Next Article in Journal
Which Is More Concerning for Accounting Professionals-Personal Risk or Professional Risk?
Previous Article in Journal
Evolutionary Game Analysis of the Regulatory Strategy of Third-Party Environmental Pollution Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 22
10.3390/su142215451
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence of Perceived Value on Repurchase Intention of Green Agricultural Products: From the Perspective of Multi-Group Analysis

by
Anxin Xu
,
Chenwen Wei
,
Manhua Zheng
*,
Lili Sun
* and
Decong Tang
College of Economics and Management, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 15451; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215451
Submission received: 29 October 2022 / Revised: 11 November 2022 / Accepted: 18 November 2022 / Published: 21 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Food)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Consumers, in their daily lives, tend to select and repurchase agricultural products through experience or trust. With the improvement of consumers’ quality of life, green agricultural products are now favored, and consumers have begun to pay more attention to the perceived value of green agricultural products. Based on the ABC model of attitude, this study analyzed the mechanism of consumer perceptions (safety value, functional value, and green value) of green food rice and green food apple on their behavioral intentions (repurchase intention of green agricultural products) through structural equation modeling. Based on signaling theory and cue utilization theory, the mechanism of the role of green trust in mitigating information asymmetry in the green agricultural products market was analyzed through mediating effects. To verify the applicability of the findings to specific sample groups and the impact of different sample differences on the findings, multiple-group analyses were conducted for apples and rice and high and low education. Data were collected using a questionnaire method through a cell phone random push questionnaire service on the Credamo platform, and the respondents were consumers of green food rice and green food apples distributed in all provinces of the country. The results showed that the perceived value significantly and positively influences the repurchase intention of green agricultural products. In terms of the degree of influence, the functional value is greater than the safety value, while the green value has no influence. Green trust mediates the relationship between perceived value and repurchase intention of green agricultural products, with a fully mediating role in the path from green value to repurchase intention. There is a significant difference between green value and repetitive purchase intention by the type of green products (necessities and non-essentials). In addition, education levels (low and high education) also show differences in the effects of green value on repurchase intention, the functional value on green trust, and green value on green trust. This study not only enriches the research related to perceived value theory and repurchase intention but also enriches the research related to green trust to provide some references for enhancing the external effects of trust theory.

1. Introduction

With the rapid growth of population and productivity, as well as the increasing sophistication of science and technology, more and more industrial and domestic waste is being emitted, resulting in increasingly serious pollution of air, water, and soil. As a result, the natural ecological balance has been violently impacted and destroyed, and many resources are decreasing and at risk of depletion, which ultimately leads to a serious reduction in the quality and safety of agricultural products [1]. The most serious environmental problem is “global warming”, which is attributed to “excessive carbon emissions” [2]. Maintaining an ecological balance and protecting the environment are related to human survival and social development, while the quality and safety of agricultural products are associated with people’s health and life safety. Green agriculture can increase farmers’ incomes, reduce agricultural pollution, and solve food safety problems [3]. Therefore, the government, enterprises, and people from all walks of life have joined the environmental protection team. How to deal with the problem of environmental degradation and form sustainable development has become the goal of the government’s relevant policies [4]. On 18 January 2022, to thoroughly implement the “The Opinions of Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on Completely Accurately and Comprehensively Implementing the New Development Concept and Performing Well in Carbon Peaking and Carbon Neutrality Works” and the relevant requirements of the “Carbon Peaking Action Plan before 2030”, seven departments, including the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Commerce, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, etc. formulated the “Implementation Plan for Promoting Green Consumption” [5]. The purpose is to significantly increase the market share of green and low-carbon products, promote the green transformation of consumption in key areas, and vigorously publicize green and organic food. With the improvement of consumers’ quality of life, green agricultural products are now favored, and the proportion of consumers’ consumption of green agricultural products is increasing [6]. Consumers are also beginning to pay more attention to the perceived value of green agricultural products [7]. Developing high-quality green agricultural products and tapping the value advantages of green agricultural products are of great significance for promoting consumers’ repurchase intention, improving the market competitiveness of green agricultural products, and meeting the current growing demands of consumers for a better life [7].
In a market economy, consumers’ willingness to buy green agricultural products is the primary factor determining whether producers are willing to develop green agricultural products and how to promote green agricultural products [8]. Repurchase intention refers to the behavioral intention of consumers to purchase the same product or service again after the first purchasing behavior [9]. Jones and Sasser used repurchase intention as one of the methods to measure customer loyalty [10], and they argue that repeat purchase intention is a more reliable psychological predictor of the actual repeat purchase behavior of customers [10]. A repurchase intention can indicate that consumers want or tend to maintain a transactional relationship with their current supplier [11]. However, customer loyalty is measured not only by repurchase intention but also by considering more aspects of consumers’ basic and derived behaviors [10]. In both the EU and US national customer satisfaction index systems, consumer repurchase intention is used as one of the main measures of loyalty [12,13,14]. The higher the loyalty, the stronger the repurchase intention of consumers [11]. Therefore, this study chose to focus on repurchase intentions and examine in more detail the psychological tendency of green produce consumers to want to maintain the transactional relationship. Consumers’ repurchase intention of green agricultural products were analyzed to predict their future purchasing behavior, which can help companies improve their long-term performance and are the direction of corporate marketing efforts [15]. Generally, the influencing factors of repurchase intention can be divided into the following aspects: personal characteristics of consumers (gender, income) [15], product attributes (hedonic attributes, functional attributes) [16], contextual factors (purchasing place, environmental design) [17], social factors (policy, interest rate) [18], brand (brand experience, brand satisfaction, brand promise, brand preference) [19,20], etc.
Relevant studies have explored the role of perceived value in promoting repeat purchase intention from a holistic perspective [21,22]. Zeithaml’s customer perceived value theory suggests that perceived value is the overall evaluation of the utility of a product or service after weighing the benefits that customers can perceive against the costs, they pay in acquiring the product or service [22]. Similar scholarly views agree that consumers’ perceived value is the result of a trade-off between perceived benefits and perceived sacrifices [23]. These scholars define it from the perspective of perceived profitability and treat the perceived value as a higher-order variable. On the one hand, there is still a lack of research exploring the influence of the perceived value of green agricultural products on consumers’ willingness to make repeat purchases, and existing studies are more likely to focus on product packaging features, literary activities, platforms, restaurants, and brands [19,24,25,26,27]. Compared with ordinary products, green agricultural products have the property of self-interest and altruism, with lower cost performance, and the perceived value or utility can only be realized through long-term purchase [28,29,30]. Therefore, this study concluded that the willingness to repeat the purchase of green agricultural products is somewhat different from other types of agricultural products. This study selected green food rice and green food apple as the representatives of green agricultural products, both of which are common. Rice is the representative of life’s necessities and apple is the representative of life’s non-essential products. On the other hand, there is a lack of analysis of the effect of perceived value on repurchase intention from the perspective of perceived value classifications such as functional value, safety value, and green value, which are more relevant to green agricultural products. There are many existing classifications of perceived value, such as subdividing perceived value into acquisition value, disposal value, use value, and redemption value [21], and categorizing perceived value into functional value, social value, emotional value, novelty value, conditional value, etc. [31]. However, green agricultural products are safe, high quality, and nutritious agricultural products that follow the principle of sustainable development, are produced according to specific production methods, are certified by specialized agencies, are licensed to use the green food label, and are free from pollution [32]. Therefore, the values more relevant to green agricultural products are functional value, safety value, and green value [31,33,34]. The above gaps provide some room for innovation in this study.
Green trust can be expanded and treated as a mediating variable for research. Previous studies mostly focused on the perceived value through influencing variables such as brand trust, satisfaction, loyalty, and customer sentiment, to influence consumers’ purchase intention or repurchase intention [35,36,37,38,39]. Green trust refers to consumers’ intention to trust a company’s green products or services, and this trust intention originates from consumers’ expectations and judgments about the ability, trustworthiness, and goodwill of companies to provide green products [40]. Therefore, the formation of green trust is based on consumers’ value research and judgment of green products, which is an important influential element in the formation of consumers’ repurchase intentions. According to the basic ideas of signaling theory, it is clear that if the seller of a high-quality product can find a certain activity for which the seller of a high-quality product pays less than the seller of a low-quality product pays for this activity, as a signal of high quality, the seller of a high-quality product can be rewarded from this activity. Buyers are fully able to infer the quality of the product based on the level of the signal sent by the seller [41]. The seller of green produce sends an unmistakable signal to the consumer that it is a high-quality product that should be more potent, safe, and green than the average produce. Also, according to cue utility theory, consumers will deliberately reduce the cognitive behavior of information search and information processing when making decisions [42]. When purchasing green agricultural products, consumers are also more inclined to use previous consumption experiences, i.e., “highly diagnostic” cues, to make decisions through green trust, and then to generate repeated purchase intentions.
Therefore, this study aimed to provide a theoretical model of perceived value on repurchase intention of green agricultural products. The effect of perceived value on the repurchase intention of green agricultural products was explored in more detail from three dimensions: safety value, functional value, and green value. This study investigated the influence mechanism of subdivision dimensions on repurchase intention under different green agricultural product consumers’ perceived value to enrich the related research on perceived value theory and repurchase intention. Based on signal theory and cue utilization theory, the mechanism of green trust’s role in alleviating information asymmetry in the green agricultural products market was analyzed to enrich the related research on green trust and provide some reference for enhancing the external effect of trust theory. Moreover, results of the study can guide merchants to effectively release consumers’ repetitive purchase intention by enhancing the perceived value of green agricultural products and green trust.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Hypothesis

2.1.1. Perceived Value and Repurchase Intention of Green Agricultural Products

Perceived value is the result of consumer trade-offs. In another word, it is consumers’ overall evaluation of the utility of a product or service after weighing the cost of obtaining the product or service and the perceived benefit [43]. Studies have shown that perceived value has a significant positive impact on individual organic food consumption [44]. The perceived value acts as a bridge between producers and consumers [43]. The higher the consumer’s perceived value of the product provided by producers, the stronger the consumer’s purchase intention and the higher the premium they are willing to pay. Then, the producer is motivated to further improve the consumer’s perceived value [43]. In this paper, the perceived value is divided into three dimensions: safety value, functional value, and green value.
First, safety value and repurchase intention of green agricultural products. The quality and safety perception of agricultural products is an important part of the perceived value of green agricultural products. Consumers pay more and more attention to the safety of agricultural products, and the first consideration when purchasing green agricultural products is the safety value [31,45].
Second, functional value and the repurchase intention of green agricultural products. Functional value refers to the socially recognized ability or utility contained in green agricultural products that can meet certain needs of consumers, that is, consumers’ perception of the use of the product. Green agricultural products are environmentally friendly, natural, and pollution-free, which makes consumers have higher expectations for their quality and reliability. The higher the perception of functional value, the higher the repurchase intention of green agricultural products [31].
Third, green value and repurchase intention of green agricultural products. Green value is also called the environment-friendly value, which suggests that green agricultural products can improve the ecological environment, help consumers improve environmental protection awareness, and promote consumers’ healthy life [46]. Thus, consumers will pay increasing attention to environmental protection issues in agricultural production. Green value is not only an important factor affecting consumers’ repurchase intention of green products but also a key factor in maintaining long-term relationships with consumers [6,47].
Therefore, we assume that the perception of green value can help increase consumers’ repurchase intention of green agricultural products in the future. Based on the above analysis, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypotheses 1 (H1a).
Safety value has a significant and positive impact on consumers’ repurchase intention of green agricultural products.
Hypotheses 1 (H1b).
Functional value has a significant and positive impact on consumers’ repurchase intention of green agricultural products.
Hypotheses 1 (H1c).
Green value has a significant and positive impact on consumers’ repurchase intention of green agricultural products.

2.1.2. Perceived Value and Green Trust

Green trust refers to the beliefs and expectations of consumers formed based on the capability, reliability, and goodwill of the green agricultural products themselves and the producers, as well as the resulting trust intention in the companies and products [48,49]. In reality, individuals seek more sustainable lifestyles not only because of their environmental awareness and understanding of the role of the environment but also because they expect to gain personal benefit or utility from the products they consume or use. Moreover, trust or customer loyalty is the result of producers creating good value for consumers [43].
First, safety value and green trust. As the embodiment of quality and safety, safety value can not only promote producers to regulate themselves but also enhance consumers’ confidence in the quality and safety of agricultural products [50]. Thus, there must be an important connection between safety value and green trust, and the greater the perceived safety value, the higher the likelihood of consumers’ green trust in green agricultural products.
Second, functional value and green trust. Whether consumers can perceive the functional value they want to obtain from purchasing a product affects the degree to which consumers trust the product [51]. Therefore, the realization of the trust relationship still needs to reflect the visibility of the value of the product itself, and more importantly, it needs to be realized based on a clear understanding of the relevant knowledge system.
Third, green value and green trust. Green trust is usually manifested in consumers not only realizing and acknowledging the functional value of green products, but also believing in the green value of green products and believing that companies can meet environmental protection needs. Studies have shown that companies can gain sustainable competitive advantages at the brand level by introducing environmentally friendly products to attract green consumers and occupy the green market [52,53]. Green value perception can stimulate consumers’ interest and enthusiasm, and enhance their cognition of green agricultural products, thereby positively affecting green trust [54]. Moreover, green trust is an important transmission medium between individual pro-environmental value orientation and pro-environmental behavior and plays a role between perceived value and consumer repurchase behavior [52,54].
Based on the above analysis, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypotheses 2 (H2a).
Safety value has a significant and positive impact on green trust.
Hypotheses 2 (H2b).
Functional value has a significant and positive impact on green trust.
Hypotheses 2 (H2c).
Green value has a significant and positive impact on green trust.

2.1.3. Green Trust and Repurchase Intention of Green Agricultural Products

The direct result of trust is the formation of purchase intention. Previous studies have confirmed that consumer trust can significantly influence their online purchase intentions [55]. Moreover, consumer trust in a salesperson is positively related to their purchase intentions [56]. Consumer trust is the core factor for consumers to respond positively to corporate behavior [52]. Therefore, consumer trust can affect consumers’ purchase intentions. Moreover, in the field of green consumption, similar to other consumption scenarios, green trust is also an intermediary variable for consumers to choose green agricultural products. Based on previous studies, consumers’ green trust influences their purchase intentions [48,57]. It can be seen that consumers with a higher degree of green trust have a greater response. Scholars have verified that consumers’ environmental values are significantly related to their environmental protection behaviors, and psychological factors such as trust have an impact on this relationship [58]. Consumers’ green trust will drive repeat purchases of environmentally friendly products [54]. Therefore, consumers may form beliefs and expectations based on the green agricultural products themselves and the producer’s capability, reliability, and goodwill, and generate trust intentions for enterprises and green agricultural products, which in turn affects consumers’ repurchase intention. That is, the greater the degree of green trust, the higher the consumers’ repurchase intention of green agricultural products.
Based on the above analysis, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypotheses 3 (H3).
Green trust significantly and positively affects consumers’ repurchase intention of green agricultural products.

2.2. Theoretical Framework

Based on the ABC model of attitude, the theoretical model of the research was constructed, as shown in Figure 1. In the cognitive stage, perceived value is used to measure consumers’ cognitive attitude towards green agricultural products, including safety value, functional value, and green value. In the emotional stage, green trust is used to measure consumers’ emotional attitudes toward green agricultural products. In the behavioral stage, repurchase intention is used as a substitution variable for repurchasing behavior to measure consumers’ willingness to conduct continuous transactions with green agricultural product merchants after the first purchasing behavior. Green trust (emotional response) is motivated by perceived value (cognitive process) [59], while repurchase intention (behavioral intention) of green agricultural products is influenced by green trust (emotional response) [60,61].

2.3. Research Design

2.3.1. Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire is divided into two parts. The first part is the measurement questions of each research variable, which is modified by combining the established scales with the actual situation of green agricultural products, using a 7-level Likert scale. Among them, the safety value is based on the measurement scale of Zhang et al. [34], the functional value is based on the measurement scale of Sheth et al. [31], the green value is based on the measurement scale of Yang et al. [33], green trust is based on the measurement scale of Zhao et al. [62], and repurchase intention of green agricultural products is based on the measurement scale of Pappas et al. [63]. The second part is the personal information of consumers.

2.3.2. Data Collection

The study was conducted on the basis of Credamo, an industry-recognized questionnaire platform. Credamo is a professional data platform (equivalent to MTurk) widely recognized by the academic community to provide scholars with national large-scale data collection services and recognized by top international journals in the fields of management, psychology, and environmental science.
Two screening questions were set. One is “Are you a consumer of green agricultural products?”, aiming to ensure the research sample is the target group. The other is “What is the common color of bottled water?”, in order to ensure the conscientiousness of study samples in filling out the questionnaire.
Before the formal research, a pre-survey was conducted to adjust and modify the questionnaire items. Forty questionnaires were distributed in the pre-survey, and Cronbach’s α coefficient analysis was performed to check the reliability of the scale. Items with a value less than 0.65 were removed to obtain the official questionnaire for the study.
The study was conducted by designing a questionnaire on the Credamo platform, setting a payment of RMB 2 for one questionnaire and a service fee of RMB 500 for the platform to distribute the questionnaires on behalf of the subjects. The questionnaire was collected through the platform’s randomized cell phone push questionnaire service, and the subjects were spread across all provinces in China. After the questionnaire was collected, the questionnaire that took too short or too long to fill out was eliminated in the first round, and the questionnaire that selected all the same items was eliminated in the second round, resulting in 548 valid questionnaires for this study.
In the study samples, 330 (60.2%) were female and 218 (39.8%) were male, which is in line with the fact that women dominate household purchases. In terms of the educational level, 22 people (4%) were high school or below, 52 people (9.5%) had a college degree, 376 people (68.6%) had a bachelor’s degree, and 98 people (17.9%) had a graduate degree. This indicates that consumers who have purchased green agricultural products are highly educated and have certain knowledge about green agricultural products. In terms of the monthly income level, 71 people (13%) were below 2000 yuan, 103 people (18.8%) between 2000–4000 yuan, 93 people (17%) between 4000–6000 yuan, 101 people (18.4%) between 6000–8000 yuan, 180 people (32.8%) above 8000 yuan. This indicates that consumers who purchase green agricultural products have higher monthly incomes, and this is consistent with the higher pricing of green agricultural products. The age of respondents ranges between 18–60, with an average age of 30 years old. The number and percentage of occupations are 313 (57.1%) for business workers, 135 (24.6%) for students, 70 (12.8%) for government and institution staff, 16 (2.9%) for freelancers, 3 (0.5%) for retired, and 11 (2%) for others, indicating that a large part of the purchasing group comes from enterprise workers. In terms of household size, there are 43 people (7.8%) with 1–2 families, 399 people (72.8%) with 3–4 families, 98 people (17.9%) with 5–6 families, and 8 people (1.5%) with 7 families and above. This indicates that the consumer group of green agricultural products may be mainly families with 1–2 children, who will pay more attention to the certification and health impact of agricultural products for the sake of children.

3. Results

3.1. Reliability and Validity Analysis

Model checking was performed using Smart-PLS. The study applied smart-pls software to deal with PLS-SEM because its main analysis of the correlation between variables in the model, compared to structural equation modeling, takes into account the feasibility of all pathway coefficients, making the studied model more robust [64]. First, the reliability and validity analyses (Table 1) were performed to estimate the reliability of the scale and the validity of the model. The Cronbach’s α values of the four variables are all greater than the critical value of 0.6, indicating that the scales of the four variables have high internal consistency. The Rho_A values are all greater than 0.7, further indicating the high consistency of the scale. The Composite Reliability values are all greater than 0.8, again indicating the good reliability of the scale [65].
Then, the convergent validity was measured by the average variance extraction (AVE) and factor loadings of the variables. As shown in Table 1, the AVE values are all greater than 0.5, indicating good convergent validity of the model [66]. From Table 2, the factor loadings are all greater than 0.7, further indicating good convergent validity.
Finally, FORNELL and HTMT were used to measure the discriminant validity. As shown in Table 3, the square root of AVEs is greater than the absolute value of the Pearson correlation coefficient of each variable, which is preliminary proof of good discriminant validity. From Table 4, the values of HTMT are in the range of 0.591–0.895, less than the critical value of 0.9, further proving the good discriminant validity [67].

3.2. Assessment of Structural Model

The variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to measure the common method bias. As shown in Table 5, the VIF values are all less than the critical value of 3.3, indicating that there is no common method bias in the study [68]. The value of R2 indicates the predictive ability of the model. In this research, R2 values are all greater than 0.5 (0.5 indicates a moderate predictive ability), and R2 (Repurchase Intention) = 0.628 indicates that 62.8% of the repurchase intention variation is from the independent variable [69]. The Q2 value indicates the prediction correlation of the model. A Q2 value less than 0 indicates no correlation. In this research, Q2 = 0.381, indicating a strong predictive ability [70]. The model fitting index SRMR = 0.063, less than 0.08, indicating a good degree of fit of the structural equation model.

3.3. Structural Equation Modeling

PLS-SEM was used to perform 5000 bootstraps to test the model, and the results are shown in Table 6. From the table, the safety value significantly and positively affects consumers’ repurchase intention of green agricultural products (β = 0.508; p < 0.001), and H1a is supported. Functional value has a significant and positive impact on consumers’ repurchase intention of green agricultural products (β = 0.117; p < 0.05), and H1b is supported. Green value has no impact on consumers’ repurchase intention of green agricultural products (β = −0.064; p > 0.1) and crosses 0 within the 95% confidence interval, thus H1c is not supported. The safety value significantly and positively affects green trust (β = 0.266; p < 0.001), and H2a is supported. Functional value has a significant and positive impact on green trust (β = 0.114; p < 0.05), and H2b is supported. Green value has a significant and positive impact on green trust (β = 0.559; p < 0.001), and H2c is supported. Green trust significantly and positively affects consumers’ repurchase intention of green agricultural products (β = 0.272; p < 0.001), and H3 is supported.

3.4. Mediating Effect Analysis

From the results in Table 7, with green trust as the medium, the effect sizes of functional value, safety value, and green value on consumers’ repurchase intention are 0.072 (p < 0.001), 0.031 (p < 0.05), and 0.152 (p < 0.001), respectively, and does not cross 0 within the 95% confidence interval, indicating that the mediating effect is significant. Moreover, taking into account that the direct effect of green value on repurchase intention in Table 6 is not significant, it can be concluded that green trust plays a fully mediating role between green value and repurchase intention [71].

3.5. Multiple-Group Analysis

To analyze whether the findings were applicable to a specific sample group and the effect of different sample differences on the findings, multiple group analyses of apples and rice, and high and low education were conducted [72].

3.5.1. Rice and Apple

The PLS multi-group analysis results of rice and apples are shown in Table 8. There are differences between green food apples and green food rice, and p-value (rice vs. apples) = 0.003 < 0.05, indicating that the effect of green value on repurchase intention differs between the green food rice and green food apple groups [73].

3.5.2. Low Education and High Education Levels

The PLS multi-group analysis results for low education (below bachelor’s degree) and high education (bachelor’s degree and above) levels are shown in Table 9. There are differences between groups with different education levels, indicating that the effects of green value on repurchase intention, the functional value on green trust, and the green value on green trust differ between low and high education levels [73].

4. Conclusions and Management Implications

4.1. Discussion and Conclusions

First, the perceived value positively influences consumers’ repurchase intention of green agricultural products. In terms of the degree of influence, functional value is greater than safety value, while green value has no influence (H1a, H1b, and H1c). This finding is similar to previous studies on brand perceived value and repurchase intention. However, there is a difference in that the brand perceived value is divided into terminal product differentiation perception and quality perception, and the influence of quality perception is greater than that of differentiation perception [74], which is different from the traditional classification. Therefore, it is valuable to study the repurchase intention from different product types and different classifications of perceived value.
Second, green trust plays a mediating role between perceived value and repurchase intention of green agricultural products and plays a fully mediating role on the path from green value to repurchase intention (H2a, H2b, H2c, and H3). This conclusion is different from previous research conclusions on brand perceived value and repurchase intention, that is, brand trust plays a partial mediating role between brand perceived value and repurchase intention [74]. The reason may be that, for green agricultural products, green value relies more on consumers’ beliefs and expectations about green agricultural products themselves and the producer’s capability, reliability, and goodwill, which in turn generates green trust and further influences the repurchase intention of green agricultural products. In addition, the perceived value significantly and positively influences green trust. In terms of the degree of influence, green value > functional value > safety value. This conclusion is similar to the study by Zhong et al. on perceived value and AI brand quality trust but differs from the conclusion that emotional value has more influence than functional value [75]. The reason may be that, with the improvement of consumers’ quality of life, consumers mostly concern about the environmental benefits brought by the green agricultural products to society, and the higher the degree of environmental protection, the higher the degree of consumer trust in the greenness of agricultural products. The next concern of consumers is the sense of reliability brought by green agricultural products in terms of quality, variety, and packaging style (trust).
Third, on the one hand, there are significant differences between the types of green agricultural products (necessities and non-essentials) in terms of green value and repurchase intention. Most of the existing research conducts multi-group analyses of purchasing behavior from the perspectives of demographic characteristics and product categories (hedonic and non-hedonic) [76,77], and the analyses of necessities and non-essentials are rare. Compared to the green food apple, green food rice has a lower elasticity of demand, and its consumers have a stronger preference for green value attributes, leading to a higher repurchase intention of green food rice than apples. On the other hand, there are differences between the levels of education (low and high education) in the effects of green value on repurchase intention, the functional value on green trust, and green value on green trust. This indicates that consumers with different education levels have different perceptions of green agricultural products and different levels of knowledge about their standards, logos, and certifications [78].

4.2. Theoretical Contribution

First, a theoretical model of perceived value on repurchase intention of green agricultural products was constructed. Previous studies have mostly studied the influence of perceived value on consumer word-of-mouth, consumer purchase intention, and consumer loyalty. However, they treated perceived value as a higher-order variable, and conducted less research on repurchase intention from the perspective of functional value, safety value, and green value, which are more relevant to green agricultural products [79,80,81,82,83,84]. Therefore, based on the ABC model of attitude, this study investigated the influence mechanism of segmentation dimensions on repurchase intention under the perceived value of different green agricultural product consumers, enriching the perceived value theory and related research on repurchase intention, and provided a reference for promoting consumers’ attitude loyalty.
Second, this study enriched the related research focusing on the mediating role of green trust. Most of the previous studies on repurchase intention have focused on trust [61,85,86,87], but less on the mediating role of green trust. Therefore, based on the signal theory and clue utilization theory, this research analyzed the mechanism of green trust in alleviating the information asymmetry in the green agricultural product market, and provides a certain reference for enriching the related research on green trust and enhancing the external effects of trust theory.

4.3. Management Implications

Due to the information asymmetry of green agricultural products, it is difficult for consumers to perceive the value of the products during the purchasing process, resulting in a lack of consumer trust in green agricultural products. In addition, the environmental standards, production technical standards, product standards, packaging standards, storage, and transportation standards of its origin are difficult to be identified by consumers and can only be judged from the green label. This black box makes it impossible for consumers to determine the quality of green products, which in turn casts doubt on the authenticity of the label [88]. Moreover, in the process of interaction between enterprises and consumers, the information on green agricultural products transmitted by enterprises to consumers is insufficient, and it is difficult to display all the information on products with limited labels, resulting in the low perceived value of products by consumers. This information asymmetry makes consumers lack green trust, thereby reducing their desire to purchase [89]. For this reason, this study puts forward the following suggestions to promote the government and enterprises to formulate relevant measures and marketing strategies, aiming to enhance consumers’ perceived value and green trust in agricultural products.
First, improve the green certification and organic certification mechanism, and strengthen the supervision of green agricultural products by the market. On the one hand, formulate an open and transparent, reasonable and standard, authoritative and detailed certification process, and ensure the unified connection and exchange of certification standards in various regions, which can help the government to regulate green agricultural enterprises for production, packaging, transportation, etc., and provide a strong guarantee for the certification of agricultural products, thus improving consumers’ recognition of green and organic certification and enhancing the perceived value. On the other hand, strengthen the market supervision of green agricultural products certification, crack down the substandard behavior, indiscriminate labeling of certification marks, and exploiting loopholes in the market behavior, and increase the penalties for these behaviors to provide a good market environment for the development of the green and organic market, thereby promoting consumer trust in the certification mark.
Second, strengthen the publicity of green agricultural products and guide the target customer groups to green consumption. On the one hand, relevant government departments can carry out green consumption publicity activities and publicize green agricultural products knowledge to consumers by printing green agricultural product publicity boards, distributing publicity manuals, and designing green agricultural products mini-games, so as to enhance consumers’ functional value, safety value, and green value of green agricultural products, reduce information asymmetry, and promote green consumption. On the other hand, in the selling process of green agricultural products, enterprises can show green agricultural product brochures, promotional videos, and QR codes on the outer packaging of products, and exhibit the standardized, ecological and public process of production, packaging, and transportation of green agricultural products to consumers by scanning the QR codes, in order to enhance consumers’ perception of green agricultural products, improve consumers’ stickiness to green agricultural products, and form attitude loyalty, i.e., consumers’ repurchase intention.
Third, pay attention to quality and safety issues and enhance safety value. On the one hand, the government should lay emphasis on the construction of after-sales complaint channels for consumers, including telephone reporting, online platform reporting, scanning the outer packaging QR code of green agricultural products for reporting, etc. Then, divide the corresponding compensation as well as rewards for whistleblowers according to the severity of the quality and safety problems of agricultural products, so as to enhance consumer trust in the green agricultural products market. On the other hand, the enterprise should trace the whole process of green agricultural products to ensure standardized site selection, safe soil and water source, standardized breeding and seed selection, rationalized fertilization, ecological pest control, environmentally friendly packaging, scientific transportation, and other processes. Moreover, different third-party institutions should be employed regularly to test the products and ensure the quality of green agricultural products from multiple angles and in all aspects, and the full traceability code and the icons of the third-party institutions should be printed on the outer packaging of the products, enhancing the safety value perception of consumers and the credibility of green agricultural products.
Fourth, extend the product industry chain and enhance the functional value. First, deepen the primary industry. Enterprises can optimize breeding selection to screen high-quality ecological germplasm resources and develop different kinds of green agricultural products, including different nutrients as well as different fragrance types, to enhance the space available for consumers to choose from. Second, integrate the primary and secondary industries, strengthen the transformation of green agricultural product processing, and promote the primary processing, finishing, and by-product processing and utilization of agricultural products. For example, rice can be processed into rice flour, rice cakes, rice wine, rice cakes, etc., while apples can be processed into apple juice, apple cider vinegar, canned apples, apple cider, apple sauce, dried apples, etc. This can promote the development of processed products in the direction of easy eating, delicious taste, nutrition, and health care, form product clusters, and then enhance the functional value of green agricultural products. Finally, integrate the primary and tertiary industries, and combine the industrial park of green agricultural products with ecological tourism. For example, paddy field tourism and leisure experience tourism, such as rice cutting competition, unicycle grain transport, scarecrow tying, paddy field painting, etc. can be developed to extend the service industry chain and increase the functional value-added of green agricultural products.
Fifth, consumers should realize that green agricultural products can help improve their own health while reducing environmental pollution. On the one hand, they should enhance their awareness of green agricultural products and actively participate in seminars and lectures held by enterprises and the government to obtain information about green agricultural products, so as to enhance their perceived value and reduce the problems caused by information asymmetry. On the other hand, they should strengthen their own awareness of monitoring the green agricultural products market, and actively report to the government regulatory department when they encounter counterfeit and shoddy green agricultural products, so as to alleviate the crisis of consumers’ trust in enterprises and products. Maintain the orderly and good culture of the green market, enhance consumers’ loyalty and stickiness to enterprises and products, and then generate willingness to buy back.

