Next Article in Journal
Detection and Characterization of Visceral Anisakid Nematodes in Blue Whiting from Portuguese Waters
Previous Article in Journal
Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Predicted by Theory of Planned Behavior Among Midwest Undergraduates
Previous Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Antimicrobial Activity of Thyme Essential Oil Through Cellulose Nano Crystals-Stabilized Pickering Emulsions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 13
Issue 23
10.3390/foods13233800
foods-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

Relationships Among Psychological Risk, Eco-Friendly Packaging, Price Fairness, and Brand Trust of Bottled Water Consumers: Moderating the Impact of Nutritional Disclosure

by
Kyung-A Sun
1 and
Joonho Moon
2,*
1
Department of Tourism Management, Gachon University, Sungnam-si 13120, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Tourism Administration, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2024, 13(23), 3800; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13233800
Submission received: 14 October 2024 / Revised: 15 November 2024 / Accepted: 25 November 2024 / Published: 26 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Eco-Friendly Paper Packaging Coatings: Enhancing Sustainability and Food Preservation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study explores the relationship between psychological risk, price fairness, and brand trust in consumers of bottled water. We also tested the moderating effect of nutritional disclosure on the impacts of psychological risk and eco-friendly packaging on price fairness. We analyzed the data of 308 participants recruited via the Clickworker platform. Hayes’ PROCESS macro model 7 was employed to test the hypotheses. Price fairness was negatively influenced by psychological risk. Moreover, brand trust was significantly impacted by psychological risk and price fairness, with a significant moderating effect of nutritional disclosure on the relationship between eco-friendly packaging and price fairness. This work adds to the literature by identifying the relationship among four factors relevant to bottled water businesses.

1. Introduction

Grand View Research [1] noted that the US bottled water market was worth approximately USD 39.3 billion in 2022. Many companies have been competing in this market. According to Statista [2], there are more than 10 major players in the bottled water market. It is essential to identify consumer characteristics to manage constrained resources effectively. Therefore, this research examines consumer behavior in the context of bottled water, focusing on US consumers. To examine consumer behavior, this research uses brand trust as the main attribute, because the bottled water business uses the brand for distinction in the market [3]. That is, brand trust is the dependent variable because many studies have found that brand trust is key to increasing sales by fostering loyalty in consumers [4,5,6].
This study similarly focuses on price fairness. Price refers to what a consumer pays to attain certain goods or services [7,8]. An affordable price is critical for sales growth, and consumers perceive “rational costs” as indicative of price fairness [9,10]. Price fairness appears to be a major factor in consumer behavior. Psychological risk refers to the degree of uncertainty associated with purchasing goods or services [11,12]. Many studies have scrutinized the influence of psychological risk on the appraisal of goods and services [11,13,14]. Here, we studied psychological risk in the context of consumer behavior concerning bottled water. Moreover, we investigated the role of perceived eco-friendliness, which is related to the amount of plastic waste, because concern regarding the environment continues to grow because of growing concern in the market about protecting the natural environment [15,16]. In summary, we examined consumer behavior about bottled water products, exploring the roles of brand trust (the dependent variable), price fairness (the mediator), psychological risk, and eco-friendly packaging (the independent variables).
This work also examined the moderating role of nutritional disclosure—specifically, the provision of nutritional information to consumers [17,18]. This information plays a crucial role in consumer decision-making by reducing uncertainty and providing transparency [17,19]. Given that consumer behaviors can vary significantly, we investigated whether product-related information, such as nutritional disclosure, influences the relationship between psychological risk, eco-friendly packaging, and price fairness.
The primary objective of this study is to explore the interrelationships between brand trust, price fairness, psychological risk, and eco-friendly packaging. By doing so, we aim to contribute to the literature on consumer behavior, particularly in the context of bottled water, by clarifying how these factors interact. Another key objective is to assess how nutritional disclosure moderates the impact of psychological risk and eco-friendly packaging on price fairness. This investigation provides valuable theoretical insights by elucidating these relationships. Our findings offer important managerial implications for the bottled water industry, enhancing the understanding of consumer preferences and decision-making processes in this sector.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Psychological Risk

Psychological risk refers to a negative viewpoint of consumers [11,12], where goods may be perceived as not capable of satisfying needs [13,14,20]. Many studies have explored psychological risk in various contexts. Öztürk [12] examined it among consumers of halal products, while Lăzăroiu et al. [20] explored it among users of social commerce platforms. Seo and Lee [13] investigated perceived risk among users of service robots.

