Next Article in Journal
Design and Optimization of a Compliant Morphing Trailing Edge for High-Lift Generation
Next Article in Special Issue
Is Cultured Meat a Case of Food or Technological Neophobia? On the Usefulness of Studying Social Representations of Novel Foods
Previous Article in Journal
An Accelerating Method of YOLOv7 Based on Lightweight Network Architecture
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Coconut Copra Byproducts Incorporation on Granola Quality Characteristics
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/app15052530
applsci-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

Investigation of the Relationship Between the Anti-Oxidant Effect, Brand Trust, Healthiness, and Intention to Purchase Propolis Products: The Moderating Effect of Nutritional Disclosure

by
Min Gyung Kim
1,
Ye Kang Kim
1 and
Joonho Moon
2,*
1
College of Business Management, Hongik University, 2639, Sejong-ro, Jochiwon-eup, Sejong 30016, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Tourism Administration, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(5), 2530; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15052530
Submission received: 27 January 2025 / Revised: 15 February 2025 / Accepted: 25 February 2025 / Published: 26 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sensory Evaluation and Flavor Analysis in Food Science)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Propolis market is growing, and such growth suggests the importance of understanding consumer behavior. Hence, the aim of this research is to explore the relationship between the anti-oxidant effect, brand trust, healthiness, and consumers’ intention to purchase propolis products. A secondary objective is to examine the moderating role of nutrition disclosure. Survey participants were recruited via the Clickworker platform, yielding 305 valid observations for statistical analysis. The Hayes Process Macro Model 7 was employed to test the research hypotheses. The results indicated that the anti-oxidant effect is positively associated with both healthiness and intention to purchase. Moreover, the findings showed that brand trust is positively related to healthiness and intention to purchase. Additionally, the results disclosed the significant moderating effect of nutrition disclosure on the impact of the anti-oxidant effect and brand trust on healthiness based on the heuristic effect as theoretical underpinning. This research sheds light on the literature by clarifying the relationship between five attributes in the domain of propolis products.

1. Introduction

According to Polaris Market Research [1], the propolis product market has been experiencing significant growth, driven by an increasing consumer interest in healthier lifestyles, which has been fueled by improved living conditions. Specifically, the global sales volume of propolis products in 2024 is estimated to reach approximately 650.9 million USD, with projections indicating a rise to approximately 954.3 million USD by 2032. As a functional food offering natural health benefits, propolis has gained considerable popularity, particularly due to its plant-based origin compared to synthetic alternatives [2,3,4]. This suggests that the propolis market holds considerable promise, and understanding consumer behavior is crucial for ensuring the long-term sustainability of the industry.
This research selects intention to purchase as the outcome variable because it is directly related to the sales growth of vendors [5,6]. Also, many studies in the food market domain have adopted intention to purchase as the dependent variable to scrutinize behavioral characteristics [7,8,9]. Such abundance leads this work to choose intention to purchase as a dependent variable considering its worth as an attribute in the consumer behavior research domain. Another key focus of this study is healthiness, which refers to consumer perception of the potential improvement in their health through the consumption of specific food products. Scholars have suggested that the primary motivation for propolis consumption is the enhancement of health, particularly through strengthening the immune system [2,10,11]. This indicates that the perception of health benefits could serve as a significant motivator for propolis consumption.
This study uses the perception of the anti-oxidant effect as an independent variable. In the packaging and advertising of propolis products, the anti-oxidant effect is often emphasized to attract consumers [12,13]. However, limited research has explored how the perception of anti-oxidants influences product evaluation. Given that such claims may be difficult for consumers to fully understand; it is important to assess whether these messages are effective in resonating with them. In addition, this study incorporates brand trust as another key explanatory variable. Brand serves as a crucial differentiator in the marketplace [14,15], especially as global propolis product manufacturers (e.g., Apis Flora (São Paulo, Brasil), Bee Health Limited (London, UK), and Manuka Health New Zealand Ltd. (Auckland, New Zealand)) enter the market to drive sales growth [16]. In this context, the role of brand trust becomes increasingly significant, as prior research has shown that brand trust is positively linked to consumers’ decision making and purchase intentions [14,17,18].
Another objective of this study is to examine the moderating effect of nutrition disclosure. The primary purpose of nutrition disclosure is to provide consumers with clear and accurate information to facilitate better decision making [19,20]. However, individuals often do not engage in meticulous decision-making processes due to the time and effort required [21,22]. As a result, scholars have argued that heuristics—quick judgments made without thorough contemplation—are commonly employed in consumer behavior [21,23,24]. It is therefore reasonable to assume that consumers are likely to evaluate propolis products based on marketing messages and brand perceptions of their benefits. In other words, a more careful consideration of nutrition labeling, as a form of nutrition disclosure, is likely to influence consumer evaluations. This research, therefore, seeks to explore the moderating role of nutrition disclosure in the relationships between the anti-oxidant effect, brand trust, and healthiness, using the heuristic effect as the theoretical foundation.
In summary, the primary aim of this study is to investigate the relationships between the anti-oxidant effect, brand trust, healthiness, and the intention to purchase propolis products. A secondary objective is to examine the moderating role of nutrition disclosure in the effects of the anti-oxidant effect and brand trust on consumers’ healthiness perceptions of propolis products. While the propolis product market has experienced steady growth [16], consumer behavior research in this domain remains limited, particularly in understanding consumer characteristics. To address this gap, this study explores consumer perceptions among individuals with experience using propolis products. By doing so, it contributes to the literature by clarifying the relationships between key variables in the context of propolis products. Moreover, this research offers valuable insights into the heuristic effects in propolis product consumption. Finally, this study provides managerial implications that can inform strategies for improving marketing efforts and enhancing consumer engagement.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Healthiness

