Food Policy 35 (2010) 130–139

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol

Modeling the factors affecting rural consumers’ purchase of organic

and free-range produce: A case study of consumers’ from the
Island of Arran in Scotland, UK
Nina Michaelidou a,*, Louise M. Hassan b
a
University of Birmingham, Birmingham Business School, University House, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
b
School of Management and Languages, Heriot-Watt University, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper investigates the roles of personal, product related and economic factors in predicting rural
Received 25 July 2008 consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions towards organic and free-range produce. A conceptual
Received in revised form 16 September 2009 model is derived and tested via structural equation modeling on a sample of 222 rural consumers. The
Accepted 1 October 2009
results show that attitude is explained by consumers’ food safety concern, ethical lifestyle and price per-
ceptions. Attitude partially mediates the effects of ethical lifestyle and price on intention to purchase
organic produce as well as the effect of ethical lifestyle on intention to purchase free-range produce. Atti-
Keywords:
tude assumes a more central role in fully mediating the effect of food safety concern on intention to pur-
Organic
Free-range
chase organic produce, as well as the effect of price on intention to purchase free-range produce. Overall
Rural consumers the conceptual model of consumer decision making performs well in both organic and free-range con-
Structural equation modeling texts yielding similar results.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction as companies choose to adopt free-range only policies (e.g. Marks

The market value of organic produce in Europe has been
increasing in the last few years, currently estimated at €14 billion
(Briz and Ward, 2009; Datamonitor, 2008). The UK is the most rap-
idly growing market for organic produce (as cited by Wier et al.,
2008), estimated at around £3.1 billion (€3.9 billion Grocer,
2007). The range of organic produce continues to expand as a re-
sult of the growing market potential (Mintel, 2005). Organic pro-
duce derives from a farming system which restricts the use of
chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Livestock is farmed with restric-
tions in terms of the use of drugs and antibiotics when compared
to conventional farming methods (www.soilassociation.org). Re-
search from the agricultural and marketing domains shows that
motives driving the purchase of organic produce include social/cul-
tural factors (e.g. societal views), economic factors (e.g. price),
product factors (e.g. sensory perceptions and quality) and personal
factors (e.g. health perceptions and emotions) (Grunert and Juhl,
1995; Hughner et al., 2007; Thomson, 1998; Verhoef, 2005;
Williams and Hammitt, 2001).
Alike organic, the free-range market has been expanding as con-
sumers turn away from large-scale intensively produced food and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1214148318.
E-mail addresses: n.michaelidou@bham.ac.uk (N. Michaelidou), L.M.Hassan@
hw.ac.uk (L.M. Hassan).
and Spencer). Free-range refers to a method of farming where ani-
mals are given freedom to roam rather than being in a restricted
space as it is common in the intensive-farming system. Compared
to organic, the free-range system focuses mainly on the welfare in
terms of the living condition of animals and has less strict guide-
lines about feeding and the use of drugs and antibiotics (Mintel,
2006). A greater range of free-range produce is now available with
produce like free-range eggs being strongly established (Mintel,
2008). Free-range eggs and poultry are the most popular products,
with free-range hens accounting for one third of all hens and over
one quarter of all eggs sold (Defra, 2007).
In spite of the proliferation of free-range produce in the market
place, there is a dearth of literature which focuses on free-range
produce and the factors that drive consumers to buy them. Previ-
ous studies in this area have focused on understanding taste pref-
erences between conventional, organic and free-range produce
(Lawlor et al., 2003); understanding category specific purchase
decisions (e.g. eggs; Baltzer, 2004; Fearne and Lavelle, 1996) as
well as examining the context of food purchases (e.g. famers mar-
kets; Holloway and Kneafsey, 2000). Most previous research has
mainly explored the individual or combined impact of factors on
consumers’ attitude and/or preference for organic foods (e.g. Chen,
2007; Gifford and Bernard, 2006; Lockie et al., 2002). Research
examining differences in the motivating factors behind consumers
choosing organic and choosing free-range produce is very limited.