4.4. Research Limitations and Future Research Directions

First, since the study used cross-sectional data of green produce consumers in a single time period, and although it is consistent with the sample distribution of relevant green produce consumers in the past, there may be some time point errors and cultural differences among different countries. Therefore, future studies will be able to use multi-temporal tracking surveys for further hypothesis testing and questionnaires to consumers in different countries to enhance the generalizability of the study findings.
Second, the study did not discuss the boundary conditions of the model of the effect of perceived value on repeat purchase intention of green agricultural products. Future research can improve the research model by adding other relevant factors to the research model.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.X. and M.Z.; methodology, A.X. and M.Z.; software, A.X., C.W. and M.Z.; validation, A.X., L.S., M.Z. and C.W.; formal analysis, C.W. and D.T.; investigation, A.X., D.T. and M.Z.; resources, L.S. and C.W.; data curation, M.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, A.X., L.S. and M.Z.; writing—review and editing, A.X. and C.W.; visualization, A.X., C.W. and L.S.; supervision, M.Z. and C.W.; project administration, A.X.; funding acquisition, A.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Social Science Foundation of China, grant number 21BGL148, Introduction of Talents of Minjiang University Science and Technology Pre-research Project, Research on the impact of Green Advertising Appeals on consumers’ Willingness to Pay Premium for Green Agricultural Products and Major Project of Social Science Fund of Fujian Province in 2022, grant number FJ2022Z006.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editor.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wang, X.; Ji, S.; Zhao, L.; Nie, A.; Zhao, X.; Li, M.; Jia, S. Role of Agricultural Product Quality and Safety in High Quality Development of China’s Agriculture. Asian Agric. Res. 2021, 13, 7–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wickremeratne, N. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Green Products in Sri Lanka. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. Rev. 2020, 1, 25–33. [Google Scholar]
  3. Deng, M.; Xiang, G.; Ya, S. The Effectiveness of the Multilateral Coalition to Develop a Green Agricultural Products Market in China Based on a TU Cooperative Game Analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Koff, H.; Challenger, A.; Portillo, I. Guidelines for Operationalizing Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) as a Methodology for the Design and Implementation of Sustainable Development Strategies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Notice on the Issuance of the Implementation Plan for Promoting Green Consumption (Development, Reform and Employment (2022) No. 107). Available online: https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1722583680478328787&wfr=spider&for=pc (accessed on 21 June 2022).
  6. Ma, L.; Li, Z.; Zheng, D. Analysis of Chinese Consumers’ Willingness and Behavioral Change to Purchase Green Agri-Food Product Online. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0265887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Luan, X.; Ma, D.; Xia, H.; Wu, L. The influence of perceived quality of the green agricultural product on consumer’s purchase intention. Price Theory Pract. 2020, 103–106+163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhu, Q.; Li, Y.; Geng, Y.; Qi, Y. Green Food Consumption Intention, Behaviors and Influencing Factors among Chinese Consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hellier, P.K.; Geursen, G.M.; Carr, R.A.; Rickard, J.A. Customer Repurchase Intention: A General Structural Equation Model. Eur. J. Mark. 2003, 37, 1762–1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Jones, T.O. Why Satisfied Customers Defect. J. Manag. Eng. 1996, 12, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yang, J.; Wang, L. Factors Influencing Consumer Repurchase Intention in Livestreaming E-commerce. China Bus. Mark. 2021, 35, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bruhn, M.; Grund, M.A. Theory, Development and Implementation of National Customer Satisfaction Indices: The Swiss Index of Customer Satisfaction (SWICS). Total Qual. Manag. 2000, 11, 1017–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fornell, C. A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience. J. Mark. 1992, 56, 6–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Johnson, M.D.; Gustafsson, A.; Andreassen, T.W.; Lervik, L.; Cha, J. The Evolution and Future of National Customer Satisfaction Index Models. J. Econ. Psychol. 2001, 22, 217–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Frank, B.; Enkawa, T.; Schvaneveldt, S.J. How Do the Success Factors Driving Repurchase Intent Differ between Male and Female Customers? J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2014, 42, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Troilo, G.; Cito, M.C.; Soscia, I. Repurchase Behavior in the Performing Arts: Do Emotions Matter without Involvement? Psychol. Mark. 2014, 31, 635–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Szymanski, D.M.; Hise, R.T. E-Satisfaction: An Initial Examination. J. Retail. 2000, 76, 309–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Venkatraman, M.P.; MacInnis, D.J. The Epistemic and Sensory Exploratory Behavior of Hedonic and Cognitive Consumers. ACR N. Am. Adv. 1985, 12, 102–107. [Google Scholar]
  19. Azize, Ž.; Cemal, Z.; Hakan, K. The Effects of Brand Experience and Service Quality on Repurchase Intention: The Role of Brand Relationship Quality. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2012, 6, 11190–11201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ebrahim, R.; Ghoneim, A.; Irani, Z.; Fan, Y. A Brand Preference and Repurchase Intention Model: The Role of Consumer Experience. J. Mark. Manag. 2016, 32, 1230–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Parasuraman, A. Reflections on Gaining Competitive Advantage through Customer Value. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1997, 25, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dodds, W.B.; Monroe, K.B.; Grewal, D. Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations. J. Mark. Res. 1991, 28, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Butcher, K.; Sparks, B.; O’Callaghan, F. Effect of Social Influence on Repurchase Intentions. J. Serv. Mark. 2002, 16, 503–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yen, C.-H.; Lu, H.-P. Factors Influencing Online Auction Repurchase Intention. Internet Res. 2008, 18, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hume, M.; Mort, G.S. The Consequence of Appraisal Emotion, Service Quality, Perceived Value and Customer Satisfaction on Repurchase Intent in the Performing Arts. J. Serv. Mark. 2010, 24, 170–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kim-Soon, N.; Ahmad, A.R.; Yunus, N.; Hasaballah, A.H. Snack Food Packaging Features and Consumer Repeat Purchase Intent. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2018, 24, 3161–3165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chen, Y.; Chang, C. Enhance Green Purchase Intentions: The Roles of Green Perceived Value, Green Perceived Risk, and Green Trust. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 502–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ping-heng, L.; Li-dong, Y.; Yuan-jian, D.; Shi-lei, P. Impact of related subjects’ behavior on agricultural products’ quality safety. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 12, 360–368. [Google Scholar]
  30. Stummer, C.; Kiesling, E.; Günther, M.; Vetschera, R. Innovation Diffusion of Repeat Purchase Products in a Competitive Market: An Agent-Based Simulation Approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2015, 245, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sheth, J.N.; Newman, B.I.; Gross, B.L. Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory of Consumption Values. J. Bus. Res. 1991, 22, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jin, M.; Zhao, C. Analysis of consumption intention and consumption behavior of green agricultural products. Chin. Rural. Econ. 2008, 5, 44–55. [Google Scholar]
