This research investigates consumer attitudes and purchase intentions regarding organic food in the UK, noting the growing significance of the organic food market, which has expanded beyond a niche market due to consumer demand and wider availability in various retail outlets. Key factors influencing purchase intentions include organic certification labels, health and environmental concerns, and price, with findings indicating price remains a barrier for consumers. Additionally, the study highlights the importance of consumer knowledge as a determinant of their attitudes towards organic products, suggesting enhanced public education on organic food could bolster market growth.

1. Submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
of Master of Science in Marketing management
An investigation of the trend in consuming organic food
towards consumer attitude and purchase intention in the UK
by
Supinda Kanchana-ampol
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
University of Surrey
September 2017
Word count: 14,985 words
© Supinda Kanchana-ampol
Executive summary
Over the past two decades, the industry of organic food business
has developed into an immensity from a niche market. The
revolution among the global population of organic food
consumption has changed. Particularly, Britain is the third
largest organic food market in the world leading to vitality of
the sustainable food production. Moreover, consumers have
exposed a great intention in organic products. While, self-

2. awareness of food safety and quality are the factors of
consumer’s concerns.
Currently, organic food consumers can easily find various
places to buy organic food as many high street chains such as
Nando’s, McDonalds, Pret, and Jamie’s Italian are offering
organic products on their menus and supermarket chains are
providing wider ranges of organic choices. As a result, organic
food market has actually become one of the popular food
business and purchase choices these days. Moreover, high price
of organic food is seen as a barrier for organic market.
On the other hand, the various factors of consumer concerns and
characteristic of organic food have an influence on consumer
purchase intention. This research aims to investigate how
various factors affect intention to buy such as taste followed by
environmental concerns, price, and health consciousness among
British consumers. Therefore, there are four main objectives of
this research including to evaluate the relationship between
consumer knowledge about organic food and purchase intention,
and to analyse the characteristics of various factors (organic
certification labels, health, taste, environment, food safety,
price, better animal welfare) that affect purchase intention, and
to identify the relationship between demographic factors and
purchase intention. The last objective aims to find the most
influential factor of organic food that affect consumer purchase
intention.
In order to achieve the research aim, a quantitative approach
was adopted. The primary and secondary data were used. The
data for this research were collected from 120 respondents by
using online questionnaires. In order to examine the data and
answer the research aim, Pearson’s correlation, Pearson Chi-
square and multiple linear regression were used. Additionally,
descriptive statistics applied in data analysis were frequency
distribution, percentage, mean and standard deviation.

3. The finding of this study indicates that organic certification
labels on certain products could increase purchase intention of
customer. Hence, the consumer will have a strong confidence to
eat more of organic food. Generally, British consumers hold a
positive attitude toward the consumption of organic food as
various factors including health, environmental concerns, food
safety, and better animal welfare have a strong influence on
their purchases. Moreover, the knowledge consumers have about
organic food are proved to have influence on consumer attitude
towards organic food in the UK. Finally, it could be explained
that price is considered as the barrier to increase purchase
intention of organic food while the sensory attributes didn’t
affect their purchase.
In term of managerial implication, the findings from this
research are beneficial to organic food venders and customers in
the UK and could be considered as an advice for marketers. In
term of awareness of organic food, the information about
organic food should be widely disseminated to public in various
ways in order to increase consumer knowledge.
This study proposes few recommendations for future research.
The relationship between various factors and consumers’
purchase intention could be investigated in depth analysis by
applying qualitative approach for instance, interview on focus
groups. Additionally, this research was conducted only in the
UK. In the next study therefore, it could be possible to replicate
the study into other Europe countries with different cultures.
Key words: Organic food, Organic certification labels, Health
consciousness, Food safety, Environmental friendly, Purchase
intention.
Declaration of Originality

4. I hereby declare that this thesis has been composed by myself
and has not been presented or accepted in any previous
application for a degree. The work, of which this is record, has
been carried out by myself unless otherwise stated and where
the work is mine, it reflects personal views and value. All
questions have been distinguished by quotation marks and all
sources of information have been acknowledged by means of
references including those of the Internet.
I agree that the University has the right to submit my work to
the plagiarism detection service Turnitin UK for originality
checks
(Supinda Kanchana-ampol)
Acknowledgements
The most challenging but inspiring tasks would be writing the
master dissertation that I have ever accomplished. After an
intensive period of three months for doing dissertation, it
demands a lot of hard works and patience. My knowledge has
been more enriched through the process of amazing tasks. This
dissertation could not be done without the support by so many
people whom I wish to show my thankfulness.

5. First and foremost, I would like to dedicate my sincere
gratefulness to my supervisor Dr. Ioanna Anninou for her
support, valuable advice, and feedback which were so helpful to
lead me to the right track.
Besides, this dissertation might not be completely finished
without the enthusiastic support from Thai and British friends,
colleagues and relatives who have tried the most understanding
to fill in the survey and help me sharing the online survey to
other people.
Last but not least, special thanks to my family for their great
love and support to all my life.

6. Table of contents
Executive Summary
...............................................................................................
.....................ii - iii
Declaration of Originality
...............................................................................................
..............IV
Acknowledgements..................................................................
........................................................V List of figures
...............................................................................................
................................. IX List of tables
...............................................................................................
.....................................X
Chapter 1:
Introduction............................................................................
......................................1
1.1 Background to research
...............................................................................................
.........1
1.2 Research aims and
objectives................................................................................
................3
1.3 Structure of this research
...............................................................................................
.......4
1.4 Chapter summary
...............................................................................................
....................4
Chapter 2: Literature review
...............................................................................................
............5
2. Consumers’ knowledge, attitude and purchasing intention
about organic foods………...............5

7. 2.1 Concerns of consumer regarding several aspects of organic
foods...........................................5
2.1.1 Product labels in credence good
markets.....................................................................5-7
2.1.2 Health and nutritional concern
…................................................................................7-8
2.1.3 Environmental
concern…................................................................................
.............8-9
2.1.4 Food safety
concern…................................................................................
.....................9
2.1.5 Price
consciousness….......................................................................
..........................9-10
2.1.6 Animal welfare
consequences….......................................................................
..............10
2.2 Sensory attributes of organic
foods…...................................................................................
...10
2.2.1 Taste, Appearance, Size, and
Freshness…................................................................10-11
2.3 Socio -Economic factors affecting organic food
consumption..................................................11
2.3.1 Gender, Age, Economic factors, Education level, and
family size.............................11-12
2.4 Purchase intention
preferences..............................................................................
...............12-13
2.5 Consumer
attitude............................................................................. ......
..............................13-15
2.5.1 Attitude of Consumer towards Organic
Food...........................................................15-16
2.6 Consumer

8. knowledge........................................................................ .......
............................16-17
2.7
Hypothesis..............................................................................
..............................................17-18
2.8 Chapter
summary.................................................................................
.....................................19
Chapter 3: Research
Methodology………………………………………………….………
….20
3.1
Introduction............................................................................
...................................................20
3.2 Research
philosophy…...........................................................................
.................................. 20
3.3 Research
approach............................................................................... ..
.............................20-21
3.4 Research
Design....................................................................................
...................................21
3.4.1 Qualitative vs. Quantitative
Research..............................................................................21
3.4.2 Exploratory, Descriptive, or
Explanatory....................................................................21 -22
3.5 Research
strategies................................................................................
...................................22
3.5.1 Types of research
strategies................................................................................
........22-23
3.6 Time
horizon...................................................................................

9. ..........................................24
3.7 Research
instruments.............................................................................
..................................24
3.7.1 Sampling
instrument...............................................................................
.........................24
3.7.2 Data collection
instruments.............................................................................
............24-26
3.7.3 Data analysis
instrument...............................................................................
..............26-27
3.8 Validity and
reliability................................................................................
........................27-28
3.9 Pilot
study.......................................................................................
.....................................28-29
3.10 Ethical
issues......................................................................................
...................................29
3.11 Chapter
summary.................................................................................
...............................29
Chapter 4: Finding and
analysis……………………...……………………………………...3
0
4.1
Introduction............................................................................
...............................................30
4.2 Participants in the
research..................................................................................
...........30-31
4.2.1

10. Gender....................................................................................
.......................................32
4.2.2
Age.........................................................................................
...................................32-33
4.2.3
Occupation..............................................................................
......................................33
4.2.4
Education................................................................................
.......................................34
4.2.5 Annual
income....................................................................................
............................35
4.3 Organic or Non-organic
consumer.................................................................................
.35-36
4.3.1 Reasons for not eating organic
food.............................................................................36
4.4 Purchase behaviour
trend.......................................................................................
..............37
4.4.1 The frequency of organic consumers’
purchases..........................................................37
4.4.2 Categories of organic food
purchase............................................................................38
4.4.3 Places to
purchase..................................................................................
......................39
4.5 Challenges face when purchasing organic
food...................................................................40
4.6 Consumer Knowledge regarding organic
food...............................................................41-42
4.7
Reliability...............................................................................
..........................................42-43

11. 4.8 Descriptive
statistics..................................................................................
...........................44
4.8.1 Organic Certification
Labels.....................................................................................
...44
4.8.2
Price.......................................................................................
.................................44-45
4.8.3 Purchase
intention.................................................................................
.......................45
4.7 Statistic testing of
Hypotheses..............................................................................
..........45-46
4.7.1 Hypothesis
1.............................................................................................
....................47
4.7.2 Hypothesis
2.............................................................................................
...........…48-51
4.7.3 Hypothesis
3.............................................................................................
....................52
4.7.4 Hypothesis
4.............................................................................................
.....................53
4.7.5 Hypothesis
5.............................................................................................
......................54
4.7.6 Hypothesis
6.............................................................................................
......................55
4.7.8 Hypothesis
7.............................................................................................
......................56

12. 4.9 Chapter
summary............................................................................. ....
.................................57
Chapter 5: Discussions.
………………………..…………………………………………….58
5.1
Introduction............................................................................
..............................................58
5.2 Discussion on hypothesis
1.............................................................................................
......58
5.3 Discussion on hypothesis
2................................................................................... ..........
58-59
5.4 Discussion on hypothesis
3.............................................................................................
......60
5.5 Discussion on hypothesis
4.............................................................................. ...............
......60
5.6 Discussion on hypothesis
5.............................................................................................
.60-61
5.7 Discussion on hypothesis
6.............................................................................................
......61
5.8 Discussion on hypothesis
7.............................................................................................
.61-62
5.9 Chapter
summary............................................................................. ....
................................62
Chapter 6:

13. Conclusion…………….………………………………………………
…………63
6.1
Introduction............................................................................
..............................................63
6.2
Conclusion..............................................................................
........................................63-64
6.3 Managerial
implication..............................................................................
.........................64
6.4 Limitation of the
research..................................................................................
.............64-65
7.3 Recommendation for further
research….............................................................................6
5
Reference................................................................................
.............................................66-78
Appendices.............................................................................
.................................................79
Appendix A: Frequencies of demographic
information..................................................79-80
Appendix B: Frequencies of purchase behaviour trend of
organic consumers..............81-84
Appendix C: Cronbach
reliability................................................................................
...85-86
Appendix D: Chi-
square.....................................................................................
................87
Appendix E:
Questionnaire..........................................................................
...................88-91
Appendix E: Ethical issue in

14. research............................................................................92 -
95

15. List of figures
Figure 1.1 The possible issues in environment
........................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2: The growth of organic farmland and organic market
share........................................3
Figure 2.1: Organic labels and informational Treatment in the
U.S.............................................6
Figure 2.2: Organic certification logos in the
UK.........................................................................7
Figure 2.3 Specific information of the organic labelling in the
EU..............................................7
Figure 2.4 The differences between functional and
constructional theory......................................14
Figure 4.1
Gender....................................................................................

16. .....................................32
Figure 4.2
Age.........................................................................................
.................................... 32
Figure 4.3
Occupation..............................................................................
....................................33
Figure 4.4
Education................................................................................
....................................34
Figure 4.5 Annual
income....................................................................................
........................35
Figure 4.6 Organic or Non-organic
consumers............................................................................35
Figure 4.7: Summary of reason of not eating organic
food..........................................................36
Figure 4.8: The frequency of organic consumers’
purchases.......................................................37
Figure 4.9: Summary of types of produce
purchase.....................................................................38
Figure 4.10: Summary of point of
purchase.................................................................................
39
Figure 4.12: Summary of consumer
knowledge...........................................................................41

17. List of tables
Table 3.1: Research
strategy...................................................................................
......................23
Table 4.1: Summary of Key Demographic Characteristics of
respondents..................................31
Table 4.2: Summary of consumer

18. knowledge............................................................................ ..
41
Table 4.3: Reliability Statistics of all
variables............................................................................42
Table 4.4: Item-Total
statistics..................................................................................
...................42
Table 4.5: Reliable
statistics..................................................................................
.......................43
Table 4.6: One-Sampling Statistics-Consumer attitude on
organic certification labels………...44
Table 4.7: One-Sampling Statistics-Consumer attitude on
price..................................................45
Table 4.8: One-Sampling Statistics-Consumer attitude on
purchase intention............................45
Table 4.9: Correlation coefficient
measurements.........................................................................
45
Table 4.10: Correlation of consumer knowledge and consumer
purchase intention....................47
Table 4.11: Correlation of health consciousness and consumer
purchase intention.....................48
Table 4.12: Correlation of taste and consumer purchase
intention...............................................49
Table 4.14: Correlation of food safety and consumer purchase
intention....................................50
Table 4.15: Correlation of better animal welfare and consumer
purchase intention....................50
Table 4.16: Pearson Chi-Square test of gender and purchase
intention........................................52
Table 4.17: Correlation of price and purchase
intention...............................................................53
Table 4.18: Correlation of challenges consumers faced and
consumer purchase intention..........54
Table 4.19: Correlation of better animal welfare and consumer

19. purchase intention.....................55
Table 4.20: Multiple linear
regression...............................................................................
............56
Table 4.21: Result of hypotheses
testing...................................................................... ...............
..57

20. 93
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background to research
The organic products as in the case of food sector has
undoubtedly entered the food market since people tend to prefer
ingredients that are produced by natural processes. To
exemplify, Rigby et al. (2001) identify that a sector of farming
is becoming progressively popular since the organic demand is
increasing faster than supply from domestic. Furthermore, they
stress the encouragement from the UK government about the
repeatedly support for the organic sector by establishing the
Organic Farming Scheme. In particular, the participants who
joined this scheme was paid over GBP 10 million (OECD,
2001). As a result of this, organic farming has grown rapidly.
Mintel (1999) also affirms that the market of organic food in the
UK has expanded significantly with annual sales increase of 30
per cent, even though it has been only a slow progress which
could be considered as undeveloped comparing to some other
European countries. Furthermore, there were several attempts to
evaluate consumer attitude toward organic food consumption,

21. attributes that have prevented or facilitated consumer choice of
organic food (Soil Association, 2000; Makatouni, 1999; Davies
et al., 1995; Grunert and Juhl, 1995; Roddy et al., 1994;
Hutchins and Greenhalg, 1997; Latacz‐Lohmann and Foster,
1997). According to Soil Association (2000); Makatouni (1999);
Davies et al. (1995), organic food is seen as diet without
“growth hormones” and “chemicals” which seems to be natural
and non-intense produced food.
An organic agriculture usefully offers many advantages,
especially from an environmental and socio-economic (Lobley
et al., 2013). Regarding to Lehmann (2000) cited in Baourakis
(2004), he states the most substantial advantages toward organic
farming that it is the environmental protection by spending non-
chemicals during cultivation processes. Moreover, in term of
economic improvement, organic producers can gain major
profits because of there is higher price sold in organic products
than the price of conventional produces. It seems that the
environment benefits from less threatened in natural ecology for
instance, the condition of soil is better due to the manure used
which lead to harmlessness for health. Nonetheless, Knudsen et
al. (2006) argue that organic agriculture causes possible barriers
which environmentally, socio-economically impacts and effects
the sustainability of global food systems as illustrated in figure
1.1. Additionally, organic production from green farming seems
to be inevitably correlated with global market of organic food.
During the 90’s, the trend of organic farming has been
increasing in Europe (Baourakis, 2004) in which in 2000, the
retail sales of organic products worldwide boosted to reach at
20 billion US dollars as the International Trade Centre (ITC)
revealed (IFOAM, 2001). Moreover,
Figure 1.1: The diagram shows the possible issues in
environment, socio-economic, and the sustainability in food

22. production systems of organic agriculture which the arrows are
indicators of possible impacts (Knudsen et al., 2006).
the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL); in
association with the International Federation Organic
Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) find that the development of
organic farmland and organic share grew up from 11.0 to 50.9
million hectares and 0.2 to 1.1 percent share respectively as
represented in figure 2.1 (Willer and Lernoud, 2017). It appears
that the growth of world organic agricultural land and the
market share has gradually increased between
1999 to 2015.
Figure 1.2: The bar chart illustrates the growth of organic
farmland and organic market share from 1999-2015 (Willer and
Lernoud, 2017)
Moreover, Allen and Kovach (2000) examine that the emergence
of organic foods are increasingly available at convenience
stores, supermarkets, and high-end restaurants not only
presented at natural or organic foods stores.
1.2 Research aims and objectives
This research focuses on consumer attitude and various
characteristics regarding purchase intention of consumers in the
UK. There are more studies on several issues of organic food’s
consumption trend which influence intentions to buy among
British consumers whilst, there are small number of information
and evidence about the relationship between various aspects of
organic food and consumer’s purchase intention. Thus, this
research intends to take an action in that minimal premises.
However, the objective of this research is to study how the
trend of organic food has impacted upon consumer attitude and
to find out the variables that mostly influence consumer to
purchase organic food. Finally, the aim of this research is to
answer the question of how various aspects regarding organic
foods have an impact on purchase intention of consumers.

23. In order to examine the impact of various factors influencing on
consumer’s purchase intention of organic food among organic
and non-organic consumers, the objectives of this research were
as follow:
1. To identify the relationship between consumer knowledge
about organic food and purchase intention.
2. To identify the relationship between various factor (organic
certification labels, health, taste, environment, food safety,
price, better animal welfare) and purchase intention.
3. To identify the relationship between demographic factor
(gender) and purchase intention.
4. To identify whether price is an obstacle of organic food
products to increase consumers’ purchase intention or not.
1.3 Structure of this research
This research consists of six chapters. The first chapter provides
the background of the study and outlined the research aims and
objectives. Chapter two conducts the literature review of
existing studies related to the research topic for in-depth
understanding. The next chapter is the chapter of methodology
which aims to explain the research method that will be used in
this study. Moreover, it also discusses research philosophy,
research approach, research design, data collection tool, data
analysis, Next, details of validity, reliability and ethical
considerations are also addressed. Also, seven hypotheses are
presented. The fourth chapter presents findings which analyse
from data collected from respondents. Likewise, the overview of
demographic information of respondents and the result from all
hypotheses testing by using SPSS 24 are analysed. In the
chapter five, the finding will be discussed related to the existing
literature from chapter two. Lastly, the final chapter is proposed
to conclude all findings and explain the theoretical
implications, limitation of this study and recommendation for
future research.
1.4 Chapter summary

24. The market of organic food is considered as one of the major
growing markets of food industry in the UK. This study mainly
focuses consumers' concerns and attitude regarding various
factors whether these have influence on intention to buy organic
foods or not.
Chapter 2: Literature review
In Chapter 2, literature review from previous findings by other
researchers related to the topic and background is presented.
This chapter attempts to highlight an outline of three main
factors influencing attitude of consumer towards organic foods.
Moreover, the definition and discussion of consumer purchase
intention and consumer attitude will be presented. Additionally,
the concept of characteristic of organic food consumers will be
explained in detail.
2. Consumers’ knowledge, attitude and purchasing intention
about organic foods:
Based on the review from previous findings in both relevant
articles and literatures. There are numerous aspects have been
discovered to have significant impacts on the attitude and
purchase intention of consumer on organic food. This segment
discusses, reviews, and summarises the influence of these
considerations on consumers’ attitude and intention to buy.
There are three main determinants combine the consequences of
studies describing the factors influence organic food purchase
which these determinants are categorised into two broad ranges:
purchasing motives and impediments to purchasing.
2.1 Concerns of consumer regarding several aspects of organic
foods:
2.1.1 Product labels in credence good markets:
In current market, there are several organic product logos which
are generated to indicate whether a certain good meets organic
standards.
More importantly, some labelling has become compulsory in
terms of representing consumer safety such as dietary
information (Roe et al. 2014). Recent studies also engage with
current discourses in revealing about labels that consumers have

25. positive reactions toward organic and fair-trade labels but they
have uncertainties about unfamiliar labels or general labels that
claim climate friendly (Jassen and Hamm, 2012; Sirieix et al.,
2013). In the case of organic food in the U.S. for example, the
food products are differentiated by four attribute classifications
based on product composition: organic content, environmental
impact, country of origin, and price (Batte et al., 2014).
Particularly, there are four levels of organic content features
which are as follows: 1) “100 percent organic” with the NOP
seal, 2) “Organic” with the NOP seal, 3) “Made with Organic
___”, 4) No label with specific organic ingredients (Czarnezki
and Jason, 2011;
Batte et al., 2014) as labelling specifications is shown
in figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Organic labels and informational Treatment in the
U.S. (adapted from USDA, n.d.)
Another notable example of the labels that are commonly used
existing in the UK to certify in compliance with organic
standards is the logos of Organic Farmers and Growers (OF&G),
Organic Food Federation, and the Soil Association as shown in
figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2
: Organic certification logos in the UK (Gerrard et
al., 2013)
Last example is the logo which is mandatory in the EU. The
common EU label for organic product legislation was
established by the revised law on product detailing rules and
their labelling control (Czarnezki and Jason, 2011). In their
comprehensive study, it is likely to develop the organic
products credibility and to facilitate the organic products
identification in the market. To be more specific, Zander et al.
(2015) indicate that the organic label contains the certain logo
with the controlling standard code number and adding with the

26. sign of the place where the law materials were produced as
illustrated in figure 2.3. The existence of the obligatory
labelling might be possible to be a key factor to recognise
consumer demand in order to enlarge the organic farming in the
EU. Besides, the external declaration could possibly guarantee
the organic quality which customers can simply verify by
themselves.
Figure 2.3: Specific information of the organic labelling in the
EU (Zander et al., 2015)
2.1.2 Health and nutritional concern:
Davies
et al. (1995) discovered that health appears to be the
important reason of the involvement in organic food products
consumption. Similarly, the tremendous majority of studies
emphasise that health-related motives are the main reason
customers consume organic foods (Baker et al.., 2004; Botonaki
et al., 2006; Chinnici et al., 2002; Chryssohoidis and Krystallis,
2005; Huang, 1996; Hutchins and Greenhalgh, 1995; Lusk,
2011; Lusk and Briggeman, 2009; Makatouni, 2002; Padel and
Foster, 2005; Schif- ferstein and Ophuis, 1998; Tregear et al.,
1994; Vega-Zamora,
et al., 2014; Zanoli, 2004; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002).
The origin of the belief that consuming organic food is good for
health is the beginning of positive attitude that consumers have
towards organic food, thus they can consume it without any
doubt and fear (Suh, Eves, and Lumbers ,2012). Generally, this
issue related to chemicals-free feeling of consumers which
stated by Devcich, Pedersen and Petrie (2007). For instance, the
use of risky substances such as chemical fertilisers, pesticides,
preservatives, and artificial additives are perceived to have
serious harm on health (Hammit, 1990; Makatouni, 2002; Padel
and Foster, 2005; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002; Zepeda and Deal,
2009). To conclude, naturalness and cleanliness could be the
predictor which encourage people to eat healthy organic foods.

27. The study also showed that worries about health are the
indicator of the preferences for food made from ingredients
from hundred per cent nature.
2.1.3 Environmental concern:
Organic consumers view organic foods as being environmental
friendly while, the chemicals used in agricultural processes of
conventional food products are noticed as environmentally harm
(Jolly, 1991; Ott, 1990; Wilkins and Hillers, 1994). Moreover,
consumers who have a high involvement in the issue of
environmentally and organically related such as
environmentally defence might have a tendency of strong
purchase intention and positive attitude about organic food
(Chen ,2007; Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006) Likewise, many
studies identify environmental-friendly productions as
stimulator of organic food consumption
(Baker et al., 2004; Chryssohoidis and Krystallis, 2005;
Dreezens
et al., 2005; Gracia and Magistris, 2008; Honkanen
et al., 2006; Lusk, 2011; Lusk and Briggeman, 2009;
Makatouni, 2002; Magnusson
et al., 2003; Michaelidou and Hassan, 2008; Padel and
Foster, 2005; Zepeda and Deal, 2009). Consumer behaviour is
considered to be all actions of people which link to environment
such as the usage and consumption of resources from
environment. On the other hand, some studies view nutrients,
health and taste as strong influences rather than the concerns
over environment that drive organic food purchases
(Mitsostergios and Skiadas, 1994; Magnusson
et al., 2003; Shifferstein and Ophuis, 1998; Tregear
et al., 1994; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002). Similarly,
Aertsens
et al. (2009) argue that there has been positive attitude
of consumers towards organic food, but the number of regular
purchase intention is still low. It can be seen that environmental
factor might be one of factors towards the consumption but it

28. might not be the most effective aspect.
2.1.4 Food safety concern:
Many earlier studies address that the concern over food safety
has also been recognised as the important factor of organically-
produced food purchases (Jolly, 1991; Schifferstein and Ophuis,
1998; Soler
et al., 2002). Moreover, some researchers have implied
that the absent chemical farming procedures are safer than
conventional farming (Kouba, 2003; Lacy, 1992). Azam
et al. (2012) also
analyse how organic food has become popular that food
safety are the major elements increasing awareness of the
benefit offer from organic foods.
However, Organic Consumers Association (2001) notes that a
dangerous concern that represents consumers’ intention
resulting to purchase organic produces is scares of animal-
related diseases such as BSE (mad cow disease), foot and
mouth, and Escherichia coli 0157 outbreaks. Similarly,
Michaelidou and Hassan (2008) take issue with customers’
concerns that there has been a constant safety aspect in food
consumption as against to disease from animal. Physical risk
seems to be another main obstacle which leads to the decrease
of organic food consumption. Also, farming methods are a
factor involved in food safety concern (Yee
et al., 2005). It could be concluded that some consumers
might use food safety aspect as the main reason to eat but some
group of them might be seen organic food as a cause of animal
related-diseases.
2.1.5 Price consciousness:
According to the majority of literature (Aertsens
et al., 2009; Hughner, et al., 2007; Hill and
Lynchehaun, 2002; Makatouni, 2002; McEachern and Willock,
2004; Padel and Foster, 2005; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002;

29. Zepeda and Deal, 2009) the expensive price of organic food
products is one of the key obstacles to increase organic food
consumption. It is known that organic farming has a high
production cost and profitability is low owing to limited number
of production. Thus, these costs are marked up price added to
consumer, organic market will then be more expensive
comparing to non-organic food products. As a result of this,
Azam
et al. (2012) state that price is a variable indicator to
predict consumer preferences towards organic food products.
Willingness to pay of consumers for organic products is
different base on product categories which vegetables and fruits
appear to be the highest number consumer’s willingness to pay
for mark-up price of organically fresh produced products
(Krystallis
et al., 2006). Likewise, Cronley
et al. (2005) note that the significant influence leading
to purchase decisions is price which consumers often use it as
the standard to verify quality. People appears to perceive that
they might receive high quality if they purchase at premium
price. For example, consumers are willing to pay a superior
price for organically-produced products (Krystallis
et al., 2006). Some studies ascertain that organic food
consumers are less concerned regarding low prices (Lusk, 2011;
Lusk and Briggeman, 2009; Mondelaers
et al., 2009; Torjusen et al., 2001). It cannot be denied
that price plays a major part as being a barrier in country that is
less developed even though price has been explored to be less
affected to organic consumption (Fotopoulos and Krystallis,
2002; Padel and Foster, 2005; Tarkiainen and Sundqvist, 2005).
To be critical, consumers of organic foods seem to rely heavily
on the price when choosing high quality product or service
which is based on purchase decision. A possible explanation is
that not all consumers are able to pay for organic products due
to financial problem such as receiving lower income in their
family.

30. 2.1.6 Animal welfare consequences:
Organic buyers are motivated by expectations of improved
animal welfare in the system of organic productions (Aarset et
al., 2004; Hill and Lynchehaun, 2002). Specifically, Harper and
Makatouni (2002); Torjusen et al. (2001) convey that animal
welfare consists of the components of both societal and
nutritional; it is an indicator of food safety, food quality, and
ethical treatment of livestock which purchaser frequently use as
measurement. Due to no chemical substance such as growth
hormone of the entire animal treatment procedure, the natural
treatment could be the reason of the consumption of consumers.
2.2 Sensory attributes of organic foods:
Organoleptic quality is a crucial measurement towards the
acceptance of any food product which consists of the typical
sensory: taste, appearance, colour, size, and firmness (Roghelia,
2015). Similarly, Kazimierczak and Swietlikowska (2006)
emphasise a few important attributes for the acceptance of food
which are taste, appearance, and freshness.
2.2.1 Taste, Appearance, Size, and Freshness:
Taste is another feature that several studies found to be the
essential criteria in organic food purchases (Lea and Worsley,
2005; Magnusson et al., 2001; Roddy et al., 1996; Schifferstein
and Ophuis, 1998). The blind taste-tests of organic and non-
organic orange juice and milk investigated by Fillion and Arazi
(2002) for instance, they found positive perceptions of
consumers that the taste of organic orange juice tastes better
than conventional orange juice but, there is no differences
between the taste of organic and conventional milk.
Additionally, Crecente-Campo et al. (2012) noticed about
colour that organically grown fruits was less bright, darker, and
redder. To exemplify, in the study of Andrews and Reganold
(2006), they prove that organic strawberries were slightly
smaller but sweeter, enhance-looking and there were positive
preferences from consumers compared to non-organic
strawberries.

31. In contrast, according to Haglund et al. (1999), they discovered
that carrots which were grown conventionally were crunchier
and sweeter whereas organic carrots were too hard. In Gilsenan
et al (2010)’s study, they found no major difference from both
conventional and organic samples of baked potato regarding
colour, appearance, taste, and texture. Consequently, it is
possible that it may depends on types of fruits, vegetables, or
other organically produces which leading to specific differences
or no differences. Moreover, some consumers might use sensory
attributes of organic food as the main standard of their
purchases.
2.3 Socio -Economic factors affecting organic food
consumption:
2.3.1 Gender, Age, Economic factors, Education level, and
family size:
Many studies discovered that there are differences in socio-
economic factors which inversely affect intention to buy and
attitude (Lea and Worsley, 2005; Gracia and de Magistris, 2008,
Bartels and Reinders, 2010). It is possible that some people are
unfamiliar with the standard of organic agricultural. Whereas,
the sales of organic products might increase due to the benefits
associate with consumers which they believe the claim that it
attributes to a certain organic.
Regarding
gender, the majority of previous studies of Davies et
al. (1995); Thompson and Kidwell (1998); Lockie
et al. (2002); Urena
et al. (2008) have identified the results of organic food
consumers in general that they are more likely to be female than
male and the presence of children within family (Durham,
2007). Similarly, many authors also hold similar views that
organic food consumers are likely to be women than men
(Mathisson and Schollin, 1994; Wandel and Bugge, 1997).
Furthermore, Wandel and Bugge (1997) advocate about
age that young consumers concern about the

32. environment which is the main reason of their organic food
choices, but old consumers seem to be more influenced by the
purpose of their own health. Similarly, there are two consumer
types which von Alvensleben and Altmann (1987) found to have
a high level in consuming organic food but the more remarkable
is that their purchase motives are different. These refer to young
people who have a negative attitude towards conventional food
supply, but older people have positively influenced by health
consciousness.
Household income is categorised as
economic factors which has a significant effect on
purchase behaviour. Gracia and de Magistris, (2008) found that
low income consumers tend to have low preferences in
purchasing organic foods as its expensive price. Furthermore, it
can be considered that the main purchasers seem to be wealthy
(Finch, 2006).
Education level is another factor that influence purchase
preference of organic food. Consumers who have high education
are more like to pay more for organic foods (Jolly, 1991;
Wandel and Bugge, 1997). Moreover, Bellows et al. (2010);
Stobbelaar et al (2007) identify that level of education and
knowledge about organic food are positively related which
students who have higher education or college degree have more
positive attitude than less college degree students (Pelletier et
al., 2013)
Size of family, number of children in family and family
condition also have an impact on organic food’s preference.
For instance, family with the arrival of a baby, families
are mostly suggested to baby organic food (Hill and
Lynchehaun, 2002). Other authors revealed that families with
children tend to purchase organically grown produce (Freyer
and Haberkom, 2008; Tsakiridou et al., 2006). In the study
observed by Finch (2006), he concluded that if family member

33. became pregnant, both organic and conventional food
consumers were more likely to buy organic foods.
Consequently, demographic factors such as gender, age,
economic factors, education level, and size of family seems to
be associated with interest and purchase motives of organic
foods.
2.4 Purchase intention preferences
Howard and Sheth (1969) propose that the confidence is one of
positive antecedents of purchase intentions. Likewise, Bennett
and Harrell (1975) indicate that intentions to purchase can be
predicted by confidence as its play an important role.
Nevertheless, areas where significant differences have been
found by Laroche and Brisoux (1989) include attitudes toward
the familiarity of the brand and different brands. They reveal
that intention to buy a certain brand is positive when it is
affected by attitude regarding the same brand whereas,
adversely affected by other competing brands in choices
customers have. Regarding to Howard (1989), confidence refers
to subjective certainty of buyers that the feeling state of making
judgement on the quality towards a particular brand or the level
of certainty that individual correctly evaluate their judgement of
the brand. Specifically, purchaser might use their own
confidence as self-belief to evaluate the consequences in
advance when deciding to buy something especially, food.
2.5 Consumer attitude
There are several theories that many researchers have discussed
their views further about consumer attitudes. Eagly and Chaiken
(1993) point out that people evaluate a particular object with
some degree of favourability or disfavour which is an
expression of a psychological tendency of an attitude. It is
likely to experience or explore it by time than an occasional
situation. To exemplify, respondents who often faced
unauthorised spamming over time on advertising have negative
attitudes toward mobile advertising (Tsang, Ho, and Liang,

34. 2004). For the formation and concept of attitude, the evaluative
judgement generated in such feature dimensions as likeable-
dislikeable, good-bad, satisfying-unpleasant, and harmful-
advantageous (Ajzen, 2001; Eagly and Chaiken, 1993; Petty and
Wegener, 1997). For instance, it can be when people categorise
items of foods as organic foods-conventional foods.
On the other hand, attitude can be classified into two parts.
Firstly, functional theory. It can be defined as the original
concept of attitude which has influenced tendency responding to
an object in desirable way (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). Besides,
consumers occupy a state of willingness to sorts of objects that
is largely stored and endured in the memory (Katz, 1960;
Shavitt, 1990; Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). Argyriou and Melewar
(2011) have also extensively emphasised this finding that it
heavily based on memory rather than a simple categorised
evaluation which tends to be intrinsically inheritance.
Furthermore, Smith, Bruner, and White, 1956; Katz (1960) have
also suggested functional theory of attitudes that it is primary
purposes of people’s own attitudes which need to be identified
in order to predict changes. Moreover, Shavitt (1989) claims
that people see attitudes as functional which serve both
psychological stimulations and needs. These consist of the
function of knowledge, value-expressive, social-adjustive, and
utilitarian (Schlosser, 1998; Ajzen, 2001; Grewal
et al., 2004). As it has been claim, it seems possible
that people functionally form attitudes with the intention to
manage, structure, and summarise the object processing large
amounts of information that they received which they might use
situations and motivations from their salient memories to
generate the outcomes. For example, consumers functionally
implied after they firstly exposes by motivations, then their
attitudes will be formed in memory which marketers or
researchers can track it from attitudinal response in memory
(Argyriou and Melewar, 2011).
Secondly, constructive theory. Some studies view consumer

35. attitude as constructivists which can typically derived from
behavioural tradition. Therefore, some researchers argue that
attitudes are not repossessed in memory, but instead consumers
determine it on the point regarding to their circumstantial goals
(Bettman
et al., 1998; Schwarz and Bohner, 2001; Reed
et al., 2002). To select a preferring alternative, such
goals associate with reducing intellectual movement processing
effort, accelerating the accuracy of a decision, and minimising
undesirable emotions (Bettman
et al., 1998). Additionally, Feldman and Lynch (1988)
suggest that such goals create only temporary motivations,
which is in the process of attitude influenced by internal and
external information (Reed
et al., 2002). According to Kahneman (1973) study,
people tend to have a high attention to information which is
related to their goals. To illustrate, there are two sources which
consumers use as determinants to construct their attitudes:
direct experiences and external information received from
others (Reed
et al., 2002). There is a difference between functional
and constructive theory, hence it is not entirely different from
each theory that is illustrated in figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4: The differences between functional and
constructional theory. (Argyriou and Melewar, 2011).
Constructivism tends to be an active contextualised process,
which knowledge is possibly to be constructed by personal
experiences and previous knowledge. Particularly, in
constructivist perspective, consumers could be information
constructor who build their attitudes when they demanded to
objective reality. Thus, for example even listening to others
about product they have tried, seems to be involved in active
attempts to a new knowledge construction.
2.5.1 Attitude of Consumer towards Organic Food
The notion of organic food has found to be essentially

36. connected to health in many studies that it is the most
influential purchasing motives in relating to organic food. In
particular, health-related seems to be significant motives for
purchasing organic food which is demonstrated by the evidence
of the surveys from consumer (Alvensleben, 1998; Ekelund,
1989; Huang, 1996; Mathisson and Schollin, 1994; Schifferstein
and Oude Ophuis, 1998; Tregear et al., 1994; Wandel and
Bugge, 1997) which Tregear
et al. (1994) found that 54 per cent of Scottish
consumers purchased organic foods based heavily on health of
their family, while there was only 9 per cent claimed that they
concern for the environment. In addition, Aertsens
et al. (
2009), convey that organic food is perceived to be
friendly to environment and also supposed to have better taste
than conventional foods. To compare with environmental
concern, health is apparently the strongest factor of organic
food purchase motives (Alvensleben, 1998; Ekelund, 1989;
Mathisson and Schollin, 1994; Schifferstein and Oude Ophuis,
1998; Tregear et al., 1994). According to Thøgersen (2007), the
perception of consumers could be associated with universalism
value and it is believed to be the major significance when
consumers buy organic food.
2.6 Consumer knowledge
Chryssochoidis, (2000); Padel and Foster, (2005) note that
consumer knowledge is one of the positive influence of organic
food on their attitudes. Knowledge structure can be boosted by
knowing an object which affects the process activities of
consumer information in numerous ways (Alba and Hutchinson,
1987). Brucks (1985) has also identified that knowledge of
consumer can be classified as subjective knowledge, objective
knowledge, and earlier experience.
Subjective knowledge represents what consumers think they
know about product (Brucks, 1985; Park, Mothersbaugh, and

37. Feick, 1994). To exemplify, it might be self-assessment
knowledge and the confidence of individual customer that they
have about their own knowledge. The lack of confidence
appears to represent the low level of subjective knowledge
(Chryssochoidis, 2000; Padel and Foster, 2005). However,
objective knowledge is specific attribution of information (Park,
Mothersbaugh, and Feick, 1994) which Brucks (1985) defined it
as what consumers truly know. Finally, earlier experience might
be prior involvement with product usage or knowledge about
specific product after trial.
Although these two dimensions: subjective and objective
knowledge commonly related, Ellen (1994) contends that
subjective knowledge is more positively influential on consumer
attitude in evaluating product. In addition, the measures of
subjective knowledge seem to be more applicable in order to
describing consumer strategies because they are based on what
consumers perceive that they know. (Lee and Lee, 2009)
Another aspect that is correlated with both subjective and
objective knowledge appears to be product knowledge. Biswas
and Sherrell (1993) defined product knowledge as general
knowledge which consists of product functional features
information and differences of brand characteristics. Notably,
there are two distinct views which Alba and Hutchinson (1987)
have divided from product knowledge: familiarity and expertise.
They concluded that the number of experiences from product-
related gathered by consumer refers to familiarity, whereas
expertise is associated with the accomplishment from ability to
complete product-related tasks (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987;
Bettman and Park, 1980). Moreover, product usage or the
amount of product buying could be allied with consumer
experience.
In particular, product-related experiences are dependence on the
main accumulation of pre-remaining knowledge which is
certainly connected to subjective knowledge (Park,
Mothersbaugh, and Feick, 1994; Rudell, 1979) because cues of

38. product experience can positively drive it to be more
significant. Furthermore, the more experiences consumers take
are the more positive attitude they would have. Thus, it has
been demonstrated that prior experience plays a major role in
determining attitude of consumers (Sørensen
et al., 1996). Comparably, Roddy
et al. (1996) claim that consumers who have
experienced in eating organic food appear to have more positive
attitude than consumers who have no familiarity with organic
food.
Consumer can gain knowledge of organic food from many
different sources. Gracia and De Magistris (2007) revealed that
subjective knowledge of consumer is significantly influenced by
various information about organic foods which are broadly
disseminated in the market. In particular, public administration
for example, local government, announcements from ecological
organization, social media, social networks, and advertisements
seem to be strong impacts regarding knowledge of organic food,
Consequently, prior experience are also certainly considered as
crucial element that affect consumer knowledge about organic
food.
2.7 Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1
Ho: Knowledge of organic food have no influence on
consumers’ intention to buy.
H1: Knowledge of organic food have an influence on
consumers’ intention to buy.
Hypothesis 2
Ho: Consumer concerns regarding various factors (health, taste,
environment, food safety, price, better animal welfare) have no
influence on consumers’ intention to buy.
H1: Consumer concerns regarding various factors (health, taste,

39. environment, food safety, price, better animal welfare) have an
influence on consumers’ intention to buy.
Hypothesis 3
Ho: Gender has no influence on an individual's intention to buy
organic food.
H1: Gender has an influence on an individual's intention to buy
organic food.
Hypothesis 4
Ho: Income has no influence on an individual's intention to buy
organic food.
H1: Income has an influence on an individual's intention to buy
organic food.
Hypothesis 5
Ho: Sensory attributes (taste, appearance, size, and freshness)
have no influence on an individual's intention to buy organic
food.
H1: Sensory attributes (taste, appearance, size, and freshness)
have an influence on an individual's intention to buy organic
food.
Hypothesis 6
Ho: Organic certification labels have no influence on
consumer’s purchase intention.
H1: Organic certification labels have an influence on
consumer’s purchase intention.
Hypothesis 7
Ho: Health consciousness is not the most influential factor
which affect consumers’ purchase intention.
H1: Health consciousness is the most influential factor which
affect consumers’ purchase intention.
2.8 Chapter summary
This chapter has shown the overview of characteristics of
organic food associated with consumer attitude and purchase
intention. Moreover, it is essential to have a clear understanding

40. about personal and subjective norms of consumer’s knowledge
because both of this may play a major role in attitude of
consumers. In the next chapter, methodology will be explained
in the process to achieve the findings and results.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present the theoretical
framework and the details of research procedures which was
used in obtaining data. Moreover, the data collection methods
which were chosen for the topic were clearly justified. In
addition, the research was given the information about
participants in the study. The methodology of this research
consisted of explanation about research design, research
strategies, and research instruments. Nonetheless, the pilot
study was provided in this chapter as it compromises the
research instrument’s reliability and validity. Lastly, the
statistical method was discussed in this chapter.
3.2 Research philosophy
Understanding the research philosophy is important in this
study. Saunders
et al., (2016) defined research philosophy as beliefs
system and assumption about knowledge development. It can
help to specify a suitable method used in a study (Smith
et al., 1997). Moreover, it can be divided into five
major parts: positivism, critical realism, interpretivism,
postmodernism, and pragmatism. Positivism approaches to the
social sciences which involves functioning with observable
social reality (Saunders
et al., ,2016). Moreover, Anthony
et al., (2005) clarify by saying that “social science
positivists promoted research studies that were value-free, using
rhetorical neutrality that resulted in discoveries of social laws,

41. from which in time and context-free generalizations ensued”.
3.3 Research approach
According to Saunders
et al., (2016), they emphasise that there are three
different approaches to theory development in research:
deduction, induction and abduction. This research is correlated
with deductive approach which Creswell and Plano Clark (2007)
state that the deductive approach was generated from top down
which worked from theory to hypotheses to data. To illustrate, a
study has begun by exploring existing literature based on the
topic chosen. Then, hypotheses were created to test existing
theories which the testable concepts were related among one or
more variables. Moreover, appropriate data collected from
conditions in survey was analysed to test validity of hypotheses.
If the results and conclusion are positively consistent with the
premises, the theory may be true.
3.4 Research Design
3.4.1 Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research
According to Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005), they propose that
the most view of instructors of quantitative and qualitative
research have seen themselves as competitors with each other. It
can be differentiated by the focus on the way they view natural
reality. Theorists believe in the quantitative method that
scientific principles can be used to measure validity and
reliability in a single reality, whilst qualitative theorists are
considered as different meanings for different people are
generated by multiple constructed reality and whose
interpretations are clarified depending on the researcher’s
views. In particular, qualitative research is defined as a strategy
of research with aims to gather a deep clarification of the
phenomena. Specifically, qualitative research offers the
problem insights and provides ideas (Bryman and Bell, 2007).
Creswell (2009) states that the purpose of quantitative research
is the generalisation of the findings to the population which

42. generally entails hypotheses which presumed from existing
theories that need to be tested.
In this study, quantitative research was selected as an approach.
As the fact that quantification in data collection and analysis
with the purpose to qualify data generalisation. Particularly,
this research attempts to acquire a large number of British
consumers by questionnaire. Hence, the most suitable approach
in this case is quantitative method. Besides, the main
concentration of this research was hypotheses testing derived
from adapting theoretical model. The relationship between
different variables, factors, attitude, and intention to purchase
was a fundamental goal to identify in this research. Based on
these rationalisations, quantitative approach was chosen.
3.4.2 Exploratory, Descriptive, or Explanatory
According to Ghauri and Grønhaug (2005), they demonstrate
that a suitable research design verifies the importance of the
empirical data however, assisting researchers to solve the
research problem with the limitation of time and resources. In
specific, Robson (2002) classifies research design into three
categories: exploratory, descriptive and explanatory.
The purpose of
exploratory research design is as the name infers, it
simply study nature of the problem to help improve
understanding of the problem but there is no intention to
provide final and conclusive evidence to exiting problems or to
answer research questions (Phopalia, 2010). Moreover, Dhawan
(2010) identifies that the object of this kind of research
involves the observation in numerous facts that the researchers
need to be ensured.
Descriptive research design intends to formulate a perceptive of
circumstances, people or events (Saunders et al., 2009). This
type of research can be used for quantitative, qualitative or both
method in combination in order to offer a specific of
information details of a situation or events (Bryman and Bell,
2007). Dhawan (2010) affirms that the purpose of quantitative

43. research with design of descriptive research is to the
relationship of different variables. It is applicable to answer the
questions of what, who, when, how, and where.
In
explanatory research design: aims at identifying the
relationship between variables which searching for a certain
issue explanation. In particular, it is applied to describe a
certain question of “why” (Robson, 2002).
The basic goal of this research was to investigate the
relationship among different factors toward the consumption of
organic food that might have an impact on consumer attitude
and purchase intention. Likewise, the relationship between
attitude of consumer and intention to buy were also examined.
Based on whether it was positively influenced or not between
potential factors, the interpretation of British consumer attitude
and purchase intention could be more formulated. Likewise, the
measurements among different variables were raised to test
theoretical concept and a number of population was also
indicated. Nevertheless, this study was considered as a
descriptive research design which intended to investigate the
association among different variables.
3.5 Research strategies
3.5.1 Types of research strategies
Research strategy can be considered as a crucial key in
developing a design of good research. Yin (2009) proposes
characteristics which help to choose and evaluate the most
proper strategy which are three major conditions: ‘Form of
research question’, ‘Requires control of behaviour event’ and
‘Focus on contemporary events’. Furthermore, it can be applied
by five forms based on these three conditions which there are
experiment, survey, archival analysis, history and case study
(Zikmund, 2002). These would be easily illustrated in table 3.1
below.
Table 3.1: Research strategy (Yin, 2009)

44. Firstly,
experiment is a method which aims to generally
verifying and establishing the validity of hypotheses. Whereas
the variables are transformed to establish the difference of
effects, Secondly,
survey is a strategy including the number of individual
sampling from a population to gather data to get statistical
generalisation on a certain topic. Thirdly,
archival analysis is an observational method where the
researchers examine accumulated archives or documents. Forth,
history is used to collect and analyse historical
document at what happened in the past, to understand the
present, and to plan the future. Fifth,
case study is an in-depth analysis which is used to study
the actual story that has been gathered to show the facts an
order relevant events. It is applied in order to organise and
analyse the potential factor to find problem and then summarise
solutions to solve the issue.
According to the purpose of this study, the most proper research
strategy which was applied is survey. All the research questions
in this study were created in the form of “what”. In specific,
there are only two strategies that support the requirement the
“what” question form: survey and archival analysis. As the
research design of this study was descriptive method and to
collect primary data, survey is the most suitable one which was
chosen. Moreover, British consumers are considered as
population. In order to analyse and conclude statistic from
population and quantified into attitude and intention to buy
organic foods, this can be reached the purpose by a sample
selected.
3.6 Time horizon
According to Saunders et al. (2016), time horizons are crucial
for the research design in methodology used and it can be

45. classified into two major categories namely, longitudinal
studies and cross-sectional. Longitudinal studies are repeated
over extended period whereas cross-sectional studies are used
with the limitation of specific time frame. Therefore, this
research is limited to a specific time frame thus the cross-
sectional time horizon is applied in order to consider the
relationship between relevant variables.
3.7 Research instruments
3.7.1 Sampling instrument
There are two major methods of sampling regarding to Bryman
and Bell (2007). These two methods are probability sampling
and non-probability sampling. In specific, a sampling that is
based on the fact that every member of a population chosen as
the subject has known and has equal chance is known as
probability sampling. While, non-probability sampling does not
provide equal chances of being selected to individuals which
subjects in this sampling are normally chosen by researchers’
personal judgment purpose or on the foundation of their
accessibility (Davis and Schoorman, 1995). In addition,
Saunders et al. (2016) stress that there is a lower error happened
when the sample’s size larger in generalising to the population.
In this study, the target respondents were the people who have
the experience and people who never ever familiar with organic
foods. It is possible that the most suitable sampling technique is
convenience sampling which is one of non-probability sampling
type. To exemplify, they are data sources who are conveniently
sample for researchers (Jankowics, 2000). Therefore, high level
of error might be occurred.
3.7.2 Data collection instruments
In statistical analysis, data collection has played a major role.
According to Cook and Campbell (1979), they divided the
different data sources into two categories: primary and
secondary data. Particularly, primary data is the data that
researchers collected for the first time which is factual and
original. This type of data aims at finding solutions to the
problem which this real-time data is collected specifically for

46. research needs’ objective includes survey, experiment, personal
interview and etc. However, there are major differences between
these two. Secondary data is the data produced by others and
can be considered as an analysis of primary data which refers to
existing data collected by organisation includes books, journal
articles, government publications, and etc. (Douglas, 2015). In
addition, the drawbacks of primary data are costly and time-
consuming while secondary data can help saving time and
money therefore, it might not cover enough details to analyse or
not match researcher’s needs which sometimes the data are
possibly fault (Schurr and Ozanne, 1985).
In this study, questionnaire is the most suitable form of data
collection (Jang, 2005). This data collection technique is widely
known and accepted. According to the purpose of this research,
this research focuses on consumer attitude and characteristic of
organic foods that affect purchase intention of consumer.
Hence, questionnaire was used to collect a large quantity of data
since it might help researcher to save cost and also the data can
be easily analysed (Pavlou, 2003). In contrast, Bowling (2005)
argues that the influences of bias might be appeared on the
responses acquired and the misunderstanding in the true
meaning of question in questionnaire could be affected the
accuracy of the data (Doney and Cannon, 1997).
Survey is a method of quantitative analysis for gathering
information in which a questionnaire is applied with the aim of
accessibly collecting data of a representative sample from
certain population. Moreover, the appropriate analysis of the
relationship of significant variables were offered.
This study was divided the questionnaire into five sections. The
questionnaire was begun with demographic and socio-economic
information. The next section was the question asking whether
the respondents consume organic foods or not. In specific,
participants who has never eaten were dragged to last question
about the reason. The third part was related to cconsumer’s
opinion towards consumption of organic food relating to
attitude and purchase intention includes frequency, places to

47. buy, categories of product, and the challenge consumers found.
Then, the next section was started with four main characteristics
using a Likert scale to measure the data. In specific, Likert
scale is a psychometric measurement which have been
developed to measure opinion, attitude, and belief (Likert,
1923). Respondents may be provided a series of statements
relating to a topic, in terms of indicating a level of agreement
and disagreement. The respondents were asked about factors
influence motive for purchasing organic foods, organic
certification labels, and price respectively. Whilst, 5 equals to
strongly agree, 4 means agree, 3 means either agree nor
disagree, 2 means disagree, and 1 equals to strongly disagree.
The advantages of Likert scale are efficient, inexpensive
method, and it is not difficult to understand, thus could be
likewise reducing bias of social desirability and social pressure
as anonymity on self-administered was offered. However, there
were the main seven-sub characteristics of organic foods
namely, organic certification labels, health consciousness, taste,
environmental concerns, food safety, price, and better animal
welfare. Lastly, the final section was related to purchase
intention which also using Likert scale.
3.7.3 Data analysis instrument
Data analysis is as important as data collection which need to be
determine the method of accuracy analysis. In addition, data
analysis is a process of revising, classifying, and recording the
data in a suitable manner (Yin, 2009). After the data were
prepared and collected through online survey, the method of
analysis was selected for further analysis. Bryman and Bell
(2007) affirm that there are two efficient approaches were taken
in order to analyse data: mathematical formula and computer
software. For quantitative research, data can be analysed
quantitatively by different data analysis of the software SPSS
which purposes of the study is an indicator of analysis method
chosen. Following the analysis method, this research was
applied frequencies analysis, descriptive analysis, reliability
analysis, correlation analysis, hypothesis testing, regression

48. analysis and etc. (Malhotra and Birks, 2003).
The aim of applying
frequencies analysis is to describe demographic
information of the respondents in terms of age, gender, and
income. It shows each alternative data which is frequently
answered by participants (Aaker et al. ,2011).
The most basic method:
descriptive statistics are applied with purpose of data
summarising. Hinkle et al. (1994) note that it reveals the simple
characteristic such as the mean, median, standard deviation,
skewness and kurtosis.
The consistency of a concept measure is examined by
reliability (Bryman and Bell ,2007) which multiple item
measure and questions invented are gauge to measure a concept
that will be further added to evaluate an overall score.
Moreover, these indicators are the most important issue that
need to be ensure whether they refer to the same thing. Hence,
Bryman and Bell (2007) confirm that Cronbach’s alpha is the
efficient tool to test the internal consistency which is processed
with SPSS. Generally, a scale of Cronbach’s alpha is accepted
over 0.6 (Pallant, 2007) the questions are more reliable when
the value is higher (Flynn
et al., 1994).
The method to increase validity and reliability is
correlation analysis which the samples accurately
represent the population. In order to apply this analysis method
to draw conclusions of the population, the value of Pearson-
correlation (R-value) is applied to measure this. The range of
value is between -1 and +1. The value of +1 indicates the
perfection of positive relation between two variables, -1
therefore, represents a totally negative relationship between two
variables (Aaker
et al., 2011).

49. Another approach to find the relationship between two
categorical variables is called the
Pearson Chi-square test. The Chi-square test is a non-
parametric test which use to measure the differences between
what is observed and what is expected regarding to the assumed
hypothesis. To test statistically, the size of expected frequencies
should not be performed when any cells is less than 5 (Pallant,
2016)
According to Bryman and Bell (2007), a statistical process to in
investigate the relationship between two or more variables is
multiple regression analysis. The main parameters that
need to be concentrate are Significance, Beta, Adjusted R
Square and T-value. In particular, Beta stands for regression
coefficient standardisation in which the beta value (β-value)
represents how each independent variable influences the
dependent variable. The determination of the acceptance or
rejection of hypothesis depends on significance level for
instance, hypothesis will be rejected when P-value is greater
than 0.05. While, the adjusted R square indicates the percentage
which the dependent variable can be justified by independent
variables (Bryman and Bell, 2007).
This research applied frequencies analysis to explain
respondents’ information about demographic. Whereas,
descriptive statistics were used to present the significant factors
which influence attitude of consumer and further effect on their
intention to buy organic food of market in the UK as well as
conclusions were draw related to this phenomenon. Mean value
was the main focus parameters which were analysed by using
SPSS. Nevertheless, in terms of significance level, the analysis
was conducted using Pearson correlation analysis, Pearson chi-
square and linear regression analysis. Additionally, a
description in details would be revealed in the following
chapter.

50. 3.8 Validity and reliability
In order to examine the credibility of finding, validity was
focused. Validity indicates ability of the research whether it can
logically answer to the question that is expected to answer. Hill
(1998) claims that there are three forms of validity which
consists of content validity, construct validity and criterion
validity. First, content validity is an evaluation by person which
is determined by the accurate way of measure that allows a
person who have knowledge in specific field giving the
suggestion and feedback. Second, construct validity is the
measure of the ability of an operational definition to measure a
certain concept. (Bryman and Bell, 2007; Aaker et al., 2011).
This can be accomplished by the evaluation of Pearson’s
Correlation (Malhotra and Birks, 2003; Bryman and Bell, 2007).
A very strong correlation happened when this value is greater
than 0.8 between two variables (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Last,
the aim of criterion validity is a tool to measure how well the
scale congruently performed with other criterion variables
(Malhotra and Birks, 2003; Bryman and Bell, 2007).
To ensure the validity of the research, a person with specialise
skill in this field were requested to review through the research
which were evaluated by supervisor and however, reworked by
the researcher. This help to improve and strengthen the quality
of the study. In order to develop some questions in
questionnaire before spreading to the public, two potential
respondents were requested to read and offer some comments in
pilot study whether they fully understood and the questionnaire
provide enough alternatives. On the other hand, Pearson’s
Correlation is a tool to guarantee the construct validity of this
study.
While, reliability refers to an evaluation of the consistency of a
concept measure with an equal result without random errors
(Malhotra et al., 2013). In order to increase reliability of the
study, it is essential to describe all procedures in detail to
facilitate and allow another researcher who investigate the same
study to replicate. This assist to minimise the risk of the wrong

51. conclusions.
In this research, Cronbach’s alpha was used in order to check
the reliability. The high reliability of the questions was
illustrated by the result of Cronbach’s alpha.
3.9 Pilot study
Veal (1997) identifies that pilot study is applied to check the
survey before doing the actual one. The advantage of the pilot
test is to check the accuracy of the survey and solve the
problem that might occurred in some questions. Nonetheless, if
there is informality in data collection and the search for some
conclusion in exploratory research, pilot study might be used.
Moreover, the pilot study was tested on a group of interviews
consisted of 6 to 10 people. They can provide some comments
and share their opinions to the researcher then the data attained
will be qualitative data which lead to quantitative research.
In this study, six people were used for a pilot test which the
result obtained from them show a problem of misunderstanding
in some questions. Thus, the research has edited and improved
such question in order to gain the best understanding for an
effective answer.
3.10 Ethical issues
In this survey research, principles of ethic are mainly centred on
defending the right of each respondents to avoid them feeling
reluctant, unsafe, uncomfortable, and stress. Ethical
considerations in all types of research are very important. In the
first stage, the researcher was informed to submit ethical
approval form to university before collecting the data as the
study involves the data from human. Then, the ethical review
self-assessment form was viewed by researcher’s supervisor in
order to approve the project. In survey part, the survey was
carried out by the researcher which the respondents were clearly
explained that the survey was developed for academic purpose
only. To show the respect, the first page of the survey showed
the purpose of the research and told them that the information
was kept confidential. In addition, the responses from
individual participants have remained anonymous and also no

52. identification.
3.11 Chapter summary
This chapter primarily present the research methodology.
Research philosophy and approach were firstly outlined which
hypotheses were justified pertinently to research aims and
objectives. Next, research objectives and design were
addressed. Then, research strategy, time horizon and
instruments were clearly highlighted. Besides, variability and
reliability of data were provided. Lastly, pilot study and ethical
considerations were described. The next chapter will be focused
on the finding to answer the research objectives.
Chapter 4: Finding and analysis
4.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to present data obtained from the analysed
result from SPSS and describe the primary data collected from
120 respondents. There are three main parts in this chapter
consists of frequencies. Next, it was followed by the reliability
analysis and descriptive statistics. After that, it continued with
the result of the test from hypotheses.
4.2 Participants in the research
Factor
Frequency
Percent
Gender
Age

53. Occupation
Education
Annual income
Male
53
44.2
Female
67
55.8
Total
120
100.0
18-24
44
36.7
25-34
46
38.3
35-44
9
7.5

54. 45-54
13
10.8
More than 54
8
6.7
Total
120
100.0
Employed for wages
35
29.2
Self-employed
22
18.3
A student
58
48.3
A homemaker
2
1.7
Unemployed
3
2.5
Total
120
100

55. Certificates
6
5.0
Diploma
7
5.8
Bachelor’s Degree
40
33.3
Master’s Degree
59
49.1
Doctoral Degree
7
5.8
Total
120
100.0
Less than £20,000
58
48.3
£20,000 -£34,999
26
21.7
£35,000 - £49,999
19
15.8

56. £50,000 - £74,999
7
5.8
£75,000 - £99,999
7
5.8
£100,000 - £149,999
2
1.7
£200,000 or greater
1
0.8
Total
120
100.0
Table 4.1: Summary of Key Demographic Characteristics of
respondents
4.2.1 Gender
Figure 4.1: Gender
Figure 4.1 illustrates the gender of respondents which includes
two alternatives of male and female. The number of female
participants was slightly larger than male which 55.8% are
female whereas 44.2% are male.
4.2.2 Age

57. Figure 4.2: Age
Regarding to figure 4.2. This bar chart presents five periods
which were used collected information about the age of
respondents. The majority of age group of respondents is the
age between 25-34 with 38.3%. Then, it was followed by 36.7%
which belongs to the age group of 18-24. However, the minority
group of respondents belongs to 35-44, 45-54, and more than 54
which are 7.5%, 10.8%, and 6.7% respectively. Age group
shows that the survey mostly represented by young adults.
4.2.3 Occupation
Figure 4.3: Occupation
Figure 4.3 shows the occupation of respondents. The majority of
respondents were student with 48.4% while 29.2% of
respondents were employer. Then, self-employed respondents
were slightly lower at 18.3%. On the other hand, the minority
group of respondents were homemaker and unemployed with
1.7% and 2.5% respectively.
4.2.4 Education
Figure 4.4: Education
Figure 4.4 illustrates the educational qualification of
respondents. It can be clearly seen that half of all respondents
of the survey have master’s degree. Moreover, second highest
number of respondents have bachelor’s degree which was 33.3%
while only 5.8% have doctoral degree and diploma. Last,
respondents who have certificates reached the lowest by 5%.

58. 4.2.5 Annual income
Figure 4.5: Annual income
Figure 4.5 shows the annual income of respondents. It can be
found that the majority of respondents consist of low and
middle-income individuals. 47.5% of respondents have the
annual income less than £20,000. Followed by 21.7% of
respondents have £20,000-£34,999 annual income. While,
15.8% of respondents have £35,000-£49,999.
4.3 Organic or Non-organic consumer
Figure 4.6: Organic or Non-organic consumers
Figure 4.6 represents the respondents whether they are organic
and non-organic consumers. 80.8% of respondents in the survey
were the respondents who consume organic foods while only
19.1% are non-organic consumers. Therefore, the 23
respondents who answer ‘no’ were asked last question about the
reason of not consuming organic foods.
4.3.1 Reasons for not eating organic food
Figure 4.7: Summary of reason of not eating organic food
There are various reasons why 23 respondents do not eat
organic food. In figure 4.7 presents four major reasons why they
do not eat it. Mostly, they do not see much differences between
organic food and conventional food which this reached the
largest number at 8.3%. Moreover, there were only 2.5% for the
reason of the taste which they feel that they don’t like the taste.
However, the percentage of respondents who claimed that
organic food products were not available where they shop was
the same as the percentage of those who think that it was too
expensive.
4.4 Purchase behaviour trend

59. 4.4.1 The frequency of organic consumers’ purchases
Figure 4.8: The frequency of organic consumers’ purchases
Figure 4.8 illustrates the frequency organic food purchasers
have been buying organic food products. Specifically, there
were only 2.5% of organic food purchasers who often bought it
every day. The percentage of respondents who bought it once a
week was the highest at 25% which slightly higher than who
bought several times a week at 22.5%. Then, it was followed by
once a month and few times a year purchasers with the
percentage at 16.7% and 14.2% respectively.
4.4.2 Categories of organic food purchase
Figure 4.9: Summary of types of produce purchase
From 97 respondents who were organic consumers, they were
asked how many categories of organic food products that they
purchased. In addition, they could answer more than one
categories. Figure 4.9 presents the purchase behaviour regarding
to four specific food types which the food categories selected
for the study were fruits, vegetables, poultry (eggs), and red
meat. Food products in these types are the most consumed in the
United Kingdom. Critically, the figure reveals that organic food
purchasers bought organic vegetables the most at 92.8%. For
fruits, it was the second highest which they purchased which the
percentage is at 73.2%. Finally, another two categories: poultry
(eggs) and red meat were at the lowest of 39.2% and 27.8%
which were a small difference.

60. 4.4.3 Places to purchase
Figure 4.10: Summary of point of purchase
Active buyers were asked where they usually buy organic food.
Figure 4.10 proves that most of them (59.2%) buy it from
generic supermarket/ retailer such as Tesco, Asda and Waitrose
followed by 14.2% who buy from specialty organic/ health
store. Moreover, 5% purchase from producer or farmer market
while only 2.4% refers to three respondents who claimed they
bought it online and from all places from choices researcher
provided.
4.5 Challenges face when purchasing organic food
Figure 4.11: Challenges face when purchasing organic food
From figure 4.11, organic food buyers were provided the
choices to indicate challenges they faced when purchasing.
Most of them (59.8%) affirmed that there is a limited variety of
organic food followed by 29.9% of consumers who faced
problems with sensory attributes such as appearance, size, and
freshness. While there was 21.6% who were lack of knowledge
about organic food. Additionally, 17.5% of consumers
concerned about diseases found in organic food. Finally, the
premium price of organic food was a barrier towards their
purchases which 9.3% of them claimed that it is expensive.
However, 4.1% of them have never faced any challenges.

61. 4.6 Consumer Knowledge regarding organic food
What do you know about organic food?
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
23
19.2
19.2
19.2
I know a lot
18
15.0
15.0
34.2
I know something
76
63.3
63.3
100.0
I know nothing
3
2.5
2.5

62. 36.7
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Table 4.2: Summary of consumer knowledge
Figure 4.12: Summary of consumer knowledge
This section presents knowledge of respondents regarding
organic food. Particularly, all respondents were asked about
how much they know about organic food. Figure 4.12 shows a
greater number of the respondents declared the level of
knowledge they have about organic food. The percentage of
respondents who claimed they knew a lot and they knew nothing
was the lowest at 15% and 2.5% respectively. Nevertheless, the
highest percentage of respondents (63.3%) claimed that they
knew something.
4.7 Reliability
Cronbach’s Alpha
Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardised Items
N of Items
.874
.877
7
Table 4.3: Reliability Statistics of all variables
Item-Total Statistics
Factors
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Squared Multiple Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
Organic certification labels
22.29

63. 26.207
.731
.586
.846
Health consciousness
22.02
26.208
.757
.647
.843
Taste
22.63
26.882
.570
.458
.868
Environmental concerns
22.33
26.411
.694
.669
.850
Food safety
21.92
25.931
.758
.681
.842
Price
22.54
28.439
.456
.349
.882
Better animal welfare
22.53

64. 26.106
.645
.653
.857
Table 4.4: Item-Total statistics
It is necessary to check the reliability before testing all items
related hypotheses. Based on the collected data, reliability was
tested on each single concept individually to evaluate the degree
of stability and consistency between multiple measurements of a
variable. Generally, Cronbach alpha is the most widely applied
among researchers. According to Flynn
et al. (1994), the value over 0.6 of Cronbach alpha
representing the questionnaire is acceptable, whereas the value
above 0.6 indicating the high level of consistency of the
questionnaire (Cook and Campbell, 1979). From Table 4.3, it
can be seen that the value of Cronbach alpha of all standardised
items was larger than 0.6 which showing high reliability of all
factors in the questionnaire.
More importantly, the final column is Cronbach’s Alpha if Item
Deleted as shown in Table 4.4. As the name suggests, it
indicates the score obtained after each item from the
questionnaire was removed. Currently, the score is α = .874. If
any scores from each item in the last column increased after the
item deleted, the certain item must be deleted to make
questionnaire more reliable. Conversely, the item with score
decreased were kept.
On the other hand, item-total correlations were attained between
each factor and total scores. In order to correct for enlargement
of the correlation coefficient, Henrysson (1963) demonstrates
that the value of total item was analysed without the presence of
the item of interest. Moreover, if there are any items presenting
a low value which is smaller than 0.20 was considered as item
need to be deleted to ensure homogeneity of overall measures.
From Table 4.4, the sixth item which is price was higher than
0.20, this item is not removed as the removal of this item would

65. lead to a small improvement in Cronbach's alpha.
Consumer attitude
Factor
Cronbach’s Alpha
N of Items
Organic Labels
.880
3
Price
.377
2
Purchase intention
.735
2
Table 4.5: Reliable statistics
From Table 4.5, multiple measurements of a variable were
evaluated to check reliability. It can be seen that Cronbach’s
alpha of organic labels are over 0.7. This reveals that data can
be good as reliability. While, the value of purchase intention is
over 0.6. This demonstrates that it is acceptable. However, the
value below 0.6 of Cronbach’s alpha is still reliable.
4.8 Descriptive statistics
To describe the collected data, it is essential to highlight some
descriptive statistics about conceptual model of consumer
attitude, this includes the overall mean and standard deviation.
Overall, there were 97 respondents who are organic consumers.
4.8.1 Organic Certification Labels
Factor
Mean
Std. Deviation
I am familiar with Organic certification standards.
3.05
1.149
I would recognise the Organic labels when I saw it.
3.43

66. 1.172
I always check organic certification labels before purchasing it.
3.24
1.248
Table 4.6: One-Sampling Statistics-Consumer attitude on
organic certification labels
From the Table 4.6, there are three main items on the
questionnaire measuring attitude of respondents on certification
labels of organic food. Five levels of Likert scale are applied
which range from 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither
agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree.
Specifically, the result shows that the most respondents that
would recognise and notice organic labels when they saw it
(3.43). Moreover, they always check whether there are organic
labels before they decided to buy (3.24) and there was a low
number of respondents were familiar with the labels (3.05).
4.8.2 Price
Factor
Mean
Std. Deviation
Organic food products are too expensive to buy.
2.73
1.026
I can afford its high prices of organic foods.
3.52
.831
Table 4.7: One-Sampling Statistics-Consumer attitude on price
Regarding to Table 4.7, most organic consumers think that they
can afford its high price of organic food (3.52) whereas, a small
number of them think that it is too expensive to buy (2.73).
4.8.3 Purchase intention
Factor
Mean
Std. Deviation
I intend to increase consumption of organic food

67. 3.63
.726
I will maintain consumption of organic food.
3.87
.745
Table 4.8: One-Sampling Statistics-Consumer attitude on
purchase intention
From Table 4.8, it can be found that most of them will maintain
consuming organic food (3.87) followed by many of them has
the intention to increase consumption of organic food (3.63).
4.9 Statistic testing of Hypotheses
Pearson’s correlation will be used to evaluate the strength and
direction of association between certain variables. Furthermore,
the Pearson coefficient can take a range of values from +1 to -1.
A value of 0 is indicator of no relationship between variables
while +1 indicates a perfect positive correlation. Therefore, the
value of -1 shows a perfect negative correlation as has shown
from Table 4.9 which illustrates the measurements of
correlation coefficient.
Strength
Positive correlation
Negative correlation
Low correlation
rho = 0.10 to 0.29
rho = - 0.10 to - 0.29
Medium correlation
rho = 0.30 to 0.49
rho = - 0.30 to - 0.49
High correlation
rho = 0.50 to 1.00
rho = - 0.50 to - 1.00
Table 4.9: Correlation coefficient measurements
A Pearson's chi-square test is used to discover the relationship
between two categorical variables which two variables should
be measured at an ordinal or nominal level. The value can be
measured by the observation at expected frequencies which if

68. they are the same, then χ2 = 0. If they are different from
expected frequencies, the value of χ2 goes up. The larger the
value of χ2, the more likely it is that the distributions are
significantly different.
4.9.1 Hypothesis 1
Ho: Knowledge of organic food have no influence on
consumers’ intention to buy.
H1: Knowledge of organic food have an influence on
consumers’ intention to buy.
Correlations
Sum Purchase
Sum Knowledge
Sum Purchase Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1

69. 97
.299**
.003
97
Sum Pearson
Knowledge Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.299**
.003
97
1
97
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed).
Table 4.10: Correlation of consumer knowledge and consumer
purchase intention
Pearson’s correlation was presented to evaluate the relationship
between consumer knowledge and their purchase intention. The
result from Table 4.10 illustrates the value of Pearson’s
correlation which was 0.299. This refers to a low positive
association between consumer knowledge and purchase
intention. Since this value is between 0.10 to 0.29 which
denotes to a low positive correlation between the mentioned
continuous variables. Additionally, the Sig. value is 0.003
which was less than p = 0.05 indicating a significant
relationship and confidence in the result. Thus, Hypothesis 1
(H1) is accepted in this case.

70. 4.9.2 Hypothesis 2
Ho: Consumer concerns regarding various factors (health, taste,
environment, food safety, better animal welfare) have no
influence on consumers’ intention to buy.
H1: Consumer concerns regarding various factors (health, taste,
environment, food safety, better animal welfare) have an
influence on consumers’ intention to buy.
Correlations
Factors (Health)
Sum Purchase
Factors (Heath Pearson
Consciousness) Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1
97
.508**
.000
97
Sum Pearson
Purchase Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.508**
.000
97
1

71. 97
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed).
Table 4.11: Correlation of health consciousness and consumer
purchase intention
Correlations
Factors (Taste)
Sum Purchase
Factors (Taste) Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1
97
.378**
.000
97
Sum Pearson
Purchase Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.378**
.000

72. 97
1
97
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed).
Table 4.12: Correlation of taste and consumer purchase
intention
Correlations
Factors (Environmental concerns)
Sum Purchase
Factors Pearson
(Environmental Correlation
concerns) Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1
97
.550**
.000
97
Sum Pearson
Purchase Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.550**
.000
97
1

73. 97
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed).
Table 4.13: Correlation of environmental concerns and
consumer purchase intention
Correlations
Factors (Food safety)
Sum Purchase
Factors Pearson
(Food Correlation
safety) Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1
97
.550**
.000
97
Sum Pearson
Purchase Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.550**
.000
97
1

74. 97
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed).
Table 4.14: Correlation of food safety and consumer purchase
intention
Correlations
Factors
(Better animal welfare)
Sum Purchase
Factors Pearson
(Better Correlation
animal Sig. (2-tailed)
welfare) N
1
97
.550**
.000
97
Sum Pearson
Purchase Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.550**
.000
97

75. 1
97
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed).
Table 4.15: Correlation of better animal welfare and consumer
purchase intention
Regarding to Hypothesis 2, various factors of consumer
concerns were presented in separate table to facilitate the
analysis. First, concerns over health in Table 4.11 demonstrates
a positive high correlation between health consciousness and
purchase intention as the value was 0.508. Second, taste from
Table 4.12, it is found that the value of Pearson correlation was
0.378 which indicates a medium positive correlation between
taste and purchase intention. Next, from the Table 4.13 the
value of Pearson correlation of environmental concerns was
0.550 which denotes a high positive relationship between
concerns over environment and intention to buy of consumer.
Fourth, Table 4.14 presents the value of Pearson correlation of
food safety which was 0.464. This indicates a medium positive
relationship between food safety concerns and consumers’
purchase intention. Last, Table 4.15 shows the value of Pearson
correlation of the concerns over better life of animal as rho =
0.486. This demonstrates a medium positive correlation between
better animal welfare and purchase intention. Furthermore, the
significant level of all factors obtained was 0.00 and p < 0.05.
This reveals that there was significant relationship and
confidence in the end result. On the basis of this, the null
hypothesis is rejected and accepted the alternative hypothesis.

76. 4.9.3 Hypothesis 3
Ho: Gender has no influence on an individual's intention to buy
organic food.
H1: Gender has influence on an individual's intention to buy
organic food.
Value
df
Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
N of Valid Cases
4.927a
4
.295
5.378
97
4
.251

77. 4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5.
The minimum expected count is .47.
Table 4.16: Pearson Chi-Square test of gender and purchase
intention
A Pearson chi-square is tested to evaluate distributions between
two different categorical variables and to examine whether there
was a relationship between gender and purchase intention. From
Table 4.16, the result reveals that there was a significant
different between two variables as Chi square value = 4.927and
p > 0.01. Moreover, there were the expected 4 cells count less
than 5 so the assumption was not met. Thus, the null hypothesis
is accepted.
4.9.4 Hypothesis 4
Ho: Price has no influence on an individual's intention to buy
organic food.
H1: Price has influence on an individual's intention to buy
organic food.
Correlations
SumPrice
SumPurchase
Sum Price Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

78. 1
97
.237*
.020
97
Sum Pearson
Purchase Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.299**
.020
97
1
97
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed).
Table 4.17: Correlation of price and purchase intention
This hypothesis is tested to examine the correlation between
price and intention to purchase. From Table 4.17, the result
illustrates the value of Pearson’s correlation which was 0.237.
This refers to a low positive association between price and
purchase intention. Since this value is between 0.10 to 0.29
which indicates to a low positive correlation between the two
variables. Moreover, the Sig. value is 0.020 which was less than
the value of p = 0.05 indicating a significant relationship and
confidence in the result. Thus, Hypothesis 4 (H1) is accepted in
this case.

79. 4.9.5 Hypothesis 5
Ho: Sensory attributes (taste, appearance, size, and freshness)
have no influence on an individual's intention to buy organic
food.
H1: Sensory attributes (taste, appearance, size, and freshness)
have an influence on an individual's intention to buy organic
food.
Correlations
Sensory attributes
Sum Purchase
Problems Pearson
with product’s correlation
taste, Sig.(2-tailed)
appearance,
size, and
freshness) N
1
97
-.023
.820
97

80. Sum Pearson
Purchase Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
-.023
.820
97
1
97
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed).
Table 4.18: Correlation of challenges consumers faced and
consumer purchase intention
The result obtained from Table 4.18 shows the relationship
between challenge of sensory attributes consumers faced and
purchase intention which implies a negative low correlation
between two variables. The rho value is -0.023 with a Sig. value
of > 0.05, hence denoting no significant correlation. This
reveals that challenges are not a strong attribute toward
purchase intention. Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted.
4.9.6 Hypothesis 6
Ho: Organic certification labels have no influence on
consumer’s purchase intention.
H1: Organic certification labels have an influence on
consumer’s purchase intention.
Correlations
SumPurchase
SumLabels
Sum Purchase Pearson
Correlation

81. Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1
97
.515**
.000
97
Sum Pearson
Labels Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.515**
.000
97
1
97
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed).
Table 4.19: Correlation of better animal welfare and consumer
purchase intention
The relationship between consumers’ purchase intention and
organic certification labels were analysed. The Pearson
correlation coefficient illustrated in Table 4.19 denotes a high
positive correlation between these two variables as rho = 0.515.
Additionally, p < 0.05 and the significant level is 0.01. This

82. may imply that the higher products have the organic
certification labels, the stronger determinant of purchase
intention. As a result of this, the Hypothesis 5 (H1) is accepted.
4.9.7 Hypothesis 7
Ho: Health consciousness is not the most influential factor
which affect consumer purchase intention.
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
1
(Constant)
2.246
.245
9.155
.000
Factors [Health
consciousness]
.156
.084
.250
1.855
.067
Factors [Taste]
.126
.059

83. .232
2.118
.037
Factors
[Environmental concerns]
.161
.085
.271
1.905
.060
Factors [Food safety]
-.008
.084
-.014
-.099
.921
Factors [Price]
-.106
.057
-.190
-1.869
.065
Factors [Better animal welfare]
.072
.073
.133
.988
.326
H1: Health consciousness is the most influential factor which
affect consumer purchase intention.
a. Dependent Variable: SumPurchase

84. Table 4.20: Multiple linear regression
From the Table 4.20, the results can be concluded that taste is
the most influential factor which affects consumer purchase
intention (Sig = 0.000) followed by environmental concerns,
price, and health consciousness respectively. On the other hand,
food safety and better life of animal welfare have not affected
purchase intention to buy of consumers. Accordingly, Beta
column can be used to explain independent variables that affect
dependent variable. The result shows that the concerns over
environment was the highest impact attribute towards purchase
intention (Beta = 0.271), followed by health consciousness,
taste, and better animal welfare. Thus, the null hypothesis is
accepted.
Abbreviation
Hypothesis
Conclusion
H1
Knowledge of organic food have an influence on consumers’
intention to buy.
Supported
H2
Consumer concerns regarding various factors (health, taste,
environment, food safety, and better animal welfare) have an
influence on consumers’ intention to buy
Supported
H3
Gender has an influence on an individual’s intention to buy
organic food.
Not supported
H4
Price has an influence on an individual’s intention to buy
organic food.
Supported
H5
Sensory attributes (taste, appearance, size, and freshness) have

85. an influence on an individual’s intention to buy organic food.
Not supported
H6
Organic certification labels have an influence on consumer’s
purchase intention.
Supported
H7
Health consciousness is the most influential factor which affect
consumers’ purchase intention.
Not supported
Table 4.21: Result of hypotheses testing
4.10 Chapter summary
This chapter revealed the major findings from the data obtained.
The first part starts with the descriptive statistic to describe
characteristics of respondents with their demographic profile.
Moreover, the reliability test is used and it was reliable.
Pearson’s correlation was used to establish the relationship
between variables and test hypotheses. Pearson chi-square was
also applied to evaluate distributions between different
variables. The result of the tested hypothesis proposed
acceptance for four hypotheses as illustrated in Table 4.21.
Particularly, the result indicates that all factors of consumer
concerns over organic food including health consciousness,
taste, environment, food safety, and better animal welfare had
an impact but health consciousness is not the most influential.
The following chapter will be discussed in more details from
the research finding.
Chapter 5: Discussions
5.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter, key characteristics learned from this
research and the finding of factors and characteristics of
sensory attributes that influenced on purchase intention were
analysed. Thus, the discussions were draw in order to
summarise the findings with the related existing information
and relevant papers from the literature review.
5.2 Discussion on hypothesis 1

86. H1: Knowledge of organic food have an influence on
consumers’ intention to buy.
The result from the first hypothesis revealed that consumer
knowledge is concluded to have an influence on British
consumers’ purchase intention of organic food, this means that
the more knowledge consumers have about organic food is the
more positive intention to buy they have. In this study,
consumer knowledge is classified as subjective knowledge
which refers to experiences they have before and what they
think they know (Brucks, 1985). Mostly, the results from this
survey presented that the most British consumers perceived that
they have moderate knowledge about organic food while only
the rest knew a lot. However, it proved the studies of
Chryssochoidis, (2000); Padel and Foster, (2005) and
Stobbelaar et al. (2007) who have emphasised the positive
association of consumer knowledge and their attitudes. In terms
of subjective knowledge, it could be defined that the
information consumer knew such as positive impacts on
environment, health and production of organic food have
resulted in individual attitude leading to purchase intention
(Brucks, 1985). Nonetheless, consumer who have continually
received a positive experience after purchase, this support the
study of Sorensen, Grunert, Nielsen (1996) because this factor
effectively contributes to positive attitude towards organic food.
5.3 Discussion on hypothesis 2
H1: Consumer concerns regarding various factors (health, taste,
environment, food safety, and better animal welfare) have an
influence on consumers’ intention to buy.
Health consciousness
Based on the result, this hypothesis is accepted, it could be
interpreted that the involvement in organic food consumption of
British consumers have a high concern over their own health
and tend to have a positive attitude towards organic food. This
result is aligned with the theory proposed by Davies
et al. (1995). The more they have confidence that
organic food is good for health, the more positive purchase

87. intention towards organic food. Particularly, they believed that
organic food contains natural ingredients in comparison to
conventional food. This support a theoretical concept of the
chemicals-free issue by Devcich, Pedersen and Petrie (2007).
Taste
Since the hypothesis is accepted however, consumers
moderately concern about taste as the result shows only a
medium relationship between taste and purchase intention. This
finding has confirmed by Roddy et al. (1996); Schifferstein and
Ophuis (1998); Magnusson et al. (2001); Lea and Worsley
(2005) that taste is another feature which is important to
organic food purchases.
Environmental concern
The hypothesis test results revealed that organic food
consumers in the UK view organic food as harmlessness to
environment since there was a high relationship between health
consciousness and purchase intention. As a high involvement
from the result, the issue of environmentally defence might
have a tendency of strong purchase intention. This support the
study of Vermeir and Verbeke (2006); Chen (2007).
Food safety
The result implied that there was a positive relationship
between food safety concern and individual’s intention to buy
of consumers. Most of them believed that the procedures of
organic farming are safe and the absence of chemical become a
major factor that raise awareness of safety offer from organic
food. This confirmed by Azam
et al. (2012) study.
Better animal welfare
The system of organic productions that improved animal life
was also a major criterion which consumer use as a
measurement towards their purchase intention. Based on the
result, the ethical treatment of animal life is a strong
determinant toward their purchase which the theory is supported

88. by Torjusen et al. (2001); Harper and Makatouni (2002).
5.4 Discussion on hypothesis 3
H1: Gender has an influence on an individual’s intention to buy
organic food.
Based on the result, this hypothesis is rejected as gender
between male and female significantly has no influence on
purchase intention towards organic food. Hence, this research
focused on the gender as the organic purchasers are more likely
to be female than male which is not true. As a result, this
assumption is rejected regarding to Irianto (2015) who claimed
that there is no difference of gender in consumer attitude
towards purchase intention. On the other hand, this result was
not similar to the study of Mathisson and Schollin (1994);
Wandel and Bugge (1997) which they confirmed that
consumers of organic food tend to be women than men.
5.5 Discussion on hypothesis 4
H1: Price has an influence on an individual’s intention to buy
organic food.
Due to its high price of organic food, most of the UK customers
view the premium price of organic food as an obstacle to
purchase intention. The hypothesis examined that the price of
organic food has a strong influence on purchase intention.
Specifically, it is widely known among the UK consumers that
the production cost of organic farming is high and also low
profits the farmer received which this is the cause leading to
expensive price. In addition, the result was the same as Cronley
et al. (2005) who claimed that price is a significant
influence of purchase decisions. Nonetheless, some of the
British customers perceived that they can afford the expensive
price of organic food comparison to the quality they received.
The outcome of this relationship is supported by the previous
conclusion from the literature review.
5.6 Discussion on hypothesis 5
H1: Sensory attributes (appearance, size, and freshness) have
influence on an individual’s intention to buy organic food.

89. Sensory attributes in the hypothesis 5 refers to appearance, size,
and freshness of organic food products. The test result from this
hypothesis indicates that the sensory attributes has no influence
toward consumers’ purchase intention. This means that the
hypotheses 5 is not true since there was no relationship between
these two variables. In particular, this was rejected by the
theory of Roghelia (2015) who emphasises that appearance,
size, colour, and firmness are the essential measurement
towards organic food purchase. However, the result from this
hypothesis was not similar to Andrews and Reganold (2006)
who confirmed that consumers have a positive preference
because of the sensory attributes of organic food.
5.7 Discussion on hypothesis 6
H1: Organic certification labels have influence on consumer’s
purchase intention
In the UK, the organic certification labels to indicate that a
certain product has reached organic standards is the logos of
Organic Farmers and Growers (OF&G), Organic Food
Federation, the soil association, and the logo which is applied
in the EU. These logos are seen by organic consumers as the
terms of food safety and natural dietary. Based on the result, it
indicates that the hypothesis 6 was accepted as this denoted that
the labels of organic certification attached with the package of
product has a positive influence on organic food purchases of
consumers. Moreover, the result revealed that the organic logos
essentially engage with the confidence of consumers as the
guarantee that consumer can possibly verify by themselves from
external declaration. In addition, the positive reaction of
consumers is supported by the theory aligning with the related
literature review of Roe et al. (2014); Jassen and Hamm
(2012); Sirieix et al. (2013).
5.8 Discussion on hypothesis 7
H1: Health consciousness is the most influential factor which
affect consumers’ purchase intention.
The current major factors of consumer concerns are the
concerns over health, environment, food safety, and better

90. treatment of animal livestock. In the hypothesis 2, the
researcher have investigated whether all factors of consumers
concern affect purchase intention or not, and the results
indicated that they truly had an influence on purchase intention
However, this hypothesis has deeply examined which factor is
the most influential factor which the hypothesis assumed that
health consciousness is the most influential factor that strongly
affect purchase intention of consumers. Specifically, the result
revealed that the most influential factor towards purchase
intention is taste followed by environmental concerns, price,
and health consciousness respectively. Thus, the assumption of
this hypothesis was not true which is not similar to the studies
of Mitsostergios and Skiadas (1994); Tregear
et al. (1994); Shifferstein and Ophuis (1998); Zanoli
and Naspetti (2002); Magnusson
et al. (2003) which they claimed that health is a strong
influence rather than environmental concerns.
5.9 Chapter summary
In this chapter, all hypotheses are discussed with critical
arguments which supported by the literature review. From the
hypothesis, knowledge about organic food of consumer has an
impact on purchase intention. This means that the more
knowledge consumers have about organic food, the stronger
influence of purchase intention. Regarding to the hypothesis 2,
consumer concerns regarding to various factors (health, taste,
environmental friendly, food safety, and animal welfare) of
organic food have an influence on purchase intention to buy of
consumers. Next, the hypothesis 3, gender has no impact on an
individual’s intention to buy organic food. Moreover, the
hypothesis 4, price has an impact on an individual’s intention to
buy organic food. However, the hypothesis 5, the sensory
attributes have no influence on purchase intention. With regards
to the hypothesis 6, organic certification labels have a strong
influence on purchase intention. Subsequently, the last

91. hypothesis 7 shows that taste is the most influential factor that
affect consumers’ purchase intention which followed by
environmental concerns, price, and health consciousness
respectively.
Chapter 6: Conclusion
6.1 Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the
previous chapters. This chapter relates to the research objective
and the existing literature review to the findings and result of
data analysis. In addition, the managerial implications and
limitation of the study are explained in order to offer
clarification of the use of this study.
6.2 Conclusion
This research is conducted to explore the relationship between
consumers' concerns and attitude regarding various factors of
organic food whether these have influence on intention to buy
organic foods or not. The first objective of this study is to
identify the relationship between consumer knowledge about
organic food and purchase intention. The second objective is to
identify the relationship between various factors of organic
foods and purchase intention. The next objective is to identify
the relationship between demographic factor and purchase
intention. Then the last objective is to identify whether price is
an obstacle of organic food products to increase consumers’
purchase intention or not. The literature reviews outlined the
definition of organic food, organic certification labels, various

92. characteristics of consumer concerns, sensory attributes, and
consumer knowledge. Moreover, it is also highlighted on the
importance of organic food consumption. Overall, information
from 120 respondents were collected and analysed in this
research. Due to the demographic information, it is shown that
mostly the respondents were female and mainly ages range from
25 to 34 years. 48.3% of all respondents were a student and
completed Master’s degrees. In terms of their purchasing
experience, there were only 97 respondents who are organic
consumers which most of them purchase organic food once a
week and 92.8% indicated that the main product they buy was
vegetables. Pearson correlation was applied to test seven
hypotheses to discover and answer the main research objective.
Based on the result, it is important to have the organic
certification labels on certain products in order to increase
guarantee and purchase intention of customer. Hence,
consumers will have a strong confidence to eat more of organic
food. The labels could be the external declaration that is easily
identify the level of organic standard. In general, British
consumers hold a positive attitude toward the consumption of
organic food as they have self-awareness toward various factors
including health, environmental concerns, food safety, and
better animal welfare have a strong influence on their purchase.
Moreover, the knowledge consumers have about organic food
are proved to have influence on consumer attitude towards
organic food in the UK. In other words, the more knowledge or
experiences they have regarding benefits of consuming organic
food resulted in the more positive in their intention to buy.
Finally, it could be explained that price is considered as the
barrier to increase purchase intention of organic food while the
sensory attributes didn’t affect their purchases.
6.3 Managerial implication
The findings of this research are beneficial to organic food
venders and customers in the UK and could be considered as an
advice for marketers. The research aims to study the consumers'
concerns and attitude regarding various factors whether these

93. have influence on intention to buy organic foods or not.
Particularly, it clearly indicates which factors are determined to
have a strong impact on purchase intention. Due to the fact that
various factors are concluded to affect their purchases, these
factors could be exploited by the marketers to develop the
strategies for the future in the UK market. For example, the
information about organic food should be widely disseminated
to public in various ways in order to increase awareness and
consumer knowledge. Furthermore, it should be considered by
the venders in tailoring the most potential target group of
customers based on the information of age and income which
have been determined as the influential demographic factors.
Lastly, taste, environmental concerns, price, and health
consciousness should be the three main priorities that organic
food company in the UK need to be concentrated.
6.4 Limitation of the research
There are few limitations that need to be informed in this study.
First, the sample size tends to have a potential impact on the
hypotheses. Since the number of female respondents were more
than male. Moreover, the area of the survey seems to affect the
demographic information as the researcher is a master’s degree
student who lives around university so there were a limited
variety on background of demographic information. Besides, the
chosen convenient sampling was likely to limit the ability to
make broader generalisation from the result Therefore, online
survey was a method chosen to reach the population instead of
handing out the survey physically. Hence, the researcher cannot
provide a clear understanding if any respondents have a
misunderstanding in some questions. Lastly, there were two
statements in the question of purchase intention were excluded
based on the parameters of Cronbach’s alpha indicated that the
two statements were not reliable. As a result, the final findings
might also be affected. Consequently, it could be a potential
benefit to have more questions measuring a certain variable.
7.3 Recommendation for further research
The result of this study might be disseminated as a foundation

94. for further research about organic food. To exemplify, any
research who have a strong interest to go into a deeper
understanding of each factor and the impact on purchase
intention of consumer. Moreover, the relationship between
various factors and consumers’ purchase intention could be
investigated in depth analysis by applying qualitative approach
for instance, interview on focus groups. Additionally, this
research was conducted only in the UK thus, in the next study
therefore, it could be possible to replicate the study into other
Europe countries with different cultures. Finally, since this
research using quantitative approach, future researchers could
apply a qualitative study for a depth understanding of the reason
why gender and sensory attributes were rejected in this
research.
Reference
Aaker, D.A., Kumar, V., Day, G.S. and Leone, R.P. (2011),
Marketing Research, 10th rev. edn., New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons.
Aertsens, J., Verbeke, W., Mondelaers, K., and van
Huylenbroeck, G. (2009). ‘Personal de- terminants of organic
food consumption: A review’,
British Food Journal, 111(10), pp. 1140–1167

95. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, pp. 27–58.
Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980).
Understanding attitudes and predicting behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Alba, J. W. and Hutchinson, J. W. 1987. ‘Dimensions of
consumer expertise’,
Journal of Consumer Research 13(4), pp. 411–454.
Allen, P. and Kovach, M. (2000) ‘The capitalist composition of
organic: The potential of markets in fulfilling the promise of
organic agriculture’,
Agriculture and Human, 17, pp. 221–232.
Alvensleben, R. (1998), ‘Ecological aspects of food demand:
the case of organic food in Germany', AIR-CAT 4th Plenary
Meeting: Health’,
Ecological and Safety Aspects in Food Choice, 4(1), pp.
68-79.
Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie and Nancy L. Leech (2005) ‘On
Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher: The Importance of
Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research
Methodologies’,
International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, 8(5), pp 375-387, doi:
10.1080/13645570500402447
Argyriou, E. and Melewar, T.C. (2011), ‘Consumer attitudes
revisited: a review of attitude theory in marketing research’,
International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(4),
pp. 431-451.
Baker, S., Thompson, K. E., and Huntley, K. (2004). ‘Mapping

96. the values driving organic food choice: Germany vs the UK’,
European Journal of Marketing, 38(8), pp. 995–1012.
Baourakis, G. (2004),
Marketing Trends for Organic Food in the 21st Century,
World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd, Singapore. Available
at: ProQuest Ebook Central. (Accessed: 27 June 2018)
Batte, M. T., Hooker, N. H., Haab, T. C. and Beaverson, J.
(2007). ‘Putting their money where their mouths are: Consumer
willingness to pay for multi-ingredient, processed organic food
products.’,
Food Policy, 32, pp. 145-159.
Bellows, A. C., Alcaraz V, G., and Hallman, W. fC (2010).
‘Gender and food, a study of attitudes in the USA towards
organic, local, US grown, and GM-free food’,
Appetite, 55(3), pp. 540-550.
Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F. and Payne, J.W. (1998). ‘Construc-
tive consumer choice processes’.
Journal of Consumer Research, 25, pp. 187–217.
Biswas, A. and Sherrell, D. L. 1993. ‘The influence of product
knowledge and brand name on internal price standards and
confidence’,
Psychology & Marketing 10(1), pp. 31–46.
Botonaki, A., Polymeros, K., Tsakiridou, E., and Mattas, K.
(2006). ‘The role of food quality certification on consumers'
food choices’,
British Food Journal, 108(2), pp. 77–90.
Brucks, M. 1985. ‘The effects of product class knowledge on

97. information search behavior’,
Journal of Consumer Research 12(1), pp. 1–16.
Bryman, A. and Bell, A. (2007), Business Research Methods,
2nd rev. edn, New York: Oxford university press.
Chinnici G, D’Amico M, Pecorino B. 2002. ‘A multivariate
statistical analysis on the consumers of organic products’,
British Food Journa,l 104(3/4/5), pp. 187–199.
Chryssochoidis, G. (2000), ‘Repercussions of consumer
confusion for late introduced differentiated products’,
European Journal of Marketing, 34, pp. 705- 722.
Chryssohoidis, G. M., and Krystallis, A. (2005). ‘Organic
consumers’ personal values re- search: Testing and validating
the list of values (LOV) scale and implementing a value-based
segmentation task’,
Food Quality and Preference, 16(7), pp. 585–599.
Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979)
Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for
field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Creswell, J.W., (2009),
Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods Approaches, 3rd rev. edn, Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Creswell, J.W., and Plano Clark, V.L. (2007).
Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Cronley, M.L., Posavac, S.S., Meyer, T., Kardes, F.R., Kellaris,
J.J., 2005. ‘A selective hypothesis testing perspective on price-
quality inference and inference-based choice. J. Consum’,
Psychol. 15 (2), pp. 159–169.

98. Czarnezki, Jason J. (2011) ‘The Future of Food Eco-Labeling:
Organic, Carbon Footprint, and Environmental Life-Cycle
Analysis’,
Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 30(1) pp. 3-50.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=h
ein.journals/staev30&id=15
Davies, A., Titterington, A., and Cochrane, C. (1995). ‘Who
buys organic food? A profile of the purchasers of organic food
in Northern Ireland’,
British Food Journal, 97(10), pp. 17-23.
Davis, J. H., and Schoorman, F. D. (1995). ‘An integration
model of organi- zational trust’,
Academy of Management Review, 20(3), pp. 709–729.
de Magistris, T.,and Gracia, A. (2008). ‘The decision to buy
organic food products in Southern Italy’,
British Food Journal, 110 (9), pp. 929-947.
Devcich, D. A., Pedersen, I. K., and Petrie, K. J. (2007), ‘You
eat what you are: Modern health worries and the acceptance of
natural and synthetic additives in functional foods’,
Appetite, 48(3), pp. 333–337.
Dhawan, S. (2010),
Research Methodology for Business and Management
Studies, Delhi: Swastik Publications.
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). ‘An examination of the
nature of trust in buyer–seller relationships’,
Journal of Marketing, 61(2), pp. 35–51.
Douglas, M. (2015). “Sources of data”. Available at:

99. http://www.onlineetymologydictionary/data (Accessed:
29 July 2018)
Dreezens, E., Martijn, C., Tenbült, P., Kok, G., and de Vries, N.
K. (2005). ‘Food and values: An examination of values
underlying attitudes toward genetically modified- and or-
ganically grown food products’,
Appetite, 44(1), pp. 115–122.
Durham, C.A. (2007), ‘The impact of environmental and health
motivations on the organic share of purchases’,
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 36(2),
pp. 304-320.
Ekelund, L. (1989), ‘Vegetable consumption and consumer
attitudes towards organically grown vegetables ± the case of
Sweden'’,
Acta Horticulturae, 259, pp. 163-72.
Ellen, P.S. (1994), ‘Do we know what we need to know –
objective and subjective knowledge effects on pro-ecological
behaviors’,
Journal of Business Research, 30(1), pp. 43-52.
Feldman, J.M. and Lynch, J.G. (1988). ‘Self-generated valid-
ity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude,
intention, and behaviour’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, pp. 421–435.
Fillion L, Arazi S. 2002. ‘Does organic food taste better? A
claim substantiation approach’,
Nutrition and Food Science 32(2): pp. 153–157.
Finch, J. E. (2006). The impact of personal consumption values
and beliefs on organic food purchase behavior.
Journal ofFood Products Marketing, 11(4), 63-76.

100. Flynn, Barbara B., Roger G. Schroeder, and Sakakibara S.
(1994), ‘A framework for quality management research and an
associated measurement instrument’
, Journal of Operations management, 11(4), pp. 339-
366.
Fotopoulos, C., and Krystallis, A. (2002). ‘Organic product
avoidance’,
British Food Journal, 104(3/4/5), pp. 233- 260.
Freyer, B., and Haberkom, A. (2008).
Influence of young children (3-6 years) on organic food
consumption in their families. Germany: International Society
of Organic Agricultural Research (ISOFAR).
Gerrard, C., Janssen, M., Smith, L., Hamm, U., and Padel, S.,
(2013) ‘UK consumer reactions to organic certification logos’,
British Food Journal, 115 (5), pp.727-742, doi:
10.1108/00070701311331517 (Accessed: 7 July 2018)
Ghauri, P. and Grønhaug, K., (2005),
Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical
Guide, 3rd. rev.edn, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Gracia, A. and de Magistris, T. (2007), “Organic food product
purchase behaviour: a pilot study for urban consumers in the
South of Italy”,
Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 5 (4), pp.
439-451.
Gracia, A., and de Magistris, T. (2008). ‘The demand for
organic foods in the South of Italy: A discrete choice model’,
Food Policy, 33(5), pp. 386-396.
Gracia, A., Barreiro-Hurle, J., and Lopez-Galan, B. (2014). ‘Are

101. local and organic claims complements or substitutes? A
consumer preferences study for eggs’,
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(1), pp. 49–67.
Grewal, R., Mehta, R. and Kardes, F.R. (2004). ‘The timing of
repeat purchases of consumer durable goods: the role of
functional bases of consumer attitudes’,
Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 41, pp. 101–115.
Halberg, N, Alroe, H, and Knudsen, M (2006),
Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges
and Prospects, CABI, Wallingford. Available at:
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/surrey/detail.action?docI
D=361044#. (Accessed: 28 June 2018).
Hammit JK. 1990. ‘Risk perception and food choice: an
exploratory analysis of organic versus conventional produce
buyers’,
Risk Analysis 10(3): pp. 367–374.
Harper GC, Makatouni A. 2002. ‘Consumer perception of
organic food production and farm animal welfare’,
British Food Journal 104(3/4/5): pp. 287–299.
Henrysson, S. (1963). ‘Correction of item-total correlations in
item analysi’,
Psychometrika, 28, pp. 211–218.
Hill H, Lynchehaun F. 2002. ‘Organic milk: attitudes and
consumption patterns’,
British Food Journal, 104(7): pp.526–542.
Hill, R. (1998) 'What sample size is enough in internet survey
research?’,
An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 6(3-4), pp.

102. 1–10.
Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., Jurs, S., (1994),
Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd rev.
edn, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B., and Olsen, S. O. (2006). ‘Ethical
values and motives driving organic food choice’,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(5), pp. 420–430.
Huang CL. (1996) ‘Consumer preferences and atti- tudes
towards organically grown produce’,
European Review of Agricultural Economics, 23(3–4),
pp. 331–342.
Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C. J., II,
and Stanton, J. (2007). ‘Who are organic food consumers? A
compilation and review of why people purchase organic food’,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(2–3), pp. 94–110.
Hutchins RK, Greenhalgh LA. 1995. ‘November/ December
Organic confusion: sustaining com- petitive advantage’,
Nutrition & Food Science, 6, pp. 11–14.
IFOAM (2001) Annual report 2001. Available at:
https://www.ifoam.bio/sites/default/files/page/files/ifoam_annu
al_report_2001.pdf (Accessed: 29 June 2018).
Irianto, H. (2015) ‘Consumers’ Attitude and Intention towards
Organic Food Purchase: An Extension of Theory of Planned
Behavior in Gender Perspective’,
International Journal of Management, Economics and
Social Sciences 2015, 4(1), pp.17 – 31.
Jankowics, A.D. (2000)
Business research projects. 3rd rev. edn. London:

103. Cengage Business Press.
Janssen, M., Hamm, U., (2012). ‘Product labelling in the market
for organic food: consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay
for different organic certification logos’,
Food Qual. Prefer. 25 (1), pp. 9-22. (Accessed: 8 July
2018)
Jin Kyun Lee and Wei-Na Lee (2009) ‘Country-of-Origin
Effects on Consumer Product Evaluation and Purchase
Intention: The Role of Objective Versus Subjective
Knowledge’,
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 21(2,),
pp. 137-151, DOI: 10.1080/08961530802153722
Jolly DA. 1991. ‘Determinants of organic horticultural products
consumption based on a sample of California consumers’,
Acta Horticulture, 295, pp. 41–148.
Jolly, D. (1991), ‘Differences between buyers and non-buyers of
organic produce and willingness to pay organic price
premiums’,
Journal of Agribusiness, 9 (1), pp. 97-111.
Kahneman, D. (1973).
Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Katz, D. (1960). ‘The functional approach to the study of
attitudes’,
Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, pp. 163–204.
Kazimierczak, R., and Swietlikowska, K. (2006). ‘The
importance of origin from the organic production as a factor
influencing purchase and consumption of fruits and vegetables
in the urban and rural households’,
Journal of Research and Applications in Agricultural

104. Engineering, 51(2), 74.
Krystallis, A., and Chryssohoidis, G. (2005). ‘Consumers'
willingness to pay for organic food’.
British Food Journal 107 (5), pp. 320-343.
Krystallis, A., Fotopoulos, C. & Zotos, G. (2006) ‘Organic
consumers profile and their willingness to pay (wtp) for
selected organic food products in Greece’,
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 19, 87–
97.
Lacy R. (1992). ‘Scares and the British Food System’.
British Food Journal 94(7): pp. 26–30.
Lea, E. and Worsley, T. (2005), ‘Australians’ organic food
beliefs, demographics and values’,
British Food Journal, 107 (11), pp. 855-869.
Likert, R. (1932). ‘A technique for the measurement of
attitudes’,
Archives of Psychology 140.
Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G. and Mummery, K. (2002),
‘Eating ‘Green’: motivations behind organic food consumption
in Australia’,
Sociologia Ruralis, 42 (1), pp. 23-40.
Lusk, J. L. (2011). ‘External validation of the food values
scale’,
Food Quality and Preference, 22, pp. 452–462.
Lusk, J. L., and Briggeman, B. C. (2009). ‘Food values’,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(1), pp.
184–196.

105. Magnusson MK, Arvola A, Hursti U, Aberg L, Sjoden P. 2003.
‘Choice of organic food is related to perceived consequences for
human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour’,
Appetite 40(2), pp. 109–117.
Makatouni A. 2002. ‘What motivates consumers to buy organic
food in the UK? Results from a qualitative study’,
British Food Journal. 104(3/ 4/5), pp. 345–352.
Malhotra, K. and Birks, D.F. (2003),
Marketing research: An applied approach, New Jersey:
Pearson Education.
Mathisson, K. and Schollin, A. (1994),
Konsumentaspekter paÊ ekologiskt odlade groÈnsaker ±
en jaÈ mfoÈ rande studie (Consumer aspects on organic
vegetables ± a comparative study). Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.459.7
393&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Accessed: 4 August 2018).
Matt, L., Allan, B. and Michael, W. (2013) ‘Local Organic
Food for Local People? Organic Marketing Strategies in
England and Wales’,
Regional Studies, 47(2), pp. 216-228, doi:
10.1080/00343404.2010.546780
Melody M. Tsang , Shu-Chun Ho and Ting-Peng Liang (2004)
‘Consumer Attitudes Toward Mobile Advertising: An Empirical
Study’,
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(3),
pp.65-78, DOI: 10.1080/10864415.2004.11044301
Michaelidou, N., and Hassan, L. M. (2008). ‘The role of health
consciousness, food safety concern and ethical identity on
attitudes and intentions towards organic food’,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(2), pp.

106. 163–170.
Mitsostergios T, Skiadas CH. 1994. ‘Attitudes and perceptions
of fresh pasteurized milk consu- mers: a qualitative and
quantitative survey’,
British Food Journal, 96(7), pp. 4–10.
Mondelaers, K., Verbeke, W., and van Huylenbroeck, G. (2009).
‘Importance of health and environment as quality traits in the
buying decision of organic products’,
British Food Journal, 111(10), pp. 1120–1139.
N. H. M. Azam, N. Othman, R. Musa, F. AbdulFatah and A.
Awal, ‘Determinants of organic food purchase intention 2012
IEEE Symposium on Business’,
Engineering and Industrial Applications, pp. 748-
753.doi: 10.1109/ISBEIA.2012.6422990
Nunnally, J. C. (1978).
Psychometric theory. 2nd rev. edn. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
OECD (2001)
Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries 2001
Monitoring and Evaluation: Monitoring and Evaluation.
Available at:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5a9XEVti5OsC&pg=PA94
&lpg=PA94&dq=MAFF,+2000b.+Organic+Farming:+New+Fund
s+Come+On+Stream.&source=bl&ots=mh-
cc_jFoS&sig=U3IvrZcGAfcKI5MpB4etrqDU6cw&hl=en&sa=X
&ved=0ahUKEwjIjKmnz_fbAhUHOBQKHUQVD80Q6AEIODA
D#v=onepage&q=MAFF%2C%202000b.%20Organic%20Farmin
g%3A%20New%20Funds%20Come%20On%20Stream.&f=false
(Accessed: 28 June 2018).
Onwuegbuzie, A., & Leech, N. (2005). ‘Taking the “Q” out of

107. research: Teaching research methodology courses without the
divide between quantitative and qualitative paradigms’,
Quantity and Quality, 39, pp. 267-296.
Organic Consumers Association. (2001).
Since 9/11 Americans’ food safety concerns and organic
food buying have increased. Available at:
http://www.organicconsu-
mers.org/Organic/foodsafety112801.cfm.
Ott, SL. (1990). ‘Supermarkets shoppers’ pesticide concerns and
willingness to purchase certified pesticide residue-free fresh
produce’,
Agribusiness 6(6), pp. 593–602.
Padel, S. and Foster, C. (2005), ‘Exploring the gap between
attitudes and behavior –understanding why consumers buy or do
not buy organic food’,
British Food Journal, 107 (8), pp. 606-625.
Pallant, J. (2007)
SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data
Analysis using SPSS for Windows. 3rd rev. edn. Berkshire:
Open University Press McGraw-Hill Education.
Pallant, J. 2016,
SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data
analysis using IBM SPSS. 6th rev. edn. Maidenhead: Open
University Press McGraw-Hill Education.
Park, C. W., Mothersbaugh, D. L., and Feick, L. 1994.
‘Consumer knowledge assessment’,
Journal of Consumer Research. 21(1), pp. 71–82.
Pelletier, J. E., Laska, M. N., Neumark-Sztainer, D., and Story,

108. M. (2013). ‘Positive attitudes toward organic, local, and
sustainable foods are associated with higher dietary quality
among young adults’,
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,
113(1), pp. 127-132.
Petty, R.E. and Wegener, D.T. (1997). ‘Attitudes and attitude
change’,
Annual Review of Psychology, 48, pp. 609–647.
Phopalia, A. K. (2010),
Modern Research Methodology: New Trends and
Techniques, Jaipur: Paradise Publishers.
Reed, A., II, Wooten, D.B. and Bolton, L.E. (2002). ‘The
temporary construction of consumer attitudes’,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, pp. 375–388.
Rief, W., and Hiller, W. (1999). ‘Toward empirically based
criteria for the classification of somatoform disorders’,
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 46, pp. 507–518.
Rigby, D., Young, T., and Burton, M. (2001) ‘The development
of and prospects for organic farming in the UK’,
Food Policy, 26(6), pp. 599-613. doi: 10.1016/S0306-
9192(01)00023-9
Robson, C. (2002),
Real World Research, 2rd rev. edn. Blackwell:
Oxford.
Roddy G, Cowan C, Hutchinson G. 1994. ‘Organic food: a
description of the Irish market’,
British Food Journal. 96(4), pp. 3–10.

109. Roddy, G., Cowan, C. and Hutchinson, G. (1996), ‘Consumer
attitudes and behaviour to organic foods in Ireland’,
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9(2), pp.
1-19
Roe, B.E., Teisl, M. and Deans, C. 2014. ‘The Economics of
Voluntary versus Mandatory Labels’,
Annual Review of Resource Economics.
Roghelia, V.N. (2015)
Comparative study on consumer perception, sensory
attributes, nutrients and pesticide residue level among organic
food and conventional food. PhD thesis. Patel University.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2016)
Research Method for Business Students. 7th rev. edn.
Harlow, England: Financial Times Prentice Hall
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2009),
Research methods for business students, 5th rev. edn.
Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Oude Ophuis, P.A.M. (1998), ‘Health-
related determinants of organic food consumption in The
Netherlands’,
Food Quality and Preference, 9(3), pp. 119-33.
Schlosser, A.E. (1998). ‘Applying the functional theory of
attitudes to understanding the influence of store atmosphere on
store inferences’,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, pp. 345–369.
Schmidt, F. L., and Hunter, J. E. (1996). ‘Measurement error
in psychological research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios’,
Psychological Methods,

110. 1, pp. 199-223.
Schurr, P. H., and Ozanne, J. L. (1985). ‘Influences on
exchange processes: Buyers’ pre- conceptions of a seller’s
trustworthiness and bargaining toughness’,
Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), pp. 939–953.
Schwarz, N. and Bohner, G. (2001). ‘The construction of
attitudes. In Tesser, A. and Schwarz, N. (eds),
Handbook of Social Psychology: Intraindividual
Processes. Hills- dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.
436–457.
Shavitt, S. (1989). ‘Products, personalities and situations in
attitude functions: implications for consumer behaviour’,
Advances in Consumer Research, 16, pp. 300–305.
Shavitt, S. (1990). ‘The role of attitude objects in attitude
functions’,
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, pp.
124–148.
Sirieix, L, Delanchy, M, Remaud, H, Zepeda, L, and
Gurviez, P. (2013), 'Consumers' perceptions of individual and
combined sustainable food labels: a UK pilot investigation',
International Journal Of Consumer Studies, 37(2), pp.
143-151, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, (Accessed: 6
July 2018)
Smith MJ (1998)
Social Science in Question. London, Sage.
Smith, M. B., Bruner, J. S., and White, R. W. (1956).
Opinions andpersonaliry. New York: Wiley.
Soler F, Gil JM, S ́anchez M. 2002. ‘Consumers’ acceptability

111. of organic food in Spain: results from an experimental auction
market’,
British Food Journal. 104(8), pp. 670–687.
Sørensen, E. G., Bech-Larsen, T., Nielsen, N. A. and Grunert,
K. (1996),
The development of models for understanding and
predicting consumer food choice — individual progress report
1996 AIR contract PL 92131, Aarhus: The Aarhus School of
Business.
Stobbelaar, D. J., Casimir, G., Borghuis, J., Marks, I., Meijer,
L., and Zebeda, S. (2007). ‘Adolescents’ attitudes towards
organic food: a survey of 15-to 16-year old school children’,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(4), pp.
349-356.
Suh, B.W., Eves, A. and Lumbers, M. (2012) ‘Consumer’s
Attitudes and Understanding of Organic Food: The Case of
South Korea’,
Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 15(1), pp.
49-63.
Thøgersen, J. (2007), “Consumer decision making with regard
to organic food products”, in Vaz, M.T.D.N., Vaz, P., Nijkamp,
P. and Rastoin, J.L. (Eds),
Transitional Food Production Facing Sustainability: A
European Challenge, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Thompson GD, Kidwell J. 1998. May. ‘Explaining the choice of
organic produce: cosmetic defects prices, and consumer
preferences’,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 80(2), pp.
277–287.
Torjusen, H., Lieblein, G., Wandel, M., and Francis, F. (2001).

112. ‘Food system orientation and quality perception among
consumers and producers of organic food in Hedmark County,
Norway’.
Food Quality and Preference, 12, pp. 207–216.
Tregear A, Dent JB, McGregor MJ. (1994). ‘The demand for
organically grown produc’,
British Food Journal. 96(4), pp. 21–25.
Tsakiridou, E., Mattas, K., and Tzimitra-Kalogianni, I. (2006).
‘The influence of consumer characteristics and attitudes on the
demand for organic olive oil’,
Journal of International Food & Agribusiness
Marketing, 18(3-4), pp. 23-31.
Urena, F., Bernabeu, R. and Olmeda, M. (2008), “Women, men
and organic food: differences in their attitudes and willingness
to pay: a Spanish case study”,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(1), pp.
18-26.
USDA (n.d.) Labelling Organic Products. Available at:
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Labeling%2
0Organic%20Products%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf (Accessed: 5 July
2018).
USDA (n.d.) Organic Labelling Standards. Available at:
https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-
labeling-standards (Accessed: 5 July 2018).
Veal, A.J. (1997)
Research methods for leisure and tourism: A practical
guide. 2nd rev. edn. London: Institute of Leisure and Amenity
Management.
Vega-Zamora, M., Torres-Ruiz, F. J., Murgado-Armenteros, E.
M., and Parras-Rosa, M. (2014). ‘Organic as a heuristic cue:

113. What Spanish consumers mean by organic foods’,
Psychology & Marketing, 31(5), pp. 349–359.
Vermeir, I. and Verbeke, W. (2006), ‘Sustainable food
consumption: exploring the consumer’s attitude-behavioural
intention’ gap’,
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,
19(2). pp. 542-553.
von Alvensleben, R. and Altmann, M. (1987), ‘Determinants of
the demand for organic food in Germany'’,
Acta Horticulturae, 202, pp. 235-43.
Wandel, M. and Bugge, A. (1997), ‘Environmental concern in
consumer evaluation of food quality'’,
Food Quality and Preference, 8(1), pp. 19-26.
Wilkins JL, Hillers VN. 1994. ‘Influences of pesticide residue
and environmental concerns on organic food preference among
food cooperative members and non-members in Washington
state’,
Journal of Nutrition Education. 26(1), pp. 26–33.
Yee, W.M.S., Yeung, R.M.W. & Morris, J. (2005) ‘Food safety:
building consumer trust in livestock farmers for potential
purchase behaviour’,
British Food Journal, 107, pp. 841–854.
Yin, R. K., (2009), ‘Case Study Research: Design and Methods,
London: Sage Publications.
Zander, K., Padel, S., and Zanoli, R. (2015) ‘EU organic logo
and its perception by consumers’,
British Food Journal, 117(5), pp.1506-1526, doi:
10.1108/ BFJ-08-2014-0298 (Accessed: 7 July 2018)
Zanoli R, Naspetti S. 2002. ‘Consumer Motivations in the

114. Purchase of Organic Food’,
British Food Journal. 104(8), pp. 643–653.
Zanoli, R. (2004).
The European consumer and organic food: 4th rev. edn.
Aberystwyth: School of Business and Management, University
of Wales.
Zepeda, L., and Deal, D. (2009). ‘Organic and local food
consumer behaviour: Alphabet Theory’,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(6), pp.
697–705.
Zikmund, W.G. (2002)
Business research methods. 7th rev. edn. United States:
Thomson,

115. Appendices
Appendix A: Frequencies of demographic information
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Female
67
55.8
55.8
55.8
Male
53
44.2
44.2
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Gender
Age

116. Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
< 54
8
6.7
6.7
6.7
18-24
44
36.7
36.7
43.3
25-34
46
38.3
38.3
81.7
35-44
9
7.5
7.5
89.2
44-54
13
10.8
10.8
100.0

117. Total
120
100.0
100.0
Occupation
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
A homemaker
2
1.7
1.7
1.7
A student
58
48.3
48.3
50.0
Employed for wages
35
29.2
29.2
79.2
Out of work and looking for work
1

118. .8
.8
80.0
Out of work but not currently looking for work
2
1.7
1.7
81.7
Self-employed
22
18.3
18.3
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Annual income
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
£100,000 - £149,999
2
1.7
1.7
1.7

119. £20,000 - £34,999
26
21.7
21.7
23.3
£200,000 or greater
1
.8
.8
24.2
£35,000 - £49,999
19
15.8
15.8
40.0
£50,000 - £74,999
7
5.8
5.8
45.8
£75,000 - £99,999
7
5.8
5.8
51.7
Less than £20,000
58
48.3
48.3
100.0

120. Total
120
100.0
100.0
Appendix B: Frequencies of purchase behaviour trend of
organic consumers
Organic or Non-organic consumers
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent

121. Cumulative Percent
Valid
No
23
19.2
19.2
19.2
Yes
97
80.8
80.8
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Reasons for not eating
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
97
80.8
80.8
80.8
I don’t think it’s different from non-organic food

122. 10
8.3
8.3
89.2
It’s not available where I shop
5
4.2
4.2
93.3
It’s too expensive
5
4.2
4.2
97.5
I don't like the taste
3
2.5
2.5
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
The frequencies of their purchases
Frequency

123. Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
23
19.2
19.2
19.2
Everyday
3
2.5
2.5
21.7
Few times a year
17
14.2
14.2
35.8
Once a month
20
16.7
16.7
52.5
Once a week
30
25.0
25.0
77.5
Several times a week
27

124. 22.5
22.5
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Places to purchase
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
23
19.2
19.2
19.2
Generic Supermarket / Retailer
71
59.2
59.2
78.3
Producer / Farm
6
5.0
5.0

125. 83.3
Specialty Organic / Health Store
17
14.2
14.2
97.5
All
3
2.5
2.5
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Categories of organic food purchase
Fruits
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
No
26
26.8
26.8
26.8
Yes

126. 71
73.2
73.2
100.0
Total
97
100.0
100.0
Vegetables
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
No
7
7.2
7.2
7.2
Yes
90
92.8
92.8
100.0
Total
97
100.0
100.0

127. Poultry (Eggs)
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
No
59
60.8
60.8
60.8
Yes
38
39.2
39.2
100.0
Total
97
100.0
100.0
Red Meat
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
No

128. 70
72.2
72.2
72.2
Yes
27
27.8
27.8
100.0
Total
97
100.0
100.0
Challenges face when purchasing organic food
Limited variety
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
No
39
40.2
40.2
40.2
Yes
58
59.8

129. 59.8
100.0
Total
97
100.0
100.0
Problems with sensory attributes
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
No
68
70.1
70.1
70.1
Yes
29
29.9
29.9
100.0
Total
97
100.0
100.0

130. Lack of education about organic food
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
No
76
78.4
78.4
78.4
Yes
21
21.6
21.6
100.0
Total
97
100.0
100.0
Expensive
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
No
88
90.7

131. 90.7
90.7
Yes
9
9.3
9.3
100.0
Total
97
100.0
100.0
None
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
No
93
95.9
95.9
95.9
Yes
4
4.1
4.1
100.0
Total

132. 97
100.0
100.0
Appendix C: Cronbach reliability
Cronbach reliability of consumer attitude towards organic
certification labels
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of Items
.880
.881
3
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Squared Multiple Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
I am familiar with Organic certification standards.
6.67

133. 5.098
.745
.594
.850
I would recognise the Organic labels when I saw it.
6.29
4.687
.833
.696
.772
I always check organic certification labels before purchasing it.
6.48
4.752
.731
.559
.867
Cronbach reliability of consumer attitude towards price
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of Items
.377
.383
2
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Squared Multiple Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
Organic food products are too expensive to buy.
3.52

134. .690
.237
.056
.
I can afford its high prices of organic foods.
2.73
1.052
.237
.056
.
Cronbach reliability of consumer attitude towards purchase
intention
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of Items
.735
.735
2
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Squared Multiple Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
I intend to increase consumption of organic food
3.87
.555
.581
.338

135. .
I will maintain consumption of organic food.
3.63
.527
.581
.338
.
Appendix D: Chi-square
Crosstab
Gender
Total
Female
Male
I will maintain consumption of organic food.
strongly disagree
Count
1
0
1
% within Gender
2.0%
0.0%
1.0%

136. % of Total
1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
disagree
Count
1
1
2
% within Gender
2.0%
2.2%
2.1%
% of Total
1.0%
1.0%
2.1%
neither agree nor disagree
Count
8
14
22
% within Gender
15.7%
30.4%
22.7%

137. % of Total
8.2%
14.4%
22.7%
agree
Count
30
26
56
% within Gender
58.8%
56.5%
57.7%
% of Total
30.9%
26.8%
57.7%
strongly agree
Count
11
5
16
% within Gender
21.6%
10.9%
16.5%

138. % of Total
11.3%
5.2%
16.5%
Total
Count
51
46
97
% within Gender
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
% of Total
52.6%
47.4%
100.0%
Appendix D: Questionnaire
“An investigation of the trend in consuming organic food
products towards consumer attitude and purchase intention in
the UK.”

139. This study is conducted to understand consumers' concerns and
attitude regarding various factors whether these have influence
on intention to buy organic foods or not.
1. Please check in the box to indicate your
gender
· Male
· Female
2. Which
age group do you belong to?
· 18-24
· 25-34
· 35-44
· 44-54
· < 54
3. Which is your
current or
completededucational qualifications?
· Certificates
· Diploma
· Bachelor’s Degree
· Master’s Degree
· Doctoral Degree
· Others
4.
Employment Status: Are you currently___?
· Employed for wages
· Self-employed
· A student
· Retired
· A homemaker

140. · Out of work but not currently looking for work
· Out of work and looking for work
5. Which of these describes your total
annual income? (Include income from all sources.
Please choose
one only)
· Less than £20,000
· £20,000 - £34,999
· £35,000 - £49,999
· £50,000 - £74,999
· £75,000 - £99,999
· £100,000 - £149,999
· £200,000 or greater
· Prefer not to answer
6. What do you know about organic food?
· I know
nothing
· I know
something
· I know
a lot
7. Do you
eat organic foods?
· Yes
· No,
If
No Please go to
Q.16
8. If yes, please specify
how often do you purchase organic foods?
· Few times a year
· Once a month
· Once a week

141. · Several times a week
· Everyday
9. To what extent how strongly the following factors influence
your motive for purchasing organic foods. (Please mark ✔
for your answers)
Not Concerned at all 1
Not very
Concerned
2
Neutral
3
Somewhat
Concerned
4
Extremely
Concerned
5
Organic certification labels
·
·
·
·
·
Health consciousness
·
·
·
·
·
Taste
·
·
·

142. ·
·
Environmental concerns
·
·
·
·
·
Food safety
·
·
·
·
·
Price
·
·
·
·
·
Better animal welfare
·
·
·
·
·
10. Where do you usually purchase organic foods?
(Please choose
one only)
· Generic Supermarket / Retailer
· Specialty Organic / Health Store
· Producer / Farm
· Others (

143. please specify) _______________.
11. From what categories do you purchase organic foods? Select
all that apply
· Fruits
· Vegetables
· Dairy products (Milk or food produced from milk)
· Poultry (Eggs)
· Red Meat
12. As organic food consumer, what
challenge do you face?
Select all that apply
· There is a limited variety available in the market
· Problems with product’s taste, appearance, size, and freshness
· Lack of education about organic food
· Concerns about disease in organic food
· Other (please specify) __________________________
13.
Characteristic of organic foods:
Labels
Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the
following statements.
Examples
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree

144. Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
14.1. I am familiar with Organic certification standards.
·
·
·
·
·
14.2. I would recognise the Organic labels when I saw it.
·
·
·
·
·
14.3 I always check organic certification labels before
purchasing it.
·
·
·
·
·
14. Characteristic of organic foods:
Prices
Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the
following statements.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly

145. Disagree
15.1. Organic food products are too expensive to buy.
·
·
·
·
·
15.2 I can afford its high prices of organic foods.
·
·
·
·
·
15. What is your
purchase intention?
Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the
following statements.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
16.1 I intend to increase consumption of organic food.
·
·
·
·
·
16.2 I will maintain consumption of organic food.

146. ·
·
·
·
·
16.3 I will reduce consumption of organic food.
·
·
·
·
·
16.4 I will stop buying organic food.
·
·
·
·
·
16. Why
don’t you eat organic food?
· It’s too expensive
· It’s not available where I shop
· I don’t think it’s different from non-organic food
· I don’t know much about organic food
· Other (
please specify) _____________________________
·
Appendix E: Ethical issue in research

147. Gender
Series 1 Male Female 44.2 55.8
Age
Series 1 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 > 54
36.7 38.3 7.5 10.8 6.7

148. Occupation
Series 1 Emply for wages Self-employed A student A
homemaker Unemployed 29.2 18.3 48.3 1.7 2.5
Education
Series 1 Certificates Diploma Bachelor's degree
Master's degree Doctoral degree 5.0 5.8 33.3
49.1 5.8
Annual income
Series 1 Less than £20,000 £20,000 - £34,999 £35,000 -
£49,999 £50,000 - £74,999 £75,000 - £99,999 £100,000 -
£149,999 £200,000 or greater 48.3 21.7 15.8 5.8 5.8 1.7
1.7
Organic or Non-organic consumers
Sales Yes No 80.8 19.2

149. Reasons for not eating organic food
Reasons for not eating organic foo d It's too expensive
It's not available where I shop I don't think it's different
from conventional food I don't like the taste 4.2 4.2 8.3
2.5
The frequency of organic consumers’ purchases
The frequenc y of organic consumers’ purchases Few times a
year Once a month Once a week Several times a week
Everyday 14.2 16.7 25.0 22.5 2.5
Categories
Categories
[CATEGORY NAME]
73.2%
[CATEGORY NAME]
92.8%
[CATEGORY NAME]
39.2%
Red meat
27.8%

150. Fruits Vegetables Poultry (Eggs) Red Meat 73.2 92.8
39.2 27.8
Where do you usually buy organic food? [VALUE]%
[VALUE]%
[VALUE]%
Generic Supermarket/ Retailer Producer/ FarmSpecialty
Organic/ Health store Others (all) 59.2 5.0 14.2 2.5
Challenges
Challenges
Limited variety Problems with sensory attributes Lack of
education about organic food Concerns about disease in
organic food Expensive Others (Never face any
challenges) 0.598 0.299 0.216 0.175 0.093
0.041
Consumer knowledge I know a lot I know something I
know nothing 15.0 63.3 2.5

151. image3.png
image4.png
image5.png
image6.png
image7.png
image8.png
image9.png
image10.png
image11.png
image12.png
image13.png
image14.png
image15.png
image16.png
image1.png
image2.png
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
DISSERTATION PROPOSAL FORM
Name : Amonwan Thongkamkhao
Student ID: 22427988
Contact Details (E-Mail/Telephone No.) : [email protected]
Main DiscipLINE of Dissertation (
Please tick one only as the most appropriate.):
Organizational Behavior
HRM
Financial Decision Making
Business Negotiation

152. Strategic Marketing
Information Technology
/
Production / Operations Management
Entrepreneurship / Innovation
Other (Please specify) ……………………
Title of Dissertation: (working title)
A study of factors affecting LINE Application User’s online
shopping behaviour in Thailand
Research Problem
The LINE application is the most popular social media
communication channel in Thailand. In 2022, LINE Thailand
revealed more than 50 million users. Line company revealed
that by 2022, the LINE Official Account (LINE OA) has a total
of more than 1 million merchant accounts. LINE OA had the
most accounts of the three types of businesses: Beauty, Fashion,
and Food (F&B), with the food business growing 51%, while
beauty and fashion grew 31% caused by changing consumer
behavior fewer outings and more online. It was causing all SME
entrepreneurs to turn to open accounts to facilitate customers.
The LINE company survey shows that over 90% of LINE OA's
total accounts are SME entrepreneurs. Mr. Sakulrat Tonyongsiri
(Director of SME Thailand) said, "focuses mainly on SME
entrepreneurs. From the Covid-19 received and the
government's supportive policies that may not have helped that
much, LINE OA is another interesting channel that SME
entrepreneurs will use with other onLINE platforms. It makes it

153. easier to reach customers. Customers make payments easier too.
It is the source of the increasing number of accounts. It
accounted for a growth rate of 25% compared to the previous
year."(Sakulrat,2022)
Summarizes the current reasons for the competition of
entrepreneurs or companies that use eCommerce through Mobile
commerce through the LINE application a lot to spread
information, including promotions or activities that reach
customers directly. Which communication through such
channels of entrepreneurs. Therefore, the researcher is
interested in studying the purchasing behavior of consumers in
Thailand through the LINE application and the factors affecting
the selection of products through the LINE application, namely
demographic factors. The marketing mix (4Ps) and Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) influence the behavior of ordering
products through the LINE application of entrepreneurs or
companies. Including news, activities, and promotions that
make customers want to join the event or receive that promotion
and affect the need to buy more products or not. In order to
know the behavior of customers that may cause various
operators to use such information to improve the direction of
presentation and reach customers in order to increase the
number of customer purchases, or in the future may extend to
the LINE Official Account of SME business.
Objectives of the Study
1. To study the purchasing behavior of consumers in Thailand
through the LINE application.
2. To study the factors affecting the selection of products via
the LINE application, including Demographic factors,
Marketing mix (4Ps) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Proposed Methodology

154. This research examines the factors affecting the purchase of
products via the LINE application among consumers in
Thailand. This research is a quantitative research and survey
research method which uses questionnaires as a tool to collect
data and analyze data by using the processing of software
packages. The results were then summarized to present the
findings in the form of tables and accompanying lectures.
The factors studied were demographic factors such as gender,
age, education level, occupation and average monthly income
that consumers with different demographic characteristics
influenced the decision to buy products via the LINE
application.
Additionally, the researcher will study the marketing mix (4P)
and the technology adoption model (TAM). The questions in
this section consist of a Rating Scale questionnaire with criteria
for determining the weight of the assessment on five levels
based on the FivePoint Likert Scales method.
Faculty of Business and Law Ethics Approval Form
1
Faculty of Business and Law
Postgraduate Taught Research Ethics Application Form
Title of Project A study of factors affecting LINE Application
User’s

155. online shopping behaviour in Thailand.
Name of Researcher Amonwan Thongkamkhao
SECTION A
YES NO N/A
1 Will you describe the main research procedure to
participants in advance, so that they are informed
what to expect?
2 Will you tell participants that their participation is
voluntary?
3 Will you obtain consent from participants?
4 If the research is observational, will you ask
participants for their consent to being observed.
5 Will you tell participants that they may withdraw from
the research at any time and for any reason?
6 With questionnaires/interviews, will you give
participants the option of omitting questions they do

156. not want to answer?
7 Will you tell participants that their data will be treated
with full confidentiality and that, if published, it should
not be identifiable as theirs?
If you have ticked No to any of questions 1-7, then your project
is NOT low risk
8 Will your project involve deliberately misleading
participants in any way?
9 Is there any realistic risk of any participants
experiencing either physical or psychological distress
or discomfort?
10 Will it be possible to link identities or trace
information back to individual participants in any way?
11 Will the study involve discussion of sensitive topics
(e.g. sexual activity, drug use, ethnicity, political

157. behaviour, potentially illegal activities)?
12 Will financial inducements (other than reasonable
expenses, compensation for time or a lottery / draw
ticket) be offered to participants?
Faculty of Business and Law Ethics Approval Form
2
If you have ticked Yes to questions 8-12, then your project is
NOT low risk
YES NO N/A
13 Does your project involve work with animals?
14 Do participants fall into any of the following special groups?
If they do, please outline on page 2 how you will take account
of their
needs.

158. Note that you may also need to obtain satisfactory Disclosure
and
Barring Service (DBS) clearance
YES NO N/A
a) School Children?
b) People with learning or communication
difficulties
c) Patients
d) People in custody
e) People engaged in illegal activities (e.g. drug-
taking)
SECTION B
Please provide full details of your project below
(if insufficient detail is provided and the precise nature of the
study is not clear your
supervisor will NOT approve the project and your form will be
returned)
State the aims and objectives of this research:
This research examines the factors affecting LINE Application

159. User’s online shopping
behaviour in Thailand
1. To study the purchasing behavior of consumers in Thailand
through the LINE
application.
2. To study the factors affecting the selection of products via
the LINE application,
including Demographic factors, Marketing mix (4Ps) and
Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM)
How will participants be recruited? Who will they be (i.e.
number, age, and
gender?):
The researcher will use the method to select the participants
using the "Purposive
Sampling" target group via Google form or Survey Monkey,
which is the group of
people who have purchased products through the LINE
application in Thailand.
Based on Taro Yamane's formula for a total number of 385
participants, the age of
participants must be at least 18 years, and the gender of the

160. participants will be male
and female and agender.
Details of the informed consent process (If required, use the
Informed Consent
and Participant Information Sheet templates provided and
submit with this
form):
In the summary that will be presented prior to participation in
the online survey,
information on the requirements for participation will be
provided. If a participant
Faculty of Business and Law Ethics Approval Form
3
continues to answer questions in an online survey, this indicates
that they have given
their consent to take part.
Description of the method (please submit your research
instrument (survey
questionnaire, interview questions that you will be using to

161. collect data with
this form if relevant):
This research is a quantitative research and survey research
method which uses
survey questionnaires as a tool to collect data and analyze data
by using the
processing of software packages. The results were then
summarized to present the
findings in the form of tables and accompanying lectures.
Additionally, the researcher will study the marketing mix (4P)
and the technology
adoption model (TAM). The questions in this section consist of
a Rating Scale
questionnaire with criteria for determining the weight of the
assessment on five
levels based on the FivePoint Likert Scales method.
Questions design: On-going
Where will this research be conducted?
Online via email direct to friends, linked in , Facebook and Line
group of Thai
students, and Google form or Monkey Survey.

162. What steps have been taken or will be taken to ensure
appropriate permissions
are obtained? (N.B. provide a copy of correspondence i.e. letter,
emails granting
you permission must be submitted with your ethics submission):
This research is part of the study in the University of
Northampton's MBA program.
The information you answer in this questionnaire will be kept
strictly confidential and
will be used for the benefit of this study only.
Name (Caps)
Amonwan Thongkamkhao
Signature of Student
Date:
29/10/22
This project has been

163. approved in its current form
declined and will need to be revised and resubmitted
The following required revisions are stipulated.
Print Name
Supervisor:
or
Module Leader:
Signature
Date:
30/10/2022