Drivers of consumer’s willingness to pay for fair trade food products: the role of positive and negative emotions

The S-O-R model (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) is a theoretical approach that posits that various elements of the environment act as stimuli (S) that affect the internal state or organism of the individual (O) and ultimately condition his or her behaviour or response (R).

This approach has received much less attention than others (e.g., the theory of planned behaviour or the theory of reasoned action) to explain consumer behaviour (Kossmann & Gomez-Suarez, 2019). However, the number of scientific articles that rely on the S-O-R model is increasing. Several recent studies take the model as a basis to explain compulsive buying (Moon et al., 2022), online purchases (Iranmanesh et al., 2022), or in the context of omnichannel retailing (Cheah et al., 2022). However, to the best of our knowledge, no study on fair trade products is based on this theory.

The “consumer willingness to pay” variable is frequently researched and analysed in the context of ethical consumption in general and FT in particular (Global, 2018). It is defined as the maximum price (or price range) a consumer is willing to pay for a product, be it a good or service (Stobierski, 2020). Willingness to pay is a measure of purchase intention and can be considered to some extent as a proxy variable for actual consumer behaviour (De Pelsmacker et al., 2005).

FT products are generally considered to be priced higher than conventional products due to the costs associated with fairer wages and more environmentally friendly practices (Konuk, 2019, p. 141), and they are less available (Lubowiecki-Vikuk et al., 2021). According to Zerbini et al. (2019), to ensure that organisations marketing FT products are profitable, consumers who choose FT-certified products must be willing to absorb these additional production costs and pay a premium price. By determining consumer willingness to pay, organisations can set prices that maximise profits and consumer satisfaction (Stobierski, 2020).

However, consumer willingness to pay may vary due to the extrinsic and intrinsic differences between the individuals who make up a target population or market (Stobierski, 2020). Among the former differences, observable sociodemographic variables such as age, gender, income level, or education level can be noticed (Yang et al., 2012). Among the latter, not directly observable, the level of risk tolerance or the desire to please others can be noted. On the other hand, depending on the context or the consumption situation (place, urgency, supply, availability, information, knowledge, confidence in a brand/label, competition, etc.), the same consumer may be willing to pay more or less for a product.

Although price is the main factor associated with willingness to pay, other variables such as packaging, labelling, or brand name, as well as awareness of responsible and ethical consumption, environmental concern, trust in FT labels, and the degree of consumer innovation, have also been associated with it (Stobierski, 2020). Numerous studies have indicated that a majority of consumers would pay a premium price for socially responsible products that meet specific ethical standards (Chatterjee et al., 2021; Kossmann & Gomez-Suarez, 2019; Tully & Winer, 2014; Vlaeminck et al., 2016) and, conversely, would penalise companies (by demanding a lower price) that are perceived as unethical (Trudel & Cotte, 2009). According to Trudel and Cotte (2009), the punishment imposed by consumers is greater than the premium they are willing to pay. That is, the adverse effects of unethical behaviour have a substantially more significant impact on consumer willingness to pay than the positive effects of ethical behaviour.

In Spain, the study by Pérez and García de los Salmones (2018) finds that consumers’ perceptions of fair-trade products, including functional utilities such as product quality, have a direct and significant impact on consumer purchase intentions. However, they do not study the relationship with WTP. Fuller et al. (2022) also do not collect information on consumers’ perceptions of fair-trade coffee but conclude, after conducting several non-hypothetical experimental auctions, that consumers are willing to pay a premium for fair trade coffee and that they react positively to information about label claims, increasing the premium by 72% for fair trade coffee.

Although previous research has barely explored the relationship between the valuation of FT products and WTP, we propose, based on the relationship between product valuation and purchase intentions, that there is a direct relationship between the valuation of FT products and willingness to pay a premium for these products, as stated in H1.

H1: The valuation of FT food products positively affects WTP for FT food products.

