The impact of altruistic attribution and brand

equity in food label campaigns

Stéphane Legendre and François Coderre
Department of Marketing, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to analyse the impact of two determinants of purchase intention in food label campaigns: altruistic
attribution and brand equity.
Design/methodology/approach – A 2  2 between-group factorial experimental design was used, with 2 levels of altruistic attribution (high/low)
and 2 levels of brand equity (high/low). The product used for the study was pork chops. A survey was conducted on 602 respondents representing
the population of Quebec, Canada.
Findings – Structural equation modelling was used to evaluate the fit of the data with the proposed mod el. The results demonstrate that altruistic
attribution and brand equity have an indirect impact on purchase intention via perceptions of taste and food safety. Altruistic attribution, but not
brand equity, also has a direct impact on purchase intention.
Research limitations/implications – The experiment in this study was conducted via an online consumer panel to increase internal validity. As a
result, one of the limitations of the study concerns its external validity.
Practical implications – This research provides strategic guidelines for businesses or organisations that wish to develop food label campaigns.
They must simultaneously consider both altruistic attribution and pre-existing brand equity.
Originality/value – This study contributes to the literature by demonstrating the impact of altruistic attribution and brand equity on purchase
intention in the context of food label campaigns. The study mobilises attribution theory and the multidimensional consumer-based brand equity
scale.
Keywords Attribution theory, Altruism, Brand equity, Signalling theory, Food labels
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction A number of studies have shown that food labels have a

Various food labels have been developed in recent years to
meet the growing consumer demand for food quality and
safety (Aprile et al., 2012; Zepeda et al., 2013). Labels or
signals communicate attributes that cannot be observed in
the consumption experience (Rao et al., 1999; Washburn
et al., 2004). A 2010 inventory by the European
Commission found at least 424 different food labels in
commercial use, in the European market alone, to certify
particular characteristics of a product or a production
mode (European Commission, 2010). These labels, with
and without certification (Zepeda et al., 2013), mainly
address organic farming (Cesar Machado et al., 2015),
origin of product (Brodie and Benson-Rea, 2016),
traceability (Bradu et al., 2014), environmental
management (Pancer et al., 2017), nutrition (Nocella et al.,
2014), Fair Trade (Cater et al., 2017), animal welfare (Van
Loo et al., 2014) and food safety factors such as non-use of
antibiotics (Ortega et al., 2014) or pesticides (Bauer et al.,
2013).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
27/6 (2018) 634–646
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-12-2016-1381]
significant impact on purchase intention and willingness to pay
for food. Research demonstrates that the impact is particularly
significant for the animal welfare label (Dickinson and Bailey,
2005; Gracia et al., 2011; Lagerkvist and Hess, 2011;
Liljenstolpe, 2011; Lusk et al., 2007; Nilsson et al., 2006; Van
Loo et al., 2014). Emphasising animal welfare also generates
perceptions regarding taste (Dentoni et al., 2014; Lagerkvist
and Hess, 2011; Pettersson et al., 1999) and food safety
(Dentoni et al., 2014; Tonsor, 2011). More generally, it has
also been shown in the literature that organic labels, which
include animal welfare standards (Canadian General Standards
Board, 2015), also have a positive impact on perceptions
regarding the taste (Larceneux et al., 2012) and safety (Bauer
et al., 2013) of food.
First and foremost, this article demonstrates that in a food label
campaign, altruistic attribution has an impact on perceptions of
taste and safety and on purchase intention for food. In fact,
studies reveal that consumers are often sceptical about the actual
motives of companies that display labels (Gadema and
Oglethorpe, 2011; Zepeda et al., 2013). This scepticism is
exacerbated by the plethora of labels currently available on the
market and the intuitive belief that social initiatives are primarily
motivated by companies’ self-interest (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006;
Speed and Thompson, 2000; Webb and Mohr, 1998).
According to attribution theory, individuals attribute two types of
motives when companies highlight their social impact:
1 firm-self-serving motives; or
2 public-serving motives (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Ellen
et al., 2006).

