consumer awareness literature review

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

A review of consumer awareness, understanding and use of food-based dietary guidelines

Affiliation.

1 Psychology Department, Food Consumer Behaviour and Health Research Centre, Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK.
PMID: 21385508
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114511000250

Food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG) have primarily been designed for the consumer to encourage healthy, habitual food choices, decrease chronic disease risk and improve public health. However, minimal research has been conducted to evaluate whether FBDG are utilised by the public. The present review used a framework of three concepts, awareness, understanding and use, to summarise consumer evidence related to national FBDG and food guides. Searches of nine electronic databases, reference lists and Internet grey literature elicited 939 articles. Predetermined exclusion criteria selected twenty-eight studies for review. These consisted of qualitative, quantitative and mixed study designs, non-clinical participants, related to official FBDG for the general public, and involved measures of consumer awareness, understanding or use of FBDG. The three concepts of awareness, understanding and use were often discussed interchangeably. Nevertheless, a greater amount of evidence for consumer awareness and understanding was reported than consumer use of FBDG. The twenty-eight studies varied in terms of aim, design and method. Study quality also varied with raw qualitative data, and quantitative method details were often omitted. Thus, the reliability and validity of these review findings may be limited. Further research is required to evaluate the efficacy of FBDG as a public health promotion tool. If the purpose of FBDG is to evoke consumer behaviour change, then the framework of consumer awareness, understanding and use of FBDG may be useful to categorise consumer behaviour studies and complement the dietary survey and health outcome data in the process of FBDG evaluation and revision.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Cambridge University Press
Ovid Technologies, Inc.

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Consumer awareness and sustainability-focused value orientation as motivating factors of responsible consumer behavior

Original Paper
Published: 13 September 2016
Volume 11 , pages 959–991, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

Anja Buerke ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5896-748X 1 ,
Tammo Straatmann 2 ,
Nick Lin-Hi 3 &
Karsten Müller 2

15k Accesses

111 Citations

Explore all metrics

Consumers are put in the driver seat on the road to a sustainable development. Following a consumer-centric approach, this paper explores the dimensionality and the antecedents of responsible consumption from a psychological perspective. Concerning the dimensionality, the study proposes that responsible consumption should comprise a societal as well as an individual dimension. The data (N = 339) supported this two-dimensional approach, differentiating between societal responsibilities of consumers (doing good) and consumers’ responsibilities for their personal well-being (doing well). Moreover, the results indicate that both consumer awareness and sustainability-focused value orientation have a direct positive influence on responsible consumer behavior. In addition, the hypothesized mediating role of consumer awareness is confirmed, with mediations for societal or personal responsible consumer behavior by the respective consumer awareness dimension. Consequently, it is crucial for organizations to flank their sustainable offers with appropriate communication activities in order to motivate consumers to engage in more responsible consumption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Antecedents of Environmentally and Socially Responsible Sustainable Consumer Behavior

Sustainability Marketing Strategies: How Self-Efficacy and Controllability can Stimulate Pro-Environmental Behaviors for Individuals: An Abstract

Psychological Barriers to Environmentally Responsible Consumption

Explore related subjects.

Medical Ethics

Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103(3):411–423

Article Google Scholar

Antil JH (1984) Socially responsible consumers: profile and implications for public policy. J Macromark 4(2):18–39

Astley WG, Zammuto RF (1992) Organization science, managers, and language games. Organ Sci 3(4):443–460

Auger P, Devinney TM, Louviere JJ, Burke PF (2008) Do social product features have value to consumers? Int J Res Mark 25(3):183–191

Bagozzi R, Yi Y (2012) Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 40(1):8–34

Balderjahn I, Buerke A, Kirchgeorg M, Peyer M, Seegebarth B, Wiedmann K-P (2013) Consciousness for sustainable consumption: scale development and new insights in the economic dimension of consumers’ sustainability. AMS Rev 3(4):181–192

Bamberg S, Hunecke M, Blöbaum A (2007) Social context, personal norms and the use of public transportation: two field studies. J Environ Psychol 27(3):190–203

Bansal P (2002) The corporate challenges of sustainable development. Acad Manag Executive 16(2):122–131

Bardi A, Schwartz SH (2003) Values and behavior: strength and structure of relations. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 29(10):1207–1220

Bearden WO, Netemeyer RG, Teel JE (1989) Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. J Consum Res 15(4):473–481

Bearden WO, Hardesty DM, Rose RL (2001) Consumer self-confidence: refinements in conceptualization and measurement. J Consum Res 28(1):121–134

Beaudoin P, Lachance MJ (2006) Determinants of adolescents’ brand sensitivity to clothing. Fam Consum Sci Res J 34(4):312–331

Benson MH, Craig RK (2014) The end of sustainability. Soc Nat Resour 27(7):777–782

Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 107(2):238–246

Bentler PM, Chou C-P (1987) Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociol Methods Res 16(1):78–117

Berg L (2007) Competent consumers? Consumer competence profiles in Norway. Int J Consum Stud 31(4):418–427

Berger IE, Corbin RM (1992) Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others as moderators of environmentally responsible behaviors. J Public Policy Mark 11(2):79–89

Google Scholar

Beschorner T, Mueller M (2007) Social standards: toward an active ethical involvement of businesses in developing countries. J Bus Ethics 73(1):11–20

Bowie N (1991) New directions in corporate social responsibility. Bus Horiz 34(4):56–65

Brinkmann J, Peattie K (2008) Consumer ethics research: reframing the debate about consumption for good. Electron J Bus Ethics Organ Stud 13(1):27–31

Caruana R, Chatzidakis A (2014) Consumer social responsibility (CnSR): toward a multi-level, multi-agent conceptualization of the ‘Other CSR’. J Bus Ethics 121(4):577–592

Caruana R, Crane A (2008) Constructing consumer responsibility: exploring the role of corporate communications. Organ Stud 29(12):1495–1519

Castaldo S, Perrini F, Misani N, Tencati A (2009) The missing link between corporate social responsibility and consumer trust: the case of fair trade products. J Bus Ethics 84(1):1–15

Chartrand TL (2005) The role of conscious awareness in consumer behavior. J Consum Psychol 15(3):203–210

Cheung GW, Lau RS (2008) Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organ Res Methods 11(2):296–325

Cleveland M, Kalamas M, Laroche M (2012) ‘It’s not easy being green’: exploring green creeds, green deeds, and internal environmental locus of control. Psychol Mark 29(5):293–305

Cohen MJ (1992) A Power Primer. Psychol Bull 112(1):155–159

Cohen MJ (2007) Consumer credit, household financial management and sustainable consumption. Int J Consum Stud 31(1):57–65

Connolly J, Prothero A (1998) Sustainable consumption: consumption, consumers and the commodity discourse. Consum Mark Cult 6(4):275–291

Creyer EH, Ross WT Jr (1997) The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: do consumers really care about business ethics? J Consum Mark 14(6):421–432

De Groot JIM, Steg L (2007) Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries. Validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. J Cross Cult Psychol 38(3):318–332

De Groot JIM, Steg L (2008) Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior. How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav 40(3):330–354

DeVincenzo MH, Scammon D (2015) Principle-based consumption communities: exploring the meanings derived from socially conscious consumption practices. J Public Policy Mark 33(2):143–155

Diamantopoulos A, Schlegelmilch BB, Sinkovics RR, Bohlen GM (2003) Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. J Bus Res 56(6):465–480

Dickinson RA, Carsky ML (2005) The consumer as economic voter: an economic perspective on ethical consumer behaviour. In: Harrison R, Newholm T (eds) The ethical consumer. Sage, London, pp 25–36

Chapter Google Scholar

Diefendorff JM, Silverman SB, Greguras GJ (2005) Measurement equivalence and multisource ratings for non-managerial positions: recommendations for research and practice. J Bus Psychol 19(3):339–425

Dittmar H (2005) Compulsive buying—a growing concern? An examination of gender, age, and endorsement of materialistic values as predictors. Br J Psychol 96(4):467–491

Dodou D, de Winter J (2014) Social desirability is the same in offline, online, and paper surveys: a meta-analysis. Comput Hum Behav 36:487–495

Du S, Bhattacharya CB, Sen S (2007) Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: the role of competitive positioning. Int J Res Mark 24(3):224–241

Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56(3):425–442

Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publication, London

Ellen PS, Wiener JL, Cobb-Walgren C (1991) The role of perceived consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. J Public Policy Mark 10(2):102–117

Escrig-Olmedo E, Muñoz-Torres MJ, Fernández-Izquierdo MA, Rivera-Lirio JM (2014) Lights and shadows on sustainability rating scoring. RMS Rev Manag Sci 8(4):559–574

Evan WM, Freeman RE (1988) A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: kantian capitalism. In: Beauchamp T, Bowie N (eds) Ethical theory and business. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 75–84

Eyal T, Sagristano MD, Trope Y, Liberman N, Chaiken S (2009) When values matter: expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near versus distant future. J Exp Soc Psychol 45(1):35–43

Falck O, Heblich S (2007) Corporate social responsibility: doing well by doing dood. Bus Horiz 50(3):247–254

Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50

Fraj E, Martinez E (2007) Ecological consumer behaviour: an empirical analysis. Int J Consum Stud 31(1):26–33

Gamerschlag R, Möller K, Verbeeten F (2011) Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: empirical evidence from germany. RMS Rev Manag Sci 5(2–3):233–262

Gleim MR, Smith HG, Andrews D, Cronin JJ Jr (2013) Against the green: a multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. J Retail 89(1):44–61

Gupta S, Ogden DT (2009) To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma perspective on green buying. J Consum Mark 26(6):376–391

Haase M (2008) Customer integration and beyond: towards a business economic-ethical theory of the firm. Z für Wirtsch- und Unternehm 9(1):129–152

Habermas J (1990) Moral consciousness and communicative action. MIT Press, Cambridge

Hansen U, Schrader U (1997) A modern model of consumption for a sustainable society. J Consum Policy 20(4):443–469

Haws KL, Bearden WO, Nenkov GY (2012) Consumer spending self-control effectiveness and outcome elaboration prompts. J Acad Mark Sci 40(5):695–710

Haws KL, Winterich KP, Naylor RW (2014) Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. J Consum Psychol 24(3):336–354

Hediger W (2000) Sustainable development and social welfare. Ecol Econ 32(3):481–492

Höffe O (1993) Moral als Preis der Moderne: Ein Versuch über Wissenschaft, Technik und Umwelt (morality as the price of modernity: an approach to science, technics and environment). Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6(1):1–55

Hunecke M, Blöbaum A, Matthies E, Höger R (2001) Responsibility and environment: ecological norm orientation and external factors in the domain of travel mode choice behavior. Environ Behav 33(6):830–852

Hurst M, Dittmar H, Bond R, Kasser T (2013) The relationship between materialistic values and environmental attitudes and behaviors: a meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol 36:257–269

Iacobucci D, Saldanha N, Deng X (2007) A meditation on mediation: evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions. J Consum Psychol 17(2):139–153

Jackson T (2005) Live better by consuming less? Is there a ‘Double Dividend’ in sustainable consumption? J Ind Ecol 9(1–2):19–36

Kasser T, Ahuvia A (2002) Materialistic values and well-being in business students. Eur J Soc Psychol 32(1):137–146

Kinnear TC, Taylor JR, Ahmed SA (1974) Ecologically concerned consumers: who are they? J Market 38(2):20–24

Kishton JM, Widaman KF (1994) Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: an empirical example. Educ Psychol Meas 54(3):757–765

Klöckner CA, Blöbaum A (2010) A comprehensive action determination model: toward a broader understanding of ecological behaviour using the example of travel mode choice. J Environ Psychol 30(4):574–586

Koenig-Lewis N, Palmer A, Dermody J, Urbye A (2014) Consumers’ evaluations of ecological packaging—rational and emotional approaches. J Environ Psychol 37:94–105

Kormos C, Gifford R (2014) The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: a meta-analytic review. J Environ Psychol 40:359–371

Kotler P (2011) Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. J Mark 75(4):132–135

Kotler P, Armstrong G (2011) Principles of marketing, 14th edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River

Kuckertz A, Wagner M (2010) The Influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions—investigating the role of business experience. J Bus Ventur 25(5):524–539

Kuhn T (1970) the structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Lee SY, Carroll CE (2011) the emergence, variation, and evolution of corporate social responsibility in the public sphere, 1980–2004: the exposure of firms to public debate. J Bus Ethics 104(1):115–131

Lin-Hi N, Mueller K (2013) The CSR bottom line: preventing corporate social irresponsibility. J Bus Res 66(10):1928–1936

Little TD, Cunningham WA, Shahar G, Widaman KF (2002) To parcel or not to parcel: exploring the question, weighing the merits. Struct Equ Modeling 9(2):151–171

Macdonald EK, Uncles MD (2007) Consumer savvy: conceptualisation and measurement. J Mark Manag 23(5–6):497–517

Macho S, Ledermann T (2011) Estimating, testing, and comparing specific effects in structural equation models: the phantom model approach. Psychol Methods 16(1):34–43

Martínez-Ferrero J, García-Sánchez I (2015) Is corporate social responsibility an entrenchment strategy? Evidence in stakeholder protection environments. RMS Rev Manag Sci 9(1):89–114

McDonald S, Oates C, Thyne M, Alevizou P, McMorland L-A (2009) Comparing sustainable consumption patterns across product sectors. Int J Consum Stud 33(2):137–145

Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW III (1972) The limits to growth: a report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of Mankind. Universe Books, New York

Minton AP, Rose RL (1997) The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly consumer behavior: an exploratory study. J Bus Res 40(1):37–48

Mohr LA, Webb DJ, Harris KE (2001) Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. J Consum Aff 35(1):45–72

Murphy PE, Öberseder M, Laczniak GR (2013) Corporate societal responsibility in marketing: normatively broadening the concept. AMS Rev 3(2):86–102

Nath B (2008) A heuristic for setting effective standards to ensure global environmental sustainability. Environ Dev Sustain 10(4):471–486

Nilsson J (2008) Investment with a conscience: examining the impact of pro-social attitudes and perceived financial performance on socially responsible investment behavior. J Bus Ethics 83(2):307–325

Nordlund AM, Garvill J (2003) Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. J Environ Psychol 23(4):339–347

Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (2006) Psychometric theory, vol 3. McGraw-Hill, New York

Obermiller C (1995) The baby is sick/the baby is well: a test of environmental communication appeals. J Advert 24(2):55–70

Obermiller C, Spangenberg ER (1998) Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. J Consum Psychol 7(2):159–186

Obermiller C, Spangenberg ER, MacLachlan DL (2005) Ad skepticism: the consequences of disbelief. J Advert 34(3):7–17

Olson EL (2013) It’s not easy being green: the effects of attribute tradeoffs on green product preference and choice. J Acad Mark Sci 41(2):171–184

Pedersen ER, Neergaard P (2006) Caveat Emptor—let the buyer beware! environmental labelling and the limitations of ‘Green’ consumerism. Bus Strategy Environ 15(1):15–29

Pepper M, Jackson T, Uzzell D (2009) An examination of the values that motivate socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviours. Int J Consum Stud 33(2):126–136

Pezzey J (1992) Sustainability: an interdisciplinary guide. Environ Values 1(4):321–362

Phipps M, Ozanne LK, Luchs MG, Subrahmanyan S, Kapitan S, Catlin JR, Gau R et al (2013) Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable consumption: a social cognitive framework. J Bus Res 66(8):1227–1234

Porter ME, Kramer MR (2006) The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Bus Rev 84(12):78–92

Porter ME, Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value: how to reinvent capitalism—and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Bus Rev 89(1/2):62–77

Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods 40(30):879–891

Prothero A, Dobscha S, Freund J, Kilbourne WE, Luchs MG, Ozanne LK, Thøgersen J (2011) Sustainable consumption: opportunities for consumer research and public policy. J Public Policy Mark 30(1):31–38

Remund DL (2010) Financial literacy explicated: the case for a clearer definition in an increasingly complex economy. J Consum Aff 44(2):276–295

Roberts JA (1996) Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for advertising. J Bus Res 36(3):217–231

Schaefer A, Crane A (2005) Addressing sustainability and consumption. J Macromark 25(1):76–92

Schaltegger S, Wagner M (2011) Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: categories and interactions. Bus Strategy Environ 20(4):222–237

Schwartz SH (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J Soc Issues 50(4):19–45

Schwartz SH, Bilsky W (1987) Toward a psychological structure of human values. J Pers Soc Psychol 53(3):550–562

Shaw D, Newholm T (2002) Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption. Psychol Mark 19(2):167–185

Sheth JN, Sethia NK, Srinivas S (2011) Mindful consumption: a customer-centric approach to sustainability. J Acad Mark Sci 39(1):21–39

Singhapakdi A, Vitell SJ, Rallapalli KC, Kraft KL (1996) The perceived role of ethics and social responsibility: a scale development. J Bus Ethics 15(11):1131–1140

Solomon MR, Bamossy GJ, Askegaard ST, Hogg MK (2013) Consumer behaviour—a european perspective, 5th edn. Pearson Education, Harlow

Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29(3):309–317

Steg L, Bolderdijk JW, Keizer K, Perlaviciute G (2014) An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: the role of values, situational factors and goals. J Environ Psychol 38:104–115

Steiger JH (1990) Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivar Behav Res 25(2):173–180

Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56(3):407–424

Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ Behav 25(5):322–348

Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel TD, Guagnano GA, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6(2):81–97

Stichweh R (1992) The sociology of scientific disciplines: on the genesis and stability of the disciplinary structure of modern science. Sci Context 5(1):3–15

Straughan RD, Roberts JA (1999) Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. J Consum Mark 16(6):558–575

Sudbury-Riley L, Kohlbacher F (2016) Ethically minded consumer behavior: scale review, development, and validation. J Bus Res 69(8):2697–2710

Tanner C, Wölfing Kast S (2003) Promoting sustainable consumption: determinants of green purchases by swiss consumers. Psychol Market 20(10):883–902

Thøgersen J (1999) The ethical consumer. Moral norms and packaging choice. J Consum Policy 22(4):439–460

Thøgersen J (2000) Psychological determinants of paying attention to eco-labels in purchase decisions: model development and multinational validation. J Consum Policy 23(3):285–313

Thøgersen J (2005) How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles? J Consum Policy 28(2):143–177

Thøgersen J (2014) Unsustainable consumption. Eur Psychol 19(2):84–95

Thøgersen J, Ölander F (2002) Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: a panel study. J Econ Psychol 23(5):605–630

Titus PA, Bradford JL (1999) Reflections on consumer sophistication and its impact on ethical business practice. J Consum Aff 30(1):170–194

UNCED (1992) Agenda 21 and the UNCED proceedings. Oceana Publications, New York

Urien B, Kilbourne W (2011) Generativity and self-enhancement values in eco-friendly behavioral intentions and environmentally responsible consumption behavior. Psychol Mark 28(1):69–90

Uusitalo O, Oksanen R (2004) Ethical consumerism: a view from Finland. Int J Consum Stud 28(3):214–221

Valor C, Carrero I (2014) Viewing responsible consumption as a personal project. Psychol Mark 31(12):1110–1121

Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE (2000) A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods 3(1):4–70

Webb DJ, Mohr LA, Harris KE (2008) A re-examination of socially responsible consumption and its measurement. J Bus Res 61(2):91–98

Weigold A, Weigold IK, Russell EJ (2013) Examination of the equivalence of self-report survey-based paper-and-pencil and internet data collection methods. Psychol Methods 18(1):53–70

Wells VK, Ponting CA, Peattie K (2011) Behaviour and climate change: consumer perceptions of responsibility. J Mark Manag 27(7–8):808–833

West SG, Finch JF, Curran PJ (1995) Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: problems and remedies. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 56–75

Wooliscroft B, Ganglmair-Wooliscroft A, Noone A (2014) The hierarchy of ethical consumption behavior: the case of New Zealand. J Macromark 34(1):57–72

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Zavestoski S (2002) The social-psychological bases of anticonsumption attitudes. Psychol Market 19(2):149–165

Zhao X, Lynch JG, Chen Q (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. J Consum Res 37(2):197–206

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and their insightful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

SVI-Endowed Chair of Marketing, esp. E-Commerce and Cross-Media Management, HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Jahnallee 59, 04109, Leipzig, Germany

Anja Buerke

Work and Organizational Psychology, and Cross-Cultural Business Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Osnabrueck, Seminarstraße 20, 49074, Osnabrueck, Germany

Tammo Straatmann & Karsten Müller

Chair of Business and Ethics, University of Vechta, Driverstraße 22, 49377, Vechta, Germany

Nick Lin-Hi

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anja Buerke .

Additional information

A. Buerke and T. Straatmann have contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors.

Appendix: Scales

Dimension	Items
-
Environmental	I deliberately try to avoid products that cause environmental damage
	I mostly buy environment-friendly products (e.g. with an organic label)
	When I have the choice between two similar products, I always take ecological aspects into consideration
Social	I try to buy fairly traded products (e.g. with a fair-trade label)
	I strictly avoid purchasing from companies that are known for bad working conditions for their employees
	I deliberately try to buy products from companies that are considered to be socially responsible
Economic	I prefer to buy products from companies for which sustainability is more important than short-term profit
	If a company treats its customers unfairly, I will prefer to buy from others
	When making a purchase, I consider whether the company treats other market participants (e.g. competitors, suppliers) fairly
-
Physical	When I am shopping, I do my best to avoid products that are harmful to my health
	I am willing to pay a price premium for healthier products
	I always take care of my health when buying a product
Socio-psychological	I try to make purchases in a way in which I do not afterwards resent the time I invested in doing so
	I try my best to make purchases in a way that does not strain my personal relationships
	I always take care that my personal well-being does not depend on what I buy and own
Financial	When I am shopping, I always pay attention to my financial limits
	I try to check contracts carefully for hidden risks
	I compare different products and providers to find the best offer for me
-
Environmental	I think it is more important to save environmental resources than to be able to consume a lot
	It is important to me to learn something about the ecological advantages and disadvantages of a product
	In my opinion, it is reasonable that consumers have to pay higher prices for products that cause environmental damage
Social	In my opinion, acting socially responsibly should be the foundation for all managerial decisions
	From my point of view, companies have a special social responsibility beyond making profits
	Sustainability is, in my opinion, more important for society than economic growth
Economic	Personally, I think it is very important that companies act in an ethically correct manner
	It really bothers me if I find out that a company treats its employees unfairly
	I think that firms have a responsibility to treat their customers always in a fair way

Advertising	Consumers should invest a lot of time in order to gather product information independently from advertising’s influence
	Consumers should become more aware that a product’s benefits might be exaggerated in advertising
	Consumers should always make an effort to distinguish between reality and promises made in advertisements
Price	Every consumer should be careful not to be misled to buy something too quickly by the feeling of getting a good bargain
	Consumers should check very carefully if the price–performance ratio of bargain offers is really good
	Consumers should give greater consideration to the potential disadvantages of a bargain offer
Promotion/sales	It is especially important for consumers to become more aware of being often influenced by sales techniques
	Consumers must better keep in mind that marketing activities are aimed at selling as many products as possible
	Consumers should pay a lot more attention to what sales tricks are used, for example, in supermarkets
	Consumers have to make themselves more aware of how their buying behavior is influenced by others
-
Environmental	What every single consumer buys largely determines the extent of a nation’s environmental problems
	The efforts of every single consumer contribute significantly to reducing environmental pollution
	When making a purchase, every consumer is always participating in the decision on whether the environment is preserved for the future
Social	Every consumer supporting socially responsible companies fundamentally contributes to the social conditions of society
	Every single consumer can significantly influence society by purchasing products from socially responsible companies
	Every consumer buying fairly traded products (e.g. with a fair-trade label), is substantially contributing to a more social society
Economic	The purchase behavior of every single consumer has a great effect on the working conditions for a company’s employees
	Whether companies always treat their employees fairly strongly depends on the purchase decisions that every single consumer makes daily
	The buying behavior of every single consumer determines whether companies treat other market participants (e.g. competitors, suppliers) fairly
-
Physical	The own buying behavior has a central influence on personal health
	Every consumer can make an important contribution to physical well-being with his or her own buying behavior
	For one’s own health, it is especially important to think about the purchase of products
Socio-psychological	The individual buying behavior plays an important role in the development and fostering of friendships and social networks
	The own buying behavior strongly influences personal relationships
	With one’s buying behavior, one can fundamentally influence one’s own happiness in life
Financial	The buying behavior of consumers is crucial for the individual financial situation
	By regulating their buying behavior, consumers can effectively avoid their own financial problems
	The individual buying behavior strongly influences whether one can get by with one’s income

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Buerke, A., Straatmann, T., Lin-Hi, N. et al. Consumer awareness and sustainability-focused value orientation as motivating factors of responsible consumer behavior. Rev Manag Sci 11 , 959–991 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0211-2

Download citation

Received : 29 February 2016

Accepted : 29 August 2016

Published : 13 September 2016

Issue Date : October 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0211-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Consumer awareness
Multiple mediation model
Responsible consumer behavior
Sustainability
Sustainability-focused value orientation

JEL Classification

M31 Marketing
Q01 Sustainable development
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Int J Environ Res Public Health

Health and Non-Health Determinants of Consumer Behavior toward Private Label Products—A Systematic Literature Review

Associated data.

Data are available at the Department of Food Market and Consumption research in the Institute of Human Nutrition Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, in Poland.

This study aimed to analyze the international literature on consumer behavior toward private label (PL) products, guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) method. We searched for peer-reviewed studies published until January 2021 in the Scopus and Web of Science databases using two main search terms, namely, “consumer behavior” and “private label,” which have several synonymous terms, such as “store brand,” “private brand,” and “own label.” A total of 44 eligible studies were selected for the analysis. We formulated research questions regarding the most studied categories of PL products, the non-health factors determining consumer behavior toward PL products, and the frequency of including health aspects in the choice of PL products. The following were analyzed in the studies included in the systematic literature review (SLR): general data and study design (authorship, year of publication, location, characteristics of the sample, and research category), research specifications (factors/variables, hypotheses, and measured parameters), and general findings (findings and practical recommendations). We found that most of the studies had analyzed dairy products as PL products, and the main non-health selection factors used were lower price and price–quality ratios. Health aspects were considered in only four of the analyzed studies, which focused on the evolution of PL products from low-cost products to sustainable brands with significant added value in terms of quality and health aspects.

