Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The impact of brand trust on consumers’ behavior toward agricultural products’ regional public brand

  • Qiyun Liu,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation School of Law and Economics and Management, Hulunbuir University, Hulunbuir, China

    ⨯
  • Xinyuan Wang

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    wangxy@hlbec.edu.cn

    Affiliation School of Law and Economics and Management, Hulunbuir University, Hulunbuir, China

    ⨯

Abstract

The importance of agricultural products’ regional public brands, owned by relevant organizations and jointly used by several agricultural production and operation entities, is increasing in contemporary marketing research. Based on a survey of 544 consumers, this study investigates the influence of brand trust, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control on their purchase intention and behavior toward agricultural products’ regional public brand. Through SEM, we find that brand trust toward agricultural products’ regional public brand positively influences consumer attitude, purchase intention, and purchase behavior. In addition, attitude and purchase intention mediate the relationship between brand trust and purchase behavior. While attitude and perceived behavioral control positively affect purchase intention, no similar effect is found for subjective norms. Moreover, multigroup invariance tests demonstrate that consumer behavior can be influenced by factors such as gender, age, monthly income, marital status, previous visits to the region, and purchase purpose. We therefore recommend that to bolster competitiveness, regional public brand stakeholders maintain agricultural product quality, ensure reliable purchasing and transportation channels, and enhance brand trust.

Citation: Liu Q, Wang X (2023) The impact of brand trust on consumers’ behavior toward agricultural products’ regional public brand. PLoS ONE 18(11): e0295133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295133

Editor: Wojciech Trzebiński, SGH Warsaw School of Economics: Szkola Glowna Handlowa w Warszawie, POLAND

Received: February 23, 2023; Accepted: November 15, 2023; Published: November 30, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Liu, Wang. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This research was funded by Hulunbuir University, Grant No. 2020FDYB15. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

Food, as a paramount necessity, plays a crucial role in everyone’s daily life. Everyone makes daily decisions on food purchases [1], weighing factors such as price, quality, and nutritional content. The evolution of the e-commerce and logistics sectors has broadened consumer food choices in terms of origin and variety while enhancing convenience and the shopping experience [2, 3]. Live e-commerce platforms facilitate direct interaction between consumers and agricultural product producers, increasing transparency [4]. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced people’s dining habits, with many opting to cook at home rather than dine out, increasing the demand for high-quality ingredients. Additionally, consumers are opting for online food purchases, signifying a shift in their behavioral patterns [5]. Such consumer behavior will not change for some time [6]. Following the emergence of consumer upgrading and the experience economy, consumers are now more concerned about the quality and safety of food and their service experience [7]. In response to competitive pressures, the Chinese government and producers have endeavored to imbue their agricultural products with unique attributes for distinction in the marketplace. In 2017, China’s Central Government Document No. 1 first called for developing agricultural products’ regional public brands. This initiative was further progressed in 2019, when the central government commenced the collection of well-known regional public brands [8]. Thus, the emergence of regional public brands for agricultural products represents a progression in marketing [9], reflecting agricultural modernization and the improved marketability of such brands.

The notion of agricultural products’ regional public brand has not yet received a strict or unified professional definition or conceptualization. Scholars have thus far used the terms regional branding [10, 11] or place branding [12, 13]. Hankinson (2010) [14] has argued that the widening domain of place branding includes destination, nation, regional, and city branding. In this study, the concept of agricultural products’ regional public brand is primarily derived from relevant documents of China’s Ministry of Agriculture and is characterized by several distinctive features. First, a regional public brand relies on a region’s specific natural ecological environment and historical and human factors; it is an intraregional industrial cluster, which serves as its regional brand identity [15]. Second, brands are owned by relevant organizations and jointly used by several agricultural production and operation entities [16], distinguishing them from corporate brands. Typically, the unique characteristics of a regional public brand are its endorsement by the public, establishment via governmental initiatives, and exclusivity [17]. Finally, similar to products and services, geographical locations can be branded [18]. Therefore, agricultural products’ regional public brands often follow an “origin name + product name” format [19]. They encompass various agricultural products including grains, oils, livestock, poultry, seafood, fruits, vegetables, traditional Chinese medicine herbs, edible fungi, tea, and forest specialties. Each region also creates its own distinctive brand based on its unique circumstances, thereby differentiating its products from similar agricultural products. Regional public brand development also enhances the quality certification standards of specific agricultural products, streamlines production methods, and extends the product’s industrial chain. The ultimate aim of agricultural products’ regional public brand is to increase consumer recognition, market competitiveness, and overall value. This approach allows agricultural producers to reap more industry profits, supporting the execution of rural revitalization strategies [20, 21].

The Chinese government’s extant certifications of agricultural products include hazard-free, green, and organic food. Combined with geographical factors, such certification is a geographical indication [22]. However, while geographical indications and regional public brands are both influenced by regional aspects, they represent distinct concepts. A regional public brand is driven by market operation, whereby consumer and market response determine its establishment; registration or certification are not prerequisites, yet they are commonly pursued by brand owners [10]. Geographical indications, in contrast, are legal constructs shielded from infringement and counterfeiting by trademark law, applied to all products within a region [23]. Nevertheless, regional public brands that integrate unique geographical conditions, production methods, and brand equity tend to hold the most significant competitive advantage in the marketplace.

The literature on agricultural products’ regional public brands has focused on brand building [24, 25] and brand integration performance [26], and some scholars have conducted case studies [16]. Concerning consumers’ perceptions of agricultural products’ regional public brands, research has shown that regional brands have failed to play their expected role and that consumers are not enthusiastic about these brands [11, 27]. In China, the market share of green agricultural products remains limited due to consumers’ inadequate understanding of these products, pricing concerns, and lack of convenient purchasing channels [2]. The literature has examined the impact of Green brand experiential quality, brand experience, brand experiential risk, and brand equity on purchase intention. However, it has provided insufficient indications as to why consumer responses following brand development fail to meet expectations [28]. Currently, comprehensive research is lacking on the complete chain of consumers’ trust in regional public brands influencing their intention to purchase, which then translates into actual buying behavior.

