| Literature DB >> 36230123 |
Heena Thanki1, Sweety Shah2, Ankit Oza3, Petrica Vizureanu4,5, Dumitru Doru Burduhos-Nergis4.
Abstract
Global consumption trends point to rising demand for organic food as people become more health-conscious. The factors that people consider while making initial organic purchases have been discussed at length. However, the published research is scant about the factors that affect consumers' propensity to repurchase organic goods. The present research fills this gap by focusing on what influences consumers' decisions to repurchase organic grain. The Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) theory and the Theory of Planned Behaviour are the theoretical foundations of the present investigation. The consumer's attitude toward organic grains and their desire to repurchase organic grains are influenced by health consciousness and previous experience. The repurchase intent was determined to be controlled by the buyer's willingness to pay and their level of trust in the organic grain. This cross-sectional study collected the necessary data from five chosen urban centres in India. Smart PLS 3.2.9 was used to analyse the gathered data from 463 respondents. According to the findings, health consciousness and past experience favourably influence attitudes and repurchase intent. The trust that consumers have built up in organic grain as a result of past experiences is what drives their desire to make more purchases. Willingness to pay significantly controls and impacts the inclination to repurchase. The association between health consciousness and repurchase intention is partially mediated by attitude, as is the relationship between past experience and repurchase intention. The relationship between health consciousness and the desire to repurchase is partially mediated by the willingness to pay.Entities:
Keywords: Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) theory; consumer buying behaviour; organic grain; repeat purchase; repurchase intention; theory of planned behaviour
Year: 2022 PMID: 36230123 PMCID: PMC9562710 DOI: 10.3390/foods11193046
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Conceptual model.
Descriptive statistics.
| Variables | Category | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Location | Mumbai | 124 | 26.78 |
| New Delhi (NCR) | 114 | 24.62 | |
| Ahmedabad | 59 | 12.73 | |
| Hyderabad | 87 | 18.79 | |
| Pune | 79 | 17.06 | |
| Gender | Male | 112 | 24.19 |
| Female | 351 | 75.81 | |
| Age | 26–35 | 81 | 17.42 |
| 36–45 | 147 | 31.75 | |
| 46–55 | 136 | 29.37 | |
| 56–65 | 85 | 18.36 | |
| 65 and above | 14 | 3.02 | |
| Marital status | Married | 389 | 84.02 |
| Unmarried | 73 | 15.98 | |
| Education Qualification | Undergraduate | 28 | 6.04 |
| Graduate | 171 | 36.93 | |
| Postgraduate professional | 116 | 25.05 | |
| Doctorate | 37 | 7.99 | |
| Other | 11 | 2.37 | |
| Employment | Housewife | 124 | 26.78 |
| Salaried—government sector employee | 93 | 20.09 | |
| Salaried—private sector employee | 165 | 35.64 | |
| Self-employed | 49 | 10.58 | |
| Business | 32 | 6.91 | |
| Household Annual Income | Between ₹ 250k and ₹ 400k | 2 | 0.431 |
| Between ₹ 400k and ₹ 650k | 55 | 11.88 | |
| Between ₹ 650k and ₹ 800k | 98 | 21.17 | |
| Between ₹ 800k and ₹ 1000k | 156 | 33.69 | |
| Above ₹ 1000k | 152 | 32.83 |
(Source: authors’ calculation using SPSS).
Reliability and validity.