Emotions can considerably influence consumer behaviour; nevertheless, exploration of connections between emotions and pro-environmental and pro-social behaviour is low, and there are inconsistent results (see Adams et al., 2020 for a review). Particularly moral emotions, understood as “the emotions that respond to moral violations or that motivate moral behaviour” (Haidt, 2003, p. 853), are essential in influencing a person’s ethical attitudes and behaviours. These emotions can promote greater engagement in behaviours that directly or indirectly influence, protect, or enhance others. This subset of emotions includes pride and guilt. Both are self-conscious emotions that individuals experience when they feel personally responsible for the consequences of their actions (Soscia, 2007), which is related to individual standards of right and wrong (Tracy & Robins, 2007) and a process of self-evaluation or self-reflection. They are two emotions of opposite valence yet share common characteristics; individuals can experience either [emotion] in response to the same event. Despite the growing number of papers in the last few years, pride and guilt have received less attention than other self-conscious emotions (Kim & Huang, 2021) and still need further study (Antonetti & Baines, 2015; Kayal et al., 2018).

Pride arises from a pleasant feeling, as Mascolo and Fischer (1995, p. 66) indicated, “[it is] generated by appraisals that one is responsible for a socially valued outcome or for being a socially valued person.“ In this sense, according to Higgins et al. (2001), individuals can experience pride as either “promotion pride,“ which can be triggered when they do something [meritorious/commendable] (e.g., Paramita et al., 2020), or “prevention pride,“ which is experienced when they fulfil their responsibilities and sense of duty. In the latter case, pride strengthens pro-environmental or pro-social behaviours after individuals feel responsible for a positive consequence; that is, by satisfied “doing the right thing,“ they feel that their actions will contribute to someone else’s welfare (Paramita et al., 2020; Tracy & Robins, 2007).

On the other hand, guilt is “the dysphoric feeling associated with the recognition that one has violated a personally relevant moral or social standard” (Kugler & Jones, 1992, p. 318); it is a negative emotion that creates a sense of remorse over and concern about the consequences of a previous action (Onwezen et al., 2014). Guilt also arises as a consequence of actual actions and also as a result of inactions (Cotte et al., 2005). In other words, guilt and existentialism can be anticipatory or reactive (Kayal et al., 2017). Kayal et al. (2018) recognized in their work that guilt could be caused under three circumstances: situations associated with oneself, others, and/or societal standards.

Both pride and guilt guide behaviour as per individuals’ personal and social standards and have a significant influence on consumers’ attitudes (Boudewyns et al., 2013) and behaviours (Antonetti & Baines, 2015; Pham & Sun, 2020). People generally endeavour to retain pride and evade and let go of guilt. Individuals experience pride when they engage in positive and socially desirable behaviour (Gifford, 2014), and the lack of commitment to good behaviours and opportunities results in guilt. Both emotions result from individuals’ evaluations, and they have an instant positive or negative influence on individuals’ attitudes/behaviour (Escadas et al., 2019).

Berki-Kiss and Menrad (2022) studied the effect of emotions on the intention of German flower buyers. However, only one of the indicators of the variable “emotions”, the commitment item, was related to pride or guilt: “I feel guilt/proud when I decide to purchase Fairtrade roses.“ This study focuses on preventing pride and guilt due to inaction predictors of consumer willingness to pay concerning fair trade products generated by personal beliefs or perceptions about those kinds of products. There does not appear to be any research on the connections between consumers’ valuation of FT food products, their pride or guilt, or their willingness to behave in a certain way about FT products. However, consumers can feel pride (or less guilt) when they contribute to the well-being of FT producers and the communities in which they operate and when they pay a price premium. By committing to the purchase of FT products, even if they must pay a price premium, consumers could feel proud (or less guilty) that they are paying a fair price for someone’s labour, reducing poverty, consuming fewer processed products, increasing a community’s wealth, fostering more sustainable consumption, reducing gender inequalities, etc.

The current study also differs from past research by considering anticipated emotions in the case of pride for non-consumers of FT products and guilt for consumers. Persons predict how they will feel regarding upcoming outcomes and use these forecasts to manage their choices (Mellers & McGraw, 2001). This proposition considers that consumers’ anticipation of the upcoming emotional effects of acts yet to be taken affects current choices (Schneider et al., 2017). In this sense, this study tries to demonstrate whether consumers of FT products would be willing to pay more for those products to avoid feelings of guilt and whether non-consumers of FT products would be inclined to pay extra money to experience a positive emotion (in this case, pride).

Preceding research has provided evidence to test this hypothesis. For example, Becker (2021) demonstrated that individuals feel more pride (and less guilt) when they opt for an ethical consumer choice. Antonetti and Maklan (2014) proved that feelings of pride or guilt would influence pro-environmental behaviour positively, which in turn influences consumers’ intention to buy sustainable products; there is also evidence of a relationship between consumers’ valuation of organic food, pride, and guilt, and consumers’ intention to buy those products (Onwezen et al., 2014).

However, significant differences are found in estimating consumer willingness to pay for products from ethical organisations. Among the studies that find a positive consumer willingness to pay, there are differences in the amount of the price premium. Subrahmanyan (2004) noted that it would range between 10% and 25% over comparable alternatives, whereas Global CAD (2018) observed that it would be between 3% and 20%. The price differential to be paid also varies depending on the product types, the characteristics of consumers and the countries in which they reside, product certification seals, the information provided (for example, whether the donated amount is known), or the surcharge (when the surcharge increases, the preference for a product decreases). However, some authors conclude that the willingness to pay an extra price for this type of product may be zero (e.g., Barone et al., 2000; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004; Cone, 2004).

In the particular case of FT products, there is also evidence of a positive willingness to pay (e.g., Andorfer and Liebe, 2012; Arnot et al., 2006; De Pelsmacker et al., 2005; Loureiro and Lotade, 2005; McCluskey and Loureiro, 2003; Obermiller et al., 2009; Vlaeminck et al., 2016). It has been observed that the price premium for FT labels is higher than for organic product labels (Loureiro & Lotade, 2005), with significant differences across countries, product categories, FT seals and certificates, and consumers’ sociodemographic characteristics (Global, 2018; Ramos-García & Reverón-Rodríguez, 2018; Vlaeminck et al., 2016). Similar results to those obtained for ethical products are observed in the case of FT products, finding premium price ranges between 5% and 15% (Galarraga & Markandya, 2004) or between 3% and 20% (Global, 2018).

Although, again, previous research does not allow us to have evidence of the mediating role of emotions in the relationship between FT product valuation and WTP, we propose that emotions are the organism that helps to transfer the effects of the stimulus to the response; that is, we propose that part of the effects of fair-trade product valuation on willingness to pay are produced through positive and negative emotions.

H2a: Pride has a mediating effect on the relationship between the valuation of FT food products and WTP for FT food products.

H2b: Guilt has a mediating effect on the relationship between the valuation of FT food products and WTP for FT food products.

The literature highlights some consumers’ growing interest in food products that are produced and marketed alternatively to that of the large global supply chains. According to Calvo-Turrientes and Fernández-Ferrín (2019), the consumers’ growing interest would be a consequence of these people’s opposition to food globalisation as well as the feelings of identity and belonging that are evoked by this type of product purchase.

Sustainable products have been defined as “products with positive social and/or environmental attributes” (Luchs et al., 2010, p. 19) that are difficult for consumers to assess before or even after purchase (Bangsa & Schlegelmich, 2020); they are manifested through sustainability labels (e.g., organic, FT or non-genetically modified organisms), narrative claims or a specific physical appearance (e.g., biodegradable packaging) (Berry et al., 2017; Del Giudice et al., 2018; Herbes et al., 2018) that seek to provide reassurance about the products’ sustainable character.

