The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2177-8736.htm

REGE
26,3 Purchase intention of organic food
under the influence of attributes,
consumer trust and perceived value
198 Isabelle Cristina Galindo Curvelo
Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil, and
Received 6 January 2018
Revised 6 November 2018 Eluiza Alberto de Morais Watanabe and Solange Alfinito
23 November 2018
1 March 2019 Universidade de Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil
16 April 2019
Accepted 30 April 2019
Abstract
Purpose – The consumption of organic food increases worldwide, which raises the need for studies that try
to understand the variables that affect the consumption of this kind of food. The purpose of this paper is to
analyze the influence of attributes, consumer trust and perceived value on purchase intention of organic food.
Design/methodology/approach – A descriptive quantitative research was conducted through a survey of
247 valid cases of organic food consumers. For the purposes of analysis, exploratory factorial and linear
regression analyzes were chosen.
Findings – Exploratory factor analysis showed that all tested constructs were valid for the Brazilian context.
Linear regression analyses showed that emotional value, consumer trust and the attribute “sensory appeal”
affect the purchase intention of organic food. Emotional value had a stronger relationship and sensory appeal
showed a negative relationship with purchase intention.
Practical implications – Research results can help managers increase the likelihood of buying organic
foods through strategic marketing management focused on emotional value and sensory appeal factors.
Originality/value – The study offers value to the study of organic foods in view that this theme is not much
explored in the Brazilian scenario even with the market in an increasing pattern, as well as the combination of
perceived value, attributes, trust and purchase intention as variables in a single prediction model.
Keywords Organic food, Sensory appeal, Trust, Perceived value, Purchase intention
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Sustainability has been widely discussed in the current global scenario, thanks to people’s
growing ecological awareness and the emergence of pro-environmental movements (Bamberg &
Möser, 2007). This has strengthened consumers’ wish and need to get products that match this
new perspective (Aertsens, Mondelaers, Verbeke, Buysse, & Van Huylenbroeck, 2011). They are
consumers increasingly aware of the consequences of their consumption acts, which form a
segment called “green market,” or the green consumer’s market (Peattie, 2010). In the food sector,
there is a significant increase of the demand for organic products. They are consumers who
continually incorporate these products into their daily eating habits (Aschemann-Witzel &
Hamm, 2010). This is explained by their changes of attitude, beliefs, values and motivations, and
by a more critical position regarding food safety and the consumption of processed food
(Wilcock, Pun, Khanona, & Aung, 2004; Nocella & Kennedy, 2012).
In this context, the organic food market, which is the focus of this paper, is one of the
fastest growing markets in recent years in several countries, including Brazil. Organic food

© Isabelle Cristina Galindo Curvelo, Eluiza Alberto de Morais Watanabe and Solange Alfinito. Published
in Revista de Gestão. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and
Revista de Gestão create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full
Vol. 26 No. 3, 2019
pp. 198-211 attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at
Emerald Publishing Limited http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
2177-8736
DOI 10.1108/REGE-01-2018-0010 The authors would like to thank CNPQ for research funding.
is produced in 170 countries around the world. Global sales of organic food and beverages Purchase
reached US$72bn in 2013. Brazil is one of the main producers and the largest consumer intention of
market for organic food in Latin America (Willer & Lernoud, 2016). organic food
Despite this increase, the number of studies with consumers of organic food is still small
(Hsu, Chang, & Lin, 2016; Nandi, Bokelmann, Gowdru, & Dias, 2016). It is even smaller
regarding consumers’ intention to buy organic food, which is very relevant in this emerging
market. It addresses the possibility of planning a purchase or the willingness to really buy a 199
product in the future (Yin, Wu, Du, & Chen, 2010).
Therefore, our objective was to evaluate the influence of different aspects on consumer
purchase intention of organic food. These aspects are the attributes of organic food,
consumer trust in organic food and its perceived value.
Its attributes deserve attention, since there is empirical evidence that consumers of
organic food find it healthier, with higher nutritional content, safer and more sustainable,
when compared to conventional food (Hoppe, Vieira, & Barcellos, 2013; Marian &
Thøgersen, 2013). In other words, it is a product with special attributes, which can be
determining for consumer purchase intention.
Regarding consumer trust, it can also affect the purchase intention significantly, since
the lack of consumer trust has a strong negative effect on purchase behavior of organic food
(Pivato, Misani, & Tencati, 2008; Nuttavuthisit & Thøgersen, 2017). Thus, as highlighted by
Krystallis and Chryssohoidis (2005), it is a market that considers trust as its main value.
Hence, trust is associated with the perceived value of a product by the consumer, and is the
last element we chose to investigate in this study.
Perceived value is the result of an assessment made by the consumer, and of the
sacrifices incurred in the exchange for the benefits achieved from the purchase of a
particular product (Zeithaml, 1988; Slater & Narver, 2000; Sirdeshmukh, Singh, & Sabol,
2002). We specify these aspects and the others previously mentioned in the next section.