| Item Code | Loading | Outer Weights | CA | CR | AVE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attitude (ATT) | 0.759 | 0.844 | 0.577 | |||
| ATT_1 | 0.844 | 0.378 | ||||
| ATT_2 | 0.822 | 0.392 | ||||
| ATT_3 | 0.703 | 0.265 | ||||
| ATT_4 | 0.754 | 0.263 | ||||
| Health Consciousness (HC) | 0.802 | 0.883 | 0.717 | |||
| HC_1 | 0.837 | 0.388 | ||||
| HC_2 | 0.884 | 0.386 | ||||
| HC_3 | 0.817 | 0.409 | ||||
| Past Experience (PE) | 0.921 | 0.944 | 0.808 | |||
| PE_1 | 0.902 | 0.284 | ||||
| PE_2 | 0.904 | 0.274 | ||||
| PE_3 | 0.910 | 0.269 | ||||
| PE_4 | 0.880 | 0.286 | ||||
| Trust (T) | 0.939 | 0.951 | 0.734 | |||
| T_1 | 0.863 | 0.174 | ||||
| T_2 | 0.896 | 0.157 | ||||
| T_3 | 0.914 | 0.182 | ||||
| T_4 | 0.867 | 0.159 | ||||
| T_5 | 0.796 | 0.182 | ||||
| T_6 | 0.808 | 0.149 | ||||
| T_7 | 0.850 | 0.165 | ||||
| Willingness to Pay (WP) | 0.753 | 0.845 | 0.585 | |||
| WP_2 | 0.836 | 0.405 | ||||
| WP_3 | 0.866 | 0.367 | ||||
| WP_4 | 0.838 | 0.409 | ||||
| Repurchase Intention (RI) | 0.87 | 0.921 | 0.794 | |||
| RI_1 | 0.911 | 0.378 | ||||
| RI_2 | 0.896 | 0.379 | ||||
| RI_3 | 0.867 | 0.365 | ||||
Source: Authors’ calculations conducted using Smart PLS 3.2.9. (Note: “average variance extracted (AVE)”; “Cronbach’s alpha (CA)”; “composite reliability (CR)”).
Fornell–Larcker criterion.
| ATT | HC | PE | RI | T | WP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATT | 0.760 | |||||
| HC | 0.436 | 0.847 | ||||
| PE | 0.614 | 0.317 | 0.899 | |||
| RI | 0.637 | 0.577 | 0.535 | 0.891 | ||
| T | 0.548 | 0.440 | 0.488 | 0.587 | 0.857 | |
| WP | 0.557 | 0.495 | 0.472 | 0.627 | 0.581 | 0.847 |
Source: Authors’ calculations conducted using Smart PLS 3.2.9.
Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT).
| ATT | H | PE | RI | T | WP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATT | ||||||
| H | 0.547 | |||||
| PE | 0.712 | 0.369 | ||||
| RI | 0.768 | 0.69 | 0.597 | |||
| T | 0.646 | 0.507 | 0.523 | 0.645 | ||
| WP | 0.68 | 0.664 | 0.527 | 0.743 | 0.628 |
Source: Authors’ calculations conducted using Smart PLS 3.2.9.
Inner VIF Values.
| Independent Variables | WP | ATT | T | RI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATT | 2.022 | |||
| H | 1 | 1.112 | 1.465 | |
| PE | 1.112 | 1 | 1.718 | |
| T | 1.748 | |||
| WP | 1.831 |
Source: Authors’ calculations were conducted using Smart PLS 3.2.9.
Path coefficients and fitness indices for the structural model.
| Hypothesis Number | Hypothesis | β (Path Coefficient) | T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) | R2 | Q2 | SRMR | RSM Theta | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 (a) | HC -> WP | 0.495 | 12.949 | 0.245 | 0.171 | 0.058 | 0.113 | Accepted |
| H1 (b) | HC -> ATT | 0.268 | 6.863 | 0.442 | 0.247 | Accepted | ||
| H2 (a) | PE -> ATT | 0.529 | 12.974 | Accepted | ||||
| H2 (b) | PE -> T | 0.488 | 11.574 | 0.238 | 0.171 | Accepted | ||
| H1 (c) | HC -> RI | 0.256 | 6.358 | 0.596 | 0.466 | Accepted | ||
| H2 (c) | PE -> RI | 0.129 | 3.127 | Accepted | ||||
| H3 (a) | WP -> RI | 0.216 | 3.971 | Accepted | ||||
| H4 (a) | ATT -> RI | 0.242 | 5.476 | Accepted | ||||
| H5 (a) | T -> RI | 0.153 | 3.567 | Accepted |
Source: Authors’ calculations conducted using Smart PLS 3.2.9.
Figure 2Run model.
Specific indirect effects.
| β (Path Coefficient) | Sample Mean (M) | Standard Deviation (STDEV) | T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) | Result | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H3 (b) | HC -> WP -> RI | 0.107 | 0.108 | 0.029 | 3.684 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| H4 (b) | HC -> ATT_ -> RI | 0.065 | 0.065 | 0.015 | 4.267 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| H4 (c) | PE -> ATT_ -> RI | 0.128 | 0.128 | 0.025 | 5.095 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| H5 (b) | PE -> T -> RI | 0.075 | 0.074 | 0.022 | 3.381 | 0.001 | Accepted |
Source: Authors’ calculations conducted using Smart PLS 3.2.9.