For Hyland et al. (2015), the current context is marked by the hegemony of a global supply chain in which homogeneous products are obtained through standardised and phytosanitary-intensive methods. According to Birch et al. (2018), this chain generates negative externalities, consisting of the disconnection between production and consumption, the increase in greenhouse gases, and the loss of biodiversity, traditional methods, or cultural identity.

Mistrust in the global supply chain has led some consumers to be interested in food origin, to seek to improve the welfare of rural communities and local producers and to preserve the environment (Dragon & Albergaria, 2012). Some recent studies indicate that consumers buy sustainable products in their places of residence and actively seek to taste and buy typical local gastronomy when travelling for tourism. These activities not only relate positively to their satisfaction, the creation of memorable experiences, and the perception of a good standard of living (Hernández-Mogollón et al., 2020) but also to the support of local agriculture and livestock (Ballina et al., 2021) and pro-environmental behaviours (Bordian et al., 2021).

Opposition to food globalisation has led to a search for alternatives or food models grouped in so-called alternative food networks (AFNs). AFNs refer to food flows, processes, and relationships (Wiskerke, 2009). Most AFNs are characterised by shortening food chains through short food supply chains, which aim to reduce the production-consumption distance and the number of intermediaries, resocialize food production and generate more direct connections and relationships, with particular emphasis on the construction of value and meaning. This creates transparent chains in which products reach the consumer with a high degree of value-laden information about their origin, quality, and production methods. The information transfer must be done clearly so consumers can establish relationships with products’ places of origin and differentiate them from anonymous products (Marsden et al., 2000; Renting et al., 2003).

Sustainable products have been considered environmentally friendly, healthier, produced with fewer chemicals, and of better quality (Sánchez-Bravo et al., 2021). In Spain, several studies have highlighted consumers’ growing interest in food produced by traditional methods by companies with transparent production processes and which market their products through short or direct channels (Fernández- Ferrín et al., 2018; 2019). Sánchez-Bravo et al. (2021) analysed 3,600 consumer responses in six countries regarding their attitudes toward various agricultural product production aspects. They found substantial differences between countries. Spanish consumers considered small farms essential to ensure sustainable production; they valued the social aspects of food production, such as fair trade and workers’ social rights, and generally considered organic or more sustainable products worth paying a price premium. More than 60% of respondents were willing to pay 5% more for most food product categories if they were sustainably produced.

To Yang et al. (2020), consumers do not always find objective differences between sustainable products and conventional alternatives. However, extrinsic information, such as sustainable product features, can change consumers’ emotional responses, leading to more positive feelings toward sustainable alternatives.

FT is a product certification and labelling system that seeks consumer recognition through quality labels and private or public certifications (Renard, 2005, cited in Ruggeri et al., 2019). The information on the certifications and labels influences consumer willingness to pay for these products because they are ethically made in better working conditions (Krumbiegel et al., 2018, cited in Ruggeri et al., 2019).

According to Andorfer and Liebe (2012), some consumers buy FT products not just to do the right thing but also to project their own identity and prove they are morally good. Consumers more concerned about the conventional purchasing system may link ethics and consumption by including FT products in their daily shopping. Ruggeri et al. (2019) raised the need to overcome the dualistic narrative between radical and pragmatic consumers, recognizing the enormous heterogeneity of consumers.

In this research, an additional variable has been added to the S-O-R model: general attitudes toward sustainable food products. Some studies in Spain indicate that consumers value products that combine several sustainable characteristics very positively. For example, Fernández-Ferrín et al. (2018) found that food products that simultaneously combined local, regional, and traditional product attributes were highly valued by consumers. Similarly, Fernández-Ferrín et al. (2019) indicated that attitudes toward proximity, tradition, and ethnicity of food products positively influenced both the willingness to purchase and the actual purchase of food products with protected geographical indication. Fuller et al. (2022) found, when analysing the price that coffee consumers would be willing to pay, that when the coffee, in addition to being organic, is fair trade, the price premium increases substantially. Based on the above, we believe that general attitudes toward a combination of features associated with sustainable products may thus affect specific products’ valuations within the broad spectrum of what is now considered sustainable products: organic, local, regional, traditional, or FT products, among others.

It is proposed that these general attitudes impact the willingness to pay extra for FT food products through three mediating variables: consumers’ valuation of these products and the positive and negative emotions associated with their purchase (in the case of current non-buyers, these are anticipated emotions), combining parallel and serial mediation (see Fig. 1). Collectively these three variables are proposed as mediators in the relationship between attitudes and willingness to pay, as stated in hypothesis 3.

H3: Attitudes toward sustainable food products have a positive effect on consumer willingness to pay for FT food products through (a) the valuation of FT food products, (b) pride, and (c) guilt.

As indicated previously, there is a need to increase research on FT products in Spain. According to the report conducted by Global CAD for Fairtrade International, “current annual spending per capita for Fairtrade labelled products increases constantly over time, yet differs largely between European countries, from less than 1 Euro in Spain to almost 60 Euros in Ireland” (Global, 2019, p. 12). It seems interesting to analyse the antecedents of the variable willingness to pay in a country where the consumption of fair-trade products is among the lowest in Europe. In addition, the report carried out by the Coordinadora Estatal de Comercio Justo (2020) includes estimates of spending per person in the different regions of Spain, with significant differences between them. The different organisations that operate in Fair Trade in Spain do so in one or more of these regions and find it challenging to know the consumers’ behaviour in these regions since the data at the level of the whole country is very scarce and there is only a limited amount of information at a sub-national level. In line with previous work (Cayón-Ruisánchez et al., 2016; Knößlsdorfer et al., 2021; Pérez et al., 2018; Ruggeri et al., 2021; Sellare, 2022; Yang et al., 2012), this study focuses on a specific geographic context. Namely, a region of Northern Spain, the Basque Country.

A specialist market research company collected the data utilising a personal survey. All respondents were required to have a minimum knowledge of FT and FT products, with approximately half being FT buyers and the other half non-buyers.

The population to be analysed was the general population over 18 years of age throughout the Basque Country, and the type of sampling used was stratified. The sample was designed to be representative of the population (assuming a sampling error of 5.66% for a confidence level of 99% and assuming the maximum variability of the population p = q = 0.5) and to reflect each province’s relative weights, as well as the proportions of age and gender (data from the Basque Institute of Statistics (Eustat) for 2019 was used as a reference). Considering these segments (quotas), individuals from each segment were selected randomly. As the percentage of the population that knows what an FT product is and the proportion of people who have purchased any FT product in the last year is unknown, the representative sample was based on the Basque Country’s population. We consider that the sampling method used is consistent with the objectives proposed, resulting in a sample similar to the population to be studied but guaranteeing a significant presence of buyers of FT products.

The personal surveys were conducted using a structured questionnaire between September 23 and 29, 2020, following a pretest on September 11, 2020. A total of eleven sampling points were used in the region’s main towns.

The data are duly stored in a private repository. They would be transferred on demand, provided there is a justification of the need, purpose of use, and prior authorization from the project coordinator. Namely, the dataset was stored in an SPSS file, a commercial tool widely used by the scientific community and, therefore, would ensure data interoperability if necessary. In addition, in this study, the data were processed with the same tool and the PROCESS software, which is added directly as a patch to SPSS.

The final sample comprised 305 consumers, 51.8% of whom were women. The characteristics of the survey sample are included in Table 1.

The questionnaire was developed following a literature review, and most of the presented questions reflect variables and measures previously validated in empirical studies. The scales generally have seven items, the extremes being 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree), or 1 (not at all important) and 7 (very important).

The Attitude toward sustainable food products variable is an adaptation of that used by Fernández-Ferrín et al. (2019). It has six indicators that measure how essential product aspects are for consumers, such as that product has been produced by a company that is transparent about the product’s manufacturing process or by a socially responsible company. Sarabia-Andreu et al. (2020) highlighted the difficulty of applying the same measure of attitudes toward a particular type of sustainable products (ecological products) in different geographical contexts, so this research has used a previous scale validated in Spain which refers to sustainable products. To measure the Valuation of the FT food products variable, a seven-point scale validated by Pérez and García de los Salmones (2018) was used to collect product aspects, such as taste or product quality.

The scales that measured pride (two indicators) and guilt (three indicators) are an adaptation of the Wang and Wu (2016) scales. Examples of former and latter items are “When I buy FT products, I feel proud” and “I would feel irresponsible if I did not buy FT products.“

Finally, consumer willingness to pay for FT products was measured with the indicator “I am willing to pay 10% more for an FT food product compared to a conventional one”. A dichotomous variable indicating whether a respondent had purchased an FT product in the last year was included in the model as a control variable.

Descriptive analyses of the variables (see Table 2) indicate that respondents have a very favourable attitude toward sustainable food products (Mean = 6.23, SD = 0.84) and value FT food products positively (Mean = 6.23, SD = 0.84). In terms of emotions associated with purchasing FT products, pride in a purchase (Mean = 5.35, SD = 1.49) is more clearly manifested than guilt associated with not purchasing this type of product (Mean = 2.02, SD = 1.44, t = 31.58, p < .01). Willingness to pay for FT food products scores moderately low (Mean = 4.92, SD = 1.95).

The properties of the model’s multi-item measurement scales were assessed with a confirmatory factor analysis using the IBM SPSS Amos 26 program. The Cronbach’s alpha values were calculated using the IBM SPSS Statistics 26 package. The fit of the measurement model is satisfactory (χ2 = 223.78, df = 121, p < .001, CFI = 0.97, IFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.05).

Regarding the measures’ reliability, both Cronbach’s alpha, with values above 0.80 (Cronbach, 1951), and the comparative fit index (CFI), with values above 0.89, indicate high reliability of the scales.

Concerning convergent validity, all factor loadings are significant (p < .01), although the factor loadings of one indicator of the Attitudes toward sustainable food products variable and another of the Valuation of FT products variable present values below 0.5. They have been retained as they represent important aspects of the two variables.The conducted analyses also support the measures’ discriminant validity, both when using the AVE-SV comparison (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) and the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio and a cut-off level of 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015; Kline, 2011). These two methods are the most suitable for assessing discriminant validity in multi-item measurement scales (Voorhees et al., 2016).

Considering that all the constructs are measured using the exact source of information, there is a risk of common method variance (CMV). In order to assess if CMV is a problematic issue, we conducted Harman’s One Factor Test, the most commonly used approach to managing CMV (Fuller et al., 2016). The exploratory factor analysis showed that CMV was not problematic in our study (the first factor accounted for less than 50% of the variance among variables).

Variance Inflation factors (VIF) were calculated to check for multicollinearity. All VIF values (ranging from 1.08 to 2.14) were lower than the conservative threshold of 2.5 (Johnston et al., 2018). Thus, multicollinearity was not a concern in the analysis.

