CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Environmental Sustainability in BusinessOrganic Food and AgricultureConsumer behavior in food and health

Green trust as a mediator in the relationship between green advertising skepticism, environmental knowledge, and intention to buy green food

Open access
de Sio, Sara, Zamagni, Alessandra, Casu, Giulia, Gremigni, Paola·2022·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
DOI 10.3390/ijerph192416757PMC PMC9779173
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Changing individual habits towards greener choices is an essential ingredient in tackling the environmental crisis. Engaging in green behavior may improve psychological wellbeing. Although the intention to buy green products is widespread, the eco-friendly market is struggling to leave the ground. Greenwashing can increase skepticism towards green advertising, which in turn can hinder the intention to buy green products. Conversely, a better knowledge of environmental issues can promote a positive attitude towards environment and thus the intention to purchase green products. This study aimed to investigate if trust in green claims can mediate the relationships of green advertising skepticism and environmental knowledge with the intention to buy green food. An online survey was administered to 410 Italian consumers (63% female; 18–78 years). Our mediation model explained 23% of the variability in intention. Trust fully mediated the relationship between green advertising skepticism and intention to buy green food, while it partially mediated the relationship between perceived environmental knowledge and intention. Specifically, GAS was associated with lower INT through lower TR, whereas PEK was linked to higher INT though higher TR. The findings of this study can provide green market operators and policy makers with valuable information to encourage green food purchases.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ijerph192416757

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This dual-skepticism framework aids in reconciling inconsistent findings in the literature by differentiating state suspicion regarding a particular post (PGR) from trait resistance grounded in previous experience (PGE).

    “This dual-skepticism framework aids in reconciling inconsistent findings in the literature by differentiating state suspicion regarding a particular post (PGR) from trait resistance grounded in previous experience (PGE) (de Sio et al., 2022;Nazish et al., 2025;Rehman et al., 2025;Skordoulis et al., 2025).”

    From Cross-national evidence on influencer-driven green choice: a moderated-mediation model of authenticity, parasocial ties, and greenwashing exposure (2026) · cites this paper as de Sio et al., 2022

    The Introduction (§1.2) and Measures (§2.2) define green advertising skepticism as a tendency not to believe green advertising claims. Our copy does not address a dual-skepticism framework, distinguish PGR from PGE, or link either to a particular post or previous experience; searches for those terms and for state-versus-trait skepticism found no supporting passage. No page numbers were provided for these sections. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. [1]Matthes J. Uncharted territory in research on environmental advertising: Toward an organizing framework J. Advert. 2019 48 91 101 10.1080/00913367.2019.1579687 · DOI
  2. [2]Kates R.W. Population and consumption: What we know, what we need to know Environment 2000 42 10 19 10.1080/00139150009604872 · DOI
  3. [3]Joshi Y. Rahman Z. Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future research directions Int. Strat. Manag. Rev. 2015 3 128 143 10.1016/j.ism.2015.04.001 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [4]Wang J. Nguyen N. Bu X. Exploring the roles of green food consumption and social trust in the relationship between perceived consumer effectiveness and psychological wellbeing Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020 17 4676 10.3390/ijerph17134676 32610596 PMC7369759 · DOI
  5. [5]Ismael D. Ploeger A. The potential influence of organic food consumption and intention-behavior gap on consumers’ subjective wellbeing Foods 2020 9 650 10.3390/foods9050650 32443595 PMC7278807 · DOI
  6. [6]Moisander J. Motivational complexity of green consumerism Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007 31 404 409 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00586.x · DOI
  7. [9]Huang M.-H. Rust R.T. Sustainability and consumption J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2011 39 40 54 10.1007/s11747-010-0193-6 · DOI
  8. [10]Sharma K. Aswal C. Paul J. Factors affecting green purchase behavior: A systematic literature review Bus. Strat. Environ. 2022 10.1002/bse.3237 · DOI
  9. [13]Park H.J. Lin L.M. Exploring attitude–behavior gap in sustainable consumption: Comparison of recycled and upcycled fashion products J. Bus. Res. 2020 117 623 628 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.025 · DOI
  10. [15]Carrington M.J. Neville B.A. Whitwell G.J. Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention-behavior gap J. Bus. Res. 2014 67 2759 2767 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.022 · DOI
  11. [16]Luthra C. Deshwal P. Determinants of green purchase behaviour-A literature review on specific product categories Acad. Mark. Stud. J. 2022 26 1 16
  12. [17]Nguyen N. Lobo A. Greenland S. The influence of cultural values on green purchase behaviour Mark. Intell. Plan. 2017 35 377 396 10.1108/MIP-08-2016-0131 · DOI
  13. [18]Sharma A. Foropon C. Green product attributes and green purchase behaviour: A theory of planned behaviour perspective with implications for circular economy Manag. Decis. 2019 57 1018 1042 10.1108/MD-10-2018-1092 · DOI
  14. [19]Szabo S. Webster J. Perceived greenwashing: The effects of green marketing on environmental and product perceptions J. Bus. Ethics 2020 171 719 739 10.1007/s10551-020-04461-0 · DOI
  15. [21]Gil J.M. Gracia A. Sanchez M. Market segmentation and willingness to pay for organic products in Spain Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2000 3 207 226 10.1016/S1096-7508(01)00040-4 · DOI
  16. [22]Yu X. Gao Z. Zeng Y. Willingness to pay for the “Green Food” in China Food Policy 2014 45 80 87 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.01.003 · DOI
  17. [23]Wijekoon R. Sabri M.F. Determinants that influence green product purchase intention and behavior: A literature review and guiding framework Sustainability 2021 13 6219 10.3390/su13116219 · DOI
  18. [24]Peng W. Berry E.M. The concept of food security Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainability Ferranti P. Berry E.M. Anderson J.R. Elsevier Oxford, UK 2019 1 7
  19. [26]Guo R. Tao L. Li C.B. Wang T. A path analysis of greenwashing in a trust crisis among Chinese energy companies: The role of brand legitimacy and brand loyalty J. Bus. Ethics 2017 140 523 536 10.1007/s10551-015-2672-7 · DOI
  20. [28]Leonidou L.C. Leonidou C.N. Palihawadana D. Hultman M. Evaluating the green advertising practices of international firms: A trend analysis Int. Mark. Rev. 2011 28 6 33 10.1108/02651331111107080 · DOI
  21. [29]Yang Z. Nguyen T.T.H. Nguyen H.N. Nguyen T.T.N. Cao T.T. Greenwashing behaviours: Causes, taxonomy and consequences based on a systematic literature review J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2020 21 1486 1507 10.3846/jbem.2020.13225 · DOI
  22. [30]Siano A. Vollero A. Conte F. Amabile S. “More than words”: Expanding the taxonomy of greenwashing after the Volkswagen scandal J. Bus. Res. 2017 71 27 37 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.11.002 · DOI
  23. [31]Pizzetti M. Gatti L. Seele P. Firms talk, suppliers walk: Analyzing the locus of greenwashing in the blame game and introducing ‘vicarious greenwashing J. Bus. Ethics 2021 170 21 38 10.1007/s10551-019-04406-2 · DOI
  24. [32]Chang C. Feeling ambivalent about going green J. Advert. 2011 40 19 32 10.2753/JOA0091-3367400402 · DOI · Paper page
  25. [33]Fowler A.R. Close A.G. It ain’t easy being green: Macro, meso, and micro green advertising agendas J. Advert. 2012 41 119 132 10.1080/00913367.2012.10672461 · DOI
  26. [34]Ajzen I. Fishbein M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior Pearson Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA 1980
  27. [35]Manuel E. Youn S. Yoon D. Functional matching effect in CRM: Moderating roles of perceived message quality and skepticism J. Mark. Commun. 2014 20 397 418 10.1080/13527266.2012.715587 · DOI
  28. [36]Mohr L.A. Eroǧlu D. Ellen P.S. The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers’ communications J. Consum. Aff. 1998 32 30 55 10.1111/j.1745-6606.1998.tb00399.x · DOI · Paper page
  29. [37]Mostafa M.M. Antecedents of Egyptian consumers’ green purchase intentions: A hierarchical multivariate regression model J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2006 19 97 126 10.1300/J046v19n02_06 · DOI
  30. [39]Chen Y.-S. The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust J. Bus. Ethics 2010 93 307 319 10.1007/s10551-009-0223-9 · DOI
  31. [40]Lee J. Park D.-H. Han I. The different effects of online consumer reviews on consumers’ purchase intentions depending on trust in online shopping malls: An advertising perspective Internet Res. 2011 21 187 206 10.1108/10662241111123766 · DOI
  32. [42]Amin S. Tarun M.T. Effect of consumption values on customers’ green purchase intention: A mediating role of green trust Soc. Responsib. J. 2021 17 1320 1336 10.1108/SRJ-05-2020-0191 · DOI
  33. [43]Barr S. Gilg A. Sustainable lifestyles: Framing environmental action in and around the home Geoforum 2006 37 906 920 10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.05.002 · DOI
  34. [44]Tanner C. Wölfing Kast S. Promoting sustainable consumption: Determinants of green purchases by Swiss consumers Psychol. Mark. 2003 20 883 902 10.1002/mar.10101 · DOI
  35. [45]Patel J. Modi A. Paul J. Pro-environmental behavior and socio-demographic factors in an emerging market Asian J. Bus. Ethics 2017 6 189 214 10.1007/s13520-016-0071-5 · DOI
  36. [46]Mostafa M.M. A Hierarchical analysis of the green consciousness of the Egyptian consumer Psychol. Mark. 2007 24 445 473 10.1002/mar.20168 · DOI
  37. [47]Chan R.Y.K. Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior Psychol. Mark. 2001 18 389 413 10.1002/mar.1013 · DOI · Paper page
  38. [49]Peattie K. Green consumption: Behavior and norms Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2010 35 195 228 10.1146/annurev-environ-032609-094328 · DOI
  39. [50]Patwary A.K. Rasoolimanesh S.M. Rabiul M.K. Aziz R.C. Hanafiah M.H. Linking environmental knowledge, environmental responsibility, altruism, and intention toward green hotels through ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022 34 4653 4673 10.1108/IJCHM-01-2022-0039 · DOI
  40. [51]Sultana N. Amin S. Islam A. Influence of perceived environmental knowledge and environmental concern on customers’ green hotel visit intention: Mediating role of green trust Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2022 14 223 243 10.1108/APJBA-08-2021-0421 · DOI
  41. [52]Lassen A.D. Lehmann C. Andersen E.W. Werther M.N. Thorsen A.V. Trolle E. Gross G. Tetens I. Gender differences in purchase intentions and reasons for meal selection among fast food customers—Opportunities for healthier and more sustainable fast food Food Qual. Prefer. 2016 47 123 129 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.06.011 · DOI
  42. [54]Young T.J. Questionnaires and Surveys Research Methods in Intercultural Communication John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ, USA 2015 163 180
  43. [55]Sexton N.R. Miller H.M. Dietsch A.M. Appropriate uses and considerations for online surveying in human dimensions research Hum. Dimensions Wildl. 2011 16 154 163 10.1080/10871209.2011.572142 · DOI
  44. [56]Thomson R. Facebook Advertisements for survey participant recruitment: Considerations from a multi-national study Int. J. Electron. Commer. Stud. 2014 5 199 218 10.7903/ijecs.1175 · DOI
  45. [58]Luhmann N. Trust and Power Polity Press Oxford, UK 2018
  46. [59]Pacherie E. Haggard P. What Are Intentions. Conscious Will and Responsibility. A Tribute to Benjamin Libet Oxford University Press Oxford, UK 2010
  47. [60]Haws K.L. Sample K.L. Hulland J. Scale use and abuse: Towards best practices in the deployment of scales J. Consum. Psychol. 2022 10.1002/jcpy.1320 · DOI
  48. [61]Kost R.G. de Rosa J.C. Impact of survey length and compensation on validity, reliability, and sample characteristics for ultrashort-, short-, and long-research participant perception surveys J. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2018 2 31 37 10.1017/cts.2018.18 30393572 PMC6208327 · DOI
  49. [63]Soyez K. How national cultural values affect pro-environmental consumer behavior Int. Mark. Rev. 2012 29 623 646 10.1108/02651331211277973 · DOI
