“I Eat Organic for My Benefit and Yours”: Egoistic and Altruistic Considerations for Purchasing Organic Food and Their Implications for Advertising Strategists

Abstract

We employ a novel adaptation of self-construal theory to explain the theoretical basis of factors that influence organic food purchase decisions. Study 1 reveals that egoistic (e.g., personal health) and altruistic (e.g., environmental) considerations simultaneously predict consumers' organic attitudes and purchase intentions. Study 2 indicates that societal considerations play a more influential role for green/organic products. Study 3 tests advertising treatments utilizing egoistic and/or altruistic claims. Results show that an ad featuring both egoistic and altruistic appeals produces more favorable responses than either an egoistic treatment or a control ad, but is equally effective as an ad featuring altruistic claims.

Acknowledgments

Ioannis Kareklas (PhD, University of Connecticut) is an assistant professor of marketing, Washington State University.

Jeffrey R. Carlson (MA, Purdue University) is a doctoral candidate, University of Connecticut.

Darrel D. Muehling (PhD, University of Nebraska–Lincoln) is a professor of marketing, Washington State University.

Notes

1. Several characteristics justify the use of a second-order factor. According to Kline (2011), first-order factor indicators indirectly measure a second-order factor. In addition, reflective second-order factors are appropriate when (1) indicators are manifestations of an overall construct, (2) indicators share a common theme, (3) indicators covary, and (4) indicators have the same consequences (Jarvis, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff 2003). In our model, the organic-specific factors (e.g., Nutritional Value and Natural Content) indirectly measure Organic Food Beliefs. These factors covary with each other and share a common theme. Furthermore, these beliefs share the same consequence.

2. The indirect effect for Organic Food Beliefs is as follows: β = .10; unstandardized path coefficient (b) = .12; standard error = .03; lower level confidence interval (LLCI) = .059; upper level confidence interval (ULCI) = .146. The indirect effect for Proenvironment Lifestyle is as follows: β = .27; b = .34; standard error = .04; LLCI = .201; ULCI = .344.

3. An identical pattern of results emerged for all tests of mean differences when the item measuring current organic meat purchase behavior was entered into the analyses as a covariate and when it was omitted from the analyses. Such a finding suggests that our results were not driven by individual differences related to organic meat purchase tendencies but rather resulted from participants’ exposure to the ad treatment conditions.