A Study of Consumer Behavior Towards

A Study of Consumer Behavior Towards
Organic Food and the Moderating Effects

of Health Consciousness
Neha Singhal*
The last two decades have witnessed growing environmental awareness along with health
and food safety concerns which have led people to question modern agricultural practices.
This could be seen in the increasing demand for organic produce, which is considered as
less harmful to the environment and healthier than their conventional counterparts
(Schifferstein, 1998; and Williams, 2001). Organic foods claim to help serve several
benefits including healthiness and sustainable production. But they largely lack customer
support and thus less market demand due to the lack of knowledge, trust and information
about such food products. The present study is an attempt to find out consumer behavior
towards organic food and the role of health consciousness as the moderating variable.
The idea is to address the research gap in the extant literature wherein studies have
primarily focused on factors influencing the growth of organic foods such as product
acceptance, information, higher income, willingness to pay premium price and ethical
consumption.
Introduction
Interest in organically-produced food is increasing across the world in response to concerns
about conventional agricultural practices, food safety and human health concerns, animal
welfare considerations and concern about the environment (Chryssohoidis, 2000a and
2000b). Thus, examining consumer behavior towards organic foods is one of the inspiring
areas of marketing research which involves the psychological processes that consumers
go through in identifying the needs, search for information, evaluating the products
and making the final purchase.
Literature Review
The term ‘organic’ refers to the way agricultural products are grown and processed.
Organic foods refer to those foods which are produced without using pesticides and
chemical fertilizers (Allen and Alabala, 2007). Consumers perceive these foods as
* Research Scholar, Department of Commerce, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, India.
E-mail: nehasinghal.du@gmail.com
© Study
A 2017 IUP. All RightsBehavior
of Consumer Reserved.
Towards Organic Food 45
and the Moderating Effects of Health Consciousness
environment-friendly as they are produced without using pesticides and fertilizers and
comply with animal welfare standards (Darnhofer and Lindenthal, 2009). They are
grown in safe soil, have no modifications, and must remain separate from conventional
products. Farmers are not allowed to use synthetic pesticides, bioengineered genes
Genetically Modified Organism (GMO), petroleum-based fertilizers, and sewage sludge-
based fertilizers.
Consumers are inclined to buy these foods as they are environment-friendly and
health-conscious (Tregear et al., 1994; Davis et al., 1995; and Fotopoulos and Krystallis,
2002a, 2002b) and have safety and quality concerns (Zotos et al., 1999; and,
Chryssohoidis, 2000a and 2000b) also have nutritional value, taste, freshness, and
price (Zanoli, 1998; Zotos et al., 1999; and Chryssohoidis, 2000a and 2000b).
Some studies also reveal a variety of other purchase motives that seem to reflect
national interests, such as ‘support to organic farmers’ for German consumers (Worner
and Meier, 1999) or ‘animal welfare’ for British consumers (Meier and Woodward,
1999). However, there are some consumers who are not willing to buy these foods even
with high income in their hand due to lack of some special value in the eyes of the
consumers (Tregear et al., 1994; and Roddy et al., 1996) and doubts about product
guarantees (Worner and Meier, 1999).
Factors Influencing Growth of Organic Foods

The demand for health-claim foods has increased with increase in the income of
consumers. Various factors that influence the growth of organic foods are:
1. Environment deterioration
2. Standard of living
3. Education
4. Gender and size of family
5. Pest resistance
Environment Deterioration: Pujari and Wright (1996) in their study mentioned the
1990s as the ‘the decade of environment’ due to emerging environmentalism issues
facing business and the public. Organic foods are produced without using chemical
fertilizers and pesticides and thus reduce pollution (air, water, soil), conserve water,
reduce soil erosion, increase soil fertility, and use less energy.
Previous research studies have also mentioned that people are willing to pay a premium
price for the food product if it is justified by ‘true’ value of the product (Rao and Burgen,
1992; and Tse, 2001). Consumers are inclined towards organic foods because of their
environmental and health concerns (Smed and Jensen, 2003; and Fu, 2006).
However, Laroche et al. (2001) argue that consumers have favorable attitude towards
green products but there is limited information as to how much consumers are willing to
‘sacrifice’ for such products.
46 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVI, No. 3, 2017

Standard of Living: With the increase in income, people prefer more of healthy and
hygienic food which has led to an increase in the demand for organic food products
(Corsi and Novelli, 2003).
Education: Educated people can better understand the significance of healthy eating.
Past researches have emphasized that people with higher education tend to be more
aware and inclined towards organic foods (Santucci et al., 1999; Gracia and Magistris,
2007; Idda et al., 2008; and Holmes, 2010).
Gender and Size of Family: Krystallis (2005) emphasized that it is the women who
are more health-conscious and are frequent buyers of health foods than men.
Idda et al. (2008) further mentioned that small families with children are more
willing to pay for organic foods (Reicks et al., 1997; and Thompson and Kidwell, 1998).
Food Safety: Henson (1996) observed that people are willing to pay for the food product
if they are safe in terms of its usage, risk of food poisoning and individual characteristics.
A food product must be duly labeled and certified by the trusted authorities.
Pest Resistance: Farmers use tons of pesticides and fertilizers to protect their crops
from insects. The use of chemicals is harmful for consumers’ health and poisons the
water supply which causes harm to the environment (Bredahl, 2001). Thus, organic
foods are preferred more by the consumers as well as farmers.
Consumer Attitude Towards Organic Food Products

Attitude is an emotional propensity that expresses some amount of favor or disfavor
towards a particular object. Thus, to understand consumer behavior, it is essential to
determine their attitude towards various products and services. Krarup and Russell
(2005) mentioned that consumers' attitude and behavior determine their willingness to
buy the product or service in a better way.
According to Williams (2001), organic foods are those foods which are produced
without using chemical fertilizers and pesticides. They are more nutritious than
conventional foods and have less risk of food poisoning. They are perceived to be healthier
than conventional foods (Grankvist, 2001; Magnusson et al., 2001; and Harper and
Makatouni, 2002) which positively influences consumer attitude towards organic foods.
However, price, quality, convenience, availability and food safety are considered as
significant factors while making the purchase (Carrigan, 2001; and Weatherell, 2003),
whereas ethical factors are considered by only a few consumers. Dobson (2007) further
added that environmental policies are aimed at changing consumers' behavior than
their attitude.
Defra (2006) in his empirical study found that 30% of the UK consumers are
concerned about environmental issues but do not convert their apprehension into green
A Study of Consumer Behavior Towards Organic Food 47

purchase. There is ‘attitude-behavior gap’ or ‘value-action gap’ which was further
illustrated by Hughner (2007) who found that 46-67% of the UK population hold
favorable attitude towards organic foods but only 4-10% of the population actually
purchase the product. Williams and Hammit (2007) in this regard suggests that
sustainable behavior cannot take place unless the environment is changed and each
individual’s consumption behavior needs to be viewed as a series of purchase decisions
in order to understand green consumerism as these decisions are interlinked by common
set of values or may be situational Peattie (1990).
Past researches have mentioned that it is the concern for one’s health that encourages
people to buy organic foods (Wandel, 1997; and Pelletier, 2013). Such consumers search
for health-claim food products (Ajzen, 2003). Also, studies have indicated that people
are more concerned about the food they consume due to food scarcity in the last few
years, health risks associated with conventional foods, growing health consciousness
among consumers and changing lifestyle which has further positively influenced consumer
attitude towards organic foods and increase in the consumption of organic foods (Miles,
2001; and Lee and Yun, 2015).
However, Yiridoe et al. (2005) in his study highlighted that consumer attitude towards
organic foods is positively influenced by degree of knowledge of the consumers and their
willingness to pay a premium price for them. He further mentioned that consumers
have to rely on the information provided by trusted authorities to evaluate such foods
as these foods have credence attribute and consumers cannot evaluate them on their
own. Thus, knowledge possessed by consumers plays a vital role in influencing consumer
attitude and making a purchase decision (Aertsens et al., 2009).
Previous studies on consumer perceptions about organic foods focus on consumers'

attitude towards organic foods and conventional foods (Yiridoe et al., 2005). The same
author conducted an empirical survey and found that when consumers were asked
about their preference between organic and conventional foods, they compared their
attitudes toward the production method of the food products and its characteristics
before stating their preferences.
Consumers nowadays are more concerned about health-related diseases and food
safety risks (Arvola, 2008). Latouche et al. (1998) mentioned that, other things being
equal, risk perception and purchase likelihood are negatively correlated and in order to
avoid perceived risk, consumers either reduce, shift or postpone their purchase decision
of the said product. During food scarcity, consumers heavily rely on purchasing branded
or quality products or seek advice from trusted sources before buying the food product.
Jones et al. (2001) further added that consumers consider organic foods as safe and of
higher quality which further increases consumption of organic foods.
Past studies have mentioned various factors that influence consumers' attitude towards
organic foods, such as ‘support to organic farmers’ for consumers in Germany (Worner
and Meier, 1999) or ‘animal welfare’ for consumers in Britain (Meier and Woodward,

1999). However, ‘price and availability’ are two major reasons that obstruct the demand
for organic foods (Roddy et al., 1996; and Latacz and Foster, 1997). Factors like ‘lack of
unique value in the consumer’s eyes’ (Tregear et al., 1994; and Roddy et al., 1996) and
‘uncertainty about guarantee of the product’, and also ‘lack of willingness to pay for the
product’ even if they have income in their hand further influence a consumer’s purchase
behavior.
Sahota (2007), in his study found that though there is an increase in the consumption
of organic foods in western US, their consumption remains low as they are restrained by
certain barriers (Saba, 2003). Past studies have found that one of the major obstacles is
lack of confidence in organic foods due to the dearth of information and awareness
about organic foods which further influence consumer attitude towards its consumption
(Padel and Foster, 2005; Gracia, 2007; and Stobbelaar, 2007).
Padel and Foster (2005) and Krystallis (2005) further added that consumers lack
trust in the information provided by authorities about labeling, standardization and
certification of organic foods which influences their attitude towards them (Krystallis,
2005; and Padel and Foster, 2005).
Zakowska (2011) highlighted that it is the premium price of organic foods that
restrains consumer from buying them. However, there is a segment of consumers who are
health-conscious and believe that organic foods are more healthy and nutritious than
their conventional counterparts (Fotopoulos, 2002; Torjusen, 2004; and Pelletier, 2013).
Thus, they evaluate organic foods on the basis of their nutritional aspect and healthiness
(Magnusson, 2003; Arvola, 2008; and Aertsens et al., 2009) and are willing to pay
premium price for them (Krystallis, 2005).
Consumer Purchase Behavior

According to Soloman (2014), “consumer behavior is the study of the processes involved
when individuals or groups select, purchase, use, or dispose of the product, service,
ideas or experiences to satisfy needs and desires”. Before making the actual purchase,
the consumer searches for relevant information related to the product and then evaluates
the product as per her/his expectations from the product. He/she might show an intention
to buy the product, or buy the product on trial basis or may buy for actual usage.
Ajzen (2003) in his study mentioned that ‘consumers with positive attitude’ towards
organic foods might not necessarily show an intention to buy them. Also, consumers are
unwilling to pay premium price for organic foods (Grunert and Juhl, 1995). Byoungho
and Yong (2005) mentioned that consumers' intention to purchase is influenced by
their satisfaction with a product which is directly related to their attitude.
However, Gracia (2007) found that purchase intention is influenced by ‘subjective
knowledge’, i.e., the higher the subjective knowledge, the more positive would be the
intention to buy organic foods. This is established by Thøgersen (2007) who found that
uncertainty negatively influences intention to purchase organic food and thus intention
is not translated into actual purchase.

Also, Wier (2008) examined that frequent buyers are willing to pay premium price
for organic foods, but due to inherent product qualities consumers may not be willing to
pay higher prices for them regularly and may buy organic foods once or twice on trial
basis.
Consumers are also interested in health claims associated with organic foods (Fagerli,
1999; and Solomon, 2014). Most consumers consider that conventional foods are not
as healthy as organic foods (Torjusen, 2004), and the major reason for buying organic
foods is that they are healthier (Fotopoulos, 2002). Consumers also opt for organic
foods because of ‘positive environmental consequences’ (Hutchins and Greenhalg, 1997;
Wandel, 1997; Schifferstein, 1998; and Zanoli, 2002). Thus, the most stated reason
for buying organic foods is one’s own health-related concern and environment protection.
Factors Influencing Consumer Purchase Behavior

Consumers are influenced by internal factors (perception, attitude, and motivation)
and external factors (family and peer group influence) before making purchase decision
(Solomon, 2014). These factors are:
1. Price
2. Functional value
3. Emotions
4. Mood
5. Store environment
Price: Voss and Parasuraman (2003) in their study found that purchase of organic
foods is mainly influenced by the price rather than the quality of the product. They
found that price is the significant factor that restrains consumers from buying organic
foods as they tend to be expensive than conventional foods. Aertsens et al. (2009)
highlighted that it is only frequent users who are ready to pay higher price for organic
foods, whereas average users might buy such foods, once or twice for trial purpose.
Functional Value: Sinha and Banerjee (2003) revealed that Indian consumers look
more for emotional value than the functional value of shopping. They are more
entertainment-oriented, i.e., they are influenced by the store environment, regularity in
buying and by the socioeconomic classification.
Emotions: Past researches have emphasized on the role of consumers' emotions (Babin,
1992; Holbrook and Gardner, 1993; and Gracia and Magistris, 2007). Isen and Shalker
(1982), explored that people with positive emotional state take less time in decision
making. Holbrook and Gardner, (1993) explored the emotional responses of television
commercials on the consumer purchase decision. Thus, retailers need to experiment
with the formats that are able to attract both the emotional shopper as well as the
rational shopper.

Mood: Belk (1975) found that consumers' purchase decision is influenced by their
mood at the time of purchase. Previous researches have highlighted that mood influences
participation and shopping experience (Swinyard, 1993; and Barone and Miniard,
2002). Though the terms emotion, affect and mood can be used interchangeably, some
authors suggest that “emotion appears to be the more encompassing term, with affect
and mood particular types or examples of emotion” (Babin, 1992).
Store Environment: Baker (1993) investigated how consumers relate store environment
with the quality of the product and what factors of store environment influence their
buying behavior. Donovan (1994) added that store ambience affects the consumers'
mood and behavior. He further suggested that the emotional state of the consumer
within the store results in extra time and unplanned shopping. Ryu et al. (2012) in
their study found that it is the overall image of the store that has an impact on consumer’s
purchase decision. Thus, these factors together influence the shopping behavior of the
consumer (Babin, 1992).
Influence of Moderating Variable on Consumer Behavior

The concept of food demand and food consumption has undergone a sea change due to
growing awareness, health consciousness, changing lifestyle, environmental awareness
and nutritional needs. Today, foods are consumed not to satisfy hunger but to provide
nutrition, prevent diseases and improve well-being of the consumers (Roberfroid, 2002;
and Menrad, 2003).
Healthiness has become a major decisive factor while purchasing food products as
consumers have become conscious of the nutrition, health, and quality of the food they
eat (Magnusson et al., 2001) which has further increased the demand for organic foods.
The higher the degree of consumers concern towards their own health, the more positive
would be their attitude towards organic foods. Also, such consumers are involved in
preventing diseases by engaging themselves in healthy behaviors and physical fitness
(Gould, 1988; Kraft and Goodell, 1993; and Newsom et al., 2005).
Consumers nowadays demand food products which are not harmful to their health
as well as to the environment. Organic foods are, therefore, perceived as less damaging
to the environment than traditional foods (Laroche, 2001; and Williams, 2001). Such
consumers are also concerned about animal welfare and human life (McEachern, 2002).
Various studies have explained the value of health for individuals. Olsen et al. (2006)
and Sparks (2001) refer to the ‘health-conscious self-identity’ as the extent to which
health is a significant component of a person’s self-concept.
Thus, health consciousness has been found to predict attitude, intention and purchase
of organic foods (Magnusson et al., 2001; and Magnusson, 2003) and is one of the
major determinants that influence consumer’s attitude towards organic foods. Therefore,
health consciousness should be included as a moderator in the research framework.

Thus, the next section explores the dimensions of health consciousness to help in
further understanding of attitude-behavior linkages in the context of organic foods.
Dimensions of Health Consciousness

Hong (2009) identified the following dimensions of health consciousness among
consumers:
1. Integration of health behavior;
2. Attention to one’s health;
3. Health information seeking and usage;
4. Personal health responsibility; and
5. Health motivation.
Dimension 1: Integration of Health Behaviors (Healthy Lifestyle)

Past researches have interrelated individual’s healthy lifestyle with their orientation
towards health consciousness (Kraft and Goodell, 1993). Kraft and Goodell (1993)
acknowledged that a health-conscious individual is sensitive to health hazards and is
responsible for her/his health.
Divine and Lepisto (2005) in their study mentioned that people following healthy
lifestyles tend to exercise and eat healthy foods. Such consumers tend to buy organic
foods (Tregear et al., 1994; Schifferstein, 1998; and Bech, 2007). Consumers are positive
towards organic foods as they believe that organic foods have higher health benefits as
compared to traditional foods. Michaelidou (2008) in their study found that healthy
lifestyle favorably influences ethical and sustainable products. Thus, it is believed that
healthy lifestyle moderates the effect of consumers’ attitude towards their buying behavior
of organic food products (Gil, 2006).
H a: Healthy lifestyle moderates the relationship between consumer’s attitude and
purchase behavior towards organic foods.
Dimension 2: Health Knowledge

With an increasing number of health sites focusing on health-related knowledge and
issues, consumers nowadays have become highly aware about health-related information.
Rodger et al. (2015) mentioned that an individual gains health knowledge through
media, peer group and society as a whole. Therefore, the health-conscious group turned
out to be moderately engaged in health-information seeking and health-promoting
behaviors,
Past studies have reported individuals’ involvement with health messages, i.e., talking
about health issues with friends and family (Aldoory, 2001; and Iversen and Kraft,

2006). Iversen and Kraft (2006) argued that such consumers make recommendations
to others. He further added that they seek information about health-related issues and
are conscious about what to eat. Thus, it is plausible to hypothesize that:
H b: Health knowledge moderates the relationship between consumer’s attitude and

Dimension 3: Health Concern

According to Iversen and Kraft (2006), health consciousness is defined as “the tendency
to focus attention on one’s health”. Past studies have conducted empirical surveys on
consumer behavior towards organic foods and found that health concern is the prime
motive for buying organic foods (Tregear et al., 1994; Huang and Bouis, 1996; Wandel,
1997; and Schifferstein, 1998). Tregear et al. (1994) found that 54% of consumers in
Scotland buy organic foods because of health concern, whereas only 9% buy because of
their concern towards the environment. Schifferstein (1998) in their study found that
health is the prime motive for incidental buyers among the Dutch, whereas frequent
buyers buy organic food for health as well as environmental reasons. Based on review of
literature, it is hypothesized that:
Hc: Health concern moderates the relationship between consumer’s attitude and purchase
behavior towards organic foods.
Dimension 4: Personal Responsibility/Managing Work Schedule

Past studies have argued that a health-conscious individual takes personal responsibility
for managing her/his own health by managing her/his work schedule (Kraft and Goodell,
1993). Dutta (2004a) emphasized that the health-conscious consumers engage
themselves in health-maintaining behaviors, manage their work schedule and are
particular about healthy eating (Dutta, 2004a; Dutta and Feng, 2007). Hughner (2007)
mentioned that people following organized work schedule tend to buy more of organic
foods as they engage themselves in healthy eating and are conscious about health issues.
Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H d: Work schedule moderates the relationship between consumer’s attitude and purchase
Dimension 5: Health Motivation/ Medication and Healthcare

Dutta (2004a) defined health motivation as involving oneself in medication and
healthcare activities. Dutta’s studies (Dutta, 2004b; 2006; and Dutta and Feng, 2007)
used an item stating, “living life in the best possible health is very important to me”.
Dutta (2004a) defined health consciousness as “an indicator of the consumer’s intrinsic
motivation to maintain good health” as well as “a reflection of his or her responsibility
towards health”.
An individual with strong determination towards her/his health is likely to understand
the significance of exercise and healthy diet, and refrain from smoking and drinking
(Bephage, 2000). Organic foods are generally considered as more nutritious and healthier

than their conventional counterparts and thus a health-conscious individual is likely to
have positive attitude towards them (Michaelidou, 2008). Likewise, Roitner et al. (2008)
observed that health motive is the main reason which tends to moderate consumer’s
attitude towards organic food for people in Thailand.
H e: Medication moderates the relationship between consumer’s attitude and purchase

Figure 1: Proposed Model of Consumer Behavior
Moderator
Health Consciousness
• Healthy Lifestyle
• Health Knowledge
• Health Concern
• Work Schedule
• Medication and Healthcare
Consumer Attitude Consumer Purchase

Towards Organic Foods Behavior
Thus, an individual’s health consciousness is one of the major determinants

influencing her/his attitude towards organic foods. Therefore, health consciousness should
be included as a moderator in the research framework.
Objectives
Consumer-based researches related to consumer attitude towards organic foods and
their purchase behavior are scarce (Viaene, 1996). The lack of adequate insight into
consumer decision making towards this rapidly growing market for organic foods forms
the basic rationale for this research. Thus, the present study aims to work with the
following objectives:

1. To find out consumer attitude towards organic foods.
2. To assess the role of health consciousness in determining the relationship

between consumer’s attitude and behavior towards organic foods.
3. To draw the strategic implication for the marketer.
Hypotheses
On the basis of the objectives, the following hypothesis can be formulated:
H1: Dimensions of health consciousness moderate the relationship between consumer attitude
and product purchase behavior towards organic food products.
Data and Methodology

Primary Source: A questionnaire was designed to measure consumer attitude and their
behavior towards organic foods and their health consciousness.
Secondary Source: Various marketing and finance journals, magazines, reports and
websites were referred.
Questionnaire Development
The questionnaire developed included:
1. Section 1: Demographic information of the respondents.
2. Section 2: Health consciousness among consumers
3. Section 3: Consumer attitude and their behavior towards organic foods.
The study was conducted in Delhi with a sample size of 632 respondents. It measures
consumer attitude, health consciousness and their behavior towards organic foods.
Respondent Statistics
Table 1 presents the demographic details of surveyed respondents.
The sample profile shows that of the total sample of 632 respondents, 45.2% were
female and 55% were male. Respondents in the age group of 18-24 years constitute
about 33.70%, 25-35 years 29.74%, 36-50 years 18.35%, 51-60 years 9.01% and
those who are above 60 years 9.96%. Most of the respondents were either postgraduates
(28.32%) or professionals (29.27%). Out of the total, 56.96% of the sample were working
professionals while the rest 43.04% were not working. Service employees constitute
42.75% of the data while 25.05% belong to business category. A majority of the sample
are earning between 100,000 to 200,000, whereas only 6.03% are earning less than
50,000.
Reliability Testing
To estimate the suitability of the items included in the scale, reliability testing was
done. A commonly used measure of reliability is the Cronbach’s alpha that assesses the

Table 1: Sample Profile of Respondents (N = 632)
Demographic No. of
Factor Groupings Percentage
Factor Respondents
Gender Female 286 45.20
Male 348 55
18-24 213 33.70
Age Group
25-35 188 29.74
36-50 116 18.35
51-60 57 9.01
Above 60 63 9.96
Marital Status Single 283 44.77
Married 351 55.53
Qualification High School 130 19.95
Graduate 142 22.46
Postgraduate 179 28.32
Professional 185 29.27
Working Non-Working 274 43.04
Status
Working 360 56.96
If Working, Business 100 25.05
Occupation
Service Employee 171 42.75
Professional 128 32.20
Monthly Less than 50,000 42 6.03
Family
50,000- 100,000 188 29.74
Income
100,000- 200,000 239 37.81
200,000 and Above 167 26.42
consistency of the scale, and 0.70 is the generally acceptable or desirable limit of scale
reliability (Hair et al., 1995).
The following table (Table 2) provides a summary of the results of reliability analysis
performed on the scale used to measure consumer’s attitude and behavior and moderating
variable.
In the context of ‘consumer purchase behavior’, Cronbach’s alpha was found to be

0.802 which exceeds the agreed upon limit of 0.70. However, in case of ‘consumer
attitude towards organic foods’, Cronbach’s alpha value comes out to be 0.628 which is
less than the desirable alpha value of 0.70; but alpha value above 0.60 is also considered
acceptable for further analysis.

Table 2: Reliability Results for Scales Used in the Study
S. Cronbach
Variable
No. Alpha Value
1. Consumer product purchase behavior 0.802
2. Consumer attitude towards organic foods 0.628
3. Health consciousness1: 0.835
Healthy Lifestyle 0.772
Health Knowledge 0.753
Health Concern 0.745
Work Schedule 0.728
Medication and Healthcare 0.673
Note: 1Factor Analysis.
In case of moderating variable, ‘health consciousness’, initially a 25-item scale, factor

analysis was applied and five factors were extracted, namely, healthy lifestyle, health
knowledge, health concern, work schedule and medication and healthcare and their
respective alpha values are 0.772, 0.753, 0.745, 0.728 and 0.673. All the dimensions
of health consciousness met the reliability criterion, implying internal consistency of the
scale items. The overall alpha value for the scale measuring consumer’s health
consciousness came out to be 0.835.
Moderation Effect of Health Consciousness on the Relationship

Between Consumer Attitude and Their Purchase Behavior Towards
Organic Foods
Consumers have lost their faith in the quality of conventional foods and are getting
more interested in healthy foods (Fagerli, 1999; Rozin, 1999; and Roosen et al., 2007).
Healthiness has become a prime concern for consumers while searching the food products
and making a purchase decision (Wandel, 1997; and Magnusson, 2003). They evaluate
the food product in terms of its nutritional benefits and health claims (Jolly, 1989; and
Beharrel, 1991). Consumers nowadays demand fresh, natural and healthy foods with
authentic certification and labeling. They are no longer relying on the conventional
foods but constantly demand foods that serve their health and nutritional needs.
One of the prime objectives of the present study is to identify health consciousness
among consumers as well as role of health consciousness in determining the relationship
between consumer attitude and behavior towards organic foods.
Based on the literature review, a 25-item scale was used to assess various aspects of
consumer health consciousness. The results of factor analysis technique used to extract

various dimensions of health consciousness are explained next, followed by the investigation
of their moderating effects on the relation between consumer attitude and purchase behavior.
At twenty five-item scale comprising dimensions of health consciousness amongst
consumers was factor analyzed using varimax rotation (for the given data, KMO test
value came out to be 0.839. The value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity is 2 = 12991.239
with df = 21, p = 0.000, which indicates that correlation between items is sufficiently
large for the purpose of principal component analysis).
Five factors were subjected to reliability testing using Cronbach’s alpha as a measure
of internal consistency. The results are reported in Table 3. The revised factors reported
Table 3: Results of Factor Analysis of Scale Measuring

S. Cronbach’s Explained
Factors Item Labels
No. Alpha Variance
1. Healthy Lifestyle H5 0.772 26.623
H4
H6
H16
H7
2. Health Knowledge H19 0.753 10.756
H15
H23
H18
H22
H14
3. Health Concern H1 0.745 9.274
H2
H3
H8
4. Work Schedule H12 0.728 6.079
H10
H11
5. Medication and Healthcare H9 0.673 5.655
H13
H25
Total Explained Variance 58.388

Cronbach’s alpha value of more than 0.6, which implied that the scale is reliable. The
five factors were: “healthy lifestyle, health knowledge, health concern, work schedule
and medication and healthcare”.
The five-item scale comprising ‘healthy lifestyle’ measures consumer orientation
towards regular exercising, health check-ups and food safety.
‘Health knowledge’, a six-item scale, measures knowledge of the consumers regarding
health issues. It measures whether the consumers consume foods that are nutritious and
have low salt/sugar, or whether such foods help them maintain or lose weight.
‘Health concern’ comprised four statements that measure consumer concern regarding
health and health consequences and whether consumer considers health as her/his
personal responsibility or not.
‘Work schedule’ includes three items, i.e., consumer physical activities, relaxing time
throughout the day, and the inner feelings about one’s own health.
The dimension ‘medication’ comprised three statements. It measures consumer’s
reluctance towards her own health and medication, i.e., to what extent the
recommendations are taken care of and one’s consciousness towards one’s illness and
disease.
Thus, it can be concluded that consumer health consciousness comprises “healthy
lifestyle, health knowledge, health concern, work schedule and medication”.
Correlation Analysis of the Relationship Between Moderators and

Consumer Attitude Towards Organic Foods
Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation is used to examine the degree of association
between moderators and consumer attitude towards organic foods. The results are given
in Table 4.
Table 4: Mean Scores and Correlation Analysis of the Relationship Between

Moderators and Consumer Attitude Towards Organic Foods
Consumer Attitude Towards Organic Foods
Moderators Mean1 (SD)
Correlation2 p-Value
Healthy Lifestyle 5.17 (1.044) 0.300 0.000
Health Knowledge 5.24 (1.019) 0.239 0.000
Health Concern 5.73 (0.944) 0.263 0.000
Work Schedule 4.93 (1.243) 0.094 0.020
Medication 3.86 (1.459) –0.246 0.000
Note: Scale: 7-Strongly Agree, 6-Agree, 5-Little Agree, 4-Undecided, 3-Little Disagree, 2-Disagree,
1
1-Strongly Disagree; and 2Correlation coefficient is for relation between moderator and
consumer attitude in case of organic foods.
All the moderators were found to be significantly correlated with consumer attitude
towards organic foods with p < 0.05. However, medication was found to be negatively

correlated with consumer’s attitude. Thus, the hypothesis (H1) Health consciousness
moderates the relationship between consumer’s attitude and their purchase behavior
towards organic foods, proposed earlier, is further expanded to allow for the testing of
hypothesized relationship in terms of each of the dimension of health consciousness.
The concerned hypotheses are:
H1.1: Healthy lifestyle moderates the effect of consumer attitude towards organic foods on
consumer product purchase behavior.
H1.2: Health knowledge moderates the relationship between consumer attitude and product
H1.3: Health concern moderates the effect of consumer attitude towards organic foods on
consumer product purchase behavior.
H1.4: Work schedule moderates the relationship between consumer attitude and product
H1.5: Medication moderates the relationship between consumer attitude and product
The role of health consciousness in terms of each of the dimensions as moderator in

determining the relationship between consumer attitude and behavior towards organic
foods is explained in the subsequent section.
Results and Discussion

In the above presented model, it was mentioned that the relationship between consumer
attitude and their behavior towards organic foods can be moderated by the influence of
moderators. A moderator variable is an independent variable that affects the relationship
of the dependent variable and independent variable. It is represented by the interaction
between independent variable and moderator variable. The independent variable and
moderators were mean centered to reduce the issue of multicollinearity, prior to creating
interaction terms (Aiken and West, 1991). The significant interaction terms were further
investigated for significant differences in high, medium and low values using simple
slope analysis procedure suggested by Aiken and West (1991).
The present paper studies the impact of five moderators, viz., healthy lifestyle, health
knowledge, health concern, work schedule and medication, on the relationship between
consumer’s attitude and their behavior towards organic foods using moderated regression
analysis. Moderation effect of each of the dimension of health consciousness is explained
next.
For the purpose of examining the role of moderator in the relationship between
consumer’s attitude and consumer behavior towards organic foods, three models were
tested with the help of hierarchical regression.

Model 1: BEHAVi= a+ 1 (ATTi)+ e
Model 2: BEHAVi= a+ 1 (ATTi)+ 2 (MODi) + e
Model 3: BEHAVi= a+ 1 (ATTi)+ 2 (MODi) + i(ATT × MODi) + e
where BEHAV is a measure of consumer’s product purchase behavior; MOD is the

measure of moderators which include healthy lifestyle, health knowledge, health concern,
work schedule and medication; and ATT is the measure of consumer’s attitude towards
organic foods.
Moderation Effect of Health Consciousness on the Relationship

Between Consumer Attitude and Product Purchase Behavior
Towards Organic Foods (H1)
It has been postulated that dimensions of health consciousness moderate the relationship
between consumer attitude and their product purchase behavior towards organic foods
(H1). The said hypothesis is tested using hierarchical regression analysis. The results are
reported in Table 5. The VIF value is less than 5 and TOL value is greater than 0.1 in
all the regression equations, hence it can be concluded that the variables are not
significantly collinear (Josiassen and Assaf, 2010).
Healthy Lifestyle: The variable healthy lifestyle was studied as a moderator by Chen
(2007). It is measured through five statements on a 7-point Likert scale. The moderation
effect of healthy lifestyle on the relationship between consumer’s attitude and their
behavior towards organic foods was studied through moderation regression analysis.
The above table suggests that consumers’ attitude is significantly related to their
purchase behavior (Model 1: (OF) = 0.286; Model 2: (OF) = 0.223).
For model 3, the above analysis shows that for the variable consumer attitude, 
coefficient is –0.053 and p-value is not significant at p < 0.05. Though insignificant
but negative Beta value indicates that detailed investigation is required to gain deeper
insights to examine the role played by healthy lifestyle in moderating the relationship
between consumer attitude towards organic foods and their product purchase behavior.
It implies that healthy lifestyle does not act as a moderator to the relationship between
consumer’s attitude and their product purchase behavior for organic foods. Hence, H1.1
stands rejected.
Health Knowledge: Health knowledge as a moderator was studied by Jayanti and

Burns (1998). It is measured through six statements.
The above table shows that there is a significant relationship between consumer’s
attitude and their purchase behavior before and after interaction (Model 1:
(OF) = 0.289; Model 2: (OF) = 0.234 with p < 0.05). After introducing interaction term
for further analysis in Model 3,  coefficient for organic foods is 0.093 and p-value is
significant at p < 0.050.

62
Table 5: Dimensions of Health Consciousness Moderate the Effect of Consumer Attitude Towards
Organic Foods on Consumer Product Purchase Behavior
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Moderators
Tolerance VIF
2
Standardized 2
Standardized 2
Standardized
R F-Value R F-Value R F-Value
 1 (p-Value)  2 (p-Value)  3 (p-Value)
Healthy 0.082 54.36 0.286 (0.000) 0.125 42.454 0.223 (0.000) 0.125 28.962 –0.053 (0.173) 0.812 1.041
Lifestyle
Health 0.083 55.029 0.289 (0.000) 0.139 46.188 0.234 (0.000) 0.299 32.445 0.093 (0.017) 0.830 1.045
Knowledge
Health 0.082 54.127 0.285 (0.000) 0.084 27.314 0.278 (0.000) 18.585 –0.044 (0.291) 0.856 1.147
Concern
Work 0.082 54.917 0.287 (0.000) 0.130 43.228 0.267 (0.000) 30.545 –0.084 (0.031) 0.801 1.061
Schedule
Medication 0.082 54.649 0.286 (0.000) 0.163 59.358 0.357 (0.000) 0.113 39.63 0.021 (0.579) 0.854 1.072
The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVI, No. 3, 2017

Similarly, R2 increased from 8.3% to 13.9% by the introduction of health knowledge
as a moderator with p < 0.01 in case of organic foods. This is further tested for significant
differences in the values at high, medium and low levels of the MV scores using simple
slope analysis (Aiken and West, 1991).
The moderation effect of health knowledge is depicted graphically in Figure 1. It can

be observed that in the context of organic food products respondents with health
knowledge tend to buy organic food products. Consumers who are aware about nutrition
and are diet-conscious tend to buy organic food products. It was also found that the
slope of regression line is greater in case of consumers with high health-related knowledge
who tend to buy organic foods as compared to consumers with medium or less knowledge
about health. Hence, hypothesis H1.2 stands accepted.
Figure 1: Result of Moderation Analysis: Health Knowledge

(Using Simple Slope Analysis in Case of Organic foods)
Low
Moderate
High
R2: Low : 0.045
Moderate : 0.05
High : 0.188
Health Concern: Health concern as a moderator was studied by Eertmans et al. (2001),
Pieniak et al. (2008) and Hupkens et al. (2012). It is measured through four statements
on a 7-point Likert scale.
In the context of health concern as a moderator, Table 5 shows that consumer attitude
is significantly and positively related to consumer purchase behavior (Model 1:
(OF) = 0.285; Model 2: (OF) = 0.278).

After introducing interaction term in Model 3, the  coefficient for the variable
consumer’s attitude across organic foods is –0.044 with insignificant p-value which
requires further investigation to gain better insight into the relationship between given
set of variables. Thus, H1.3 stands rejected.
Work Schedule: Gould (1988) studied work schedule as a moderator. It is measured

through three statements on a 7-point Likert scale. The above table shows that there is
a significant relationship between consumer’s attitude and their purchase behavior before
and after interaction term (Model 1: (OF) = 0.287; Model 2: (OF) = 0.267).
However, in Model 3,  coefficient is –0.084 and p-value is 0.031. Similarly, R2

reports significant increase with the introduction of work schedule as a moderator in
case of organic foods. It increased from 8.2% to 13% with p < 0.01. This is further
tested for differences in the values at high, medium and low levels of the MV scores
using simple slope analysis (Aiken and West, 1991) in case of organic foods.
Figure 2: Result of Moderation Analysis: Work Schedule

(Using Simple Slope Analysis in Case of Organic Foods)
Low
Moderate
High
R2: Low : 0.101
Moderate : 0.154
High : 0.087

Figure 2, graphically depicts the moderation effect of work schedule on the relationship
between consumer’s attitude and product purchase behavior towards organic foods. It
can be observed that respondents with organized work schedule tend to buy organic
food products. They are more health-conscious and tend to purchase organic foods. It
can be further interpreted that the slope of regression line is greater in case of consumers
with moderately structured work schedule as compared to consumers with less or highly
organized work schedule. Thus, H1.4 is accepted.
Medication: The variable medication was studied as a moderator by Kraft and Goodell
(1993). It is measured through three statements on a 7-point Likert scale.
As per the results reported in the above presented table, model 1 shows that there is
a significant relationship between consumers’ attitude and their purchase behavior with
 coefficient as 0.286. Model 2 also reports significant p-value with p < 0.0.5 and
 coefficient as 0.357.
In model 3,  coefficient is 0.021 and p-values are not significant at p < 0.05. Thus,
H1.5 stands rejected.
Summary of Moderation Analysis

Further, the moderating variables that were found to have significant impact on the
consumer’s information search, product evaluation and product purchase behavior are
presented in Table 6.
Table 6: Summary of Moderation Analysis
Standardized Significant Moderator

Consumer Behavior R2 Sig.
Beta Value Variables
Product Purchase 0.139 0.093 0.017 Health Knowledge
Behavior 0.130 –0.084 0.031 Work Schedule
The results indicate the significance of moderating variables in explaining consumer

product purchase behavior. Health knowledge and work schedule came out to be
significant moderators in the context of consumer purchase behavior towards organic
foods. Thus, with respect to the relative importance of moderating variables in explaining
the above-mentioned relationship, the role of health knowledge and work schedule
appears to be well established. It implies that consumers are well aware about their
well-being and are conscious about their health. Also, it further implies that the work
schedule of the consumers does affect the type of food product they are consuming and
influences their buying behavior.
Overall, results confirm the positive and significant impact of moderating variables
on consumer’s product purchase behavior.

Conclusion
This study provides a better understanding of what moderates the consumer attitude
towards organic foods. Empirical results in this study indicate that the consumer concerns
about health are the determinants for a consumer to form a positive attitude toward
organic foods. The findings are consistent with many previous studies (McEachern,
2002; Badrie et al., 2006; and Arvola, 2008). In addition, the consumer’s health
consciousness is shown to have a stronger relation to the consumer’s attitude toward
organic foods. This finding is also in accordance with previous studies whereby the
consumer’s concern for personal health is more important (Weatherell, 2003; and Aertsens
et al., 2009).
The moderation effect of health knowledge and work schedule on the relationship
between consumer’s attitude and product purchase behavior towards organic foods was
found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). This implied that consumers who are
more aware about health and nutrition have more positive attitude towards organic
foods which further influences their purchase behavior. Also, consumers who tend to
follow organized work schedule and are concerned about exercising are also inclined
towards the consumption of organic foods. A study conducted by Gil (2006) confirmed
that an individual with health knowledge and organized work schedule (Honkanen,
2006) will have positive attitude towards organic foods.
These results clearly imply that the marketer must consider the fact that consumers
having health knowledge and organized work schedule are generally more inclined
towards organic foods, thus a marketer must create awareness regarding health benefits
of organic foods through media and advertisement.
The results are in line with the study conducted by Gifford (2006), Honkanen (2006)
and Arvola (2008) who suggested that consumers prefer organic foods as they consider
them as healthier than their traditional counterparts and are willing to take healthy
actions and this shapes their positive attitude towards organic foods and thus influences
their purchase behavior.
Thus, marketers must try to gain out of this situation as they can charge a higher
price from those consumers who are willing to buy organic food item because they perceive
it to be a healthy alternative. A proper segmentation approach would be highly effective
in finding out this bunch of consumers.
Based on the findings, the selection of advertising messages and social interaction
should revolve around the issues of health consciousness. Moreover, producers and marketers
in organic foods sector in the food industry should provide more facts to persuade consumers
to believe that organic foods are healthy and superior to conventional food. A marketer
must strengthen her/his offering in terms of organic food items for the consumers who
follow an organized work schedule. This can be done by effectively bringing out innovations
in product mix (focusing on the core, augmented and symbolic layers of a product), and
also by making efficient utilization of promotion, and place mix.J

References
1. Aertsens J V, Verbeke W, Mondelaers K and Huylenbroeck G V (2009), “Personal
Determinants of Organic Food Consumption: A Review”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 111, No. 10, pp. 47-90.
2. Aiken L S and West S G (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
3. Ajzen I (2003), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour, pp. 63-82,
Prentice Hall, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ.
4. Aldoory L (2001), “Making Health Messages Meaningful for Women: Factors that
Influence Involvement”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 13, pp. 163-185.
5. Allen G J and Alabala K (2007), The Business of Food: Encyclopedia of the Food and
Drink Industries, pp. 112-190, ABC-CLIO/Greenwood.
6. Arvola A V (2008), “Predicting Intentions to Purchase Organic Food: The Role of

Affective and Moral Attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behaviour”, Appetite,
Vol. 50, Nos. 2-3, pp. 443-54.
7. Babin B J (1992), “Some Comments on the Role of Emotions in Consumer Behavior”,

AMA Educators’ Proceedings: Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing ,
pp. 130-135, American Marketing Association, Chicago.
8. Badrie N, Titre M, Jueanville M and Calix F D (2006), “Public Awareness and

Perception of Genetically Modified/Engineered Foods in Trinidad, West Indies”,
British Food Journal, Vol. 108, No. 3, pp. 192-199.
9. Baker A (1993), “Measuring Food Safety Preferences: Identifying Consumer
Segments”, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 18, No. 2,
pp. 277-287.
10. Barone G J and Miniard P W (2002), “Mood and Brand Extension Judgments:
Asymmetric Effects for Desirable Versus Undesirable Brands”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 283-290.
11. Bech-Larsen T (2007), “Functional Foods in Europe: Consumer Research, Market
Experiences and Regulatory Aspects”, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol. 18,
pp. 231-234.
12. Beharrel B (1991), “Consumer Attitudes to Organic Foods”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 93, No. 2, pp. 25-30.
13. Belk R W (1975), “Situational Variables and Consumer Behaviour”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 2, pp. 157-163.
14. Bephage G (2000), Social and Behavioral Sciences for Nurses, An Integrated Approach,
pp. 1-336, Churchill Livingstone Press, China.

15. Bredahl L (2001), “Determinants of Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions
with Regard to Genetically Modified Foods-Results of a Cross National Survey”,
Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 23-61.
16. Byoungho Jin and Yong Gu Suh (2005), “Integrating Effect of Consumer Perception
Factors”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 62-71.
17. Carrigan M (2001), “The Myth of the Ethical Consumer – Do Ethics Matter in
Purchase Behavior”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 560-577.
18. Chryssohoidis G (2000a), An Analysis of Consumer Purchases and Buying Behaviour

in Organic Farming: Cost-Efficiency, Market Analysis and Marketing Strategies,
pp. 472-512, National Agricultural Research Foundation Publications, Athens
(in Greek).
19. Chryssohoidis G (2000b), “Repercussions of Consumer Confusion for Late

Differentiated Products”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, Nos. 5/6,
pp. 705-722.
20. Corsi A and Novelli S (2003), “Measuring Prices Consumers are Willing to Pay for
Quality Improvements: The Case of Organic Beef ”, 25th International Conference
of Economists, August 16-22, Durban, SA.
21. Darnhofer and Lindenthal (2009), “Conventionalisation of Organic Farming

Practices: From Structural Criteria Towards an Assessment Based on Organic
Principles: A Review”, Agronomy Sustainable Development, Vol. 30, pp. 67-81.
22. Davis A, Titterington A J and Cochrane C (1995), “Who Buys Organic Food? A
Profile of the Purchasers of Organic Food in N. Ireland”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 97, No. 10, pp. 17-23.
23. Defra P (2006), “Sustainable Consumption and Production: Encouraging

Sustainable Consumption”, available at http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/
what/priority/consumption-production/consumption.html [November 1, 2006].
24. Divine Richard L and Lepisto Lawrence (2005), “Analysis of the Healthy Lifestyle
Consumer”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 275-283,
25. Dobson A (2007), “Environmental Citizenship Towards Sustainable Development”,

Sustainable Development, Vol. 15, pp. 276-285.
26. Donovan R (1994), “Store Atmosphere and Purchase Behavior”, Journal of Retaining,
Vol. 70, pp. 283-294.
27. Dutta M J and Feng H (2007), “Health Orientation and Disease State as Predictors
of Online Health Support Group Use”, Health Communication, Vol. 22, No. 2,
pp. 181-189.

28. Dutta-Bergman M J (2004a), “An Alternative Approach to Social Capital: Exploring
the Linkage Between Health Consciousness and Community Participation”, Health
Communication, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 393-409.
29. Dutta-Bergman M J (2004b), “Primary Sources of Health Information: Comparisons

in the Domain of Health Attitudes, Health Cognitions, and Health Behaviors”,
Health Communication, Vol. 16, Iss: 3, pp. 273-288.
30. Dutta-Bergman M J (2006), “A Formative Approach to Strategic Message Targeting

Through Soap Operas: Using Selective Processing Theories”, Health Communication,
Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 11-18.
31. Eertmans A, Baeyens F and Bergh O D (2001), “Food Likes and their Relative
Importance in Human Eating Behavior: Review and Preliminary Suggestions for
Health Promotion”, Health Education Research, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 443-456.
32. Fagerli R A (1999), “Gender Differences in Opinions and Practices With Regard to
a ‘Healthy Diet’”, Appetite, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 171-190.
33. Fotopoulos C (2002), “Organic Product Avoidance. Reasons for Rejection and
Potential Buyers’ Identification in a Countrywide Survey”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 104, pp. 233-260.
34. Fotopoulos C and Krystallis A (2002a), “Organic Product Avoidance: Reasons for
Rejection and Potential Buyers’ Identification in a Country-Wide Survey”, British
Food Journal, Vol. 104, pp. 176-198.
35. Fotopoulos C and Krystallis A (2002b), “Purchasing Motives and Profile of the
Greek Consumer: A Country-Wide Survey”, British Food Journal, Vol. 104, No. 9,
pp. 730-765.
36. Fu T L (2006), “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Low-Pesticide Fresh Produce in
Taiwan”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 220-233.
37. Gifford K (2006), “Influencing Consumer Purchase Likelihood of Organic Food”,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 30, pp. 155-165.
38. Gil J A (2006), “Knowledge and Willingness to Pay for Organic Food in Spain:
Evidence from Experimental Auctions”, Food Economics, Vol. 3, pp. 109-124.
39. Gould S J (1988), “Consumer Attitudes Toward Health and Health Care: A
Differential Perspective”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 96-118.
40. Gracia A (2007), “Organic Food Product Purchase Behaviour: A Pilot Study for
Urban Consumers in the South of Italy”, Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research,
Vol. 5, pp. 439-451.
41. Gracia A and Magistris T D (2007), “Organic Food Product Purchase Behaviour:
A Pilot Study for Urban Consumers in the South of Italy”, Spanish Journal of
Agricultural Research, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 439-451.

42. Grankvist G (2001), “The Importance of Belief and Purchase Criteria in the Choice
of Eco-Labelled Food Products”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21,
pp. 405-410.
43. Grunert S C and Juhl H (1995), “Values, Environmental Attitudes and Buying of
Organic Foods”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 39-62.
44. Hair J F Jr., Anderson R E and Tatham et al. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
45. Harper G and Makatouni A (2002), “Consumer Perception of Organic Food

Production and Farm Animal Welfare”, British Food Journal, Vol. 104, pp. 287-99.
46. Henson S (1996), “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reductions in the Risk of
Food Poisoning in the UK”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 47, pp. 403-420.
47. Holbrook M and Gardner M (1993), “An Approach to Investigating the Emotional
Determinants of Consumption Durations: Why do People Consume what they
Consume for as Long as they Consume it?”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 2,
pp. 123-142.
48. Holmes B (2010), “Altered Animals: Creatures with Bonus Features”, New Scientist
UK.
49. Hong H (2009), “Scale Development for Measuring Health Consciousness”, Institute
for Public Relations.
50. Honkanen P V (2006), “Ethical Values and Motives Driving Organic Food Choice”,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 5, pp. 420-431.
51. Huang J and Bouis H (1996), “Structural Changes in the Demand for Food in
Asia: A 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture and Development”, The Journal of
International Association of Agricultural Economists, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 57-69.
52. Hughner R M (2007), “Who are Organic Food Consumers? A Compilation and
Review of why People Purchase Organic Food”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
Vol. 6, Nos 2/3, pp. 1-17.
53. Hupkens C, Knibbe R A and Drop M J (2012), “Social Class Differences in Food
Consumption: The Explanatory Value of Permissiveness and Health and Cost
Considerations”, available at http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org
54. Hutchins R K and Greenhalg L A (1997), “Organic Confusion: Sustaining

Competitive Advantage”, British Food Journal, Vol. 99, No. 9, pp. 336-338.
55. Hwang J (2016), “Organic Food as Self-Presentation: The Role of Psychological

Motivation in Older Consumers’ Purchase Intention of Organic Food”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 28, pp. 281-287.

56. Idda L, Madau F A and Pulina P (2008), “The Motivational Profile of Organic
Food Consumers: a Survey of Specialized Stores Customers in Italy”, 12th Congress
of the European Association of Agricultural Economists – EAAE.
57. Isen A M and Shalker T E (1982), “The Influence of Mood State on Evaluation of
Positive, Neutral, and Negative Stimuli: When you “Accentuate the Positive”, do
you “Eliminate the Negative”?”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 58-63.
58. Iversen A C and Kraft P (2006), “Does Socio-Economic Status and Health
Consciousness Influence How Women Respond to Health Related Messages in Health
Education Research”, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 601-610.
59. Jayanti R and Burns A (1998), “The Antecedents of Preventive Health Care
Behavior: An Empirical Study”, Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26, No. 1,
pp. 9-15.
60. Jolly D S (1989), “Organic Foods: Consumer Attitudes and Use”, Food Technology,
Vol. 43, No. 11, pp. 61-66.
61. Jones Peter, Colin Clarke-Hill, Peter Shears and David Hillier (2001), “Retailing
Organic Foods”, British Food Journal, Vol. 103, No. 5, pp. 358-365.
62. Josiassen A and Assaf A (2010), “Country-of-Origin Contingencies: Their Joint

Influence on Consumer Behaviour”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
Vol. 22, pp. 294-313.
63. Kraft F B and Goodell (1993), “Identifying the Health Conscious Consumer”,
Journal of Health Care Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 18-25.
64. Krarup S and Russell C (2005), Environment, Information and Consumer Behaviour,
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Glasgow.
65. Krystallis A (2005), “Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic Food: Factors
That Affect it and Variation Per Organic Product Type”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 107, No. 5, pp. 320-343.
66. Laroche M B (2001), “Targeting Consumers Who are Willing to Pay More for
Environmentally Friendly Products”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18,
pp. 503-520.
67. Latacz-Lohmann U and Foster C (1997), “From Niche to Mainstream: Strategies
for Marketing Organic Food in Germany and the UK”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 99, No. 8, pp. 275-282.
68. Latouche K, Rainelli P and Vermersch D (1998), “Food Safety Issues and the BSE
Scare: Some Lessons from the French Case”, Food Policy, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 347-56.
69. Lee H J and Yun Z S (2015), “Consumers’ Perceptions of Organic Food Attributes
and Cognitive and Affective Attitudes as Determinants of their Purchase Intentions
Toward Organic Food”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 39, pp. 259-267.

70. Magnusson M A (2003), “Choice of Organic Foods is Related to Perceived
Consequences for Human Health and to Environmentally Friendly Behavior”,
Appetite, Vol. 40, pp. 109-117.
71. Magnusson M A, Arvola A, Hursti U K et al. (2001), “Attitudes Towards Organic

Foods Among Swedish Consumers”, British Food Journal, Vol. 103, No. 3,
pp. 209-226.
72. McEachern M (2002), “Organic Purchasing Motivations and Attitudes: Are they
Ethical?”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 26, pp. 85-92.
73. Meier-Ploeger A and Woodward L (1999), “Trends Between Countries”, Ecology

and Farming, Vol. 20, January-April, p. 15.
74. Menrad K (2003), “Market and Marketing of Functional Food in Europe”, Journal
of Food Engineering, Vol. 56, pp. 181-188.
75. Michaelidou N (2008), “The Role of Health Consciousness, Food Safety Concern
and Ethical Identity on Attitudes and Intentions Towards Organic Food”, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 163-170.
76. Miles S (2001), “Investigating Specific Concerns About Different Food Hazards”,
Food Qual. Prefer., Vol. 12, pp. 47-61.
77. Newsom J T, McFarland B H and Kaplan M S et al. (2005), “ The Health

Consciousness Myth: Implications of the Near Independence of Major Health
Behaviors in the North American Population”, Social Science and Medicine,
Vol. 60, pp. 433-437.
78. Olsen S, Prebensen N and Larsen T (2006), “Including Ambivalence as a Basis for
Benefit Segmentation: A Study of Convenience Food in Norway”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 43, pp. 762-783.
79. Padel S and Foster (2005), “Exploring the Gap Between Attitudes and Behaviour:
Understanding why Consumers Buy Or Do Not Buy Organic Food”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 107, pp. 606-626.
80. Peattie K (1990), “Painting Marketing Education (or How to Recycle Old Ideas)”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 6, pp. 105-125.
81. Pelletier J E (2013), “Positive Attitudes Toward Organic, Local, and Sustainable
Foods are Associated with Higher Dietary Quality among Young Adults”, Journal of
Academy of Nutrition and Dietics, Vol. 113, No. 1, pp. 127-132.
82. Pieniak Z, Verbeke W and Vanhonacker F et al. (2008), “Association Between

Traditional Food Consumption and Motives for Food Choice in Six European
Countries”, Appetite, Vol. 53, pp. 101-108.

83. Pujari D and Wright G (1996), “Developing ‘Environmental’ New Products: An
Integrative Review”, 25 th European Marketing Academy Conference (EMAC)
Proceedings, Budapest, May.
84. Rao A R and Bergen M E (1992), “Price Premium Variations as a Consequence of

Buyers’ lack of Information”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 412-23.
85. Reicks M, Splett P and Fishman A (1997), “Shelf Labeling of Organic Foods: Effects
on Customer Perceptions and Sales”, Research in Agricultural and Applied Economics,
Vol. 35, pp. 72-79.
86. Roberfroid M B (2002), “Global View on Functional Foods: European Perspectives”,

British Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 88, pp. S133-S138.
87. Roddy G, Cowan C A and Hutchinson G (1996), “Consumer Attitudes and Behavior
to Organic Foods in Ireland”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9,
No. 2, pp. 41-63.
88. Rodger Rachel F, Debra L Franko, Mark Gottlie and Richard Daynard (2015),
“Decreases in Tanning Behaviors Following a Short Online Survey: Potential for
Prevention?”, Prev Med Rep. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 76-78.
89. Roitner-Schobesberger B, Darnhofer I and Somsook S et al. (2008), “Consumer

Perceptions of Organic Foods in Bangkok, Thailand”, Food Policy, Vol. 33, No. 2,
pp. 112-121.
90. Roosen J, Marette S, Blanchemanche S and Verger P (2007), “The Effect of Product
Health Information on Liking and Choice”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 18,
pp: 759-770.
91. Rozin P F (1999), “Attitudes to Food and the Role of Food in Life in the USA,
Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: Possible Implications for the Diet-Health
Debate”, Appetite, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 163-180.
92. Ryu K, Lee H R and Kim W G (2012), “The Influence of the Quality of the
Physical Environment, Food, and Service on Restaurant Image, Customer Perceived
Value, Customer Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, 107-132.
93. Saba A (2003), “Attitudes Towards Organic Foods and Risk/Benefit Perception
Associated with Pesticides”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 14, pp. 637-645.
94. Sahota A (2007), “Overview of the Global Market for Organic Food and Drink”, in
H Willer and M Yussefi (Eds.), The World of Organic Agriculture, Frick, Suisse.
95. Santucci F M, Marino D, Schifani G and Zanoli R (1999), “The Marketing of

Organic Food in Italy”, Medit, Vol. 4/99, pp. 8-14.

96. Schifferstein H (1998), “Health-Related Determinants of Organic Food
Consumption in the Netherlands”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 9,
pp. 119-133.
97. Sinha P and Banerjee A (2003), “Store Choice Behaviour in an Evolving Market”,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 32, No. 10,
pp. 482-494.
98. Smed S and Jensen J D (2003), “Demand for Low-Fat Dairy Products – Demand
for Healthiness or Taste?”, pp. 34-46, 83 rd EAAE Seminar, Chania, September
4-6.
99. Solomon M R (2014), Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having and Being, pp. 97-121,
Academia.edu.
100. Sparks P (1992), “Self-Identity and the Theory of Planned Behavior: Assessing
the Role of Identification with Green Consumerism”, Social Psychology Quarterly,
Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 1388-1399.
101. Sparks P A (2001), “Self-Identity and the Theory of Planned Behavior: Assessing
the Role of Identification with Green Consumerism”, Social Psychology Quarterly,
Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 1388-1399.
102. Stobbelaar D C (2007), “Adolescents’ Attitudes Towards Organic Food: A Survey
of 15- to 16-year Old School Children”, International Journal of Consumer Studies,
Vol. 31, pp. 349-356.
103. Swinyard W R (1993), “The Effects of Mood, Involvement and Quality of Store
Experience on Shopping Intentions”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 20,
pp. 271-280.
104. Thogersen J (2007), “Predicting Consumer Choices of Organic Food: Results from
the CONDOR Project”, C B Andreasen, L Elsgaard, S Sondergaard, L Sorensen
and G Hansen (Eds.), Proceedings of European Joint Organic Congress,
pp. 30-31, Odense, Denmark.
105. Thompson G D and Kidwell J (1998), “Explaining the Choice of Organic Produce:
Cosmetic Defects, Prices and Consumer Preferences”, American Journal of Agricultural
Economics.
106. Torjusen H (2004), “European Consumers’ Conception of Organic Food: A Review
of Available Research”, National Institute for Consumer Research Oslo, Norway.
107. Tregear A, Dent J B and Mcgregor M J (1994), “The Demand for Organically
Grown Produce”, British Food Journal, Vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 21-25.
108. Tse A C (2001), “How Much More are Consumers Willing to Pay for a Higher
Level of Service?: A Preliminary Survey”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15,
pp. 11-17.