2. Theoretical background
Purchase intention
Purchase intention is based on a study between consumer behavior and his/her intentions,
which makes this construct very important for consumer research (Ghalandari & Norouzi,
2012). Intention is a relevant dimension in marketing literature, used by companies to
predict sales of new products or the repeated purchase of existing products (Diallo, 2012),
and it shows the consumer trend to buy goods or services in the same store, and share
his/her experience with friends and family (Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000).
With regard to organic products, purchase intention can be affected by several elements,
such as health perception, environmental awareness, product availability, perceived quality,
product distribution, nutritional value, among others. Rana and Paul (2012) pointed out that not
only the health factor affects the purchase intention, but also the availability and quality of
these products. Iyer, Davari, and Paswan (2016 ) studied the relationship between purchase
intention and variables such as price, value, social awareness and environmental awareness of
green products. However, only environmental awareness was directly associated with
purchase intention, confirming the results of Yadav and Pathak (2016). Maichum, Parichatnon,
and Peng (2017) identified that, in addition to environmental awareness, knowledge and
attitude toward the environment positively affect the intention to buy green products.
Liang (2016) investigated other relationships between the purchase intention of organic food
and properties, certification mechanisms, retail channels and prices of these products. He
observed that factors such as certification, retail channel, nutritional value and environmental
protection have a positive impact on the purchase intention. As for the price, where organic
products were cheaper, consumers showed more concern for product certification. Thus,
consumers emphasize trust in the store or the supermarket where such products were purchased.
REGE Mainardes, Araujo, Lasso, and Andrade (2017), in a research conducted in Brazil,
26,3 investigated the relationship between personal values and attitudes and the purchase intention
of organic food, and found a positive influence of values related to conservatism, self-promotion
and openness to change regarding the purchase behavior toward this kind of food.
Therefore, it is important to understand the purchase intention of organic food. The most
relevant aspects identified herein were consumer trust, the perceived value of the product,
200 along with its attributes. Hence, we chose these variables for the research, which are
described below.

Consumer trust
Consumer trust is defined as a belief, feeling, or expectation about the trading partner’s
loyalty, which results from his/her intention, integrity or competence (Moorman, Zaltman, &
Deshpandé, 1992). When we transfer this concept into the organic food scenario, it adds
trust in products and in certification.
Organic certification is based on aspects related to the preservation and regeneration of
ecosystems and people and indicates that production must be accomplished without the use
of pesticides and other chemical materials (Barrett, Browne, Harris, & Cadoret, 2002).
In Brazil, the most relevant certificates are Organic Brazil, from Instituto Biodynamica, and
Ecocert (Machado & Viana, 2011).
Trust in organic food is difficult to assess. This is due to the absence of visible
characteristics of the product at the time of purchase, so the consumer can only rely on the
seals and certifications that are tagged on the products (Kohlraush, Campos, & Selig, 2004).
Wrong or insufficient knowledge about the production process and the certification
standards can lead the consumer to perceive no difference between a certified and a
non-certified product ( Janssen & Hamm, 2012). It is worth mentioning that certification
sources and certification systems affect consumer trust and purchase intention, as
Sønderskov and Daugbjerg (2011) and Liang (2016), respectively, observed.
Regarding the influence of consumer trust on purchase intention, Teng and Wang (2015)
found a positive and significant relationship between these two constructs in a study carried
out in Taiwan. On the other hand, Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen (2017) tested the theory of
planned behavior by including trust in the structural model. Results also suggest that trust
positively affects consumer purchase intention.