634
 Impact of altruistic attribution
Stéphane Legendre and François Coderre
This theory has been used in research on cause-related
marketing (Andreu et al., 2015; Bigné-Alcañiz et al., 2009; Du
et al., 2007; Ellen et al., 2006; Forehand and Grier, 2003).
However, no study has examined altruistic attribution when
food labels are displayed.
This article also demonstrates that in a food label campaign,
brand equity has an impact on perceptions of taste and safety
and on purchase intention for food. Studies have shown that
brand equity plays a role in food labelling (Bauer et al., 2013;
Larceneux et al., 2012; Lusk et al., 2007; Nilsson et al., 2006).
However, these studies have been limited to the manipulation
of brand names or types (e.g. local, global and private), without
measuring the impact of the various dimensions of brand
equity. The study presented here measures the impact of
brand equity and adopts the multidimensional consumer-based
brand equity scale developed from Aaker’s and Keller’s
conceptualizations of brand equity (Buil et al., 2008;
Netemeyer et al., 2004; Pappu et al., 2005). Specifically, we use
the brand equity model of Yoo et al. (2000), which comprises
three dimensions: brand awareness, brand quality and brand
loyalty.
The aim of this article is, thus, to analyse the impact of
two determinants of purchase intention in food label
campaigns: altruistic attribution and brand equity. For this
study, a total of 602 Quebec consumers participated in an
experiment via an online panel. In the next section,
hypotheses based on attribution theory are presented. The
third section details the study methodology. Section 4
discusses the results and Section 5 presents the implications
for theory and practice.
2. Literature review and hypotheses
Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework of the study.
2.1 Effect of altruistic attribution
First, this article maintains that in a food label campaign,
altruistic attribution has an impact on perceptions of food
safety and taste. Recent studies have shown that consumers
use food labels as signals of food safety and taste (Bauer
et al., 2013; Dentoni et al., 2014; Larceneux et al., 2012;
Tonsor, 2011). Food safety corresponds to absence of
health risks, innocuousness and absence of danger, whereas
taste concerns organoleptic qualities, that is, the flavour and
texture of foods (Aurier and Sirieix, 2009). According to
Figure 1 Conceptual framework
Altruistic H1
Taste
Attribution
H2 H7
H3 H8
Brand
Food Safety
Equity H4
635
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 6 · 2018 · 634–646
signalling theory, taste is an experience attribute that can be
observed only after purchase (Erdem, 1998; Nelson, 1970).
Food safety is a credence attribute which is unobservable
both before and after purchase (Darby and Karni, 1973;
Washburn et al., 2004).
The study by Tonsor (2011) shows that the animal welfare
label positively affects the perceived safety of pork meat.
Pettersson et al. (1999) showed that consumers choose eggs
produced with a respect for animal welfare (“free range”)
because they deem that these products taste better. Similarly,
Larceneux et al. (2012) showed that displaying the AB organic
agriculture label has a positive effect on taste perception for
salmon. Dentoni et al. (2014) observed that the animal welfare
label has a negative impact on taste for beef. As the literature
illustrates, the divergent impacts of the animal welfare label on
taste could be partially explained by the information on animal
welfare provided to respondents (de Jonge and van Trijp, 2014;
Lagerkvist and Hess, 2011), as well as respondents’ country of
origin (Liljenstolpe, 2008). There is a limitation on the use of
signalling theory to explain the impact of labels on taste and
food safety. Some studies show that consumers are sceptical
about the true motives of companies that display labels
(Gadema and Oglethorpe, 2011; Zepeda et al., 2013).
Signalling theory cannot explain the motives of the company
perceived by the consumer.
According to attribution theory, however, individuals are
social actors who make causal inferences regarding events they
observe and experience (Heider, 1958). They attribute one of
two primary types of motive when companies highlight their
social impact (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Ellen et al., 2006):
1 firm-self-serving motives (increase profits and sales); and
2 public-serving motives (e.g. help needy citizens, assist
with community development).
This theory has been used in the framework of research on
cause-related marketing (Andreu et al., 2015; Becker-Olsen
et al., 2006; Bigné-Alcañiz et al., 2009; Du et al., 2007; Ellen
et al., 2006; Forehand and Grier, 2003; Koschate-Fischer et al.,
2016; Lee et al., 2009; Moosmayer and Fuljahn, 2013; Webb
and Mohr, 1998; Rim et al., 2016; Zasuwa, 2016). In the
literature, studies using experimental design have manipulated
two levels of altruistic attribution by presenting written
scenarios to respondents (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Forehand
and Grier, 2003; Habel et al., 2016). For instance, Becker-
Olsen et al. (2006) used two levels of altruistic attribution: 1)
H5
Purchase H9 Willingness to pay
Intention a price premium
H6
 Impact of altruistic attribution
Stéphane Legendre and François Coderre
firm-self-serving motives (“Home Depot hopes this and other new
programs will boost sales”); and 2) public-serving motives (“Home
Depot hopes this and other programs will help those at risk”). The
study showed that public-self-serving motives positively influence
purchase intention and promote favourable attitudes and
perceptions towards companies. Barone et al. (2000) have shown
that, in general, public-serving motives increase the probability that
a brand will be chosen.
To our knowledge, this study is the first to mobilise
attribution theory to understand the impact of food labels.
Studies on cause-related marketing demonstrate that the
attribution of altruistic motives to a company significantly
enhances the positive effect of a social initiative on the
perceived quality of its products (Barone et al., 2000; Becker-
Olsen et al., 2006; Du et al., 2007; Forehand and Grier, 2003;
Moosmayer and Fuljahn, 2013). Du et al. (2007) showed that
the attribution of altruistic motives to a large company
(Stonyfield Farm) enhanced the effect of a cause-related
marketing campaign (e.g. For a Healthy Planet) on perceptions
of taste, healthiness and perceived social responsibility in the
case of yogurt. H1 and H2 are formulated as follows:
H1. In a food label campaign, altruistic attribution has a
positive impact on perception of food taste.
H2. In a food label campaign, altruistic attribution has a
positive impact on perception of food safety.
2.2 Effect of brand equity
This study also maintains that in a food label campaign, brand
equity has an impact on the perception of food safety and taste.
Brand equity has been studied from the standpoint of the
consumer (Buil et al., 2008; Keller, 1993), that of the firm
(Mahajan et al., 1994), in terms of financial value (Keller and
Lehmann, 2006) and from a co-creation perspective (Grönroos
and Voima, 2013). Like Yoo and Donthu (2001), we define
brand equity “as consumers’ different response between a focal
brand and an unbranded product when both have the same
level of marketing stimuli and product attributes”. Yoo et al.
(2000) stressed that this definition compares two products that
are identical in every aspect but brand name. As the authors
noted, “Samsung’s brand equity is the extra value embedded in
its name, as perceived by the consumer, compared with an
otherwise equal product without the name”. The definition is
also consistent with that of Aaker (1991), for whom brand
equity is “a set of assets (and liabilities) linked to a brand’s
name and symbol that add to (or subtract from) the value
provided by a product or service to a firm and/or that firm’s
customers”.
In measuring brand equity from the consumer’s standpoint,
we adopt the multidimensional consumer-based brand equity
scale developed from Aaker’s and Keller’s conceptualizations
of brand equity. The scale measures the various dimensions
that compose brand equity (Buil et al., 2008; Netemeyer et al.,
2004; Pappu et al., 2005; Tong and Hawley, 2009; Washburn
and Plank, 2002; Yoo and Donthu, 2002). Specifically, we use
the model of Yoo et al. (2000), which conceptualises brand
capital as a construct comprising three dimensions: brand
awareness, brand quality and brand loyalty. Brand awareness is
the consumer’s ability to recognize or recall a brand as part of a
636
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 6 · 2018 · 634–646
certain product category (Keller, 1993). Brand quality is the
judgment about a product’s overall excellence or superiority
(Zeithaml, 1988). Loyalty is the consumer’s degree of