2.2. Eco-Friendly Packaging

Prior studies on eco-friendly packaging have focused on minimizing waste and environmental pollution [21,22]. Galati et al. [23] reported that interest in eco-friendly packaging is increasing because of the growing problem of global warming. Koch et al. [16] argued that such packaging is important because consumers link it with social issues. Nguyen et al. [24] found that consumers are more likely to choose products with eco-friendly packaging. Finally, Ketelsen et al. [15] and Yan et al. [25] reported that eco-friendly packaging is critical to food businesses because foods with such packaging are favored by consumers. Hence, the use of eco-friendly packaging is an important market trend.

2.3. Price Fairness

Price fairness refers to consumer perceptions of the prices set by vendors [7,8]. It is essential for success in business because it is related to first impressions and the general consumer experience. Singh et al. [10] scrutinized the price-fairness perceptions of fast-food restaurant customers, while Jung et al. [9] studied the phenomenon in apparel product consumers. Bolton et al. [7] researched differences in price-fairness perceptions between domestic and international consumer behavior.

2.4. Brand Trust

Brand trust refers to the perceived credibility of a given brand [4,5]. It is considered a form of reliability established via positive consumption experiences [6,26]. Akoglu and Özbek [5] analyzed brand trust in the context of sports goods consumers, and Sohaib and Han [26] explored its influence in the domain of social media marketing. Na et al. [27] examined it among smartphone consumers. Finally, Lin and Xu [28] explored it in bottled water consumers.

2.5. Hypothesis Development

Studies have found that greater transparency of information lowers uncertainty, significantly impacting perceptions of price fairness [9,29]. Konuk [30] found that price fairness is an essential determinant of consumer behavior concerning organic food. Masoud [31] argued that consumers’ psychological risk negatively affects their perception of price, as the cost becomes more uncertain under unstable conditions, particularly in the context of online shopping. Similarly, Ventre and Kolbe [32] posited that consumers’ risk perceptions lead to a negative impact on decision-making, as they are unsure whether the price is justified for the value of the goods being purchased. The provision of information is likely to improve perceptions of price fairness. A negative influence of risk on trust has been noted in the area of online commerce [33]. Similarly, Ha et al. [34] examined autonomous vehicle consumers and found that psychological risk negatively affected trust. Jun [35] found a significant negative association between psychological risk and brand trust employing Airbnb system users. Zadha and Suparna [36] showed the negative impact of psychological risk on brand trust in digital banking services. Finally, Ali et al. [37] reported a negative impact of risk on trust among fintech users. Against this background, this work proposes the following hypotheses:
H1a: 
Psychological risk negatively impacts price fairness.
H2a: 
Psychological risk negatively impacts brand trust.
Galati et al. [23] found that consumers are willing to pay a premium for bottled water with eco-friendly packaging. Similarly, Koch et al. [16] demonstrated that such packaging enhances consumer perceptions by alleviating environmental guilt. Nguyen et al. [24] reported that Vietnamese consumers also show a willingness to pay more for products with eco-friendly packaging. Additionally, Ketelsen et al. [15] suggested that consumers tend to view eco-friendly packaging more favorably because it is often lighter and perceived as “safer”, reducing concerns about chemical contamination and the misleading effect of heavy packaging on the actual product quantity. Building on these findings, the present study proposes the following hypotheses:
H1b: 
Eco-friendly packaging positively impacts price fairness.
H2b: 
Eco-friendly packaging positively impacts brand trust.
A positive effect of price fairness on trust was noted among social network service users because adequate price is critical to building a positive appraisal of business [38]. Similarly, Hutama and Ekawati [39] found a positive association between price fairness and trust, as did Chubaka Mushagalusa et al. [40] in the domain of financial services. This work proposes the following hypothesis:
H3: 
Price fairness positively impacts brand trust.