Perceived value
Perceived value is a complex concept, and there is no consensus in the literature on its
definition and characteristics (Sánchez-Fernández & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). One of them is
that perceived value involves a general assessment made by the consumer regarding the
utility of a product or service, based on the perceptions of what is received and what is paid
for (Zeithaml, 1988).
According to Sweeney and Soutar (2001), perceived value has four dimensions:
functional value – utility that the consumer perceives when making a choice that will bring
him/her practical or utilitarian results; economic value – financial value involved in the
exchange; social value – related to social acceptance in a given reference group, due to
the choice made; and emotional value – related to positive emotional aspects derived from
the choice made. We adopted herein these four dimensions of perceived value.
In a review by Shaharudin, Pani, Mansor, and Elias (2010), the perceived value of
organic food also related to the nutrients present in the product, safety, taste and premium
price. The consumer realizes the various benefits of organic nutrition, and sometimes is
willing to pay a higher price for it. That is, from the perspective of perceived value, it is
evident a cost-benefit relationship for the consumer, and price is not really a barrier for the
acquisition of this type of food. Singh and Verma (2017) investigated the factors that Purchase
influence the purchase of organic food by Indian consumers and, among them, the intention of
perceived price (cost-benefit) stood out, positively affecting their purchase intention. organic food
Attributes of organic food
In addition to the factors related to perceived value, literature mentions various attributes of
organic food in order to understand consumer behavior. Several studies quote the 201
health-related benefit as one of the main attributes for the consumption of organic food, as
pointed by Loebnitz and Aschemann-Witzel (2016) and Thøgersen, Barcellos, Perin, and
Zhou (2015). In addition to the health benefit, Thøgersen et al. (2015) highlight the
importance of flavor and environmental concern in the attitude of consumers that buy
organic products. Roitner-Schobesberger, Darnhofer, Somsook, and Vogl (2008) conducted a
study in Bangkok, and emphasized that, along with health benefits, the demand for new,
“trendy” and tastier products was an important predictor of organic food consumption.
More recently, Janssen (2018) carried out a study in Germany and analyzed panel data from
9,470 households. The results suggest that aspects related to health and environmental
protection positively affect the purchase of organic food, and are their main predictors.
Another relevant attribute is price (Roitner-Schobesberger, Darnhofer, Somsook, & Vogl,
2008). Suh, Eves, and Lumbers (2015) found a negative relationship between price and
consumer purchase behavior in South Korea. Lee and Yun (2015), in a survey conducted in
the USA, confirmed the negative effect of organic food price on consumers’ behavior. In
addition, other elements stood out: nutritional content, related to the presence of nutrients,
vitamins and minerals; natural content, linked to the absence of additives and artificial
ingredients; ecological well-being, related to environmental concern; and sensory appeal,
linked to taste, appearance and texture of organic food.
In the case of fruits and vegetables, the perceived freshness, a criterion related to sensory
appeal, is one of the most important factors for buying this kind of food (Chang & Zepeda,
2005; Shafie & Rennie, 2012). In contrast, Costanigro, McFadden, Kroll, and Nurse (2011) and
Dolezalová, Pícha, Navrátil, Veselá, and Svec (2016) argue that consumers are willing to
sacrifice the taste and appearance of food in favor of attributes related to health.
To better understand the attributes identified in the literature, Table I summarizes the
characteristics of organic food, the dependent variables tested, their respective studies and the
type of relationship found. It shows only quantitative studies that tested the relationships
between the variables of interest. Our research included all attributes present in Table I.

Attributes/
independent variables Dependent variable Studies Type of relationship

Benefits related to health Purchase attitude Thøgersen et al. (2015), Positive

Lee and Yun (2015)
Purchase of organic food Janssen (2018)
Purchase intention Zagata (2012)
Environmental concern Purchase of organic food Janssen (2018) Positive
Purchase attitude Thøgersen et al. (2015),
Lee and Yun (2015)
Purchase intention Zagata (2012)
Sensory attributes Attitude toward organic food Thøgersen et al. (2015), Positive
(taste, appearance, etc.) Lee and Yun (2015)
Purchase intention Zagata (2012) Table I.
Price Attitude toward organic food Lee and Yun (2015) Negative Main attributes of
Purchase behavior Suh et al. (2015) organic food
REGE 3. Method
26,3 This research is a survey-type descriptive and quantitative study, and relies on the
application of a structured questionnaire. It relies on a non-probabilistic convenience
sampling, which resulted in a sample of 310 consumers of organic food. After data
treatment, the checking of missing values and multivariate extreme cases (by Mahalanobis
distance), it ended up with 247 valid cases.
202 Regarding the age group, 67.2 percent were between 18 and 35 years old, 66.0 percent of
the sample were women, and 56.8 percent had a higher education degree. As to the
frequency of purchase, 56.7 percent bought organic food at least once a week. With regard to
the place of purchase, 53.1 percent bought such food in street markets, specialized stores or
directly from the producer, and 45.7 percent in supermarkets.
The questionnaire had three parts. The first part had questions about the consumption of
organic food, frequency and place of purchase. The second part addressed the scale items on
trust, perceived value, attributes and purchase intention. We used a seven-point Likert scale,
ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). Finally, there were questions about
sociodemographic issues like age, gender, education level and marital status.
The scale for measuring trust was developed by Krystallis and Chryssohoidis (2005) and
Siegrist (2000), and adapted by Teng and Wang (2015). It is composed of four items, which
seek to quantify consumer trust through attributes inherent to organic food. In order to
check the perceived value by the consumer of organic food, we used the scale proposed by
Sweeney and Soutar (2001) and adapted by Nguyen, Vu, Phan and Cao (2015) for
multidimensional value measurement in food products. It has 18 items divided into four
value dimensions: emotional value (4 items); social value (3 items); functional value
related to the price, named economic value (4 items); and functional value related to the
performance/quality of the product (7 items).
We used Lee and Yun’s (2015) scale to map the attributes, which identified, in the
purchase intention of organic food, those related to nutritional content, natural content,
ecological well-being, sensory appeal and price. In total, there are 16 items, 4 relating to
nutritional content, 3 to natural content, 4 to ecological well-being, 3 are about sensory
appeal and 2 about price.
Finally, in order to identify the purchase intention, which is the dependent variable of the
study, we used the scale adapted by Teng and Wang (2015), with three items.
All the four scales previously described and used in the study were submitted to a
back-translation process, according to Brislin (1970). Next, we conducted both semantic and
by experts validations, following Pasquali’s (1999) recommendations.
As to the procedures, we developed the questionnaire on the Typeform platform and
made it available online. Data collection was completed in 30 consecutive days during the
second half of 2016. We spread it through several social networks and e-mail.
After data treatment, valid cases were submitted to exploratory factor analyses (EFA)
and multiple linear regression analyses. Post hoc checking of statistical power followed
Cohen’s (1992) guidelines and identified a power (1−β) of 0.99, considering a medium effect
size ( f2 ¼ 0.25) and a significance of α ¼ 0.05. Results are presented in the next section.