attachment to the brand (Aaker, 1991), that is, the tendency to
see a brand as the first choice when purchasing (Yoo and
Donthu, 2001).
Studies have shown that brand name and type play a role in
food labelling (Larceneux et al., 2012; Lusk et al., 2007;
Nilsson et al., 2006). A product with high brand equity already
signals unobservable product attributes (Erdem et al., 2006;
Fischer et al., 2010; Rao et al., 1999; Swait et al., 1993; Yoo
et al., 2000). For instance, Bauer et al. (2013) have shown that
brand type (local, global and private) has an impact on
perceptions of food safety and taste when an organic label is
displayed on cereal. They showed that a global brand
(Kellogg’s) and a local one (Seitenbacher) have a greater
impact on these perceptions, compared to a private brand
(Classic). Our study extends the findings of Bauer et al. (2013)
and Larceneux et al. (2012) by measuring the impact of brand
equity on perceptions of the safety and taste of food products.
Brand equity is measured by the three-dimensional model of
Yoo et al. (2000). H3 and H4 are formulated as follows:
H3. In a food label campaign, brand equity has a positive
impact on perception of the taste of a food product.
H4. In a food label campaign, brand equity has a positive
impact on perception of the safety of a food product.
2.3 Indirect and direct effect of altruistic attribution and
brand equity
This study maintains that in a food label campaign, altruistic
attribution and brand equity have both an indirect and a direct
impact on intention to buy. The indirect effect operates via the
perceived taste and food safety. In a recent study, Dentoni et al.
(2014) demonstrated that labels have indirect and direct effects
on purchase intention. Studying three types of label (Australian
label, Animal Welfare label and Grass-fed label), they
demonstrated that these labels have an indirect impact on
purchase intention, in particular through the perception of
taste, food safety and social responsibility. For the animal
welfare label, the authors showed that the effect the label
generates on intention to purchase is 50 per cent indirect and
50 per cent direct. They also established that the indirect effect
is weaker than the direct effect when high values are observed
for consumers’ educational level, knowledge of labels,
frequency of use of the product and opinion strength.
The direct impact of food label and brand type on purchase
intention has also been demonstrated in the literature (Bauer
et al., 2013; Norberg et al., 2011). Norberg et al. (2011) showed
that consumers’ expectations in response to a food label
(Norwegian winter cod: Skrei®) have a direct, positive impact
on intention to purchase the product. The expectations
concern the main attributes of a fresh fish: taste, smell,
appearance and freshness. Bauer et al. (2013) showed that the
presence of an organic label has a direct impact on purchase
intention. Similarly, these authors showed that brand type has a
direct, positive impact on the intention to purchase. H5, H6,
H7 and H8 are formulated as follows:
 Impact of altruistic attribution
Stéphane Legendre and François Coderre
H5. In a food label campaign, altruistic attribution and brand
equity have an indirect positive impact on purchase
intention via perception of taste.
H6. In a food label campaign, altruistic attribution and brand
equity have an indirect positive impact on purchase
intention via perception of food safety.
H7. In a food label campaign, altruistic attribution has a
direct positive impact on purchase intention.
H8. In a food label campaign, brand equity has a direct
positive impact on purchase intention.
2.4 Effect of purchase intention
Finally, the study analyses the impact of purchase intention on
willingness to pay a price premium. Various studies have
investigated the link between food labels and willingness to pay.
A number of studies have shown that food labels are an
important determinant of willingness to pay. Of these labels,
research shows that the willingness to pay for meat is
particularly influenced by those that concern animal welfare
(Dickinson and Bailey, 2005; Lagerkvist and Hess, 2011; Van
Loo et al., 2014). For instance, Van Loo et al. (2014)
demonstrated that Belgian consumers are prepared to pay a
premium of 26 per cent (e2.50/kg) for chicken breasts when the
animal welfare label is displayed. Also, this premium increases
to 43 per cent (e4.12/kg) when the animal welfare label is
accompanied by the assertion “free range”. The link between
purchase intention and willingness to pay has been
demonstrated in the literature (Norberg et al., 2011; Fu and
Elliott, 2013; Phau et al., 2015). According to Fishbein and
Ajzen (1975), a person’s behaviour is determined by his or her
intentions. Being willing to pay a price premium implies that
the consumer has a strong intention to purchase the product
(Norberg et al., 2011). In the intention phase, the consumer
wonders whether to buy, whereas in the willingness to pay phase,
the question is how much (Fu and Elliott, 2013). In effect,
“Willingness to pay is one step closer to the actual adoption
behavior than intention” (Fu and Elliott, 2013, p. 259). H9 is
formulated as follows:
H9. In a food label campaign, purchase intention has a
positive impact on willingness to pay a price premium for
the product.
3. Methodology
To verify the study hypotheses, a 2  2 between-group factorial
experimental design was used: 2 levels of brand equity (high/
low)  2 levels of altruistic attribution (high/low). This research
allowed control over three main aspects:
1 A single product category (pork chops) was used, to
control for the effect of potential variations between
categories. Pork chops are a type of meat used in various
studies on the effect of animal welfare (Lusk et al., 2006;
Lusk et al., 2007; Nilsson et al., 2006).
2 A single food label (animal welfare) was selected, to
control for the effect of label type (Dentoni et al., 2014).
637
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 6 · 2018 · 634–646
3 A product with similar attributes across brands was used,
to control potential differences (Guzmán and Davis,
2017).
3.1 Pre-test
To select brands with high and low brand equity, observations
on the various brands of pork chops available at the five largest
grocery chains in Quebec (Costco, Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys
and Walmart) were carried out (MarketLine, 2016). At least
two grocery stores in each of these chains were visited, in a large
city and a medium-sized city in Quebec. In total, seven brands
of fresh pork chops were identified.
A pre-test on the brand equity of these seven brands was then
conducted on 130 members of an online panel run by a food
consulting service organisation well known in Canada. This
platform brings together individuals responsible for purchasing
groceries for their households. Each participant was assigned to
evaluate the seven brands. Brand equity evaluation order was
varied randomly for each respondent. The survey presented the
name of the pork chop brand followed by a brand equity scale.
Brand equity was measured according to a second-order
reflexive construct, using the first-order subscales given by Yoo
et al. (2000). The Farmland brand had the lowest mean on the
three dimensions, whereas the Olymel brand had the highest
mean on the three dimensions (Table I). These two brands
were selected for the study.
3.2 Main study
In all, 602 respondents from a panel of the largest Canadian-
owned polling, research and strategic marketing firm (Leger)
participated in the main study. The group comprised 283
women (47 per cent) and 319 men (53 per cent). Table II gives
details on the characteristics of the sample.
A total of four advertisements were developed, manipulating
altruistic attribution and brand equity (see messages in
the advertisements in Appendix). To ensure realism,
advertisements included the packages of real pork chops found
in Quebec grocery stores. For altruistic attribution, the “low
altruism” advertisement stated “the brand (Farmland/Olymel)
hopes to increase its profits with this animal welfare
programme”, whereas the “high altruism” advertisement stated
“the brand Farmland/Olymel sincerely hopes to improve the
conditions in which animals are raised with this animal welfare
programme”. This manipulation of altruistic attribution is
consistent with the usage of scenarios in the literature (Barone
et al., 2000; Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Forehand and Grier,
2003; Habel et al., 2016). For brand equity, the “low brand
Table I Pre-test to find high and low equity brands (n = 130)
Brand Brand equity mean
duBreton 2.96
Farmland 1.30
From Our Chefs 1.34
Nagano 1.99
No Name 2.63
Olymel 3.43
President’s Choice 3.08
 Impact of altruistic attribution Journal of Product & Brand Management
Stéphane Legendre and François Coderre Volume 27 · Number 6 · 2018 · 634–646