1. Introduction

1.1. health aspects in consumer behavior.

Consumer behavior is increasingly being influenced by health aspects [ 1 , 2 ]. Consumers are becoming more aware of the need to eat healthy foods to maintain good health [ 2 ]. As a result, the quality of products is now considered to be as important as their price. Some consumers are willing to pay a higher price for products that guarantee high quality [ 3 ]. This can be linked with a greater understanding of health and the impact of food on health [ 4 ].

Currently, researchers show increasing interest in studying consumer decision-making styles in order to understand how people make purchasing decisions in a competitive environment [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Consumer behavior is influenced by several factors in the cultural, social, personal, and psychological realms, which together determine the basic attitudes and views of consumers, and which are also an important element of marketing [ 16 ]. According to Kotler and Keller [ 17 ], consumer buying behavior can be defined as the behavior related to how individuals, groups, and organizations acquire and dispose of goods, services, ideas, or experiences to meet their needs and desires. From the viewpoint of marketers, consumer behavior can be understood by analyzing the reasons why consumers buy, the factors influencing consumer buying patterns, the changing determinants within the society, and others [ 18 ]. The purchase of PL products is a personal choice, and the growing popularity of such products has gained the attention of retail researchers [ 19 , 20 ]. In particular, the development of premium and value PLs has affected consumption behavior, the final demands of consumers, and the shares held by other brands (national or local) [ 21 , 22 ].

Today, an increasing number of consumers are making informed purchasing decisions, including with regard to the brands offered by retailers. Consumers choose food by considering factors such as quality and nutritional value [ 23 ]. It has been proven that the health information provided on the label raises consumer awareness, and that health claims also influence consumer preferences and increase the likelihood of purchasing the product [ 24 ]. Because information is effective if it succeeds in meeting the specific needs of the target audience, understanding consumers’ information-seeking and -processing behavior is crucial for making better marketing decisions [ 25 ].

1.2. Evolution of PL Products and Consumer Perceptions

PL products are goods sold under the brand name of a retailer (i.e., supermarket, hypermarket, discount store) [ 26 ], or a name used exclusively as a brand of the retailer [ 27 ]. Several terms for PLs can be found in the literature and have been used in market reports on retailer brands. The main terms used for PLs are “private labels” [ 28 ], “private brands” [ 29 ], “private label brands” [ 30 ], “store brands” [ 31 ], “own brands” [ 32 ], and “own labels” [ 33 ].

Initially, consumers’ brand consciousness and preference for national brands (NBs) were perceived to be barriers to purchasing PL products, as they were considered to be of low quality [ 34 ]. Over the years, PL products have evolved as a result of product development in retail chains and changes in consumer preferences [ 35 ]. Four generations of PL products have been distinguished [ 36 , 37 ]. The first generation included undifferentiated core products, defined as generic, no-name, brand-free, or unbranded. They were sold under generic names and offered at a very low, competitive price. The second generation of PL products were defined as products of own brands or “quasi-brands,” and sold under the name of the retail chain. They stood out for their packaging and slightly higher quality, although it was comparatively lower than the market leader. The third-generation PLs, also known as own brands, were characterized by their names, which were analogous to existing manufacturer brand products. Their price and quality are comparable to those of leading producer brands. The fourth-generation PLs, called extended own brands, include innovative and differentiated products. Their price and quality were the same or higher than those of the products of leading manufacturer brands [ 36 ].

Distributors rank their PL products, most often, as economy, premium, or standard, based on their quality and price [ 38 ]. Standard PL products are generally considered to be medium-quality or medium-price alternatives of NB products [ 39 ]. In contrast, premium PL products are top-quality-tier products. Compared with NB products, these products are rated higher for their quality. Finally, economy PL products are of a basic acceptable quality at the best price and are lower in quality than the products of NBs [ 20 ].

It has been shown that consumers no longer perceive PLs as inferior in quality to NBs [ 40 ], and they are considered to have comparable quality [ 41 ]. In 2005, more than 70% of consumers in the US and Europe rated the quality of PL products as at least as good as the products of large brands [ 34 ]. In a survey conducted in 2015 in Poland, consumers indicated that the strength of PLs is their good quality–price ratio (64% of responses), next to lower price (83%) [ 42 ]. These findings were supported by our studies conducted in 2020 and 2021 in three European countries: Poland, the UK [ 43 ], and Spain (Tenerife) [ 44 ]. In our studies, respondents from countries with varying levels of development of PL products agreed that the quality of these products is high as well as comparable to manufacturer brands. Customers had a sense of trust and security when they shopped for PL products, and also valued these products for the wide collection and availability of retailers’ products. They also stated that PL products had the appropriate price–quality [ 43 , 44 ].

Studies indicate that the quality of PL products can be compared with the products of NBs, and thus these products can be treated as equal and highly competitive. However, the retailers must offer products with high quality at an attractive price in order to encourage consumers to buy [ 45 ]. Currently, most large retailers have labels that are becoming increasingly popular and trusted by customers [ 46 ]. Consequently, consumers show more positive attitudes toward PL products due to the increase in their quality as well as brand reputation, which is in line with the perception of consumers who feel good about purchasing PL products [ 47 ].

1.3. Aim of the Study

Our study aimed to analyze the international literature on consumer behavior toward PL products, guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) method. This study is the continuation of our previous research, which focused on the evolution of PL products into sustainable PL products in national markets with large PL market shares [ 43 ] and in an autonomous community, using Tenerife as an example [ 44 ].

We attempted to find answers to the following questions:

What PL product categories have been studied in terms of consumer behavior?
What are the non-health factors considered by consumers when choosing PL products?
How often are health factors considered by consumers when purchasing PL products?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. study design.

We performed a literature search based on the PRISMA guidelines [ 48 , 49 ], which are widely applied in many academic studies [ 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ]. Our search focused on studies published until 15 January 2021 in the Scopus and Web of Science databases.

2.2. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Our systematic literature review (SLR) analyzed the international literature on consumer behavior toward PL products, including studies on the determinants of consumers’ choice of PL products, such as price, perceived nutritional values, economic factors, intentions, attitudes toward PL products, and packaging.

The studies that met the following criteria were included in the analysis: those based on empirical research and those describing consumer behavior toward PL products. Peer-reviewed papers were also included. No time limits were applied in the search of articles. We excluded publications written in a language other than English, papers presenting theoretical models, doctoral dissertations, editorials, book chapters, short reports, and conference publications, as well as articles for which full texts were not available.

2.3. Search Strategy

Studies were retrieved through a systematic search of peer-reviewed journals from two databases: Scopus and Web of Science. The search was conducted between 4 and 20 February 2021 and included articles that were published between 2000 and 15 January 2021.

To identify studies focusing on consumer behavior toward PL products, particularly food products, we used a combination of key terms in the search. The first term used was “private label products,” in various combinations and forms, and the second was “consumer behavior or preferences.” We used a search string in which separate groups of words were combined and then applied to both databases ( Table 1 ).

Databases and terms used in the study and the number of results obtained.

Database	Search String
Scopus	TITLE-ABS-KEY (“private labels” OR “private label” OR “private label brands” OR “private brand” OR “own label brand” OR “own brand” OR “store brand”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“consumer behaviour” OR “consumer behavior” OR “consumer preferences”)
Web of Science	TOPIC (“private labels” OR “private label” OR “private label brands” OR “private brand” OR “own label brand” OR “own brand” OR “store brand”) AND TOPIC (“consumer behaviour” OR “consumer behavior” OR “consumer preferences”)

A total of 150 and 100 studies were identified, respectively, in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. After eliminating duplicates, there were 197 studies. Following the review of titles and abstracts, 160 studies remained. The number of articles was then reduced to 99, and their eligibility was analyzed in depth by assessing the full text. Studies that were not written in English, those that did not focus on PLs, own brands, or store brands, or studies that did not relate to consumer behavior were excluded.

Finally, 44 articles were selected for the analysis. Figure 1 presents a flow diagram describing the identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of articles.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-19-01768-g001.jpg

Identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of articles in the systematic review (PRISMA). Source: [ 48 , 49 ].

All 44 studies included in the SLR were analyzed in three parts. The first part of the analysis focused on general information, including authorship, year of publication, research method used, country, sample population, product category, and the objective of the research ( Table 2 ). The second part of the analysis focused on research specifications, which included the evaluation of factor/variables, hypotheses, and the types of data analysis used ( Table 3 ). The third part of the analysis focused on key findings and practical implications of the studies ( Table 4 ). In the Appendix A , in Table A1 , we included the study objectives and research measures.

General details and design of the studies included in the systematic survey.