To test the first hypotheses, which stated that the Valuation of FT product has a positive effect on WTP (H1) and that the emotions pride and guilt mediate this relationship (H2a and H2b), a mediation model was proposed using the PROCESS macro for SPSS (model 4) (Hayes, 2022). The results, shown in Table 3, indicate that concerning a total effect model, the variable Valuation of FT products is a significant predictor of WTP (b = 0.53, p <. 01). The model presents an excellent fit to the data (R² = 0.18, F (2,302) = 34.02, p < .01). When emotions pride and guilt enter the model as mediating variables, both have a significant effect on WTP (b = 0.41, p < .01 and b = 0.26, p < .01, respectively) and fully transmit the effect of FT product valuation on WTP. As can also be seen in Table 3, the direct effect Valuation → WTP is not significant, and its confidence interval includes the value zero. However, the two indirect effects Valuation → pride → WTP and Valuation → guilt → WTP have bootstrap confidence intervals (5,000 subsamples) that are positive and entirely above zero (Effect_{Valuation → pride → WTP}= 0.43 and Effect_{Valuation → guilt → WTP} = 0.07), although the effect of positive emotion pride is significantly stronger than the effect of negative emotion guilt, as supported by the indirect effect difference test (Effect _{pride minus guilt} = 0.37, bootLLCI = 0.11, bootULCI = 0.61). These results support hypotheses H1, H2a, and H2a and suggest that the valuation of FT products influences WTP and does so through the emotions of pride and guilt. These emotions transmit, albeit with different intensity (the effect of positive emotion is much stronger), the positive effect of product valuation.

To test hypotheses 3a, 3b and 3c, the PROCESS macro for SPSS (model 81) was used again (Hayes, 2022). Model 81 has three mediators (M1, M2, and M3), which combine the properties of the parallel and serial mediation models; only M1 has a “path of influence to the other mediators, M2 and M3” (Hayes, 2022, p. 194). The indirect and direct effects of X on Y can be tested using regression analysis and four equations, one for each of the three mediating variables and one for the dependent variable Y. This model also has five specific indirect effects which are related to all the paths that can be traced between X and Y and that pass through at least one mediating variable. The total effect is the sum of all these indirect effects plus the direct effect and can also be estimated by regressing Y on X.

The mediation analysis results shown in Table 4 indicate that the Attitudes toward purchasing sustainable food products variable is related to the Valuation of FT products variable (b = 0.59, p <. 01); this variable, in turn, is related to pride (b = 0.96, p < .01) and guilt (b = 0.23, p = .02); these two emotions, in turn, are positively and significantly related to consumer willingness to pay for FT food products (b = 0.39, p < .01; b = 0.26, p < .01, respectively). The control variable measuring whether a respondent has bought/not bought an FT product in the last year is also related to the Valuation of these products and the willingness to pay for FT products. This indicates that people who consume FT products not only value these products more (b = -0.58, p < .01) but also express a higher intention to pay for them (b = -0.94, p < .01).

These results provide initial support for the model. Additionally, the estimation of the indirect, direct, and total effects (see Table 4) indicates that attitudes toward sustainable food products influence the willingness to pay for FT products and that they do so in an indirect way through a higher valuation of FT products (thus supporting Hypothesis 3a), a positive emotion (pride) and a negative emotion (guilt), as stated by H3b and H3c, respectively. The direct effect is not significant. However, pride emotions have a greater capacity to transfer these attitudes to a higher willingness to pay for FT food products.

One indirect effect, with a confidence interval above zero and one mediating variable, is the Attitude → Pride → Willingness to pay effect (effect = 0.09, bootLLCI = 0.02, bootULCI = 0.19). Two other indirect effects can also be considered nonzero because their confidence intervals are entirely above that value; both involve two mediating variables. One of them is associated with pride, giving rise to the chain Attitude → Valuation → Pride → Willingness to pay (effect = 0.22, bootLLCI = 0.09, bootULCI = 0.35) and the other with guilt, supporting the path Attitude → Valuation → Guilt → Willingness to pay (effect = 0.03, bootLLLCI = 0.01, bootULCI = 0.07).

In conclusion, from the analysed data, it is possible to rule out the nullity of three of the five indirect effects and support the importance of emotions, especially pride, by shifting the effects of attitudes toward sustainable food products to a willingness to pay for FT products. Hypotheses 3a, 3b and 3c are thus supported, with the three mediating variables demonstrating their ability to shift the effects of attitudes toward sustainable food products to an increased willingness to pay for FT products.