Table II Sample characteristics (n = 602) were adapted from Bauer et al. (2013) and Larceneux et al.
(2012). The items on purchase intention were adapted from
(%)
Dodds et al. (1991), and those on willingness to pay a price
Gender premium, from Netermeyer et al. (2004). Brand equity,
Female 283 47.0 perception of taste and safety, purchase intention and
Male 319 53.0 willingness to pay a price premium were measured using a five-
Age point Likert scale.
18-24 44 7.4
25-34 105 17.5
35-44 121 20.1
4. Results
45-54 123 20.4 4.1 Structural model analysis
55-64 127 21.1 The t-test results indicate successful manipulation of brand
65 or more 82 13.6 equity and altruism (Mhigher Brand Equity = 3.50, Mlower Brand
Region Equity = 1.73, t = 26.27, p < 0.001; Mhigher Altruism = 3.65, Mlower

Quebec 38 6.3 Altruism = 2.51, t = 14.92, p < 0.001). Table IV presents

Montreal 154 25.6
Rest of Quebec 410 68.1
Pork meat consumption
Daily 9 1.5
3-5 times a week 25 4.2
2 times a week 105 17.4
Once a week 183 30.4
1-3 times a month 175 29.1
Once every 3 months 49 8.1
Less than once every 3 months 56 9.3
equity” advertisement displayed the product brand
“Farmland”, whereas the “high brand equity” advertisement
displayed the product brand “Olymel”.
The main study used a five-step procedure. First,
participants were randomly assigned to one of the four
experimental conditions: low brand equity and low altruism
(n = 149); high brand equity and low altruism (n = 149); low
brand equity and high altruism (n = 152); or high brand equity
and high altruism (n = 152). Second, they evaluated the pre-
existing level of brand equity (Farmland/Olymel) for their
experimental condition. Third, participants were shown the
advertisement for the food label and evaluated the level of
altruistic attribution. Fourth, they evaluated perceived taste,
perceived safety, purchase intention and willingness to pay a
price premium for the product presented in the advertisement.
Fifth, they provided responses on various sociodemographic
variables. A chi-square analysis shows that gender ( x 2 =
0.587; df = 3; p = 0.899), age ( x 2 = 21.292; df = 15; p =
0.128), region ( x 2 = 2.154; df = 6; p = 0.905) and pork
consumption ( x 2 = 21.414; df = 18; p = 0.259) are equally
distributed across the four experimental conditions.
3.3 Measures
The measures are presented in Table III. The items were
adapted from the literature. The items for altruistic attribution
were adapted from Andreu et al. (2015) and Becker-Olsen
et al. (2006). A five-point semantic scale was used for altruistic
attribution. Brand equity was measured according to a
second-order reflexive construct using the first-order sub-
scales of Yoo et al. (2000) for brand awareness, brand quality
and brand loyalty. The items on perception of taste and safety
descriptives of the construct (awareness, quality, loyalty, taste,
food safety, purchase intention and willingness to pay) for the
four experimental conditions.
Structural equation analysis was used to evaluate the fit of the
data with the proposed model. Various marketing studies use
SEMs in their experimental approach (Bigné-Alcañiz et al.,
2009; Goh et al., 2013; Guzmán and Davis, 2017; Hwang and
Kandampully, 2015; Samu and Wymer, 2014; Wierich and
Zielke, 2014). In mediation models, structural equation
analysis offers advantages over the multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA): in particular, it takes measurement error
into account and allows the simultaneous estimation of indirect
and direct effects (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Gupta, 2014;
Preacher et al., 2010, 2011).
A two-step approach was used to assess the model (Anderson
and Gerbing, 1988). First, a confirmatory factor analysis was
performed to assess the validity and reliability of the measures
in the structural model (Table V). The indices of the model
indicate good fit with the data ( x 2 = 578, df = 224, p < 0.001,
CFI = 0.98, IFI = 0.98, PCFI = 0.80, PNFI = 0.79 and
RMSEA = 0.051). These indices meet the standards: the
comparative fit index (CFI) and the incremental fit index (IFI)
have values > 0.95, indicating good fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999);
the parsimony-adjusted measures PCFI and PNFI have
values > 0.70, showing adequate model parsimony (Byrne,
1994); and a RMSEA < 0.08 corresponds to reasonable errors
of approximation (Browne and Cudeck, 1993). The Chi-
square statistic is reported, even though this statistic is not a
good indicator of model fit for samples exceeding 200 (Bagozzi
and Yi, 1988).
First, item reliability was demonstrated, with the statistical
significance, direction and weight of the standardized
regression coefficients in relation with the latent variable. All
of the item coefficients are significant (p < 0.001), positive and
above the recommended parameter value of 0.70 (Peter,
1981). Second, the composite reliabilities (CR) are 0.91 and
above. This is higher than the level of 0.60 recommended by
Bagozzi and Yi (1988). Third, the average variance extracted
(AVE) varies from 0.78 to 0.92. This is above the target value
of 0.50 adopted by Bagozzi and Yi (1988). Fourth, the square
root of the AVE for each construct is higher than the
correlation between the other constructs, without exception,
which satisfies the discriminant validity test (Table VI).

638
 Impact of altruistic attribution Journal of Product & Brand Management
Stéphane Legendre and François Coderre Volume 27 · Number 6 · 2018 · 634–646

Table III Measures

Construct Itemsa Loading
Altruism Motivated by profit – Motivated by animal welfare 0.93
CR = 0.92 Motivated by self-interest - Motivated by interest in animal welfare 0.94
AVE = 0.79 Egoistically motivated - Altruistically motivated 0.78
Brand awareness Anchors: Strongly Disagree – Strongly Agree
CR = 0.97 I know what (brand name) looks like 0.97
AVE = 0.91 I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of (brand name) 0.93
I am aware of (brand name) 0.96
Brand quality Anchors: Strongly Disagree – Strongly Agree
CR = 0.97 (Brand name) is of high quality 0.97
AVE = 0.92 The likely quality of (brand name) is extremely high 0.97
The likelihood that (brand name) is reliable is very high 0.94
Brand loyalty Anchors: Strongly Disagree – Strongly Agree
CR = 0.94 I consider myself to be loyal to (brand name) 0.89
AVE = 0.83 I will not buy other brands if (brand name) is available at the store 0.96
Even if another brand has same features as (brand name), I would prefer to buy (brand name) 0.88
Taste Anchors: Strongly Disagree – Strongly Agree
CR = 0.97 This product tastes good. 0.95
AVE = 0.92 It is a pleasure to eat this product 0.95
The flavour of this product is pleasant 0.97
Food safety Anchors: Strongly Disagree – Strongly Agree
CR = 0.91 This product does not contain substances that are harmful to health 0.89
AVE = 0.78 This product poses no health risk 0.92
I believe this product features high food safety 0.83
Purchase intention Anchors: Strongly Disagree – Strongly Agree
CR = 0.96 The likelihood of purchasing this product is very high 0.92
AVE = 0.88 The probability that I would consider buying the product is very high 0.94
My willingness to buy the product is very high 0.96
Willingness to pay a premium price Anchors: Strongly Disagree – Strongly Agree
CR = 0.93 I am willing to pay a lot more for this product than other brands of product 0.92
AVE = 0.81 I am willing to pay a higher price for this product than for other brands of product 0.92
The price of this product would have to go up quite a bit before I would switch to another brand of product 0.86
Notes: aFive-point scales; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted

Table IV Means and SDs of construct for the four experimental conditions
Conditions
Construct Low B.E. Low Alt. SD High B.E. Low Alt. SD Low B.E. High Alt. SD High B.E. High Alt. SD
Awareness 1.45 0.772 4.06 0.983 1.57 1.045 4.24 0.863
Quality 2.00 1.017 3.61 0.909 2.14 1.113 3.75 0.815
Loyalty 1.59 0.800 2.55 1.088 1.64 0.961 2.81 1.075
Taste 2.68 1.064 3.50 1.008 3.05 0.919 3.77 0.865
Food safety 2.62 1.023 3.07 0.950 2.98 0.961 3.53 0.794
Purchase intention 2.49 1.054 2.90 1.016 3.05 0.945 3.31 0.955
Willingness to pay 2.15 1.031 2.50 1.018 2.64 1.011 2.84 0.958