China has established many successful agricultural products’ regional public brands. The China Agricultural Brand Research Center at Zhejiang University, led by Hu Xiaoyun, has developed a model for assessing the value of China’s agricultural products’ regional public brands. Since 2010, this team has conducted a special assessment of China’s regional public tea brands’ value; its data shows that the value of certain tea brands has doubled [29, 30]. However, solely focusing on success stories may obscure regional public brand-building challenges and the factors impacting consumer choices. By exclusively focusing on successful case studies, we risk neglecting a key research gap: the identification of potential pitfalls in regional public brand-building and the elements consumers genuinely value. Additionally, the lack of research on less developed regional public brands underscores the urgency for thorough investigations in this field.

Therefore, this study examines the regional public brand of Hulunbuir’s agricultural products, situated in China’s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, which currently lacks discernible brand advantages. Occupying approximately 2.5% of China’s total land area, Hulunbuir serves as a significant nexus for grain production and animal husbandry [31]. Hulunbuir hosts eight regional public brands, each representing unique advantages and challenges. Its geographic location creates potential for brand expansion, whilst simultaneously adding complexity to the growth of its agricultural product brands. The widespread distribution of producers introduces transportation challenges, such as transport time, cost, and product freshness, which significantly influence consumer decisions. The expansion of courier services like SF Express and EMS has helped to address these challenges. Furthermore, Hulunbuir’s regional public brands focus mainly on primary agricultural products, resulting in a lesser contribution to the region’s economic value. Compared to brands in other Inner Mongolian regions, this highlights that consumer behavior towards Hulunbuir’s regional public brands necessitates further study.

This study aims to address the following questions. First, we examine the influence of brand trust toward agricultural products’ regional public brands on consumers’ attitudes, purchase intentions, and purchase behaviors.

Second, we integrate brand trust with the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), a fundamental approach to understanding consumer behavior [32, 33]. Our focus is to discern how the components of the TPB—namely attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control—influence the purchase intention and behavior toward agricultural products’ regional public brand. In particular, we discuss how subjective norms can influence purchase intentions and behavior through attitudes.

Thirdly, we explore the transformation of purchase intention towards regional public brands of agricultural products into actual consumer buying behavior. This investigation is driven by the ultimate goal of every regional public brand, which is to stimulate tangible consumer purchasing activity.

This study therefore contributes to the literature in several ways. First, building on the positive influence of brand trust in purchase behavior [34], and addressing the limitations of the TPB [35, 36], we designed a framework to systematically study the factors influencing consumer intention and behavior toward agricultural products’ regional public brand.

Second, this study specifically focuses on the Hulunbuir’s agricultural products’ regional public brand. This region, despite being rich in resources, has underdeveloped regional public branding, making the wider application of our research results more significant. The data were obtained through a survey questionnaire, resulting in 544 valid responses. We also conducted path analysis via structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the relevant direct and indirect effects.

Third, we conducted a multigroup invariance analysis to determine whether consumer characteristics influence brand trust, purchase intention, and behavior toward regional public brands. Subgroup analysis factors included gender, age, monthly income, marital status, family size, previous visits to Hulunbuir, and purchase purpose. Accordingly, this study provides empirical insights into consumer decision-making for regional agricultural brands and offers practical recommendations for brand development strategies.

The remainder of this research is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical framework and research hypotheses. Section 3 describes the research design, including scale and item development. Section 4 describes the measurement model, the results in terms of the hypotheses, and the multigroup analyses. Section 5 offers a discussion and implications of the findings. Finally, Section 6 provides the conclusion, which includes a summary of the findings, limitations of the study, and directions for future research.

2. Literature review and hypotheses

2.1 Brand trust, attitude, purchase intention and behavior

A brand is the name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that differentiates the goods or services of one seller from those of others; a specific location or region can also establish a distinct brand identity [37]. Similar to corporate brands, regional public brands move through stages of brand evaluation, which are related to brand infrastructure, brand articulation, and communication [38]. Brand trust can be influenced by marketing strategies and brand image [39]. As such, agricultural products’ regional public brands frequently demonstrate an enhanced brand image, particularly when they garner governmental endorsement and are backed by effective marketing strategies. These products offer high-quality assurances; they originate from a unique geographical origin, a conducive natural production environment, use standardized production and processing methods, and offer visually appealing packaging, all of which serve as emblems of health and nutrition [40].

Brand trust, a cornerstone of commercial success [41] and a prerequisite for brand loyalty [42, 43], not only forms the foundation of consumers’ positive perceptions [44], but also bolsters favorable attitudes towards regional public brands. Through a regional public brand’s identity, consumers differentiate branded from generic products [45]; thus, this brand identity, along with trust, shapes customer satisfaction and purchase intention [46, 47]. Indeed, studies have shown that brand trust stimulates word-of-mouth marketing and drives consumption [48]. A case study in Beijing’s pork market has echoed this finding, highlighting brand trust’s positive role in shaping purchase intention, particularly for traceable branded products [49].

The TPB is an important theory for predicting consumer behavior patterns and an extension of the theory of reasoned action rational behavior (TRA) [50, 51]. The TPB has been widely applied to explain various consumer behavioral choices [52], with a pronounced relevance in the domain of food consumption [53, 54]. Behavioral intentions are the direct antecedents of behavior and exert control over behavioral attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behaviors. These determinants are derived from beliefs about the possible consequences of behavior (attitude), thoughts about the normative expectations of significant others (subjective norms), and the factors controlling behavioral execution (perceived behavioral control).

Attitude refers to the degree of favorable or unfavorable evaluation of relevant behavior [55]. Attitude is a function of the perceived results of behaviors and a psychological emotion conveyed by consumer evaluations. If an attitude is positive, the behavioral intention will be more positive. According to Paul et al. (2016) [54], attitude is the strongest predictor of the willingness to purchase agricultural products. Nonsensory factors such as brand and price may also significantly impact consumers’ perceptions of functional foods [56]. Moon et al. (2022) [57], incorporating the technology acceptance model (TAM), have discovered that factors such as food quality (i.e., healthiness, hygiene, and organic nature) and brand trust significantly enhance consumers’ willingness to pay in the cafe industry. Moreover, given that regional public brands are government-led, this inherently bolsters consumers’ confidence in product quality, amplifies their positive attitudes, and ultimately stimulates their purchase intentions [58], even prompting actual purchases. Accordingly, we posit the following:

  1. H1: Brand trust toward agricultural products’ regional public brand is positively correlated with attitude.
  2. H2: Brand trust toward agricultural products’ regional public brand is positively correlated with purchase intention.
  3. H3: Brand trust toward agricultural products’ regional public brand is positively correlated with purchase behavior.
  4. H4: Attitudes toward agricultural products’ regional public brand is positively correlated with purchase intention.

2.2 Subjective norms

Subjective norms, the second component of the TPB, encapsulate the perceived social pressure that influences the performance or avoidance of behavior [50]. This pressure may emanate from friends, family, colleagues, media, or propaganda in popular culture [59]. Specifically, word-of-mouth marketing, particularly by friends and family, represents a potent element in the informal communication process between brands and consumers [60]. These unsolicited endorsements can greatly enhance the appeal of branded products. Hence, under the influence of subjective norms, consumers are likely to display heightened positive attitudes toward agricultural products’ regional public brand [61].

Moreover, the surge in social media and live e-commerce platforms has reshaped consumer purchasing behavior toward agricultural products. Live-streaming promotions enable direct seller–consumer interactions, offering in-depth product information and allowing visual inspection, enhancing purchase intention [4]. Furthermore, real-time interactivity on live platforms [62] and social media usage positively influence sustainable purchasing attitudes [63]. Accordingly, we posit the following:

  1. H5: Subjective norms toward agricultural products’ regional public brand are positively correlated with attitude.
  2. H6: Subjective norms toward agricultural products’ regional public brand are positively correlated with purchase intention.

2.3 Perceived behavioral control

Perceived behavioral control is the perceived ease or difficulty of performing a behavior, a reaction to experiences and expected future obstacles, and a judgment of whether one’s behavioral ability under the conditions of specific factors allows the performance of a particular behavior [64]. Their overall perceived risk influences consumers’ purchase intention. Perceived risk decreases as the perceived cost of using the various available information in search and risk reduction activities increases. Meanwhile, purchase intention decreases when acceptable risk exceeds perceived risk [65].

As the convenience of e-commerce has increased, the propensity to purchase agricultural products online has risen [3]. Geographic remoteness, as exemplified by locations such as the city of Hulunbuir, thereby ceases to be a hindrance. In the real economy, producers and sellers of agricultural products have recognized the promotional role of e-commerce and live-streaming economy. Many regional governments have also directly participated, establishing e-commerce bases and logistics networks. An integrated retail environment is expanding, enabling customers to navigate among various shopping and delivery channels by providing an omni-channel consumer experience [66]. This fosters greater loyalty toward fresh retailers among consumers [7]. The deployment of agricultural products’ regional public brand, similar to organic certification and geographical indication, can expedite the consumer decision-making process [67]. Consequently, when agricultural products are presented with a regional public brand and provide accessible purchasing channels, consumers’ willingness to purchase is likely to increase. Accordingly, we posit the following:

  1. H7: Perceived behavioral control toward agricultural products’ regional public brand is positively correlated with purchase intention.

2.4 Purchase behavior

Purchase intention, a reflection of consumers’ willingness to consume a specific product, is a crucial predictor of purchase behavior [68, 69]. Indeed, purchase behavior is the ultimate economic decision of consumers [57] and the final goal of brand building. While consumers’ intention and behavior vary based on their personalities [5] and individual or family factors [70], the TPB suggests that intention always influences behavior. Such general theories also apply to our research, indicating that a consumer’s purchasing intention towards agricultural products’ regional public brands can facilitate their puchase behavior. Accordingly, we posit the following:

  1. H8: Purchase intention toward agricultural products’ regional public brands is positively correlated with purchase behavior.

The conceptual model is shown in Fig 1.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Conceptual model diagram.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295133.g001

3. Methods

3.1 Participants and procedure

This study focuses on Hulunbuir’s agricultural products’ regional public brand. Hulunbuir, a city in the northeastern Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China (48°48′-50°12′N, 118°22′-121°02′E), is one of the country’s largest county-level cities, accounting for approximately one-fortieth of China’s total area. It encompasses a diverse range of agricultural products due to its 27 million mu of farmland and 140 million mu of grassland. Through concerted efforts by the government and agricultural producers, today, Hulunbuir hosts eight agricultural products’ regional public brands, including mutton, milk, beef, soybean, canola oil, black fungus, potato, and blueberry brands.

This study collected data through an online questionnaire. The questionnaire respondents were adults (18 or above), capable of making independent purchasing decisions. The questionnaires were subject to pretesting and formal survey phases. During the pretesting stage, we distributed the survey to the participants in a special agriculture product shopping chat group of which one researcher is a member. Before administering the survey, we clearly communicated its scientific research purpose to the participants, assuring them that no personal data would be collected. As the group contained many members, we explicitly requested that only consumers familiar with Hulunbuir respond to the survey. Given that this was the pretesting phase, we ceased data collection immediately after receiving 50 valid responses. The respondents, varying in age, resided in Hulunbuir City, Beijing, and Shandong, China. The feedback from this pretest aligned with our expectations and informed the refinement of our questionnaire for increased clarity and precision.

During the formal phase of the questionnaire, we first revised the text to more explicitly target our theme of Hulunbuir’s agricultural products’ regional public brand, modifying any vocabulary prone to confusion due to English translation. Secondly, we broadened the distribution channels beyond those used in the pretesting phase to various agricultural product purchase chat groups and Hulunbuir tourism discussion forums. The survey was disseminated at different times to diversify the respondents and prevent homogeneity. To ensure that the purpose of the survey was met, we specified in the instructions that only respondents familiar with Hulunbuir should participate. The formal survey was distributed from July to August 2022, during the tourist season, making the Hulunbuir-themed questionnaire appealing to respondents. We successfully collected 569 responses from participants across 27 provinces in China. Following the screening process, we excluded 25 invalid questionnaires due to non-compliance with age specifications and duplications, resulting in a final sample size of 544 and a validity rate of 95.60%.

The questionnaire contained demographic items concerning statistics such as gender, age, monthly income, marital status, and number of family members. The questionnaire also investigated whether the respondents had visited Hulunbuir. A question on purchasing purpose (daily consumption or gift to friends and relatives) was designed. The questionnaire began with a brief introduction of Hulunbuir’s agricultural products’ regional public brand and the logo to ensure that the respondents could understand the survey topic accurately.

As shown in Table 1, a high proportion of respondents were female (70.77%), married (63.60%), 31–40 years old (49.45%), and had more than three family members (70.22%). This distribution aligns with the perspective that females primarily handle household purchases, and that middle-aged consumers who are married and have larger families may show greater interest in the topic of the questionnaire. Since the questionnaire was distributed across several provinces in China, respondents were roughly evenly divided when categorized based on a monthly income of 6000 Chinese yuan. Most of the respondents had visited Hulunbuir (80.51%), which indicates that the respondents were clear about the geographical location of Hulunbuir and could identify Hulunbuir’s agricultural products’ regional public brand. Moreover, a substantial number of respondents had purchased or intended to purchase Hulunbuir regional public brands’ agricultural products for daily consumption (75.92%), which is consistent with the nature of agricultural products.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. The distribution characteristics of the sample.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295133.t001

3.2 Measures

To ensure the accuracy of the scale translation, we invited two members from our university’s English department to translate and subsequent back-translation of the scales. All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree.

The items on brand trust referred to Zhao et al. (2019) [71] and Konuk et al. (2015) [48], totaling four items. For instance, one item was, “I feel that the agricultural products of Hulunbuir’s regional public brands are trustworthy.”

The items on attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control mainly followed well-established scales [50, 54]. The items on purchase intention and behavior followed Sun et al. (2022) [72] and Ajzen (2020) [50]. All items were modified to integrate them with the context of this study. Each construct on attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, purchase intention, and purchase behavior was measured by three items. The scale ultimately consisted of 19 items across 6 constructs. A total of 544 respondents were surveyed, significantly surpassing the guideline minimum of 190. This guideline, as recommended by Kline (2011) [73], suggests a sample size at least ten times greater than the number of measurement items.

4. Results

4.1 Measurement model

This study used SPSS and Amos software for data analysis. According to Table 2, the Cronbach’s α for each question item in the scale was 0.875, 0.798, 0.810, 0.852, 0.809, and 0.863, signifying robust reliability, as all these values meet or closely approach the recommended value of 0.8 [74]. To test the measurement model, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Each item’s standard factor loading coefficients ranged from 0.726 to 0.902, implying a good measurement relationship. All six constructs corresponded to AVE values were higher than 0.5, and all CR values were higher than 0.7, indicating good convergent data validity.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Reliability and validity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295133.t002

As shown in Table 3, the model had a good fit (χ2/df = 1.869, CFI = 0.975, GFI = 0.975, RMSEA = 0.04, TLI = 0.969, SRMR = 0.038) [75]. According to Table 4, the AVE square root values of all six constructs were higher than the maximum value of the absolute value of the interfactor correlation coefficient, indicating good discrimination validity [76].

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Overall fit indices of the measurement model.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295133.t003

thumbnail
Download:
Table 4. Discrimination validity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295133.t004

4.2 Hypotheses tests

SEM allows the elucidation of linear relationships among latent variables, thereby simulating the intrinsic logical interplay among multiple factors [77]. Our eight formulated hypotheses were thus evaluated. The model framework and corresponding path coefficients are presented in Fig 2.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Model framework and SEM analysis results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295133.g002

Table 5 summarizes the hypothesis testing. Significant standardized path coefficients supported Hypotheses 1–5 and 7–8. Brand trust toward agricultural products’ regional public brand significantly influences attitude (0.428, p<0.001), purchase intention (0.194, p<0.001), and purchase behavior (0.417, p<0.001), thereby supporting Hypotheses 1 to 3. Attitude toward agricultural products’ regional public brand significantly affects purchase intention (0.329, p<0.001), supporting Hypothesis 4. Subjective norms significantly impact attitude (0.342, p<0.001), supporting Hypothesis 5. Perceived behavioral control significantly affects purchase intention (0.373, p<0.001), supporting Hypothesis 7. Finally, purchase intention significantly influences purchase behavior (0.293, p<0.001), verifying Hypothesis 8. Hypothesis 6 is not supported, as we found that subjective norms do not significantly influence purchase intention (p = 0.26).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing through SEM.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295133.t005

4.3 Mediation effect

To examine the mediation effect, this study adopted the bootstrap sampling method due to its high acceptance rate in the field. As shown in Table 6, both the “BT→ATT→PI→PB” and “BT→PI→PB” paths were found to be significant (both Bias Corrected and Percentile Method 95% CI did not include zero), suggesting that brand trust toward agricultural products’ regional public brand influences purchase behavior both directly and through these indirect pathways. Purchase intention toward agricultural products’ regional public brand was also identified as a stronger mediator in the relationship between brand trust and purchase behavior.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 6. Bootstrap mediation effect.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295133.t006

In addition, the path “SN→ATT→PI→PB” demonstrated significance (both 95% CIs did not include zero), suggesting that subjective norms toward agricultural products’ regional public brand can indirectly impact purchase intention and behavior via attitude. In contrast, the path “SN→PI→PB” was insignificant (Bias Corrected CI: -0.01, 0.052, 95% CI included zero), confirming our previous rejection of H6.

The path “PBC→PI→PB” demonstrated significance (both 95% CIs did not include zero), indicating that the effect of perceived behavioral control toward agricultural products’ regional public brand on purchase behavior is mediated by purchase intention. Accordingly, by combining these mediating paths, our findings suggest that a combination of factors influences consumers’ ultimate purchase behavior toward agricultural products’ regional public brand.

4.4 Multigroup analysis

Personal characteristics lead to consumers’ disparate perceptions of brands, influencing their purchase intention and behavior [70]. Hence, we performed a multigroup analysis to better understand these influences on agricultural products’ regional public brands.

This analysis accounted for gender, age, income, marital status, previous visits to Hulunbuir, and purchasing purposes.