  33. Yang, X.; Zhou, Y. Green value: A new dimension of customer perceived value. China Ind. Econ. 2006, 7, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, G.; Peng, C.; Zhang, F.; Yang, Y. Perceived value of agricultural products and its influence on consumers’ purchase intention: An empirical analysis based on certified agricultural products. J. Hunan Agric. Univ. 2017, 18, 24–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chitturi, R.; Raghunathan, R.; Mahajan, V. Delight by Design: The Role of Hedonic versus Utilitarian Benefits. J. Mark. 2008, 72, 48–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Garbarino, E.; Johnson, M.S. The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships. J. Mark. 1999, 63, 70–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lee, J.; Lee, J.; Feick, L. The Impact of Switching Costs on the Customer Satisfaction-loyalty Link: Mobile Phone Service in France. J. Serv. Mark. 2001, 15, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lin, C.; Lekhawipat, W. Factors Affecting Online Repurchase Intention. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2014, 114, 597–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Menon, K.; Dubé, L. Service Provider Responses to Anxious and Angry Customers: Different Challenges, Different Payoffs. J. Retail. 2004, 80, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sheng, G.; Gong, S.; Ge, W. Can Brand Green Extension Enhance Consumer Response? A Research on the Effects of Congruence between the Green Extension Type and Processing Mindset. Foreign Econ. Manag. 2019, 41, 98–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Spence, M. Job Market Signaling. Q. J. Econ. 1973, 87, 355–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, Q.; Cui, X.; Huang, L.; Dai, Y. Seller Reputation or Product Presentation? An Empirical Investigation from Cue Utilization Perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 271–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kotler, P.; Keller, K.L.; Ang, S.H.; Leong, S.M.; Tan, C.T. Marketing Management, 15th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  44. Chekima, B.; Chekima, K.; Chekima, K. Understanding Factors Underlying Actual Consumption of Organic Food: The Moderating Effect of Future Orientation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 74, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sweeney, J.C.; Soutar, G.N. Consumer Perceived Value: The Development of a Multiple Item Scale. J. Retail. 2001, 77, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ariffin, S.; Yusof, J.M.; Putit, L.; Shah, M.I.A. Factors Influencing Perceived Quality and Repurchase Intention towards Green Products. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2016, 37, 391–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Briscoe, J.P.; Hall, D.T. The Interplay of Boundaryless and Protean Careers: Combinations and Implications. J. Vocat. Behav. 2006, 69, 4–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chen, Y.-S. The Drivers of Green Brand Equity: Green Brand Image, Green Satisfaction, and Green Trust. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 93, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lyon, T.P.; Montgomery, A.W. The Means and End of Greenwash. Organ. Environ. 2015, 28, 223–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhang, Y. Firmly Grasp the Important Period of Strategic Opportunities to Power Modern Agriculture by Brand. Issues Agric. Econ. 2014, 35, 4–7+110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yuan, X.; Lyu, C.; Xiao, Y. Analysis of the Influence Mechanism of Trust on Urban Resident’ Organic Food Consumption Behavior. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plan. 2021, 42, 217–228. [Google Scholar]
  52. Chen, Y.-S.; Chang, C.-H. Greenwash and Green Trust: The Mediation Effects of Green Consumer Confusion and Green Perceived Risk. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 114, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Deangelis, M.; Adigüzel, F.; Amatulli, C. The Role of Design Similarity in Consumers’ Evaluation of New Green Products: An Investigation of Luxury Fashion Brands. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 1515–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chen-Yu, J.; Cho, S.; Kincade, D. Brand Perception and Brand Repurchase Intent in Online Apparel Shopping: An Examination of Brand Experience, Image Congruence, Brand Affect, and Brand Trust. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2016, 7, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schlosser, A.E.; White, T.B.; Lloyd, S.M. Converting Web Site Visitors into Buyers: How Web Site Investment Increases Consumer Trusting Beliefs and Online Purchase Intentions. J. Mark. 2006, 70, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bateman, C.; Valentine, S. The Impact of Salesperson Customer Orientation on the Evaluation of a Salesperson’s Ethical Treatment, Trust in the Salesperson, and Intentions to Purchase. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 2015, 35, 125–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kim, S.-Y.; Yeo, J.; Sohn, S.; Rha, J.-Y.; Choi, S.; Choi, A.; Shin, S. Toward a Composite Measure of Green Consumption: An Exploratory Study Using a Korean Sample. J. Fam. Econ. Issues 2012, 33, 199–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Barr, S.; Gilg, A. A Conceptual Framework for Understanding and Analyzing Attitudes Towards Environmental Behavior. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 2007, 89, 361–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Oliver, R.L.; Swan, J.E. Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach. J. Mark. 1989, 53, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chiu, C.-M.; Hsu, M.-H.; Lai, H.; Chang, C.-M. Re-Examining the Influence of Trust on Online Repeat Purchase Intention: The Moderating Role of Habit and Its Antecedents. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 53, 835–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hsu, M.-H.; Chang, C.-M.; Chuang, L.-W. Understanding the Determinants of Online Repeat Purchase Intention and Moderating Role of Habit: The Case of Online Group-Buying in Taiwan. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 35, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhao, X.; Lynch, J.G.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis. J. Consum. Res. 2010, 37, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pappas, I.O.; Pateli, A.G.; Giannakos, M.N.; Chrissikopoulos, V. Moderating Effects of Online Shopping Experience on Customer Satisfaction and Repurchase Intentions. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2014, 42, 187–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Abdul Rahman, M.; Kamarulzaman, Y. The Influence of Relationship Quality on Customer Loyalty in the Context of Outsourcing Relationships in the Malaysian Hotel Industry. Int. J. Appl. Bus. Econ. Res. 2015, 13, 3379–3392. [Google Scholar]
  65. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gold, A.H.; Malhotra, A.; Segars, A.H. Knowledge Management: An Organizational Capabilities Perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2001, 18, 185–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kock, N. Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full Collinearity Assessment Approach. Int. J. e-Collab. 2017, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Geisser, S. A Predictive Approach to the Random Effect Model. Biometrika 1974, 61, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hayes, A.F. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium. Commun. Monogr. 2009, 76, 408–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yuan, K.-H.; Chan, W. Measurement Invariance via Multigroup SEM: Issues and Solutions with Chi-Square-Difference Tests. Psychol. Methods 2016, 21, 405–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Henseler, J.; Hubona, G.; Ray, P.A. Using PLS Path Modeling in New Technology Research: Updated Guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 1980, 116, 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, G.; Yang, P.; Zheng, S. The Impact of Ingredient Brand Perceived Value on Consumers’ Repurchase Intention: An Empirical Study with Brand Trust as the Mediator. Mod. Manag. 