2.6. Nutritional Disclosure

Nutritional disclosure refers to the disclosure of the ingredients and nutrients of food products [41,42]. Such information is essential to minimize consumer uncertainty [17,18] and aid in decision-making [17,19]. Therefore, it could be presumed that the nutrition disclosure is likely to minimize the consumers’ negative perception of uncertainty because consumers tend to dislike uncertainty in their decision-making for commercial cases. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4a: 
Nutritional disclosure significantly moderates the relationship between psychological risk and price fairness.
Beverage products provide information on volume because of their association with calories [43,44]. Eco-friendly packaging is lightweight because the focus is on minimizing waste [15,25]. Because beverage product nutrition information includes product weight [17,43], heavy packaging may cause confusion among consumers. Therefore, consumers are likely to prefer lightweight packaging for bottled water products because it can minimize suspicion in the step of product purchasing. The final hypothesis of this study is as follows:
H4b: 
Nutritional disclosure significantly moderates the relationship between eco-friendly packaging and price fairness.

3. Methods

3.1. Research Model

Figure 1 shows the first research model used in this study, which has four attributes: psychological risk, price fairness, brand trust, and nutritional disclosure. In the model, the psychological risk is negatively related to price fairness and brand trust; price fairness positively affects brand trust, and nutritional disclosure significantly moderates the relationship between psychological risk and price fairness.
Figure 2 shows the second research model, in which eco-friendly packaging is an independent variable, price fairness is a mediator, and brand trust is the dependent variable. In addition, nutritional disclosure significantly moderates the effect of eco-friendly packaging on price fairness, and all variables are positively associated.

3.2. Measurement Items

Table 1 shows the measurement items in this study. We used a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) to measure price fairness, nutritional disclosure, and psychological risk and a semantic differential scale to measure brand trust. Measurement items for brand trust [4,5,6], price fairness [7,8,9], nutritional disclosure [17,18,19], psychological risk [12,13,20], and perceptions of eco-friendly packaging [24,45] were derived from the previous literature and modified according to our specific requirements. Brand trust was explored in the context of the “Dasani” brand, as was perceived price fairness. Nutritional disclosure is defined as the information on product ingredients provided to consumers. Also, psychological risk is defined as the difference between consumers’ actual perceptions and their prior expectations regarding Dasani. Perceptions of eco-friendly packaging (packaging focused on protecting the environment) were similarly measured in the specific context of Dasani.

3.3. Recruitment of Participants

This study recruited participants via the Clickworker platform (https://www.clickworker.com, accessed on 23 April 2024), which is commonly used by social science researchers for this purpose [46,47]. The data collection period was 24–27 April 2024. A screening question pertaining to whether the participants were familiar with Dasani was provided; those who were not (35 of 343 respondents) were excluded. Thus, the final number of respondents whose data were analyzed was 308. We focused on Dasani because it has the largest market share in the USA, such that the use rate of Dasani bottled water was deemed likely to be high among the participants. Table 2 displays the demographic information of the participants, including sex, employment, age, and monthly household income.

3.4. Data Analysis

Frequency analysis of the demographic information of the participants was performed, followed by exploratory factor analysis using the Varimax rotation framework. To assess goodness of fit, the following standards were adopted: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy > 0.7 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2) [48]. Also, following Hair et al. [48], we adopted the following criteria to evaluate the measurement items’ convergent validity: factor loading > 0.5, Cronbach’s α > 0.7, and eigenvalue > 1. A correlation analysis was conducted to inspect the relationships among variables, with means and standard deviations calculated for brand trust, price fairness, nutritional disclosure, and psychological risk. We also used Hayes’ PROCESS macro model 7, which employs ordinary least squares regression for path analysis. Hayes [49] noted that the PROCESS macro model is less constrained by sample distortion, allowing for more robust estimation. Finally, we performed a simple slope line method to scrutinize the moderating effects of nutrition disclosure.

4. Results

4.1. Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis and Reliability Testing

Table 3 shows the results of the exploratory factor analysis. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (0.887) and Bartlett’s test (χ2 = 4550.582) statistics were statistically significant. The factor loading and Cronbach’s α values suggested acceptable convergent validity for the measurement items. All five variables have four items.

4.2. Correlation Matrix and Descriptive Statistics

Table 4 presents the correlation matrix (all p values are <0.05 unless stated otherwise). Psychological risk was negatively correlated with brand trust (r = −0.233, p < 0.05) and nutritional disclosure (r = −0.188, p < 0.05). Nutritional disclosure was positively correlated with brand trust (r = 0.485) and price fairness (r = 0.297, p < 0.05). Price fairness was positively correlated with brand trust (r = 0.519, p < 0.05). Eco-friendly packaging was positively correlated with brand trust (r = 0.490, p < 0.05), price fairness (r = 0.457, p < 0.05), and nutritional disclosure (r = 0.353, p < 0.05). Means and standard deviations are displayed in Table 4 for brand trust, price fairness, nutritional disclosure, psychological risk, and eco-friendly packaging.

4.3. Results of Hypothesis Testing

Table 5 shows the results of Hayes’ PROCESS macro model 7. Models 1 and 2 include price fairness and brand trust as the dependent variables. Both models were statistically significant. Psychological risk had negative impacts on price fairness (β = −0.627, p < 0.05) and brand trust (β = −0.262, p < 0.05). Also, price fairness positively affected brand trust (β = 0.597, p < 0.05). Nutritional disclosure significantly moderated the effect of psychological risk on price fairness (Psychological risk × Nutritional disclosure (β = 0.172, p < 0.05)). Additionally, the index of mediated moderation effect appeared significant. In summary, all hypotheses were supported.
Figure 3 illustrates the moderating effect of nutritional disclosure on perceived price fairness based on a simple slope method. Based on the magnitude of the conditional effect of the focal predictor, only the high group showed the positive and significant effect of psychological risk on price fairness. The yellow line in Figure 3 presents the slope of the high-nutrition group.
Table 6 shows additional results of Hayes’ PROCESS macro model 7. Models 3 and 4 include price fairness and brand trust as the dependent variable, respectively. Both models were statistically significant. Eco-friendly packaging had a positive impact on brand trust (β = 0.346, p < 0.05), and price fairness positively affected brand trust (β = 0.433, p < 0.05). Nutritional disclosure significantly moderated the effect of eco-friendly packaging on price fairness (β = 0.093, p < 0.05). Also, the index of the mediated moderation effect was not significant.
Figure 4 shows the moderating effect of nutritional disclosure on perceived price fairness based on the simple slope method. The slopes for high, middle, and low groups of nutritional disclosures appeared as yellow, green, and blue, respectively. The results indicated that the effect of eco-friendly packaging on price fairness was the strongest in the case of the high-nutrition disclosure group.

5. Discussion

This work explored consumer perceptions of bottled water. The perceived psychological risk was low, whereas the nutritional disclosure rating was relatively high. The first goal of this work was to investigate the relationships among psychological risk, price fairness, and brand trust. The results showed that psychological risk negatively affected price fairness; that is, actual consumer experience differed from consumer expectations of bottled water, negatively affecting price-fairness perceptions. It is aligned with the prior studies’ arguments that individuals dislike uncertainty in their decision-making [50,51]. In addition, psychological risk negatively impacted brand trust; the discrepancy in expectations versus actual bottled water consumption experience lowered the level of trust in branded bottled water. Thus, psychological risk is detrimental to both perceptions of price fairness and brand reputation. Moreover, there was a positive effect of price fairness on brand trust; when consumers perceive the price of bottled water as rational, they are more likely to view the product as credible. In addition, eco-friendly packaging was found to play a pivotal role in brand trust, but it alone appears insufficient to improve the price-fairness perceptions of consumers. It may be that packaging is only an “auxiliary” factor in the decision to consume branded water.
Another aim of this study was to examine the moderating effect of nutritional disclosure on the relationship between psychological risk and price fairness. Greater nutritional disclosure might reduce the negative effect of psychological risk on price-fairness perceptions. In the high nutritional disclosure group, perceptions of price fairness differed little between the low and high psychological risk subgroups. However, the low nutritional disclosure group presented a relatively stronger perception change of price fairness between low psychological risk and high psychological risk negatively because of the reduced value from 3.07 to 2.78. We found a significant moderating effect of nutritional disclosure on the relationship between eco-friendly packaging and price fairness. The results suggest that consumers are more willing to pay for bottled water products with packaging that focuses on protecting the environment and providing product information. Plus, the results showed the index of mediated moderation effect appeared significant only in the case of psychological risk as an independent variable. However, the mediated moderation impact was not significant in the case of eco-friendly packaging.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Theoretical and Managerial Implications

This work sheds light on the relationships among price fairness, psychological risk, and brand trust, building on studies that have explored the relationship between psychological risk and brand trust [34,37] and the impact of price fairness on brand trust [38,39,52]. This research also offers theoretical value by clarifying the significant effect of psychological risk on price fairness, a relationship that has been insufficiently explored in the existing literature. Given the limited empirical investigation of this connection, the findings of this study are particularly valuable. Additionally, the research contributes to the literature by addressing the gap regarding the link between psychological risk and price fairness within the context of the bottled water industry. Moreover, this study advances understanding by revealing the moderating role of nutritional disclosure in the relationship between psychological risk and price fairness. We also identify the moderating effect of nutritional disclosure on the association between eco-friendly packaging and price fairness. Finally, this work contributes to the literature by highlighting the significance of mediated moderation effects in the context of psychological risk, offering a deeper understanding of the interplay between five key attributes: psychological risk, eco-friendly packaging, price fairness, nutritional disclosure, and brand trust.
This research has practical implications for bottled water companies. First, managers of bottled water businesses might be able to focus on consumer expectations of their products to minimize the gap between expectations and experience. This could improve price-fairness perceptions and brand reputation. In other words, the managers might need to allocate their resources to maintain the quality of products, which contains the packaging, storage, delivery, and the water itself. Moreover, managers of bottled water businesses might refrain from frequently changing the product price because doing so is likely to undermine perceptions of price fairness, which might be harmful to the brand’s credibility. Finally, managers could allot more of their budgets to the provision of nutrition information (e.g., improving packaging designs to enhance the visibility of nutrition information). Such efforts could enhance consumers’ perception of price fairness by fostering a transparent image of the business within the bottled water industry. Additionally, investing more resources in eco-friendly packaging may strengthen brand reputation and positively influence perceptions of price fairness and sustainability. Consumers are more likely to feel confident about the safety of bottled water when eco-friendly packaging is used, as it helps mitigate concerns related to environmental issues, such as microplastics.

6.2. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This research had some limitations. First, we only studied the Dasani brand. Other brands should be considered in future work. This study also focused on four key variables; however, future research could explore additional factors to gain a more comprehensive understanding of bottled water consumers. Using advanced statistical techniques, such as structural equation modeling, could provide deeper insights into the relationships among these variables. Furthermore, this research relied solely on survey data for data collection. Future studies could benefit from employing a broader range of research methods, such as experiments, longitudinal studies, or scenario-based approaches, to enhance the robustness and generalizability of the findings.

Author Contributions

Formal analysis, K.-A.S.; writing—original draft, J.M.; writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

According to the exemption standard of 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 upon 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. Grand View Research. Market Analysis Report. 2022. Available online: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/bottled-water-market (accessed on 25 March 2024).
  2. Statista. The Global Giants of the Bottled Water Business. 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/chart/31772/leading-bottled-water-brands-by-global-market-share (accessed on 25 March 2024).
  3. Sembiring, C.; Azis, I.; Pradika, F. Analysis of brand awareness, customer satisfaction and perceived quality on the brand loyalty in the bottled water consumer (AMDK) Sinarmas Pristine Brand. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Res. Technol. 2020, 5, 1009–1015. [Google Scholar]
  4. Atulkar, S. Brand trust and brand loyalty in mall shoppers. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2020, 38, 559–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Akoglu, H.E.; Özbek, O. The effect of brand experiences on brand loyalty through perceived quality and brand trust: A study on sports consumers. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2022, 34, 2130–2148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bae, B.R.; Kim, S.E. Effect of brand experiences on brand loyalty mediated by brand love: The moderated mediation role of brand trust. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2023, 35, 2412–2430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bolton, L.E.; Keh, H.T.; Alba, J.W. How do price fairness perceptions differ across culture? J. Mark. Res. 2010, 47, 564–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ma, L.; Zhang, X.; Hao, F.; Liu, S. Service quality, perceived price fairness, and users’ continuous usage intentions regarding shared bike service. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2023, 34, 1682–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jung, S.; Cho, H.J.; Jin, B.E. Does effective cost transparency increase price fairness? An analysis of apparel brand strategies. J. Brand Manag. 2020, 27, 495–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Singh, G.; Slack, N.J.; Sharma, S.; Aiyub, A.S.; Ferraris, A. Antecedents and consequences of fast-food restaurant customers’ perception of price fairness. Br. Food J. 2022, 124, 2591–2609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Alrawad, M.; Lutfi, A.; Almaiah, M.A.; Elshaer, I.A. Examining the influence of trust and perceived risk on customers intention to use NFC mobile payment system. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2023, 9, 100070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Öztürk, A. The effect of halal product knowledge, halal awareness, perceived psychological risk and halal product attitude on purchasing intention. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 2022, 13, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Seo, K.H.; Lee, J.H. The emergence of service robots at restaurants: Integrating trust, perceived risk, and satisfaction. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Siegrist, M. Trust and risk perception: A critical review of the literature. Risk Anal. 2021, 41, 480–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ketelsen, M.; Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ response to environmentally-friendly food packaging—A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Koch, J.; Frommeyer, B.; Schewe, G. Managing the transition to eco-friendly packaging–An investigation of consumers’ motives in online retail. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 351, 131504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ye, C.; Cronin, J.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]
  18. Yoon, H.J.; George, T. Nutritional information disclosure on the menu: Focusing on the roles of menu context, nutritional knowledge and motivation. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 1187–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kim, E.; Ham, S. Restaurants’ disclosure of nutritional information as a corporate social responsibility initiative: Customers’ attitudinal and behavioral responses. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 55, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lăzăroiu, G.; Neguriţă, O.; Grecu, I.; Grecu, G.; Mitran, P.C. Consumers’ decision-making process on social commerce platforms: Online trust, perceived risk, and purchase intentions. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nguyen, A.T.; Parker, L.; Brennan, L.; Lockrey, S. A consumer definition of eco-friendly packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fiorineschi, L.; Conti, L.; Rossi, G.; Rotini, F. Conceptual design of a small production plant for eco-friendly packaging. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2024, 22, 1257–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Galati, A.; Alaimo, L.S.; Ciaccio, T.; Vrontis, D.; Fiore, M. Plastic or not plastic? That’s the problem: Analysing the Italian students purchasing behavior of mineral water bottles made with eco-friendly packaging. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 179, 106060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nguyen, A.T.; Yến-Khanh, N.; Thuan, N.H. Consumers’ purchase intention and willingness to pay for eco-friendly packaging in Vietnam. In Sustainable Packaging; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 289–323. [Google Scholar]