We assessed measurement invariance and multigroup SEM structural invariance following the method proposed by Jaspers and Pearson (2022) [78]. Our analysis was based on seven statistical characteristics collected from our survey: gender, monthly income, marital status, age, number of family members, previous visits to Hulunbuir, and purchasing purposes. These characteristics served as our subgroup criteria for the invariance analyses. In the test of measurement invariance, we conducted both the CFI difference test and the Chi-square difference test to assess the overall model fit between the constrained and unconstrained models for each subgroup [79]. According to Gaskin and Lim (2018) [80] excluding the subgroup “number of family members”, the p-value of the Chi-square difference test was significant (p < 0.05), indicating differences in the model across subgroups. Therefore, we proceeded with the invariance testing of the structural model for the remaining six subgroups, as detailed in Tables 7 and 8.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 7. Standardized coefficients of the structural model across subgroups: Gender, age, and income.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295133.t007

thumbnail
Download:
Table 8. Standardized coefficients of the structural model across subgroups: Marital status, visit to Hulunbuir, and purchase purpose.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295133.t008

Tables 7 and 8 demonstrate subgroup noninvariance. Within the gender subgroup, the paths “BT → PI” and “PI → PB” were significant exclusively for females, with the path “BT → PB” demonstrating a stronger effect among females. This conclusion is somewhat influenced by the larger proportion of females (70.77%) in the sample. Conversely, the “SN → ATT” path was more robust for males. Age-related differences were observed in the impact of brand trust toward agricultural products’ regional public brand on purchase intention and behavior, with the “BT → PI” path significant only for respondents under 40 and the “BT → PB” path stronger for those aged 40 and above.The paths “BT → PB” and “PI → PB” were stronger for respondents with a monthly income exceeding 6000 RMB.

For the marital status subgroup, the “BT → PB” path was stronger for married people, which is also somewhat influenced by the distribution of the sample. Regarding the visiting experience, the “BT → PB” path was stronger for those who had visited Hulunbuir, while the “PI → PB” path was more pronounced for those who had not. Based on the above rejection of Hypothesis 6, we excluded the “SN → PI” path from this analysis. In the purpose subgroup, the “PI → PB” path was significant only for daily consumption. Among the six subgroups with noninvariance, the relationship between brand trust and purchase behavior toward agricultural products’ regional public brand was influenced in five of them. Finally, the remaining hypothetical paths were invariant.

5. Discussion and implications

5.1 Discussion

In our study, we evaluated eight hypotheses using SEM, based on the analysis of 544 valid questionnaire responses. We concentrated on the, thereby expanding the scope of the research. We employed mediation analysis to explore the indirect effects within our model, and conducted multigroup analysis to identify the influence of different group factors. Beyond these empirical findings, our study also contributes to the existing literature in several ways.

First, by constructing a model that integrates brand trust and the TPB, we find brand trust in agricultural products’ regional public brand positively affects attitude, purchase intention, and purchase behavior. In terms of purchase behavior toward agricultural products’ regional public brand, brand trust is the most influential factor among the direct influences. Each regional public brand, with its unique characteristics, integrates certification and location factor of geographical indication, and sends a positive and guaranteed signal to consumers. This heightens consumer affinity and identification with agricultural products and facilitates the transformation of purchase intention into actual purchase behavior [81]. While brand trust directly influences purchasing behavior, it can also affect it indirectly via its impact on attitude and purchase intention. This finding is consistent with the original purpose of China’s regional public branding, emphasizing the importance of brand operation [82], which is also the highlight of this study.

Second, according to TPB, a key component of this study’s theoretical framework, both attitude and perceived behavioral control toward agricultural products’ regional public brand positively influence purchase intention. When consumers form a favorable attitude toward a product’s regional public brand, they actively promote it and convert it into purchase behavior. This conclusion aligns with research findings on purchase intention regarding green and organic food products [22, 72].

Perceived behavioral control toward agricultural products’ regional public brand has a more significant effect on purchase intention than attitude. This discrepancy primarily arises from the focus of our study on Hulunbuir, a relatively remote region in China. Consumers hence need to consider the feasibility of purchasing branded agricultural products from this area, which can lead to conclusions that vary slightly from those in broad-based agricultural research [83, 84]. Facilitated by e-commerce platforms, live-streaming product recommendations, and advancements in logistics, consumers now have more purchasing channels and shorter time frames to acquire desired products than in the past. Transparency in agricultural product pricing, a result of market competition, further simplifies the buying process for consumers [11]. Consequently, consumers can have enhanced experiences when purchasing branded agricultural products directly from their places of origin, leading to their increased willingness to buy and actual purchase behavior [85].

As for subjective norms toward agricultural products’ regional public brand do not directly influence consumers’ purchase intention but can shape their attitude [86]. This may be because consumers have well-formed consumption views, making them less affected by the purchasing behavior of friends or relatives and media advertising. However, these external influences can strengthen consumers’ positive attitude toward a product and indirectly influence their purchase intention and behavior. Therefore, subjective norms cannot be ignored in studies of consumers’ purchase intention and behavior.

Thirdly, multigroup analysis further highlights the influences exerted by different factors. We have found that consumers’ characteristics also impact their purchase intention and purchase behavior regarding agricultural products’ regional public brands. While female consumers maintain their enthusiasm after trying branded products [87], an interesting finding in this study is that male consumers tend to have a more favorable attitude toward regional public brands due to external promotion and their friends’ recommendations. Consumers over the age of 40 are also likely to directly purchase branded products, a behavior indicative of impulse buying influenced by a brand’s presence [88]. For those under 40, Generation Y’s shopping is based on their choice of products [89]. Furthermore, the influence of consumers’ income on their purchase behavior is immeasurable [90]. Consumers with a monthly income of more than RMB 6,000 are the most likely to transform their intention into actual purchase behavior towards agricultural products with regional public brands. Married consumers tend to show stronger support for a brand and are likely to make purchases based on trust. Similarly, consumers who have visited Hulunbuir exhibit a higher likelihood of purchasing agricultural products with a regional public label, reflecting their trust in their brand. Consumers who regularly purchase agricultural products for everyday consumption are more likely to transform their purchase intention into actual purchase behavior, consistent with the typical use of agricultural products.

5.2 Practical implications

First, the owners and operators of an agricultural product’s regional public brand must prioritize maintaining and enhancing consumers’ trust in their brand. Trust in a brand requires a long-term strategic marketing approach, including brand building, fostering brand equity, and implementing ongoing supervision. Currently, most agricultural product’s regional public brand are established and hosted by regional governments. These governments can provide government-initiated innovations and financial support to enhance their agricultural products’ branding effect [91]. Beyond traditional celebrity endorsements, government officials have personally participated in brand promotion. Brand equity is collectively built by numerous licensed, qualified agricultural operators. As a result, brand image must be jointly protected by stakeholders. In particular, many agricultural operators should maintain self-discipline, be patient enough to realize long-term benefits, eliminate free-riding, and work together to improve their quality assurance system and realize the traceability of food to its source. Ongoing supervision of agricultural product’s regional public brand is also crucial. If brands are abused, a scenario known as “greenwashing” may occur, leading to consumers distrusting all the products associated with such brands [39].