4.2 Hypothesis testing
The model indices indicate a good fit with the data ( x 2 =
900, df = 239, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.96, IFI = 0.96, PCFI =
0.83, PNFI = 0.82 and RMSEA = 0.068). Table VII
summarizes the results for the hypotheses, and the path
coefficients are presented in Figure 2. The effect of altruistic
attribution on the perception of taste is significant and
positive ( b = 0.25, p < 0.001), supporting H1. As predicted,
altruistic attribution has a significant positive effect on the
perception of food safety ( b = 0.35, p < 0.001); hence, H2 is

639
 Impact of altruistic attribution Journal of Product & Brand Management
Stéphane Legendre and François Coderre Volume 27 · Number 6 · 2018 · 634–646

Table V Fit indices for models

Model Chi-Square (df) CFI IFI PCFI PNFI RMSEA
*
Measurement model 577.63 (224) 0.980 0.980 0.796 0.786 0.051 (0.046–0.056)a
Structural model 900.19* (239) 0.963 0.963 0.834 0.823 0.068 (0.063-0.073)a
Alternative model 942.95* (241) 0.961 0.961 0.839 0.828 0.070 (0.065-0.074)a
Notes: *Statistical significance < 0.001; a90% confidence interval


Table VI Data distribution, correlations and discriminant validitya
No. Scale Meanb SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Altruistic Attribution 3.08 1.09 0.89
2 Brand Awareness 2.83 1.61 0.07 0.95
3 Brand Quality 2.87 1.26 0.15 0.82 0.96
4 Brand Loyalty 2.15 1.12 0.22 0.68 0.80 0.91
5 Taste 3.25 1.05 0.32 0.49 0.58 0.52 0.96
6 Food Safety 3.05 0.99 0.42 0.37 0.51 0.45 0.74 0.88
7 Purchase Intention 2.94 1.03 0.45 0.28 0.40 0.52 0.62 0.64 0.94
8 Willingness to pay 2.53 1.03 0.48 0.22 0.29 0.41 0.43 0.54 0.74 0.90
Notes:  p < 0.001 for all correlations; asquare root of average variance extracted in italic on the diagonal; bFive-point scales

Table VII Parameter estimates and results of hypotheses tests

Hypothesis Estimate p-value Result
Effect of altruistic attribution
H1. Altruistic attribution fi Taste 0.25 <0.001 Supported
H2. Altruistic attribution fi Food safety 0.35 <0.001 Supported
Effect of brand equity
H3. Brand equity fi Taste 0.58 <0.001 Supported
H4. Brand equity fi Food safety 0.48 <0.001 Supported
Indirect and direct effect of altruistic attribution and brand equity
H5. Indirect effect via perception of taste Indirect effect – Supported
H6. Indirect effect via perception of food safety Indirect effect – Supported
H7. Altruistic attribution fi Purchase intention 0.24 <0.001 Supported
H8. Brand equity fi Purchase intention 0.07 0.174 Not supported
Effect of purchase intention
H9. Purchase intention fi Willingness to pay a price premium 0.74 <0.001 Supported

Figure 2 Structural model path weights

Altruistic 0.25***
Taste
Attribution

0.30***

0.35***
0.24***
Purchase 0.74*** Willingness to pay
Intention a price premium
0.58*** ns
0.30***

Brand
Food Safety
Equity 0.48***

Notes: ***p < 0.001; ns = not significant

640
 Impact of altruistic attribution
Stéphane Legendre and François Coderre
supported. The effect of brand equity on the perception of
taste is also significant and positive ( b = 0.58, p < 0.001),
which supports H3. Moreover, brand equity has a significant
positive effect on the perception of food safety ( b = 0.48,
p < 0.001), thus supporting H4. The effect of taste
perception on purchase intention is significant and positive
( b = 0.30, p < 0.001), and the same is true for the effect of
the perception of food safety on purchase intention ( b =
0.30, p < 0.001). H5 and H6, thus, receive empirical
support. Altruistic attribution has a significant direct
positive effect on purchase intention ( b = 0.24, p < 0.001),
supporting H7. The direct positive effect of brand equity on
purchase intention is not significant ( b = 0.07, p = 0.174),
so H8 is not supported. The effect of brand equity on
purchase intention is fully mediated by taste and food safety
(Baron and Kenny, 1986). Thus, the effect of brand equity
on purchase intention is a two-step process: brand equity
influences taste and food safety, which in turn influences
purchase intention. Finally, purchase intention has a
significant positive effect on willingness to pay a price
premium ( b = 0.74, p < 0.001), which supports H9.
4.3 Alternative model analysis
Verification of an alternative model was also performed, as
suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). The alternative
model of interest in this study is the one in which there is no
direct effect of altruistic attribution and brand equity on
purchase intention. Here, the model with the hypotheses is the
basic model M1 (presented in Figure 3). This model is
compared with the alternative model M2 (presented in
Figure 3). Model M2, which does not include a direct effect of
altruism and brand equity on purchase intention, also generates
indices that indicate a good fit with the data ( x 2 = 943, df =
241, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.96, IFI = 0.96, PCFI = 0.84, PNFI =
0.83 and RMSEA = 0.070). The path coefficients are
presented in Figure 3.
To compare the two models (M1 and M2), four criteria were
considered. First, a chi-square difference test was performed
(Sarkar and Sreejesh, 2014). The results show a significant
difference between models M1 and M2 (D x 2 = 42.76,
Ddf = 2). Next, a comparison using the comparative fit index
(CFI) was done. The CFI is similar (0.96) for both models (M1
and M2). The models were then compared in terms of
Figure 3 Alternative modelNotes:  p < 0.001
Altruistic 0.25***
Taste
Attribution
0.36***
0.57***
Brand
Food Safety
Equity 0.48***
Note: ***p < 0.001
641
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 6 · 2018 · 634–646
significant relationships. Model M1 shows an additional
significant relationship relative to model M2, that is, the direct
effect of altruistic attribution on purchase intention. Finally,
the study also compared the variances explained by the two
models (M1 and M2) according to four endogenous variables:
perception of taste, perception of food safety, purchase
intention and willingness to pay a price premium. The results
show that explained variance increases by 6 per cent for M1
relative to M2. Consequently, M1 is deemed to have a better fit
with the data, an additional significant relationship and a better
explained variance according to the four endogenous variables.
Model M1 (including direct links of altruistic attribution and
brand equity on purchase intention) is, thus, considered to be a
better model than M2 (which excludes direct relationships
linking altruistic attribution and brand equity with purchase
intention).
5. Implications for theory and practice
The primary aim of this study is to analyse the impact of two
determinants of purchase intention in food label campaigns:
altruistic attribution and brand equity. An experiment was
conducted with 602 respondents, in which the levels of
altruistic attribution and brand equity were manipulated.
Three main findings emerge from the study.
From a theoretical standpoint, this study makes a significant
contribution by demonstrating that, in a food label campaign,
altruistic attribution has an impact on perceptions of taste and
food safety as well as on purchase intention for food. To this
end, the study draws on the attribution theory (Andreu et al.,
2015; Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Bigné-Alcañiz et al., 2009;
Du et al., 2007; Ellen et al., 2006; Forehand and Grier, 2003).
An experiment manipulated two levels of altruism, high and
low. The findings show that altruistic attribution has an
indirect impact on purchase intention via its impact on
perceptions of food safety and taste. Similarly, altruistic
attribution has a direct impact on purchase intention. In other
words, the effect of a food label such as “animal welfare” is
reinforced when consumers perceive the firm’s motives as
being cause-related rather than focused on company profits.
This is consistent with the literature demonstrating that
public-self-serving motives positively influence purchase
intention and promote favourable perceptions towards
companies (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006).
0.35***
Purchase 0.73*** Willingness to pay
Intention a price premium
0.42***
 Impact of altruistic attribution
Stéphane Legendre and François Coderre
Second, this research contributes to the literature by
demonstrating that, in a food label campaign, brand equity has
an impact on perceptions of taste and food safety. To this end,
the study adopts the multidimensional consumer-based brand
equity scale (Buil et al., 2008; Netemeyer et al., 2004; Pappu
et al., 2005; Yoo et al., 2000). The experiment manipulates
two levels of brand equity, high and low. The findings show
that brand equity also has an indirect impact on purchase
intention, via its impact on perceptions of food safety and
taste. However, brand equity does not have a direct impact on
purchase intention; its effect is entirely mediated by
perceptions of taste and food safety. Existing research shows
that brand type has a direct positive impact on the intention
to purchase a processed product (cereal) when food labels are
featured (Bauer et al., 2013). Our study extends these
findings by including two hitherto mediators in the
relationship between brand equity and purchase intention:
perceived taste and food safety. Added to a food label
campaign perceived as altruistic, a high brand equity
significantly increases perceptions of taste and food safety,
which in turn influences the intention to purchase a fresh
product (pork chops). These results offer a new perspective
on the literature by showing that, for the same brand type
(Bauer et al., 2013), brand equity can play a role in food
labelling. In this study, the brands Olymel (higher brand
equity) and Farmland (lower brand equity) are two national
brands.
Finally, the findings show that purchase intention has a
positive effect on willingness to pay a price premium for the
product. Hitherto, the literature had shown that the animal
welfare label has a positive impact on willingness to pay
(Dickinson and Bailey, 2005; Lagerkvist and Hess, 2011; Van
Loo et al., 2014). Like the study of Norberg et al. (2011), the
present study demonstrates the importance of taking purchase
intention into account in the model. Willingness to pay a price
premium for a product also implies a strong purchase intention
(Norberg et al., 2011).
The results of this study have managerial implications.
First, as mentioned above, altruistic attribution has indirect
and direct impacts on purchase intention. The indirect
impact operates via the perception of taste and food safety.
Managers who highlight food labels in marketing campaigns
must be careful about their perceived motives. Such
campaigns will be more effective if they convey altruistic
motives than if they convey profit-oriented ones. A food
label that is perceived as altruistic in a marketing campaign
has a competitive advantage over the same label not
perceived as altruistic, in terms of positive taste and safety
perceptions as well as purchase intention. Second, managers
must also be aware of their brand’s pre-existing equity
before embarking on a food label campaign. We have shown
that brand equity has an indirect effect on purchase
intention via perceptions of food safety and taste. To this
end, it is important to consider the three dimensions of the
multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale, that
is, brand awareness, brand quality and brand loyalty. For
instance, the same type brand may have a high equity in a
market of origin (e.g. the USA) and a low equity in an export
market (e.g. Canada).
642
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 6 · 2018 · 634–646
This study has certain limitations that suggest future
research. First, a single product category (pork) was used in
the study, to avoid a category effect on the results. Future
research could focus on validating these results for different
meat categories (e.g. chicken, beef and fish). Some studies
tend to demonstrate that perceptions connected with the
animal welfare label vary depending on the meat category
(Frewer et al., 2005). Second, a single label (animal
welfare) was analysed in this study. Research has shown
that labels highlighting product origin (Brodie and Benson-
Rea, 2016), respect for the environment (Pancer et al.,
2017) and Fair Trade (Cater et al., 2017) also have an
impact on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions.
Future research could verify whether altruistic attribution
has the same impact for different types of labels. Third, this
study manipulates altruistic attribution through the use of
written scenarios, which is in line with the literature
(Barone et al., 2000; Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Forehand
and Grier, 2003; Habel et al., 2016). With this strategy, it is
possible to obtain high and low altruism levels. However,
future research could investigate signals which
communicate quickly to consumer in a real purchase
context whether a brand’s level of altruism is perceived as
high or low. For instance, a potential signal of high altruism
could be that a label had the endorsement of an
independent certification organisation (e.g. Fair Trade
international, USDA Organic and Certified Humane). A
potential signal of low altruism could be that a label had the
endorsement of a private company recently embroiled in a
media for putting profits ahead of social responsibility.
Fourth, we used a product with similar attributes across
brands to control potential differences (Guzmán and Davis,
2017). Indeed, a fresh meat product (pork chops)
containing one ingredient was used for the study, which is
in line with the literature (Lusk et al., 2006, 2007; Nilsson
et al., 2006). This one ingredient product could limit the
number of attributes (e.g. taste, food safety) considered by
consumers when evaluating purchase intention. In Canada,
only the meat products containing more than one
ingredient must display a nutrition facts label (Canadian
Food Inspection Agency, 2015). Thus, future research
could also assess the impact of altruistic attribution on
labels for processed meat products (e.g. bacon, ham and
sausage) containing more than one ingredient. The way the
consumer processes nutritional attributes (Gomez et al.,
2017) could modify the magnitude of the indirect and direct
impacts of existing brand equity and altruistic attribution
on purchase intention in food label campaigns. The
consumer may already have general perceptions about the
nutrition facts (e.g. fat, cholesterol, sugars, protein and
vitamin) of processed products offered by a specific brand.
Fifth, the relative importance of food labels (e.g. animal
welfare) varies from country to country (Dickinson and
Bailey, 2005). A study could assess whether the importance
of altruistic attribution for food labels also varies depending
on the country and on the culture. Finally, this study used
an experiment on an online consumer panel to increase its
internal validity. For this very reason, one of the limitations
of the study concerns its external validity, which would be
increased by experiments in an actual purchase context.
 Impact of altruistic attribution
Stéphane Legendre and François Coderre
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the
Value of Brand Name, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural
equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended
two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3,
pp. 411-423.
Andreu, L., Casado-Díaz, A.B. and Mattila, A.S. (2015),
“Effects of message appeal and service type in CSR
communication strategies”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 68 No. 7, pp. 1488-1495.
Aprile, M.C., Caputo, V. and Nayga, R.M. Jr, (2012),
“Consumers’ valuation of food quality labels: the case of the
European geographic indication and organic farming labels”,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 158-165.
Aurier, P. and Sirieix, L. (2009), Le marketing des produits
alimentaires, 2nd ed., Dunod, Paris.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of
structural equation models”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-
mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6,
pp. 1173-1182.
Barone, M.J., Miyazaki, A.D. and Taylor, K.A. (2000), “The
influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice:
does one good turn deserve another?”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 248-262.
Bauer, H.H., Heinrich, D. and Schäfer, D.B. (2013), “The
effects of organic labels on global, local, and private brands
more hype than substance?”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 66 No. 8, pp. 1035-1043.
Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, B.A. and Hill, R.P. (2006),
“The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on
consumer behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59
No. 1, pp. 46-53.
Bigné-Alcañiz, E., Currás-Pérez, R. and Sánchez-García, I.
(2009), “Brand credibility in cause-related marketing: the
moderating role of consumer values”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 437-447.
Bradu, C., Orquin, J.L. and Thøgersen, J. (2014), “The
mediated influence of a traceability label on consumer’s
willingness to buy the labelled product”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 283-295.
Brodie, R.F. and Benson-Rea, M. (2016), “Country of origin
branding: an integrative perspective”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 322-336.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways
of assessing model fit”, Sage Focus Editions, Vol. 154,
p. 136.
Buil, I., de Chernatony, L. and Martínez, E. (2008), “A cross-
national validation of the consumer-based brand equity
scale”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17
No. 6, pp. 384-392.
Byrne, B.M. (1994), “Testing for the factorial validity,
replication, and invariance of a measuring instrument: a
paradigmatic application based on the Maslach Burnout
643
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 6 · 2018 · 634–646
Inventory”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 289-311.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2015), “Nutrition
labelling”, available at: www.inspection.gc.ca/food/
labelling/food-labelling-for-industry/nutrition-labelling/
eng/1386881685057/1386881685870 (accessed 11
January 2018).
Canadian General Standards Board (2015), “Organic
production systems. General principles and management
standards”, available at: www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ongc-
cgsb/programme-program/normes-standards/internet/bio-
org/pgng-gpms-eng.html (accessed 11 January 2018).
Cater, J.J., Collins, L.A. and Beal, B.D. (2017), “Ethics, faith,
and profit: exploring the motives of the US Fair trade social
entrepreneurs”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 146 No. 1,
pp. 185-201.
Cesar Machado, J., Vacas de Carvlaho, L., Torres, A. and
Costa, P. (2015), “Brand logo design: examining consumer
response to naturalness”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 78-87.
Darby, M.R. and Karni, E. (1973), “Free competition and the
optimal amount of fraud”, Journal of Law and Economics,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 67-88.
de Jonge, J. and van Trijp, H. (2014), “Heterogeneity in
consumer perceptions of the animal friendliness of broiler
production systems”, Food Policy, Vol. 49 No. 1,
pp. 174-185.
Dentoni, D., Tonsor, G.T., Calantone, R. and Peterson, H.C.
(2014), “Disentangling direct and indirect effects of
credence labels”, British Food Journal, Vol. 116 No. 6,
pp. 931-951.
Dickinson, D.L. and Bailey, D.V. (2005), “Experimental
evidence on willingness to pay for red meat traceability in the
United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Japan”,
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 537-548.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2007), “Reaping
relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: the
role of competitive positioning”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 224-241.
Ellen, P., Webb, D. and Mohr, L. (2006), “Building corporate
associations: consumer attributions for corporate socially
responsible programs”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 147-157.
Erdem, T. (1998), “An empirical analysis of umbrella
branding”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 339-351.
Erdem, T., Swait, J. and Valenzuela, A. (2006), “Brands as
signals: a cross-country validation study”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 34-49.
European Commission (2010), “Inventory of certification
schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs marketed
in the EU member states”, available at: http://ec.europa.
eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/quality/certification/
inventory/inventory-data-aggregations_en.pdf (accessed
11 January 2018).
Fischer, M., Völckner, F. and Sattler, H. (2010), “How
important are brands? A cross-category, cross-country
study”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 47 No. 5,
pp. 823-839.
 Impact of altruistic attribution
Stéphane Legendre and François Coderre
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and
Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA.
Forehand, M. and Grier, S. (2003), “When is honesty the best
policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer
skepticism”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 349-356.
Frewer, L.J., Kole, A., Van De Kroon, S.M.A. and De
Lauwere, C. (2005), “Consumer attitudes towards the
development of Animal-Friendly husbandry systems”,
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 345-367.
Fu, F.Q. and Elliott, M.T. (2013), “The moderating effect
of perceived product innovativeness and product
knowledge on new product adoption: an integrated
model”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 257-272.
Gadema, Z. and Oglethorpe, D. (2011), “The use and
usefulness of carbon labelling food: a policy perspective from
a survey of UK supermarket shoppers”, Food Policy, Vol. 36
No. 6, pp. 815-822.
Goh, Y.S., Chattaraman, V. and Forsythe, S. (2013), “Brand
and category design consistency in brand extensions”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 272-285.
Gomez, P., Werle, C.O.C. and Corneille, O. (2017), “The
pitfall of nutrition facts label fluency: easier-to-process
nutrition information enhances purchase intentions for
unhealthy food products”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 15-27.
Gracia, A., Loureiro, M.L. and Nayga, R.M. (2011),
“Valuing an EU animal welfare label using experimental
auctions”, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 42 No. 6,
pp. 669-677.
Grönroos, C. and Voima, P. (2013), “Critical service logic:
making sense of value creation and co-creation”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 133-150.
Gupta, S. (2014), “SEM for experimental designs: an
information systems perspective”, The Electronic Journal of
Business Research Methods, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 27-40.
Guzmán, F. and Davis, D. (2017), “The impact of corporate
social responsibility on brand equity: consumer responses to
two types of fit”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 435-446.
Habel, J., Schons, L.M., Alavi, S. and Wieseke, J. (2016),
“Warm glow or extra charge? The ambivalent effect of
corporate social responsibility activities on customers’
perceived price fairness”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 1,
pp. 84-105.
Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria
versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Hwang, J. and Kandampully, J. (2015), “Embracing CSR in
pro-social relationship marketing program: understanding
driving forces of positive consumer responses”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 344-353.
644
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 6 · 2018 · 634–646
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and
managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006), “Brands and
branding: research findings and future priorities”, Marketing
Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 740-759.
Koschate-Fischer, N., Huber, I.V. and Hoyer, W.D.
(2016), “When will price increases associated with
company donations to charity be perceived as fair?”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 5,
pp. 608-626.
Lagerkvist, C.J. and Hess, S. (2011), “A Meta-analysis of
consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare”,
European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 55-78.
Larceneux, F., Benoit-Moreau, F. and Renaudin, V.
(2012), “Why might organic labels fail to influence
consumer choices? Marginal labelling and brand equity
effects”, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 85-104.
Lee, H., Park, T., Moon, H.K., Yang, Y. and Kim, C. (2009),
“Corporate philanthropy, attitude towards corporations, and
purchase intentions: a South Korea study”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. 939-946.
Liljenstolpe, C. (2008), “Evaluating animal welfare with choice
experiments: an application to swedish pig production”,
Agribusiness, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 67-84.
Liljenstolpe, C. (2011), “Demand for value-added pork in
Sweden: a latent class model approach”, Agribusiness, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 129-146.
Lusk, J.L., Nilsson, T. and Foster, K. (2007), “Public
preferences and private choices: effect of altruism and free
riding on demand for environmentally certified pork”,
Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 499-521.
Lusk, J.L., Norwood, F.B. and Pruitt, J.R. (2006), “Consumer
demand for a ban on antibiotic drug use in pork production”,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 88 No. 4,
pp. 1015-1033.
Mahajan, V., Rao, V.R. and Srivastava, R.K. (1994), “An
approach to assess the importance of brand equity in
acquisition decisions”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 11, pp. 221-235.
MarketLine (2016), “Industry Profile. Canada – Food &
Grocery Retail”.
Moosmayer, D.C. and Fuljahn, A. (2013), “Corporate motive
and fit in cause related marketing”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 200-207.
Nelson, P. (1970), “Information and consumer behavior”,
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 311-329.
Netemeyer, R., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M.,
Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth, F. (2004), “Developing and
validating measures of facets of customer-based brand
equity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2,
pp. 209-224.
Nilsson, T., Foster, K. and Lusk, J.L. (2006), “Marketing
opportunities for certified pork chops”, Canadian Journal of
Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne D’agroeconomie,
Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 567-583.
 Impact of altruistic attribution
Stéphane Legendre and François Coderre
Nocella, G., Romano, D. and Stefani, G. (2014), “Consumers’
attitudes, trust and willingness to pay for food information”,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 153-165.
Norberg, H.M., Maehle, N. and Korneliussen, T. (2011),
“From commodity to brand: antecedents and outcomes of
consumers’ label perception”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 368-378.
Ortega, D.L., Wang, H.H. and Widmar, N.J.O. (2014),
“Effects of media headlines on consumer preferences for
food safety, quality and environmental attributes”, Australian
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 59 No. 3,
pp. 433-445.
Pancer, E., McShane, L. and Noseworthy, T.J. (2017),
“Isolated environmental cues and product efficacy penalties:
the color green and eco-labels”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 143 No. 1, pp. 159-177.
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2005),
“Consumer-based brand equity: improving the
measurement empirical evidence”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 143-154.
Pettersson, I.C., Weeks, C.A., Maven Wilson, L.R. and Nicol,
C.J. (1999), “Consumer perceptions of free-range laying hen
welfare”, British Food Journal, Vol. 118 No. 8,
pp. 1999-2013.
Phau, I., Teah, M. and Chuah, J. (2015), “Consumer attitudes
towards luxury fashion apparel made in sweatshops”, Journal
of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 169-187.
Preacher, K.J., Zhang, Z. and Zyphur, M.J. (2011),
“Alternative methods for assessing mediation in multilevel
data: the advantages of multilevel SEM”, Structural Equation
Modeling, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 161-182.
Preacher, K.J., Zyphur, M.J. and Zhang, Z. (2010), “A general
multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel
mediation”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 209-233.
Rao, A.R., Qu, L. and Ruekert, R.W. (1999), “Signaling
unobservable product quality through a brand ally”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 258-268.
Rim, H., Yang, S.U. and Lee, J. (2016), “Strategic
partnerships with nonprofits in corporate social
responsibility (CSR): the mediating role of perceived
altruism and organizational identification”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 9, pp. 3213-3219.
Samu, S. and Wymer, W. (2014), “Cause marketing
communications consumer inference on attitudes towards
brand and cause”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48
Nos 7/8, pp. 1333-1353.
Sarkar, A. and Sreejesh, S. (2014), “Examination of the roles
played by brand love and jealousy in shaping customer
engagement”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 24-32.
Speed, R. and Thompson, P. (2000), “Determinants of sports
sponsorship response”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 226-238.
Swait, J., Erdem, T., Louviere, J. and Dubelaar, C. (1993),
“The equalization price: a measure of consumer-perceived
brand equity”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 23-45.
645
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 6 · 2018 · 634–646
Tong, X. and Hawley, J.M. (2009), “Measuring customer-
based brand equity: empirical evidence from the sportswear
market in China”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 262-271.
Tonsor, G.T. (2011), “Consumer inferences of food safety and
quality”, European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 38
No. 2, pp. 213-235.
Van Loo, E.J., Caputo, V., Nayga, R.M., Jr. and Verbeke, W.
(2014), “Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on
meat”, Food Policy, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 137-150.
Washburn, J.H. and Plank, R.E. (2002), “Measuring brand
equity: an evaluation of a consumer-based brand equity
scale”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 46-62.
Washburn, J.H., Till, B.D. and Priluck, R. (2004), “Brand
alliance and customer-based brand-equity effects”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 487-508.
Webb, D.J. and Mohr, L.A. (1998), “A typology of consumer
responses to cause-related marketing: from skeptics to
socially concerned”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 226-238.
Wierich, R. and Zielke, S. (2014), “How retailer coupons
increase attitudinal loyalty – the impact of three coupon
design elements”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48
Nos 3/4, pp. 699-721.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a
multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2002), “Testing cross-cultural
invariance of the brand equity creation process”, Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 6,
pp. 380-398.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of
selected marketing mix elements and brand equity”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 195-211.
Zasuwa, G. (2016), “Do the ends justify the means? How
altruistic values moderate consumer responses to corporate
social initiatives”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 9,
pp. 3714-3719.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price,
quality, and value: a means end model and synthesis of
evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Zepeda, L., Sirieix, L., Pizarro, A., Coderre, F. and Rodier,
F. (2013), “A conceptual framework for analyzing
consumers’ food label preferences: an exploratory study
of sustainability labels in France, Quebec, Spain and the
US”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 37
No. 6, pp. 605-616.
Further reading
Berry, C., Burton, S. and Howlett, E. (2017), “It’s only
natural: the mediating impact of consumers’ attribute
inferences on the relationships between product claims,
perceived product healthfulness, and purchase intentions”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 5,
pp. 698-719.
Spence, M. (1973), “Job market signaling”, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 355-374.
 Impact of altruistic attribution
Stéphane Legendre and François Coderre
Appendix – messages in the advertisements
manipulating altruistic attribution and brand
equity
Low altruistic attribution and low brand equity
The brand Farmland hopes to increase its profits with this
animal welfare programme.
High altruistic attribution and low brand equity
The brand Farmland sincerely hopes to improve the
conditions in which animals are raised with this animal welfare
programme.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
646
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 6 · 2018 · 634–646
Low altruistic attribution and high brand equity
The brand Olymel hopes to increase its profits with this
animal welfare programme.
High altruistic attribution and high brand equity
The brand Olymel sincerely hopes to improve the
conditions in which animals are raised with this animal welfare
programme.
Corresponding author
Stéphane Legendre can be contacted at: Stephane.
Legendre@USherbrooke.ca
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.