  25. Yan, M.R.; Hsieh, S.; Ricacho, N. Innovative food packaging, food quality and safety, and consumer perspectives. Processes 2022, 10, 747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sohaib, M.; Han, H. Building value co-creation with social media marketing, brand trust, and brand loyalty. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 74, 103442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Na, M.; Rong, L.; Ali, M.; Alam, S.; Masukujjaman, M.; Ali, K. The mediating role of brand trust and brand love between brand experience and loyalty: A study on smartphones in China. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lin, C.A.; Xu, X. Exploring bottled water purchase intention via trust in advertising, product knowledge, consumer beliefs and theory of reasoned action. Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Do, Q.H.; Kim, T.Y.; Wang, X. Effects of logistics service quality and price fairness on customer repurchase intention: The moderating role of cross-border e-commerce experiences. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 70, 103165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Konuk, F.A. Trustworthy brand signals, price fairness and organic food restaurant brand loyalty. Manag. Decis. 2023, 61, 3035–3052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Masoud, E.Y. The effect of perceived risk on online shopping in Jordan. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2013, 5, 76–87. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ventre, I.; Kolbe, D. The impact of perceived usefulness of online reviews, trust and perceived risk on online purchase intention in emerging markets: A Mexican perspective. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2020, 32, 287–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hong, I.B.; Cha, H.S. The mediating role of consumer trust in an online merchant in predicting purchase intention. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 927–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ha, T.; Kim, S.; Seo, D.; Lee, S. Effects of explanation types and perceived risk on trust in autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2020, 73, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jun, S.H. The effects of perceived risk, brand credibility and past experience on purchase intention in the Airbnb context. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zadha, H.; Suparna, G. The Role of Brand Trust Mediates the Effect of Perceived Risk and Brand Image on Intention to Use Digital Banking Service. Am. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Res. 2023, 7, 161–175. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ali, M.; Raza, S.A.; Khamis, B.; Puah, C.H.; Amin, H. How perceived risk, benefit and trust determine user Fintech adoption: A new dimension for Islamic finance. Foresight 2021, 23, 403–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hride, F.T.; Ferdousi, F.; Jasimuddin, S.M. Linking perceived price fairness, customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty: A structural equation modeling of Facebook-based e-commerce in Bangladesh. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 2022, 41, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hutama, K.Y.; Ekawati, N.W. The influence of price fairness and corporate image on customer loyalty towards trust. Am. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Res. 2020, 4, 209–214. [Google Scholar]
  40. Chubaka Mushagalusa, N.; Balemba Kanyurhi, E.; Bugandwa Mungu Akonkwa, D.; Murhula Chubaka, P. Measuring price fairness and its impact on consumers’ trust and switching intentions in microfinance institutions. J. Financ. Serv. Mark. 2022, 27, 111–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Andrews, J.C.; Burton, S.; Netemeyer, R.G. Are some comparative nutrition claims misleading? The role of nutrition knowledge, ad claim type and disclosure conditions. J. Advert. 2000, 29, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Seenivasan, S.; Thomas, D. Negative consequences of nutrition information disclosure on consumption behavior in quick-casual restaurants. J. Econ. Psychol. 2016, 55, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Duffy, E.; Hall, M.; Carpentier, F.; Musicus, A.; Meyer, M.L.; Rimm, E.; Taillie, L. Nutrition claims on fruit drinks are inconsistent indicators of nutritional profile: A content analysis of fruit drinks purchased by households with young children. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2021, 121, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Robinson, E.; Humphreys, G.; Jones, A. Alcohol, calories, and obesity: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of consumer knowledge, support, and behavioral effects of energy labeling on alcoholic drinks. Obes. Rev. 2021, 22, e13198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Sun, K.A.; Moon, J. Relationships between psychological risk, brand trust, and repurchase intentions of bottled water: The moderating effect of eco-friendly packaging. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Maar, D.; Besson, E.; Kefi, H. Fostering positive customer attitudes and usage intentions for scheduling services via chatbots. J. Serv. Manag. 2023, 34, 208–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Racat, M.; Plotkina, D. Sensory-enabling technology in m-commerce: The effect of haptic stimulation on consumer purchasing behavior. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2023, 27, 354–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. 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]
  49. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed.; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kamalul Ariffin, S.; Mohan, T.; Goh, Y.N. Influence of consumers’ perceived risk on consumers’ online purchase intention. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2018, 12, 309–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lee, C.; Chou, C.; Vighnesh, N.; Chandrashekar, D. Understanding post-pandemic market segmentation through perceived risk, behavioural intention, and emotional wellbeing of consumers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 75, 103482. [Google Scholar]
  52. Konuk, F.A. Price fairness, satisfaction, and trust as antecedents of purchase intentions towards organic food. J. Consum. Behav. 2018, 17, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 13 03800 g001
Figure 1. Research model focusing on psychological risk.
Figure 1. Research model focusing on psychological risk.
Foods 13 03800 g001
Foods 13 03800 g002
Figure 2. Research model focusing on eco-friendly packaging.
Figure 2. Research model focusing on eco-friendly packaging.
Foods 13 03800 g002
Foods 13 03800 g003
Figure 3. Moderating effect of nutritional disclosure on the relationship between psychological risk and price fairness.
Figure 3. Moderating effect of nutritional disclosure on the relationship between psychological risk and price fairness.
Foods 13 03800 g003
Foods 13 03800 g004
Figure 4. Moderating effect of nutritional disclosure on the relationship between eco-friendly packaging and price fairness.
Figure 4. Moderating effect of nutritional disclosure on the relationship between eco-friendly packaging and price fairness.
Foods 13 03800 g004
Table 1. Measurement items in this study.
Table 1. Measurement items in this study.
VariableCodeItem
Brand trustBT1I trust the brand Dasani.
BT2Dasani is reliable.
BT3Dasani is credible.
BT4Dasani is trustworthy.
Price fairnessPF1The price of Dasani goods is fair.
PF2The price of Dasani goods is rational.
PF3The price of Dasani goods is reasonable.
PF4The price of Dasani goods is acceptable.
Nutritional disclosureND1Dasani offers ingredient information.
ND2Dasani discloses its ingredients.
ND3Dasani water is presented well.
ND4Dasani provides me with ingredient information.
Psychological riskPR1Dasani is psychologically risky.
PR2Dasani is risky to consume.
PR3Dasani causes uncertainty.
PR4Dasani did not meet my expectations.
Eco-friendly packagingEP1Dasani packaging is environmentally friendly.
EP2Dasani packaging is eco-friendly.
EP3Dasani packaging is recyclable.
EP4Dasani packaging is useful to reduce plastic garbage.
Table 2. Participant demographics (N = 308).
Table 2. Participant demographics (N = 308).
DemographicsFrequency Percentage
Male8427.3
Female22472.4
Employed21268.8
Unemployed9631.2
20 s 5718.5
30 s10634.4
40 s10433.8
50 s3310.7
≥60 years old82.6
Monthly household income9831.8
<$250010534.1
$2500–$49995718.5
$5000–$74994815.6
>$7500
Table 3. Results of exploratory factor analysis and reliability testing.
Table 3. Results of exploratory factor analysis and reliability testing.
VariableCodeLoadingCronbach’s αEigenvalueVariance Explained (%)
Brand trustBT10.8250.9507.69938.495
BT20.842
BT30.835
BT40.832
Price fairnessPF10.8250.9303.29516.475
PF20.852
PF30.886
PF40.877
Nutritional disclosureND10.8840.9162.16310.816
ND20.904
ND30.716
ND40.911
Psychological riskPR10.9050.8651.3476.737
PR20.923
PR30.882
PR40.600
Eco-friendly packagingEP10.8650.8821.5937.967
EP20.876
EP30.634
EP40.840
Note: total variance explained = 80.49%.
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
VariableMeanSD12345
Brand trust3.5081.0931
Price fairness3.1520.9410.519 *1
Nutritional disclosure3.8040.8990.485 *0.297 *1
Psychological risk 1.9950.918−0.233 *−0.024−0.188 *1
Eco-friendly packaging3.1151.0090.490 *0.457 *0.353 *0.063
Note: * p < 0.05; SD, standard deviation.
Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing for psychological risk.
Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing for psychological risk.
Model 1
Price Fairness		Model 2
Brand Trust
βt-valueβt-value
Constant3.2366.14 *2.1499.99 *
Psychological risk−0.627−2.74 *−0.262−4.65 *
Nutritional disclosure−0.030−0.23
Interaction0.1722.98 *
Price fairness 0.59710.86 *
F-value13.15 * 71.10 *
R20.1149 0.3180
Conditional effect of the focal predictorβt-value
Nutritional disclosure
3.00 (Low)−0.109−1.48
4.00 (Mid)0.0631.10
5.00 (High)0.2352.67 *
Mediated moderation effectIndexLLCIULCI
0.1031 *0.02820.1805
Note: * p < 0.05; Interaction: psychological risk × nutritional disclosure (test of unconditional interaction: F = 8.91); LLCI, lower limit confidence interval; ULCI, upper limit confidence interval.
Table 6. Results of hypothesis testing for eco-friendly packaging.
Table 6. Results of hypothesis testing for eco-friendly packaging.
Model 3
Price Fairness		Model 4
Brand Trust
βt-valueβt-value
Constant2.3634.37 *1.0635.38 *
Eco-friendly packaging0.0250.010.3466.15 *
Nutritional disclosure−0.092−0.67
Interaction0.0932.01 *
Price fairness 0.4337.19 *
F-value31.99 * 82.17 *
R20.2400 0.3502
Conditional effect of the focal predictorβt-value
Nutritional disclosure
3.00 (Low)0.2814.13 *
4.00 (Mid)0.3747.52 *
5.00 (High)0.4676.90 *
Mediated moderation effectIndexLLCIULCI
0.0404−0.00720.0893
Note: * p < 0.05; Interaction: eco-friendly packaging × nutritional disclosure (test of unconditional interaction: F = 4.06); LLCI, lower limit confidence interval; ULCI, upper limit confidence interval.
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

Sun, K.-A.; Moon, J. Relationships Among Psychological Risk, Eco-Friendly Packaging, Price Fairness, and Brand Trust of Bottled Water Consumers: Moderating the Impact of Nutritional Disclosure. Foods 2024, 13, 3800. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13233800

AMA Style

Sun K-A, Moon J. Relationships Among Psychological Risk, Eco-Friendly Packaging, Price Fairness, and Brand Trust of Bottled Water Consumers: Moderating the Impact of Nutritional Disclosure. Foods. 2024; 13(23):3800. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13233800

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sun, Kyung-A, and Joonho Moon. 2024. "Relationships Among Psychological Risk, Eco-Friendly Packaging, Price Fairness, and Brand Trust of Bottled Water Consumers: Moderating the Impact of Nutritional Disclosure" Foods 13, no. 23: 3800. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13233800

APA Style

Sun, K.-A., & Moon, J. (2024). Relationships Among Psychological Risk, Eco-Friendly Packaging, Price Fairness, and Brand Trust of Bottled Water Consumers: Moderating the Impact of Nutritional Disclosure. Foods, 13(23), 3800. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13233800

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