Scholars have defined food healthiness as the extent to which food consumption promotes health and well-being [25,26]. Healthiness is closely associated with the nutritional content and beneficial ingredients of food [27,28,29]. Given that food consumption directly influences an individual’s health, there has been a growing market interest in healthy foods [7]. As a result, researchers have increasingly explored consumer perceptions of food healthiness. For example, Provencher and Jacob [30] examined consumer food choice decisions with healthiness as a key attribute, while Foroni et al. [31] investigated differences in healthiness perceptions based on gender. Richetin et al. [32] used healthiness as a central variable to study consumer perceptions of organic foods. Sun and Moon [33] adopted food healthiness as a main variable to examine the user behavior of food delivery application system. Additionally, Taylor et al. [34] explored children’s eating behaviors to identify key factors influencing their evaluation of food healthiness. Yarar et al. [35] highlighted that food healthiness is shaped by various factors, including packaging and ingredients. Consequently, it can be inferred that food healthiness has been widely studied in the food business sector, both as an explained and explanatory variable.

2.2. Intention to Purchase

Intention to purchase refers to a consumer’s willingness to buy a specific product [5,36]. Scholars have argued that intention to purchase is directly linked to business revenue growth, highlighting its importance as a key indicator for measuring the effectiveness of marketing strategies [6,37]. Consequently, intention to purchase has been widely used as a dependent variable in food marketing research. For example, Witek and Kuźniar [6] examined factors influencing the intention to purchase green food, while Roseira et al. [38] explored consumer behavior related to organic food using intention to purchase as a key metric. Similarly, Quevedo-Silva and Pereira [39] focused on intention to purchase in their investigation of meat consumers, and Platta et al. [9] utilized intention to purchase as a key explanatory variable in the context of edible insect products. Based on this body of literature, it is evident that intention to purchase is commonly employed to assess consumer behavior in the food business sector. Regarding the consumer perception, Huang and Lu [28] found the healthiness elevates the intention to purchase food. Yoo et al. [7] also demonstrated that healthiness is positively associated with consumer decision making in the domain of grocerant where functions both supermarket and restaurants together. De Temmerman et al. [8] revealed the positive impact of perceived healthiness from the Nutri-score positively affects the intention to purchase food. Based on the literature review, this research proposes the research hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 1.
Healthiness positively affects the intention to purchase propolis products.

2.3. The Anti-Oxidant Effect

Previous studies have highlighted that the anti-oxidant effect refers to the ability of certain compounds to neutralize or reduce the damage caused by oxidative stress, which is linked to conditions such as heart disease and cancer [40,41]. Propolis products have emerged as functional foods emphasizing their anti-oxidant properties. Functional foods are designed to offer health benefits beyond basic nutrition, promoting overall well-being [3,11]. With the growing interest in healthier lifestyles, consumers have become increasingly attracted to the anti-oxidant claims associated with propolis products [2,42]. Consequently, marketers of propolis products have focused on promoting the health benefits, particularly emphasizing the anti-oxidant effect [2,4]. It can be inferred that consumers are likely to associate the anti-oxidant effect with improved health. Existing literature suggests that the motivation for consuming functional foods is often driven by the belief and desire for better health, which is closely tied to healthiness perception [10,11]. However, despite the marketing strategies employed, limited research has investigated how the anti-oxidant effect influences healthiness perception focusing on consumer behavior. While previous studies have scientifically confirmed the anti-oxidant effects of propolis [43,44,45], this research focuses on the underexplored area of consumer behavior related to these effects. To minimize such a research gap in the literature, this study proposes the following research hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a.
The anti-oxidant effect positively affects healthiness of propolis products.
Hypothesis 2b.
The anti-oxidant effect positively affects intention to purchase propolis products.

2.4. Brand Trust

Previous studies have defined brand trust as the degree of credibility consumers place in a particular brand [18,46]. A brand carries implicit meanings, including its image, consistency, differentiation, and value [14,15]. Consumers who trust a brand tend to have more favorable appraisals of its products. Furthermore, brand trust increases the likelihood of purchase, as consumers are influenced by the vendor’s market reputation [17,18]. Thus, brand trust is likely to enhance both individual evaluations and decision making. To be specific, Wu et al. [46] argued that consumers consider brand trust when evaluating food products. Sekhar et al. [15] also suggested that brand trust is highly valued in the evaluation of organic products. Liu and Wang [14] found that brand trust played a significant role in fostering positive appraisals of agricultural products. Previous studies documented that health perception influences brand trust in the case of the food itself [47,48]. However, in the context of health-related products, the exploration of heuristics, such as the tendency to assume a product is good for health simply because of trust in the brand, has been somewhat underexplored. Additionally, Tan et al. [18] studied green product consumers and found that brand trust positively influences purchase intention. Similarly, Husain et al. [17] revealed a positive association between brand trust and purchase intention in the luxury goods market. Aureliano-Silva et al. [49] examined food delivery application users and documented the positive effect of brand trust on purchase intention. Based on this body of literature, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 3a.
Brand trust positively affects the healthiness of propolis products.
Hypothesis 3b.
Brand trust positively affects the intention to purchase propolis products.

2.5. The Moderating Effect of Nutrition Disclosure and the Heuristic Effect

Nutrition disclosure is defined as the provision of information to consumers regarding the nutritional content of a product, with food labeling being the most common method of dissemination [19,20]. Scholars further define nutrition disclosure as a practice that offers clear nutritional information to help consumers make more informed decisions [50,51,52]. Richetin et al. [32] argued that nutrition disclosure on labeling plays a crucial role in minimizing consumer biases when choosing organic food. Previous research has shown that nutrition disclosure helps reduce the risks associated with purchasing by mitigating the effects of marketing illusions and providing transparency that prevents adverse selection [50,51,53].
Heuristic, as defined by Etco et al. [21] and Santa and Drews [54], refers to the process of evaluating products based on rough judgments or estimates. Previous studies suggest that consumers often rely on heuristics in their consumption decisions and product evaluations, as deep reflection can be mentally taxing [23,54]. The literature indicates that sellers often capitalize on heuristics, emphasizing specific messages or appealing to consumers based on the vendor’s reputation [21,22]. As a result, consumers may evaluate products with insufficient information, relying on these simplified decision-making shortcuts. To reduce the biases introduced by heuristics, providing more comprehensive product information becomes essential. In the food industry, nutrition disclosure is a key strategy for mitigating heuristic biases. Cohen and Babey [23] highlighted the heuristic effects in the marketing of dietary food products, while Monaco et al. [55] used heuristics as a theoretical framework to explore consumer behavior toward novel foods. Additionally, Vega-Zamora et al. [24] demonstrated the role of heuristics in consumer decision making for organic foods. By providing clear and detailed information, nutrition disclosure can help consumers refine their product evaluations in the context of food decision making. This rationale can be extended to consumer behavior regarding propolis products. Based on these insights, the following research hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 4a.
Nutrition disclosure significantly moderates the relationship between the anti-oxidant effect and healthiness.
Hypothesis 4b.
Nutrition disclosure significantly moderates the relationship between brand trust and healthiness.

3. Method

3.1. The Research Model

Figure 1 is the research model. The anti-oxidant effect exerts a positive effect on both healthiness and intention to purchase. Healthiness is positively associated with intention to purchase. Nutrition disclosure moderates the impact of anti-oxidant effects on healthiness.
Figure 2 is another research model. Brand trust positively affects both healthiness and intention to purchase. Healthiness is positively associated with intention to purchase. Nutrition disclosure moderates the effect of brand trust on healthiness.

3.2. Illustration of Measurement Items

This work used a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) to measure the variables. This study referenced prior studies for the measurements of four attributes: brand trust [17,18], healthiness [7,33], nutrition disclosure [32,53], and intention to purchase [6,37]. This work consulted with three experts in the consumer behavior research domain to develop the measurement items of the anti-oxidant effect. Table 1 is the description.
Considering the operational definitions, the anti-oxidant effect refers to consumer perception of the ability of propolis products to reduce oxidative damage. Brand trust is defined as the degree to which consumers rely on the brand of propolis products. Healthiness refers to how consumers evaluate the potential of propolis products to promote overall health. Nutrition disclosure pertains to how clearly and effectively the nutritional information of propolis products is presented from the consumer’s perspective. Finally, intention to purchase is defined as the likelihood that consumers will adopt propolis products in the future.

3.3. Recruitment of Survey Participants and Data Analysis

The Clickworker platform (https://www.clickworker.com/, accessed on 23 June 2024) was utilized to recruit survey participants. Previous studies have established that Clickworker provides reliable data for statistical inferences [56,57]. Considering that numerous previous studies have used data collected through the Clickworker platform as a basis for statistical analysis quality, this research chose the Clickworker platform for data collection. The survey targeted native English speakers, and data collection occurred between 23 June and 2 August 2024. This study also attempted to reflect consumer perceptions more realistically by collecting a random sample because the propolis products market is open to everybody. Participants were first asked whether they had experience using propolis products, resulting in an initial pool of 650 responses. Those without experience (345 respondents) were excluded from the dataset, as this study was to focus on individuals with direct, firsthand experience with propolis products. By excluding participants without experience, this research attempted to reach results based on more vivid experiences. As a result, 305 valid observations remained for analysis.
Table 2 presents the demographic profiles of the survey participants based on frequency analysis. Among the respondents, 58.7% were female. In terms of age, individuals in their 30 s and 40 s accounted for approximately 63.3% of the sample. Regarding monthly household income, 36.4% of participants reported earning between USD 2500 and USD 4999. Table 2 also provides details on the frequency of propolis product usage, with 118 participants reporting less than once per week, 121 using it 1–2 times per week, 44 using it 3–6 times per week, and 22 using it more than seven times per week.
The convergent validity of the measurement items was assessed using multiple indices, as outlined in the existing literature [58,59]. The criteria for convergent validity included factor loadings greater than 0.5, average variance extracted (AVE) greater than 0.5, and construct reliability (CR) exceeding 0.7. The goodness of fit of the measurement model was evaluated using several indices, including the chi-square statistic (χ2/df) less than 3, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the normed fit index (NFI), the relative fit index (RFI), and the comparative fit index (CFI) all exceeding 0.8, as well as the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) less than 0.1 [59,60]. Next, the means and standard deviations (SDs) for the attributes were calculated. To examine the relationships between attributes and ensure discriminant validity, a correlation matrix was employed. According to prior research, discriminant validity is considered acceptable when the square root of the AVE for each construct exceeds the correlation coefficients between constructs [58,59,60]. This study also employed Hayes’ Process Macro Model 7, which utilizes ordinary least squares regression for path analysis with 5000 bootstrap iterations. According to Hayes [61], the Process Macro Model is less affected by sample distortions, allowing for more robust estimates. Additionally, we applied the simple slope method to examine the moderating effects of nutrition disclosure. This method enables a graphical representation of the interaction effect by comparing the slopes at three levels of the moderating variable: low, medium, and high [60].