109. Viaene J (1996), “Consumer Behavior Towards Light Products in Belgium”,
pp. 47-68, 47th EAAE Seminar, March, Wageningen.
110. Voss G B and Parasuraman A (2003), “Prepurchase Preference and

Postconsumption Satisfaction in a Service Exchange”, Marketing Science Institute,
Report No. 03-107.
111. Wandel M (1997), “Environmental Concern in Consumer Evaluation of Food

Quality”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 8, pp. 19-26.
112. Weatherell C A (2003), “In Search of the Concerned Consumer: UK Public

Perceptions of Food, Farming and Buying Local”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 19,
No. 2, pp. 233-244.
113. Wier M A (2008), “Market Potential for Organic Foods in Europe”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 104, No. 1, pp. 45-62.
114. Williams P A (2001), “Perceived Risks of Conventional and Organic Produce

Pesticides, Pathogens, and Natural Toxins”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 21, No. 2,
pp. 319-330.
115. Williams P R D and Hammit J K (2007), “Perceived Risks of Conventional and

Genetic Produce: Pesticides, Pathogens, and Natural Toxins”, Risk Analysis,
Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 319-330.
116. Worner F and Meier-Ploeger A (1999), “What the Consumer Says”, Ecology and
Farming, Vol. 20, January-April, pp. 14-15.
117. Yiridoe E K, Ankomah S and Martin R C (2005), “Comparison of Consumer

Perceptions and Preference Toward Organic Versus Conventionally Produced Foods:
A Review and Update of the Literature”, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems,
Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 193-205.
118. Zakowska-Biemans S (2011), “Polish Consumer Food Choices and Beliefs About
Organic Food”, British Food Journal, Vol. 113, No. 1, pp. 122-137.
119. Zanoli R (1998), “The Economics and Policy of Organic Farming: The State-of-
the-Art”, Proceedings of the 4th ENOF Workshop, pp. 57-68, Edinburgh.
120. Zanoli R (2002), “Consumer Motivations in the Purchase of Organic Food: A

Means-End Approach”, British Food Journal, Vol. 104, pp. 643-653.
121. Zotos Y, Ziamou P and Tsakiridou E (1999), “Marketing Organically Produced

Food Products in Greece”, Greener Management International, Vol. 25, Spring,
pp. 91-104.

Appendix
Questionnaire
Section 1: Profile
1. Name:
2. Sex: Female Male
3. Age (years): 18-24 25-35
36-50 51-60 Above 60
4. Marital Status: Single Married
5. If married, number of children:
No Children 1 2
More than 2
6. Age of the youngest child (years):
Less than 6 6-10 11-15
16 and Above
7. Family Structure:
Joint Nuclear Single
8. Qualification: High School Graduate Postgraduate

Professional
9. Working Status:
Working Non-working
10. If working, occupation:
Business Service Employee
Professional
11. Monthly Family Income:
Less than 50,000 50,000- 1,00,000

1,00,000- 2,00,000 2,00,000 and Above

Appendix (Cont.)
Section 2: Health Consciousness
A . Please read each of the statements carefully and select by ticking (4) the level
of agreement/disagreement with a given statement describing your consciousness
towards health. Read the response positions as:
1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Little Agree, 4 = Undecided, 5 = Little

Disagree, 6 = Disagree, 7 = Strongly Disagree.
S.No. Statements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Health is always a concern for me while buying the food
product.
2. Health means a lot to me.
3. I am highly concerned about health consequences of food
products that I buy.
4. I am particular about regular health check-ups.
5. I try to ensure regular exercising.
6. I have an organized lifestyle.
7. I prepare the schedule of my work, to make best
utilization of the day.
8. Keeping good health is my personal responsibility.
9. I am careless about the treatment of my disease and illness.
10. I do notice how I go physically throughout the day.
11. I ensure that I get sufficient relaxation time in my work
schedule.
12. I am generally attentive to my inner feelings about my
health.
13. It is the doctor’s job to keep me well.
14. I like talking about general health issues with my friends,
family or relatives.
15. I make sure that my food contains all necessary nutrients.
16. I am very particular about food safety.
17. I give priority to the naturalness and the freshness of the
product.
18. I follow a low salt/sugar diet.
19. Being vegetarian is good for health.
20. I am particular about eating fruits and vegetables.
21. I always consume fresh food.

Appendix (Cont.)
S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. I consume food which helps me to maintain or lose
weight.
23. I avoid foods containing preservatives.
24. I am interested in information about health.
25. I do not take notice of healthcare recommendations from
TV, radio, etc.
Section 3: Attitude and Behavior

The general and specific set of statements in this section attempt to seek your
opinion to find out certain attitudinal and behavioral tendencies with regard to
purchase and use of organic food items. The brief description is given below:
Organic Food: Organic foods are foods that are produced using methods that do not
involve modern synthetic inputs such as synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers,
and are not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives.
Please read each of the given statements carefully and select by ticking (4) the
response position on the seven-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly
disagree to indicate your opinion about each of the statement. Please read the scale
as following:
B1. General Statements
1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Little Agree, 4 = Undecided, 5 = Little
Disagree, 6 = Disagree, 7 = Strongly Disagree.
S. Organic Foods
No. Statements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. I do not get influenced by the product presentation while
purchasing it.
2. I am aware about food safety standards and regulations.
3. I gain complete information about the food product
before buying it.
4. I do consider references by my peer group while buying
the food product.
5. I trust the food items in this product category.
6. Too much effort is required to find these food products.
7. I am willing to pay high price for the food product if
it is justified by its true value.
8. I trust a quality label or logo on the food product.
9. Generally, new foods are for medicinal and therapeutic
benefits.

Appendix (Cont.)
Organic Foods
Statements
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. I buy food items in this product category as they are

easily available in all the stores.
11. Prices of the food items in this product category are
relatively higher which affect their consumption.
12. I often buy branded food products.
13. Branded food products give me quality assurance.
14. Price plays the key role while buying the food items in
this product category for me.
15. I do read the ingredients on food labels.
16. I constantly try the sample of food items in this product
category.
17. If I do not know what is in the food, I do not try it.
18. I am afraid to eat things I have never eaten before.
19. It is the society’s right to have clearly labeled food.
B2. Product Specific Statements
S. Organic Foods
No. Statements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Organic foods are environment friendly.
2. They are good in taste.
3. They are environmentally enhanced crops, i.e., they grow
under different environment conditions.
4. They are healthier.
5. They are of superior quality.
6. Organic foods are just a fraud.
7. They are worse than conventional foods.
8. These foods are more attractive in terms of shape and
size.
9. Organic foods have no harmful health effects.
10. They are produced without genetic modification.
11. There is not enough variety in organic foods.
12. They are too expensive.
Reference # 03J-2017-08-03-01

Copyright of IUP Journal of Marketing Management is the property of IUP Publications and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

A Study of Consumer Behavior Towards

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A Study of Consumer Behavior Towards

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of Consumer Behavior Towards

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of Consumer Behavior Towards

Organic Food and the Moderating Effects

Factors Influencing Growth of Organic Foods

46 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVI, No. 3, 2017

Consumer Attitude Towards Organic Food Products

A Study of Consumer Behavior Towards Organic Food 47

Previous studies on consumer perceptions about organic foods focus on consumers'

48 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVI, No. 3, 2017

Consumer Purchase Behavior

A Study of Consumer Behavior Towards Organic Food 49

Factors Influencing Consumer Purchase Behavior

50 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVI, No. 3, 2017

Influence of Moderating Variable on Consumer Behavior

A Study of Consumer Behavior Towards Organic Food 51

Dimensions of Health Consciousness

1. Integration of health behavior;

2. Attention to one’s health;

3. Health information seeking and usage;

4. Personal health responsibility; and

Dimension 1: Integration of Health Behaviors (Healthy Lifestyle)

Dimension 2: Health Knowledge

52 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVI, No. 3, 2017

H b: Health knowledge moderates the relationship between consumer’s attitude and

Dimension 3: Health Concern

Dimension 4: Personal Responsibility/Managing Work Schedule

Dimension 5: Health Motivation/ Medication and Healthcare

A Study of Consumer Behavior Towards Organic Food 53

H e: Medication moderates the relationship between consumer’s attitude and purchase

Figure 1: Proposed Model of Consumer Behavior

• Medication and Healthcare

Consumer Attitude Consumer Purchase

Thus, an individual’s health consciousness is one of the major determinants

54 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVI, No. 3, 2017

2. To assess the role of health consciousness in determining the relationship

3. To draw the strategic implication for the marketer.

Data and Methodology

1. Section 1: Demographic information of the respondents.

2. Section 2: Health consciousness among consumers

3. Section 3: Consumer attitude and their behavior towards organic foods.

A Study of Consumer Behavior Towards Organic Food 55

In the context of ‘consumer purchase behavior’, Cronbach’s alpha was found to be

56 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVI, No. 3, 2017

1. Consumer product purchase behavior 0.802

2. Consumer attitude towards organic foods 0.628

3. Health consciousness1: 0.835

Healthy Lifestyle 0.772

Health Knowledge 0.753

Health Concern 0.745

Work Schedule 0.728

Medication and Healthcare 0.673

Note: 1Factor Analysis.

In case of moderating variable, ‘health consciousness’, initially a 25-item scale, factor

Moderation Effect of Health Consciousness on the Relationship

A Study of Consumer Behavior Towards Organic Food 57

Table 3: Results of Factor Analysis of Scale Measuring

58 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVI, No. 3, 2017

Correlation Analysis of the Relationship Between Moderators and

Table 4: Mean Scores and Correlation Analysis of the Relationship Between

A Study of Consumer Behavior Towards Organic Food 59