4. Results
In order to achieve the research goals, we initially carried out EFAs for the constructs of
attributes, perceived value, trust and purchase intention.
For the attributes and the perceived value, we accomplished the analyses using the
method of principal axis factoring and direct oblimin rotation. Only factor loads above
0.45 and communalities above 0.50 were considered, following the guidelines of Lee and
Hooley (2005) for marketing constructs. The EFA results for the attributes are shown
in Table II. We checked the matrix factorability by the KMO index of 0.73. To determine the
 Factors
Purchase
Ecologic Nutritional Natural Sensory intention of
Items well-being content Price content appeal organic food
AT9. Organic food is packed in an environmentally
friendly way 0.62
AT10. Organic food is produced in such a way that
animals do not feel pain 0.87 203
AT11. Organic food is produced in such a way that
respects animals’ rights 0.90
AT1. Organic food has many vitamins and minerals 0.81
AT2. Organic food keeps me healthy 0.58
AT3. Organic food is nutritious 0.74
AT4. Organic food is rich in protein 0.46
AT15. Organic food is expensive 0.95
AT16. The price of organic food is high 0.95
AT5. Organic food contains no additives 0.84
AT6. Organic food has natural ingredients 0.59
AT7. Organic food does not have artificial ingredients 0.70
AT12. Organic food has good appearance 0.60 Table II.
AT13. Organic food has a nice texture 0.93 Result of the
AT14. Organic food is tasty 0.53 exploratory factor
Cronbach’s α 0.84 0.72 0.95 0.73 0.72 analysis of attributes

number of factors extracted, we used the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalues W 1), which resulted
in the retention of 5 factors, with total explained variance of 70.1 percent.
Item AT8 (“Organic food is produced in such a way that does not destabilize nature’s
balance”) showed load duplicity for factors 1 and 3. Thus, we removed it from the analysis.
To check factors’ internal reliability, we calculated their Cronbach’s αs. All values were
above 0.70, as recommended by Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black (2005).
Table III shows EFA results for Perceived Value. KMO was 0.88, and four factors were
extracted by Kaiser’s criterion. Total variance explained was 68.2 percent. We calculated
Cronbach’s αs and they were above 0.70. Most items were classified as very good or
excellent (Comrey and Lee, 1992).
Next, we conducted factor analyses for the trust and purchase intention constructs,
through the principal axis factoring method, but without rotation, because they are both
uni-factor. For the trust scale, KMO was 0.798, with an explained variance of 75.5 percent, with
one factor. Of the four original items, only item CONF1 (“I think organic food companies are
aware of their responsibilities”) was excluded, due to the communality below 0.50. The
Cronbach’s α for trust was 0.93. The factor loads of each item are described in Table IV.
For the purchase intention scale, KMO was 0.67, with an explained variance of
74.6 percent. All items were kept, and Cronbach’s α was 0.83. Factor loads for each item are
described in Table V.
After checking the validity of the scales adopted for the research, we carried out several
analyses of multiple linear regression in order to reach our main objective: to analyze the
relationship between trust, perceived value, attributes and purchase intention of organic
food. To do so, the factors corresponding to each construct were changed into indicators, by
calculating the Anderson Rubin scores, used to ensure that the estimated factors are not
correlated with each other (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2005). Next, we observed the
respective assumptions.
The multivariate extreme cases were identified by the Mahalanobis distance, and we
removed 5 additional cases from the analysis. Through correlation analysis, there was no
linearity between the attribute price and purchase intention (dependent variable) and no
REGE Factors
26,3 Emotional Functional Economic Social
Items value value value value

VP1. Organic food is good for health 0.59

VP6. Organic food is tasty 0.67
VP12. Consuming organic food makes me feel good 0.84
204 VP13. Consuming organic food makes me want more 0.64
VP14. I like to consume organic food 0.99
VP15. I feel calm regarding the consumption of organic food 0.64
VP2. Organic food is well produced 0.61
VP3. Organic food is reliable 0.87
VP4. Organic food has an acceptable safety standard 0.87
VP5. Organic food has a consistent quality 0.80
VP7. Organic food has an acceptable quality standard 0.66
VP8. Organic food has a reasonable price 0.77
VP9. Organic food offers benefit for the money spent 0.60
VP10. Organic food is a good product regarding its price 0.71
VP11. Organic food is cheap compared to other products 0.61
VP16. Consuming organic food helps me feel socially accepted 0.67
VP17. Consuming organic food makes a good impression on
Table III. members of my family 0.85
Result of exploratory VP18. Consuming organic food matches the eating culture
factor analysis of and tradition of my social circle 0.71
perceived value Cronbach’s α 0.88 0.88 0.78 0.82