4. Empirical Results

4.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Table 3 presents the results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The goodness-of-fit indices indicate that the model fits the data adequately (χ2 = 347.847, df = 160, χ2/df = 2.174, GFI = 0.895, NFI = 0.937, RFI = 0.925, CFI = 0.965, RMSEA = 0.062). All factor loadings, AVE, and CR values exceeded the established thresholds, confirming that the convergent validity of the measurement items is satisfactory. Thus, the convergent validity could appear as acceptable manners. The mean value of the anti-oxidant effect and brand trust are 3.77, and 3.80, respectively. Also, Table 3 illustrates the mean value of healthiness (mean = 3.84), nutrition disclosure (mean = 3.77), and intention to purchase (mean = 3.84).
Table 4 is the results of correlation matrix. Because the diagonal values are greater than off-diagonal values, the discriminant validity of measurement items appeared as acceptable level. Intention to purchase positively correlates with the anti-oxidant effect (r = 0.601, p < 0.05), brand trust (r = 0.660, p < 0.05), healthiness (r = 0.684, p < 0.05), and nutrition disclosure (r = 0.533, p < 0.05). Healthiness positively correlates with the anti-oxidant effect (r = 0.667, p < 0.05), brand trust (r = 0.618, p < 0.05), and nutrition disclosure (r = 0.596, p < 0.05).

4.2. Results of Hypotheses Testing

Table 5 is the results of hypotheses testing using the anti-oxidant effect as an independent variable. Based on F-values, both models are statistically significant (p < 0.05). The anti-oxidant effect positively affected both healthiness (β = 1.216, p < 0.05) and intention to purchase (β = 0.236, p < 0.05). Additionally, intention to purchase is positively influenced by healthiness (β = 0.661, p < 0.05). Anti-oxidant effect × nutrition disclosure appeared significantly to account for healthiness (β = −0.185, p < 0.05). Thus, all the hypotheses are supported.
Figure 3 shows the slope of nutrition disclosure. The magnitude of the low-nutrition disclosure group is the strongest (β = 0.659, p < 0.05), while the magnitude of the high-nutrition disclosure group is the weakest (β = 0.334, p < 0.05) for the impact of the anti-oxidant effect on healthiness.
Table 6 presents the results of hypothesis testing with brand trust as the independent variable. Based on the F-values, both models are statistically significant (p < 0.05). Brand trust has a positive effect on both healthiness (β = 1.216, p < 0.05) and intention to purchase (β = 0.236, p < 0.05). Furthermore, intention to purchase is positively influenced by healthiness (β = 0.528, p < 0.05). The interaction term brand trust × nutrition disclosure also shows a significant impact on healthiness (β = −0.130, p < 0.05). Therefore, all hypotheses are supported.
Figure 4 illustrates the slope of nutrition disclosure. The impact of brand trust on healthiness is strongest in the low-nutrition disclosure group (β = 0.532, p < 0.05), while it is weakest in the high-nutrition disclosure group (β = 0.305, p < 0.05).

5. Discussion

5.1. Discussion of the Empirical Results

The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between anti-oxidant effects, brand trust, healthiness perception, and the intention to purchase propolis products. Moreover, the research investigated the moderating role of nutritional disclosure between anti-oxidant effects, brand trust, and healthiness perception. Participants were recruited through an online survey, and the hypotheses were tested using Hayes’ Process Macro Model 7.
The findings revealed that the anti-oxidant effect significantly influenced healthiness perception and the intention to purchase propolis products. Although the scientific efficacy of propolis’s anti-oxidant effects has been widely noted by researchers [43,44,45], consumer perceptions related to this have been minimally explored. This research, therefore, focuses on demonstrating the impact of anti-oxidant effect perception on healthiness. Furthermore, brand trust was found to positively impact both healthiness perception and the intention to purchase propolis products. Generally, previous studies have highlighted the impact of health perception on brand trust [47,48]. However, this research demonstrates that, in the context of health-focused food products, an inverse relationship may be able to work. Next, the results indicated that healthiness perception was a key driver in increasing consumers’ intention to purchase propolis products. The findings of this work is aligned with the findings from the previous works [7,8]. Also, this work is worthwhile by ensuring the positive effect of healthiness on the intention to purchase in the domain of functional food. Regarding the magnitude of the intention to purchase, healthiness exerted a stronger effect than the anti-oxidant effect and brand trust. It can be inferred that healthiness might become the strong motivation to purchase propolis.
This study further explored the moderating effect of nutritional disclosure on the relationship between anti-oxidant effects and healthiness perception. The results revealed a negative moderating effect, indicating that when consumers place more emphasis on nutrition information, the influence of anti-oxidant effects on their healthiness perception of propolis products is diminished. Additionally, this study uncovered a negative moderating role of nutritional disclosure in the relationship between brand trust and healthiness perception. This implies that consumers’ reliance on brand trust heuristics can be adjusted when they consider nutritional information, influencing their healthiness perception of propolis products. Overall, this research highlights that nutritional disclosure on propolis products may serve as a cue that reduces heuristic effects, thereby shaping consumers’ healthiness evaluations.