0306-9192/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.10.001
 N. Michaelidou, L.M. Hassan / Food Policy 35 (2010) 130–139
However, one cannot assume that the views, attitudes and motiva-
tions of consumers are consistent across these two behavioral
contexts.
Given this research gap, the objective of this study is to investi-
gate the roles of specific factors in shaping attitude and purchase
intention towards organic and free-range produce using a sample
of rural consumers. Scant attention has been paid to issues on food
shopping in rural communities (McEachern and Warnaby, 2006).
According to the Countryside Agency (2001) 80% of rural house-
holds live within 4 km of a supermarket with access predomi-
nantly by car or bus. However a significant number of rural
communities are isolated in the sense that access to major super-
markets is prohibitively costly in terms of monetary value, time
and effort. We aim to address a research gap focusing on such iso-
lated rural communities. In particular, we aim to comprehensively
model pertinent factors in consumer decision making across both
organic and free-range food choice contexts and compare and con-
trast the results obtained. This is important as previous research
has focused on specific product categories and it is not yet known
whether or not the same decision-making model is relevant. To
achieve this, we build a model to explore decision making in both
contexts using Shepherd’s (1989) categorization of food prefer-
ences and choice. Specifically, we examine product-related (food
safety), consumer-related (health consciousness, ethical lifestyle)
and economic-related (price) factors in shaping consumer attitude
and purchase intention across organic and free-range food
choice contexts. The following sections discuss the theoretical
model and the research hypotheses. The methodology is then
outlined and findings are presented. A discussion follows with
implications and suggestions for future research.
Theoretical model and development of hypotheses
Several models have been proposed to categorize complex food
choice behavior (e.g. Furst et al., 1996; Wadolowska et al., 2008;
Steptoe et al., 1995). Most notably among these is the conceptual-
ization of Shepherd (1989). This approach classifies food choice
factors into three distinct groups. First, product-related factors
concerned with the sensory, chemical and physical aspects of the
food as well as nutrient content and functional aspects of the prod-
uct. The second group contains consumer-related, physiological ef-
fects and psychological factors while the third group contains
external social and economic factors such as culture, societal
views, and the price of the product. We draw on this conceptuali-
zation of the determinants of food choice in framing our concep-
tual model (see Fig. 1).
The model is utilized across the contexts of organic and free-
range produce to uncover potential differences in the factors which
drive attitude and intention in these two contexts. Given the lack
of previous research which specifically models consumers’ decision
making with regard to free-range produce, we use literature from
general and other specific food choice contexts to justify our
hypotheses. Specifically, we take as a priori that the same choice
model can be applied across these two contexts, albeit the salience
of the factors affecting attitude and intention may differ between
the two contexts. Hypotheses are thus posited to be the same
across both organic and free-range contexts.
Food safety concern
Food safety refers to consumers’ concern about residues in food
resulting from chemical sprays, fertilizers, artificial additives and
preservatives and is linked to farming methods (Yee et al., 2005).
Previous research suggests that food-safety perceptions are impor-
tant considerations in food policy that can have an impact on food
131
choice (Grunert, 2005). The concept of food safety can be concep-
tualized in terms of pesticides and food additives (e.g. Dosman
et al., 2001; Knight and Warland, 2004). Although food safety can
incorporate other factors such as microbiological and animal dis-
ease-related safety issues (e.g. BSE, Foot and Mouth etc.), as a result
of the intensification process in agriculture considerations such as
the use of additives, chemicals, preservatives and hormones in veg-
etables, fruits and processed foods, are pertinent factors in the con-
ceptualization of food safety concern (de Jonge et al., 2008;
Mergenthaler et al., 2009). Williams and Hammitt (2000) found
that consumers believe organic produce poses fewer risks than
conventional food and that lower pesticide-related mortality risks
are associated with the production and consumption of organically
grown produce.
Similarly, consumers who buy free-range are concerned with
safety issues in relation to large scale production methods. Con-
sumers may be concerned about the conditions the animals are
kept since these affect the state of health of the animals and
can pose food safety risks (Harper and Makatouni, 2002). Free-
range produce such as poultry and eggs are considered safer
foods since the free-range production system requires that farm-
ers comply with a series of strict guidelines to ensure safety stan-
dards, including vaccination of the animals against salmonella, a
‘best before date’ on every egg and a code of practice on how ani-
mals are fed (Mintel, 2006). Further, previous research has shown
that food safety concerns drive attitudes towards organic produce
(Michaelidou and Hassan, 2008). Within the context of value-
based meat purchasing, food safety has been found to explain
purchase behavior (McEachern and Schroder, 2004) but in the
context of organic produce Michaelidou and Hassan (2008) did
not find a relationship between food safety concern and purchase
intention. Given these findings, we believe that consumers’ con-
cerns about food safety will affect their attitudes toward organic
and free-range produce but will not influence intention to pur-
chase organic or free-range produce. As such we hypothesize
that:
H1. Food safety concern positively affects attitude towards (a)
organic produce and (b) free-range produce.
H2. Attitude fully mediates the effect of food safety concern on
intention to purchase (a) organic produce and (b) free-range
produce.
Ethical lifestyle
Organic produce consumption is related to an ‘ethical lifestyle’
sustained by personal values and moral beliefs (Schifferstein and
Oude Ophuis, 1998). Previous research has found that compared
to conventional food buyers, organic food buyers were more likely
to report engaging in a variety of environmentally friendly behav-
iors (Williams and Hammitt, 2000). Similarly, previous research
shows that consumers of organic, free-range, green or health prod-
ucts are motivated by ethical and environmental issues (e.g.
Honkanen et al., 2006; McEachern and McClean, 2002). These con-
sumers are likely to have adopted an ethical lifestyle, manifested
via a range of behaviors including consumption of environmentally
friendly, ethical, fairly-traded or locally-produced products, pro-
environmental behaviors (e.g. recycling) or even product boycot-
ting (Brom, 2000; Carrigan et al., 2004; Laroche et al., 2001).
Previous research links the concept of lifestyle to food con-
sumption (e.g. Brunsø et al., 2004; Chen, 2009). Lifestyle which
can be viewed as comprising of both cognitive and conative ele-
ments (e.g. disposition to behave in a certain way) has been found
to explain attitude (Chen, 2009) and behavior (Brunsø et al., 2004).
Specifically, Chen (2009) found that adopting a healthy lifestyle
had a direct impact on attitude towards organic foods. While
132 N. Michaelidou, L.M. Hassan / Food Policy 35 (2010) 130–139
Product
Food safety
H2**
concern
H1
Ethical
lifestyle
Personal
Health
H6**
consciousness
Economic Price
Fig. 1. Conceptual model. Note: Correlations are not depicted in Fig. 1.
Brunsø et al. (2004) tested six competing models and concluded
that a model whereby lifestyle has a direct effect on behavior is
superior. In line with previous research we consider ethical life-
style in this study as the disposition to engage in a wide range of
ethical or green behaviors which cover environmental, animal
and social issues in accordance with one’s personal values. Thus,
consumers who adopt an ethical lifestyle are expected to have po-
sitive attitude and intention towards organic and free-range pro-
duce. On this basis we hypothesize that:
H3. Ethical lifestyle positively affects attitude towards (a)
organic produce and (b) free-range produce.
H4. Attitude at least partially mediates the effect of ethical life-
style on intention to purchase (a) organic produce and (b) free-
range produce.
Health consciousness
Health consciousness assesses the readiness to undertake
health actions (Becker et al., 1977) and is defined as ‘the degree
to which health concerns are integrated into a person’s daily activities’
(Jayanti and Burns, 1998: p. 10). Health conscious consumers are
aware of and concerned about the state of their wellbeing. They
are motivated to improve and/or maintain their health and quality
of life as well as preventing ill health, by engaging in healthy
behaviors and being self-conscious regarding their state of health
(Gould, 1988; Jayanti and Burns, 1998).
Previous research shows that health is a key motive driving
food consumption (Furst et al., 1996; Steptoe et al., 1995). Health
conscious individuals tend to be aware of and involved with nutri-
tion, and adopt a healthy eating habit (Kraft and Goodell, 1993). In
addition, they tend to buy high quality, nutritious, healthy, or func-
tional foods which help enhance wellbeing and tend to avoid foods
with additives or preservatives (Mason and Scammon, 1999;
Maynard and Franklin, 2003). Therefore consumers who are more
health conscious are likely to have a more favorable attitude to-
wards produce which are free-range or organic since those foods
are perceived as healthier and to contain more nutrients (Harper
and Makatouni, 2002; Rembiakowska, 2007).
H4
H3
H9
Attitude Intention
H5
H7 Control variables:
Gender
Age
Household income
H8 Diet
Dependents in household
Main purchaser of food

