.
Table 7. Moderation analysis.
Moderator: Skepticism
HypothesisPathΒsetpLLCIULCIModeration?
H8CB→WTPM−0.0790.0292.7490.0060.02260.1363Yes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shamsi, M.S.; Abad, A. Understanding Consumers’ Willingness to Pay More and Choice Behavior for Organic Food Products Considering the Influence of Skepticism. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6053. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146053

AMA Style

Shamsi MS, Abad A. Understanding Consumers’ Willingness to Pay More and Choice Behavior for Organic Food Products Considering the Influence of Skepticism. Sustainability. 2024; 16(14):6053. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146053

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shamsi, Mohd Salman, and Arif Abad. 2024. "Understanding Consumers’ Willingness to Pay More and Choice Behavior for Organic Food Products Considering the Influence of Skepticism" Sustainability 16, no. 14: 6053. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146053

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop