Consumers Respond More Positivly to Ground Beef Advertisment as 75 Pert Fa

Front Psychol. 2020; eleven: 2022.

Influence of the Framing Outcome, Anchoring Effect, and Knowledge on Consumers' Attitude and Purchase Intention of Organic Nutrient

Lijie Shan

¹Institute for Food Safety Risk Direction, Schoolhouse of Business organization, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, People's republic of china

Haimeng Diao

²School of Business, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, People's republic of china

Linhai Wu

¹Institute for Food Condom Chance Direction, School of Business, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, Communist china

Received 2020 Jun 15; Accepted 2020 Jul 21.

Data Availability Statement: The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article volition be made available past the authors, without undue reservation.

Abstract

This commodity explores consumers' attitude toward and buy intention of organic food regarding the influence of the framing result and anchoring effect and the function of knowledge. Our findings suggest that whether message framing describes the benefits of buying organic food or the loss resulting from a failure to buy organic food, significantly influences consumers' attitude and purchase intention. In improver, presenting an anchor price in advertisements also significantly influences consumers' judgment. These results betoken that a negatively framed bulletin induces a more favorable mental attitude and purchase intention than a positively framed message, a low anchor price is more than favorable than a high one, and the interaction outcome of framing and anchoring is not meaning at the 1% level. Finally, consumers with less organic food noesis are more than susceptible to framing and anchoring effects. These results provide suggestions for appropriate message framing and price anchoring to enhance consumption within the organic industry.

Keywords: organic food, framing effect, anchoring effect, consumers' attitude, purchase intention, product noesis

Introduction

Rapid growth in industrial development and improved living standards are increasing consumers' awareness of nutrient rubber and their desire to consume healthy and environmentally sustainable foods. Organic foods undergo a stringent certification process and are produced without the application of synthetic chemicals, such equally fertilizers and pesticides (Basha et al., 2015). To this end, the attention paid to organic foods is increasing.

According to the International Federation of Organic Agronomics Movements (IFOAM), globally, organic agricultural land is growing at a rate of twenty% per year. However, despite the global growth in product, the marketplace for organic goods is still relatively small-scale. Simply i.four% of agricultural country in the world is farmed organically and, for 56% of countries where data is bachelor, less than 1% of their total farmland is organic farmland (FiBL and IFOAM-Organics International, 2019). In Mainland china, organic food but accounts for 0.6% of the domestic food market, and annual per capita consumption is less than $6. This is lower than the world average and far from the amount spent per capita in developed countries.

There are several reasons for the low consumption of organic nutrient, including consumers' attitudes and purchase intentions. About of the existing literature focus on the factors that influence these aspects, including consumers' product noesis (Wu et al., 2019), trust (Yue et al., 2017), wellness awareness, and private characteristics (Asioli et al., 2017) on the basis of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and the Theory of Planned Beliefs (TPB) (Zagata, 2012). However, to the best of our knowledge, no extant written report has used the framing and anchoring perspectives for exploring ways to encourage consumers' positive responses.

Consumers today come across a variety of information when they scan available products. The information delivered through labels mainly includes production advertising messages and price information cues (Wu and Cheng, 2011). For example, Levin and Gaeth (1988) presented an advertisement for footing beefiness to two groups: one was framed as "75% lean" and the other as "25% fat." Participants responded more favorably toward the beef when it was described as 75% lean. Other studies have examined the effect of including the cost of alternative products, label prices, and other information as "ballast value" (Chandrashekaran and Grewal, 2006; Rödiger and Hamm, 2015). For products of the same quality, consumers adopt products that are advertised every bit having a lower price compared to an internal reference price. The anchor price changes consumers' attitudes and purchase intentions (Chang and Wu, 2015; Paswan et al., 2016). Consumers tend to notice "satisfactory solutions" using heuristic strategies and process information past identifying, editing, and evaluating based on their own product noesis rather than relying on "optimal solutions" (Dale, 2015). Thus, private controlling can be influenced by the mode information is presented and consumers with more product knowledge can process information more than finer and choose more suitable products (Wang et al., 2019). Therefore, consumers are frequently influenced by the message framing and anchor pricing in advertisements. Studies have examined framing and anchoring effects in investing, charitable donations, and consumption decisions (Levin et al., 2002; Sinha and Adhikari, 2017). However, consumers' mental attitude and purchase intention toward organic food based on the framing and anchoring effects has not been studied.

Therefore, this article applies framing and anchoring effects to study organic food consumers' attitude and purchase intention and investigats the moderation role of consumer's product knowledge on these two categories. Based on the findings in this study, it provides suggestions for adjusting consumers' attitudes and purchase intentions, increasing organic food consumption, developing potential markets for organic food, and developing the organic industry.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Co-ordinate to the theory of bounded rationality (Simon, 1955), consumers do not analytically edit external data on products and cannot perform subtle estimations due to their limited knowledge and uncertainty. Instead, consumers use heuristic systems to identify, edit, and make intuitive judgments based on their knowledge of a given product (Li and Ding, 2010; Shan et al., 2019). Consumers' attitudes and purchase intentions, therefore, are influenced by their product knowledge, advertising messages, prices, and the limitations of their information processing (Hoque et al., 2018). Specifically, more knowledgeable consumers tend to develop a ameliorate cerebral structure to process information finer, while consumers with less production knowledge usually make biased judgments considering of their limited feel (Bettman and Park, 1980). It is likely that consumers who are more than knowledgeable about organic food are less likely to exist influenced past framing and anchoring effects than those who with less knowledge.

Framing Outcome

"Bulletin framing" is a communication strategy used to influence judgment, attitude, and behavior through equivalent appeals, framed equally the benefits gained or consequences incurred from buying a product (Levin et al., 1998). Negatively framed messages emphasize the undesirable consequences of refusing to buy a product or service, whereas positively framed messages emphasize the desirable turn a profit or benefits of ownership a product or service. Previous studies on message framing have shown mixed results: some indicate that positively framed messages are more than persuasive (Van de Velde et al., 2010), while others find that negatively framed messages have greater power to enhance information processing and promote consumers' attitude and buy intention. For example, Moon et al. (2016) examined bio-fuels, finding that highlighting the negative impact of gasoline use is most constructive in increasing consumers' biofuel purchase intention. Likewise, Chen (2016) found that emphasizing the benefits of purchasing health care products is less disarming than emphasizing the loss of not purchasing the products. Therefore, loss aversion makes the negative frame more persuasive.

Message framing has a large impact on consumers' attitudes and purchase intentions; thus, the advertising message framing is crucial (Block and Keller, 1995; Zhu, 2014). This study used positively framed letters that suggest the environmental and personally benefit gained from purchasing organic nutrient. The negatively framed message, meanwhile, emphasizes that consumers may cause environmental damage and incur personal losses if they do non buy organic nutrient. Although both convey information to induce favorable attitudes and buy intentions (Martins et al., 2019), the extent of their bear on may differ. The post-obit hypotheses seek to explore this deviation:

H1a:

Respondents facing a negatively framed message will form a more positive mental attitude toward organic food than those facing a positively framed bulletin.
H1b:

Respondents facing a negatively framed message will be more likely to purchase organic food than those facing a positively framed bulletin.

Knowledge of organic food reflects consumers' understanding of organic nutrient concepts and respective attributes, while subjective knowledge reflects self-evaluation and consumers' ability to procedure information, and tin can finer predict consumer behavior (Teng and Wang, 2015). High noesis levels ameliorate the effectiveness and accuracy of consumers' data processing and help form stable consumer preferences and purchase intentions (Cai et al., 2016). Nelson et al. (1997) contend that participants with higher levels of professional knowledge actively compare different bulletin frames and weigh the reliability of information, thereby strengthening the framing effect. However, other studies constitute that consumers' existing cognition promotes information processing and weakens the framing effect and that consumers with less noesis take less credible opinions and are more than probable to make judgments based on incomplete experience and insufficient information processing, meaning they are more than susceptible to the influence of the framing effect (Kinder and Sanders, 1990). Increased consumer product cognition, therefore, should weaken the framing effect and decrease bias in consumer attitudes and purchase intentions (Haider-Markel and Joslyn, 2001; Jin and Han, 2014). This leads to another hypothesis:

H1c:

Respondents with less knowledge about organic food are more susceptible to the framing effect.

Anchoring Effect

Tversky and Kahneman (1974) were the first to propose the anchoring result. They propose that consumers are not e'er rational when making decisions, often adjusting their estimates based on prior noesis and reference information past the anchoring and adjustment heuristic. Every bit a result, anchor value is an important factor. The anchoring effect is a robust idea that has been verified in different domains, including economic controlling (Oechssler et al., 2009), value evaluation (Chang et al., 2016), and bank lending (Dougal et al., 2015). Here, the subjects are accepted to an aligning process to make their estimates, simply if they face a low anchor, the final estimates will be lower than those of someone who began with a loftier anchor (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974; Northcraft and Neale, 1987).

In general, when there is uncertainty most a product, consumers are prone to form their attitudes and purchase intentions according to accessible information, such as advertising prices. For example, Santosh and Mrinalini (2015) institute that the terminal number of the label price plays an important function in consumers' behavior. Moreover, Shen et al. (2016) propose that college external price information for other appurtenances presented in the decision-making environment increases consumers' acceptance of actual prices, so consumer attitudes and purchase intentions will exist more than favorable. Nonetheless, organic nutrient in domestic China is nonetheless in the primary period of development, and is, therefore, barely known to full general consumers. Besides, the price of organic food is 3–5 times—and sometimes even 8–10 times greater than the price of non-organic food in China (Certification, and Accreditation Administration of the People's Republic of China, 2014). As a event of unfamiliarity with and express knowledge almost organic food, consumers utilize other prices as their internal reference betoken, such equally the price of conventional, non-organic nutrient (Lin and Chen, 2017). Such consumers find conventional food for a lower price than the organic characterization price, leading to a feeling of charade and unfairness toward the external ballast price (Weisstein et al., 2016). This affects consumers' perceived benefits and results in a different anchoring result (Niedrich et al., 2001; Rödiger and Hamm, 2015). Thus, it is reasonable to argue that full general consumers will grade more negative attitudes and lower purchase intentions toward organic food when they are presented with the loftier anchor prices. This leads to the following hypotheses:

H2a:

Respondents facing a depression anchor price for organic food volition accept a more positive mental attitude than those given a high anchor price.
H2b:

Respondents facing a low ballast price for organic food volition be more likely to purchase organic food than those given a high anchor price.

The office of cognition in anchoring result investigations has different results depending on the domains (Englich, 2008). For example, Northcraft and Neale (1987) demonstrate that the anchoring issue is moderated past participates' knowledge. Although both participants with and without related cognition are influenced by anchoring effects, the anchoring upshot's influence is less on respondents who are more than well-informed compared to those who are less. Zhang and Zhao (2016), meanwhile, report that respondents' familiarity with risk likewise affects the anchoring effect; the less familiar someone is with a product, the more decumbent they are to judgment biases based on different anchor values. Consumers' behavior is no exception. Consumers with a loftier degree of product noesis are more accurate and confident in their estimation, consequently influencing their attitudes and purchase intentions (Biswas and Sherrell, 1993). Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize:

H2c:

Respondents with less knowledge about organic food are more susceptible to the anchoring issue.

Materials and Methods

Message Framing and Anchor Cost

Based on the inquiry of Grewal et al. (1994) and Chang (2007), this report adopted positively and negatively framed messages for organic food advertisements. It positively framed organic lettuce by maxim:

Organic nutrient uses natural and ecological production methods, non simply providing you with safe nutrient simply also fostering sustainable environmental development, thereby benefiting anybody. When you decide to purchase organic lettuce, yous are making a salubrious decision that also protects the environment. At that place is no dubiety that in that location are many benefits to purchasing and eating organic lettuce. By choosing organic food, you are consuming lettuce that is free of harmful content such every bit chemicals, antibiotics, and pesticides. Choosing Organic lettuce is not just an advantage for your health but as well reduces your bear upon on the environment. It is adept for everyone.

For negative framing, it described the same production using the following phrasing:

Organic food uses natural and ecological production methods, not only providing y'all with safe food but also fostering sustainable environmental development. When you decide against purchasing organic lettuce, you are making an unhealthy decision and impairment the environment. Obviously, there are many disadvantages to purchasing and eating non-organic lettuce. By choosing not-organic lettuce, you are consuming lettuce that contains high levels of harmful content, such as chemicals, antibiotics, and pesticides. Choosing not-organic not only harms your wellness merely also increases your negative touch on on the environment. It is nothing but harmful.

To determine the anchor toll, this report relied on the work of Chapman et al. (2002). Considering there is a meaning anchoring effect when a respondent pays more attending to the "anchor value," it used the characterization toll of the organic lettuce equally the anchor value. Using Jacowitz and Kahneman's (1995) concept of the external anchoring index (AI), the quintiles of 85 and 15% of the estimation in the control group acted as loftier and low anchor values in the test groups, respectively. Responses to a pre-survey administered to the control group where participants were asked to estimate the price of the organic lettuce, determined the 85% (15 RMB) and 15% quantiles (iii RMB).

Experimental Design

There are two questionnaires for the control group and four for the examination groups. In the command group, surveyed consumers were asked to estimate the price of organic lettuce with different message frames and without related price information. In contrast, respondents in the test groups were given xv (high) or 3 (low) RMB every bit the toll ballast and then instructed to brand respective judgments using a positively or negatively framed message.

Afterwards conducting a pre-survey in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, Mainland china, the questionnaires underwent revision to ensure validity. The airplane pilot study was conducted in January 2019 with a random sample of sixty respondents (24 males and 36 females). Of these, three had difficulty judging the price of organic lettuce giving no suggestions and did non answer the question regarding price. Excluding these, the average estimated price was 7.4 RMB, which is less than the market price. The pre-survey suggested that respondents could not seriously class attitude and purchase intention without price information. Equally a result, the terminal survey used high and low anchor prices alongside positively and negatively framed messages to investigate the anchoring and framing effects.

There were three parts to each questionnaire. The offset part addressed the respondents' cognition of organic nutrient. The 2d provided respondents with information about organic lettuce, including price and ad bulletin, and the third measured the respondents' attitudes toward organic lettuce and their buy intention.

Experimental Organisation

All interviewers were from the Institute for Food Safe Risk Management at Jiangnan University. We recruited 400 respondents by selecting every third consumer (Wu et al., 2012) from 5 administrative districts of Wuxi, who were randomly assigned to one of the four groups to ensure the representativeness of the sample. This also ensured that each consumer had an equal chance to be chosen and improved the fit of the sample to the whole group.

The formal survey was carried out between June 5–20, 2019. The interviewers collected a full of 368 valid questionnaires, including 92 from Group 1 (depression anchor × positive framing), 92 from Group 2 (low anchor × negative framing), 93 from Group 3 (high anchor × positive framing), and 91 from Group iv (loftier anchor × negative framing). Each respondent who completed the survey received RMB v in bounty.

Of the total respondents, 37.two% of them were male, 74.5% had a college-or university-level educational activity, and 57.6% were aged 26–55 years old. Xxx-4 percent were depression-income individuals (annual income of 36,000 RMB or less). In addition, most respondents agreed that they were in practiced health. Differences in demographics between groups were examined using χ² tests. The results indicate no significant differences among whatsoever demographic variables (Tabular array ane).

TABLE 1

Demographic characteristic of participants.

Demographics	Group one	Group ii	Grouping iii	Grouping four	Total (%)	P-value
Gender
Male	35	39	28	35	37.2	0.371
Female	57	53	65	56	62.8
Age
18–25	33	41	33	36	38.9	0.271
26–35	33	34	33	28	34.8
36–45	19	nine	13	21	xvi.8
46–55	5	4	8	5	6.0
56–65	2	4	6	1	2.2
Marital status
Married	44	49	41	50	50.0	0.433
Unmarried	48	43	52	41	50.0
Instruction
Less than junior college	25	25	30	17	25.six	0.858
Junior college	26	21	18	30	25.8
Higher than inferior college	41	47	47	44	48.seven
Annual income
36,000 RMB and less	33	thirty	37	25	34.0	0.567
36,000–50,000 RMB	ix	16	xiv	eleven	13.6
50,000–80,000 RMB	16	12	12	23	17.ane
fourscore,000–10,000 RMB	17	eighteen	xiii	14	16.viii
More than 100,000	17	16	17	xviii	18.5
Health status
Healthy	80	84	73	76	85.1	0.475
Moderately healthy	12	7	18	fifteen	14.i
Unhealthy	0	one	two	0	0.viii

Validity and Reliability

This study used SPSS 20.0 and AMOS 7.0 to test the reliability and validity of the questionnaire based on scales in prior studies (Kim et al., 2008; Cucchiara et al., 2015; Konuk, 2018). It measured consumers' attitude and buy intention toward organic food using a 7-betoken Likert calibration. Higher scores revealed a stronger buy intention and a more positive mental attitude. Similarly, consumers' knowledge about organic nutrient was scored on a 5-betoken Likert scale (i = good understanding, 5 = ignorant), with a low score displaying higher knowledge.

Table 2 shows the reliability of each item using Cronbach's alpha. The values were 0.73 (noesis), 0.86 (mental attitude), and 0.94 (intention). These reliability coefficients are all college than the critical value of 0.lxx, suggesting high internal reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Tabular array 2

Validity and reliability of study variables.

Variables	Latent variables	Cistron loadings
Production Noesis Cronbach's alpha = 0.73	PK1: Compared to others, how knowledgeable practise you think you are with organic food?	0.709
	PK2: Exercise yous know how to distinguish organic food?	0.738
	PK3: Do yous call up you tin purchase organic food satisfactorily based on merely your ain knowledge?	0.628
Attitude Cronbach's blastoff = 0.86	A1: Organic food is extremely bad-extremely expert.	0.778
	A2: Organic food is extremely unhealthy-extremely salubrious.	0.845
	A3: Organic food is extremely unattractive-extremely attractive.	0.823
Purchase Intention Cronbach's alpha = 0.94	PI1: I will purchase this organic lettuce even if I accept already purchase one.	0.909
	PI2: I tend to buy this organic lettuce.	0.930
	PI3: I will advise my friends to purchase this organic lettuce.	0.913

Discriminant validity, showing the degree of constructs measured in different methods, is distinguishable (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). One principle for discriminant validity is that the correlation coefficient betwixt one construct and the others should be less than the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each variable. The diagonal of Table iii shows the AVE foursquare roots, all of which are greater than the correlation coefficient, indicating a favorable discriminant validity.

TABLE 3

Average variance extracted and correlation of constructs.

Variables	AVE	Product knowledge	Attitude	Buy intention
Product knowledge	0.48	0.693*
Mental attitude	0.67	0.067	0.816*
Purchase intention	0.84	0.048	0.735	0.917*

$Average variance extracted (AVE) = (\sum standardized$

${loading}^{2} / [(standardized {loading}^{2}) + \sum ε_{j}])$

(1)

Results and Give-and-take

Nosotros used analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the framing and anchoring upshot on consumers' attitude and purchase intention toward organic nutrient. Further, nosotros examined the role of consumers' knowledge using hierarchical multiple regression (HMR).

The Principal Effect of Framing and Anchoring

The ANOVA results reveal that framing and anchoring had no significant interaction result on consumer'southward mental attitude and intention (F _{mental attitude} = 0.752, P > 0.01, F _intention = four.582, P > 0.01). The R ² of mental attitude and intention are 0.315 and 0.325, indicating a principal effect construct of 31.5 and 32.five%, respectively (Table 4).

TABLE 4

Results of ANOVA test.

Manipulation	N	Attitude		Purchase intention
		Hateful	F	Mean	F
Negatively framed message	183	4.461	61.430***	four.031	56.728***
Positively framed bulletin	185	3.580		three.096
Depression anchor toll	184	4.591	104.516***	4.219	113.629***
High anchor toll	184	3.446		ii.902
Framing × anchoring	368	4.018	0.752	3.561	iv.582**

Moreover, for the dissimilar message frames and ballast prices, the significance of the F statistics of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions are less than 0.01. This indicates that the main framing and anchoring effect on consumers' attitude and purchase intention of organic food was significant. Specifically, the consumers exposed to the negatively framed message rated the organic lettuce more than positively (Yard _attitude = iv.461) and had a higher intention to purchase (M _intention = 4.031) than those exposed to the positively framed message (M _{mental attitude} = 3.580, M _intention = 3.096). These results are consistent with those of previous studies (Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy, 1990). Negative framing promotes deep processing of data and improves persuasiveness, so it is possible that the consumers' trend toward loss aversion makes the potential loss of not buying organic lettuce more unacceptable.

In addition, the consumers exposed to a low anchor toll rated the organic lettuce more positively (M _attitude = 4.591) and revealed a higher purchase intention (M _intention = 4.219) than those exposed to a high anchor price (M _attitude = three.446, M _intention = 2.902). This finding is inconsistent with those of previous studies, such as those past Shen et al. (2016). This may be because the anchor cost for their study was based on the reference cost of a counterpart food, in this example, a high anchor value is conducive to increasing the consumer's recognition of the target product. In the present study, however, the high anchor price highlights the gap between organic and conventionally produced lettuce, resulting in a strong contrast issue and reducing consumer acceptance and buy intention toward organic food. This is consequent with the findings of Wilson et al. (1996) in that there is a significant anchoring effect on consumers' mental attitude and purchase intention and that low anchor price information tin can improve consumers' attitude and increment their buy intention. Thus, Hypotheses H1a and H1b and Hypotheses H2a and H2b are confirmed.

The Role of Production Noesis in Framing Effect and Anchoring Effect

The report went on to examine the part of product knowledge on framing and anchoring effects by conducting HMR models.

The results shown in Tabular array 5 and Figure ane are clear; the interaction coefficients of the message frame and product knowledge (β_attitude = 0.332, P < 0.01 and β_{purchase intention} = 0.341, P < 0.01) point that they take a positive influence on mental attitude and purchase intention. When categorized based on their knowledge level according to their survey scores, more than knowledgeable consumers were less likely to change their attitudes or buy intentions based on the message frame (Effigy 1).

TABLE five

Hierarchical multiple regression results for framing outcome.

	β
Models	Mental attitude			Purchase intention
Gender	–0.064	0.006	–0.018	–0.166	–0.088	–0.113
Age	–0.105	–0.072	–0.018	–0.145	–0.110	–0.055
Marital status	0.224	0.291*	0.229	0.309	0.381**	0.317*
Instruction	−0.167**	−0.159**	−0.141**	−0.210*	−0.203***	−0.185***
Health	−0.187*	−0.179**	−0.145*	−0.192*	−0.182*	–0.147
Income	0.026	–0.001	–0.017	–0.023	–0.052	–0.069
Ten ₁		−0.435***	−0.436***		−0.461***	−0.463***
M		0.150**	0.168***		0.188***	0.206***
10 ₁ × M			0.332***			0.341***
△R ²	0.035	0.131	0.063	0.047	0.125	0.054
△F	2.205**	28.242***	29.440***	two.934**	27.082***	24.972***

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is fpsyg-11-02022-g001.jpg

Respondents' responses in different bulletin framing.

These results indicate that those with more noesis were less influenced by the framing effect. This finding is inconsistent with those of Bullock and Vedlitz (2017). One reason for this is the divergence in bailiwick area; Bullock and Vedlitz (2017) examined controversial public policies. People who know picayune virtually public policies are indifferent and thus do non respond strongly to the framing upshot. However, food prophylactic is closely related to consumers' daily lives. Concerns about nutrient prophylactic prompt many to pay attending to product data, so consumers who have less cognition of organic food volition rely on external bulletin frames, thereby creating a stronger framing effect. This finding confirms Hypothesis H1c.

To clarify the role production knowledge plays in the anchoring result, this written report besides involved developing HMR models (Tabular array six). The interaction coefficient between ballast cost and knowledge—β_{mental attitude} = 0.400 (P < 0.01) and β_{purchase intention} = 0.363 (P < 0.01)—indicates the interaction between attitude and purchase intention. Consumers with a high knowledge level are less probable to modify their attitudes or purchase intentions at dissimilar anchor prices, indicating that those with more product knowledge are less afflicted by the anchoring effect (Figure 2). This aligns with Englich et al. (2016) who found that consumers with a deeper agreement of organic food can edit cost cues based on their own product knowledge, generate spontaneous anchors, reduce the touch on of external anchors, and reduce the anchoring issue. This confirms Hypothesis H2c.

TABLE half dozen

Hierarchical multiple regression results for anchoring effect.

	β
Models	Attitude			Purchase intention
Gender	–0.064	0.032	0.022	–0.166	–0.055	–0.064
Age	–0.105	–0.055	–0.055	–0.145	–0.088	–0.088
Marital condition	0.224	0.198*	0.169	0.309	0.28**	0.254*
Education	−0.167**	−0.136**	−0.132**	−0.210*	−0.177***	−0.172***
Health	−0.187*	−0.148**	−0.131*	−0.192*	−0.147*	–0.132
Income	0.026	0.017	–0.040	–0.023	–0.034	–0.046
10 ₂		−0.545***	−0.557***		−0.622***	−0.633***
M		0.120**	0.024***		0.151***	0.063***
X ₂ × Chiliad			0.400***			0.363***
△R ⁱⁱ	0.035	0.194	0.089	0.047	0.207	0.059
△F	2.205**	45.190***	46.700***	2.934**	46.690***	30.783***

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is fpsyg-11-02022-g002.jpg

Respondents' responses in dissimilar anchor price.

Conclusion

This study shows significant framing and anchoring effects in consumers' attitude and purchase intention toward organic food. With a non-significant, 1% level interaction effect between them, the framing and anchoring effects tin be replicated in the consumption of organic food, an expanse neglected in prior enquiry. The results of this work suggest that a negatively framed bulletin and a low ballast price enhances the persuasion of advertisements in relation to consumer responses regarding attitudes and buy intentions. Further, this paper confirms the moderating role of product knowledge on framing and anchoring furnishings, demonstrating that less knowledgeable consumers are more susceptible to both furnishings.

Improving consumers' purchase intention and attitude toward organic nutrient is critical to long-term consumption. Our results propose that the authorities should take advantage of the internet, tv set advertisements, and other media to educate the public on wellness problems caused by pesticide residues and antibiotics in much of the food supply, emphasizing through a negatively framed message, that these chemicals may crusade health bug. They should explain to supermarkets and organic farms how organic certification may improve consumers' knowledge to enabling them to identify, purchase, and swallow organic food, thus making salubrious consumption choices. In addition, our results indicate that consumers' attitudes and purchasing intentions are significantly lower when organic nutrient has a loftier ballast price. Therefore, the regime should increase back up for the organic industry, provide appropriate organic facilities, organic conversion subsidies, organic certification subsidies and input subsidies for organic production enterprises to lower the production cost of organic food gradually. Companies should lower the circulation costs of organic food and decrease the price gap between organic and other foods, thereby improving consumers' mental attitude and purchase intention.

There are a few limitations to this study. First, past studies have included three types of framing effects; however, this piece of work only considered goal framing. Including aspect framing, which has also been examined in marketing, would be beneficial in hereafter inquiry. Second, this article pays attending to anchor prices related to organic food. Notwithstanding, it may also be worthwhile to explore whether an unrelated anchor value has the same result on consumers' responses.

Data Availability Statement

The raw information supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Commission of Jiangnan University. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

LW: conceptualization and writing – review and editing. HD: data curation and formal analysis. LS: validation. LS and Hard disk: writing – original draft. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could exist construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Funding. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of People's republic of china (Grant Nos. 71603104 and 71803067) and Project of Humanities and Social Science of Ministry of Education (Grant No. 20YJA790076).

References

Asioli D., Aschemann-Witzel J., Caputo V., Vecchio R., Annunziata A., Næs T., et al. (2017). Making sense of the "clean characterization" trends: a review of consumer food pick behavior and discussion of industry implications. Food Res. Int. 99 58–71. 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.07.022 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Basha Yard. B., Stonemason C., Shamsudin 1000. F., Hussain H. I., Salem M. A. (2015). Consumers' attitude towards organic food. Proc. Econ. Finance 31 444–452. x.1016/S2212-5671(xv)01219-8 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Bettman J. R., Park C. Due west. (1980). Effects of prior noesis and experience and phase of the pick process on consumer conclusion processes: a protocol assay. J. Consum. Res. 7 234–248. 10.1086/208812 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Biswas A., Sherrell D. L. (1993). The influence of product noesis and brand proper noun on internal price standards and confidence. Psychol. Marker. ten 31–46. 10.1002/mar.4220100104 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Cake 50. One thousand., Keller P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: the effects of perceived efficacy and bulletin framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. J. Mark. Res. 32 192–203. x.2307/3152047 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Bullock J. B., Vedlitz A. (2017). Emphasis framing and the role of perceived knowledge: a survey experiment. Rev. Policy Res. 34 485–503. 10.1111/ropr.12231 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Cai G., Chen R., Zhao P. (2016). Research on the influence of consumer noesis and information recommendation agent on brand loyalty. Red china Soft Sci. 10 123–134. [Google Scholar]
Certification, and Accreditation Assistants of the People'south Republic of China (2014). Red china Organic Industry Development Study. Beijing: Quality and Standards Publishing & Media Co., Ltd. [Google Scholar]
Chandrashekaran R., Grewal D. (2006). Anchoring furnishings of advertised reference price and sale price: the moderating role of saving presentation format. J. Bus. Res. 59 1063–1071. x.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.006 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Chang C., Chao C., Yeh J. (2016). The function of buy-side anchoring bias: evidence from the real estate market. Pacific Basin Finance J. 38 34–58. 10.1016/j.pacfin.2016.02.008 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Chang C. T. (2007). Wellness-care product advertising: the influence of message framing and perceived product characteristics. Psychol. Mark. 24 143–169. 10.1002/mar.20156 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Chang M. C., Wu C. C. (2015). The effect of message framing on pro-environmental beliefs intentions: an information processing view. Br. Food J. 117 339–357. 10.1108/BFJ-09-2013-0247 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Chapman G. B., Johnson E. J., Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D. (2002). "Incorporating the irrelevant: anchors in judgments of belief and value," in Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment , eds Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D. (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; ), 120–138. 10.1017/cbo9780511808098.008 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Chen K. (2016). Consumer response to health production advice: the role of perceived product efficacy. J. Bus. Res. 69 3251–3260. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.024 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Cucchiara C., Kwon Due south., Ha S. (2015). Bulletin framing and consumer responses to organic seafood labeling. Br. Food J. 117 1547–1563. ten.1108/BFJ-07-2014-0261 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Dale Due south. (2015). Heuristics and biases: the scientific discipline of controlling. Autobus. Inform. Rev. 32 93–99. 10.1177/0266382115592536 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Dougal C., Engelberg J., Parsons C. A., Edward D. V. W. (2015). anchoring on credit spreads. J. Finance 70 1039–1080. x.1111/jofi.12248 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Englich B. (2008). When cognition matters-differential effects of available noesis in standard and basic anchoring tasks. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38 896–904. 10.1002/ejsp.479 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Englich B., Mussweiler T., Strack F. (2016). Playing die with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32 188–200. 10.1177/0146167205282152 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
FiBL and IFOAM-Organics International (2019∗). The World of Organic Agronomics[R]. Avaliable at: https://www.organic-world.internet/yearbook/yearbook-2019.html (accessed September10, 2019). 10.1177/0146167205282152 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Fornell C., Larcker D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Marker. Res. 18 39–fifty. 10.1177/002224378101800104 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Grewal D., Gotlieb J., Marmorstein H. (1994). The moderating effects of message framing and source brownie on the price-perceived gamble relationship. J. Consum. Res. 21 145–153. 10.1086/209388 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Haider-Markel D. P., Joslyn M. R. (2001). Gun policy, stance, tragedy, and blame attribution: the conditional influence of issue frames. J. Polit. 63 520–543. x.1111/0022-3816.00077 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Hoque M. Z., Xie J., Nazneen Southward. (2018). Result of labelled data and sensory attributes on consumers' intention to purchase milk. Due south Asian J. Omnibus. Stud. 17 265–286. 10.1108/SAJBS-02-2018-0021 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Jacowitz Grand. E., Kahneman D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in interpretation tasks. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 21 1161–1166. 10.1177/01461672952111004 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Jin H. J., Han D. H. (2014). Interaction between message framing and consumers' prior subjective knowledge regarding nutrient rubber issues. Food Policy 44 95–102. ten.1016/j.foodpol.2013.10.007 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Kim D. J., Ferrin D. L., Rao H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer controlling model in electronic commerce: the role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decis. Support Syst. 44 544–564. 10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Kinder D. R., Sanders L. Thou. (1990). Mimicking political debate with survey questions: the case of white opinion on affirmative action for blacks. Soc. Cogn. 8 73–103. 10.1521/soco.1990.eight.i.73 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Konuk F. A. (2018). Price fairness, satisfaction, and trust every bit antecedents of buy intentions towards organic food. J. Eat. Behav. 17 141–148. 10.1002/cb.1697 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Levin I. P., Gaeth Chiliad. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute data earlier and subsequently consuming the product. J. Consum. Res. xv 374–378. 10.1086/209174 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Levin I. P., Gaeth G. J., Schreiber J., Lauriola M. (2002). A new expect at framing effects: distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 88 411–429. 10.1006/obhd.2001.2983 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Levin I. P., Schneider Southward. L., Gaeth G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: a typology and disquisitional analysis of framing furnishings. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 76 149–188. 10.1006/obhd.1998.2804 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Li 10., Ding Z. (2010). Analysis of irrational decision behavior based on cognitive bias. Contemp. Econ. Res. half-dozen 59–62. [Google Scholar]
Lin C. H., Chen Chiliad. (2017). Follow your eye: how is willingness to pay formed under multiple anchors? Front end. Psychol. 8:2269. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02269 [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Maheswaran D., Meyers-Levy J. (1990). The influence of bulletin framing and issue involvement. J. Mark. Res. 27 361–367. 10.1177/002224379002700310 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Martins J., Costa C., Oliveira T., Goncalves R., Branco F. (2019). How smartphone advertizement influences consumers' purchase intention. J. Jitney. Res. 94 378–387. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.047 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Moon S., Bergey P. Chiliad., Bove Fifty. Fifty., Robinson Southward. (2016). Message framing and individual traits in adopting innovative, sustainable products (ISPs): testify from biofuel adoption. J. Motorbus. Res. 69 3553–3560. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.029 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Nelson T. E., Clawson R. A., Oxley Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a ceremonious liberties disharmonize and its upshot on tolerance. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 91 567–583. 10.2307/2952075 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Niedrich R., Sharma S., Wedell D. (2001). Reference price and price perceptions: a comparison of alternative models. J. Consum. Res. 28 339–354. ten.1086/323726 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Northcraft Thousand. B., Neale M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real manor: an anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 39 84–97. 10.1016/0749-5978(87)90046-X [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Oechssler J., Roider A., Schmitz P. W. (2009). Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 72 147–152. 10.1016/j.jebo.2009.04.018 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Paswan A., Davari A., Iyer P. (2016). Green products: altruism, economics, cost fairness and buy intention. Syst. Bot. 6 39–64. 10.1362/204440816X14636485174912 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Rödiger M., Hamm U. (2015). How are organic food prices affecting consumer behaviour? A review. Nutrient Q. Prefer. 43 ten–xx. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.02.002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Santosh K., Mrinalini P. (2015). The impact of 9-ending pricing strategy on the consumers'. Attit. Purchase. Behav. 2 93–98. [Google Scholar]
Shan L., Wang Southward., Wu L., Tsai F.-U. (2019). Cerebral biases of consumers' risk perception of foodborne diseases in red china: examining anchoring effect. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Wellness xvi:2268. 10.3390/ijerph16132268 [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Shen C., Chen F., Wei C. (2016). Enquiry on the relationship between anchoring issue and consumers' willingness to purchase. Consum. Econ. 32 57–63. 10.2139/ssrn.383341 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Simon H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational pick. Q. J. Econ. 69 99–118. 10.2307/1884852 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Sinha R. G., Adhikari A. (2017). Advertised reference toll and sales price every bit anchors of the breadth of expected price and its bear on on purchase intention. Eur. J. Marking. 51 1597–1611. 10.1108/EJM-03-2016-0177 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Teng C. C., Wang Y. M. (2015). Decisional factors driving organic food consumption: generation of consumer buy intentions. Br. Food J. 117 1066–1081. x.1108/BFJ-12-2013-0361 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185 1124–1131. 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Van de Velde L., Verbeke W., Popp M., Van Huylenbroeck G. (2010). The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of free energy. Energy Policy 38 5541–5549. 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.053 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Wang H., Ma B. 50., Bai R. B. (2019). How does green product cognition effectively promote green buy intention? Sustainability 11 1193 ten.3390/su11041193 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Weisstein F. L., Kukar-Kinney Chiliad., Monroe Yard. B. (2016). Determinants of consumers' response to pay-what-you-want pricing strategy on the Internet. J. Bus. Res. 69 4313–4320. x.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.005 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Wilson T. D., Houston C. Eastward., Etling K. M., Brekke Due north. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 125 387–402. 10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.387 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Wu C. Southward., Cheng F. F. (2011). The joint effect of framing and anchoring on net buyers' decision-making. Electron. Comm. Res. Appl. 10 358–368. 10.1016/j.elerap.2011.01.002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Wu L., Xu Fifty., Zhu D., Wang Ten. (2012). Factors affecting consumer willingness to pay for certified traceable food in Jiangsu Province of China. Tin. J. Agric. Econ. Rev. Tin. Agroecon. 60 ane–17. 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2011.01236.10 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Wu W., Zhou L., Chien H. (2019). Impact of consumer awareness, knowledge, and attitudes on organic rice purchasing beliefs in Prc. J. Nutrient Prod. Marker. 25 549–565. x.1080/10454446.2019.1611515 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Yue L., Liu Y., Wei Ten. (2017). Influence of online product presentation on consumers' trust in organic food A mediated moderation model. Br. Food J. 119 2724–2739. x.1108/BFJ-09-2016-0421 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Zagata L. (2012). Consumers' beliefs and behavioural intentions towards organic nutrient: evidence from the Czech republic. Appetite 59 206–217. x.1016/j.appet.2012.03.023 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Zhang Z., Zhao H. (2016). Enquiry on anchoring effect in valuation judgment. App. J. China 196 24–31. ten.3969/j.issn.1007-0265.2016.07.006 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Zhu Y. (2014). the influences of type of fit betwixt company and cause, and information framing on consumers' responses to cause-related marketing. Nankai Double-decker. Rev. 17 128–139. [Google Scholar]

Manufactures from Frontiers in Psychology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

simonthensce1950.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7434854/