Indicates a fully mediated hypothesis.
Magnusson et al. (2003) found health concerns to be a strong
predictor of attitude and purchase intention towards organic pro-
duce. Other research has refuted health consciousness as a predic-
tor of purchase intention towards organic produce (Michaelidou
and Hassan, 2008; Tarkiainen and Sundqvist, 2005). Given these
research findings we suggest that health is a motivator for consum-
ers to form positive attitudes towards organic and free-range pro-
duce but that health considerations do not directly influence
purchase behavior. Thus:
H5. Health consciousness positively affects attitude towards (a)
organic produce and (b) free-range produce.
H6. Attitude fully mediates the effect of health consciousness on
intention to purchase (a) organic produce and (b) free-range
produce.
Price perception
Consumers’ perceptions of price impact food consumption
(Furst et al., 1996; Steptoe et al., 1995; Wadolowska et al., 2008).
Grunert (2005) argued that consumers view prices of food in rela-
tion to quality and food safety, and the extent to which prices im-
pact food choice depends on consumers’ tendency to process price
information. Furthermore, consumers state that they are willing to
pay a higher price for organic food (Batte et al., 2007).
Previous research reports conflicting findings with regard to the
impact of price on consumption of organic food. Verhoef (2005) re-
ported that price affects purchases of organic meat among Dutch
consumers, and that price perceptions have a significant negative
effect on both choice and purchase frequency of organic meat. Fur-
thermore, Briz and Ward (2009) found that demand for organic
produce declines when these are perceived as expensive. However,
Chen (2007) and Tarkiainen and Sundqvist (2005) did not find a
significant effect of price on attitude or on purchase intention
regarding organic produce. Nevertheless, we believe that price is
an important deterrent from purchasing organic and free-range
produce and therefore expect that consumers who view organic
and free-range produce as expensive will have less positive atti-
tudes and lower intentions to purchase these goods. Thus we
 N. Michaelidou, L.M. Hassan / Food Policy 35 (2010) 130–139
hypothesize that price will be at least partially mediated by
attitude:
H7. Price negatively affects attitude towards (a) organic produce
and (b) free-range produce.
H8. Attitude at least partially mediates the effect of price on
intention to purchase (a) organic produce and (b) free-range
produce.
Attitude and intention
In the context of organic produce, attitude has been found to
have strong correlational relationships with purchase intention
and purchase behavior. Magnusson et al. (2003), Tarkiainen and
Sundqvist (2005) and Chen (2007) found attitude to explain pur-
chase intention. In line with this research we hypothesize that:
H9. Attitude positively affects purchase intention toward (a)
organic produce and (b) free-range produce.
Control variables
Previous research suggests that attitude and behavior towards
organic food consumption vary between population subgroups
(e.g. Batte et al., 2007; Hughner et al., 2007; Wier et al., 2008). In
particular, socio-demographic factors such as household income,
gender, education level and the presence of children under 16 af-
fect individuals’ perceptions, attitude and behavior in the context
of organic produce consumption. For example, Wier et al. (2008)
found that disposable income, age and education level affect pur-
chases of organic produce. Specifically, the authors found a higher
propensity to purchase organic produce among the middle and
upper class households. Additionally, Nayga (1996), reported that
gender, income and education are associated with food-safety per-
ceptions. Knight and Warland (2004) found that women, African–
American and older individuals are more likely to be concerned
about food safety than men, Caucasian and younger individuals.
Wandel and Bugge (1997) found that older consumers are more
concerned about healthiness when buying organic produce com-
pared to younger consumers. Research has also suggested the or-
ganic buyers are more likely to be vegetarians (Harper and
Makatouni, 2002). Hence in this study we include several control
variables in our model these being: gender; age; household in-
come; diet; dependents at home; and whether or not the respon-
dent is the main purchaser of food for their household.
Methodology
Sample and measures
Data were collected from a convenience sample of 222 rural
consumers from the Island of Arran in Scotland using a self-com-
pletion questionnaire. The Island of Arran has over 5000 inhabit-
ants and one main town with several villages and hamlets (12
settlements in total). The Island has one main supermarket and a
collection of smaller retail outlets. A regular ferry service operates
from the main town of Brodick to the mainland (Scotland) and the
journey lasts approximately 1 h.
Current research on rural consumers in the UK and Europe is
limited, despite the fact that 56% of the EU population lives in rural
areas (Agricultural and Rural Development, 2008). In the UK 19.3%
of consumers live in rural areas (Rural Communities, 2009). There-
fore rural consumers are a large and important segment of the pop-
ulation which is understudied. Furthermore, attitudes to food,
farming and shopping have been found to differ between urban
133
and rural consumers (McEachern and Warnaby, 2006; Oygard,
2000; Weatherell et al., 2003). For example, Weatherell et al.
(2003) found that urban and rural consumers differ in their percep-
tions of meat quality and their awareness and perception of farm-
ers’ markets. Specifically, urban consumers consider pre-packed
meat as of better quality, whereas rural consumers associate meat
from local butchers as better than pre-packed meat. Further, urban
consumers were found to believe that buying from farmers’ mar-
kets is old-fashioned, whereas rural consumers indicate that they
tend to buy food from farms more because they view it as of higher
quality (Weatherell et al., 2003).
The self-completion questionnaire was administered in several
locations around the Island including at the major supermarket on
two separate occasions as well as on the ferry crossings. The re-
searcher approached consumers on both crossings from the main-
land and crossings to the mainland on four separate occasions. The
researcher used filter questions to recruit only participants who
live on the Island. The questionnaire was pilot tested and a comple-
tion incentive was offered to increase response rate.
The survey instrument was based on prior literature with atti-
tude and intention measures developed based on Ajzen (1991).
The ethical lifestyle statements were based on previous literature
on ethical and green behaviors (Brom, 2000; Carrigan et al.,
2004; Keynote, 2002; Laroche et al., 2001). The measures of food
safety concern and price were adapted from measures contained
in Roddy et al. (1996) and health consciousness was measured
using two items from the scale developed by Gould (1988) (see
‘Appendix’ A).
Participants were asked to complete separate attitude and
intention items as well as price perceptions relating firstly to or-
ganic produce and secondly to free-range produce. To assist
respondents we gave definitions of organic and free-range produce,
in line with previous research. Organic produce was defined as
‘natural foods derived from sources that are on the whole free of
pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, additives, preservatives and re-
fined or genetically modified ingredients’. Free-range produce
was defined as ‘produce deriving from a production method in
which animals are not farmed in large scale factories but, instead,
are provided with conditions that allow them to range and forage
with relative freedom’.
Analysis method and strategy
We analyzed our conceptual model using structural equation
modeling (SEM). SEM is a technique embracing both dependence
and interdependence relationships, which can be considered as
an extension to multiple regression. The technique estimates a ser-
ies of regression equations simultaneously, where these equations
are separate but interdependent. A unique property of the tech-
nique is its ability to accommodate a series of interrelated depen-
dence relationships (i.e. layering). The technique also incorporates
factor analysis, with the aim of explaining constructs or latent fac-
tors which are not directly observable, but are modeled through a
set of indicator or reflective variables. It differs from factor analysis
in its approach, as with SEM the structural relationships between
the constructs are specified before analysis is undertaken, thus
the technique lends itself ideally to model or theory testing.
Many indicators of the fit of the model are available (see Hair et
al. (1998) for a comprehensive discussion of fit indices). We recom-
mend that the choice of fit indices and goodness of fit criteria uti-
lized follow that of Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998). Thus the
appropriate fit measures are the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root-
Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Tucker–Lewis
(nonnormed) Index (TLI) which is also known as the Nonnormed
Fit Index (NNFI), the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the
v2/df ratio. Bentler (1990) proposed that the incremental indices
134 N. Michaelidou, L.M. Hassan / Food Policy 35 (2010) 130–139

CFI and TLI, which are less affected by sample size, should also be (for full mediation) or is significantly reduced (for partial
considered in assessing model fit. Williams and Holahan (1994), in mediation).
a simulation study, found the fit measures RMSEA, TLI and AIC to Given that, demographic factors have been found to influence
be effective in contrasting between correctly and incorrectly spec- the constructs within our model (see our control variables section)
ified models. we included gender, age, income, diet, dependents within the
The indices CFI and TLI are considered acceptable above a household and whether the respondent was the main purchaser
value of .90, however some researchers advocate a .95 limit of food for the household as control variables. We specified casual
(Hu and Bentler, 1999). An RMSEA value of less than .05 is indica- paths between each of the six control variables and the two out-
tive of a close fit, values at .08 or below are often considered fair, come constructs attitude and intention. In addition we correlated
with values over .1 indicating poor fit (Browne and Cudeck, each of the control variables with each other and with the predic-
1993; Browne and Du Toit, 1992). The AIC should be minimized tor constructs (food safety, ethical lifestyle, health consciousness
and therefore close to zero, however no formal acceptable limits and price).
have been established. The v2/df ratio is acceptable in the region
of a ratio below 3 (Carmines and McIver, 1981). Analysis and results
To test for mediating relationships the procedure outlined by
Baron and Kenny (1986) and Holmbeck (1997) was used. These Sample characteristics
authors outlined the three models which are to be analyzed and
four conditions which must hold to confirm partial or full media- The sample comprises 159 (72%) females, with the majority
tion. Thus, to establish if the construct attitude mediates the rela- (73%) of the sample being the main purchaser of food for their
tionship between the antecedents (food safety, ethical lifestyle, household, and with most of the sample in employment (82%).
health consciousness and price) and intention the following must Around one third of the sample have dependents under 16 years
be satisfied: (1) the predictor variables (food safety, ethical life- of age living at home, 68% of the sample are married or living with
style, health consciousness and price) significantly impact the a partner. The respondents’ age ranged from 15 to over 65 years.
dependent construct (intention) in the expected direction; (2) the Table 1 provides details of the sample characteristics and Table 2
predictor variables (food safety, ethical lifestyle, health conscious- provides descriptive statistics for the measures obtained. Compar-
ness and price) significantly impact the mediator (attitude) in the ing the sample characteristics with population census data from
expected direction; (3) the mediator (attitude) significantly im- 2001 (Scottish Census, 2001) indicates that the sample is biased to-
pacts the dependent construct (intention) in the expected direc- wards female respondents and contains a smaller proportion of re-
tion; and (4) after controlling for the effects of the mediator tired persons.
(attitude), the impact of the predictor variables (food safety, ethical
lifestyle, health consciousness and price) on the dependent con-
Reliability and validity
struct (intention) is either not significantly different from zero
Table 3 provides Cronbach alpha and composite reliability val-
ues for the scales as well as the average variance extracted (AVE)
and exploratory factor analysis results. The alpha values are all
Table 1
Sample characteristics (n = 222). above the recommended level of 0.7 (Hair et al., 1998). In addition,
exploratory factor analyses (EFA) for each scale revealed that each
Characteristic Percentage Characteristic Percentage
construct is unidimensional with the scree plots indicating one
Gender Age dominant factor for each scale. The EFA yielded over 50% variance
Female 71.6 15–19 5.0
explained by a single factor for each of the scales examined across
Diet 20–24 6.8
Omnivore 91.0 25–34 9.5 both contexts. In order to fully assess the reliability and validity of
Vegetarian 9.0 35–44 29.7 the two models, initial measurement models were assessed via
Dependents under 16 at 45–54 21.6 confirmatory factor analysis. The models provided good fit
home (n2121 ¼ 227:41, p < 0.001, with GFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95,
Yes 32.4 55–64 18.5
Main purchaser of food in 65+ 9.0
RMSEA = 0.063, and AIC = 327.41 for organic produce and
household n2121 ¼ 264:33, p < 0.001, with GFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.93,
Yes 73.4 Household RMSEA = 0.073, and AIC = 362.33 for free-range produce) according
income (£) to the usual conventions (Hair et al., 1998; Hu and Bentler, 1999).
Employment Below 10,000 18.8
All standardized loadings are 0.6 or above and are significant at
Full-time 58.6 10,000–25,000 40.4
Part-time 23.0 25,000–40,000 28.0 p < .001. Given the absence of cross-loadings, convergent validity
Unemployed 9.5 40,000 or above 12.8 is obtained.
Retired 9.0 In terms of construct reliability, the AVE for all constructs are
generally acceptable with values above 0.45, although values

Table 2
Descriptive statistics.

Variable Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Intention to purchase 3.24 (2.12) [4.09 (1.87)] – .61 .25 .46 .08 .17
2. Attitude 1.62 (1.44) [2.19 (.98)] .67 – .27 .43 .12 .22
3. Food safety concern 1.76 (1.19) .40 .50 – .44 .22 .28
4. Ethical lifestyle .86 (1.04) .52 .52 .44 – .13 .00
5. Health consciousness 1.35 (1.42) .14 .21 .23 .13 – .13
6. Price 1.68 (1.48) [1.02 (1.60)] .35 .25 .04 .26 .03 –

Lower triangle correlations refers to organic produce while the upper triangle correlations refer to free- range produce. Figures in square parentheses are for free-range
produce.
 N. Michaelidou, L.M. Hassan / Food Policy 35 (2010) 130–139 135

Table 3
Reliability and factor analysis results.

Variable No. of items Alpha (corr) Construct reliability AVE % Variance extracted Eigen value (range of loadings)
Intention to purchase organic 3 .96 .97 .90 93.31 2.78 (.95 to .98)
Intention to purchase free-range 3 .97 .97 .92 94.94 2.85 (.97 to .98)
Attitude toward organic 2 .97 (.94) .97 .94 96.78 1.94 (.98)
Attitude toward free-range 2 .95 (.91) .95 .91 95.42 1.91 (.98)
Food safety concern 3 .70 .71 .45 62.99 1.89 (.78 to .83)
Ethical lifestyle 7 .83 .86 .47 53.94 3.78 (.68 to .78)
Health consciousness 2 (.83) .91 .85 91.66 1.83 (.96)

AVE is average variance extracted; single item constructs are not included in the table.

above 0.5 are the normal rule of thumb and construct reliability and H7b, but differing results are found for the mediating role of
values are acceptable being above 0.7. Finally, discriminant validity attitude on the relationship between price and intention. For the
was assessed using the procedure of Fornell and Larcker (1981) by organic context attitude is found to partially mediate the effect
determining if the squared correlation between each pair of con- of price, in the case of free-range produce attitude fully mediates
structs was less than either of the AVEs for the pair of constructs. the effect of price, therefore H8a and H8b are both supported.
This is true for all pairs of constructs in the model, thereby provid- Across both contexts a strong positive relationship is found be-
ing evidence of discriminant validity between the constructs. tween attitude and intention supporting H9a and H9b.
The influence of control variables is limited and inconsistent
across the models and contexts. We find some support for a direct
Structural model analysis
effect of income and diet on attitudes towards both organic and
free-range produce. Income was also found to be a predictor of
The three models outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) and
intention to purchase free-range produce. Low correlations
Holmbeck (1997) were then analyzed, the results of the models
(r < .31) were found between all control variable variables and food
are provided in Tables 4 and 5. Overall the model fit is good for
safety concern, ethical lifestyle, health consciousness and price.
both the organic and free-range models and is similar across the
Therefore the influence of the control variables was marginal. In
models analyzed. Chi-square difference tests show that Model 3
terms of the explanatory power of the models R2 values for attitude
is the best fitting model for both contexts and thus is the appropri-
and intention were lower from the context of free-range produce
ate model for making interpretations.1
(R2 = .29 for attitude and R2 = .43 for intention) than the organic
We find that food safety concern affects attitude (supporting
context (R2 = .43 for attitude and R2 = .53 for intention). This sug-
H1a) but not intention and is fully mediated (supporting H2a) as
gests that other important factors are not included in the model,
predicted for the organic produce context. For the free-range con-
for example sensory factors such as smell and taste in explaining
text, food safety concern affects attitude (supporting H1b). How-
attitude, and social norm and barriers in explaining intention.
ever, food safety concern is not mediated by attitude because in
To further validate the results of our mediation analysis we em-
Model 2 food safety concern does not impact intention (H2b is
ployed bootstrapping techniques (in line with Shrout and Bolger,
not supported).
2002) to test the significance of the indirect effects. According to
Ethical lifestyle positively impacts attitude in both contexts
Shrout and Bolger (2002) if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for
therefore H3a and H3b are supported. Additionally, the strength
the estimate of the indirect effect contains zero then no mediation
of the impact of ethical lifestyle on intention is reduced in both
is evidenced. Utilizing 1000 bootstrap samples, lower and upper
contexts when attitude is included (comparing beta weights across
bounds for the estimates were calculated for Model 3 for both con-
Models 2 and 3). This therefore lends support for H4a and H4b that
texts. The results of the analysis confirmed that for the organic
attitude partially mediates the effect of ethical lifestyle on
context, the indirect effects of food safety concern (B = .30, CI:
intention.
.15, .49), ethical lifestyle (B = .29, CI: .15, .47) and price (B = .09,
Health consciousness does not impact attitude or intention in
CI: .16, .04) on intention are significantly different from zero
either context and therefore H5a and H5b are not supported. We
and thus these constructs are mediated by attitude. However, no
also anticipated that the affect of health consciousness would be
mediation occurs for health consciousness (B = .06, CI: .01, .15).
fully mediated by attitude (H6a and H6b) and this again is not sup-
For the free-range context the indirect effects of food safety con-
ported empirically for the contexts. Lastly price is found to nega-
cern (B = .14, CI: .05, .34), ethical lifestyle (B = .29, CI: .15, .53),
tively affect attitude in both contexts finding support for H7a
price (B = .13, CI: .22, .06) and health consciousness (B = .04,
1
CI: .03, .15) on intention reveal that only ethical lifestyle and
A stream of research has investigated the potential impacts of demographic
factors on the constructs in our model (e.g. Wier et al., 2008; Batte et al., 2007;
price are mediated by attitude. These results provide further evi-
Hughner et al., 2007). Of particular note is research which has addressed the influence dence in support of the hypotheses on mediation effects.
of demographic factors on food safety concern (e.g. Nayga, 1996; Mergenthaler et al.,
2009). Given the interest in this area of research and the positive findings found we
investigated a rival model whereby all demographic factors were specified to explain Summary of results
all constructs under investigation. For the organic produce context the results on each
of the hypotheses tested remain unchanged. In this expanded model, food safety Of the 18 relationships hypothesized across the context 13
concern (R2 = .09) was found to be influenced by both gender and age; ethical lifestyle
hypotheses have been supported (see Table 6). Contrary to previ-
(R2 = .14) was found to be explained by gender and diet; health consciousness
(R2 = .06) was explained by number of dependents, and price (R2 = .05) was explained ous research (e.g. Michaelidou and Hassan, 2008), health con-
by income. Overall however the explanation of the constructs by the demographic sciousness does not explain attitude towards organic or free-
factors was low and the fit of the model was poorer than those previously specified range produce. In their study on organic produce Michaelidou
based on a Chi-square difference test (Dn224 ¼ 67:71, p < .001). The findings for the and Hassan (2008) did not consider lifestyle or price as anteced-
free-range context mirrors that of the organic context with results for all hypotheses
again unchanged, near identical R2 values for the antecedents and significant Chi-
ents of attitude. In our study both ethical lifestyle and price are
square difference (Dn224 ¼ 62:54, p < .001). Thus Model 3 can be accepted as the final shown to be significant determinants of consumers’ attitude and
model for interpretation. purchase intention in the organic context. It is likely that the pres-
136 N. Michaelidou, L.M. Hassan / Food Policy 35 (2010) 130–139

Table 4
Mediation results for organic model.

Fit v2 df n2diff dfdiff CFI GFI TLI RMSEA AIC

Model 1 330.60 197 .95 .89 .93 .056 536.60

Model 2 261.74 161 .95 .90 .93 .054 445.74
Model 3 307.14 193 23.46 4 .96 .90 .94 .052 521.14

Model 1: fully mediated Model 2: PV affects DV Model 3: fully specified model

Food safety concern ? attitude .44 (.35)*** .44 (.35)***
Ethical lifestyle ? attitude .44 (.33)*** .43 (.32)***
Health consciousness ? attitude .08 (.08) .08 (.08)
Price ? attitude .13 (.14)* .13 (.14)*
Gender ? attitude .18 (.06) .18 (.06)
Age ? attitude .04 (.04) .03 (.04)
Income ? attitude .20 (.14)* .20 (.13)*
Diet ? attitude .59 (.12) * .60 (.13)*
Dependents in household ? attitude .13 (.04) .13 (.04)
Main purchaser of food ? attitude .28 (.09) .28 (.09)
Food safety concern ? intention .38 (.22)** .07 (.04)
Ethical lifestyle ? intention .68 (.38)*** .39 (.22)**
Health consciousness ? intention .08 (.06) .02 (.01)
Price ? intention .28 (.22)*** .20 (.16)**
Gender ? intention .08 (.02) .08 (.02) .05 (.01)
Age ? intention .04 (.03) .00 (.00) .02 (.02)
Income ? intention .17 (.08) .32 (.16)** .19 (.09)
Diet ? intention .45 (.07) .15 (.02) .56 (.09)
Dependents in household ? intention .42 (.11)* .22 (.05) .30 (.08)
Main purchaser of food ? intention .05 .29 (.07) .11 (.03)
Attitude ? intention .91 (.68)*** .69 (.51)**
2
R .43
Attitude .44 .53
Intention .47 .39

Note: Paths not in parentheses are unstandardized and paths in parentheses are standardized. Italics is used to represent control variable paths.
PV = predictor variable; DV = dependent variable.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

ence of ethical lifestyle and price in our model has diminished the
direct effect of a more distal construct that of health consciousness.
Our finding is in line with Tarkiainen and Sundqvist (2005) and
Brunsø and Scholderer (2001) who refute health consciousness as
a key driver for shaping attitude towards organic produce. Thus,
this finding highlights the reducing role of health consciousness
in predicting attitude towards organic and free-range produce as
suggested by previous research (Honkanen et al., 2006).
Our findings show that food safety concern exerts a direct effect
on attitude but not on intention across both organic and free-range
produce. However, the indirect effect of food safety concern on
intention is only present in the organic context.
Further, in our study, attitude and purchase intention towards
organic and free-range produce are found to be driven by ethical
lifestyle. This is in line with Chen (2009) who found lifestyle to ex-
plain attitude towards organic produce. Previous research also sug-
gests that environmental and ethical factors are becoming more
salient in shaping attitudes towards organic products. Specifically,
Honkanen et al. (2006) found that environmental and animal wel-
fare concerns have a strong influence on attitude towards organic
produce. McEachern and McClean (2002) highlighted that environ-
mental and animal welfare reasons explain the high demand for
organic produce. Our finding highlights that consumers’ ethical
and environmental concerns and disposition to engage in ethical
behaviors have an impact on their attitude and purchase intention
towards organic and free-range produce. Thus, consumers are
increasingly concerned about ethical consumption and the state
of the environment and this has an impact on food consumption
and specifically on the demand for organic and free-range produce.
Lastly, our results also showed that price negatively impacts
attitudes towards organic and free-range produce and directly
influences intention towards organic produce. Overall the role of
price in our model is consistent with the research in agricultural
economics (e.g. Verhoef, 2005). We also found that income was re-
lated to both attitude (in the organic context) and purchase inten-
tion (in the free-range context) reinforcing the economic aspect of
consumption of organic and free-range products. Thus consumers
with a higher income had a more positive attitude towards organic
produce and a stronger intention to purchase free-range produce.
In line with other authors we did not find other demographic fac-
tors such as gender, age, dependents under 16 within the house-
hold to be significant (e.g. Verhoef, 2005) although we note that
some studies have found significant differences (e.g. Wier et al.,
2008).
Conclusions and implications
Overall, comparisons across these two food choice contexts re-
veal that the factors driving consumers’ decisions to purchase or-
ganic and free-range produce are similar but differences do exist
in the magnitude of factors influencing consumers’ attitude and
purchase intention. The same three antecedents (food safety con-
cern, ethical lifestyle and price) explain variance in attitude for
both contexts. However the relative impact of these antecedents
differs in terms of the role of food safety concern which is stronger
for the organic context but weaker for the free-range context. This
is likely due to the fact that consumers of organic produce place a
higher value on food safety in terms of presence of pesticides and
additives whereas animal welfare issues are more important driver
of consumers’ choice for free-range produce. The drivers of pur-
chase intention are also similar across the two contexts except
 N. Michaelidou, L.M. Hassan / Food Policy 35 (2010) 130–139 137

Table 5
Mediation results for free-range model.

Fit v2 df n2diff dfdiff CFI GFI TLI RMSEA AIC

Model 1 363.60 197 .94 .88 .91 .062 559.60

Model 2 304.83 161 .93 .89 .91 .064 488.83
Model 3 353.07 193 10.53 4 .94 .89 .92 .062 567.07

Model 1: fully mediated Model 2: PV affects DV Model 3: fully specified model

Food safety concern ? attitude .17 (.20)* .16 (.19)*
Ethical lifestyle ? attitude .33 (.36)*** .32 (.36)***
Health consciousness ? attitude .05 (.07) .05 (.07)
Price ? attitude .15 (.25)*** .15 (.25)*
Gender ? attitude .02 (.01) .02 (.01)
Age ? attitude .07 (.10) .06 (.10)
Income ? attitude .05 (.04) .04 (.04)
Diet ? attitude .29 (.09) * .29 (.09)
Dependents in household ? attitude .04 (.02) .04 (.02)
Main purchaser of food ? attitude .20 (.10) .21 (.10)
Food safety concern ? intention .21 (.13) .07 (.04)
Ethical lifestyle ? intention .65 (.38)*** .36 (.21)**
Health consciousness ? intention .04 (.03) .01 (.01)
Price ? intention .19 (.18)** .06 (.06)
Gender ? intention .42 (.11) .27 (.07) .26 (.07)
Age ? intention .07 (.06) .02 (.02) .04 (.04)
Income ? intention .22 (.12)* .29 (.15)* .25 (.13)*
Diet ? intention .32 (.05) .46 (.08) .20 (.03)
Dependents in household ? intention .21 (.06) .13 (.04) .17 (.05)
Main purchaser of food ? intention .04 (.01) .30 (.08) .12 (.03)
Attitude ? intention 1.10 (.59)*** .90 (.48)***
R2
Attitude .30 .29
Intention .40 .27 .43

Note: Paths not in parentheses are unstandardized and paths in parentheses are standardized. Italics is used to represent control variable paths.
PV = predictor variable; DV = dependent variable.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

Table 6
Summary of results.

Hypothesis Organic context Free-range context

H1: Food safety concern ? attitude Supported Supported
H2: Attitude fully mediates the effect of food safety concern on intention to purchase Supported Not supported
H3: Ethical lifestyle ? attitude Supported Supported
H4: Attitude at least partially mediates the effect of ethical lifestyle on intention to purchase Supported (partial) Supported (partial)
H5: Health consciousness ? attitude Not supported Not supported
H6: Attitude fully mediates the effect of health consciousness on intention to purchase Not supported Not supported
H7: Price ? attitude Supported Supported
H8: Attitude at least partially mediates the effect of price on intention to purchase Supported (partial) Supported (full)
H9: Attitude ? intention Supported Supported

for the role of price which is significant in the organic but not in the
free-range context. One possible reason for this finding is the sig-
nificance of income as a determinant of intention in the free-range
context. In essence this implies that households with a higher in-
come have a greater tendency to purchase free-range produce
and as a result are possibly less price sensitive. Overall, we can con-
clude that the same consumer decision-making model can be used
to model consumer behavior with regard to purchases across these
two contexts.
The amount of variation explained in the model (Model 3) var-
ies across the two contexts, with the free-range model having low-
er explanatory power. This signals that other explanatory factors
might be necessary and should be included in the model. In a re-
view of factors affecting purchasing of organic produce Hughner
et al. (2007) identified 15 important factors underlying the pur-
chase of organic produce. A fuller examination with regards to
these factors for the free-range market might uncover other impor-
tant factors that would increase the explanatory power of our
model.
Although some research exists which assesses consumers eval-
uations of both organic and free-range products, this research
stream has not compared consumer decision making across these
contexts. The uniqueness of our study lies in comparing and con-
trasting the same consumer decision-making model across these
two produce categories. Moreover, we model rural consumers
decision making processes and in doing so add to a small but sig-
nificant field of research exploring rural consumers.
The results of this research have implications for the marketing
of these products to rural consumers and for food policy research-
ers. Retailers of organic and free-range produce should link these
produce with food safety and ethical concerns such as the use of
pesticides, the declining state of the environment and animal wel-
fare to promote these produce. Our study shows that health bene-
fits offer little value in promoting organic and free-range produce.
138 N. Michaelidou, L.M. Hassan / Food Policy 35 (2010) 130–139
Managers should also attempt to improve price perceptions as our
study shows that price negatively affects (a) attitude and intention
towards organic produce and (b) attitude towards free-range pro-
duce. This can be achieved by highlighting the quality and safety
attributes of such produce since consumers are likely to pay higher
prices for high quality and safe foods. For food policy researchers,
our model and findings support a consistent view of examining
both organic and free-range produce. This is important because
sufficient inroad has been made in terms of food policy regarding
organic produce (e.g. Briz and Ward, 2009) yet little research has
been conducted into the free-range context.
This study has some limitations. First, the choice of sample used
may affect the generalizability of the results. Second, the model
utilized for this research has a relatively lower predictive power
for explaining attitude and intention to purchase free-range pro-
duce. Further research is required to identify other potential fac-
tors which may increase our understanding of factors which
drive the purchase of free-range produce. Third, a larger sample
size with a random order in whether the respondent is presented
with the organic or free-range context first would also be benefi-
cial. Research should also be undertaken to explore our model in
other food contexts such as genetically modified produce and
across a wider population in order to test the generalizability of
the findings. One further interesting area to explore would be to
assess the model across urban and rural consumers’ and compare
the findings across different types of produce (e.g. organic, free-
range, locally produced or genetically modified produce).
Appendix A
Intention to purchase (7-point 0–6 scale, higher values indicate
stronger purchase intention).
I intend to purchase organic produce/free-range produce within
the next fortnight (Not at all to Definitely).
I want to purchase organic produce/free-range produce within
the next fortnight (Definitely do not to Definitely).
How likely is it that you will purchase organic/free-range pro-
duce within the next fortnight (Not at all likely to Very likely).
Attitude toward organic/free-range produce (7-point +3 to 3
scale, higher values indicate a more favorable attitude).
Favorable/unfavorable.
Positive/negative.
Food safety concern (7-point +3 to 3 strongly agree to strongly
disagree scale, higher values indicate a stronger concern for food
safety).
Nowadays most foods contain residues from chemical spays
and fertilisers.
I am very concerned about the amount of artificial additives and
preservatives in food.
The quality and safety of meat nowadays concerns me.
Ethical lifestyle (7-point +3 to 3 strongly agree to strongly dis-
agree scale, higher values indicate a stronger ethical concern).
I buy ethically produced food products.
I buy environmentally friendly non-food products (e.g. deter-
gents/cleaning products).
I would use a bank which advertises an ethical policy.
I would pay extra for more environmentally friendly cars and
fuel.
I choose products and brands which do not involve animals in
testing.
I would buy a car with environmentally friendly features.
I buy goods or services from charity retail outlets directly linked
to ethical methods of production.
Health consciousness (7-point +3 to 3 strongly agree to strongly
disagree scale, higher values indicate greater consciousness about
health).
I reflect about my health a lot.
I’m very self conscious about my health.
Price (7-point +3 to 3 strongly agree to strongly disagree scale,
higher values indicate a perception that organic is expensive).
Organic/free-range foods are expensive.
References
Agricultural and Rural Development Policy 2007–2013. <http://ec.europa.eu/
agriculture/rurdev/index_en.htm> (6 June 2008).
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organisational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 50 (2), 179–211.
Baltzer, K., 2004. Consumers’ willingness to pay for food quality-the case of eggs.
Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section C, Food Economics 1, 78–90.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1173–1182.
Batte, M.T., Hooker, N.H., Haab, T.C., Beaverson, J., 2007. Putting their money where
their mouths are: consumer willingness to pay for multi-ingredient, processed
organic food products. Food Policy 32, 145–159.
Becker, M.H., Maima, L.A., Kirscht, J.P., Haefner, D.P., Drachman, R.H., 1977. The
health belief model and predict model and prediction of dietary compliance. A
field experiment. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 18, 348–366.
Bentler, P.M., 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin 107, 238–246.
Briz, T., Ward, R.W., 2009. Consumer awareness of organic products in Spain: an
application of multinominal logit models. Food Policy. 34 (3), 295–304.
Brom, F.W.A., 2000. Food, consumer concern and trust: food ethics for globalizing
market. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 (2), 127–139.
Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen,
K.A., Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA,
pp. 136–162.
Browne, M.W., Du Toit, S.H.C., 1992. Automated fitting of nonstandard models.
Multivariate Behavioral Research 27, 269–300.
Brunsø, K., Scholderer, J., 2001. Consumer health consciousness and the organic
produce boom: fact or fiction. Appetite 37, 130.
Brunsø, K., Scholderer, J., Grunert, K.G., 2004. Closing the gap between values and
behavior—a means end theory of lifestyle. Journal of Business Research 57 (6),
665–670.
Carmines, E.G., McIver, J.P., 1981. Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In:
Bohrnstedt, G.W., Borgatta, E.F. (Eds.), Social Measurement: Current Issues.
Beverly Hills, Sage.
Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I., Wright, J., 2004. Shopping for a better world? An
interpretive study of the potential for ethical consumption within the older
market. Journal of Consumer Marketing 21 (6), 401–407.
Chen, M.-F., 2007. Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to
organic foods in Taiwan: moderating effects of food-related personality traits.
Food Quality and Preference 18, 1008–1021.
Chen, M.-F., 2009. Attitude toward organic foods among Taiwanese as related to
health consciousness, environmental attitudes, and the mediating effects of a
healthy lifestyle. British Food Journal 111 (2), 165–178.
Countryside Agency, 2001. Rural Message–to Use or Lose. The Farmers Guardian
(16th November). CMP Information Ltd., Preston.
Datamonitor, 2008. Organic Food: Global Industry Guide. Datamonitor Ltd., NY.
de Jonge, J., Van Trijp, H., Goddard, E., Frewer, L., 2008. Consumer confidence in the
safety of food in Canada and the Netherlands: the validation of a generic
framework. Food Quality and Preference 19, 439–451.
Defra (2007). Egg Statistics Notice. February 2007. Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs. <http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/
eggnotce.pdf>.
Dosman, D.M., Adamowicz, W.L., Hrudey, S.E., 2001. Socioeconomic determinants of
health and food safety-related risk perceptions. Risk Analysis 22 (2), 307–317.
Fearne, A., Lavelle, D., 1996. Perceptions of food ‘‘quality” and the power of
marketing communication: results of consumer research on a branded-egg
concept. Journal of Product and Brand Management 5 (2), 29–42.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing
Research 18, 39–50.
Furst, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C.A., Sobal, J., Winter-Falk, L., 1996. Food choice. A
conceptual model of the process. Appetite 26, 247–266.
Gifford, K., Bernard, J.C., 2006. Influencing consumer purchase likelihood of organic
produce. International Journal of Consumer Studies 30 (2), 155–165.
Gould, S.J., 1988. Consumer attitudes toward health and health care: a differential
perspective. Journal of Consumer Affairs 22 (1), 96–118.
Grocer, 2007. Sales of organic produce experience dramatic slowdown (16th June
2007).
Grunert, K.G., 2005. Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand.
European Review of Agricultural Economics 32 (3), 369–391.
Grunert, S.C., Juhl, H.J., 1995. Values, environmental attitudes and buying organic
produce. Journal of Economic Psychology 16, 36–62.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis.
Prentice Hall International, Hemel Hempstead.
Harper, G.C., Makatouni, A., 2002. Consumer perception of organic produce
production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal 104 (3–5), 287–299.
 N. Michaelidou, L.M. Hassan / Food Policy 35 (2010) 130–139
Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M., 2000. Reading the space of the farmers’ market: a
preliminary investigation from the UK. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (3), 285–299.
Holmbeck, G.N., 1997. Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in
the study of mediators and moderators: examples from the child-clinical and
paediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
65, 599–610.
Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B., Olsen, S.O., 2006. Ethical values and motives driving
organic produce choice. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 5 (5), 420–431.
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modelling 6, 1–55.
Hughner, S.R., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C.J., Stanton, J., 2007. Who are
organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase
organic food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6, 6–17.
Jayanti, R.K., Burns, A.C., 1998. The antecedents of preventive health care behavior:
an empirical study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 26 (1), 6–15.
Keynote, 2002. Green and Ethical Consumer Report 2002. Key Note Ltd., Hampton,
Middlesex.
Knight, A., Warland, R., 2004. The relationship between socio-demographics and
concern about food safety. Journal of Consumer Affairs 38 (1), 107–120.
Kraft, F.B., Goodell, P.W., 1993. Identifying the health conscious consumer. Journal
of Health Care Marketing 13 (3), 18–25.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., Barbaro-Forleo, G., 2001. Targeting consumers who are
willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 18 (6), 503–520.
Lawlor, J.B., Sheehan, E.M., Delahunty, C.M., Kerry, J.P., Morrissay, P.A., 2003.
Sensory characteristic and consumer preference for cooked chicken breasts
from organic, corn-fed, free-range and conventionally reared animals.
International Journal of Poultry Science 2 (6), 409–416.
Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G., Mummery, K., 2002. Eating green: motivations
behind organic produce consumption in Australia. Sociologia Ruralis 42 (1), 23–
40.
Magnusson, M.K., Avrola, A., Hursti, K.U.-K., Aberg, L., Sjoden, P.-O., 2003. Choice of
organic produce is related to perceived consequences for human health and to
environmentally friendly behavior. Appetite 40, 109–117.
Mason, M.J., Scammon, D.L., 1999. Consumers and nutritional supplements: could
this be me? This is me! Advances in Consumer Research 26, 107–112.
Maynard, L.J., Franklin, S.T., 2003. Functional foods as a value-added strategy: the
commercial potential of ‘cancer-fighting’ dairy products. Review of Agricultural
Economics 25 (2), 316–331.
McEachern, M.G., McClean, P., 2002. Organic purchasing motivations and attitudes:
are they ethical? International Journal of Consumer Studies 26 (2), 85–92.
McEachern, M.G., Schroder, M.J.A., 2004. Integrating the voice of the consumer
within the value chain: a focus on value-based labelling communications in the
fresh-meat sector. Journal of Consumer Marketing 21 (7), 497–509.
McEachern, M.G., Warnaby, G., 2006. Food shopping behaviour in Scotland: the
influence of relative rurality. International Journal of Consumer Studies 30 (2),
189–201.
Mergenthaler, M., Weinberger, K., Qaim, M., 2009. Consumer valuation of food
quality and food safety attributes in Vietnam. Review of Agricultural Economics
31 (2), 266–283.
Michaelidou, N., Hassan, L.M., 2008. The role of health consciousness, food safety
concern and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic
produce. International Journal of Consumer Studies 32, 163–170.
Mintel, 2005. Organics – UK. November 2005. Mintel International Group Ltd.,
Chicago, IL.
Mintel, 2006. Egg – UK. June 2006. Mintel International Group Ltd., Chicago, IL.
Mintel, 2008. Ethical and Green Retailing – UK. Mintel International Group Ltd.,
Chicago, IL.
139
Nayga Jr., R.M., 1996. Sociodemographic influences on consumer concern for food
safety: the case of irradiation, antibiotics, hormones, and pesticides. Review of
Agricultural Economics 18 (3), 467–475.
Oygard, L., 2000. Studying food tastes among young adults using Bourdieu’s theory.
Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics 24 (3), 160–169.
Rembiakowska, E., 2007. Quality of plant products from organic agriculture. Journal
of the Science of Food and Agriculture 87 (15), 2757–2762.
Roddy, G., Cowan, C.A., Hutchinson, G., 1996. Consumer attitudes and behaviour to
organic produce in Ireland. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 9 (2),
41–63.
Rural Communities, 2009. <http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk/files/
chapter%201%20tagged%20&%20optimised.pdf> (14 September 2009).
Schifferstein, H.N.J., Oude Ophuis, P.A.M., 1998. Health-related determinants of
organic produce consumption in the Netherlands. Food Quality and Preference
9 (3), 119–133.
Scottish Census, 2001. <http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/publications-
and-data/occpapers/occasional-paper-10.html#table9> (10 May 2008).
Shepherd, R. (Ed.), 1989. Factors Influencing Food Preferences and Choice.
Handbook of the Psychophysiology of Human Eating. Wiley, Chichester, West
Sussex, pp. 3–24.
Shrout, P.E., Bolger, N., 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental
studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods 7 (4),
422–445.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., Baumgartner, H., 1998. Assessing measurement invariance in
cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 25, 78–90.
Steptoe, A., Pollard, T.M., Wardle, J., 1995. Development of a measure of the motives
underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite 25,
267–284.
Tarkiainen, A., Sundqvist, S., 2005. Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of
Finnish consumers in buying organic produce. British Food Journal 107 (11),
808–822.
Thomson, G.D., 1998. Consumer demand for organic foods: what we know and what
we need to know. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 (5), 1113–
1118.
Verhoef, P.C., 2005. Explaining purchases of organic meat by Dutch consumers.
European Review of Agricultural Economics 32 (2), 245–267.
Wadolowska, L., Babicz-Zielinska, E., Czarnocinska, J., 2008. Food choice models and
their relation with food preferences and eating frequency in the Polish
population: POFPRES study. Food Policy 33, 122–134.
Wandel, M., Bugge, A., 1997. Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of food
quality. Food Quality and Preference 8 (1), 19–26.
Weatherell, C., Tregear, A., Allinson, J., 2003. In search of the concerned consumer:
UK public perceptions of food, farming and buying local. Journal of Rural Studies
19, 233–244.
Wier, M., O’Doherty Jensen, K., Andersen, L.M., Millock, K., 2008. The character of
demand in mature organic food markets: Great Britain and Denmark compared.
Food Policy 33, 406–421.
Williams, P.R.D., Hammitt, J.K., 2000. A comparison of organic and conventional
fresh produce buyers in Boston Area. Risk Analysis 20 (5), 735–746.
Williams, P.R.D., Hammitt, J.K., 2001. Perceived risks of conventional and organic
produce. Pesticides, pathogens and natural toxins. Risk Analysis 21 (92), 319–
330.
Williams, L.J., Holahan, P.J., 1994. Parsimony-based fit indices for multiple-indicator
models: do they work? Structural Equation Modeling 1, 161–189.
Yee, W.M.S., Yeung, R.M.W., Morris, J., 2005. Food safety: building consumer trust in
livestock farmers for potential purchase behaviour. British Food Journal 107,
841–854.