Received: 3 October 2017 Accepted: 15 October 2017

DOI: 10.1002/cb.1697

ACADEMIC PAPER

Price fairness, satisfaction, and trust as antecedents of purchase

intentions towards organic food
Faruk Anıl Konuk

Department of Business Administration,

Sakarya University, Esentepe Campus, 54187,
Serdivan, Sakarya, Turkey
Correspondence
Dr Faruk Anıl Konuk, Department of Business
Administration, Sakarya University, Esentepe
Campus, 54187, Serdivan, Sakarya, Turkey.
Email: anil.kon@gmail.com
Abstract
Health and environmental issues are increasingly important in consumers' decision‐making
process. Accordingly, demand for organic food is rapidly growing. In this context, the objective
of this study is to analyze the relationship between price fairness, satisfaction, trust, and purchase
intentions towards organic food. With this aim, empirical data were collected with self‐
administrated questionnaires from a convenience sample of consumers from Sakarya, Turkey.
Proposed hypotheses were tested with structural equations modeling. The results indicated
positive relationships between price fairness, satisfaction, trust, and purchase intentions. At the
end of this study, theoretical contributions, managerial implications, limitations, and suggestions
for future research are discussed.

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N both agency costs”. Therefore, in order to achieve competitive

The demand for organic food is steadily growing, and consequently,
food companies are introducing new organic food products to achieve
competitive advantage in the marketplace (Meredith & Willer, 2016).
Producing organic food can be considered as a part of a companies'
proactive marketing strategy to expand their market with attracting
health and environmentally conscious consumers.
Previous empirical research about organic food has broadly
analyzed main motives and barriers to organic food consumption
(e.g., Bravo, Cordts, Schulze, & Spiller, 2013; Lea & Worsley, 2005;
Xie, Wang, Yang, Wang, & Zhang, 2015; Zanoli & Naspetti, 2002). Past
research revealed that one of the most expressed barriers to organic
food consumption is price (Bryła, 2016; Buder, Feldmann, & Hamm,
2014; Hughner, McDonagh, Shultz, & Staton, 2007; Lea & Worsley,
2005; Marian, Chrysochou, Krystallis, & Thøgersen, 2014; Zanoli &
Naspetti, 2002). The price of organic food is usually higher than
conventional counterparts due to the unavailability of economies of
scale and additional costs in the production process. Thus, understand-
ing consumers' price fairness perceptions and their consequences are
crucial for the success of organic food sales.
Lack of trust is another widely emphasized barrier to organic
food consumption (Bhaskaran, Polonsky, Cary, & Fernandes, 2006;
Hughner et al., 2007; Lea & Worsley, 2005; Padel & Foster, 2005).
Chiou and Droge (2006, p. 616) stated that “trust is important in many
high‐involvement, premium product markets because consumers are
exposed to costs associated with adverse selection and moral hazard,
advantage, building trust in organic food is essential for companies to
maintain successful relationships with their customers (Sirdeshmukh,
Singh, & Sabol, 2002). Past evidence indicated that trust leads to
purchase intentions in the context of organic food consumption
(Liang, 2016). Consequently, building customer trust in organic food
that has remarkable health and environmental claims is critical for food
producers and marketers.
Satisfaction has been considered a vital concept of corporate
strategy (Homburg, Koschate, & Hoyer, 2005). Consumption experi-
ence has been considered an important concept as a source of trust
(Delgado‐Ballester & Munuera Alemaín, 2001, p. 1243). Evidence
revealed that satisfied consumers are more likely to purchase
(Ha, Akamavi, Kitchen, & Janda, 2014) and recommend the product
or service to other people (Babin, Lee, Kim, & Griffin, 2005). For that
reason, improving and managing customer satisfaction towards organic
food are also beneficial for food companies to expand their organic
food market.
In marketing literature, the concepts of price fairness (e.g., Bolton,
Warlop, & Alba, 2003; Martín‐Ruiz & Rondán‐Cataluña, 2008;
Vaidyanathan & Aggarwal, 2003; Xia, Monroe, & Cox, 2004), satisfac-
tion (e.g., Fornell, 1992; Oliver, 1980; Homburg, Koschate, & Hoyer,
2006) trust (e.g., Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Garbarino & Johnson,
1999; Morgan & Hunt, 1994) and purchase intentions (Dodds,
Monroe, & Grewal, 1991; Grewal, Krishnan, Baker, & Borin, 1998)
were extensively studied. Unlike previous studies, this empirical
research investigates the role of price fairness on organic food

J Consumer Behav. 2017;1–8. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cb Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 KONUK
satisfaction, trust in organic food, and purchase intentions. In addition,
there is a lack of empirical studies examining the relationship
between organic food satisfaction and trust in organic food. To fill
this gap, the purpose of this empirical study is to analyze the rela-
tionships between price fairness, satisfaction, trust, and purchase
intentions towards organic food. In addition, this study also aims to
introduce a holistic framework and contribute to the theory of
justice, the principle of dual entitlement and commitment‐trust
theory with focusing on organic food products that are relatively new,
usually perceived as more expensive and healthier than conventionally
produced alternatives (Bryła, 2016; Magnusson, Arvola, Hursti, Aberg,
& Sjoden, 2001; Roitner‐Schobesberger, Darnhofer, Somsook, &
Vogl, 2008). Moreover, this research also contributes with managerial
implications, recommendations, and opportunities for the organic
food industry.
The paper structured as follows. In the first section, the concepts
of price fairness, satisfaction, trust, purchase intentions are defined,
and hypotheses are proposed based on the theoretical relationships
between these constructs. In the second section, the methodology
is described with data collection, sample, and measurement. Then,
analysis and results are presented in the third section. In the last
section, theoretical contributions, managerial implications, limitations,
and suggestions for further research are discussed.
2 | CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
2.1 | Price fairness and satisfaction
Pricing decision is critical in marketing that has an impact on profits,
and price is considered as a decision criterion for consumers to pur-
chase a specific product or service (Bechwati, Sisodia, & Sheth, 2009:
761). Accordingly, to set price levels effectively or in determining price
changes, companies need to understand customer reactions to these
pricing strategies (Homburg, Hoyer, & Koschate, 2005: 36). Therefore,
a considerable number of studies have examined pricing issues from
the consumers' perspective (e.g., Homburg et al., 2005; Varki &
Colgate, 2001).
The concept of price fairness is one of the most discussed
concepts in pricing literature in marketing. Price fairness has its roots
mainly from the theory of justice and dual entitlement principle. Equity
theory states that “parties involved in social exchanges compare with
each other the ratios of their inputs into the exchange to their
outcomes from the exchange” (Bechwati et al., 2009, p. 761). In other
words, according to equity theory, “the concept of fairness involves a
judgment of the ratio between outcomes and inputs in an exchange”.
Homburg et al., 2005, p. 41). According to the equity theory,
“consumers do not only think about what they pay and get when
considering buying a product, they also consider what the firm pays
(costs) and what it gets (price)” (Bechwati et al., 2009: 761). Dual
entitlement principle emphasizes that suppliers and customers entitled
to a reference profit and reference price, respectively, and customer
evaluate price increases as fair as this increase is proportional with
costs increases if other things being equal (Bolton & Alba, 2006).
Price fairness is defined as “a consumer's assessment and associ-
ated emotions of whether the difference between a seller's price and
the price of a comparative other party is reasonable, acceptable, or
justifiable” (Xia et al., 2004: 3). Ferguson and Ellen (2013: 304) stated
that “to judge the fairness of a price, a consumer may judge the
price according to the derived value, the price relative to other prices
(i.e. those offered by competitors or paid by other customers), and/or
the fairness of the price‐setting practice”. Bolton et al. (2003) empha-
sized that past prices, rival prices, and costs of products determine
the judgment of price fairness. Based on these arguments, price fairness
can be considered as a subjective evaluation of the comparison of the
competitors' product prices. In addition, past research also revealed
that price unfairness perceptions are mainly determined by the percep-
tion of excessive profits, perceived immorality, and inability to under-
stand pricing strategies (Bechwati et al., 2009).
Satisfaction is one of the most discussed concepts in consumer
behavior field, and prior studies have confirmed positive effect of
satisfaction on retention (Gustaffsson, Johnson, & Roos, 2005), com-
pany profits (Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994; Hallowell, 1996),
and consumers' willingness to pay (Homburg et al., 2005). One of the
widely accepted conceptualizations of satisfaction is based on expec-
tation‐confirmation paradigm suggested by Oliver (1980). According
to this approach, when consumer's expectations are met, satisfaction
occurs; otherwise, negative disconfirmation results in dissatisfaction.
In addition, satisfaction concept has been conceptualized with cogni-
tive and affective dimensions (Homburg et al., 2006). Based on this
argument, organic food satisfaction in this study refers to a specific
organic food products' ability to meet expectations, considering this
purchase is wise and gives happiness to consumers.
Past evidence demonstrated that price fairness positively affects
satisfaction (Bei & Chiao, 2006; Herrmann, Xia, Monroe, & Huber,
2007; Liang & Zhang, 2009; Martín‐Consuegra, Molina, & Esteban,
2007; Matute‐Vallejo, Bravo, & Pina, 2011). Similarly, in a recent study,
Fernandes and Calamote (2016) also found that price unfairness nega-
tively affects satisfaction. Accordingly, when consumers perceive
organic food's price as acceptable, reasonable, and fair, their satisfac-
tion level regarding with this food products is likely to be increased.
Based on this argument, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1 Price fairness is positively related to organic food
satisfaction.
2.2 | Price fairness and trust
Trust has been considered as an essential concept for maintaining a
successful relationship between customer and company (Moorman,
Deshpande, & Zaltman, 1993; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Sirdeshmukh
et al., 2002). Morgan and Hunt (1994: 23) define trust as “the percep-
tion of confidence in the exchange partner's reliability and integrity".
Martin et al. (2009: 590) stated that “if loyal customers believe that
the retailer is engaging in unfair practices, they may perceive that the
firm has broken the implicit trust of the relationship”. In other words,
fairness can be considered a prerequisite of trust. Chaudhuri and
Holbrook (2001: 82) emphasized that “beliefs about reliability, safety,
and honesty are all important facets of trust that people incorporate
KONUK
in their operationalization of trust”. Based on this argument, in this
study, trust in organic food refers to consumers' confidence in a
particular organic food product's reliability, integrity, and safety.
In prior research, price fairness has been conceptualized as an
antecedent of trust (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). Empirical evidence also
revealed a positive relationship between price fairness and trust
(Weisstein, Monroe, & Kukar‐Kinney, 2013). In addition, Fernandes
and Calamote (2016) found a negative relationship between price
unfairness and trust. Therefore, it is expected that consumers' trust
in organic food may also be increased with higher perceived price
fairness perceptions towards this food product. Hence, the following
hypothesis is suggested:
H2 Price fairness is positively related to trust in
organic food.
2.3 | Satisfaction and trust
A large number of empirical studies indicated that satisfaction
positively related to trust (e.g., Bloemer & Odederken‐Scröder, 2002;
Delgado‐Ballester & Munuera Alemaín, 2001; Selnes, 1998; Wang,
2002; Zboja & Voorhees, 2006). According to this evidence, past expe-
rience related to organic food may determine consumers' evaluations
towards these products. Therefore, it is predicted that organic food's
ability about meeting consumers' expectations may determine trust
towards this food product. Based on this argument, it is plausible to
expect that highly satisfied consumers will be more likely to trust
towards organic food. Based on this discussion, Hypothesis 3 is posited:
H3 Organic food satisfaction is positively related to trust
in organic food.
2.4 | Price fairness, satisfaction, trust, and purchase
intentions
The literature suggests that price fairness has a positive effect on
purchase intentions (Homburg, Totzek, & Krämer, 2014; Kukar‐Kinney,
Xia, & Monroe, 2007; Martín‐Consuegra et al., 2007). Similarly, it was
also found that customers' unfairness perception has a negative impact
on purchase intentions (Campbell, 1999; Fernandes & Calamote,
2016). A considerable amount of prior research also revealed that
satisfaction (Fernandes & Calamote, 2016; Jones, Mothersbaugh, &
Beatty, 2002; Oliver, 1980; Tudoran, Olsen, & Popico, 2012; Zboja &
Voorhees, 2006) and trust positively associated to purchase intentions
(Fernandes & Calamote, 2016; Matzler, Grabner‐Kraüter, & Bidmon,
2008; Weisstein et al., 2013; Zboja & Voorhees, 2006).
As it was mentioned previously, one of the most emphasized
barriers to organic food consumption is high price (e.g., Buder et al.,
2014; Hughner et al., 2007). Hjelmar (2011, p. 338) found that value‐
oriented consumers perceived the prices organic food as acceptable.
According to the survey conducted by Aryal, Chaudhary, Pandit, and
Sharma (2009), about 40% of consumers stated that organic food price
was reasonable. In addition, it was also found that high price of
an organic food was a disadvantage for causing a repeat purchase
(Marian et al., 2014).
3
Satisfaction is one of the most important issues that should also be
considered in the context of organic food consumption (Sandalidou,
Baourakis, & Siskos, 2002). Past research revealed that overall satisfac-
tion of consumers for organic food was higher than counterparts
(Paul & Rana, 2012). In addition, Lindgreen (2003) emphasized the
importance of trust as a valuable strategic variable in the food industry.
Specifically, consumers cannot be directly able to evaluate the benefits
of organic food products; they trust on labels and certificates. Products
are those for which consumers are not able to evaluate effectively as
signals of trustworthiness of product claims (Voon, Ngui, & Agrawal,
2011). Trust was found one of the most important criteria that influ-
ence consumers' food purchase decisions (Krystallis & Chryssohoidis,
2005). Specifically, in the context of organic food consumption, a posi-
tive relationship was also found between trust and purchase intentions
(Liang, 2016; Pomsanam, Napompech, & Suwanmameepong, 2014;
Teng & Wang, 2015; Tung, Shih, Wei, & Yu‐Hua Chen, 2012). Based
on this aforementioned literature, it is expected that consumers who
perceive organic food product's price as fair, their purchase intentions
towards this food product will be increased. In addition, satisfaction
and trust towards organic food may enhance consumers' purchase
intentions towards organic food. Therefore, the following hypotheses
are formulated:
H4 Price fairness is positively related to purchase
intentions towards organic food.
H5 Organic food satisfaction is positively related to
purchase intentions towards organic food.
H6 Trust in organic food is positively related to purchase
intentions towards organic food.
According to the aforementioned hypotheses, a conceptual model
was developed and depicted in Figure 1. In this model, price fairness,
organic food satisfaction, and trust in organic food are proposed as
antecedents of purchase intentions towards organic food.
3 | M E TH OD O LO GY
3.1 | Measurement instrument
All variables in the questionnaire were measured with 5‐point Likert‐
type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Scale items
were adapted from previously validated scales. In this context,
Price Fairness
H
H Trust in H Purchase Intentions
Organic Food towards Organic
H Food
H
Organic Food
Satisfaction
H
FIGURE 1 Conceptual model
4 KONUK

respondents' price fairness towards organic food was measured using
three items adapted from Vaidyanathan and Aggarwal (2003). Three
items for trust in organic food were modified from Chaudhuri and
Holbrook (2001). Organic food satisfaction was measured with three
items taken from Oliver (1980). Three items for purchase intentions
were adapted from Netemeyer et al. (2004), Lee, Hsu, Han, and Kim
(2010), and Chen and Chang (2012).
Prior to the main study, two academicians and three professionals
were consulted to assess face validity of the relevant scales (Edward,
George, & Sarkar, 2012). After, a pilot study was performed with a
convenience sample of 20 consumers who have purchased organic
food previously to check the understandability of the questionnaire.
Based on feedback from pretest, some minor changes have been made
to improve the clarity of the questionnaire. The list of all variables is
presented in Table 1.
3.2 | Data collection and sample
Data were gathered with self‐administrated questionnaires from a
convenience sample of consumers in Sakarya, Turkey, during January
2017. Before distributing questionnaires to respondents, the aim of
this study was explained and asked a prescreened question whether
they have purchased organic food in the past. Therefore, respondents
who have purchased at least one organic food product were included
in the survey and requested them to answer the questionnaire based
on a recently purchased organic food product.
Five hundred questionnaires were distributed, 407 of them
returned that yielded a response rate of 81%. Of the 407 respondents,
58 participants were excluded due to missing values. At the end, 349
were deemed for the analysis.
The demographic characteristics of the sample are as follows.
Approximately, 57% of the respondents were female. With regard to
marital status, more than half of the consumers (65%) were married.
About 48% of the consumers graduated from a university and approx-
imately 19% were between the ages of 26 and 30, 45% were between
the ages of 31 and 35, and 18% were between the ages of 36–40. In
terms of income, 28% of the respondents had a monthly household
income between 4,001–6,000 TL and 43% between 6,001–8,000 TL.
Consumers' recently purchased organic food products include
cheeses, milk, eggs, yogurts, baby foods, fruit juices, vegetables, fruits,
legumes, chickens, vinegar, and teas.
3.3 | Analysis and results
In this section, following two‐step approach suggested by Anderson and
Gerbing (1998), 12‐item, four‐factor, covariance structure measurement
model is analyzed in terms of construct validity and reliability, and then
proposed hypotheses are tested with the structural model.
3.4 | Measurement model
In order to test construct validity, convergent and discriminant validity
of the constructs were analyzed. Measurement model fit indexes,
which are depicted in Table 1, are acceptable, and this implies that
the model fits the data well (Arbuckle, 2006).
Construct validity of the scales were evaluated with convergent
and discriminant validity. To assess convergent validity, factor loadings
of each construct were evaluated. Factor loadings of all constructs
were above the recommended value of 0.50 and significant, demon-
strating evidence of convergent validity (Hair, Black, Babin, &

TABLE 1 Measurement model results

Constructs AVE CR α Loadings

Price fairness 0.67 0.86 0.89

The price of this organic food is acceptable. 0.78

The price of this organic food is fair. 0.79

The price of this organic food is reasonable. 0.88
Organic food satisfaction 0.73 0.89 0.89
I am satisfied with my decision to purchase this organic food. 0.79
I am happy to purchase this organic food. 0.90
My choice to purchase of this organic food is a wise one. 0.87
Trust in organic food 0.71 0.88 0.88
I trust this organic food. 0.80
This organic food is reliable. 0.87
This organic food is safe. 0.86
Purchase intentions towards organic food 0.77 0.91 0.92
I am willing to buy this organic food in the future. 0.91
I plan to purchase this organic food. 0.88
I will make effort to buy this organic food. 0.84
Measurement model fit indexes
χ2/df:122.525/46 = 2.66 CFI: 0.98 GFI: 0.91 AGFI: 0.90 TLI: 0.97 IFI: 0.98 RMSEA: 0.07

Note: α = Cronbach's alpha; CR = ( standardized loadings)2/( standardized loadings)2 + ( indicator measurement error); AVE = ( squared standardized load-
ings)/( squared standardized loadings) + ( indicator measurement error); df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index;
GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
KONUK 5

Anderson, 2010: 710). In addition, average variance extracted for all
constructs are above the suggested value of 0.50, which also supports
convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Construct correlations are depicted in Table 2. According to this
table, the highest construct correlation was 0.78, which is below the
suggested value of 0.85. Therefore, discriminant validity of the
measurement model was achieved (Kline, 1998: 60). In addition,
discriminant validity is also demonstrated if average variance extracted
of each construct is higher than squared correlations of all construct
pairs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Taking into account of Tables 1 and
2, discriminant validity is proved.
Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability statistics were used to
test the reliability of the scales. Reliability values are depicted in
Table 1. The values for each of the constructs are above the recom-
mended level of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010: 710), which indicates that all
scales are reliable.
3.5 | Structural equation model
After confirming the measurement model in terms of construct validity
and reliability, the proposed hypotheses were tested with structural
equations model using maximum‐likelihood estimation. Goodness of
fit‐statistics of structural model was acceptable (χ2 = 122.525, df = 46,
χ2/df = 2.66, comparative fit index = 0.98, goodness of fit index = 0.94,
adjusted goodness of fit index = 0.91, Tucker–Lewis index = 0.97, incre-
mental fit index = 0.98, root mean square error of approximation = 0.07).
The standardized estimates for this model are depicted in Figure 2.
H1 argues that price fairness is positively related to organic food
satisfaction. The structural model indicates that the relationships
between these two constructs are significant and positive (β = 0.73,
p = .001).Therefore, H1 is supported. H2 and H3 state that price fair-
ness and organic food satisfaction positively related to trust in organic
food. The results reveal positive role of price fairness and satisfaction
on trust in organic food, confirming H2 (β = 0.24, p = .001) and H3
(β = 0.60, p = .001), respectively. The role of price fairness, satisfaction,
and trust on purchase intentions is formulated in H4, H5, and H6,
TABLE 2 Construct intercorrelations
(1) (2) (3)
1. Price fairness 1.00
2. Organic food satisfaction 0.73 1.00
3. Trust in organic food 0.68 0.78 1.00
4. Purchase intentions towards organic food 0.67 0.74 0.76
Price Fairness
0.17*
0.24** Trust in 0.44** Purchase Intentions
0.73** Organic Food towards Organic
0.60** Food
respectively. The results of the structural model also supported H4
(β = 0.17, p = .05), H5 (β = 0.27, p = .001), and H6 (β = 0.44, p = .001).
Accordingly, price fairness, satisfaction, and trust contribute to pur-
chase intentions towards organic food. Consequently, all hypothesized
relationships were confirmed. In addition, according to the squared
multiple correlations, the model explained 53% variance in organic food
satisfaction, 64% in trust in organic food, and 65% in purchase inten-
tions towards organic food.
4 | DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1 | Theoretical contributions
Organic food's price is inevitably higher than conventional ones. There-
fore, it is crucial to understand consumers' perceived price fairness, and
its consequences are important for both theory and practice. In this
context, the purpose of this study was to test the relationships between
price fairness, satisfaction, trust, and purchase intentions towards
organic food. There are four main theoretical contributions emerged
from this study. This study is the first to examine the consequences
of price fairness in the context of organic food consumption with intro-
ducing a conceptual framework that contributes to the theory of justice
and the principle of dual entitlement. Second, past research has ignored
the relationship between organic food satisfaction and trust in organic
food. This study fills this gap with the proposed holistic conceptual
model. Third, this study also contributes commitment‐trust theory with
emphasizing the fundamental role of trust in maintaining relationships
between consumers and organic food producers. Fourth, this study
augments consumer behavior and pricing literature by testing the
influential role of price fairness on satisfaction, trust, and purchase
intentions towards organic food with structural equations modeling.
In line with previous research (e.g., Herrmann et al., 2007; Liang &
Zhang, 2009), price fairness leads to organic food satisfaction. This indi-
cates that price fairness plays an important role in consumer satisfaction.
Price fairness also positively associated with trust in organic food
confirming prior research (Weisstein et al., 2013). This implies that if
consumers perceive price of organic food is acceptable and fair, they will
(4) be more likely to trust organic food. In other words, consumers will not
think that they exploited by the organic food producers.
The positive relationship was also found between organic food
satisfaction and trust in organic food confirming prior research (e.g.,
1.00 Zboja & Voorhees, 2006; Bloemer & Odederken‐Scröder, 2002). This
result suggests that satisfied consumer is more likely to trust in an
organic food product. In this context, this study confirms two anteced-
ents of trust including price fairness and satisfaction.
In addition, consistent with previous research, price fairness (e.g.,
Kukar‐Kinney et al., 2007; Martín‐Consuegra et al., 2007), satisfaction
(e.g., Fernandes & Calamote, 2016; Zboja & Voorhees, 2006), and trust

Organic Food
(e.g., Fernandes & Calamote, 2016; Teng & Wang, 2015; Zboja &
Satisfaction Voorhees, 2006) significantly influence purchase intentions towards
0.27**
organic food. Moreover, structural equation model explained a substantial
amount of variance in purchase intentions towards organic food. Accord-
** p <0.001; * p <0.05
ingly, this result implies that price fairness, satisfaction, and trust can be
FIGURE 2 Structural equation model results considered as antecedents to purchase intentions towards organic food.
6 KONUK
4.2 | Managerial implications
The results of this study provide some managerial implications. Identify-
ing fair price levels of consumers, companies may increase organic food
satisfaction, and consequently, enhance trust in organic food. In this con-
text, to increase perceptions of price fairness, food companies should
enhance perceived value towards organic food with lowering nonmone-
tary costs (energy, effort, and time) associated with organic product
purchase and increasing perceived benefits (Zeithaml, 1988). In this con-
text, retailers should place organic food in individual shelves to increase
visibility, and stock tracking systems should be managed efficiently to
prevent stock‐outs. In addition, packages should be environmentally
friendly and attractive to increase visibility and attract consumers. More-
over, recycled packages may also increase positive attitudes towards
organic food with emphasizing environmental friendly image. In order
to provide convenience, organic food producers should use alternative
distribution channels such as the Internet. Considering limited organic
food stores in different regions, internet stores can be a good opportu-
nity for organic food producers. In addition, companies should emphasize
health and environmental benefits of organic food to enhance perceived
value towards organic food products, and consequently, consumers'
price fairness perceptions may be increased.
Retailers should also benefit from lower‐priced private label
organic food to increase price fairness perceptions of consumers. As
price fairness perceptions of organic food are mainly determined by
the comparison of competitors prices, companies should compare their
rivals' organic food prices to determine the sales price of organic food.
In addition, companies should investigate the perceptions of their cost
and price level that consumers will consider acceptable and fair
(Martín‐Ruiz & Rondán‐Cataluña, 2008: 348). In addition, when setting
price levels of organic food, companies should predict how consumers
respond the different price levels and price fairness perceptions
(Martín‐Consuegra et al., 2007: 464).
Product customization and product differentiation could also
increase customer's perceptions of price fairness towards organic food
products (Xia et al., 2004: 8).Therefore, producers and retailer should
emphasize differences between organic and conventional food and
communicate about the reasons behind the price level of organic food
(Martín‐Consuegra et al., 2007: 464). In order to set optimal price
levels of organic food, companies should predict how consumers are
likely to react to different price points or price increases (Martín‐
Consuegra et al., 2007: 464).
Homburg et al. (2005) found that perceived motive for a price
increase is positively related to repurchase intentions; therefore, price
increases should also be acceptable and fair and these increases should
be proportional to rival producers' price levels. Price increases should
be justifiable as consumers perceive this increase fair when the price
increase is due to increasing cost than profits (Martin et al., 2009:
590). Past research found that excessive profits are rejected by the
consumers (Bechwati et al., 2009); therefore, prices of organic food
should be increased in small amounts to ensure consumers a justifiable
reason for this increase (Martin et al., 2009: 592).
Customer satisfaction programs are essential for food companies
to measure, manage, and develop customers' satisfaction towards
organic food (Bernhardt, Donthu, & Kennett, 2000: 169; Delgado‐
Ballester & Munuera Alemaín, 2001: 1254). In this context, organic
food producers should trace satisfaction levels of their consumers
and take feedback about their complaints to develop organic food
products. Moreover, companies should benefit customer loyalty
programs to increase organic food satisfaction (Gustaffsson et al.,
2005: 216). For example, free gifts, discounts, free trials, and coupons
may trigger the purchase of organic food products.
In order to increase customers' trust, companies should educate
consumers about organic food production. In this context, information
about organic farming should be provided in detail, and consumer visits
should be arranged to organic farming fields to convince and educate
consumers about organic food production. Experts should also be used
in traditional and social media as a reference group to motivate
consumers about organic food consumption. Organic food companies
should explain the reasons of the sales price of food products
to convince consumers regarding with organic food products
(Martín‐Consuegra et al., 2007: 464). In addition, to increase trust
regarding with organic food, producers should also provide sufficient
information and organic certificates on product packages (Teng &
Wang, 2015: 1077).
Food companies should implement social responsibility campaigns
such as environmental and health projects to stimulate the purchase of
their organic food products. In addition, donations with product
purchase to non‐profit organizations can be an effective campaign to
trigger consumers' purchase intentions towards organic food. As a
result, food companies should consider the significant roles of price
fairness, satisfaction, and trust in motivating organic food sales.
4.3 | Limitations and suggestions for further research
There are some limitations of this study. Data were gathered with
convenience sampling method from one city, which limits the general-
ization of the findings. Therefore, future studies should replicate and
conduct in different regions with diverse samples to gain additional
insights about organic food consumption.
In this study, organic food in this was chosen to examine conse-
quences of consumers' price fairness perceptions. In future studies,
different range of products such as fair trade labels should be used
to compare with this study results. This study focused on the conse-
quences of price fairness in the context of organic food consumption.
Therefore, future research should analyze the antecedents of price
fairness perceptions, and the factors should be integrated into the
model to understand price fairness perceptions in detail.
Satisfaction, trust, and purchase intentions were modeled as
consequences of price fairness. It would be fruitful to use additional
variables such as emotions, price sensitivity, need for uniqueness,
and actual purchase behavior to explain organic food consumption in
more detail. Consumers' reference price needs to be identified to
understand the price perception of consumers in detail. In addition,
this research is based on a cross‐sectional data. Therefore, future
studies should conduct a longitudinal research to shed additional light
on organic food consumption.
ORCID
Faruk Anıl Konuk http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6265-3512
KONUK
RE FE R ENC E S
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfac-
tion, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of
Marketing, 58(2), 112–122.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1998). Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two‐step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7.0 user's guide, Amos Development Corporation.
PA: Spring House.
Aryal, K., Chaudhary, P., Pandit, S., & Sharma, G. (2009). Consumers' willing-
ness to pay for organic products: A case from Kathmandu valley. The
Journal of Agriculture and Environment, 10, 12–22.
Babin, B. J., Lee, Y. K., Kim, E. J., & Griffin, M. (2005). Modeling consumer
satisfaction and word‐of‐mouth: Restaurant patronage in Korea. Journal
of Services Marketing, 19(3), 133–139.
Bechwati, N. N., Sisodia, R. S., & Sheth, J. N. (2009). Developing a model of
antecedents to consumers' perceptions and evaluations of price unfair-
ness. Journal of Marketing Research, 62(8), 761–767.
Bei, L. T., & Chiao, Y. C. (2006). The determinants of customer loyalty: An
analysis of intangible factors in three service industries. International
Journal of Commerce and Management, 16(3/4), 162–177.
Bernhardt, K., Donthu, N., & Kennett, P. A. (2000). Longitudinal analysis of
satisfaction and profitability. Journal of Business Research, 47, 161–171.
Bhaskaran, S., Polonsky, M., Cary, C., & Fernandes, S. (2006). Environmen-
tally sustainable food production and marketing, opportunity or hype?
British Food Journal, 108(8), 677–690.
Bloemer, J., & Odederken‐Scröder, G. (2002). Store satisfaction and store loy-
alty explained by consumer and store‐related factors. Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 15, 68–80.
Bolton, L. E., & Alba, J. W. (2006). Price fairness: Good and service
differences and the role of vendor costs. Journal of Consumer Research,
33(2), 258–265.
Bolton, L. E., Warlop, L., & Alba, J. W. (2003). Consumer perceptions of
price (un)fairness. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 474–491.
Bravo, C. P., Cordts, A., Schulze, B., & Spiller, A. (2013). Assessing determi-
nants of organic food consumption using data from the German
National Nutrition Survey II. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 60–70.
Bryła, P. (2016). Organic food consumption in Poland: Motives and barriers.
Appetite, 105, 737–746.
Buder, F., Feldmann, C., & Hamm, U. (2014). Why regular buyers of organic
food still buy many conventional products product‐specific purchase bar-
riers for organic food consumers. British Food Journal, 116(3), 390–404.
Campbell, M. C. (1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: Antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 187–199.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand
trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty.
Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–94.
Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2012). Enhance green purchase intentions: The
roles of green perceived value, green perceived risk, and green trust.
Management Decision, 50(3), 502–520.
Chiou, J. S., & Droge, C. (2006). Service quality, trust, specific asset
investment and expertise: Direct and indirect effects in a satisfaction–
loyalty framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4),
613–627.
Delgado‐Ballester, E., & Munuera Alemaín, J. L. (2001). Brand trust in
the context of consumer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing,
35(11/12), 1238–1258.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand
and store information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal
ofMarketing Research., 28(3), 307–319.
Edward, M., George, B. P., & Sarkar, S. K. (2012). The impact of switching
costs upon the service quality‐perceived value‐customer satisfaction
service loyalty chain: A study in the context of cellular services in India.
Services Marketing Quarterly, 31(2), 151–173.
7
Ferguson, J. L., & Ellen, P. S. (2013). Transparency in pricing and its effect
on perceived price fairness. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
22(5/6), 404–412.
Fernandes, T., & Calamote, A. (2016). Unfairness in consumer services:
Outcomes of differential treatment of new and existing clients. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28, 36–44.
Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish
experience. Journal of Marketing, 56(1), 6–21.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement errors. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The differential roles of satisfaction,
trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing,
63(2), 70–87.
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., & Borin, N. (1998). The effect of store
name, brand name and price discounts on consumers' evaluations and
purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 331–352.
Gustaffsson, A., Johnson, M. J., & Roos, I. (2005). The effects of customer
satisfaction, relationship commitment dimensions, and triggers on
customer retention. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 210–218.
Ha, H. Y., Akamavi, R. P., Kitchen, P. J., & Janda, S. (2014). Exploring key
antecedents of purchase intentions within different services. Journal
of Services Marketing, 28(7), 595–606.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate
data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Hallowell, R. (1996). The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer
loyalty, and profitability: An empirical study. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 7(4), 27–42.
Herrmann, A., Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Huber, F. (2007). The influence of
price fairness on customer satisfaction: An empirical test in the context
of automobile purchases. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(1),
49–58.
Hjelmar, U. (2011). Consumers' purchase of organic food products. A
matter of convenience and reflexive practices. Appetite, 56(2), 336–344.
Homburg, C., Hoyer, W. D., & Koschate, N. (2005). Customers' reactions to
price increases: Do customer satisfaction and perceived motive fairness
matter? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(1), 36–49.
Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2005). Do satisfied customers
really pay more? A study of the relationship between customer satisfac-
tion and willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 84–96.
Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The role of cognition
and affect in the formation of customer satisfaction: A dynamic
perspective. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 21–31.
Homburg, C., Totzek, D., & Krämer, M. (2014). How price complexity takes
its toll: The neglected role of a simplicity bias and fairness in price
evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1114–1122.
Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P. A., Shultz, C. J., & Staton, J. (2007). Who are
organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people
purchase organic food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(2/3), 94–110.
Jones, M. A., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Beatty, S. E. (2002). Why customers
stay: Measuring the underlying dimensions of services switching costs
and managing their differential service outcomes. Journal of Business
Research, 55(6), 441–450.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. NJ:
The Gilford Press.
Krystallis, A., & Chryssohoidis, G. (2005). Consumers' willingness to pay for
organic food: Factors that affect it and variation per organic product
type. British Food Journal, 107(5), 320–343.
Kukar‐Kinney, M., Xia, L., & Monroe, K. B. (2007). Consumers' perceptions
of the fairness of price‐matching refund policies. Journal of Retailing,
83(3), 325–337.
Lea, E., & Worsley, T. (2005). Australians' organic food beliefs,
demographics and values. British Food Journal, 107(11), 855–869.
8 KONUK
Lee, J. S., Hsu, L. T. J., Han, H., & Kim, Y. (2010). Understanding how
consumers view green hotels: How a hotel's green image can
influence behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(7),
901–914.
Liang, R. D. (2016). Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: The
moderating effects of organic food prices. British Food Journal, 118(1),
183–199.
Liang, X., & Zhang, S. (2009). Investigation of customer satisfaction in
student food service: An example of student cafeteria in NHH. Interna-
tional Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(1), 113–124.
Lindgreen, A. (2003). Trust as a valuable strategic variable in the food
industry: Different types of trust and their implementation. British Food
Journal, 105(6), 310–327.
Magnusson, M., Arvola, A., Hursti, U., Aberg, L., & Sjoden, P. (2001).
Attitudes towards organic foods among Swedish consumers. British
Food Journal, 103(3), 209–226.
Marian, L., Chrysochou, P., Krystallis, A., & Thøgersen, J. (2014). The role
of price as a product attribute in the organic food context: An
exploration based on actual purchase data. Food Quality and
Preference, 37, 52–60.
Martin, W. C., Ponder, N., & Lueg, J. E. (2009). Price fairness perceptions
and customer loyalty in a retail context. Journal of Business Research,
62(6), 588–593.
Martín‐Consuegra, D., Molina, A., & Esteban, Á. (2007). An integrated
model of price, satisfaction and loyalty: An empirical analysis in
the service sector. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(7),
459–468.
Martín‐Ruiz, D., & Rondán‐Cataluña, F. J. (2008). The nature and
consequences of price unfairness in services: A comparison to tangible
goods. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19(3),
325–352.
Matute‐Vallejo, J., Bravo, L., & Pina, J. V. (2011). The influence of corporate
social responsibility and price fairness on customer behaviour: Evidence
from the financial sector. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environ-
mental Management, 18(6), 317–331.
Matzler, K., Grabner‐Kraüter, S., & Bidmon, S. (2008). Risk aversion and
brand loyalty: The mediating role of brand trust and brand affect.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(3), 154–162.
Meredith, S., & Willer, H. (2016). Organic in Europe, prospects and
developments 2016. Brussels, Belgium: IFOAM EU Group.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust
in market relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81–10.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment‐trust theory of
relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., &
Wirth, F. (2004). Developing and validating measures of facets of
customer‐based brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 57(2),
209–224.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and conse-
quences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4),
460–469.
Padel, S., & Foster, C. (2005). Exploring the gap between attitudes and
behaviour: Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic
food. British Food Journal, 107(8), 606–625.
Paul, J., & Rana, J. (2012). Consumer behavior and purchase intention for
organic food. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(6), 412–422.
Pomsanam, P., Napompech, K., & Suwanmameepong, S. (2014). Factors
driving Thai consumers' intention to purchase organic food. Asian
Journal of Scientific Research, 7(4), 343–446.
Roitner‐Schobesberger, B., Darnhofer, I., Somsook, S., & Vogl, C. R. (2008).
Consumer perceptions of organic foods in Bangkok, Thailand. Food
Policy, 33, 112–121.
Sandalidou, E., Baourakis, G., & Siskos, Y. (2002). Customers' perspectives
on the quality of organic olive oil in Greece: A satisfaction evaluation
approach. British Food Journal, 104(3/4/5), 391–406.
Selnes, F. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in
buyer‐seller relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 32(3/4), 305–322.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and
loyalty in relational exchange. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15–37.
Teng, C. C., & Wang, Y. M. (2015). Decisional factors driving organic food
consumption generation of consumer purchase intentions. British Food
Journal, 117(3), 1066–1081.
Tudoran, A. A., Olsen, S. O., & Popico, D. C. (2012). Satisfaction strength
and intention to purchase a new product. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
11(5), 391–405.
Tung, S. J., Shih, C. C., Wei, S., & Yu‐Hua Chen, Y.‐H. (2012). Attitudinal
inconsistency toward organic food in relation to purchasing intention
and behavior: An illustration of Taiwan consumers. British Food Journal,
114(7), 997–101.
Vaidyanathan, R., & Aggarwal, P. (2003). Who is the fairest of them all? An
attributional approach to price fairness perceptions. Journal of Business
Reseach, 56(6), 453–463.
Varki, S., & Colgate, M. (2001). The role of price perceptions in an
integrated model of behavioral intentions. Journal of Service Research,
3(3), 232–240.
Voon, J. P., Ngui, K. S., & Agrawal, A. (2011). Determinants of willingness to
purchase organic food: An exploratory study using structural equation
modeling. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review,
14(2), 103–120.
Wang, G. (2002). Attitudinal correlates of brand commitment. Journal of
Relationship Marketing, 1(2), 57–75.
Weisstein, F. L., Monroe, K. B., & Kukar‐Kinney, M. (2013). Effects of price
framing on consumers' perceptions of online dynamic pricing practices.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 501–514.
Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Cox, J. L. (2004). The price is unfair! A conceptual
framework of price fairness perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 1–15.
Xie, B., Wang, L., Yang, H., Wang, Y., & Zhang, M. (2015). Consumer
perceptions and attitudes of organic food products in Eastern China.
British Food Journal, 117(3), 1105–1121.
Zanoli, R., & Naspetti, S. (2002). Consumer motivation in the purchase of
organic food. British Food Journal., 104(8), 643–653.
Zboja, J., & Voorhees, C. (2006). The impact of brand trust and satisfaction on
retailer repurchase intentions. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(6), 381–390.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A
means‐end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing,
52(3), 2–22.
Dr. Faruk Anıla Konuk is an Associate Professor of Marketing in
the Department of Business Administration, Sakarya University,
Sakarya, Turkey. The author's research interests are related to con-
sumer behavior, retailing, and brand management. He has pub-
lished some articles in International Journal of Consumer Studies,
British Food Journal, International Journal of Mobile Marketing, and
Business Systems Review.
How to cite this article: Konuk FA. Price fairness, satisfaction,
and trust as antecedents of purchase intentions towards
organic food. J Consumer Behav. 2017;1–8. https://doi.org/
10.1002/cb.1697