Items Factor load

Table IV. CONF2. I trust that someone who sells certified organic food really sells quality organic food 0.86
Result of exploratory CONF3. I trust the quality seal of organic food 0.94
factor analysis of trust CONF4. I trust the institutions that certify organic food 0.92

other independent variables; thus, it was removed from the analysis. Data showed the
presence of homoscedasticity and absence of multicollinearity (VIF o4). However, we did
not observe data normality; therefore, we adopted the technique of resampling by
bootstrapping to check the regression models. The initial model is shown in Table VI, with
purchase intention as the dependent variable.
The final model, with the best goodness of fit for the influence on purchase intention,
resulted in the factors of emotional value, consumer trust, economic value, social value and
sensory attribute, as explained in Table VII.
The emotional value presented the highest β (0.690), followed by trust (β ¼ 0.274) and the
sensory attribute (β ¼ −0.159), economic value (β ¼ 0.156) and social value (β ¼ 0.149). The
adjusted R2 was 59.8 percent. This explanation has a great effect on purchase intention
(Cohen, 1992). According to this author, 2 percent is considered a small effect, 13 percent a
medium effect and 26 percent, a large effect.

Items Load factor

Table V.
Result of exploratory INT1. If organic food were available in markets, I would buy it 0.60
factor analysis of INT2. I am prone to buying organic food, despite its high prices 0.86
purchase intention INT3. The probability that I buy organic food is very high 0.90
Independent variables SE β t p-value
Purchase
intention of
Constant 0.040 0.00 1.000 organic food
Trust 0.052 0.266 5.12 0.000
Emotional value 0.059 0.662 11.17 0.000
Functional value 0.059 −0.009 −0.14 0.886
Economic value 0.045 0.123 2.72 0.007
Social value 0.042 0.149 3.56 0.000 205
Nutritional content 0.047 −0.018 −0.37 0.708
Economic well-being 0.048 −0.012 −0.24 0.809 Table VI.
Natural content 0.055 0.069 1.24 0.214 Result of multiple
Sensorial attribute 0.053 −0.148 −2.72 0.006 regression analysis
Price 0.045 −0.082 −1.84 0.067 (initial model)

Independent variables SE β t p-value

Constant 0.040 0.00 1.000

Trust 0.043 0.274 6.31 0.000
Emotional value 0.047 0.690 14.68 0.000 Table VII.
Economic value 0.041 0.156 3.81 0.000 Result of multiple
Social value 0.040 0.149 3.68 0.000 regression analysis
Sensory attribute 0.047 −0.159 −3.36 0.001 ( final model)

5. Discussion
We reached several results throughout the study. Initially, regarding the sample profile,
many respondents mentioned supermarkets as a place for buying organic food. This fact is
in line with Guivant (2003), who mentioned the expansion of the organic food market in
Brazil, which is no longer exclusive of specialized stores and street markets; supermarkets
play a dominant role among supply channels.
Regarding the validity tests of the study measurements, the EFA result for attributes
confirms Lee and Yun (2015), since the distribution of items in the factors was the same.
Therefore, we kept the original factors’ names. According to Comrey and Lee (1992),
factor loads can be considered negligible (less than 0.31), poor (equal to or higher than
0.32 and up to 0.44), reasonable (equal or higher than 0.45 and up to 0.54), good (equal to or
higher than 0.55 and up to 0.62), very good (equal to or higher than 0.63 and up to 0.70)
and excellent (equal to or higher than 0.71). As shown in Table II, most loads are good,
very good and excellent, thus indicating the validity of the measurement of attributes for
the sample data.
Regarding the perceived value, we also identified the same number of factors as the scale
proposed by Sweeney and Soutar (2001). As to the original scale, only two items appeared in
factors other than the original scale. VP1 (“Organic food is good for health”) and VP6
(“Organic food is tasty”), included in the “functional value” factor in the original scale, in our
study were added to the “emotional value” factor. As Sheth, Newman and Gross (1991)
explain, emotional value is achieved when purchase decision brings feelings and emotions
to consumers. Thus, in consumer’s perception, health concern and the taste of organic food
are more related to the emotional side than to the functional side. Therefore, the result
confirms the theory, and the scale indicates evidence of validity for the Brazilian context.
The same happened in the trust and purchase intention scales, both adapted by Teng
and Wang (2015), and which kept good indices for sample data, in addition to the same
uni-factor structure. We highlight that KMO for the purchase intention scale was slightly
REGE lower than indicated by literature, but the measure is promising and, even within the
26,3 acceptable limit of KMO, brought relevant results to the study.
Regarding the final model identified in the study, consumers’ purchase intention of
organic food was strongly influenced by emotional value. This value refers to the more
subjective aspects related to the sensation of pleasure and well-being associated to the
consumption of organic food. In the study by Lee and Yun (2015), the hedonistic element,
206 linked to emotional gratification and the pleasure of consuming organic food, also had a
positive relationship with consumers’ purchase intention. The results support several
previous studies that identified the importance of the perception that organic food brings
well-being (Roitner-Schobesberger et al., 2008; Loebnitz & Aschemann-Witzel, 2016).
The second relevant factor regarding purchase intention was the consumers’
trust on certification seals and certified producers. Thus, the greater the trust in a
certification seal, the greater the likelihood that the product will be chosen, as identified by
Janssen and Hamm (2012) and Daugbjerg and Sønderskov (2012). Tung, Shih, Wei, and
Chen (2012) also attested the importance of trust for the consumption of organic food,
and the lack of trust in organic agriculture processes prevents its consumption.
Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen (2017) examined the impact of subjective norms, attitude,
perceived control, and trust on purchase intention by organic food consumers in Thailand.
Results showed that trust plays an important role in the prediction of purchase intention,
as our study suggests.
Economic value also affected purchase intention directly, and regards the financial value
and cost-benefit perceived by consumers of organic foods (Nguyen, Vu, Phan, & Cao, 2015).
Consumers believe that organic food brings greater benefits for health (Ditlevsen, Sandøe, &
Lassen, 2019) and for the individual’s well-being (Apaolaza, Hartmann, D’Souza, & López,
2018). Thus, they are willing to pay a premium price for its acquisition.
Another predictor of purchase intention was social value, which regards the social
acceptance of the individual by the group he/she belongs to. The result also supports the
research by Nuttavuthisit and Thøgersen (2017), which proved that subjective norms affect
consumer behavior. In other words, aspects related to the social relationships of consumers
motivate the consumption of organic food.
Finally, there was a negative relationship between the sensory attribute and purchase
intention. The result differs from other studies in which taste and appearance are attributes
that positively affect purchase behavior (Chang & Zepeda, 2005; Roitner-Schobesberger
et al., 2008; Shafie & Rennie, 2012; Thøgersen, Barcellos, Perin, & Zhou, 2015). However, in
other studies they are attributes neglected by consumers who generally choose healthier
foods (Costanigro, McFadden, Kroll, & Nurse, 2011; Dolezalová, Pícha, Navrátil, Veselá, &
Svec, 2016). One possible explanation for our result is that organic food is in general not as
beautiful as conventional products, which are bigger and cleaned before being put for retail
sale. Thus, the sensory attribute, linked to product appearance, can negatively affect
purchase intention.
Of all factors analyzed in the study, we expected different results in the analysis. Natural
and nutritional content, related to health benefits, are pointed out by several studies as
predictors of the purchase of organic food (Loebnitz & Aschemann-Witzel, 2016; Janssen,
2018). Another attribute that was not significant for the explanation of purchase intention was
the price. The result differs from other studies that mentioned the negative relationship
between price and consumption of these products (Lee & Yun, 2015), and that part of the
consumers cannot pay for organic products and feel that markets charge more for this kind of
food (Whitehead & Nicholson, 2001). In our sample, results suggest that the price of organic
food does not affect purchase intention, since the cost-benefit (economic value) is more
important for the consumer. In any case, additional studies should be conducted, mainly on
the influence of health benefits and price on the behavior of organic food consumers.
6. Conclusions Purchase
The objective of this study was to analyze the influence of attributes, perceived value and intention of
trust on the purchase intention of consumers of organic food. To do this, we collected data organic food
and submitted them to EFA and multiple regressions. Results indicated that emotional
value, economic value, social value, trust and the sensory attribute affect purchase
intention. The first was the strongest predictor, and the last emerged as a negative an
unexpected result. 207
The study offers some academic contributions. The first is the focus on organic food.
This topic, from the consumer’s perspective, is not much explored in Brazil, even with the
growing market for these products. The second contribution is the combination of perceived
value, attributes, trust, and purchase intention in a single prediction model. And the third is
the evidence of scales validity for attributes, perceived value, consumer confidence and
purchase intention, regarding organic food in Brazil.
As managerial implications, our results can help strategic marketing management
focused on the factors identified for the organic food market. In order to address
emotional value, managers could create marketing communications that arouse
the feelings and sensations of consumers and show the healthy appeal of this kind of
food. As for the sensory appeal, marketing communications can increase information by
highlighting the natural and healthy appearance of organic food. The evidence
regarding consumer trust also shows the importance of organic products’ certification
and inspection.
Despite all methodological accuracy adopted in the research, we point out some
limitations. Our sampling was non-probabilistic and by convenience, and the fact that
most respondents were between 18 and 25 years old prevented the generalization of
results. In addition, if the sample were larger, we could have conducted more advanced
statistical analyses.
As suggestion for future research, we highlight the increase in the number and
heterogeneity of the sample, as well as the adoption of probabilistic sampling. Scales can be
improved from the results found – mainly purchase intention – which still does not
present the best indices. With a wider sample, it will be possible to apply confirmatory
factor analyses and use structural equation modeling. In addition to addressing consumer
purchase intention, future research may seek to measure the observed purchase behavior of
organic foods.

References
Aertsens, J., Mondelaers, K., Verbeke, W., Buysse, J., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2011). The influence of
subjective and objective knowledge on attitude, motivations and consumption of organic food.
British Food Journal, 113(11), 1353–1378.
Apaolaza, V., Hartmann, P., D’Souza, C., & López, C. M. (2018). Eat organic-feel good? The relationship
between organic food consumption, health concern and subjective wellbeing. Food Quality and
Preference, 63, 51–62, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.07.011
Aschemann-Witzel, J., & Hamm, U. (2010). Do consumers prefer foods with nutrition and health claims?
Results of a purchase simulation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 16(1/2),
47–58, doi: 10.1080/13527260903342746
Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-
analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 27(1), 14–25, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
Barrett, H. R., Browne, A. W., Harris, P. J. C., & Cadoret, K. (2002). Organic certification and
the UK market: organic imports from developing countries. Food Policy, 27(4), 301–318.
REGE Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology,
26,3 1(3), 185-216.
Chang, H. S., & Zepeda, L. (2005). Consumer perceptions and demand for organic food
in Australia: focus group discussions. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20(3),
155–167.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159, Available from:
208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992), A First Course in Factor Analysis (2nd ed.). NJ and New York, NY:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Costanigro, M., McFadden, D. T., Kroll, S., & Nurse, G. (2011). An in-store valuation of local and organic
apples: the role of social desirability. Agribusiness, 27(4), 465–477.
Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, C. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing,
76(2), 193–218.
Daugbjerg, C., & Sønderskov, K. M. (2012). Environmental policy performance revisited: designing
effective policies for green markets. Political Studies, 60(2), 399-418. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00910
Diallo, M. F. (2012). Effects of store image and store brand price-image on store brand purchase
intention: application to an emerging market. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(3),
360–367.
Ditlevsen, K., Sandøe, P., & Lassen, J. (2019). Healthy food is nutritious, but organic food is healthy
because it is pure: the negotiation of healthy food choices by Danish consumers of organic food.
Food Quality and Preference, 71, 46–53, doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.001
Dolezalová, H., Pícha, K., Navrátil, J., Veselá, M., & Svec, R. (2016). Perception of quality in decision
making regarding purchase of organic food. Calitatea, 17(153), 86-91.
Ghalandari, K., & Norouzi, A. (2012). The effect of country of origin on purchase intention: the role of
product knowledge. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 4(9),
1166-1171.
Guivant, J. S. (2003). Os supermercados na oferta de alimentos orgânicos: apelando ao estilo de vida
EGO-TRIP. Ambiente & Sociedade, 6(2), 63–81.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2005), Análise Multivariada de dados,
Bookman, Porto Alegre.
Hoppe, A., Vieira, L. M., & Barcellos, M. D. d. (2013). Consumer behaviour towards organic food in
Porto Alegre: an application of the theory of planned behaviour. Revista de Economia e
Sociologia Rural, 51(1), 69-90.
Hsu, S.-Y., Chang, C. C., & Lin, T. T. (2016). An Analysis of purchase intentions
toward organic food on health consciousness and food safety with/under structural equation
modeling. British Food Journal, 118(1), 200–216, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/
ER-09-2015-0181
Iyer, P., Davari, A., & Paswan, A. (2016), Green products: altruism, economics, price fairness and
purchase intention. Social Business, 6(1), 39–64.
Janssen, M. (2018). Determinants of organic food purchases: evidence from household panel data. Food
Quality and Preference, 68(1) 19–28.
Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2012). Product labelling in the market for organic food: consumer preferences
and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Quality and Preference,
25(1), 9–22, doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.12.004
Kohlraush, A. K., Campos, L. M. d. S., & Selig, P. M. (2004, October 27-29). Selos ambientais: qual seu
papel e influência no processo de compra de produtos orgânicos. Proceedings of the 24°
Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção[ENEGEP], Florianópolis.
Krystallis, A., & Chryssohoidis, G. (2005). Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic food: factors that Purchase
affect it and variation per organic product type. British Food Journal, 107(5), 320–343. intention of
Lee, H., & Yun, Z. (2015). Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and cognitive and affective organic food
attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions toward organic food. Food Quality and
Preference, 39, 259–267.
Lee, N., & Hooley, G. (2005). The evolution of “classical mythology” within marketing measure
development. European Journal of Marketing, 39(3/4), 365–385. 209
Liang, R. (2016). Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: the moderating effects of organic food
prices. British Food Journal, 118(1), 183–199.
Loebnitz, N., & Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2016). Communicating organic food quality in China: consumer
perceptions of organic products and the effect of environmental value priming. Food Quality and
Preference, 50, 102–108, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.02.003
Maichum, K., Parichatnon, S., & Peng, K. (2017). The influence of attitude, knowledge and quality on
purchase intention towards Halal food : a case study of young non-Muslim consumers in
Thailand. International Journal of Management & Social Sciences, 6(3), 354–364, Available from:
https://doi.org/10.18178/ijssh.2017.7.5.844
Mainardes, E. W., Araujo, D. V. B. D., Lasso, S., & Andrade, D. M. (2017). Influences on the
intention to buy organic food in an emerging market. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 35(7),
858–876.
Marian, L., & Thøgersen, J. (2013). Direct and mediated impacts of product and process characteristics on
consumers’ choice of organic vs. conventional chicken. Food Quality and Preference, 29(2),
106–112, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.03.001