  50. [65]Hair J.F. Black W.C. Babin B.J. Anderson R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: Pearson New International Edition 7th ed. Pearson Education London, UK 2013
  51. [66]Hayes A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, Second Edition: A Regression-Based Approach 2nd ed. Guilford Publications New York, NY, USA 2017
  52. [69]do Paço A.M.F. Reis R. Factors affecting skepticism toward green advertising J. Advert. 2012 41 147 155 10.1080/00913367.2012.10672463 · DOI · Paper page
  53. [70]Debora Indriani I.A. Rahayu M. Hadiwidjojo D. The influence of environmental knowledge on green purchase intention the role of attitude as mediating variable Int. J. Multicult. Multireligious Underst. 2019 6 627 635 10.18415/ijmmu.v6i2.706 · DOI
  54. [71]Leonidou C.N. Skarmeas D. Gray shades of green: Causes and consequences of green skepticism J. Bus. Ethics 2017 144 401 415 10.1007/s10551-015-2829-4 · DOI · Paper page
  55. [72]Matthes J. Wonneberger A. The skeptical green consumer revisited: Testing the relationship between green consumerism and skepticism toward advertising J. Advert. 2014 43 115 127 10.1080/00913367.2013.834804 · DOI
  56. [73]Knobloch-Westerwick S. Kleinman S.B. Preelection selective exposure: Confirmation bias versus informational utility Communic. Res. 2012 39 170 193 10.1177/0093650211400597 · DOI
  57. [75]Leire C. Thidell Å. Product-related environmental information to guide consumer purchases—A review and analysis of research on perceptions, understanding and use among Nordic consumers J. Clean. Prod. 2005 13 1061 1070 10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.12.004 · DOI
  58. [76]Nguyen T.T.H. Yang Z. Nguyen N. Johnson L.W. Cao T.K. Greenwash and green purchase intention: The mediating role of green skepticism Sustainability 2019 11 2653 10.3390/su11092653 · DOI
  59. [77]Yu J. Consumer responses toward green advertising: The effects of gender, advertising skepticism, and green motive attribution J. Mark. Commun. 2020 26 414 433 10.1080/13527266.2018.1514317 · DOI
  60. [79]Danner H. Thøgersen J. Does online chatter matter for consumer behaviour? A priming experiment on organic food Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2022 46 850 869 10.1111/ijcs.12732 · DOI
  61. [80]Fazio R.H. Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The Mode Model as an integrative framework Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Elsevier Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1990 75 109
  62. [81]Kowald M. Axhausen K.W. Focusing on connected personal leisure networks: Selected results from a snowball sample Environ. Plan. A 2012 44 1085 1100 10.1068/a43458 · DOI
  63. [82]Su Y.-F. Cacciatore L.Y.F. Scheufele M.A. Brossard D.A. Xenos D. Inequalities in scientific understanding: Differentiating between factual and perceived knowledge gaps Sci. Commun. 2014 36 352 378 10.1177/1075547014529093 · DOI
  64. [83]Purnhagen K.P. Clemens S. Eriksson D. Fresco L.O. Tosun J. Qaim M. Visser R.G.F. Weber A.P.M. Wesseler J.H.H. Zilberman D. Europe’s farm to fork strategy and its commitment to biotechnology and organic farming: Conflicting or complementary goals? Trends Plant Sci. 2021 26 600 606 10.1016/j.tplants.2021.03.012 33893049 · DOI
  65. [84]de Boer B.F. Rodrigues J.F.D. Tukker A. Modeling reductions in the environmental footprints embodied in European Union’s imports through source shifting Ecol. Econ. 2019 164 106300 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.04.012 · DOI
  66. [85]Battaglia Richi E. Baumer B. Conrad B. Darioli R. Schmid A. Keller U. Health risks associated with meat consumption: A review of epidemiological studies Int. J. Vitam. Nutr. Res. 2015 85 70 78 10.1024/0300-9831/a000224 26780279 · DOI
  67. [86]Springmann M. Wiebe K. Mason-D’Croz D. Sulser T.B. Rayner M. Scarborough P. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: A global modelling analysis with country-level detail Lancet Planet. Health 2018 2 e451 e461 10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30206-7 30318102 PMC6182055 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Sio, S., Zamagni, A., Casu, G., & Gremigni, P.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Viale Berti Pichat 5, 40127 Bologna, Italy
  • Ecoinnovazione Srl, Via della Liberazione, 6/c, 40128 Bologna, Italy
  • University of Bologna (IT)
Corresponding author
Casu, Giulia
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-12-14
Volume
19
Issue
24
Pages
16757
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ijerph192416757
PMC
PMC9779173
OpenAlex
W4311364699
Cited by
72
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 4
FWCI
8.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Consumer behavior in food and health
Keywords
environmental knowledge, green trust, greenwashing, environmental claims, green consumer behavior, mediating effect, sustainable products
MeSH terms
Advertising, Consumer Behavior, Female, Food, Humans, Italy, Male, Intention, Trust

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review