Author, Year	Research Method	Country	Sample Population	Product Category
Temmerman et al. (2021) [ ]	Online experiment, survey	Belgium	796 respondents (students and employers of university) Study 1: pretest = 52 and main study: = 303 Study 2: = 441	Study 1: 3 ready-to-eat meals Study 2: 20 products, including beverages, cookies, dairy products, meat and cereal products, fish, preserves
Kadekova et al. (2020) [ ]	Study 1: survey with questionnaires Study 2: blind test 2 traditional + 3 PL yogurts	Slovakia	Adults ≤25 years Study 1: = 549 respondents Study 2: = 20 respondents	Dairy products: yogurts
Czeczotko et al. (2020) [ ]	Survey with questionnaires distributed in a consumer panel, computer-assisted web interview (CAWI) method	Poland, UK	Adults ≥18 years declared to purchase PL food products = 1000: 500 in Poland and 500 in the UK	Food products: dairy, grain products, sweets, biscuits, bakery products, meat products, fruit and vegetable products, frozen food, beverages, water, alcohol
Anitha and Krishnan (2020) [ ]	Questionnaire survey, quota sampling method	India	Adults ≥18 years = 200 respondents	n.a.
Košičiarová et al. (2020) [ ]	Questionnaire survey, CAWI method, blind test: 2 traditional yogurts and 2 PL yogurts	Slovakia	Adults ≥18 years Survey: = 693 respondents Blind test: = 100	Dairy products: yogurts
Singh and Singhal (2020) [ ]	Survey	India	Adults ≥18 years from 325 households who visited Big Bazaar Store	Sauces, preserves, ketchup, atta, mustard oil
Košičiarová et al. (2020) [ ]	Questionnaire survey, blind test	Slovakia	Survey: = 1116, ≥18 years Blind test: = 20, ≤25 years	Dairy products: yogurts
Prediger et al. (2019) [ ]	Half-factorial laboratory experiment, online survey	Spain	Adults ≥18 years = 406 respondents	Fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, olives, cereals, bread, chips, sausages, beverages, gels, perfumes, detergents
Gómez-Suárez et al. (2019) [ ]	Online survey based on Schwartz’s value conceptual framework model	USA, France, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain	Adults ≥18 years, = 1272 shoppers buying FMCGs	n.a.
Salazar-Ordóñez et al. (2018) [ ]	Online survey (household panel)	Spain	Buyers aged ≥19 years = 1029 consumers	Olive oil
Liu et al. (2018) [ ]	Study 1: simulated shopping, Study 2: questionnaires, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule scale, Study 3: behavioral lab	USA	Students: 570 respondents Study 1: = 88; Study 2: = 228; Study 3: = 254	Fruit juice, canned vegetables, peanut butter, canned fruit, pasta, salad dressing, cereal products
Valaskova et al. (2018) [ ]	Online survey	Slovakia	Adults ≥18 years = 347 respondents purchasing PL products in one of the retail chains’ markets	Dairy products, baby food, durable goods, beverages, frozen food, cosmetics, sweets, detergents, animal food
Vázquez- Casielles and Cachero-Martinez (2018) [ ]	Panel data with information about customers, data set: 187 weeks	Spain	Adults ≥18 years = 254 regular customers	Fruit products: jam, 3 PL tiers (standard, economy, and premium) and NBs with share >5%
Garczarek-Bąk (2018) [ ]	Eye tracking, electroencephalography, survey, CAWI method	Poland	= 16 healthy right-handed respondents (8 female, 8 male) 21–30 years	10 (product categories) × 6 (brands) × 2 (variants): 7 categories of food and 3 categories of body care products and 6 products from different retailers
Meliana (2018) [ ]	Questionnaire survey	Indonesia	260 shoppers in Indomaret and Alfamart	Groceries and household PL product category
Modica et al. (2018) [ ]	Tactile exploration, visual exploration, visual and tactile exploration	Italy	Experiment 1: = 19 Experiment 2: = 13	2 daily food items (1 major brand and 1 PL) and 2 comfort food items (1 foreign product and 1 local product) 4 different comfort foods (e.g., chocolate bars) and 4 different daily foods (e.g., rice): 2 local and 2 foreign products of NBs and PLs
Schouteten et al. (2017) [ ]	Sensory analysis, 3 sessions, online questionnaires	Belgium	Adults ≥18 years, = 99 volunteers for sensory and consumer research (45 males and 54 females)	5 strawberry-flavored yogurts
Jara et al. (2017) [ ]	Questionnaire survey	France	Adults ≥18 years Total = 568 respondents: group A: = 142, group B: = 179, group C: = 95, group D: =152	Plain yogurts or a face cream
Gomez-Suarez et al. (2016) [ ]	Online survey	Spain, Germany, France, UK, Italy, USA	Adults ≥18 years 1118 consumers of FMCGs from 6 countries (each = 200)	Cosmetics: shampoo
Marques dos Santos et al. (2016) [ ]	Save Holdings or Purchase task with functional magnetic resonance imaging, 64 blocks	Portugal	Adults ≥18 years = 22 respondents buying NB and PL products (6 males and 16 females)	n.a.
Thanasuta (2015) [ ]	Questionnaire survey	Thailand	Adults ≥18 years = 240 shoppers of 5 hypermarkets and supermarkets in Bangkok	Cooking oil, tissue paper, body lotion, instant noodles
Schnittka (2015) [ ]	Questionnaire survey	Germany	Adults ≥18 years = 238 German consumers who were aware about PL products	Mineral water, detergents, juice, shower gel
Monnot et al. (2015) [ ]	Experiment: 2 (overpackaging: present vs. absent) × 2 (brand concept: generic vs. mimic PL), face-to-face survey	France	Adults ≥18 years = 217 consumers	Dairy products: yogurts
Diallo et al. (2015) [ ]	Questionnaires from two retail chains during the shopping	Brazil	Adults ≥18 years = 600 shoppers from 2 retail chains (Carrefour, Extra)	Cosmetics: shampoo
Zielke and Komor (2015) [ ]	Online questionnaire	Germany, Poland	Adults ≥18 years = 500 students (250 from Germany and 250 from Poland)	Groceries, consumer electronics, cosmetics, clothes
Fall-Diallo et al. (2015) [ ]	Marketing scan behavior panels, purchase records, lasting 286 weeks: initial period (weeks 1–130), expansion period (weeks 131–208), and crisis period (weeks 209–286)	France	Carrefour customers who made at least two purchases in the analyzed period, butter data of 94 households: 869 purchases (expansion) and 888 purchases (crisis) yogurt data of 169 households: 2604 purchases (expansion) and 3368 purchases (crisis)	Dairy products: butter and yogurt
Delgado-Ballester et al. (2014) [ ]	Mall intercept questionnaire survey	Colombia	Adults ≥18 years = 600 shoppers who bought PL products during last 2 months (Carrefour and Éxito supermarkets)	Sugar, shampoo, facial cream, fabric conditioner, antibacterial gel, sunflower oil
Bauer et al. (2013) [ ]	Study 1: in-depth interviews: main purchasing motives for organic food, Study 2: experiment: impact of organic label (OL) on consumer perception, Questionnaire: purchase intentions of buying organic PL products, Study 3: impact of OL on variables of behavioral intention analysis of OLs.	Germany	Adults ≥18 years Study 1: = 12 German consumers using the laddering technique, Study 2 and 3: = 630	Cereals
Fall Diallo et al. (2013) [ ]	Self-administered questionnaires	France	Adults ≥20 years = 266 respondents responsible for purchasing	n.a.
Herstein et al. (2012) [ ]	Survey: questionnaire online	Greece, Israel, Portugal, Turkey	= 683 undergraduate college students who purchase PL products	Chocolate, cooking oil, biscuits, rice, frozen meat, detergent, shampoo, toothpaste, liquid soap, and dishwasher liquid
Wyma et al. (2012) [ ]	Survey: a structured questionnaire	South Africa	Adults ≥18 years = 620, 4 supermarkets in an urban area	25 products, including dairy and cereal products, canned vegetables, frozen vegetables, beverages, sweets, oil, toiletries
Tifferet and Herstein (2010) [ ]	Paper questionnaires	Israel	Adults ≥18 years = 400 PL customers: students from 8 universities and colleges	Chocolate, laundry powder, oil, toothpaste, hummus, shampoo, frozen meat, liquid soap, rice, barrage bags
Glynn and Chen (2009) [ ]	Mall intercept survey in city supermarket, screening question about purchase of 1 of 10 product categories with a PL offering	New Zealand	Adults ≥18 years = 600 shoppers buying PL products	Canned fruit, toilet tissue, fresh milk, cheese, fruit juice, potato chips, biscuits, bread breakfast cereal, pet food
Anchor and Kourilová (2009) [ ]	Structured questionnaires	Czech, Republic, UK	Adults ≥18 years = 200 Tesco supermarket customers in the Czech Republic ( = 100) and the UK ( = 100)	n.a.
Kara et al. (2009) [ ]	Self-administered questionnaires hand-delivered to respondents	USA	Adults ≥18 years = 799 shoppers responsible for grocery shopping in the household	Grocery products
Albayrak and Aslan (2009) [ ]	Face-to-face questionnaires on consumer preferences regarding private and manufacturer brand products	Turkey	Adults ≥18 years = 217 consumers divided into 2 groups as those who buy PL products and those who buy NB products	Meat and dairy products, fruit and vegetables, sweets, oil products, wine
Cheng et al. (2007) [ ]	Questionnaire survey	Taiwan	Adults ≥16 years = 254 respondents	Various types of product categories
Mieres et al. (2006) [ ]	Personal interviews	Spain	Adults ≥18 years = 436 respondents buying kitchen rolls, = 422 respondents buying shampoo	Kitchen rolls and shampoo
Akbay and Jones (2005) [ ]	Supermarket scanner data, 65 weeks of observations	USA	100,000 consumers buying in 6 supermarkets: 3 stores chosen for primarily lower-income shoppers, and 3 stores that primarily serve consumers with higher income	Milk, breakfast cereals, ice cream, cooking oil, salty snacks, salad dressing, pasta, frozen vegetable, mayonnaise
Kurtulus et al. (2005) [ ]	Face-to-face interviews with consumers who shop at the four major retailers	Turkey	Adults ≥20 years = 514	n.a.
Semeijn et al. (2004) [ ]	Experiment, online questionnaire consisting of 110 statements	The Netherlands	Students ≥18 years = 128	Wine, toothpaste, potato chips, canned tomatoes
Veloutsou et al. (2004) [ ]	Self-administered questionnaires, in-depth interviews with 5 consumers in each country to better interpret the results	Greece, UK (Scotland)	Adults ≥25 years = 328 respondents: 104 from Greece and 224 from Scotland	Coffee, biscuits, toothpaste, liquid, shampoo
Miquel et al. (2002) [ ]	Questionnaires in the form of personal interviews, each of the interviewed was valuing 2 of the 6 product categories	Spain	Adults ≥18 years = 400 household shoppers	Milk, sliced white bread, oil, beer, bleach, toilet paper
Vaidyanathan and Aggarwal (2000) [ ]	Experiment in 2 versions: visual stimulus with added branded or no-branded raisins; questionnaire booklet	USA	Adults ≥18 years Total sample: = 175, = 67 students and shoppers	Breakfast cereal with raisins

Research specifications of the studies included in the systematic survey.