5.2. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study has several limitations. First, data were collected exclusively through surveys. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of consumer behavior toward propolis products, future research could incorporate a wider range of data collection methods, such as experimental studies or qualitative research. Additionally, this study focused solely on nutrition disclosure as a moderating variable. Future research could explore other attributes as potential moderators to further enrich the findings.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Theoretical Implications

This study makes several important contributions to the literature. First, it provides valuable insights into the relationship between anti-oxidant effects, brand trust, healthiness perception, and the intention to purchase propolis products. While anti-oxidant effects and brand management are well-established marketing tools in the context of propolis products, there has been limited research examining consumer behavior concerning these specific attributes. Additionally, the findings of this study enhance external validity by reinforcing the significant relationship between healthiness perception and the intention to purchase, as demonstrated in previous research on food consumer behaviors (reference). Furthermore, this study contributes to the literature by highlighting the moderating effect of nutritional disclosure on the relationship between anti-oxidant effects, brand trust, and healthiness perception. Specifically, the results provide valuable insights into the heuristic effects in the context of propolis products, particularly regarding the influence of anti-oxidant effects and brand trust in functional foods. Furthermore, this study shed light on the literature by empirically demonstrating the possibility that nutrition disclosure can lead to more objective consumer evaluations of products.

6.2. Managerial Implications

This research offers several important managerial implications. First, managers of propolis products should consider minimizing discrepancies between ingredient claims and the stated anti-oxidant effects. If consumers focus on nutritional information, any misalignment or lack of reliable evidence for anti-oxidant claims could lead to skepticism, potentially resulting in a loss of market share. Namely, propolis producers should consider using the anti-oxidant effects as a marketing tool, emphasizing these messages in packaging and advertising. However, they also need to focus on producing products with an appropriate level of nutritional value concerning these claims. Additionally, propolis product managers may want to allocate resources effectively for brand marketing, as brand trust plays a crucial role in enhancing both healthiness perception and the likelihood of purchasing functional foods. Building and maintaining consumer trust in the brand can significantly impact purchasing decisions. In general, consumer trust is likely to be driven by motivation factors such as health promotion and immune system enhancement, which are key roles of functional foods. Therefore, producers should focus on offering products that contribute to health improvement. Plus, based on the fact that honest brands generally earn trust, it would be beneficial to use nutrition disclosure as a marketing tool. In detail, improving the visibility of nutrition information and incorporating it into product packaging could serve as an effective brand management strategy, potentially gaining greater trust from consumers. Moreover, sellers of propolis products might be able to consider emphasizing the health benefits of their products in marketing efforts. Highlighting aspects such as the promotion of health conditions, presenting scientific research, and showcasing the organic nature of bee nurturing could help enhance healthiness perceptions. These strategies could contribute to increased market share and business growth in the functional food sector.

Author Contributions

Formal analysis, M.G.K.; writing—original draft, Y.K.K.; writing—data curation, J.M.; writing—review and editing, Y.K.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of this manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

According to the exemption standard of the Kangwon National University, ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to this research not collecting any personal information (https://irb.kangwon.ac.kr:461/02_board/board03.htm?Item=board3&mode=view&No=103, accessed on 25 July 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Polaris Market Research. Propolis Market Share, Size, Trends, Industry Analysis Report, Product Type (Capsules and Tablets, Liquids, Others), by Distribution Channel (Retail Store, Online, Others), by Region, and Segment Forecasts, 2024–2032. 2024. Available online: https://www.polarismarketresearch.com/industry-analysis/propolis-market (accessed on 15 July 2024).
  2. Cedeño-Pinos, C.; Marcucci, M.; Bañón, S. Contribution of green propolis to the antioxidant, physical, and sensory properties of fruity jelly candies made with sugars or fructans. Foods 2021, 10, 2586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Jones, P.J.; Jew, S. Functional food development: Concept to reality. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 18, 387–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kaner, G.; Ayer, Ç. Evaluation of Honey and Propolis Consumption Habits of Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Süleyman Demirel Üniv. Sağlık Bilim. Derg. 2024, 15, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jakubowska, D.; Dąbrowska, A.; Pachołek, B.; Sady, S. Behavioral Intention to Purchase Sustainable Food: Generation Z’s Perspective. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Witek, L.; Kuźniar, W. Green Purchase Behaviour Gap: The Effect of Past Behaviour on Green Food Product Purchase Intentions among Individual Consumers. Foods 2023, 13, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yoo, S.; Lee, S.; Jeon, H. The role of customer experience, food healthiness, and value for revisit intention in GROCERANT. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. De Temmerman, J.; Heeremans, E.; Slabbinck, H.; Vermeir, I. The impact of the Nutri-Score nutrition label on perceived healthiness and purchase intentions. Appetite 2021, 157, 104995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Platta, A.; Mikulec, A.; Radzymińska, M.; Kowalski, S.; Skotnicka, M. Willingness to Consume and Purchase Food with Edible Insects among Generation Z in Poland. Foods 2024, 13, 2202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Topolska, K.; Florkiewicz, A.; Filipiak-Florkiewicz, A. Functional food—Consumer motivations and expectations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Baker, M.; Lu, P.; Parrella, J.; Leggette, H. Consumer acceptance toward functional foods: A scoping review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kasote, D.; Bankova, V.; Viljoen, A. Propolis: Chemical diversity and challenges in quality control. Phytochem. Rev. 2022, 21, 1887–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Katekhaye, S.; Fearnley, H.; Fearnley, J.; Paradkar, A. Gaps in propolis research: Challenges posed to commercialization and the need for an holistic approach. J. Apic. Res. 2019, 58, 604–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liu, Q.; Wang, X. The impact of brand trust on consumers’ behavior toward agricultural products’ regional public brand. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0295133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sekhar, C.; Krishna, S.; Kayal, G.G.; Rana, N. Does brand credibility matter? The case of organic food products. Br. Food J. 2022, 124, 987–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Data Bridge Market Research. Global Propolis Market Size, Share, and Trends Analysis Report—Industry Overview and Forecast to 2031. 2024. Available online: https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/reports/global-propolis-market?srsltid=AfmBOopBGlyZOxW1QQTblXWted6nXUdiJjkM30JqkQIjGjtwCcHNCctg (accessed on 17 July 2024).
  17. Husain, R.; Ahmad, A.; Khan, B.M. The impact of brand equity, status consumption, and brand trust on purchase intention of luxury brands. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2022, 9, 2034234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tan, Z.; Sadiq, B.; Bashir, T.; Mahmood, H.; Rasool, Y. Investigating the impact of green marketing components on purchase intention: The mediating role of brand image and brand trust. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sobaih, A.; Abdelaziz, A. The impact of nutrition labelling on customer buying intention and behaviours in fast food operations: Some implications for public health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ye, C.; Cronin, J.; Peloza, J. The role of corporate social responsibility in consumer evaluation of nutrition information disclosure by retail restaurants. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 130, 313–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Etco, M.; Sénécal, S.; Léger, P.; Fredette, M. The influence of online search behavior on consumers’ decision-making heuristics. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2017, 57, 344–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Scheibehenne, B.; Miesler, L.; Todd, P. Fast and frugal food choices: Uncovering individual decision heuristics. Appetite 2007, 49, 578–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cohen, D.; Babey, S. Contextual influences on eating behaviours: Heuristic processing and dietary choices. Obes. Rev. 2012, 13, 766–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Vega-Zamora, M.; Torres-Ruiz, F.J.; Murgado-Armenteros, E.M.; Parras-Rosa, M. Organic as a heuristic cue: What Spanish consumers mean by organic foods. Psychol. Mark. 2014, 31, 349–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chan, E.; Zhang, L.S. Is this food healthy? The impact of lay beliefs and contextual cues on food healthiness perception and consumption. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2022, 46, 101348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Plasek, B.; Lakner, Z.; Temesi, Á. Factors that influence the perceived healthiness of food. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Siipi, H. Is natural food healthy? J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2013, 26, 797–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Huang, L.; Lu, J. The impact of package color and the nutrition content labels on the perception of food healthiness and purchase intention. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2016, 22, 191–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Petrescu, D.C.; Vermeir, I.; Petrescu-Mag, R. Consumer understanding of food quality, healthiness, and environmental impact: A cross-national perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Provencher, V.; Jacob, R. Impact of perceived healthiness of food on food choices and intake. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2016, 5, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Foroni, F.; Esmaeilikia, M.; Rumiati, R.I. What makes a food healthy? Sex differences in what is associated to healthiness evaluations. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 96, 104438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Richetin, J.; Caputo, V.; Demartini, E.; Conner, M.; Perugini, M. Organic food labels bias food healthiness perceptions: Estimating healthiness equivalence using a Discrete Choice Experiment. Appetite 2022, 172, 105970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sun, K.A.; Moon, J. The Relationship between Food Healthiness, Trust, and the Intention to Reuse Food Delivery Apps: The Moderating Role of Eco-Friendly Packaging. Foods 2024, 13, 890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Taylor, J.P.; Evers, S.; McKenna, M. Determinants of healthy eating in children and youth. Can. J. Public Health 2005, 96, S22–S29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yarar, N.; Machiels, C.; Orth, U. Shaping up: How package shape and consumer body conspire to affect food healthiness evaluation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 75, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Le, M.; Nguyen, P. Integrating the theory of planned behavior and the norm activation model to investigate organic food purchase intention: Evidence from Vietnam. Sustainability 2022, 14, 816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zayed, M.; Gaber, H.; El Essawi, N. Examining the factors that affect consumers’ purchase intention of organic food products in a developing country. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Roseira, C.; Teixeira, S.; Barbosa, B.; Macedo, R. How collectivism affects organic food purchase intention and behavior: A study with Norwegian and Portuguese young consumers. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Quevedo-Silva, F.; Pereira, J. Factors affecting consumers’ cultivated meat purchase intentions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kanbur, M.; Eraslan, G.; Silici, S. Antioxidant effect of propolis against exposure to propetamphos in rats. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2009, 72, 909–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Farooqui, T.; Farooqui, A. Beneficial effects of propolis on human health and neurological diseases. Front. Biosci. Elite 2012, 4, 779–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bordim, J.; Lise, C.; Marques, C.; Oldoni, T.; Varela, P.; Mitterer-Daltoé, M. Potential use of naturally colored antioxidants in the food industry—A study of consumers’ perception and acceptance. J. Sens. Stud. 2021, 36, e12657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dekebo, A.; Geba, C.; Bisrat, D.; Jeong, J.; Jung, C. Wound Healing, Anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant activities, and chemical composition of Korean propolis from different sources. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 11352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Xu, W.; Lu, H.; Yuan, Y.; Deng, Z.; Zheng, L.; Li, H. The antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects of flavonoids from propolis via Nrf2 and NF-κB pathways. Foods 2022, 11, 2439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Valivand, N.; Aravand, S.; Lotfi, H.; Esfahani, A.; Ahmadpour-Yazdi, H.; Gheibi, N. Propolis: A natural compound with potential as an adjuvant in cancer therapy-a review of signaling pathways. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2024, 51, 931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Wu, W.; Zhang, A.; van Klinken, R.; Schrobback, P.; Muller, J. Consumer trust in food and the food system: A critical review. Foods 2021, 10, 2490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sun, K.A.; Moon, J. Assessing antecedents of restaurant’s brand trust and brand loyalty, and moderating role of food healthiness. Nutrients 2023, 15, 5057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Konuk, F.A. The impact of retailer innovativeness and food healthiness on store prestige, store trust and store loyalty. Food Res. Int. 2019, 116, 724–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Aureliano-Silva, L.; Spers, E.; Lodhi, R.; Pattanayak, M. Who loves to forgive? The mediator mechanism of service recovery between brand love, brand trust and purchase intention in the context of food-delivery apps. Br. Food J. 2022, 124, 4686–4700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cawley, J.; Susskind, A.; Willage, B. Does information disclosure improve consumer knowledge? Evidence from a randomized experiment of restaurant menu calorie labels. Am. J. Health Econ. 2021, 7, 427–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kees, J.; Royne, M.; Cho, Y. Regulating front-of-package nutrition information disclosures: A test of industry self-regulation vs. other popular options. J. Consum. Aff. 2014, 48, 147–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Howlett, E.; Burton, S.; Bates, K.; Huggins, K. Coming to a restaurant near you? Potential consumer responses to nutrition information disclosure on menus. J. Consum. Res. 2009, 36, 494–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Marchini, A.; Riganelli, C.; Diotallevi, F.; Polenzani, B. Label information and consumer behaviour: Evidence on drinking milk sector. Agric. Food Econ. 2021, 9, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Santa, J.C.; Drews, S. Heuristic processing of green advertising: Review and policy implications. Ecol. Econ. 2023, 206, 107760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Monaco, A.; Kotz, J.; Al Masri, M.; Allmeta, A.; Purnhagen, K.; König, L. Consumers’ perception of novel foods and the impact of heuristics and biases: A systematic review. Appetite 2024, 196, 107285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Nazifi, A.; Seyfi, S.; Roschk, H. The role of inferred motive in shaping tourists’ reactions to intentional failures. Curr. Issues Tour. 2024, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  57. Steiger, R.; Scholl-Grissemann, U.; Kallmuenzer, A.; Klier, F.; Peters, M. Tit for tat: How hotel guests can be convinced to do their part to reduce energy consumption. Tour. Manag. 2025, 106, 105010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hoyle, R. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications; Sage: Newcastle, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  59. 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]
  60. Hair, J.; Anderson, R.; Babin, B.; Black, W. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hayes. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed.; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Applsci 15 02530 g001
Figure 1. The research model based on the anti-oxidant effect.
Figure 1. The research model based on the anti-oxidant effect.
Applsci 15 02530 g001
Applsci 15 02530 g002
Figure 2. The research model based on brand trust.
Figure 2. The research model based on brand trust.
Applsci 15 02530 g002
Applsci 15 02530 g003
Figure 3. The moderating effect of healthiness on the association between the anti-oxidant effect and healthiness.
Figure 3. The moderating effect of healthiness on the association between the anti-oxidant effect and healthiness.
Applsci 15 02530 g003
Applsci 15 02530 g004
Figure 4. The moderating effect of healthiness on the association between brand trust and healthiness.
Figure 4. The moderating effect of healthiness on the association between brand trust and healthiness.
Applsci 15 02530 g004
Table 1. Depiction of measurement.
Table 1. Depiction of measurement.
ConstructCodeItem
Anti-oxidant effectA1Propolis product has an anti-oxidant effect.
A2Propolis products are useful to get an anti-oxidant impact.
A3Propolis product provides me with anti-oxidant outcomes.
A4Propolis product improves the anti-oxidant effect of mine.
Brand trustB1I trust the brand of propolis product.
B2Propolis product brand is trustworthy.
B3Propolis product brand is reliable.
B4Propolis product brand never disappoints me.
HealthinessH1Propolis product promotes my health condition.
H2Propolis product is useful for my better health condition.
H3Propolis product improves my health condition.
H4Propolis product is effective for enhancing my health condition.
Nutrition disclosureN1Propolis product offers nutrition information well.
N2Propolis product nutrition information is easy to attain.
N3Propolis product nutrition information is easy to ensure.
N4Propolis products discloses nutrition information well.
Intention to purchase I1I intend to use propolis product.
I2I will purchase propolis product.
I3I am willing to buy propolis product.
I4I have an intention to purchase propolis product.
Table 2. Profiles of survey participants (N = 305).
Table 2. Profiles of survey participants (N = 305).
ItemFrequencyPercentage
Male12641.3
Female17958.7
20 s4724.3
30 s 10133.1
40 s 9230.2
50 s 3310.8
Older than 60 51.6
Monthly household income
Less than USD 25008628.2
USD 2500–USD 499911136.4
USD 5000–USD 74994815.7
USD 7500–USD 9999134.3
More than USD 10,0004715.4
Weekly use frequency
Less than 1 time11838.7
1–2 times12139.7
3–6 times4414.4
More than 7 times227.2
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis results.
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis results.
ConstructCodeLoadingMean (SD)AVECR
Anti-oxidant effectA10.8063.77
(0.80)		0.7300.915
A20.880
A30.893
A40.838
Brand trustB10.7073.80
(0.78)		0.6740.891
B20.862
B30.824
B40.881
HealthinessH10.8233.84
(0.86)		0.7420.920
H20.858
H30.872
H40.892
Nutrition disclosureN10.7903.77
(0.80)		0.6470.880
N20.797
N30.839
N40.791
Intention to purchase I10.9213.84
(1.01)		0.8360.953
I20.937
I30.897
I40.902
Note: SD, standard deviation, goodness-of-fit indices: χ2 = 347.847, df = 160, χ2/df = 2.174, RMR = 0.031, GFI = 0.895; NFI = 0.937; RFI = 0.925; CFI = 0.965; RMSEA = 0.062; CR, construct reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.
Table 4. Correlation matrix and discriminant validity.
Table 4. Correlation matrix and discriminant validity.
12345
1. Anti-oxidant effect0.828
2. Brand trust0.601 *0.820
3. Healthiness0.667 *0.618 *0.861
4. Nutrition disclosure0.533 *0.661 *0.596 *0.914
5. Intention to purchase 0.560 *0.660 *0.684 *0.533 *0.914
Note: * p < 0.05, Diagonal is the square root of average variance extracted, and SD stands for standard deviation.
Table 5. Results of hypotheses testing focusing on the anti-oxidant effect.
Table 5. Results of hypotheses testing focusing on the anti-oxidant effect.
Model 1
Healthiness		Model 2
Intention to Purchase
βt Valueβt Value
Constant−2.077−2.83 *0.4081.90
Anti-oxidant effect1.2166.85 *0.2363.39 *
Nutrition disclosure1.0683.27 *
Interaction−0.185−2.59 *
Healthiness 0.66110.10 *
F-value122.04 * 143.45 *
R20.5488 0.4872
Conditional effect of the focal predictor
Nutrition disclosure
3.000.65910.69 *
3.750.52010.77 *
4.750.3344.74 *
Index of mediated moderationIndexLLCIULCI
−0.1228 *−0.2131−0.0519
Note: * p < 0.05; interaction: anti-oxidant effect × nutrition disclosure (test of interaction: F = 13.11 *).
Table 6. Results of hypotheses testing focusing on brand trust.
Table 6. Results of hypotheses testing focusing on brand trust.
Model 3
Healthiness		Model 4
Intention to Purchase
βt Valueβt Value
Constant−0.948−1.17−0.080−0.39
Brand trust0.9226.85 *0.4967.89 *
Nutrition disclosure0.8473.79 *
Interaction−0.130−2.28 *
Healthiness 0.5289.17 *
F-value83.43 * 191.15 *
R20.4540 0.4611
Conditional effect of the focal predictor
Nutrition disclosure
3.000.5327.08 *
3.750.4357.02 *
4.750.3053.62 *
Index of mediated moderationIndexLLCIULCI
−0.0687 *−0.1346−0.0067
Note: * p < 0.05, interaction: brand trust × nutrition disclosure (test of interaction: F = 5.20 *).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, M.G.; Kim, Y.K.; Moon, J. Investigation of the Relationship Between the Anti-Oxidant Effect, Brand Trust, Healthiness, and Intention to Purchase Propolis Products: The Moderating Effect of Nutritional Disclosure. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 2530. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15052530

AMA Style

Kim MG, Kim YK, Moon J. Investigation of the Relationship Between the Anti-Oxidant Effect, Brand Trust, Healthiness, and Intention to Purchase Propolis Products: The Moderating Effect of Nutritional Disclosure. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(5):2530. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15052530

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Min Gyung, Ye Kang Kim, and Joonho Moon. 2025. "Investigation of the Relationship Between the Anti-Oxidant Effect, Brand Trust, Healthiness, and Intention to Purchase Propolis Products: The Moderating Effect of Nutritional Disclosure" Applied Sciences 15, no. 5: 2530. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15052530

APA Style

Kim, M. G., Kim, Y. K., & Moon, J. (2025). Investigation of the Relationship Between the Anti-Oxidant Effect, Brand Trust, Healthiness, and Intention to Purchase Propolis Products: The Moderating Effect of Nutritional Disclosure. Applied Sciences, 15(5), 2530. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15052530

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