Second, enhancing brand trust and integrating it with omnichannel marketing is crucial, especially for remote locations such as Hulunbuir. As our research has shown, perceived behavioral control significantly influences purchase intention. Thus, agricultural product operators should enhance consumers’ purchasing assurance through omnichannel marketing. Additionally, local governments where these agricultural products are based should also promote the development of transportation and other infrastructures. For instance, our research focuses on Hulunbuir, in northeast China, where the transportation routes for agricultural products are lengthy. Products like beef and mutton require frozen transportation, while others milk, blueberries, and potatoes require fresh transportation, each presenting unique difficulties.

Third, brand owners and operators should formulate highly targeted marketing strategies and employ targeted advertising to influence individual consumers’ characteristics [92]. Currently, consumers exhibit increased rationality [93]. Consumers with diverse genders, ages, income levels, and marital statuses have unique purchasing preferences. A simple recommendation does not directly convert into a purchasing desire. Word-of-mouth marketing will thus only influence consumers’ attitude when it reaches a certain level of intensity [94]. For instance, with Generation Y gradually becoming the primary consumer group, the novelty-oriented characteristics of this younger generation should be considered.

6. Conclusion

This study adopts the TPB framework and incorporates brand trust to investigate the factors influencing consumers’ purchase intention and behavior concerning agricultural products’ regional public brands in Hulunbuir, China. Using a questionnaire survey method and SEM, we examined the effects of various factors. The study also employed mediating effects and multigroup analysis to identify key influencing elements.

The results underscore the significant role of brand trust in shaping attitudes, purchase intentions, and behavior. Furthermore, both attitude and perceived behavioral control were found to exert influence on purchase intentions, with the latter having a more substantial effect. Notably, subjective norms influenced attitudes but did not directly impact purchase intentions. Additionally, consumer characteristics, such as gender, age, monthly income, marital status, previous visits to Hulunbuir, and purchase purpose, were found to significantly influence purchase intention and behavior. These findings highlight the complex influences on consumer behavior towards regional public brands of agricultural products.

Agricultural products’ regional public brand is a marketing concept with extensive coverage. This study has primarily focused on how brand trust, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control impact consumer purchase intention and behavior by employing the classic TPB framework. However, many potential factors have not been addressed. Future research could therefore benefit from incorporating additional models to explore further the role of brand trust and other determinants of consumer purchase decisions.

In this study, Hulunbuir’s agricultural products’ regional public brand was the focus of questionnaire research. This sample’s representativeness may be limited. Future studies could gain more comprehensive insights by comparing multiple brands or examining the same brand at different times to identify the strengths and weaknesses of various brand-building processes. Furthermore, the sample for this study was randomly distributed, without stringent control for many demographic variables, such as the male-to-female and marital status ratio. Future research could exercise more precise control over the sample according to the demographic characteristics of the research subjects.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all volunteers for participating in this research.

References

  1. 1. Young W, Hwang K, McDonald S, Oates CJ. Sustainable consumption: green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable Development. 2010;18: 20–31.
  2. 2. Dong X, Zhao H, Li T. The Role of Live-Streaming E-Commerce on Consumers’ Purchasing Intention regarding Green Agricultural Products. Sustainability. 2022;14: 4374.
  3. 3. Yeo VCS, Goh S-K, Rezaei S. Consumer experiences, attitude and behavioral intention toward online food delivery (OFD) services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2017;35: 150–162.
  4. 4. Sun Y, Shao X, Li X, Guo Y, Nie K. How live streaming influences purchase intentions in social commerce: An IT affordance perspective. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications. 2019;37: 100886.
  5. 5. Jie W, Poulova P, Haider SA, Sham RB. Impact of internet usage on consumer impulsive buying behavior of agriculture products: Moderating role of personality traits and emotional intelligence. Front Psychol. 2022;13: 951103. pmid:36106039
  6. 6. Donthu N, Gustafsson A. Effects of COVID-19 on business and research. Journal of Business Research. 2020;117: 284–289. pmid:32536736
  7. 7. Chen X, Su X, Li Z, Wu J, Zheng M, Xu A. The impact of omni-channel collaborative marketing on customer loyalty to fresh retailers: the mediating effect of the omni-channel shopping experience. Oper Manag Res. 2022;15: 983–997.
  8. 8. Lu J, Sun J. Research on Collaborative Co-construction of Regional Brand of Agricultural Products Under Rural Revitalization Strategy——From the Perspective of Value Co-creation (In Chinese). Research on Economics and Management. 2022;43: 96–110.
  9. 9. Martin E, Capelli S. Region brand legitimacy: towards a participatory approach involving residents of a place. Public Management Review. 2017;19: 820–844.
  10. 10. Van Ittersum K, Meulenberg MTG, Van Trijp HCM, Candel MJJM. Review and Prospect of Agricultural Products Regio. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2007;58: 1–23.
  11. 11. Wang E, Liu Z, Gao Z, Wen Q, Geng X. Consumer preferences for agricultural product brands in an E-commerce environment. Agribusiness. 2022;38: 312–327.
  12. 12. Andersson I. Placing place branding: an analysis of an emerging research field in human geography. Geogr Tidsskr-den. 2014;114: 143–155.
  13. 13. Rabbiosi C. Place branding performances in tourist local food shops. Annals of Tourism Research. 2016;60: 154–168.
  14. 14. Hankinson G. Place branding research: A cross-disciplinary agenda and the views of practitioners. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 2010;6: 300–315.
  15. 15. Fromhold-Eisebith M, Eisebith G. How to institutionalize innovative clusters? Comparing explicit top-down and implicit bottom-up approaches. Research PolicyRegionalization of Innovation Policy. 2005;34: 1250–1268.
  16. 16. Björner E, Aronsson L. Decentralised place branding through multiple authors and narratives: the collective branding of a small town in Sweden. Journal of Marketing Management. 2022;38: 1587–1612.
  17. 17. Jørgensen OH. Place and city branding in Danish municipalities with focus on political involvement and leadership. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 2016;12: 68–77.
  18. 18. Keller KL, Heckler SE, Houston MJ. The Effects of Brand Name Suggestiveness on Advertising Recall. Journal of Marketing. 1998;62: 48–57.
  19. 19. Kavaratzis M, Hatch MJ. The dynamics of place brands: An identity-based approach to place branding theory. Marketing Theory. 2013;13: 69–86.
  20. 20. Hjalager A-M, Johansen PH. Food tourism in protected areas–sustainability for producers, the environment and tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2013;21: 417–433.
  21. 21. Sidali KL, Kastenholz E, Bianchi R. Food tourism, niche markets and products in rural tourism: combining the intimacy model and the experience economy as a rural development strategy. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2015;23: 1179–1197.
  22. 22. Liu R, Pieniak Z, Verbeke W. Consumers’ attitudes and behaviour towards safe food in China: A review. Food Control. 2013;33: 93–104.
  23. 23. Bramley C, Bienabe E. Developments and considerations around geographical indications in the developing world. Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property. 2012;2: 14–37.
  24. 24. Donner M, Fort F. Stakeholder value-based place brand building. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 2018;27: 807–818.
  25. 25. Lan Y, Zhang J. Review and Prospect of Agricultural Products Regional Public Brand Research. Agricultural Economy (In Chinese). 2019; 126–128.
  26. 26. Li D, Ye H, Chen J. Government Behavior, Internal and External Environment and Regional Public Brand Integration Performance of Agricultural Products (In Chinese). Journal of Agrotechnical Economics. 2020; 130–142.
  27. 27. Yin S, Hu W, Chen Y, Han F, Wang Y, Chen M. Chinese consumer preferences for fresh produce: Interaction between food safety labels and brands. Agribusiness. 2019;35: 53–68.
  28. 28. Kazmi SHA, Shahbaz MS, Mubarik MS, Ahmed J. Switching behaviors toward green brands: evidence from emerging economy. Environ Dev Sustain. 2021;23: 11357–11381.
  29. 29. Hu X, Wei C, Xu D, Li J. 2019 China Tea Regional Public Brand Value Assessment Report (In Chinese). China Tea. 2019;41: 22–43.
  30. 30. Hu X, Wei C, Chen T. 2022 China Tea Regional Public Brand Value Assessment Report (In Chinese). China Tea. 2022;44: 22–37.
  31. 31. Cui F, Tang H, Zhang Q, Wang B, Dai L. Integrating ecosystem services supply and demand into optimized management at different scales: A case study in Hulunbuir, China. Ecosystem Services. 2019;39: 100984.
  32. 32. Hansen T, Møller Jensen J, Stubbe Solgaard H. Predicting online grocery buying intention: a comparison of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Information Management. 2004;24: 539–550.
  33. 33. Tewari A, Mathur S, Srivastava S, Gangwar D. Examining the role of receptivity to green communication, altruism and openness to change on young consumers’ intention to purchase green apparel: A multi-analytical approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2022;66: 102938.
  34. 34. Rahman S ur, Nguyen-Viet B. Towards sustainable development: Coupling green marketing strategies and consumer perceptions in addressing greenwashing. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2022.
  35. 35. Hsu M-H, Yen C-H, Chiu C-M, Chang C-M. A longitudinal investigation of continued online shopping behavior: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2006;64: 889–904.
  36. 36. Sarasvuo S, Rindell A, Kovalchuk M. Toward a conceptual understanding of co-creation in branding. Journal of Business Research. 2022;139: 543–563.
  37. 37. Keller KL, Brexendorf TO. Strategic Brand Management Process. In: Esch F-R, editor. Handbuch Markenführung. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2019. pp. 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13342-9_8
    • 38. Hanna S, Rowley J. Towards a strategic place brand-management model. Journal of Marketing Management. 2011;27: 458–476.
    • 39. Wu L, Liu Z. The Influence of Green Marketing on Brand Trust: The Mediation Role of Brand Image and the Moderation Effect of Greenwash. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society. 2022;2022: e6392172.
    • 40. Erdem T, Swait J. Brand Credibility, Brand Consideration, and Choice. Journal of Consumer Research. 2004;31: 191–198.
    • 41. Morgan RM, Hunt SD. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing. 1994;58: 20–38.
    • 42. Akoglu HE, Özbek O. The effect of brand experiences on brand loyalty through perceived quality and brand trust: a study on sports consumers. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 2021;34: 2130–2148.
    • 43. Huo C, Hameed J, Zhang M, Bin Mohd Ali AF, Amri Nik Hashim NA. Modeling the impact of corporate social responsibility on sustainable purchase intentions: insights into brand trust and brand loyalty. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja. 2022;35: 4710–4739.
    • 44. Chen Y, Chang C. Enhance green purchase intentions. Management Decision. 2012;50: 502–520.
    • 45. Jin YH, Zilberman D, Heiman A, Li Y. Willingness to pay for brands: a cross-region, cross-category analysis. Agricultural Economics. 2011;42: 141–152.
    • 46. Dash G, Kiefer K, Paul J. Marketing-to-Millennials: Marketing 4.0, customer satisfaction and purchase intention. Journal of Business Research. 2021;122: 608–620.
    • 47. Kang S, Hur W-M. Investigating the Antecedents of Green Brand Equity: A Sustainable Development Perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2012;19: 306–316.
    • 48. Konuk FA, Rahman SU, Salo J. Antecedents of green behavioral intentions: a cross-country study of Turkey, Finland and Pakistan. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2015;39: 586–596.
    • 49. Liu Z, Qiao J, Wang X. The impact of brand traceability trust on consumers’ food consumption behavior: the case of pork products (In Chinese). Journal of Technology Economics. 2016;35: 104–111.
    • 50. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies. 2020;2: 314–324.
    • 51. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health. 2011;26: 1113–1127. pmid:21929476
    • 52. Han H, Hsu L-TJ, Sheu C. Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to green hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tourism Management. 2010;31: 325–334.
    • 53. Liu Y, Cai L, Ma F, Wang X. Revenge buying after the lockdown: Based on the SOR framework and TPB model. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2023;72: 103263.
    • 54. Paul J, Modi A, Patel J. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. J Retail Consum Serv. 2016;29: 123–134.
    • 55. Chen M-F, Tung P-J. Developing an extended Theory of Planned Behavior model to predict consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2014;36: 221–230.
    • 56. Ares G, Giménez A, Deliza R. Influence of three non-sensory factors on consumer choice of functional yogurts over regular ones. Food Quality and Preference. 2010;21: 361–367.
    • 57. Moon J, Song M, Lee WS, Shim JM. Structural relationship between food quality, usefulness, ease of use, convenience, brand trust and willingness to pay: the case of Starbucks. British Food Journal. 2022;125: 65–81.
    • 58. Biondi B, Camanzi L. Nutrition, hedonic or environmental? The effect of front-of-pack messages on consumers’ perception and purchase intention of a novel food product with multiple attributes. Food Research International. 2020;130: 108962. pmid:32156397
    • 59. Alsaad AK. Ethical judgment, subjective norms, and ethical consumption: The moderating role of moral certainty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2021;59: 102380.
    • 60. Alexandrov A, Lilly B, Babakus E. The effects of social- and self-motives on the intentions to share positive and negative word of mouth. J of the Acad Mark Sci. 2013;41: 531–546.
    • 61. McClure C, Seock Y-K. The role of involvement: Investigating the effect of brand’s social media pages on consumer purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2020;53: 101975.
    • 62. Etemad-Sajadi R. The impact of online real-time interactivity on patronage intention: The use of avatars. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016;61: 227–232.
    • 63. Zafar AU, Shen J, Ashfaq M, Shahzad M. Social media and sustainable purchasing attitude: Role of trust in social media and environmental effectiveness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2021;63: 102751.
    • 64. Ajzen I. Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2002;32: 665–683.
    • 65. Dowling GR, Staelin R. A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-handling Activity. Journal of Consumer Research. 1994;21: 119–134.
    • 66. Wang X, Wong YD, Shi W, Yuen KF. Shoppers’ logistics activities in omni-channel retailing: A conceptualisation and an exploration on perceptual differences in effort valuation. Transport Policy. 2022;115: 195–208.
    • 67. Zepeda L, Deal D. Organic and local food consumer behaviour: Alphabet Theory. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2009;33: 697–705.
    • 68. Jaiswal D, Kant R. Green purchasing behaviour: A conceptual framework and empirical investigation of Indian consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2018;41: 60–69.
    • 69. Yin C-C, Chiu H-C, Hsieh Y-C, Kuo C-Y. How to retain customers in omnichannel retailing: Considering the roles of brand experience and purchase behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2022;69: 103070.
    • 70. Yang S, Li L, Zhang J. Understanding Consumers’ Sustainable Consumption Intention at China’s Double-11 Online Shopping Festival: An Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Model. Sustainability. 2018;10: 1801.
    • 71. Zhao J-D, Huang J-S, Su S. The effects of trust on consumers’ continuous purchase intentions in C2C social commerce: A trust transfer perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2019;50: 42–49.
    • 72. Sun Y, Leng K, Xiong H. Research on the influencing factors of consumers’ green purchase behavior in the post-pandemic era. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2022;69: 103118.
    • 73. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd Edition. New York: Guilford publications; 2023.
      • 74. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16: 297–334.
      • 75. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6: 1–55.
      • 76. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981;18: 382–388.
      • 77. Wang X, Zhang Z, Chun D. How Does Mobile Workplace Stress Affect Employee Innovative Behavior? The Role of Work–Family Conflict and Employee Engagement. Behavioral Sciences. 2022;12: 2. pmid:35049613
      • 78. Jaspers EDT, Pearson E. Consumers’ acceptance of domestic Internet-of-Things: The role of trust and privacy concerns. Journal of Business Research. 2022;142: 255–265.
      • 79. Lai VS, Li H. Technology acceptance model for internet banking: an invariance analysis. Information & Management. 2005;42: 373–386.
      • 80. Gaskin J, Lim J. Multigroup analysis, AMOS Plugin. Gaskination’s StatWiki; 2018. Available: statwiki.gaskination.com
      • 81. Temperini V, Limbu Y, Jayachandran C. Consumers’ Trust in Food Quality and Willingness to Pay More for National Parks’ Brands: Preliminary Evidence From Italy. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness MarketingJournal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing. 2017;29: 120–138.
      • 82. Berger J. Signaling can increase consumers’ willingness to pay for green products. Theoretical model and experimental evidence. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 2019;18: 233–246.
      • 83. Mazhar W, Jalees T, Asim M, Alam SH, Zaman SI. Psychological consumer behavior and sustainable green food purchase. APJML. 2022;34: 2350–2369.
      • 84. Qi X, Ploeger A. Explaining Chinese Consumers’ Green Food Purchase Intentions during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour. Foods. 2021;10. pmid:34073514
      • 85. Aprile MC, Caputo V, Jr RMN. Consumers’ valuation of food quality labels: the case of the European geographic indication and organic farming labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2012;36: 158–165.
      • 86. Tarkiainen A, Sundqvist S. Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food. British Food Journal. 2005;107: 808–822.
      • 87. Karpinska-Krakowiak M. Women are more likely to buy unknown brands than men: The effects of gender and known versus unknown brands on purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2021;58: 102273.
      • 88. Wells JD, Parboteeah V, Valacich JS. Online Impulse Buying: Understanding the Interplay between Consumer Impulsiveness and Website Quality. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 2011;12: 3.
      • 89. Parment A. Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications for retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2013;20: 189–199.
      • 90. Álvarez B, Boso À, Rodríguez I, Hofflinger Á, Vallejos-Romero A. Who buys certified firewood? Individual determinants of clean fuel adoption for promoting the sustainable energy transition in southern Chile. Energy, Sustainability and Society. 2021;11: 29.
      • 91. Lee AHJ, Wall G, Kovacs JF. Creative food clusters and rural development through place branding: Culinary tourism initiatives in Stratford and Muskoka, Ontario, Canada. Journal of Rural Studies. 2015;39: 133–144.
      • 92. Jalees T, Qabool S, Zaman SI, Alam Kazmi SH. Effect of spirituality and ethics on green advertising, and the multi- mediating roles of green buying and green satisfaction. Foroudi P, editor. Cogent Business & Management. 2021;8: 1920559.
      • 93. Sahoo N, Dellarocas C, Srinivasan S. The Impact of Online Product Reviews on Product Returns. Information Systems Research. 2018;29: 723–738.
      • 94. Huang Q, Zheng X, Zhang M, Zhang X. Agent-based modeling of the word-of-mouth effect on promoting brand-name agricultural products. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination. 2022;17: 875–896.