Author, Year	Factor/Variable	Hypotheses
Temmerman et al. (2021) [ ]	Study 1: Perceived quality (PQ) Perceived tastiness (PT) Perceived healthiness (PH) Purchase intentions (PI) Study 2: Perceived healthiness (PH) Purchase intentions (PI) Nutritional knowledge (NK) Perceptions of healthy food (PhF) Dieting behavior (DB) Familiarity with Nutri-Score (NS) (FNS)	n.a.
Kadekova et al. (2020) [ ]	Questionnaire: perception of PL product quality Blind test: sensory evaluation of yogurt, including color, aroma, consistency or density, taste and proportion of chocolate, the size of the packaging and its attractiveness	Gender (G) → buying PLs (–) G → quality rating of PLs (+) G → perception of PL product packaging (–) G → purchase of PLs (–) G → decisive factor to buying PLs (+) G → discouragement from buying PLs (–)
Czeczotko et al. (2020) [ ]	Period of purchase of PL products (PP) Factors for purchasing PL products (FP) Opinions on the current development of PL products (OCD) Frequency of PL product purchasing (FPC) Share of PL products to total food purchases (SPL)	n.a.
Anitha and Krishnan [ ]	Personal factor (PF) Impulse buying behavior (IBB) Store factor (SF) Urge to buy (UB)	PF → IBB (+); PF → UB (+) SF → IBB (–) SF → UB (+) UB → IBB (+)
Košičiarová et al. (2020) [ ]	Purchase and frequency of purchase Brand loyalty Brand preference (traditional or PL) Motives for purchase Sensory properties of yogurts	Age → kind of preferred brand of purchased yogurts (+) Gender → kind of preferred brand of yogurts (+) A statistically significant difference in the purchasing preferences based on packaging (–) A statistically significant difference in the evaluation of yogurt flavors (+)
Singh and Kumar Singhal (2020) [ ]	Perceived quality of PLs (PQ) Price consciousness (PC) Perceived value of PLs (PV) Store loyalty (SL) Quality consciousness (QC) Loyalty to PLs (PLL) Price sensitivity (PS) Willingness to pay for PLs (WP)	PQ → WP (+) PS → WP (–) PQ → PLL (+) PV → PLL (+) PV → the store’s overall image, in terms of brand and value (+) PLL → SL (+) PQ → SL (+)
Košičiarová et al. (2020) [ ]	Questionnaire: Frequency of PL purchase (FPL) Purchases of PLs (P) Perception of quality (PQ) Consumer perception and consciousness about Product categories (CPC) Evaluation of packaging attractiveness (EPA) Factors of PL purchase (FP) Blind test: 7 chocolate-flavored yogurt samples; traditional brands vs. PL; investigated identical products	Gender (G) → PQ (+) G → P (+) Economic activity of respondents I → P (–) G → perception of PL product packaging (–) G → perception of facts that influence respondents to buy PLs (–) Age (A) → perception of facts that influence to buy PLs (–) G → decisive factor when buying PLs (+) R → decisive factor when buying PLs (–) G → facts that discourage from buying PLs (+) A → facts that discourage from buying PLs (+)
Prediger et al. (2019) [ ]	Creating fictitious flyers and supermarket, featuring real NBs and fictitious PLs Different flyer designs (scenarios): (1) Store flyer page length; (2) Brand (NB or PL) on the cover page; and (3) An institutional slogan on the cover page as an incentive advertising Consumers received the flyers and answered an online survey Intentions to buy PL products	Four models:
Gómez-Suárez et al. (2019) [ ]	Category: (1) Self-enhancement: self-transcendence, openness; conservation (2) Smart shopper self-concept (SSSC): smart-shopper behaviors, smart-shopper feelings, brand attitude (NB/PL)	Value structure (+) → attitude toward NBs (–) Value structure (+) → attitude toward PLs (–) SSSC (+) → attitude toward NBs (+) SSSC (+) → attitude toward PLs (+) Effect of SSSC on attitude → more positive for NBs than for PLs (+)
Salazar- Ordóñez et al. (2018) [ ]	Attitude toward extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO) (AE) Attitude toward refined olive oil (AR) Perceived value of PLs (PV)	PV → AE (–) PV → AR (+)
Liu et al. (2018) [ ]	Study 1: BESC (brand engagement in the self-concept); PL attitude; value consciousness; price consciousness Study 2: manipulated test in laboratory Study 3: manipulating brand engagement	Consumers with higher BESC prefer NBs over PLs (+) Consumers with lower BESC show increased preference for NBs relative to PLs (–) Consumers with higher BESC show reduced preference for NBs relative to PLs (+)
Valaskova et al. (2018) [ ]	Consumer’s attitude (CA) and preferences in the choice of 10 categories of PL products	CA and individual demographic determinants (–) CA and factors leading to the purchase of PL products (–) CA and a particular type of the purchased product (–)
Vázquez- Casielles and Cachero- Martinez (2018) [ ]	Information about products’ category (jam) and purchase situation: purchased brand, sale format of the purchased brand, purchased quantity, sale price, the product was on promotion, assortment size, and date of the last purchase	Economy PLs (EPL) → a negative brand-type similarity effect → decreases the choice of standard PLs (SPL) (–) EPLs → positive attraction effect → increases the choice probability of SPLs (+) EPLs → positive compromise effect → increases the choice probability of second-tier NB and SPLs (–) Premium PLs (PPL) → negative brand-type similarity effect → decreases the choice probability of EPLs and SPLs (+) PPLs → negative quality-tier similarity effect → decreases the choice probability of premium-quality NBs and second-tier NBs (+) PPLs → positive attraction effect → increases the choice probability of premium-quality NBs (+)
Garczarek-Bąk (2018) [ ]	Perceived product esthetic (PPE) Perceived likelihood of buying the product (PI) Quality assessment (QA) Variants without showing the price and with normal price to control for the meaning of this factor	Women possess a relatively greater esthetic sensitivity to the appearance of PL products than men (–) The price knowledge will not affect the purchase decision of PL products within retailers (+) Young customers’ behavior in the process of buying PL products of distributive networks can be highly affected not by declared, but by latent factors (+)
Meliana (2018) [ ]	Factors: logo, color, policy, cost, large stock, promo variations, complete products, and others	PL products have a significant effect on customers’ shopping preference PLs have a significant effect on store image
Modica et al. (2018) [ ]	Comfort food vs. daily food Major brand vs. PLs Foreign vs. local Tactile, visual, and visual and tactile exploration	Major brand products present more attractive packaging than other products, and therefore elicit a higher approach tendency than the PL items (–)
Schouteten et al. (2017) [ ]	Yogurt brands: two premium brands and three PLs Experiment: central location tests ( = 53) and home-use tests ( = 46) 3 test sessions (blind, expected, and informed)	-
Jara et al. (2017) [ ]	Attitude (A) Perceived quality (PQ) Perceived price (PP) Packaging (P) Intent to buy (IB) Economic store brand (ESB) Organic store brand (OSB) Purchase intentions (PI)	PQ of PL products varies according to the type of P (+) Reinforced P → PQ of EPLs (+) Simplified P → PQ of EPLs (–) Simplified P → PQ of OPLs (+) Reinforced P → PQ of OPLs (+) Influence of PQ on the customers’ IB varies based on P (+) PQ of EPLs → PI due to a reinforced P (+) PQ of EPLs → PI due to a simplified P (–) PQ of OPLs → PI due to P (+) HPQ of OPLs → PI due to P (–) The more the type of P corresponds to a PL products’ positioning, the more it strengthens the customers’ IB (+) EPLs can increase customers’ IB via reinforced P (+) OPLs can increase customers’ IB via simplified packaging (+)
Gomez-Suarez et al. (2016) [ ]	Two shampoo brands (NB and PL); different prices Preference (P) Attitude (A) Purchase intention (PI) Consumer preferences (CP) Quality inferences (QI) Smart shopper self-perception (SSSP) Consciousness (C)	A of PL products → preference for PL products (–) CP for PL products → PL products (–) C → A of PL products (+) SSSP → A of PLs (+) Familiarity with the NBs negatively(-) affects A of PLs (+) Perceived risk has a (−) impact on CP for PLs (+) C propensity for exploration has a (–) effect on PL product P (+) Impulsiveness has a (+) impact on PL product PI (+) QI made from price have a (–) impact on PL product A (+) QI made from brand image have a (–) impact on PL product A (–) QI made from brand reputation have a (–) impact on PL product A (–) QI made from product efficiency have (+) impact on PL product A (+)
Marques dos Santos et al. (2016) [ ]	Analysis: product, price, decision, and interval 7 categories of food products (4 retailers × 7 categories = 28 different products × 2 brands (NB or PL)) Price manipulation applied	-
Thanasuta (2015) [ ]	PL purchase Price consciousness (PC) Quality consciousness (QC) Brand consciousness (BC) Value consciousness (VC) Risk perception (RP)	PC → PL purchase (+) QC → PL purchase (−) BC → PL purchase (−) VC → PL purchase (+) RP → PL purchase (−) Product differentiation, risk level → PL purchase (+)
Schnittka (2015) [ ]	1. Perceived brand (in low and high category) 2. Price preference 2 × 3 × 3: (a) Economy PLs (EPLs): low-priced store, high-priced store, and overall, for each category: manufacturer, retailer, overall (EPL) (b) Premium PLs (PPLs): low-priced store, high-priced store, and overall, for each category: manufacturer, retailer, overall (PPL) Consumer preferences (CP)	In low-priced grocery stores, EPLs evoke more favorable CP than PPLs (+) In high-priced stores, EPLs evoke less favorable CP than PPLs (+) In product categories of low brand relevance, EPLs evoke more favorable CP than PPLs (+) In product categories of high brand relevance, EPLs evoke less favorable CP than PPLs (+) If consumers believe that the PLs are produced by a well-known manufacturer, EPLs evoke more favorable CP than PPLs (–) If consumers believe that the PLs are produced by the corresponding retailer itself, EPL products evoke less favorable CP than PPLs (–)
Monnot et al. (2015) [ ]	1. Price sensitivity (PS) Perceived quality (PQ) Environmental consciousness (EC) Perceived expensiveness (PE) Product involvement (PI) Perceived environmental friendliness (PEF) Perceived convenience (PC) 2. Mean with overpackaging (OP) and without overpackaging for mimic or generic PL products (yogurt)	Eliminating OP reduces PQ (–), reduces PE (+), increases PEF (+), and reduces the PC of the product (+) The influence of eliminating OP on the product’s PQ (+), PE (–), PEF (+), and PC depends on the PL concept: it should be stronger for a mimic PL product than for a generic PL product (+) The influence of eliminating OP on purchase intention is mediated by the product’s PQ (+), PE (–), PEF (–), and PC (+)
Diallo et al. (2015) [ ]	Store image perceptions (SIP) PL price image (SPI) PL perceived value (PV) PL attitude (A) PL purchase intention (PI) PL choice	SIP → PL purchase (+) SIP → PI (+) PI → PL choice (+) PL product SPI → PI (+) PL product PV → PL choice (–) PL product PV → A (+) A → PL choice PI → PL choice
Zielke and Komor (2015) [ ]	1. Price consciousness: value consciousness, price–quality schema, prestige sensitivity, preference toward Ps and discounter preference Hypermarket preference 2. Preference toward PLs: discounter preference and hypermarket preference	The negative role (price and value consciousness) increases preferences for PLs, discounters, and hypermarkets (+) The positive role (price–quality schema, prestige sensitivity) decreases preferences for PL products and discounters but increases preferences for hypermarkets in low-price categories (+)
Fall-Diallo et al. (2015) [ ]	Butter (3 types of PLs: standard (S), organic (O), local (L)) Yogurt (3 types of PLs: S, O, L)	-
Delgado- Ballester et al. (2014) [ ]	Store image (SI) Functional risk (FR) Financial risk (FiR) Social risk (SR) Psychological risk (PR) Price unfairness (PU) Value consciousness (VC) Consumer perceptions (CP)	+ SI reduces CP of the FR and FiR of PLs to a greater (lesser) degree with diminishing (rising) levels of VC (+) + SI reduces CP of the SR of PLs to a greater (lesser) degree with rising (diminishing) levels of consumer VC (–) + SI increases CP of the PR of PLs to a greater (lesser) degree with diminishing (rising) levels of consumer VC (–) Perceptions of FR, FiR, SR, and PR associated with PLs diminish the perception of the price unfairness of an alternative manufacturer’s brand (+)
Bauer et al. (2013) [ ]	Study 1: main purchasing motives Study 2: (a) Experiment: 6 groups of PL products: local, global, or organic cereal products and nonorganic cereal products (b) Purchasing motives: Healthiness (PH) Hedonism (PHe) Environmental friendliness (EF) Food safety (FS) Study 3: the same 6 groups of products: Purchase intention (PI) Price premium (willingness to pay price premium) (WP)	Organic label (OL) of global (G)/local (L)/PLs causes a higher degree of PH than the respective G/L/PL brand without an OL (+) OL of G/L/PLs causes a higher degree of PHe than the respective G/L/PLs without OL (+) OL of G/L/PLs causes a higher degree of perceived EF than the respective G/L/PLs without OL (+) OL of G/L/PLs causes a higher degree of perceived FS than the respective G/L/PLs without an OL (+) OL of G/L/PL products leads to a higher PI than the respective G/L/PL products without an OL (+) OL of G/L/PLs leads to a higher WP a price premium than the respective G/L/PLs without an OL (+)
Fall Diallo et al. (2013) [ ]	Store image perceptions (SIP) PL price image (PI) Value consciousness (VC) Attitude toward PLs (A) PL purchase intention (PIn) PL choice	SIP → PIn (+) SIP → PI (+) PIn → PL choice (+) SIP → PI (+) PI → PIn (+) PL product PI → PL choice (+) PI → PIn → PL choice (+) VC → PIn (+) VC → PL choice (+) VC → A (+) PIn → PL choice (+) VC → A (+) A → PL choice (+) PIn → PL choice (+)
Herstein et al. (2012) [ ]	Choice of 2 types of brands (NB and PL), 5 food and 5 nonfood products Brand dimensions: brand name, packaging, country of origin Individualism (I): vertical (VI) and horizontal (HI) individualism Measure of materialism (M) Need for cognition (NC)	I is correlated with the inclination to purchase PLs M is correlated with the inclination to purchase PLs The need for cognition is correlated with the inclination to purchase PLs There will be cross-cultural differences in the inclination to purchase PLs Culture moderates the effect of personality on preference for PLs vs. NBs
Wyma et al. (2012) [ ]	Brand preference (25 products available in NB and PLs) Psychographic statements related to brands Demographic characteristics	-
Tifferet and Herstein (2010) [ ]	Willingness to purchase (NB or PL) for 10 types of products (5 food products and 5 nonfood products) Brand image, 3 factors: importance of packaging design, manufacturer’s brand name reputation, and country of origin Individualism and collectivism	Does individualism affect consumers’ preference for PLs vs. NBs? Do consumers with high levels of individualism show a lower inclination to purchase PLs? Does individualism affect consumers’ perceived importance of brand image dimensions? Do consumers with high levels of individualism attribute greater importance to brand image dimensions, such as packaging design, country of origin, and PL reputation? Are there cross-cultural differences within a specific country, namely, Israel?
Glynn and Chen (2009) [ ]	1. Factors: Purchase mistake (PM) Quality variability (QV) Search vs. experience (S vs. E) Price consciousness (PC) Price–quality perception (PQP) Brand loyalty (BL) PL purchase 2. Average scores by PL product category (factors as above): canned fruit, toilet tissue, fresh milk, cheese, fruit juice, potato chips, biscuits, bread breakfast cereal, pet food	Are consumers more likely to buy PLs where they perceive lower consequences of making a mistake in brand selection (–)/variability in quality between brands (–)? Is it possible to accurately assess product quality of important attributes and benefits based on written descriptions only (–)/are consumers more price-conscious (+)? Consumers are less likely to buy Ps if they have an elevated perception of quality relative to price (+) Brand loyalty reduces consumers’ propensity to buy PLs (+) Consumers’ propensity to buy PL products is determined by gender/age (–) Consumers are less likely to buy PLs if they have more household income/formal education qualifications (+) Large households are more likely to buy PLs (+) Purchase of PLs is moderated by differences in PL category share (–)
Anchor and Kourilová (2009) [ ]	Study 1: Importance of price Importance of quality Importance of confidence Study 2: perception of the Tesco PL category: , Purchase frequency (PF) Perceived quality (PQ) Perceived price (PP) Confidence (C)	In both countries, the Tesco brands have the same PF (–) In both countries, the PQ of the Tesco brands is of the same level (–) In both countries, the PP of the Tesco brands is of the same level (–) In both countries, the C in the Tesco brands is of the same level (–) In both countries, a significant relationship between gender and perception of measured characteristics exists (–) In both countries, a significant relationship between age and perception of measured characteristics exists (–) In both countries, a significant relationship between income and perception of measured characteristics exists (+) In both countries, a significant relationship between purchase frequency and perception of measured characteristics exists (0)
Kara et al. (2009) [ ]	Perceptions about manufacturers vs. PLs: budget conscious, value conscious, price conscious, discount conscious Consumer’s previous experience, sensory perception Content perception, PL purchase/use	Consumers’ consciousness (+) → PL perceptions (+) Consumers’ previous experience (+) → PL perceptions (+) Consumers’ consciousness (+) → consumers’ previous experience (+) BS perceptions (+) → PL purchase/use (+)
Albayrak and Aslan (2009) [ ]	Brand preferences: NB food product preference analysis of NB food consumers PL food product preference analysis of NB food consumers PL food product preference analysis of PL food product consumers NB food product preference analysis of PL food product consumers	-
Cheng et al. (2007) [ ]	2 categories of products for NB: international PL (IPL), and local PL (LPL) Perceived quality (PQ) Brand leadership (BL) Price perception (PP) Brand personality (BP)	The quality of NB products is perceived to be superior to that of IPL products, while the quality of IPL products is perceived to be superior to that of LPL products (+) Consumers perceive the price of NB products to be being significantly higher than IPL products, and the price of IPL products to be higher than LPL products (+) Consumers count on NBs for better brand leadership, on IPLs for worse brand leadership, and LPLs for nonbrand leadership (+) Consumers perceive the brand personality of NBs to be significantly superior to IPLs, and the brand personality of IPLs to be superior to local PLs (+) Product categories moderate the interaction of PQ (–)/PP (–)/BL (–)/BP (+) across NBs, IPLs, and LPLs
Mieres et al. (2006) [ ]	A. Difference in perceived risk between PLs and NBs Perceived quality of PLs/NBs (PQ) Reliance on the extrinsic attributes of a product (REA) Specific self-confidence (SSC) Familiarity with PLs (FPL) Experience with product category (EPC) B. Perceived risk (PR): Functional risk (FR) Financial risk (FiR) Social risk (SR) Physical risk (PR) Psychological risk (PsR) Time risk (TR)	PO → Difference in PR (–) REA → Difference in PR (+) REA → PQ (+) SSC → Difference in PR (–) SSC → REA (–) FPL → REA (–) FPL → PQ (+) EPC → Difference in PR (–) EPC → SSC (+) EPC → REA (–) EPC → FPL (+) EPC → PQ (+)
Akbay and Jones (2005) [ ]	A. Lower-income consumers 1. PB share/NB share 2. PB price/NB price B. Higher-income consumers 1. PB share/NB share 2. PB price/NB price C. Demand equations of 9 food categories for PLs and NBs in lower- and higher-income areas D. Demand elasticities for 9 food product categories for PLs and NBs in lower- and higher-income areas: Expenditure elasticity Price elasticity Promotion elasticity	-
Kurtulus et al. (2005) [ ]	Price consciousness (PC) Financial constraints (FC) Quality consciousness (QC) Store loyalty (SL) Shopping mavenism (SM) Time limitation (TL) Brand loyalty (BL) Tendency to purchase PBs (T)	T → PC (+) T → FC (–) T → QC (–) T → SL (+) T → SM (+) T → TL (–) T → BL (–)
Semeijn et al. (2004) [ ]	1. Store image (layout, merchandise, service) (SI) 2. Consumer attitude toward PLs (CA) (a) Perceived overall quality of PLs (PQ) (b) Likelihood of purchasing PLs (LP) 3. Risk factors: functional (FuR), psychosocial (PR) and financial (FR)	A positive relationship exists between perceived SI and CA (+) CA is inversely related to FuR associated with the perceived difficulty for the retailer to produce that product (+) The effect of SI on consumer attitude toward PLs is mediated by FuR associated with the perceived difficulty for the retailer to produce that product (+) CA is inversely related to the perceived PR associated with the usage of the product (+) The relationship between SI and CA is mediated by PR of usage (+) CA is inversely related to perceived FR associated with quality variance in the product category (+) The relationship between SI and CA is mediated by the perceived FR of usage (–)
Veloutsou et al. (2004) [ ]	1. Change of behavior toward PLs and supermarkets 2. Product attributes: (A) Brands (PLs and NBs) Perceived quality Value for money Appealing packaging Perceived taste (B) Brands (for PLs and NBs) Importance of price Quality Packaging Advertising Fulfillment of expectations (C) Country: factors same as in A point (D) Country: factors same as in B point 3. In-depth interviews with 5 consumers in each country	Consumers give similar emphasis to choice criteria when purchasing PL and NB products (–) Consumers evaluate PLs and NBs similarly (–) Greek (G) and Scottish (S) consumers have similar degree of familiarity with buying PLs (–) G and S consumers give similar emphasis (mental weighting) to choice criteria when purchasing PLs (–) G and S consumers evaluate the PLs (quality, value for money, appealing packaging, and taste) similarly (–) G and S consumers have similar readiness to purchase PLs (–) G and S consumers have similar readiness to change their behavior toward PLs (–) Habits toward the product category are influential on the willingness to buy PLs (+) PL choice criteria are influential on the willingness to buy PLs (+) Consumers’ demographic characteristics are influential on the willingness to buy PLs (+) Satisfaction with PLs from a certain supermarket will increase the consumers’ loyalty to that supermarket (+)
Miquel et al. (2002) [ ]	PL product purchase: (1) Knowledge of the category (2) Perception of differences (3) Willingness to buy PL products	Greater knowledge of the category leads to prefer NBs (+) The greater the belief that differences exist between the different alternatives, the less likely the possibility of the individual buying PLs (–)
Vaidyanathan and Aggarwal (2000) [ ]	Product attitude (PA) Quality perceptions (QP) Value perceptions (VP) Value consciousness (VC)	PA toward unfamiliar PL products with a familiar NB ingredient will be more favorable than that toward unfamiliar PL products with an unbranded ingredient (+) QP of unfamiliar PL products with a familiar NB ingredient will be more favorable than that of unfamiliar PL products with an unbranded ingredient (+) PA toward a familiar NB name (ingredient) will not be unfavorably affected by an association with an unfamiliar PL product (+) QP of a familiar NB name (ingredient) will not be unfavorably affected by an association with an unfamiliar PL product (+)

General findings and managerial implications for the studies included in the systematic survey.

Author, Year	Key Findings	Practical Implications
Temmeman et al. (2021) [ ]
Kadekova et al. (2020) [ ]
Czeczotko et al. (2020) [ ]
Anitha and Krishnan [ ]
Košičiarová et al. (2020) [ ]
Singh and Singhal (2020) [ ]
Košičiarová et al. (2020) [ ]
Prediger et al. (2019) [ ]
Gómez-Suárez et al. (2019) [ ]
Salazar-Ordóñez et al. (2018) [ ]
Liu et al. (2018) [ ]
Valaskova et al. (2018) [ ]
Vázquez-Casielles and Cachero-Martinez (2018) [ ]
Garczarek-Bąk (2018) [ ]
Meliana (2018) [ ]
Modica et al. (2018) [ ]
Schouteten et al. (2017) [ ]
Jara et al. (2017) [ ]
Gomez-Suarez et al. (2016) [ ]
Marques dos Santos et al. (2016) [ ]
Thanasuta (2015) [ ]
Schnittka (2015) [ ]
Monnot et al. (2015) [ ]
Diallo et al. (2015) [ ]
Zielke and Komor (2015) [ ]
Fall-Diallo et al. (2015) [ ]
Delgado-Ballester et al. (2014) [ ]
Bauer et al. (2013) [ ]
Fall Diallo et al. (2013) [ ]
Herstein et al. (2012) [ ]
Wyma et al. (2012) [ ]
Tifferet and Herstein (2010) [ ]
Glynn and Chen (2009) [ ]
Anchor and Kourilová (2009) [ ]
Kara et al. (2009) [ ]
Albayrak and Aslan (2009) [ ]
Cheng et al. (2007) [ ]
Mieres et al. (2006) [ ]
Akbay and Jones (2005) [ ]
Kurtulus et al. (2005) [ ]
Semeijn et al. (2004) [ ]
Veloutsou et al. (2004) [ ]
Miquel et al. (2002) [ ]
Vaidyanthan and Aggarwal (2000) [ ]

In all tables, studies are presented according to the year of their publication, starting with the most recent one (2021) and ending with the oldest (2000). To make the text analysis clearer in the tables, the retailer brand names are standardized by using the term “PL.” It also replaces other terms, such as store brand, private brand, private label brand, and own brand.

3.1. General Information

Table 2 presents general information pertaining to the studies included in the SLR.

The SLR included studies published between 2000 and 2021 as follows: seven studies from the period 2020–2021 [ 43 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ], nine studies from the period 2018–2019 [ 16 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ], 10 studies from the period 2015–2017 [ 38 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 ], six studies from the period 2010–2014 [ 29 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 ], and 12 studies from the period 2000–2009 [ 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 ]. The most frequently used research method was questionnaire survey (20 studies). The research sample consisted of between 200 [ 57 , 83 ] and 1272 respondents [ 61 ], but the average sample size was about 500. Other research methods used in the studies were experiments (six), in-depth interviews (six), blind sensory tests (four), scan panels (three), eye tracking (one), electroencephalography (two), and others (two). The studies included in the SLR had been conducted in cities located in Europe (31), America (eight), and Asia (six), as well as in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The product categories mostly analyzed in terms of consumer behavior were dairy [ 29 , 43 , 54 , 60 , 63 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 88 , 93 ], cereals [ 16 , 43 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 68 , 69 , 73 , 76 , 80 , 85 , 88 , 92 ], sweets [ 16 , 43 , 54 , 60 , 63 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 85 , 88 , 90 , 91 ], frozen food [ 16 , 43 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 88 ], processed food [ 54 , 59 , 72 , 80 , 90 ], and cosmetics [ 16 , 38 , 60 , 70 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 79 , 81 , 87 , 90 , 91 ]. For example, in 2020, Slovak researchers conducted a series of studies on yogurts, which included a sensory comparison between PL products and products of NBs that are leading in the Slovak market [ 55 , 56 , 58 ]. Studies on nonfood product categories mainly chose cosmetics, especially shampoo, for the analysis of consumer behavior toward PL products [ 70 , 78 , 81 , 87 , 91 ].

3.2. Research Specifications

Table 3 presents the research specifications of the studies included in the SLR.

3.3. General Findings and Practical Implications

Table 4 presents the findings and conclusions from studies related to consumer behavior toward PL products, as well as managerial implications. The findings/conclusions mainly relate to how the studied factors, such as perceptions of quality, price, type of packaging, and risk of purchasing PL products, influence consumer behavior toward the PL products of retail chains. Practical recommendations are included in almost all the analyzed studies. Only one study did not provide any recommendations.

The main factors analyzed in the included studies were consumers’ perception of quality, price, store image, and the risk of PL products, and their attitude toward PL products in different forms. The other factors assessed were the risk of buying PL products in comparison to the products of NBs, the influence of the country of origin or packaging, and the effect of brand image and store chain on product choices. The results of the included studies were also supported by our studies conducted in Poland, the UK, and Spain (Canary Islands) on consumer behavior and the perception of PL products of retail chains in these countries. In all the three studies (the first two were carried out among Polish and British consumers [ 43 ], and the third one in Tenerife [ 44 ]), dairy products were rated highest in terms of the frequency of purchase of a given category of PL products.

Only four of the analyzed studies included health factors as determinants in the choice of purchasing PL products. The first study was performed in 2021, and proposes a new food labeling system with letter grades indicating the level of healthiness and recommended frequency of consumption of a product. Products were identified as healthier based on their Nutri-Score, and the healthiness of products, ranked across five categories, was evaluated differently. In addition, the study analyzed the impact of the Nutri-Score system on the perceived quality, perceived healthiness, and purchase intentions for NB and PL products. It also recommends that the Nutri-Score system can be introduced as the European nutrition label, and that it can be an effective option to manage the growing obesity epidemic [ 54 ].

In a second study from 2013, conducted in Germany, the researchers analyzed, through in-depth interviews, the four main motives for buying organic food: healthiness, hedonism, environmental friendliness, and food safety. The authors assumed that consumers have a belief that organic food has a higher nutritional value than nonorganic food, and has a higher degree of perceived healthiness compared to food from a brand without an organic label. The results confirmed that consumers perceived certified organic food to be significantly more healthy, hedonic, environmentally friendly, and safe compared to conventional or nonorganic food. This was also true in the case of organic PL products, which were ranked similarly to global organic brands by consumers. This indicates that consumers have positive perception toward organic PL products in terms of health aspects [ 29 ].

The third study analyzed the perceptions of manufacturer brands and PLs based on various choice factors. One of these factors was health, and respondents responded that PL products were comparable to the products of manufacturer brands, with a slight edge for manufacturer products, but this shows that consumers rate each brand equally, regardless of who owns it. This result could motivate retailers to further develop PL products, also taking into account the health aspects [ 84 ].

In the last study analyzed, which was conducted in 2006, the authors focused on the perceptions of purchase risk, comparing NBs and PLs for two nonfood products: shampoo and kitchen paper. The health aspects were discussed in the context of psychological risk during shopping, which was assessed by evaluating the level of fear caused by potential health harms. The results obtained were very similar, and supported the findings of other discussed studies that investigate the influence of health aspects on human health. The data showed that the greater the familiarity of consumers with PLs, the smaller the difference between PLs and NBs in terms of perceived risk, regardless of product category [ 87 ].

The studies included in the SLR used a variety of research methods. Quantitative research mainly used a survey questionnaire. Some studies conducted blind tests, in which consumers performed a sensory analysis of specific yogurt brands [ 55 , 56 , 58 , 68 ]. Most of the analyzed articles included research hypotheses (33), and a few included research questions [ 60 , 81 , 90 ], whereas some were devoid of both these research tools [ 43 , 54 , 68 , 71 , 74 , 80 , 85 , 88 ]. Only those research hypotheses that exclusively concerned PL products were taken for consideration in the analysis.

4. Discussion

We performed an SLR analysis on 44 studies related to consumer behavior toward PL products. The studies evaluated various factors determining the purchase of PL products, including perceived quality [ 54 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 65 , 69 , 72 , 73 , 82 , 83 , 85 , 88 , 89 , 91 , 92 , 93 ], packaging [ 55 , 56 , 69 , 73 , 86 , 93 ], price [ 29 , 38 , 59 , 63 , 64 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 78 , 82 , 83 , 86 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 ], health aspects [ 29 , 54 , 84 , 87 ], and brand loyalty [ 58 , 59 , 76 , 82 , 89 ]. Some of them also analyzed the frequency of the purchase of PL products [ 43 , 56 , 58 , 64 , 83 , 91 ].

The first research question concerned the product categories that were analyzed in the included studies. We found that the most analyzed food categories were dairy products, cereals, sweets, and frozen and processed food. These results reflect the value shares of product categories sold under PLs. For example, in western European countries, frozen foods (43%), chilled and fresh products (39%), and soft drinks (18.3%) have the highest value shares. As chilled and fresh foods, dairy products are frequently purchased by European consumers, and their value share ranges from as high as 55.4% in the UK to 42.1% in Spain and from 40.1% in the Netherlands to 21.8% in Italy [ 94 ]. In comparison, in the US, bakery products (36.6%), dairy products (33.1%), and delicatessen products (23.6%) had the highest share of sales in 2019 [ 95 ]. In Slovakia, dairy (40%) and durables (35%) were the most frequently purchased food categories, but the dairy category (46.6%) was dominant among products with the lowest income [ 16 ], and the sale shares of other categories were higher. Dairy products of PLs are therefore valued by consumers and selected by researchers for studies.

The available studies in the literature on PLs refer not only to consumer research. For example, studies conducted in Poland have analyzed PLs as a source of competitive advantage for international retail chains. It was found that organic PL products are competitive in terms of price, assortment range, variety, retailer image, sustainability and process uniqueness, and product-related attributes. The sales of organic PL products with offers allow consumers to buy organic food at more affordable prices and adopt a nutritious and sustainable diet with a low environmental impact [ 96 ].

The second research question concerned the non-health factors considered when consumers choose PL products. Our review shows that price is the main factor determining consumers’ choice of PL products. The significant influence of an attractive, lower price is confirmed by previous studies and reports on consumer behavior toward PL products [ 94 , 97 , 98 , 99 ]. The IRI report published in 2018 indicated that the average price of PL products in Europe in 2017 was about 70% of the average price of manufacturer brands, and these differences influenced consumers’ perception of PL products as low-cost products [ 100 ]. Such an image influences consumers’ price sensitivity, acting as a tool for building consumer loyalty to a retail chain and PL products [ 31 , 101 ]. This also highlights that PL products in general, as well as premium PL products specifically, are products of good value for money of [ 102 ]. Another frequently studied factor influencing the choice of PL products is the perceived quality of these products in comparison to NB products [ 103 ]. Many studies have analyzed the consumers’ perception of the quality of PL products. In reports and surveys, consumers have indicated a significant improvement in the quality of PL products. Importantly, the quality of PL products directly influences consumer loyalty to PLs and has an indirect impact on store loyalty [ 104 ]. Studies show that the quality of PL products is almost the same as that of NB products, which makes PL products more competitive. However, the retailers are required to maintain high quality at an attractive price in order to encourage consumers to purchase PL products [ 45 ]. This is also supported by the fact that consumers’ perception of higher quality increases their willingness to purchase PL products [ 105 ]. Our research in Poland and the UK showed that the high quality of products available under PLs is a more important factor for determining the purchase decision among UK consumers compared to Polish consumers [ 43 ]. At the same time, in the UK, the development of PLs is closer to sustainable and premium PLs, and quality improvement has become a key factor influencing choice [ 39 ]. Additionally, as indicated by a study in Germany, quality improvement has a stronger effect on the growth of PL market share compared to the case of NBs [ 106 ].

Although health aspects play an increasingly important role in consumer behavior toward PL products, they are not considered to be the main factor determining the choice of PL products. The inclusion of health considerations in consumer behavior toward PL products represents a gap in knowledge or research identified in this literature review. In answering the third research question, only four articles included in our SLR focused on health aspects. At the same time, the literature indicates the growing consumer awareness of food and its impact on well-being and health [ 1 , 2 , 4 ]. For example, the available research refers to different product categories, such as bread, fruit snacks [ 107 ], ready-to-eat cereals, and organic and functional foods [ 25 ], as well as food in general [ 108 ]. Research focusing on the consumer side addresses issues such as their willingness to eat bread with health benefits [ 109 ], the use of nutrition and health information on labels to increase the demand for bakery products [ 110 ], and the pleasure of eating and healthy food behaviors [ 111 ]. One study analyzed the attitudes of consumers toward healthy foods, with particular reference to organic and functional products that may contribute to better strategic and tactical marketing decisions, and which may also be used by government agencies in designing public health programs [ 25 ]. In one study conducted in the UK, US, and Germany, the impact of product attributes regarding the nutritional and health values of products on consumer choices was analyzed. European consumers were found to be more health-conscious in terms of lifestyle and diet than American consumers, and more focused on the nutritional value of the product, nutrition claims, or food labeling systems, rather than just the price and visual issues of product packaging [ 112 ]. Another study explored the perceptions of health by identifying elderly adults’ beliefs about food and health-related aspects, and showed that, according to senior consumers, health is about personal well-being (life is enjoyable) or about preventing diseases (energy and autonomy) [ 108 ]. In some studies, the authors examined consumer behavior in terms of health aspects, and found that consumers analyzed marketing activities, in particular marketing communication. For example, one of the studies analyzed the impact of two types of advertising content—healthy eating and anti-obesity—on the demand for healthy and unhealthy food products and beverages. The results indicated that among overweight consumers, anti-obesity advertisements were more effective than advertisements promoting healthy eating in reducing the demand for unhealthy items and increasing the demand for healthy products [ 2 ]. Some studies analyzed healthcare consumer behavior in online communities [ 113 ], the effect of product health information on consumer liking and choice [ 24 ], and the impact of health-promoting campaigns on sales [ 114 ].

Research related to the importance of health factors from the producers’ side indicates that there is a need to produce innovative products. These include healthy snacks for immediate consumption which are unique in terms of nutritional value and lack additives [ 107 ]. The need for innovative products is also indicated in studies on organic and functional foods [ 25 ], cereal products [ 115 ], and probiotic foods [ 116 ].

Our literature review fills the gap in the literature on the importance of health factors in consumer choices using the example of PL products. It has not only revealed the individual factors that have been analyzed by studies over time for selected product categories, but also shows the significance of health factors in private labeling and the different ways in which studies have analyzed consumer behavior toward PL products. The attention paid to the health aspects of PL products points to the development of PLs, characterized by a similar level of quality and price compared to producer brands. This increases the competitive rivalry in the market, and at the same time, for retail chains, provides a competitive advantage in strengthening their position in the market. In this way, PLs have reached the fourth generation of their development, which implies that analogous methods of brand creation, brand positioning and, above all, brand quality are evaluated by consumers at the same, or an even higher level.

Our study has some limitations. One of them is related to the fact that we excluded theoretical publications, conference materials, books, dissertations, and the reports of market research agencies, and included only publications in English in the SLR. Further research is needed as PL products continue to evolve into sustainable products. It is important to understand the intentions of retail chains regarding the development of PL products in order to verify if they are in line with the growing consumer awareness of the health aspects of food and nutrition. This will help in developing products under retail chains’ PLs with a high nutritional value based on nutritional recommendations.

5. Conclusions

Our literature review revealed that many factors influence consumer behavior toward PL products. The main non-health factors are price, quality, packaging, and purchase frequency of PL products, and brand loyalty. The perception of health factors was not among the frequently analyzed selection criteria, which may be due to the evolution of PL products from low-cost products to the products of sustainable brands. This review showed the changing issues related to researchers’ perceptions of the PLs of retail chains. Studies conducted at the beginning of the 21st century mainly analyzed price and its influence on PL product purchases. This was followed by value for money, and research in recent years has been focusing on premium and value-added products among PLs. Consumers have started to perceive these products as high-quality, innovative products, with organic packaging and health benefits. For the further development of PLs, an appropriate approach by retail chain managers is essential. Our review has identified several practical recommendations for designing new products, improving the quality of existing products in terms of raw material quality, packaging, design, and labeling, as well as developing effective marketing strategies, and monitoring consumer behavior and preferences. At the same time, expanding the PL product range with health-oriented, organic, innovative, and targeted products increases the competitive advantage of retail chains. This may allow for the availability of PL products as products sold for health reasons, which will align with the recommendations for healthy eating, proper diet composition, and choosing the right food.

Objectives and measurement items of studies included in the SLR.

