Bridging the intention–behavior gap among organic grocery customers: The crucial role of point‐of‐sale information

Abstract

Although the interest in organic groceries has increased, actual buying behavior falls short for reasons that are mostly unknown to researchers and practitioners. This paper addresses this so‐called intention–behavior gap by investigating the impact of point‐of‐sale (POS) information on the perception of purchase barriers and behavior. While behavior and interest differ for various product categories, the organic groceries most frequently bought worldwide are differentiated on the basis of product category involvement in a pilot study. A laboratory experiment and a field experiment containing actual purchase behavior and market data revealed the possibility of enhancing organic purchases within low‐ and high‐involvement categories, while exposed to POS information. In low‐involvement product categories, POS information should reveal new product category‐specific organic features. In high‐involvement product categories, the perceived addition of value for money is crucial for purchasing organic groceries. While the effect of POS information on perceived trust and knowledge is higher for health conscious or green consumers in low‐involvement product categories, it is the converse in high‐involvement product categories.

GMO Food Labels Do Not Affect College Student Food Selection, Despite Negative Attitudes towards GMOs

“…The attitude–behavior gap (sometimes referred to as the intention–behavior gap) identifies an incongruence between self-reported attitudes and subsequent behaviors [ 18 ]. A compelling example of this gap within the food purchasing/consumption literature comes from the purchasing of organic products [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. Hidalgo-Baz et al [ 24 ], for example, ascertained that a wide gap exists between consumers’ stated preference for organic products (which is high) and their actual purchasing behavior (which is low).…”

Measuring dlPFC Signals to Predict the Success of Merchandising Elements at the Point-of-Sale – A fNIRS Approach

“…Although self-report measurements have been indicated to be beneficial in some marketing studies, social psychology suggests that self-reports, when used in isolation, are unreliable to accurately predict the consumers' preferences (Nisbett and Wilson, 1977;De Cremer et al, 2008;Petit and Bon, 2010;Baldo et al, 2015b). This is mostly because the consumers' expressed intentions do not always translate into actual (purchase) behaviour or even sales (Ajzen, 1991;Padel and Foster, 2005;Frank and Brock, 2018). Against this background, other measurements might be more expedient to solve the indicated matter (Ariely and Berns, 2010;Plassmann et al, 2015;Karmarkar and Yoon, 2016).…”

“Green cannibalism” or an “organic inside job”? Empirical insights into the rivalry of ethical grocery types

“…Because focusing on participants who buy organic products regularly as well as nonbuyers is not helpful in analyzing the IBG (Gleim et al, ), these participants were excluded (Frank & Brock, ). The final sample (female 60.7%), therefore, consisted of 225 respondents, with an average age of 37 years (standard deviation [ SD ] = 13.508).…”

“…Recent research indicates that “traditional” purchase barriers to organic consumption (e.g., price, availability, and product shape) do not account for “nonbuyers with favorable intentions,” (NBFI) who primarily cause this organic IBG (Aschemann‐Witzel & Niebuhr Aagaard, ; Frank & Brock, ; Loebnitz, Schuitema & Grunert, ; Ngobo, ; van Doorn & Verhoef, ). Rather the increasing availability and popularity of alternative product types, such as local and fair trade produces, might act as a purchase barrier to organic consumption (Hempel & Hamm, ; Meas, Hu, Batte, Woods & Ernst, ).…”