Machado, D., & Viana, D. J. (2011). Biotecnologias cooperativismo e desenvolvimento sustentável: o
exemplo da Coopaflora no município de Turvo – PR. Revista Eletrônica do Curso de Ciências
Sociais da Faculdade Guarapuava, 1(1), 125–127.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpandé, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of
market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing
Research, 29(3), 314–328.
Nandi, R., Bokelmann, W., Gowdru, N. V., & Dias, G. (2016). Consumer motives and purchase
preferences for organic food products: empirical evidence from a consumer survey in Bangalore,
South India. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 28(1), 74–99,
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2015.1035470
Nguyen, T. N., Vu, P. A., Phan, T. T. H., & Cao, T. K. (2015). An exploratory investigation into customer
perceived value of food products in Vietnam. International Business Research, 8(12), 1.
Nocella, G., & Kennedy, O. (2012). Food health claims – what consumers understand. Food Policy, 37(5),
571–580, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.06.001
Nuttavuthisit, K., & Thøgersen, J. (2017). The importance of consumer trust for the emergence of a
market for green products: the case of organic food. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(2),
323–337, doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2690-5
Pasquali, L. (1999). Instrumentos psicológicos: manual prático de elaboração. LabPAM/IBAPP,
Brasília, p. 306.
Peattie, K. (2010). Green consumption: behavior and norms. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, 35, 195–228.
Pivato, S., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2008). The impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer
trust: the case of organic food. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1),
3–12, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2008.00515.
Rana, J., & Paul, J. (2012). Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 29(6), 412–422.
Roitner-Schobesberger, B., Darnhofer, I., Somsook, S., & Vogl, C. R. (2008). Consumer perceptions of
organic foods in Bangkok, Thailand. Food Policy, 33(2), 112–121.
REGE Sánchez-Fernández, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. Á. (2007). The concept of perceived value: a systematic
26,3 review of the research. Marketing Theory, 7(4), 427–451.
Shafie, F. A., & Rennie, D. (2012). Consumer perceptions towards organic food. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 49, 360–367.
Shaharudin, M. R., Pani, J. J., Mansor, S. W., & Elias, S. J. (2010). Purchase intention of organic food:
perceived value overview. Canadian Social Science, 6(1), 70–79.
210 Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption
values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159–170, doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8
Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of
gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195–204.
Singh, A., & Verma, P. (2017). Factors influencing Indian consumers’ actual buying behavior towards
organic food products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 473–483.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational
exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15–37, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.66.1.15.18449
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (2000). Intelligence generation and superior customer value. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 120–127, doi: 10.1177/0092070300281011
Sønderskov, K. M., & Daugbjerg, C. (2011). The state and consumer confidence in eco-labeling: organic
labeling in Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Agriculture and
Human Values, 28(4), 507–517.
Suh, B. W., Eves, A., & Lumbers, M. (2015). Developing a model of organic food choice behavior. Social
Behavior and Personality, 43(2), 217–230.
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item
scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220.
Teng, C. C., & Wang, Y. M. (2015). Decisional factors driving organic food consumption: generation of
consumer purchase intentions. British Food Journal, 117(3), 1066–1081.
Thøgersen, J., Barcellos, M. D., Perin, M. G., & Zhou, Y. (2015). Consumer buying motives and attitudes
towards organic food in two emerging markets: China and Brazil. International Marketing
Review, 32(3/4), 389–413.
Tung, S. J., Shih, C. C., Wei, S., & Chen, Y. H. (2012). Attitudinal inconsistency toward organic food in
relation to purchasing intention and behavior: an illustration of Taiwan consumers. British Food
Journal, 114(7), 997–1015, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701211241581
Whitehead, P., & Nicholson, S. (2001). Organic food: niche or mainstream. Institute of Grocery
Distribution, Watford.
Wilcock, A., Pun, M., Khanona, J., & Aung, M. (2004). Consumer attitudes, knowledge and behaviour: a
review of food safety issues. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 15(2),
56–66, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2003.08.004
Willer, H., & Lernoud, J. (2016), The world of organic agriculture, statistics and emerging trends 2016,
(1st ed.). FIBL, IFOAM Handbook, Available from: http://orgprints.org/31151/1/willer-
lernoud-2016-world-of-organic.pdf (accessed April 2016)
Yadav, R., & Pathak, G. S. (2016). Intention to purchase organic food among young
consumers: evidences from a developing nation. Appetite, 96, 122–128, Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.017
Yin, S., Wu, L., Du, L., & Chen, M. (2010). Consumers’ purchase intention of organic food in China.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 90(8), 1361–1367, doi: 10.1002/jsfa.3936.
Zagata, L. (2012). Consumers’ belief and behavioral intentions towards organic food: evidence from
Czech Republic. Appetite, 59(1), 81–89.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22, doi: 10.2307/1251446
Further reading Purchase
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and International Federation of Organic Agriculture intention of
Moviment (IFOAM) (2015). The world organic agriculture: statistics and emerging trends 2015.
Available from: www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1663-organic-world-2015.pdf (accessed organic food
April 2016).

Corresponding author 211

Isabelle Cristina Galindo Curvelo can be contacted at: [email protected]

Associate Editor: Adriana Marotti de Mello

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]