Author, Year	Objective	Measurement Items
Temmerman, et al. (2021) [ ]	To analyze the impact of the presence of the Nutri-Score and its five categories on consumers’ perceived healthiness perceptions and purchase intention. To analyze the impact of the Nutri-Score on perceived quality, perceived healthiness, and purchase intentions (national brands vs. PLs).	Study 1: 6 items in a 7-point semantic differential (SD) scale: PQ: 1 item; PH: 5 items 9 items on a 7-point Likert scale: PT: 5 items, PI: 4 items Study 2: 4 items on a 7-point SD scale: PH: 1 item; FNS: 3 items 20 items on a 7-point Likert scale: PI: 4 items; NK: 8 items; PhF: 5 items; Db: 3 items
Kadekova, et al. (2020) [ ]	To analyze the impact of packaging on consumer purchasing decisions in the yoghurt segment.	Questionnaire: 17 items, scale of 1 to 5 Blind test: on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the best rating and 5 the worst The first test: tasting yoghurts without knowing it The second test: already-known packaging
Czeczotko, et al. (2020) [ ]	To analyze the behavior of British and Polish consumers towards PL products, i.e., the frequency of purchasing PLs, the motives for purchasing products offered under PLs, the consumers’ opinions on PL development, and the length of the period of purchasing PL products.	36 items: PP: 5 items (single answer) FP: 8 items (5-point Likert scale) OCD: 6 items (5-point Likert scale) FPC: 10 items (5-point scale) SPL: 7 items (% scale)
Anitha and Krishnan (2020) [ ]	To examine the impulse purchase behavior of PL products in modern retail outlets and the major factors influencing it.	26 items, 5-point Likert scale
Košičiarová, et al. (2020) [ ]	To analyze customer preferences in the context of loyalty to the brand of selected food products in the segment of yoghurts.	Questionnaire: 10 items (5-point Likert scale) Blind test: on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the best rating and 5 the worst
Singh and Singhal (2020) [ ]	To understand consumers’ attitudes and preferences, as well as behavior, focusing on 3 types of PLs. To investigate how the grocery retailers are motivated to market the PLs.	23 items (5-point Likert scale)
Košičiarová, et al. (2020) [ ]	To analyze the influence of packaging and marketing communication tools on consumer purchasing decisions in the dairy segment.	Questionnaire: 10 items (5-point Likert scale), Blind test: on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the best and 5 the worst: -1st round–-5 items: color, flavor, fragrance, consistency, and the chocolate ratio -2nd round—7 items: color, flavor, fragrance, consistency, chocolate ratio, the attractiveness of the packaging, and grammage
Prediger, et al. (2019) [ ]	To explain how store flyer features affect the store traffic and the consumers’ intentions to buy PLs. To analyze the moderating effect of consumers’ perceptions on the retailer’s assortment and the store.	Experiment: Factor 1: brand promoted on the cover page (+1 = NB, or −1 = PL) Factor 2: the page length of the store flyer (+1=20 pages, or −1=8 p.) Factor 3: use of an institutional slogan on the cover page (+1 = presence or −1 = absence) Online survey: 2 items (7-point Likert scale)
Gómez-Suárez, et al. (2019) [ ]	To find out the extent to which smart shopping and its effect on consumer attitudes towards PLs and national brands is influenced by consumers’ cultural values.	Study 1: 18 items on a 9-point Likert scale—“guiding principle of my life” Study 2: 18 items on a 7-point Likert scale—smart shopper concept, attitude
Salazar-Ordóñez et al. (2018) [ ]	To examine value for consumers of own-label or PLs.	7-point Likert scale for 13 items: AE: 4 items; AR: 4 items; PV: 5 items
Liu et al. (2018) [ ]	To examine consumers’ preference for national brands and PLs and their tendency to include brands as part of their self-concept.	Study 1: 12 items (7-point Likert scale) Study 2: 7-point scale Study 3: 3 items on an SD 7-point scale
Valaskova et al. (2018) [ ]	To determine factors and variables that significantly influence and shape the consumer’s perception and attitude towards the purchase of PL products.	6 items: 5-point Likert scale: choice from 10 categories of PLs
Vázquez- Casielles and Cachero-Martinez (2018) [ ]	To analyze how the introduction of economy and premium PLs affects national brands and standard PLs for different customer segments.	18 items: 5-point Likert scale
Garczarek-Bąk (2018) [ ]	To investigate the factors affecting PL products’ possible purchase decisions for different retailers. To analyze how motivation, measured by total fixation duration using EEG asymmetry over the frontal hemisphere of the brain, predicts PL purchase.	PPE: 6-point scale, from 1 (poor) to 6 (high) PI: The Juster scale, from 0 (not at all) to 11 (for sure) QA: 8 items on a 6-point scale
Meliana (2018) [ ]	To explain how PLs can create an attractive store image and become a shopping preference for consumers.	8 items (5-point Likert scale)
Modica et al. (2018) [ ]	To investigate the reactions of the EEG and the autonomic activities, as elicited by the cross-sensory interaction (sight and touch) across several different products. To investigate whether the brand (major brand or PL), familiarity (foreign or local brand), and hedonic value of products (comfort food or daily food) influence the reaction during their interaction with the products.	Each phase with eyes closed for 15 s and rating on the scale from −5 to +5: Experiment 1: VE, VTE; Experiment 2: TE, VE, VTE
Schouteten et al. (2017) [ ]	To analyze the role of the research setting and brand information on the overall acceptance and sensory and emotional profiling of 5 strawberry yogurts.	1. Emotional profiling—18 emotional terms: -8 positive terms (contented, friendly, good, happy, interested, pleasant, surprised, satisfied) -8 negative terms (bored, disappointed, discontented, disgust, dissatisfied, frustrated, stressed) -2 neutral terms (calm, steady) 2. Overall liking: 5-point scale (from 1 = slightly to 5 = extremely) 3. Sensory profiling: 12 sensory terms (aftertaste, creamy, dark color, firm, fruity, milky flavor, sour, liquid, homogeneous, smooth, sweet, and thick)
Jara et al. (2017) [ ]	To analyze PL equity by considering two PL’s positioning strategies: those with high perceived added value (the organic store brands), as opposed to economic brands.	11 items (5-point Likert scale) Respondents to look at an A3-sized image of a pack of four
Gomez-Suarez et al. (2016) [ ]	To analyze the relationships between the different phases of the evaluation of PLs (attitude, preference, and purchase intention) in an international context.	1 item: scale (0 = NB and 1 = SB) 8 items: 7-point Likert scale
Marques dos Santos et al. (2016) [ ]	To explore brain-based differences in perception of national brands and PLs. To study the influence of price as a differentiating characteristic of national brands and PLs.	15 explanatory variables (EVs): -12 items: type of brand (national and PLs), exhibited price (real market price and manipulated price), and the stage in the stimulus sequence (product, price, and decision) - 3 items: product, price, and decision for the overseas branded products
Thanasuta (2015) [ ]	To investigate the relationship between consumer decision-making styles and actual purchases of PL products, using price consciousness, quality consciousness, brand consciousness, value consciousness, and risk perception.	7-point Likert scale for 23 items: PLs purchase: 1 item; QC: 4 items QC: 4 items; BC: 4 items; VC: 6 items; RP: 4 items
Schnittka (2015) [ ]	To identify the moderating impact of the store, category, and PL characteristics on consumers’ preferences for premium vs. economy PLs.	7-point Likert scale: Study 1: 2 items Study 2a: 9 items Study 2b: 9 items
Monnot et al. (2015) [ ]	To examine how eliminating overpackaging influences consumers’ perception of products sold under generic and mimic PL and purchase intention.	1. 5-point Likert scale for 17 items: PS: 3 items; PQ: 3 items EC: 3 items; PE: 2 items; PI: 2 items; PEF: 2 items; PC: 2 items 2. OP: 4 items (5-point Likert scale)
Diallo et al. (2015) [ ]	To investigate the role of image and consumer factors in influencing the choice of PLs between two retail chains (Carrefour and Extra).	7-point Likert scale for 28 items: SIP: 9 items; SPI: 6 items; VP: 4 items A: 4 items; PI: 4 items; PL choice: 1 item
Zielke and Komor (2015) [ ]	To extend cross-national research on price role orientations by focusing on culturally similar but economically different countries, relating differences to preferences for PLS and low-price store formats, and analyzing these effects for functional vs. hedonic and low- vs. high-price products.	1. 7 items (7-point Lichtenstein’s scale) 2. 12 items (7-point Lichtenstein’s scale scale)
Fall-Diallo et al. (2015) [ ]	To investigate how previous experience with PLs and marketing policy variables affect PL purchasing behavior in two specific periods (expansion and crisis).	Variables to each product and period: price, feature, display, loyalty (0 (no) or 1 (yes))
Delgado-Ballester et al. (2014) [ ]	To develop and test a conceptual model of the moderating effect of customers’ value consciousness on the relationship of store image with four dimensions of the perceived risk associated with the purchase of a PL over a manufacture brand, and the direct effect of those variables on the perceived unfairness of manufacture brand prices.	For each factor, a 10-point scale: SI: 7 items; FR: 3 items; FiR: 3 items; SR: 4 items; PR: 3 items; PU: 3 items; VC: 5 items
Bauer et al. (2013) [ ]	To analyze if an organic labeled product generates positive consumer brand perceptions and, thus, influences consumers’ food buying intentions. To investigate how various types of brands’ benefit differently from organic labeling in the retail market.	Study 1: 12 German consumers using the laddering technique Study 2: 7-point Likert scale for 12 items: PH: 4 items; PHe: 4 items; EF: 4 items FS: 4 items Study 3: 7-point Likert scale for 2 items: PI: 1 item; WP: 1 item
Fall Diallo et al. (2013) [ ]	To investigate how consumer and image factors, as well as store familiarity, influence PL purchase behavior.	7-point Likert scale for 24 items: SIP: 4 items; SB PI: 4 items; VC: 4 items; A: 4 items; PIn: 4 items; PL choice: 4 items
Herstein et al. (2012) [ ]	To investigate the association between 3 personality traits (individualism, materialism, and the “need for cognition”) and 2 characteristics of shoppers who buy PLs, and the importance they attach to the “brand dimensions”.	5-point Likert scale: Study 1: 10 items (5 food and 5 non-food products) Study 2: 2 items Study 3: 33 items: VI: 4 items; HI: 4 items; M: 7 items; NC: 18 items
Wyma et al. (2012) [ ]	To explore and describe consumers’ preferences for different PLs and national brands in a South African context. To determine and describe a possible relationship between consumers’ psychographic and demographic characteristics and their preferences for PLs/national brands.	25 items, choose the brand which fits one’s preference 5-point Likert scale 8 items + living standard measure
Tifferet and Herstein (2010) [ ]	To analyze whether individualism affects consumers’ preference for PLs vs. national brands; assess the effect of individualism on the perceived importance of brand image dimensions (country of origin, packaging design, and manufacturer reputation); and assess the degree of cross-cultural differences in individualism.	5-point Likert scale: Study 1: 10 items Study 2: 30 items Study 3: 8 items
Glynn and Chen (2009) [ ]	To examine the differences in the level category of risk perception and brand loyalty effects on consumer proneness towards buying PLs.	5-point Likert scale for 16 items: PM: 2 items; QV: 3 items; S vs. E: 2 items PC: 3 items; PQP: 3 items; BL: 3 items PL purchase: buy NBs (1) or PLs (5)
Anchor and Kourilová (2009) [ ]	To show how relatively little is known about the consumer perceptions of PLs in the newly emerging markets of Central and Eastern Europe. To investigate various aspects of consumer perceptions of Tesco PLs in the Czech Republic.	3 items: 7-point semantic differential (SD) scale 2 brands x 4 items: 7-point SD scale
Kara et al. (2009) [ ]	To examine consumers’ behavior with regard to PL purchasing by using a conceptual model, which incorporates factors such as brand, price and risk perceptions, involvement, experience, and familiarity, as well as psychographic and demographic factors.	27 items (5-point Likert scale)
Albayrak and Aslan (2009) [ ]	To identify the attitudes toward PL products and demographic features of PL consumers and of manufacturer brand consumers. To determine whether any differences exist between the two consumer groups.	5-point Likert scale: 4 × 16 items
Cheng et al. (2007) [ ]	To investigate the differences in the consumer perceptions of product quality, price, leadership, and personality brand among national brands, international and local PLs.	2 products x 3 types of brand x 4 items for 1 product 7-point Likert scale: PQ: 3 items BL: 3 items PP: 1 item BP: 3 items
Mieres et al. (2006) [ ]	To analyze the effects that a set of variables related to purchasing behavior have on the difference in perceived risk between PLs and national brands.	Each item for kitchen rolls and shampoo: A: 7-point Likert scale: PQ: 4 items; REA: 7 items; SSC: 5 items FSB: 4 items; EPC: 4 items B: 7-point Likert scale: FR: 4 items; FiR: 3 items; SR: 4 items PR: 4 items; PsR: 4 items; TR: 4 items
Akbay and Jones (2005) [ ]	To determine whether purchase patterns are differ for two income groups, and whether these differences are consistent with economic theory. To analyze the relationship between income and shopping behavior.	A: 1. 9 items: % scales 2. 9 items: cents per ounce B: 1. 9 items: % scales 2. 9 items: cents per ounce C: 1. 18 items: the LA/AIDS model 2. 18 items: the LA/AIDS model D: 1. 8 items: the LA/AIDS model 2. 18 items: the LA/AIDS model 3. 18 items: the LA/AIDS model
Kurtulus et al. (2005) [ ]	To construct a model to determine the effect of the psychographics of consumers on their tendency to purchase PLs. To analyze the role of consumer attitudes and behaviors in consumer preferences for PLs.	5-point Likert scale: PC: 4 items; FC: 4 items QC: 4 items; SL: 4 items SM: 3 items; TL: 3 items BL: 3 items; T: 3 items
Semeijn et al. (2004) [ ]	To investigate how store image and the perceived risk associated with product attributes affect the consumer evaluation of PLs. To determine the structural relationships between store image, the perceived risk associated with product attributes, and consumer attitude towards PLs.	Study 1: 11 items on a 7-point Likert scale Study 2: 7-point scale Study 3: 3 stores x 4 products 12 items: 7-point Likert scale
Veloutsou et al. (2004) [ ]	To compare the importance of choice criteria when purchasing PLs and national brands, and the perceived characteristics of the products under PLs and manufacturer brands in two regions at different stages of PL development. To rate the change in the behavior towards PLs and supermarkets and product attributes (perceived quality, value for money, appealing packaging, perceived taste, and the importance of these values for PLs and national brands).	Study 1: 4 items on a 5-point Likert scale Study 2: average of the 5 categories of products; 5-point semantic differential scales (SEM) A: 4 items B: 5 items C: 5 items Study 3: 5 items on a 5-point SEM
Miquel et al. (2002) [ ]	To model the decision process involved in a purchase when choosing PLs over national brands, and investigate why the same consumer may choose a store brand in one product category and not in another.	(1) 2 items: 5-point Likert scale (2) 2 items: 5-point Likert scale (3) 2 items: do not buy SB (0)/buy SB (1)
Vaidyanathan and Aggarwal (2000) [ ]	To examine how a national brand’s extension to a PL product (through ingredient branding) affects the evaluation of national brands and PLs.	PA: 10 items on a 7-point SEM scale QP: 5 items on a 7-point quality scale VP: 6 items on a 7-point scale VC: 7 items on a 7-point value scale

Author Contributions

Study conception and design: M.C. and H.G.-W.; methodology: M.C. and H.G.-W.; writing—original and draft preparation: M.C., H.G.-W. and R.Z.; writing—review and editing: M.C. and H.G.-W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

The Article Processing Charge was financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education within funds of Institute of Human Nutrition, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS) for scientific research.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

COMMENTS

Impact of Consumer Awareness and Knowledge to Consumer ...
This study examines consumer knowledge of privacy-related laws and practices, and consumer awareness and use of strategies that may protect the consumer's privacy.
Consumer Behavior Research: A Synthesis of the Recent Literature
Our review, which evaluated more than 1,000 articles published across five key journals, provides a descriptive snapshot of the status of consumer behavior research including the most dominant topics based on Helgeson et al.’s (1984) framework and methodological and analytical approaches, in addition to citation statistics of the reviewed ...
Consumer Attitude and their Purchase Intention: A Review of ...
The objective of the paper is to bring spotlight on literature related to consumer attitude and purchase intention. The Paper attempts to identify and segregate factors which are vital and critical antecedents to formation of consumer attitude consequently “Intention to purchase”.
How to SHIFT Consumer Behaviors to be More Sustainable: A ...
The current research provides a review of the literature regarding sustainable consumer behavior change and outlines a comprehensive psychological framework to guide researchers and practitioners in fostering sustainable behavior. Marketing and Sustainable Consumer Behavior.
The consumer decision journey: A literature review of the ...
In this study we have conducted a semi-systematic literature review regarding the foundational models on which the consumer decision journey has derived, and we have discussed how recent technologies can affect and transform the current decision journey.
A review of consumer awareness, understanding and ... - PubMed
The present review used a framework of three concepts, awareness, understanding and use, to summarise consumer evidence related to national FBDG and food guides. Searches of nine electronic databases, reference lists and Internet grey literature elicited 939 articles.
Consumer awareness and sustainability-focused value ...
Following a consumer-centric approach, this paper explores the dimensionality and the antecedents of responsible consumption from a psychological perspective. Concerning the dimensionality, the study proposes that responsible consumption should comprise a societal as well as an individual dimension.
Consumer behavior in sustainable fashion: A systematic ...
This review fills a need to summarize the current state of consumer behavior in sustainable fashion literature and provides valuable insights into the existing marketing corpus on the topic. Moreover, the review identifies a number of outstanding research gaps that can inform future research.
Consumer Awareness and Use of Product Review Websites
This paper reports on a study that was undertaken to assess consumer awareness, and use, of product review websites.
Health and Non-Health Determinants of Consumer Behavior ...
The following were analyzed in the studies included in the systematic literature review (SLR): general data and study design (authorship, year of publication, location, characteristics of the sample, and research category), research specifications (factors/variables, hypotheses, and measured parameters), and general findings (findings and practi...