2019, 39, 70–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zhong, P. Research on AI Product Brand Trust Based on Customer Perceived Value—In Case of Xiaomi Brand. Master’s Thesis, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  76. Brough, A.R.; Wilkie, J.; Ma, J.; Isaac, M.S.; David, G. Is Eco-Friendly Unmanly? The Green-Feminine Stereotype and Its Effect on Sustainable Consumption. J. Consum. Res. 2016, 43, 567–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Blom, A.; Lange, F.; Hess, R.L. Omnichannel Promotions and Their Effect on Customer Satisfaction. Eur. J. Market. 2021, 55, 177–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Iqbal, M. Consumer Behaviour of Organic Food: A Developing Country Perspective. Int. J. Mark. Bus. Commun. 2015, 4, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Servera-Francés, D.; Piqueras-Tomás, L. The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Loyalty through Consumer Perceived Value. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraž. 2019, 32, 66–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Xie, L.; Chen, C. Hotel Loyalty Programs: How Valuable Is Valuable Enough? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 26, 107–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wu, J.; Zhang, L.; Lu, C.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Cai, Q. Exploring Tourists’ Intentions to Purchase Homogenous Souvenirs. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Peng, L.; Zhang, W.; Wang, X.; Liang, S. Moderating Effects of Time Pressure on the Relationship between Perceived Value and Purchase Intention in Social E-Commerce Sales Promotion: Considering the Impact of Product Involvement. Inf. Manag. 2019, 56, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kuppelwieser, V.; Klaus, P.; Manthiou, A.; Hollebeek, L. The Role of Customer Experience in the Perceived Value–Word-of-Mouth Relationship. J. Serv. Mark. 2021, 36, 364–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tonder, E.V.; Petzer, D.; Vuuren, N.V.; Beer, L.D. Perceived Value, Relationship Quality and Positive WOM Intention in Banking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2018, 36, 1347–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Liang, L.J.; Choi, H.C.; Joppe, M. Exploring the Relationship between Satisfaction, Trust and Switching Intention, Repurchase Intention in the Context of Airbnb. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 69, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Yuan, C.; Moon, H.; Wang, S.; Yu, X.; Kim, K.H. Study on the Influencing of B2B Parasocial Relationship on Repeat Purchase Intention in the Online Purchasing Environment: An Empirical Study of B2B E-Commerce Platform. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 92, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Antwi, S. “I Just like This e-Retailer”: Understanding Online Consumers Repurchase Intention from Relationship Quality Perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 61, 102568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zhang, H.; Wang, H. An empirical study on willingness premium of green agricultural products and its influencing factors: A case study of Guangzhou consumers. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2009, 6, 62–69. [Google Scholar]
  89. Rana, J.; Paul, J. Consumer Behavior and Purchase Intention for Organic Food: A Review and Research Agenda. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 38, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 15451 g001 550
Figure 1. Model of the impact of perceived value on repurchase intention of green agricultural products.
Figure 1. Model of the impact of perceived value on repurchase intention of green agricultural products.
Sustainability 14 15451 g001
Table
Table 1. Reliability and validity analysis.
Table 1. Reliability and validity analysis.
ConstructsCronbach’s αRho_AComposite ReliabilityAVE
Repurchase Intention0.8820.8830.9100.629
Functional Value0.7740.7890.8530.592
Safety Value0.8450.8460.9060.763
Green Value0.8910.8910.9330.822
Green Trust0.8930.8930.9330.823
Table
Table 2. Factor loadings and VIFs.
Table 2. Factor loadings and VIFs.
ConstructsIndicatorIndicator ReliabilityVIF
Repurchase IntentionRI10.8031.739
RI20.8371.920
RI30.8181.820
RI40.8301.886
Functional ValueFV10.7551.534
FV20.7771.421
FV30.7691.488
FV40.7831.569
Safety ValueSV10.8742.124
SV20.8531.815
SV30.8922.293
Green ValueGV10.9172.955
GV20.9102.800
GV30.8922.332
Green TrustGT10.9092.681
GT20.9132.762
GT30.9002.530
Table
Table 3. Discriminant validity (FORNELL).
Table 3. Discriminant validity (FORNELL).
Repurchase IntentionFunctional ValueSafety ValueGreen ValueGreen Trust
Repurchase Intention0.822
Functional Value0.7260.771
Safety Value0.5860.6500.874
Green Value0.5120.5540.6860.906
Green Trust0.6310.6490.6700.7840.907
Note: The square root of AVEs is on the diagonal, and the absolute value of the Pearson correlation coefficient of each variable is below the diagonal.
Table
Table 4. Discriminant validity (HTMT).
Table 4. Discriminant validity (HTMT).
Repurchase IntentionFunctional ValueSafety ValueGreen ValueGreen Trust
Repurchase Intention-
Functional Value0.895-
Safety Value0.6960.790-
Green Value0.5910.6510.791-
Green Trust0.7280.7680.7720.879-
Table
Table 5. Model fitting results.
Table 5. Model fitting results.
R2Q2VIFSRMR
Repurchase Intention0.5770.381 0.063
Green Trust0.687 3.195
Functional Value 2.025
Safety Value 2.400
Green Value 2.963
Table
Table 6. Hypothesis testing.
Table 6. Hypothesis testing.
Hypothesesβ95% LLCI95% ULCIMeanSDt-Valuep-ValueDecision
H1a: FV → RI0.5080.4310.5860.5080.04710.8330Supported
H1b: SV → RI0.1170.0200.2120.1160.0591.9860.024Supported
H1c: GV → RI−0.064−0.1630.034−0.0640.0601.0640.144Not supported
H2a: FV → GT0.2660.2020.3410.2690.0426.3220Supported
H2b: SV → GT0.1140.0310.1970.1140.0512.2290.013Supported
H2c: GV → GT0.5590.4710.6350.5550.04911.4010Supported
H3: GT → RI0.2720.1770.3680.2730.0584.6700Supported
Table
Table 7. Mediating effect analysis.
Table 7. Mediating effect analysis.
Mediatingβ95% LLCI95% ULCIMeanSDt-Valuep-ValueDecision
FV → GT → RI0.0720.0430.1080.0730.0203.6130Partial
SV → GT → RI0.0310.0070.0610.0320.0161.8960.029Partial
GV → GT → RI0.1520.0970.2060.1510.0334.5640Full
Table
Table 8. Multi-group analysis results for rice and apples—total effect.
Table 8. Multi-group analysis results for rice and apples—total effect.
Hypothesesβrice–βApplep-Value (Rice vs. Apple)
H1a: FV → RI−0.0490.300
H1b: SV → RI−0.0580.331
H1c: GV → RI0.3030.003
H2a: FV → GT−0.0450.304
H2b: SV → GT0.1050.167
H2c: GV → GT−0.0950.169
H3: GT → RI−0.1560.105
Table
Table 9. Multi-group analysis results for low and high education levels—total effect.
Table 9. Multi-group analysis results for low and high education levels—total effect.
HypothesesβLow Education–βHigh Educationp-Value (Low Education vs. High Education)
H1a: FV → RI0.0210.861
H1b: SV → RI−0.0500.703
H1c: GV → RI0.2710.029
H2a: FV → GT0.2050.027
H2b: SV → GT0.0030.978
H2c: GV → GT−0.2120.015
H3: GT → RI−0.1590.277
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xu, A.; Wei, C.; Zheng, M.; Sun, L.; Tang, D. Influence of Perceived Value on Repurchase Intention of Green Agricultural Products: From the Perspective of Multi-Group Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15451. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215451

AMA Style

Xu A, Wei C, Zheng M, Sun L, Tang D. Influence of Perceived Value on Repurchase Intention of Green Agricultural Products: From the Perspective of Multi-Group Analysis. Sustainability. 2022; 14(22):15451. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215451

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xu, Anxin, Chenwen Wei, Manhua Zheng, Lili Sun, and Decong Tang. 2022. "Influence of Perceived Value on Repurchase Intention of Green Agricultural Products: From the Perspective of Multi-Group Analysis" Sustainability 14, no. 22: 15451. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215451

APA Style

Xu, A., Wei, C., Zheng, M., Sun, L., & Tang, D. (2022). Influence of Perceived Value on Repurchase Intention of Green Agricultural Products: From the Perspective of Multi-Group Analysis. Sustainability, 14(22), 15451. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215451

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop