Food as Ideology: Measurement and Validation of Locavorism

Food as Ideology: Measurement and Validation of Locavorism Abstract This research conceptualizes preferences for local foods (i.e., locavorism) as an emergent consumer ideology and develops a multidimensional scale to measure it. Prior socioeconomics and psychology research has uncovered correlates of local food preferences and offered some possible theoretical explanations. By synthesizing and expanding these past findings and perspectives, this research presents a tripartite framework for understanding locavorism in terms of three core belief dimensions: lionization of local foods, opposition to long-distance food systems, and communalization of food economies. Six studies provide support for this L-O-C framework and its validity. Survey, experimental, and field evidence demonstrate the scale’s structure, as well as its discriminant, predictive, nomological, and known-group validity. In addition to choice and preference for local foods, the scale predicts evangelism and meaningfulness related to food advertisements. Altogether, this work provides a grounded view of locavorism, together with a measurement tool that food marketers may apply in practice. locavorism, food, ideology, construct development, measurement, meaning-making For much of human history, consuming locally produced food was the norm. Agricultural industrialization and its decoupling effects, especially since the 1930s, complicated consumer–food relationships and distanced producers from consumers (Conkin 2008), prompting several undesirable, unintended consequences—such as environmental degradation, increased incidents of food-borne illness, economic turmoil in smaller food communities, and diminished food quality (Anderson 2008; Halweil 2002). In response, some modern consumers have embraced antiscale, prolocal preferences, thereby establishing a new consumer ideology: locavorism. In line with meaning-making and symbolic value models (Mintz and Du Bois 2002; Park 2010), locavorism is manifest in concepts such as local food, farmers’ markets, eat local, farm-to-table, and so forth. The resultant “locavore” label is simultaneously familiar and recent. Academic journals thus highlight its emergence (Feldmann and Hamm 2015), particularly in the United States (Cleveland, Carruth, and Mazaroli 2015; Galzki, Mulla, and Peters 2015; Sadler, Arku, and Gilliland 2015; Sharma et al. 2012), and trade journals seek to quantify interest in local food—noting, for example, that local food sales generated $11.7 billion in 2014, with an expected increase to $20.2 billion by 2019 (Tarkan 2015). Even Walmart publicly promises to provide “locally sourced favorites refreshed daily” and identifies itself as “the largest purchaser of locally sourced and sold produce in America” (Walmart 2017). Competitors such as Safeway (GreenBiz 2009), Kroger (Northrup 2014), and Publix (Reiley 2016) have followed. Yet, as a concept, locavorism lacks formal construction. An overly simplistic view could characterize locavores as consumers with strong local food preferences; other approaches might rely on a basic instantiation of hometown bias or anticorporatism. An overly complex view places locavorism at the intersection of several cultural and economic phenomena that cannot be explained with a single theoretical lens or unidimensional framework. In an attempt to balance between these perspectives, we seek a comprehensive, parsimonious model of locavorism as a system of beliefs with three primary dimensions: lionization of local foods, opposition to long-distance food systems, and support for communalization of food economies—that is, the L-O-C framework. Along with this novel theoretical framework, we propose a valid tool to measure locavorism. Consumer researchers are increasingly curious about the social and psychological drivers of food consumption (Wang et al. 2015), and marketing practitioners must respond to local preferences, yet it is unclear whether, as in the Walmart example, such efforts by corporate entities violate the belief structures of locavores. Therefore, to build a valid understanding and measure of locavorism, we draw on various samples (US university students, internet users, grocery store shoppers) using a combination of survey, experimental, and field methodologies. Accordingly, we make several contributions to the consumer behavior literature generally and food consumption research in particular. First, we advance understanding of what it means to be a locavore, building on extant research into agricultural economics (Brown 2003; Darby et al. 2008; Sharma et al. 2012) and food preferences (Chambers et al. 2007; Costanigro et al. 2014; Nie and Zepeda 2011). The present research critically synthesizes and builds on prior findings, adding conceptual clarity to locavorism as a construct by delimiting its scope and eliminating redundancies in its theoretical bases. Second, we distinguish locavorism from other theoretical accounts of local consumption. For example, it might be tempting to attribute locavorism to a hometown bias (Nalley, Hudson, and Parkhurst 2006), which is an instantiation of ingroup favoritism (Turner, Brown, and Tajfel 1979). However, this perspective paints an incomplete picture and fails to account for locavores who prefer to “eat local” even when traveling to foreign (i.e., outgroup) contexts (study 2a). Some research instead uses anticorporate values to explain local food trends (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007), which provides a useful foundation, but neglects other, orthogonal explanations and fails to account for locavores who still purchase from a corporate brand selling a locally sourced food product (study 2b). Thus, locavorism is a unique construct, and addressing it improves predictions of food consumption. Third, following a rigorous scale development and validation procedure, we provide a scale to reflect our unique conceptualization. Prior research has often relied on conjoint analyses or choice models to operationalize locavorism (Darby et al. 2008), which is helpful if choice is all that matters. But these methods do little to explain the psychology of locavorism as an ideological belief system and how it relates to other theoretical constructs. Ad hoc scales to assess positive attitudes toward local food (Adams and Adams 2011; Testa et al. forthcoming) cannot reflect the full theoretical richness of the construct or validate it empirically. To derive our proposed locavore scale, we follow rigorous, well-established scale construction and validation procedures considered to be best practices in both marketing and psychology. The scale in turn provides insights of benefit to both practitioners and researchers. For example, a fuller understanding of locavorism may improve marketing to locavores, because marketers can adapt their strategies and “communication style to fit the ideological demeanor of [the] audience” (Jost 2017, 514). Consumer researchers also could apply the scale to test theory and can use the conceptualization of locavorism as a meaningful consumer ideology. In the next section, we review concepts related to locavorism, articulate the gaps in existing approaches to the construct, and present our theoretically derived, tripartite (L-O-C) framework. Six studies, drawing from eight independent samples (four surveys and four experiments), test this framework. We then combine the samples across studies into a single data set (N = 1, 261) to confirm the psychometric robustness of the scale (see web appendix A). We embed these findings in a concluding discussion of implications for marketers and consumer researchers, and we also suggest how future research might build on the current research. FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS Alternative food consumption began, in a sense, with the organic foods movement in the 1960s (Reed 2010). However, the cooptation of organic foods by corporate brands in the 1980s shifted the movement toward a stronger focus on local foods, sourced directly from local farmers (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007). It gained further traction through subsidized programs and aggressive marketing efforts by local and state governments (Feldmann and Hamm 2015), prompting wider consumer adoption of and demand for local foods (Brown and Miller 2008). Reflecting this trend, the word locavore was introduced into the English language in 2005 and was shortly thereafter named Word of the Year by Oxford University Press (2007). Researchers began documenting this marketplace phenomenon in the early 1990s (McGrath, Sherry, and Heisley 1993), yet recent growth in the prevalence and popularity of local food markets has been dramatic (Feldmann and Hamm 2015). Despite this history and influence, we know little about consumers who participate in this marketplace. We propose conceptualizing locavorism as a consumer ideology (or set of normative beliefs) that comprises three core dimensions, which also foreshadow the structure of the proposed locavore scale and its contribution to the meaning that people extract from their food consumption experiences. Locavorism as a Consumer Ideology An ideology refers to a set of normative beliefs shared among a group (Durkheim 1938); for a shared belief system to be an ideology, it must take some material, social form (e.g., laws, currency systems, patterns of action). People who adopt the ideology are carriers of the social forms, in that they subscribe to the belief system, then turn those beliefs into meaningful action. Schmid’s (1981) “circulation of ideology” model starts and ends with a set of practices within society, such that ideology formation is an iterative process by which existing social practices create a primary ideology among a set of people that informs their new practices, which evolve into alternative (i.e., secondary and tertiary) forms of the ideology, and so on. With a conceptual analysis, we clearly can fit locavorism to Durkheim’s (1938) and Schmid’s (1981) criteria and thus regard it as an ideology. All locavores by definition share core beliefs (e.g., local foods offer superior taste and quality, consuming locally benefits the local economy; Brown 2003; Halweil 2002; Jekanowski, Williams, and Schiek 2000). Locavores’ beliefs about local foods can be readily translated into material social forms (e.g., farmers’ markets, community-supported agriculture [CSA] programs) and meaningful action (e.g., purchases, food choices). Moreover, the history of the locavore movement fits the circulation of ideology model: Through government–business partnerships, it began with a set of practices (e.g., farmers’ markets), which initiated the onset of locavorism as a shared set of beliefs, which in turn led to further practices (e.g., popular press, books, and documentaries) that continue to reinforce and expand the ideology. These specifications of locavorism and its development parallel other consumer value systems, such as materialism (Richins 2004). With this evidence that locavorism is an ideology, we consider it imperative to uncover the specific beliefs that constitute it. In our L-O-C framework, we propose three belief dimensions that are unique and necessary components of the locavorism ideology. The L-O-C Framework Lionization The term lionize relies on the metaphorical symbolism associated with the lion—the superior, most respected creature in the animal kingdom (Oxford English Dictionary 2017). Although often applied to people or places, it also can apply to objects. To lionize is to imbue something with the qualities of a lion (e.g., superiority, creditability). Among locavores, a core belief is that local (vs. nonlocal) foods possess superior taste and quality; as an essential part of their ideology, they lionize the foods themselves as intrinsically superior. Empirical evidence supports this association between locavorism and inferences of local food superiority. Jekanowski et al. (2000) find that, among a random sample of consumers, a belief in the superior quality of local food is the strongest predictor of their willingness to pay for it. Taste and nutrition inferences offer good predictors of local food preference (Brown 2003; La Trobe 2001; Loureiro and Hine 2002; Onozaka and McFadden 2011). Beliefs in the superior nutrition and flavor of local foods might be sensible, in that the mass production and distribution of food can result in a loss of taste and quality (Anderson 2008). Conversely, consumers might infer that national brands have more capabilities or resources (e.g., equipment, quality control), so they exhibit substantial variation in their local–quality associations and food perceptions (Weatherell, Tregear, and Allinson 2003). We contend that the former set of beliefs (i.e., local foods possess superior taste and nutritional value) represents a first dimension of locavorism. Absent this lionized view, a consumer is unlikely to be considered a locavore. Beliefs about superior taste and quality are inherent to the movement, and a review of local food research (Feldmann and Hamm 2015) cites these beliefs as the most frequently reported predictors of local food purchases. Locavores may possess other prolocal beliefs, extrinsic to the specific food itself, but a belief in local food’s intrinsic superiority is essential to this ideology. Opposition Ideological belief systems are not just prescriptive but proscriptive as well, such that they include beliefs about which social practices and institutions should be encouraged or discouraged (Jost, Nosek, and Gosling 2008). Locavorism includes both types of beliefs, and an opposition to long-distance food systems is endemic to locavores’ ideology. Costanigro et al. (2014) show that local preferences may result more powerfully from a rejection of conventional foods than a love of local foods, and Halweil (2002) frames his “Case for Local Food” primarily in terms of the detriments of nonlocal food, rather than the benefits of local food. Although the specific reasons for opposing distant foods may vary, concerns about safety and transparency are core (Halweil 2002). The origins of local foods are easier to trace, so consumers may be more likely to trust their safety (Darby et al. 2008; Yue and Tong 2009). By extension, this sentiment may translate into a distrust of nonlocal foods, an often-reported motivation to consume locally in the agricultural economics literature (Burchardi, Schröder, and Thiele 2005; Darby et al. 2008; Nganje, Hughner, and Lee 2011; Yue and Tong 2009). Although this opposition may resemble anticorporatism (Kozinets and Handelman 2004), it is a broader value category (antiglobal, antihegemonic), of which anticorporatism is a facet (Thompson and Arsel 2004). Thus, we conceptualize a generalized opposition to long-distance food systems, primarily driven by distrust, as the second dimension of locavorism. Again, opposition is a requisite component. Locavores eschew typical supermarket offerings because they are not produced locally (Northrup 2014). Halweil (2002) notes a weakening of the long-distance food system’s stronghold on food consumption, attributed to the local foods movement. Several best-selling books (e.g., Fast Food Nation [Schlosser 2012]), The Omnivore’s Dilemma [Pollan 2006]) that offer scathing criticisms of conventional long-distance food systems have galvanized the locavore movement (Porter 2008). Thus, there is something inextricably oppositional in locavorism. Communalization Local food consumption provides an appealing sense of building and supporting a self-sustaining community (Galzki et al. 2015). Consumers derive pleasure from the relational aspects of local food exchange venues, such as farmers’ markets (McGrath et al. 1993) and CSA programs (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007). Several studies identify support for local farmers as an important reason for local food consumption (Darby et al. 2008; Stephenson and Lev 2004). This notion of communal consumption (Celsi, Rose, and Leigh 1993) is similar to the idea of brand community (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001), though the marketplaces often involve specific individuals rather than abstract brand concepts. This dimension of locavorism does not necessarily depend on supporting one’s own community but rather involves contributing to a local community, in whatever location the consumer is situated. Thus, communalization, as the third dimension of locavorism, pertains to building and supporting one’s own community or local communities more generally. Communalization is integral to locavorism, because the origins of the movement and its ongoing social practices are inseparable from ideas of community and communal relations. Farmers’ markets and local co-ops are rich, community-enhancing venues frequented by locavores, such that they “could be considered the historical flagship of local food systems” (Brown and Miller 2008, 1298), with economic and social benefits for various communities. This circulatory pattern of communalization (i.e., locavores believe in the value of communal spaces for local foods, farmers’ markets become more abundant, consumers see more value in locavorism, and so on) is central to locavorism’s classification as an ideology (Schmid 1981). Locavorism as a Reinforcing Loop The three core beliefs that constitute locavorism are also mutually reinforcing. Opposition to long-distance food systems stems from a comparison of distantly and locally sourced foods, together with beliefs that the latter are higher in quality and more nutritious (lionization). Lionization then lends support to the idea that long-distance food systems cannot be trusted, because they are less likely to yield high-quality foods. Both beliefs provide a rationale for supporting local food communities (communalization); the existence of local food communities in turn enables both opposition and lionization. To test this proposed L-O-C model of locavorism, we conduct eight studies, which we summarize in table 1. TABLE 1 OVERVIEW OF STUDIES Study  Principal test  Principal analysis  Key finding  1a  Item purification  PCA  Twenty-three-item pool reduced to 11 items loading on three components  1b  Structural validity  CFA  Confirmation of three-factor structure of 11-item scale  2a  Discriminant validity (hometown bias)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts likelihood of choosing a local (vs. chain) grocery retailer, even in a foreign city  2b  Discriminant validity (anticorporatism)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of honey even when sold by a corporate retailer  3  Predictive validity  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavore scale predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of granola  4  Nomological and predictive validity  Bivariate correlations and multiple regression  Locavore scale exhibits weak to moderate correlations with theoretically relevant measures and predicts local food choice better than other measures  5  Known-group validity  Independent samples t-test  Shoppers intercepted at local coop (vs. national grocery chain) score higher on locavore scale  6  Advertising response  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavores are more likely to evangelize and experience meaning in response to a local (vs. national) food ad  Study  Principal test  Principal analysis  Key finding  1a  Item purification  PCA  Twenty-three-item pool reduced to 11 items loading on three components  1b  Structural validity  CFA  Confirmation of three-factor structure of 11-item scale  2a  Discriminant validity (hometown bias)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts likelihood of choosing a local (vs. chain) grocery retailer, even in a foreign city  2b  Discriminant validity (anticorporatism)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of honey even when sold by a corporate retailer  3  Predictive validity  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavore scale predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of granola  4  Nomological and predictive validity  Bivariate correlations and multiple regression  Locavore scale exhibits weak to moderate correlations with theoretically relevant measures and predicts local food choice better than other measures  5  Known-group validity  Independent samples t-test  Shoppers intercepted at local coop (vs. national grocery chain) score higher on locavore scale  6  Advertising response  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavores are more likely to evangelize and experience meaning in response to a local (vs. national) food ad  TABLE 1 OVERVIEW OF STUDIES Study  Principal test  Principal analysis  Key finding  1a  Item purification  PCA  Twenty-three-item pool reduced to 11 items loading on three components  1b  Structural validity  CFA  Confirmation of three-factor structure of 11-item scale  2a  Discriminant validity (hometown bias)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts likelihood of choosing a local (vs. chain) grocery retailer, even in a foreign city  2b  Discriminant validity (anticorporatism)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of honey even when sold by a corporate retailer  3  Predictive validity  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavore scale predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of granola  4  Nomological and predictive validity  Bivariate correlations and multiple regression  Locavore scale exhibits weak to moderate correlations with theoretically relevant measures and predicts local food choice better than other measures  5  Known-group validity  Independent samples t-test  Shoppers intercepted at local coop (vs. national grocery chain) score higher on locavore scale  6  Advertising response  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavores are more likely to evangelize and experience meaning in response to a local (vs. national) food ad  Study  Principal test  Principal analysis  Key finding  1a  Item purification  PCA  Twenty-three-item pool reduced to 11 items loading on three components  1b  Structural validity  CFA  Confirmation of three-factor structure of 11-item scale  2a  Discriminant validity (hometown bias)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts likelihood of choosing a local (vs. chain) grocery retailer, even in a foreign city  2b  Discriminant validity (anticorporatism)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of honey even when sold by a corporate retailer  3  Predictive validity  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavore scale predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of granola  4  Nomological and predictive validity  Bivariate correlations and multiple regression  Locavore scale exhibits weak to moderate correlations with theoretically relevant measures and predicts local food choice better than other measures  5  Known-group validity  Independent samples t-test  Shoppers intercepted at local coop (vs. national grocery chain) score higher on locavore scale  6  Advertising response  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavores are more likely to evangelize and experience meaning in response to a local (vs. national) food ad  STUDY 1: ITEM PURIFICATION, FACTOR STRUCTURE, AND RELIABILITY The initial study seeks to generate a pool of scale items, establish a purified subset of relevant items, and evaluate the reliability and factor structure of this subset. Following well-established scale development procedures (Churchill 1979; Clark and Watson 1995; Cronbach and Meehl 1955), we began with open-ended reviews of relevant literature and interviews with stakeholders (scholars, consumers, and farmers) to specify the domain of interest. Accordingly, we generated 64 items that represented not only our three core dimensions (lionization, opposition, and communalization) but also two additional dimensions that emerged from the process (moral responsibility and environment). Extant research cites the motivating influences of moral considerations (Allen 2006; Zepeda and Deal 2009) and environmental concerns (Brown, Dury, and Holdsworth 2009; Yue and Tong 2009), but it is not clear whether these dimensions are distinct from our L-O-C framework. For example, the opposition to nonlocal food systems often arises from the sense that such systems are environmentally destructive and unethical (Halweil 2002; Lang and Heasman 2015), and support for the local community might be driven by moral concerns for the welfare of community members and local food producers (Allen 2006). Such reasoning suggests that though moral responsibility and environment are likely facets, locavorism can be explained more accurately and parsimoniously by the three factors of the L-O-C model. We retain these two dimensions for empirical testing, though. Twelve scholars, familiar with scale construction practices, evaluated the face and content validity of our item pool, according to our definition of locavorism and its dimensions. We eliminated items based on their evaluations (Price et al. forthcoming; Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg 2009), which reduced the pool to 37 items. After revisiting our initial literature review and discussing with colleagues and local food producers, we refined the wording and eliminated redundancy in this set, such that we retained 23 items (web appendix B). In two waves of data collection, we then sought to purify and validate this scale. Study 1a uses principal components analysis (PCA) to assess the factor structure and eliminate poorly fitting items; it resulted in 11 items contained in a three-dimensional (lionization, opposition, and communalization) scale. As predicted, moral responsibility (e.g., “I have a moral responsibility to buy from local farmers”) and environment (e.g., “The fuel used to import foods creates serious ecological problems”) items were either subsumed into one of the three dimensions or not psychometrically robust enough to warrant retention. We readministered the 11-item scale to a subsample of study 1a participants to confirm test–retest reliability. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in study 1b confirms the factor structure. Study 1A: Item Purification and Reliability Method Two hundred five US residents were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and paid a nominal fee for their participation (N = 196 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 38.08, SDage = 11.97, range = 19–69 years; 64.8% female). After agreeing to participate, they received an introduction describing the study as a survey of Americans’ food choices. They then saw the set of 23 items generated from our initial purification process, along with two attention checks: “Please select the circle closest to ‘Strongly Agree’ for this question,” and “Please select the circle exactly in the middle of the scale for this question.” All items—including the two attention checks—appeared in counterbalanced order and were measured on seven-point Likert scales, anchored by 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) and 7 (“Strongly Agree”). Participants also completed basic demographics and were thanked for their participation. Results and Discussion The main objective of this study was to purify the pool of 23 items and explore the locavore construct’s factor structure. We used a PCA with Varimax rotation, with a commonly accepted threshold for factor retention (i.e., eigenvalues of at least 1; Kaiser 1960), with the added criterion that each factor must contain at least three items (Tabachnick and Fidell 2001). We used the following retention criteria for individual items: each item must (1) load on its primary factor at .60 or greater, (2) not cross-load on any other factor at .40 or greater, and (3) have a corrected item-to-total correlation of .40 or greater. The initial PCA results justify the retention of three factors, containing seven, four, and three items, respectively, for a total of 14 items. All three factors had eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining more than 52.59% of the variance in the items. The first factor included items that represented contributions to local community. The second factor consisted of items representing opposition to conventional and long-distance food systems. The third factor featured items representing perceptions that local foods are higher quality and taste better than nonlocal foods. The items related to environmental concern and moral responsibility loaded across these three factors and did not warrant additional independent factors. Table 2 contains the retained items and their descriptive statistics. Because communalization contained a disproportionate number of items (i.e., seven), we purified it further by eliminating its three weakest items (all primary loadings < .70, cross-loadings > .30). The resulting scale thus contained 11 items (three for lionization, four for opposition, and four for communalization; see table 2). TABLE 2 STUDY 1A: PCA RESULTS     Rotated factor loadings   M (SD)  Item  Lionization  Opposition  Communalization  4.95 (1.61)  Locally produced foods just taste better.  .68  .23  .36  4.62 (1.73)  All else equal, there is no taste difference between a locally produced food and one that was shipped from somewhere else (reverse-coded).  .72      4.68 (1.83)  Locally produced foods are more nutritious than foods that have been shipped from somewhere else.  .65  .27    3.76 (1.78)  I don’t trust foods that have been produced by large, multinational corporations.  .37  .65  .24  3.18 (1.52)  Large, global food systems are destined to fail.    .65    2.74 (1.81)  I would go out of my way to avoid buying food from a large retail grocery chain.    .70  .23  3.31 (1.79)  I feel uneasy eating something unless I know exactly where it was produced.  .29  .65    5.49 (1.42)  Buying locally produced foods supports sustainable farming practices.  .29    .71  5.76 (1.19)  Buying local foods helps build a more prosperous community.  .26    .77  5.58 (1.44)  I like to support local farmers whenever possible.    .25  .73  5.16 (1.51)  Supporting the local food economy is important to me.    .32  .73  Cronbach’s alpha (factor)  .74  .77  .83  Cronbach’s alpha (total)    .86        Rotated factor loadings   M (SD)  Item  Lionization  Opposition  Communalization  4.95 (1.61)  Locally produced foods just taste better.  .68  .23  .36  4.62 (1.73)  All else equal, there is no taste difference between a locally produced food and one that was shipped from somewhere else (reverse-coded).  .72      4.68 (1.83)  Locally produced foods are more nutritious than foods that have been shipped from somewhere else.  .65  .27    3.76 (1.78)  I don’t trust foods that have been produced by large, multinational corporations.  .37  .65  .24  3.18 (1.52)  Large, global food systems are destined to fail.    .65    2.74 (1.81)  I would go out of my way to avoid buying food from a large retail grocery chain.    .70  .23  3.31 (1.79)  I feel uneasy eating something unless I know exactly where it was produced.  .29  .65    5.49 (1.42)  Buying locally produced foods supports sustainable farming practices.  .29    .71  5.76 (1.19)  Buying local foods helps build a more prosperous community.  .26    .77  5.58 (1.44)  I like to support local farmers whenever possible.    .25  .73  5.16 (1.51)  Supporting the local food economy is important to me.    .32  .73  Cronbach’s alpha (factor)  .74  .77  .83  Cronbach’s alpha (total)    .86    NOTE.—Values drawn from full 23-item PCA. Eliminated items and factor loadings below .20 are omitted for clarity. TABLE 2 STUDY 1A: PCA RESULTS     Rotated factor loadings   M (SD)  Item  Lionization  Opposition  Communalization  4.95 (1.61)  Locally produced foods just taste better.  .68  .23  .36  4.62 (1.73)  All else equal, there is no taste difference between a locally produced food and one that was shipped from somewhere else (reverse-coded).  .72      4.68 (1.83)  Locally produced foods are more nutritious than foods that have been shipped from somewhere else.  .65  .27    3.76 (1.78)  I don’t trust foods that have been produced by large, multinational corporations.  .37  .65  .24  3.18 (1.52)  Large, global food systems are destined to fail.    .65    2.74 (1.81)  I would go out of my way to avoid buying food from a large retail grocery chain.    .70  .23  3.31 (1.79)  I feel uneasy eating something unless I know exactly where it was produced.  .29  .65    5.49 (1.42)  Buying locally produced foods supports sustainable farming practices.  .29    .71  5.76 (1.19)  Buying local foods helps build a more prosperous community.  .26    .77  5.58 (1.44)  I like to support local farmers whenever possible.    .25  .73  5.16 (1.51)  Supporting the local food economy is important to me.    .32  .73  Cronbach’s alpha (factor)  .74  .77  .83  Cronbach’s alpha (total)    .86        Rotated factor loadings   M (SD)  Item  Lionization  Opposition  Communalization  4.95 (1.61)  Locally produced foods just taste better.  .68  .23  .36  4.62 (1.73)  All else equal, there is no taste difference between a locally produced food and one that was shipped from somewhere else (reverse-coded).  .72      4.68 (1.83)  Locally produced foods are more nutritious than foods that have been shipped from somewhere else.  .65  .27    3.76 (1.78)  I don’t trust foods that have been produced by large, multinational corporations.  .37  .65  .24  3.18 (1.52)  Large, global food systems are destined to fail.    .65    2.74 (1.81)  I would go out of my way to avoid buying food from a large retail grocery chain.    .70  .23  3.31 (1.79)  I feel uneasy eating something unless I know exactly where it was produced.  .29  .65    5.49 (1.42)  Buying locally produced foods supports sustainable farming practices.  .29    .71  5.76 (1.19)  Buying local foods helps build a more prosperous community.  .26    .77  5.58 (1.44)  I like to support local farmers whenever possible.    .25  .73  5.16 (1.51)  Supporting the local food economy is important to me.    .32  .73  Cronbach’s alpha (factor)  .74  .77  .83  Cronbach’s alpha (total)    .86    NOTE.—Values drawn from full 23-item PCA. Eliminated items and factor loadings below .20 are omitted for clarity. To examine test–retest reliability, we also recruited 39 participants from the initial data collection to participate in a follow-up survey six days later. This survey contained only the 11 items retained from our initial PCA (along with another attention check). Prior to the analysis, three participants (7.7%) were excluded for failing at least one of the three attention checks from either data collection wave, resulting in a sample of 36 participants. The 11 items of the locavore scale were aggregated into a composite (α = .90) and compared with the same composite score from the initial data collection. The results suggest very high test–retest reliability for the full scale (r = .78, p < .001). Further, the composite score for each dimension demonstrates high test–retest reliability (all rs > .60, all ps < .001), supporting the reliability of the scale as a whole and each of its dimensions. The internal consistency of each dimension at time 2 also remained satisfactory (αLionization = .87; αOpposition = .82; αCommunalization = .85). Study 1B: Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Validity Method One hundred fifty-one US residents were recruited from MTurk and paid a nominal fee for their participation (N = 149 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 35.84, SDage = 11.69, range = 18–72 years; 58.4% female). The procedure was similar to that for study 1a, except the survey included only the 11 items of the locavore scale (αLocavore = .89; αLionization = .87; αOpposition = .79; αCommunalization = .87) retained from the PCA. Results and Discussion The objective of this study was to confirm the three-factor structure of the overall scale (structural validity; Mokkink et al. 2010). Using AMOS 22 (Arbuckle 2013), we fit a measurement model in which the higher-order factor locavorism predicts the three lower-order factors of lionization, opposition, and communalization. Each lower-order factor’s measured scale items were constrained to load only on that factor. A hierarchical CFA suggests good fit for this measurement model (χ2(41) = 60.521, p = .025, CFI = .977, RMSEA = .057, SRMR = .051). The regression coefficients also suggest that the lower-order factors are well explained by the higher-order factor and that the individual items are well explained by their respective lower-order factors (see figure 1). The results from studies 1a and 1b thus suggest that the locavore scale is a reliable, structurally valid measure of locavorism. FIGURE 1 View largeDownload slide STUDY 1B: CFA RESULTS NOTE.—Factor loadings are standardized estimates. Measurement errors were omitted for clarity. All coefficients are significant at p < .001. FIGURE 1 View largeDownload slide STUDY 1B: CFA RESULTS NOTE.—Factor loadings are standardized estimates. Measurement errors were omitted for clarity. All coefficients are significant at p < .001. STUDY 2: DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY FROM THEORETICALLY SIMILAR CONSTRUCTS With study 2, we seek to distinguish locavorism from two similar constructs: hometown bias and anticorporatism. Hometown bias refers to an attachment to a current city of residence, which influences preferences for people, ideas, goods, and services (Hedges and Kelly 1992; Nalley et al. 2006; Puddifoot 1995, 2003). Just as people favor ingroup products, both generally (Escalas and Bettman 2005; Ferraro, Bettman, and Chartrand 2009; White and Dahl 2007) and specifically in reference to foods (Berger and Rand 2008; McFerran et al. 2010), locavorism arguably could be a manifestation of a hometown bias in a food consumption context. In addition, as an “alternative” system of food consumption (Jones, Comfort, and Hillier 2004), the locavore movement has roots in countercultural values that typify anticorporatism (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007). Theoretically, then, anticorporate values might predict preferences for local food. Thompson and Arsel (2004) investigate anticorporatism in relation to Starbucks’s “hegemonic brandscape” to explain consumers’ motives for supporting local coffee shops, and similar anticorporate values, expressed as opposition to large-scale agricultural production, might explain consumer preferences for local produce (Thompson and Troester 2002). However, we argue that locavorism operates beyond solely hometown bias or anticorporatism. Ingroup biases are robust and pervasive, so this view would suggest that most people should be locavores. Yet locavorism is an individual ideological difference (Jost 2017) that varies widely within populations (see web appendix A). Although some locavores may hold anticorporate values, opposition to long-distance food systems, which happen to be corporate-controlled, likely offers a more direct motivation (Costanigro et al. 2014). If locavorism extends beyond anticorporatism, it should predict preferences for local foods, regardless of whether the food is sold by a corporate or noncorporate retailer. With study 2, we test these predictions. We collect the data longitudinally, such that we administer the locavore scale first (time 1), then assess the manipulation and dependent variables approximately one week later (time 2). In study 2a, participants were randomly assigned to a shopping experience scenario, in which they pictured themselves in their home city or traveling in a new US city, then indicated whether they would be more likely to shop at a neighborhood grocery store selling local foods or a national grocery chain selling national food brands. We expect a positive association between locavorism and preference for the local store selling local foods, regardless of whether the food is local to their own hometown or to a different city. Study 2b participants were randomly assigned to conditions in which they rated their purchase likelihood for either a local or national brand of honey, sold through either a corporate or local retailer. Regardless of where the food is sold, we expect locavorism to relate positively to local food preferences and negatively to national food preferences. Study 2a: Hometown Bias Method Two hundred US adults were recruited from MTurk to complete the time 1 locavorism measure (overall scale and dimension αs > .77). Approximately one week later, they were contacted to complete the remainder of the study. Of the initial sample, 124 respondents participated at time 2, for a response rate of 62.0% (N = 116 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 35.07, SDage = 10.72, range = 19–65 years; 50.0% female). They were randomly assigned to one of two location conditions. In the hometown (new city) condition, participants were asked to imagine that “you are in the city in which you currently live (a city you have never been to in the US).” In both conditions, they were to imagine that they needed basic food items for the week, and there were two options nearby that would offer all these essentials: “a general national chain grocery store that sells national brands of food items” and “a neighborhood grocery store that offers locally produced food items.” Following the scenario, the main dependent variable measure asked, “If you only had time to go to one store, which of the two grocery stores would you be more likely to buy your basic food items from?” (1 = “Definitely the general national chain grocery store”; 9 = “Definitely the neighborhood grocery store”). Participants then responded to an attention check regarding whether the scenario took place in their home city or a city they had never visited. Results and Discussion To test the distinction between locavorism and hometown bias, we analyzed a regression model with the locavore scale, the location condition variable (hometown vs. new city), and their interaction as predictors of preferences for the local grocery store. Consistent with our prediction, the results fail to yield a significant locavorism × location interaction (p = .530). Simple effects further support our predictions: locavorism positively predicts local preference in both the hometown (b = .78, SE = .32, p = .015) and new city (b = 1.06, SE = .31, p < .001) conditions. Together, these findings confirm that locavorism is separate from hometown bias. If anything, the association between locavorism and local store preference appeared stronger in the new city condition. Thus, results of study 2a suggest that locavores prefer local foods, wherever they happen to find themselves. Study 2b: Anticorporatism Method Six hundred US adults were recruited from MTurk to complete the time 1 locavorism measure (overall scale and dimension αs > .78). As in study 2a, we contacted them one week later to complete the remainder of the study. Of the initial sample, 381 respondents participated at time 2, for a response rate of 63.5% (N = 305 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 38.39, SDage = 11.82, range = 20–71 years; 56.4% female). The participants were randomly assigned to one of four possible conditions in a 2 (brand: national vs. local) × 2 (store: corporate vs. local) between-participants design and asked to imagine a short scenario that started with the brand manipulation: “Imagine that there is a local (national) brand of honey, produced in or near your city (in a city far from yours).” The next sentence provided the store manipulation: “This brand of honey is currently available at LocalMart (CorpMart), a locally owned (corporate) grocery store.” In all four conditions, the scenario concluded by stating that the honey was on sale for $5.00, marked down from an ordinary price of $6.00. Participants then indicated whether they would buy a jar of this honey (1 = “Definitely not”; 9 = “Definitely yes”), followed by two attention-check questions asking if the scenario specified (1) a local or national brand of honey and (2) a corporate or local store selling it. Results and Discussion We expect locavorism to relate positively to local food preferences and negatively to national food preferences, regardless of where they are sold. In a hierarchical regression of food purchase likelihood on locavorism, brand condition, store condition, and all their two- and three-way interactions, we find the expected locavorism × brand interaction (b = 1.56, SE = .34, p < .001). Surprisingly, we also observe a marginal three-way interaction (b = –.88, SE = .48, p = .068). Although unexpected, decomposing this three-way interaction (figure 2) supports the distinction between locavorism and anticorporatism. FIGURE 2 View largeDownload slide STUDY 2B: EFFECT OF LOCAVORISM ON PURCHASE INTENTIONS FOR A LOCAL (VS. NATIONAL) BRAND BY STORE TYPE NOTE.—*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. The left (right) panel indicates intentions to purchase a local or national brand from a corporate (local) grocer. Locavorism significantly predicts purchase intentions for the local brand, regardless of store. FIGURE 2 View largeDownload slide STUDY 2B: EFFECT OF LOCAVORISM ON PURCHASE INTENTIONS FOR A LOCAL (VS. NATIONAL) BRAND BY STORE TYPE NOTE.—*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. The left (right) panel indicates intentions to purchase a local or national brand from a corporate (local) grocer. Locavorism significantly predicts purchase intentions for the local brand, regardless of store. In the corporate store condition (figure 2, left panel), the two-way locavorism × brand interaction is significant (b = 1.56, SE = .34, p < .001); locavorism is associated positively with the purchase likelihood for the local brand (b = .85, SE = .25, p < .001) and negatively with that for the national brand (b = –.70, SE = .23, p = .002). This pattern indicates that locavores purchase local foods from corporate retailers, which distinguishes locavorism from anticorporatism. In the local store condition (figure 2, right panel), the two-way locavorism × brand interaction remains significant (b = .68, SE = .34, p = .046), and locavorism is positively associated with the purchase likelihood for the local brand (b = .90, SE = .21, p < .001). However, it appears unrelated to the purchase likelihood for the national brand (p = .412). This latter effect is peculiar. Perhaps in this context, locavores are unsure about whether buying a national brand from a local retailer still implies support for a retailer that sells other local foods. Overall, though, these results indicate that locavores’ preference for local (vs. national) foods remains intact, regardless of the corporatism of the retailer. Anticorporatism may seem related to locavorism, but our results indicate that locavorism is an entirely unique construct. STUDY 3: PREDICTIVE VALIDITY (REAL FOOD CONSUMPTION) Scale validation also requires testing whether the measure predicts expected outcome variables (i.e., predictive validity; Churchill 1979). With study 3, we conduct a longitudinal experiment in a field setting, to test whether the locavore scale predicts purchase likelihood of a local (vs. national) brand of granola. Participants tasted a sample and indicated their purchase likelihood at time 1, then completed the locavore scale one week later (time 2). Method One hundred seventy-eight people were intercepted in the atrium of a building at the University of Oregon and compensated $1 for their participation. The first author set up a table in the atrium with signs advertising a “granola taste test” and asked passersby to participate. Those who consented received a tablet, loaded with an online survey, and responded to two control measures to assess their current mood (1 = “Very bad mood”; 7 = “Very good mood”) and level of hunger (1 = “Not at all hungry”; 7 = “Very hungry”). Next, participants were randomly assigned to the local or national condition and read a short description of the granola (brand concealed). In the local (national) condition, the description explained that the local (national) company producing the granola uses locally (nationally) sourced nuts and grains and sells its granola in local stores (national supermarkets). Participants then received a 1 ounce sample of granola and, after tasting it, completed the remaining survey questions. The granola was unmarked, and all participants sampled the same product. To maintain the cover story and gather an additional control variable, we included a taste index, measured in terms of texture, flavor, and freshness (α = .61; 1 = “Very poor”; 7 = “Very good”). The measure for the dependent variable asked, “In a real shopping situation, how likely would you be to buy this brand of granola?” (1 = “Very unlikely”; 7 = “Very likely”). As an attention check, participants then noted whether the granola was a local or national brand, and they provided basic demographic information, along with their email addresses. One week later, we emailed these 178 participants with a link to another online survey; 131 completed it, for a response rate of 73.6% (N = 99 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 26.29, SDage = 10.56, range = 18–67 years; 50.5% female). This follow-up survey contained two measures, in counterbalanced order: (1) the locavore scale (overall index and subscale αs > .67) with another attention check embedded among the scale items, as in study 1b, and (2) a single-item measure of locavorism: “Overall, I prefer local foods to nonlocal foods” (1 = “Strongly disagree”; 7 = “Strongly agree”). The latter item provides a basis of comparison for the predictive ability of our locavore scale. Results and Discussion Prior to our validity tests, we confirmed that the local food manipulation at time 1 did not affect the locavore scale or single-item measure at time 2; independent sample t-tests yielded no differences across conditions for these two measures (both ps > .145). To test the predictive validity of the locavore scale, we conducted a moderation analysis with the locavore scale as the focal predictor, the local manipulation as the moderator, purchase likelihood as the dependent variable, and controls for the three measured covariates (mood, hunger, and taste). If the scale truly measures trait locavorism, it should correlate positively with purchase likelihood in the local condition but not in the national condition. Accordingly, we find a significant locavorism × condition interaction effect on purchase likelihood (b = .58, SE = .27, p = .037). In simple effects analyses, locavorism is positively associated with purchase likelihood in the local condition (b = .65, SE = .20, p = .002) but not in the national condition (b = .07, SE = .18, p = .711). Treating the locavore scale as the moderator (rather than focal predictor), we also ran a floodlight analysis (Spiller et al. 2013), which reveals higher purchase likelihood in the local (vs. national) condition at high levels of locavorism (JN-pointα=.05 = 5.51) but a reversed trend at low levels of locavorism (JN-pointα=.10 = 2.73). Finally, as a basis for comparison, the single-item locavorism measure as a moderator produces a nonsignificant interaction term (p = .153). These results provide initial support for the predictive validity of the locavore scale. By definition, locavorism should predict people’s preference for local over nonlocal foods; our data affirm that the proposed locavore scale (but not a single-item measure) predicts such a preference. In an alternative sense, the same product labeled with a local versus national brand may appeal differently to locavores (vs. nonlocavores), as assessed by the locavore scale. The conservative experimental design also implies that the localness of the product connects the locavore scale to the expected outcome. It is perhaps surprising that we did not observe a negative relationship between locavorism and preferences for the national food, though, which might be due to the relatively small sample. Alternatively, locavores might be less averse to nationally sourced foods when they are presented in a local context (e.g., local university). Such a perception could help explain why, in study 2b, we observe a null simple effect of locavorism on the purchase likelihood of an unknown national brand presented in a local context. Nevertheless, the significant positive relationship between locavorism and preference for a local food supports the predictive validity of the scale. We next examine both its predictive and nomological validity, using a simulated grocery shopping experience. STUDY 4: NOMOLOGICAL AND PREDICTIVE VALIDITY (GROCERY SHOPPING) To validate the scale further, study 4 tests its fit within a nomological network of theoretically relevant variables (Peter 1981) and its predictive strength, relative to these variables, in a consequential choice task involving the selection of local versus nonlocal groceries. We recruited US residents from MTurk at two distinct times, separated by one week. Time 1: Nomological Validity Method To test our predictions pertaining to nomological validity, we recruited 302 residents of either New York City or Los Angeles (N = 277 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 33.09, SDage = 10.16, range = 18–68 years; 50.2% female) at time 1. These geographic restrictions facilitate our time 2 test of local food consumption. The participants responded to the locavore scale (overall index and subscale αs > .75) and six related measures drawn from prior literature that we expected to correlate with locavorism: consumer ethnocentrism (17 items; α = .95; Shimp and Sharma 1987); environmental concern (three items; α = .83; Matthes and Wonneberger 2014); community values (nine items; α = .89; Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002); loyalty to local retailers (10 items; α = .77; Hozier and Stem 1985); materialism (for which we expected a negative association; three items; α = .78; Richins 2004); and a condensed, six-item version of Crowne and Marlowe’s (1960) Social Desirability Scale, developed by Ballard, Crino, and Rubenfeld (1988). The items all appeared in counterbalanced order. The six measures were selected based on their theoretical relevance to locavorism as suggested by extant research across several related literatures. For instance, research in agricultural economics suggests that local food preferences may in part be driven by concern for the environment (Brown et al. 2009; Yue and Tong 2009) and community values (Allen 2006), while research in food science suggests local food consumers tend to be ethnocentric (Chambers et al. 2007) and antimaterialistic (Mirosa and Lawson 2012). Results and Discussion The test for the nomological validity of the locavore scale used simple bivariate correlations with the other established scales (see table 3). As expected, locavorism correlated positively with ethnocentrism (r = .33), environmental concern (r = .30), community values (r = .41), and local retailer loyalty (r = .53). Correlation coefficients in this range (.30–.60) are moderate (Gerstman 2016; Ratner 2017), so though it relates to these conceptually similar constructs, the locavore scale assesses something unique. For materialism, locavorism is negatively (albeit weakly) related, as expected (r = –.12, p = .040). Social desirability is weakly but significantly related to locavorism (r = .15, p = .011), as well as to the other measures in this study (ps < .001) except for environmental concern (see table 3). Local food preferences are socially desirable (Costanigro et al. 2011), so this relationship with locavorism is unsurprising. However, the relatively weak relationship suggests that socially desirable response biases are not a concern for this study. TABLE 3 STUDY 4: CORRELATIONS OF LOCAVORISM WITH RELATED MEASURES   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1. Locavorism  1.00              2. Ethnocentrism  .33**  1.00            3. Environmental concern  .30**  –.02  1.00          4. Community values  .41**  .21**  .40**  1.00        5. Local retailer loyalty  .53**  .31**  .31**  .42**  1.00      6. Materialism  –.12*  .04  –.13*  –.09  –.05  1.00    7. Social desirability  .15*  .23**  .09  .23**  .21**  –.22**  1.00    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1. Locavorism  1.00              2. Ethnocentrism  .33**  1.00            3. Environmental concern  .30**  –.02  1.00          4. Community values  .41**  .21**  .40**  1.00        5. Local retailer loyalty  .53**  .31**  .31**  .42**  1.00      6. Materialism  –.12*  .04  –.13*  –.09  –.05  1.00    7. Social desirability  .15*  .23**  .09  .23**  .21**  –.22**  1.00  NOTE.—*p < .05; **p < .01; all other coefficients not significant (p > .10). TABLE 3 STUDY 4: CORRELATIONS OF LOCAVORISM WITH RELATED MEASURES   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1. Locavorism  1.00              2. Ethnocentrism  .33**  1.00            3. Environmental concern  .30**  –.02  1.00          4. Community values  .41**  .21**  .40**  1.00        5. Local retailer loyalty  .53**  .31**  .31**  .42**  1.00      6. Materialism  –.12*  .04  –.13*  –.09  –.05  1.00    7. Social desirability  .15*  .23**  .09  .23**  .21**  –.22**  1.00    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1. Locavorism  1.00              2. Ethnocentrism  .33**  1.00            3. Environmental concern  .30**  –.02  1.00          4. Community values  .41**  .21**  .40**  1.00        5. Local retailer loyalty  .53**  .31**  .31**  .42**  1.00      6. Materialism  –.12*  .04  –.13*  –.09  –.05  1.00    7. Social desirability  .15*  .23**  .09  .23**  .21**  –.22**  1.00  NOTE.—*p < .05; **p < .01; all other coefficients not significant (p > .10). Time 2: Predictive Validity Method To test for predictive validity, we use the relationships between the time 1 measures and the choice of local food brands, assessed at time 2. We contacted the 302 participants from time 1 via email and invited them to participate in a follow-up survey one week later. The 144 participants who completed the time 2 study provide a response rate of 47.7% (N = 126 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 33.94, SDage = 10.39, range = 18–66 years; 40.6% female). Participants first confirmed their residence (all correctly selected either New York or Los Angeles) and were informed that they would be participating in a grocery shopping simulation, in which several participants would receive, if selected via lottery, the groceries they chose through a delivery service. Thus, the choice task was consequential to participants. The choice task involved eight common food product categories: coffee, jam, hot sauce, milk, honey, chocolate, crackers, and lettuce. These selections reflect the availability of local brands for both NYC and LA, as well as closely comparable national brands. For the choice task, participants considered a series of eight dichotomous choices—one for each food category—in counterbalanced order (see web appendix C). In each food category, they had to choose between a national brand (coded 0) and a local brand (coded 1), which we then summed together to form a local choice index, with possible scores ranging from 0 to 8. To maximize ecological validity, participants living in NYC (LA) saw NYC (LA) brands as the local option; the national brand was the same, regardless of their city. To mitigate concerns that objective quality might influence consumers’ choices, we conducted a pretest (N = 150), in which participants were randomly assigned to rate their quality perceptions of the NYC, LA, or national brands on a scale from 1 (“Low quality”) to 7 (“High quality”). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that baseline quality perceptions did not differ across the three groups of brands (p = .417). Following the grocery choice task, we conducted a localness check to validate the local choice index: “During the simulation, I chose…” (1 = “Primarily national brands”; 11 = “Primarily local brands”). In support of its validity, this check correlated strongly with the local choice index scores (r = .70). Finally, as a potential covariate, participants completed an ad hoc measure of the frequency with which they purchased each of the eight food product categories in general (α = .73; 1 = “Never”; 5 = “Always”). Results and Discussion To test the relative predictive validity of the locavore scale, we regressed the local choice index on the seven composite scores from the scales assessed at time 1 and the covariate assessed at time 2 (i.e., food frequency measure; table 4). We report the standardized coefficients (β) to permit a direct comparison of the predictors in the model. The results support the predictive validity of the locavore scale, as well as its superior explanatory ability relative to other, similar measures. Locavorism is a strong predictor of local food choice (β = .44, p < .001), even when we control for other measures. Although three of these other scales were significant or marginally significant predictors of local choice, all were weaker than locavorism (βs < .19). Thus, the locavore scale exhibits satisfactory nomological validity and predicts consequential choices for local brands, beyond the effects of similar constructs. TABLE 4 STUDY 4: REGRESSING LOCAL FOOD CHOICES (TIME 2) ON PREDICTORS (TIME 1) Predictor  Unstandardized b  Std. error  Standardized β  p-value  Locavorism  .88  .21  .44  <.001  Ethnocentrism  –.30  .15  –.19  .044  Environmental concern  .30  .17  .16  .077  Community values  .09  .15  .06  .543  Local retailer loyalty  –.14  .22  –.07  .513  Materialism  .03  .11  .02  .789  Social desirability  –.19  .10  –.17  .058  Category purchase frequency  –.20  .27  –.07  .446  Predictor  Unstandardized b  Std. error  Standardized β  p-value  Locavorism  .88  .21  .44  <.001  Ethnocentrism  –.30  .15  –.19  .044  Environmental concern  .30  .17  .16  .077  Community values  .09  .15  .06  .543  Local retailer loyalty  –.14  .22  –.07  .513  Materialism  .03  .11  .02  .789  Social desirability  –.19  .10  –.17  .058  Category purchase frequency  –.20  .27  –.07  .446  TABLE 4 STUDY 4: REGRESSING LOCAL FOOD CHOICES (TIME 2) ON PREDICTORS (TIME 1) Predictor  Unstandardized b  Std. error  Standardized β  p-value  Locavorism  .88  .21  .44  <.001  Ethnocentrism  –.30  .15  –.19  .044  Environmental concern  .30  .17  .16  .077  Community values  .09  .15  .06  .543  Local retailer loyalty  –.14  .22  –.07  .513  Materialism  .03  .11  .02  .789  Social desirability  –.19  .10  –.17  .058  Category purchase frequency  –.20  .27  –.07  .446  Predictor  Unstandardized b  Std. error  Standardized β  p-value  Locavorism  .88  .21  .44  <.001  Ethnocentrism  –.30  .15  –.19  .044  Environmental concern  .30  .17  .16  .077  Community values  .09  .15  .06  .543  Local retailer loyalty  –.14  .22  –.07  .513  Materialism  .03  .11  .02  .789  Social desirability  –.19  .10  –.17  .058  Category purchase frequency  –.20  .27  –.07  .446  STUDY 5: KNOWN-GROUP VALIDITY If locavorism represents a consumer ideology, as theorized, we should expect locavores to express their belief system through their choice of grocery store (Belk, Bahn, and Mayer 1982). To test this prediction, we collected two independent samples of shoppers, each at a different grocery store: one branch of a large, national chain, and one locally owned co-op known for selling primarily local food products. We expect locavorism to be more strongly manifest among shoppers at the latter store. With this test of known-group validity, we examine whether scores on the measure are relatively higher or lower among groups for whom the trait is expected to exist strongly or weakly (Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003). Known-group validity tests are common means to validate measures in consumer research (e.g., Bearden, Hardesty, and Rose 2001; Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998; Webb and Peck 2015). Method Four undergraduate research assistants (RAs), blind to the hypotheses and research questions, assisted with the data collection. Two RAs visited the national grocery store, and the other two went to the small, locally owned co-op. The data collections occurred simultaneously, to minimize the risk of surveying duplicate participants. The RAs were instructed to stand near the entrance of the store and ask shoppers if they would like to participate in a 2 minute survey about food preferences in exchange for $2, with a goal of recruiting 30 participants from each store (60 total). Shoppers who consented completed the locavore scale (with attention check) and basic demographic items (age, gender, political orientation, and income) on a tablet, then were immediately paid $2 cash. The RAs succeeded in recruiting 60 participants, but three participants (5.0%) did not answer the attention-check question accurately, leaving a final overall sample of 57 participants (Mage = 32.68, SDage = 16.61, range = 18–73 years; 47.4% female). Income (p = .624) and political orientation (p = .170), two potential confounds related to the distinct target segments of each store, did not differ significantly between the groups of shoppers. Results and Discussion In examining whether two groups of shoppers exhibit corresponding differences on the locavore scale, we find with our independent samples t-test that, as predicted, locavorism (overall index and subscale αs > .65) is significantly greater among shoppers at the local co-op (M = 5.94, SD = .76) than among those at the national chain (M = 5.19, SD = .95; t(55) = 3.290, p = .002). In an ANOVA, we control for the four demographic variables as covariates; the difference in the locavorism scores between groups is still significant (p = .021). These tests provide further support for the validity of the locavore scale, showing the expected differences between known groups of relatively stronger (i.e., local co-op shoppers) or weaker (i.e., national chain shoppers) locavores on the measure. STUDY 6: ADVERTISING RESPONSE The data thus far indicate that the locavore scale can predict outcomes related to food purchases and choice. In this final study, we seek to understand how locavorism may influence consumers’ interpretations of and responses to food advertising, beyond purchases. We showed participants one of two actual commercials: one promoting farmers’ markets and another promoting a national supermarket chain. Along with their purchase likelihood, participants reported their word-of-mouth (WOM) intentions, evangelism intentions, and feelings of meaningfulness. We expect locavorism to positively predict both typical consumer outcomes (WOM and purchase intentions) and the more deeply ideological outcomes (evangelism and meaningfulness) in response to the farmers’ market ad but not the national supermarket ad. Method One hundred fifty-one US residents were recruited from MTurk (N = 139 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 37.24, SDage = 12.22, range = 18–71 years; 51.8% female). With random assignment, half the sample completed the locavore scale (overall scale and dimension αs > .81) first, whereas the other half completed the scale at the end of the study. This step helps minimize the likelihood of either the scale biasing the effects of the manipulation or vice versa. The order factor had no effect on the locavore scores (p = .477) and weak but significant effects on the other outcome variables (ps < .071). We performed all analyses with and without the order factor as a covariate but observed no changes in the significance or direction of the results. Thus, we collapse this factor and disregard it in our further analyses. Participants were randomly assigned to view an actual commercial for either a farmers’ market organization (representing local foods) or a Kroger supermarket promotion (representing nonlocal foods). Both ads were approximately 30 seconds in length and featured food items as the core content (see web appendix D for screenshots and links). Next, all participants responded to four measures, each assessed with a single item and presented in counterbalanced order. Purchase likelihood was measured as in study 2. WOM and evangelism both began with the same question stem (“As a result of viewing this ad, I am more likely to…”) followed by “recommend [farmers’ markets/Kroger] to others” and “try to convince friends to buy food from [farmers’ markets/Kroger]” for WOM and evangelism, respectively (1 = “Strongly disagree”; 7 = “Strongly agree”). The meaningfulness item read as follows: “How meaningful was this advertisement to you?” 1 = “Not very meaningful”; 7 = “Very meaningful.” The attention check asked which ad they viewed (farmers’ market or Kroger), followed by basic demographic items. Results and Discussion We predict that locavorism influences the way consumers interpret and react to different types of advertising. To test this prediction, we analyzed a series of locavorism × condition interactions for the four outcomes. Replicating our prior predictive validity studies, we observe a significant interaction on purchase likelihood (b = .87, SE = .21, p < .001), such that locavorism correlates positively with purchase likelihood in the local ad condition (b = 1.01, SE = .15, p < .001) but not the national ad condition (b = .14, SE = .15, p = .326). We also observe significant interactions for both WOM (b = .66, SE = .22, p = .003) and evangelism (b = .68, SE = .21, p = .002); locavorism is positively associated with these outcomes in the local ad condition (ps < .001) but not the national ad condition (ps > .064). The interaction on meaningfulness was similar (b = .74, SE = .26, p = .005), showing the same pattern of simple effects. Floodlight analyses on the two ideological measures (evangelism and meaningfulness) revealed that consumers who score high on the locavore scale (JN-pointα=.05 = 4.38) are more likely to evangelize on behalf of the local (vs. national) ad, whereas those with low scores (JN-pointα=.10 = 2.46) are marginally more likely to evangelize in response to the national (vs. local) ad. We observe a similar pattern for meaningfulness on the high end of the locavore scale (JN-pointα=.05 = 4.35) and a (nonsignificant) reverse trend for the low end. Thus, not only are locavores more likely to purchase and recommend local (vs. nonlocal) foods, but local (vs. national) food advertising also differentially affects their sense of meaningfulness and evangelism. GENERAL DISCUSSION The locavore movement is thriving, but not all consumers are locavores. Rather, locavorism is an ideology that varies across populations. Despite its importance for both consumer research and marketing practice, relatively little is known about its domain, nor has there been a validated instrument to measure locavorism. Drawing from extant research on food preferences, agricultural economics, and consumer psychology, we propose and confirm an L-O-C framework that conceptualizes locavorism. As theorized and tested, a locavore is a consumer who believes local foods offer superior taste and nutrition (lionization), opposes long-distance food systems (opposition), and seeks to support local communities (communalization). We confirm this factor structure (studies 1a and 1b), as well as the scale’s test–retest reliability (study 1a). In addition, we find evidence that locavorism is distinct from ostensibly related constructs. Study 4 provides correlational evidence of its distinction, and with two experiments, we distinguish locavorism from hometown bias (study 2a) and anticorporatism (study 2b). The locavore scale predicts preferences for local foods, regardless of whether consumers consider purchases in a foreign city or their home city (study 2a) or from a corporate or local retailer (study 2b). Our store-intercept survey also indicates that those from the local (vs. national) store scored significantly higher on the locavore scale, even after we account for demographics (known-group validity; study 5). Furthermore, our locavore scale exhibits high predictive validity. It uniquely predicts purchase likelihood for products sold by a local (vs. national) brand after people actually taste the food product (study 3) and in a consequential grocery choice situation (study 4). Finally, study 6 demonstrates the utility of the locavore scale, beyond its ability to predict purchase likelihood and WOM, by revealing that locavorism is associated with evangelism and feelings of meaningfulness in response to a local (vs. national) food ad. The results of these six studies (with eight samples drawn from three populations) thus converge to define the locavorism construct and provide a rigorously validated measurement scale. In support of the psychometric robustness of the scale, we conducted a meta-analysis of our own studies (see web appendix A). In this combined data set (N = 1, 261), the locavore scale is normally distributed (not skewed or kurtotic), the internal consistency of the dimensions and the full scale remain high (αs > .79), and the three-dimension L-O-C factor structure stays intact. The locavore scale correlates weakly but significantly with gender, age, and political orientation, in theoretically expected directions (rs < .16, ps < .002). Specifically, women, older people, and liberals score slightly higher on the locavore scale, consistent with prior findings in food preference research. The significant correlations support the scale’s concurrent validity; the weak coefficients suggest that demographics alone are insufficient to assess locavorism. As a final step, we also critically evaluated our implicit classification of the locavore scale as a reflective (vs. formative) measure. Jarvis, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff (2003) classify a reflective construct as one in which (1) direction of causality is from construct to items, (2) indicators share a common theme, and (3) indicators covary with each other. Conceptually and empirically, the locavore scale meets these criteria. Regarding causality, it is not clear how agreeing with our scale’s items could cause one to be a locavore, as a formative construct would necessitate. Conversely, it is reasonable to conclude that being a locavore may cause one to agree with the scale’s items. Similarly, as per the second criterion, the items within each dimension clearly share a common theme (e.g., items on communalization reflect the theme of supporting local communities through food consumption), and the three dimensions in turn are unified around a singular, locavore ideology. Lastly, whether we consider indicators as dimensions or as individual items, the locavore scale meets the third criterion. The three dimensions are mutually reinforcing, so a high (low) score on one dimension should predict a high (low) score on the other two, and all three dimensions are necessary to constitute locavorism. Accordingly, we find in the combined metadata set (N = 1, 261) moderate and significant correlations among the three dimensions and between all individual items (see table 5). Overall, consistent with our conceptualization and studies, it seems most accurate to classify the locavore scale as a reflective measure. Although it is conceptually useful and empirically valid to consider dimensions of locavorism in isolation, researchers also may be justified in treating it as a single composite construct. TABLE 5 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DIMENSIONS (TOP PANEL) AND INDIVIDUAL ITEMS (BOTTOM PANEL) OF THE LOCAVORE SCALE ACROSS ALL STUDIES Dimensions  1  2  3  Lionization (1)  1.00      Opposition (2)  .53  1.00    Communalization (3)  .56  .47  1.00  Dimensions  1  2  3  Lionization (1)  1.00      Opposition (2)  .53  1.00    Communalization (3)  .56  .47  1.00  Items  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Lion1 (1)  1.00                      Lion2R (2)  .60  1.00                    Lion3 (3)  .61  .48  1.00                  Opp1 (4)  .46  .36  .45  1.00                Opp2 (5)  .28  .18  .33  .48  1.00              Opp3 (6)  .40  .26  .36  .56  .39  1.00            Opp4 (7)  .42  .26  .42  .57  .37  .54  1.00          Comm1 (8)  .45  .28  .41  .29  .21  .25  .27  1.00        Comm2 (9)  .43  .31  .39  .29  .18  .25  .25  .63  1.00      Comm3 (10)  .50  .33  .38  .39  .23  .38  .38  .54  .56  1.00    Comm4 (11)  .52  .35  .40  .41  .27  .44  .38  .53  .58  .74  1.00  Items  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Lion1 (1)  1.00                      Lion2R (2)  .60  1.00                    Lion3 (3)  .61  .48  1.00                  Opp1 (4)  .46  .36  .45  1.00                Opp2 (5)  .28  .18  .33  .48  1.00              Opp3 (6)  .40  .26  .36  .56  .39  1.00            Opp4 (7)  .42  .26  .42  .57  .37  .54  1.00          Comm1 (8)  .45  .28  .41  .29  .21  .25  .27  1.00        Comm2 (9)  .43  .31  .39  .29  .18  .25  .25  .63  1.00      Comm3 (10)  .50  .33  .38  .39  .23  .38  .38  .54  .56  1.00    Comm4 (11)  .52  .35  .40  .41  .27  .44  .38  .53  .58  .74  1.00  NOTE.—All correlations significant at p < .001. TABLE 5 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DIMENSIONS (TOP PANEL) AND INDIVIDUAL ITEMS (BOTTOM PANEL) OF THE LOCAVORE SCALE ACROSS ALL STUDIES Dimensions  1  2  3  Lionization (1)  1.00      Opposition (2)  .53  1.00    Communalization (3)  .56  .47  1.00  Dimensions  1  2  3  Lionization (1)  1.00      Opposition (2)  .53  1.00    Communalization (3)  .56  .47  1.00  Items  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Lion1 (1)  1.00                      Lion2R (2)  .60  1.00                    Lion3 (3)  .61  .48  1.00                  Opp1 (4)  .46  .36  .45  1.00                Opp2 (5)  .28  .18  .33  .48  1.00              Opp3 (6)  .40  .26  .36  .56  .39  1.00            Opp4 (7)  .42  .26  .42  .57  .37  .54  1.00          Comm1 (8)  .45  .28  .41  .29  .21  .25  .27  1.00        Comm2 (9)  .43  .31  .39  .29  .18  .25  .25  .63  1.00      Comm3 (10)  .50  .33  .38  .39  .23  .38  .38  .54  .56  1.00    Comm4 (11)  .52  .35  .40  .41  .27  .44  .38  .53  .58  .74  1.00  Items  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Lion1 (1)  1.00                      Lion2R (2)  .60  1.00                    Lion3 (3)  .61  .48  1.00                  Opp1 (4)  .46  .36  .45  1.00                Opp2 (5)  .28  .18  .33  .48  1.00              Opp3 (6)  .40  .26  .36  .56  .39  1.00            Opp4 (7)  .42  .26  .42  .57  .37  .54  1.00          Comm1 (8)  .45  .28  .41  .29  .21  .25  .27  1.00        Comm2 (9)  .43  .31  .39  .29  .18  .25  .25  .63  1.00      Comm3 (10)  .50  .33  .38  .39  .23  .38  .38  .54  .56  1.00    Comm4 (11)  .52  .35  .40  .41  .27  .44  .38  .53  .58  .74  1.00  NOTE.—All correlations significant at p < .001. Importance of Locavorism In addition to mapping an emergent construct and securing it in the consumer behavior literature (Fischer and Otnes 2006; Janiszewski, Labroo, and Rucker 2016), this research offers critical insights into the importance of locavorism as a consumer ideology. It gives consumers a structured, values-rooted approach to food, and the process of consuming local foods provides locavores with purpose. They derive a sense of morality from their consumption of local foods (Allen 2006; Galzki et al. 2015; Zepeda and Deal 2009), and, as we show in study 6, locavores even regard advertisements for local foods as meaningful. The co-consumption of local foods also creates social bonds among strangers and builds community (Woolley and Fishbach 2017). As a food-embedded ideology, locavorism is more than a mere consumer preference or trend, as is evident in the evangelism with which locavores express the gravitas of their actions and seek to compel others to follow suit (study 6). Evangelizing is widespread; at the time of this research, more than 400 books on Amazon.com cover locavorism, and popular press articles offer reasons for “joining the locavore movement,” as well as steps for doing so (Anderson 2016; Maiser 2007). Locavores do not simply recommend local food consumption, as a mere preference would suggest; they actively attempt to indoctrinate others, consistent with an ideology. This enduring ideology spans both micro and macro levels. It is difficult to change the extent of locavorism within an individual consumer; as Jost et al. (2008) note, ideological belief systems are characterized by stability and consistency. As is inherent to ideological evolution (Schmid 1981), ideologies also undergo “sedimentation” processes, by which associated beliefs and experiences get mentally accumulated, stored, solidified, and synthesized. A person’s ideology thus tends to strengthen over time, and anecdotal evidence suggests that locavorism is no exception. People who consume long-distance foods may one day “see the light” (due to evangelism) and become locavores, but locavores rarely switch back to consuming nonlocally. On a macro level, the locavore movement has proven persistent, as detailed by market evidence earlier in this article. Data from our studies support the prevalence of locavorism: over 50% of participants in each study scored above the midpoint (4) on the locavore scale (figure 3), suggesting that a majority of respondents across samples could be considered locavores. FIGURE 3 View largeDownload slide PERCENT OF PARTICIPANTS IN EACH STUDY SCORING ABOVE MIDPOINT (4) ON THE LOCAVORE SCALE NOTE.—Mean scores across studies approximated the scale midpoint (rangeM = 4.20–4.57) except for study 5 (M = 5.58). This is because study 5 used purposive sampling to identify consumers expected to score high on the scale. FIGURE 3 View largeDownload slide PERCENT OF PARTICIPANTS IN EACH STUDY SCORING ABOVE MIDPOINT (4) ON THE LOCAVORE SCALE NOTE.—Mean scores across studies approximated the scale midpoint (rangeM = 4.20–4.57) except for study 5 (M = 5.58). This is because study 5 used purposive sampling to identify consumers expected to score high on the scale. Theoretical Implications Prior work on local food consumption had yet to provide a theory-driven framework to map the psychological structure of locavorism, so we propose a tripartite L-O-C framework to understand locavores’ disposition toward local food, then validate this framework empirically. We thus extend theories pertaining to consumer ideology (Jost 2017; Jost et al. 2008). In particular, prior research conceptualizes ideology as a precursor to food preference (Varman and Belk 2009); we suggest that the preference for local food itself may be an ideology. In addition to clarifying what locavorism is, we examine what it is not. Existing perspectives might characterize local food consumption as a manifestation of anticorporatism (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007) or hometown bias (Nalley et al. 2006). These two constructs bear some conceptual similarity to the opposition and communalization dimensions, respectively, but we show that neither perspective is sufficient on its own. This insight adds conceptual clarity to food consumption as well as to the scope and boundaries of anticorporatism and ingroup favoritism (hometown bias). Consumer researchers often operationalize local food preference as an indicator of environmental concern (Giesler and Veresiu 2014; Gilg et al. 2005). Our research extends this view by showing that environmental concern correlates with locavorism but does not explain it. Moreover, agricultural economists and other food researchers often equate locavores with basic demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, political orientation). Analysis of our metadata instead suggests a distinction between locavorism and these constructs, according to the weak but significant correlations (see web appendix A). Implications for Food Marketing The locavore scale may assist marketing practitioners in their segmentation and targeting efforts. This relatively short, reliable, and valid locavore measure can help them accurately identify locavores. In addition, the scale dimensions should inspire renewed understanding of locavores among firms that seek to appeal to a market that is expected to double in coming years (Tarkan 2015). The tripartite structure of our locavorism scale also may guide local food marketers’ promotional appeals. Rather than emphasizing environmental benefits or morality, our research suggests that appeals should focus on the core elements of locavorism. For example, because community support is an essential dimension, advertising a local food’s connection to the local economy and support for local farmers may be particularly effective. Limitations and Future Directions We undertook extensive effort to maximize the rigor of our research, but several limitations are worth noting and should encourage further research on these topics. First, we offer a robust exploration of concurrent and consequent variables of locavorism but do not address its antecedents. What social, developmental, or systemic factors motivate consumers to believe that local foods are of superior quality, to oppose long-distance food systems (not just corporate brands), and to prize the welfare of the local food community? Future research could explore these questions, using the locavore scale as an outcome (rather than predictor) variable. Second, the practical utility of the scale is largely tied to understanding geographic variation in locavorism, yet our studies do not shed light on this point. Continued research might tackle this challenge using a systematic, larger-scale sampling frame to identify locavores geographically. In turn, such research could link the locavore scale to other macro-indicators of local food preferences, to provide a broader picture of what predicts locavorism. Third, although we provide a critical analysis of the psychology of the locavore, this research does not explicitly examine consumer interpretations of what “local” means. Future research on locavorism would benefit from exploring several questions in this domain. For instance, locavores typically define local foods in terms of geographic proximity (Testa et al. forthcoming), but is localness also shaped by elements of psychological distance or group identity? This might help explain a peculiar finding from study 4: although ethnocentrism was positively correlated with locavorism, the former was associated with a preference for national (vs. local) foods. Ethnocentrism may tap into tendencies toward nationalism and national food brands. Relatedly, future research might examine the malleability of localness interpretations. Some locations are associated with certain specialty foods (e.g., Boston seafood, Cincinnati chili, and San Francisco sourdough bread) irrespective of the geographic origins of the ingredients. Are specialty foods seen as local, all else held equal? Fourth, past work has found that consumer value systems have implications in a wide range of domains. For example, Rindfleisch, Burroughs, and Denton (1997) examine the role of materialism in subjective well-being, and Rindfleisch, Burroughs, and Wong (2009) demonstrate how materialistic (vs. nonmaterialistic) consumers respond to existential threats differently, with implications for consumer–brand relationships. As a novel consumer ideology, locavorism might play a role in these and other theoretical domains. For instance, in pursuit of enhanced belonging and thus subjective well-being, might locavores engage in a process of “ideological migration” (Motyl et al. 2014) toward more locavore-friendly cities? In a more cognitive domain, might locavorism moderate the tendency to overestimate the meaningfulness of human-made borders, specifically in a food context? Future research might examine a food-related “border bias” (Mishra and Mishra 2010) and how locavores might prefer food from within their own state even when a more proximal food is available from another state. Finally, we find consistent effects of locavorism on the pursuit of local foods across our studies—but inconsistent effects related to avoiding national brands. In some cases, locavorism is negatively associated with the purchase likelihood for a national brand, but in others, we find a null relationship. This outcome might be due in part to the context: when a national brand is presented in a local context (e.g., local retailer or other local setting), locavores’ opposition toward it may be mitigated. This possibility should be tested more directly in further research. CONCLUSION Locavorism is an emergent ideology, with growing relevance to marketers and consumer researchers. Although local preferences might seem simplistic, unidimensional, or explained by existing theoretical perspectives, the present research demonstrates the richness of this construct, as well as its utility. With its tripartite conceptualization and valid measurement tools, we hope this research inspires further investigations into the nature of locavorism that trace its trajectory in the ever-changing consumer marketplace. DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION Data for all studies were collected using Qualtrics survey software. The first author recruited participants (through both Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and on campus at the University of Oregon) for all studies except study 5 (participants for study 5 were recruited via research assistants). The first and second authors jointly analyzed these data. Data collection for each study occurred in the following temporal sequence: (1) studies 1a and 1b, summer 2016; (2) study 5, winter 2017; (3) study 4, summer 2017; (4) study 3, fall 2017; (5) studies 2a and 2b, fall 2017; and (6) study 6, winter 2018. The authors acknowledge the helpful comments of the editor, associate editor, and reviewers. The authors thank Troy Campbell and Linda Price for their helpful comments on earlier versions of the article. The authors also thank Gabrielle Cohen, Andrew Edelblum, and Kivalina Grove for their assistance with data collection. Supplementary materials are included in the web appendix accompanying the online version of this article. References Adams Damian C., Adams Alison E. ( 2011), “De-Placing Local at the Farmers’ Market: Consumer Conceptions of Local Foods,” Journal of Rural Social Sciences , 26 ( 2), 74– 100. Allen Patricia ( 2006), Together at the Table: Sustainability and Sustenance in the American Agrofood System , State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Anderson Molly D. ( 2008), “Rights-Based Food Systems and the Goals of Food Systems Reform,” Agriculture and Human Values , 25 ( 4), 593– 608. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Anderson Veronica ( 2016), “5 Reasons to Join the Locavore Movement,” Huffington Post , https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-veronica-anderson/Locavore_b_7483218.html. Arbuckle James L. ( 2013), Amos, Version 22.0 (computer program), Chicago: SPSS. Ballard Rebecca, Crino Michael D., Rubenfeld Stephen ( 1988), “Social Desirability Response Bias and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale,” Psychological Reports , 63 ( 1), 227– 37. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Bearden William O., Hardesty David M., Rose Randall L. ( 2001), “Consumer Self-Confidence: Refinements in Conceptualization and Measurement,” Journal of Consumer Research , 28 ( 1), 121– 34. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Belk Russell W., Bahn Kenneth D., Mayer Robert N. ( 1982), “Developmental Recognition of Consumption Symbolism,” Journal of Consumer Research , 9 ( 1), 4– 17. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Berger Jonah, Rand Lindsay ( 2008), “Shifting Signals to Help Health: Using Identity Signaling to Reduce Risky Health Behaviors,” Journal of Consumer Research , 35 ( 3), 509– 18. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Brown Cheryl ( 2003), “Consumers’ Preferences for Locally Produced Food: A Study in Southeast Missouri,” American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , 18 ( 4), 213– 24. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Brown Cheryl, Miller Stacy ( 2008), “The Impacts of Local Markets: A Review of Research on Farmers Markets and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA),” American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 90 ( 5), 1298– 302. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Brown Elizabeth, Dury Sandrine, Holdsworth Michelle ( 2009), “Motivations of Consumers That Use Local, Organic Fruit and Vegetable Box Schemes in Central England and Southern France,” Appetite , 53 ( 2), 183– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Burchardi Henrike, Schröder Carsten, Thiele Holger D. ( 2005), “Willingness-to-Pay for Food of the Own Region: Empirical Estimates from Hypothetical and Incentive Compatible Settings,” paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Providence, RI. Burroughs James E., Rindfleisch Aric ( 2002), “Materialism and Well-Being: A Conflicting Values Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research , 29 ( 3), 348– 70. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Celsi Richard L., Rose Randall L., Leigh Thomas W. ( 1993), “An Exploration of High‐Risk Leisure Consumption through Skydiving,” Journal of Consumer Research , 20 ( 1), 1– 23. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Chambers Stephanie, Lobb Alexandra, Butler Laurie, Harvey Kate, Bruce Traill W. ( 2007), “Local, National and Imported Foods: A Qualitative Study,” Appetite , 49 ( 1), 208– 13. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Churchill Gilbert A.Jr. ( 1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research , 16 ( 1), 64– 73. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Clark Lee Anna, Watson David ( 1995), “Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale Development,” Psychological Assessment , 7 ( 3), 309– 19. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Cleveland David A., Carruth Allison, Mazaroli Daniella Niki ( 2015), “Operationalizing Local Food: Goals, Actions, and Indicators for Alternative Food Systems,” Agriculture and Human Values , 32 ( 2), 281– 97. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Conkin Paul ( 2008), A Revolution Down on the Farm: The Transformation of American Agriculture since 1929 , Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Costanigro Marco, Kroll Stephan, Thilmany Dawn, Bunning Marisa ( 2014), “Is It Love for Local/Organic or Hate for Conventional? Asymmetric Effects of Information and Taste on Label Preferences in an Experimental Auction,” Food Quality and Preference , 31, 94– 105. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Costanigro Marco, McFadden Dawn T., Kroll Stephan, Nurse Gretchen ( 2011), “An In‐Store Valuation of Local and Organic Apples: The Role of Social Desirability,” Agribusiness , 27 ( 4), 465– 77. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Cronbach Lee J., Meehl Paul E. ( 1955), “Construct Validity in Psychological Tests,” Psychological Bulletin , 52 ( 4), 281– 302. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Crowne Douglas P., Marlowe David ( 1960), “A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology,” Journal of Consulting Psychology , 24 ( 4), 349– 54. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Darby Kim, Batte Marvin T., Ernst Stan, Roe Brian ( 2008), “Decomposing Local: A Conjoint Analysis of Locally Produced Foods,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 90 ( 2), 476– 86. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Durkheim Emile ( 1938), The Rules of Sociological Method , New York: Free Press. Escalas Jennifer Edson, Bettman James R. ( 2005), “Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning,” Journal of Consumer Research , 32 ( 3), 378– 89. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Feldmann Corinna, Hamm Ulrich ( 2015), “Consumers’ Perceptions and Preferences for Local Food: A Review,” Food Quality and Preference , 40, 152– 64. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ferraro Rosellina, Bettman James R., Chartrand Tanya L. ( 2009), “The Power of Strangers: The Effect of Incidental Consumer Brand Encounters on Brand Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research , 35 ( 5), 729– 41. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Fischer Eileen, Otnes Cele ( 2006), “Breaking New Grounds: Developing Grounded Theories in Marketing and Consumer Behavior,” in Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Marketing , ed. Belk Russell, Northampton, MA: Elgar, 19– 30. Galzki Jake C., Mulla David J., Peters Christian J. ( 2015), “Mapping the Potential of Local Food Capacity in Southeastern Minnesota,” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , 30 ( 4), 364– 72. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gerstman Burt ( 2016), “Correlation,” StatPrimer, http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/gerstman/StatPrimer/correlation.pdf. Giesler Markus, Veresiu Ela ( 2014), “Creating the Responsible Consumer: Moralistic Governance Regimes and Consumer Subjectivity,” Journal of Consumer Research , 41 ( 3), 840– 57. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gilg Andrew, Barr Stewart, Ford Nicholas ( 2005), “Green Consumption or Sustainable Lifestyles? Identifying the Sustainable Consumer,” Futures , 37 ( 6), 481– 504. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   GreenBiz ( 2009), “Safeway Expands Its Local Food Focus,” https://www.greenbiz.com/news/2009/06/19/safeway-expands-its-local-food-focus. Halweil Brian ( 2002), “Home Grown: The Case for Local Food in a Global Market,” Worldwatch Paper No. 163, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC 20036. Hedges Alan, Kelly John ( 1992), Identification with Local Areas: Summary Report on a Qualitative Study , London: Department of Environment. Hozier George C., Stem Donald E. ( 1985), “General Retail Patronage Loyalty as a Determinant of Consumer Outshopping Behavior,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 13 ( 1–2), 32– 46. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Janiszewski Chris, Labroo Aparna A., Rucker Derek D. ( 2016), “A Tutorial in Consumer Research: Knowledge Creation and Knowledge Appreciation in Deductive-Conceptual Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research , 43 ( 2), 200– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Jarvis Cheryl Burke, MacKenzie Scott B., Podsakoff Philip M. ( 2003), “A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research , 30 ( 2), 199– 218. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Jekanowski Mark D., Williams Daniel R., Schiek William A. ( 2000), “Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Locally Produced Agricultural Products: An Analysis of an Indiana Survey,” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , 29 ( 1), 43– 53. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Jones Peter, Comfort Daphne, Hillier David ( 2004), “A Case Study of Local Food and Its Routes to Market in the UK,” British Food Journal , 106 ( 4), 328– 35. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Jost John T. ( 2017), “The Marketplace of Ideology: ‘Elective Affinities’ in Political Psychology and Their Implications for Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology , 27 ( 4), 502– 20. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Jost John T., Nosek Brian A., Gosling Samuel D. ( 2008), “Ideology: Its Resurgence in Social, Personality, and Political Psychology,” Perspectives on Psychological Science , 3 ( 2), 126– 36. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kaiser Henry F. ( 1960), “The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis,” Educational and Psychological Measurement , 20 ( 1), 141– 51. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kozinets Robert V., Handelman Jay M. ( 2004), “Adversaries of Consumption: Consumer Movements, Activism, and Ideology,” Journal of Consumer Research , 31 ( 3), 691– 704. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Lang Tim, Heasman Michael ( 2015), Food Wars: The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets , New York: Routledge. La Trobe Helen ( 2001), “Farmers’ Markets: Consuming Local Rural Produce,” International Journal of Consumer Studies , 25 ( 3), 181– 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Loureiro Maria L., Hine Susan ( 2002), “Discovering Niche Markets: A Comparison of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local (Colorado Grown), Organic, and GMO-Free Products,” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , 34 ( 3), 477– 87. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Maiser Jennifer ( 2007), “10 Steps to Becoming a Locavore,” PBS, http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/344/Locavore.html. Matthes Jörg, Wonneberger Anke ( 2014), “The Skeptical Green Consumer Revisited: Testing the Relationship between Green Consumerism and Skepticism toward Advertising,” Journal of Advertising , 43 ( 2), 115– 27. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   McFerran Brent, Dahl Darren W., Fitzsimons Gavan J., Morales Andrea C. ( 2010), “I’ll Have What She’s Having: Effects of Social Influence and Body Type on the Food Choices of Others,” Journal of Consumer Research , 36 ( 6), 915– 29. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   McGrath Mary Ann, Sherry John F.Jr., Heisley Deborah D. ( 1993), “An Ethnographic Study of an Urban Periodic Marketplace: Lessons from the Midville Farmers’ Market,” Journal of Retailing , 69 ( 3), 280– 319. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Mintz Sidney W., Du Bois Christine M. ( 2002), “The Anthropology of Food and Eating,” Annual Review of Anthropology , 31 ( 1), 99– 119. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Mirosa Miranda, Lawson Rob ( 2012), “Revealing the Lifestyles of Local Food Consumers,” British Food Journal , 114 ( 6), 816– 25. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Mishra Arul, Mishra Himanshu ( 2010), “Border Bias: The Belief That State Borders Can Protect against Disasters,” Psychological Science , 21 ( 11), 1582– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Mokkink Lidwine B., Terwee Caroline B., Patrick Donald L., Alonso Jordi, Stratford Paul W., Knol Dirk L., Bouter Lex M., de Vet Henrica CW ( 2010), “The COSMIN Study Reached International Consensus on Taxonomy, Terminology, and Definitions of Measurement Properties for Health-Related Patient-Reported Outcomes,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 63 ( 7), 737– 45. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Motyl Matt, Iyer Ravi, Oishi Shigehiro, Trawalter Sophie, Nosek Brian A. ( 2014), “How Ideological Migration Geographically Segregates Groups,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 51, 1– 14. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Muniz Albert M., O’Guinn Thomas C. ( 2001), “Brand Community,” Journal of Consumer Research , 27 ( 4), 412– 32. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Nalley Lawton Lanier, Hudson Darren, Parkhurst Greg ( 2006), “Consistency of Consumer Valuation under Different Information Sets: An Experimental Auction with Sweet Potatoes,” Journal of Food Distribution Research , 37 ( 3), 56– 67. Netemeyer Richard G., Bearden William O., Sharma Subhash ( 2003), Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications , Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Nganje William E., Hughner Renée Shaw, Lee Nicholas E. ( 2011), “State-Branded Programs and Consumer Preference for Locally Grown Produce,” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , 40 ( 1), 20– 32. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Nie Cong, Zepeda Lydia ( 2011), “Lifestyle Segmentation of US Food Shoppers to Examine Organic and Local Food Consumption,” Appetite , 57 ( 1), 28– 37. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Northrup Laura ( 2014), “At Kroger, ‘Local’ Produces Comes from Within 400 Miles,” Consumerist, https://consumerist.com/2014/04/29/at-kroger-local-produce-comes-from-within-400-miles/. Obermiller Carl, Spangenberg Eric R. ( 1998), “Development of a Scale to Measure Consumer Skepticism toward Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Psychology , 7 ( 2), 159– 86. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Olson Jenny G., McFerran Brent, Morales Andrea C., Dahl Darren W. ( 2016), “Wealth and Welfare: Divergent Moral Reactions to Ethical Consumer Choices,” Journal of Consumer Research , 42 ( 6), 879– 96. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Onozaka Yuko, McFadden Dawn Thilmany ( 2011), “Does Local Labeling Complement or Compete with Other Sustainable Labels? A Conjoint Analysis of Direct and Joint Values for Fresh Produce Claim,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 93 ( 3), 693– 706. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Oxford English Dictionary ( 2017), “Lionize,” http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/108816?redirectedFrom=lionization&. Oxford University Press ( 2007), “Oxford Word of the Year 2007: Locavore,” OUPBlog, https://blog.oup.com/2007/11/Locavore/. Park Crystal L. ( 2010), “Making Sense of the Meaning Literature: An Integrative Review of Meaning Making and Its Effects on Adjustment to Stressful Life Events,” Psychological Bulletin , 136 ( 2), 257– 301. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Peter J. Paul ( 1981), “Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing Practices,” Journal of Marketing Research , 18 ( 2), 133– 45. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Pollan Michael ( 2006), The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals , New York: Penguin. Porter Doug ( 2008), “Understanding Local Food,” Daily Kos, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/19/675076/-. Price Linda L., Coulter Robin A., Strizhakova Yuliya, Schultz Ainslie ( forthcoming), “The Fresh Start Mindset: Transforming Consumers’ Lives,” Journal of Consumer Research . Puddifoot John E. ( 1995), “Dimensions of Community Identity,” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology , 5 ( 5), 357– 70. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Puddifoot John E. ( 2003), “Exploring ‘Personal’ and ‘Shared’ Sense of Community Identity in Durham City, England,” Journal of Community Psychology , 31 ( 1), 87– 106. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ratner Bruce ( 2017), “The Correlation Coefficient: Definition,” DM Stat-1, http://www.dmstat1.com/res/TheCorrelationCoefficientDefined.html. Reed Matthew ( 2010), Rebels for the Soil: The Rise of the Global Organic Food and Farming Movement , London: Earthscan. Reiley Laura ( 2016), “How to Tell If Your ‘Local’ Food Is Actually Local,” Tampa Bay Times , http://www.tampabay.com/projects/2016/food/farm-to-fable/consumers/. Richins Marsha L. ( 2004), “The Material Values Scale: Measurement Properties and Development of a Short Form,” Journal of Consumer Research , 31 ( 1), 209– 19. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Rindfleisch Aric, Burroughs James E., Denton Frank ( 1997), “Family Structure, Materialism, and Compulsive Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research , 23 ( 4), 312– 25. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Rindfleisch Aric, Burroughs James E., Wong Nancy ( 2009), “The Safety of Objects: Materialism, Existential Insecurity, and Brand Connection,” Journal of Consumer Research , 36 ( 1), 1– 16. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sadler Richard C., Arku Godwin, Gilliland Jason A. ( 2015), “Local Food Networks as Catalysts for Food Policy Change to Improve Health and Build the Economy,” Local Environment , 20 ( 9), 1103– 21. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Schlosser Eric ( 2012), Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal , Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Schmid Herman ( 1981), “On the Origin of Ideology,” Acta Sociologica , 24 ( 1–2), 57– 73. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sharma Amit, Strohbehn Catherine, Radhakrishna Rama B., Ortiz Allan ( 2012), “Economic Viability of Selling Locally Grown Produce to Local Restaurants,” Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development , 3 ( 1), 181– 98. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Shimp Terence A., Sharma Subhash ( 1987), “Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE,” Journal of Marketing Research , 24 ( 3), 280– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Spiller Stephen A., Fitzsimons Gavan J., Lynch John G.Jr., McClelland Gary H. ( 2013), “Spotlights, Floodlights, and the Magic Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated Regression,” Journal of Marketing Research , 50 ( 2), 277– 88. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sprott David, Czellar Sandor, Spangenberg Eric ( 2009), “The Importance of a General Measure of Brand Engagement on Market Behavior: Development and Validation of a Scale,” Journal of Marketing Research , 46 ( 1), 92– 104. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Stephenson Garry, Lev Larry ( 2004), “Common Support for Local Agriculture in Two Contrasting Oregon Communities,” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , 19 ( 4), 210– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Tabachnick Barbara G., Fidell Linda S. ( 2001), Using Multivariate Statistics , 4th edition, New York: Harper & Row. Tarkan Laurie ( 2015), “The Big Business behind the Local Food,” Fortune , http://fortune.com/2015/08/21/local-food-movement-business/. Testa Francesco, Russo Michael V., Bettina Cornwell T., McDonald Aaron, Reich Brandon ( forthcoming), “Social Sustainability as Buying Local: Soft Policy, Meso Level Actors, and Social Influences on Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing . Thompson Craig J., Arsel Zeynep ( 2004), “The Starbucks Brandscape and Consumers’ (Anticorporate) Experiences of Glocalization,” Journal of Consumer Research , 31 ( 3), 631– 42. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Thompson Craig J., Coskuner-Balli Gokcen ( 2007), “Countervailing Market Responses to Corporate Co-Optation and the Ideological Recruitment of Consumption Communities,” Journal of Consumer Research , 34 ( 2), 135– 52. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Thompson Craig J., Troester Maura ( 2002), “Consumer Value Systems in the Age of Postmodern Fragmentation: The Case of the Natural Health Microculture,” Journal of Consumer Research , 28 ( 4), 550– 71. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Turner John C., Brown Rupert J., Tajfel Henri ( 1979), “Social Comparison and Group Interest in Ingroup Favouritism,” European Journal of Social Psychology , 9 ( 2), 187– 204. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Varman Rohit, Belk Russell W. ( 2009), “Nationalism and Ideology in an Anticonsumption Movement,” Journal of Consumer Research , 36 ( 4), 686– 700. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Walmart ( 2017), “Fresh Food,” https://www.walmart.com/cp/fresh-food/1071964. Wang Xin, Bendle Neil T., Mai Feng, Cotte June ( 2015), “The Journal of Consumer Research at 40: A Historical Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research , 42 ( 1), 5– 18. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Weatherell Charlotte, Tregear Angela, Allinson Johanne ( 2003), “In Search of the Concerned Consumer: UK Public Perceptions of Food, Farming and Buying Local,” Journal of Rural Studies , 19 ( 2), 233– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Webb Andrea, Peck Joann ( 2015), “Individual Differences in Interpersonal Touch: On the Development, Validation, and Use of the ‘Comfort with Interpersonal Touch’ (CIT) Scale,” Journal of Consumer Psychology , 25 ( 1), 60– 77. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   White Katherine, Dahl Darren W. ( 2007), “Are All Out-Groups Created Equal? Consumer Identity and Dissociative Influence,” Journal of Consumer Research , 34 ( 4), 525– 36. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Woolley Kaitlin, Fishbach Ayelet ( 2017), “A Recipe for Friendship: Similar Food Consumption Promotes Trust and Cooperation,” Journal of Consumer Psychology , 27 ( 1), 1– 10. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Yue Chengyan, Tong Cindy ( 2009), “Organic or Local? Investigating Consumer Preference for Fresh Produce Using a Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives,” HortScience , 44 ( 2), 366– 71. Zepeda Lydia, Deal David ( 2009), “Organic and Local Food Consumer Behaviour: Alphabet Theory,” International Journal of Consumer Studies , 33 ( 6), 697– 705. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Consumer Research Oxford University Press

Food as Ideology: Measurement and Validation of Locavorism

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/food-as-ideology-measurement-and-validation-of-locavorism-FMopTf0gRy
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
ISSN
0093-5301
eISSN
1537-5277
D.O.I.
10.1093/jcr/ucy027
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract This research conceptualizes preferences for local foods (i.e., locavorism) as an emergent consumer ideology and develops a multidimensional scale to measure it. Prior socioeconomics and psychology research has uncovered correlates of local food preferences and offered some possible theoretical explanations. By synthesizing and expanding these past findings and perspectives, this research presents a tripartite framework for understanding locavorism in terms of three core belief dimensions: lionization of local foods, opposition to long-distance food systems, and communalization of food economies. Six studies provide support for this L-O-C framework and its validity. Survey, experimental, and field evidence demonstrate the scale’s structure, as well as its discriminant, predictive, nomological, and known-group validity. In addition to choice and preference for local foods, the scale predicts evangelism and meaningfulness related to food advertisements. Altogether, this work provides a grounded view of locavorism, together with a measurement tool that food marketers may apply in practice. locavorism, food, ideology, construct development, measurement, meaning-making For much of human history, consuming locally produced food was the norm. Agricultural industrialization and its decoupling effects, especially since the 1930s, complicated consumer–food relationships and distanced producers from consumers (Conkin 2008), prompting several undesirable, unintended consequences—such as environmental degradation, increased incidents of food-borne illness, economic turmoil in smaller food communities, and diminished food quality (Anderson 2008; Halweil 2002). In response, some modern consumers have embraced antiscale, prolocal preferences, thereby establishing a new consumer ideology: locavorism. In line with meaning-making and symbolic value models (Mintz and Du Bois 2002; Park 2010), locavorism is manifest in concepts such as local food, farmers’ markets, eat local, farm-to-table, and so forth. The resultant “locavore” label is simultaneously familiar and recent. Academic journals thus highlight its emergence (Feldmann and Hamm 2015), particularly in the United States (Cleveland, Carruth, and Mazaroli 2015; Galzki, Mulla, and Peters 2015; Sadler, Arku, and Gilliland 2015; Sharma et al. 2012), and trade journals seek to quantify interest in local food—noting, for example, that local food sales generated $11.7 billion in 2014, with an expected increase to $20.2 billion by 2019 (Tarkan 2015). Even Walmart publicly promises to provide “locally sourced favorites refreshed daily” and identifies itself as “the largest purchaser of locally sourced and sold produce in America” (Walmart 2017). Competitors such as Safeway (GreenBiz 2009), Kroger (Northrup 2014), and Publix (Reiley 2016) have followed. Yet, as a concept, locavorism lacks formal construction. An overly simplistic view could characterize locavores as consumers with strong local food preferences; other approaches might rely on a basic instantiation of hometown bias or anticorporatism. An overly complex view places locavorism at the intersection of several cultural and economic phenomena that cannot be explained with a single theoretical lens or unidimensional framework. In an attempt to balance between these perspectives, we seek a comprehensive, parsimonious model of locavorism as a system of beliefs with three primary dimensions: lionization of local foods, opposition to long-distance food systems, and support for communalization of food economies—that is, the L-O-C framework. Along with this novel theoretical framework, we propose a valid tool to measure locavorism. Consumer researchers are increasingly curious about the social and psychological drivers of food consumption (Wang et al. 2015), and marketing practitioners must respond to local preferences, yet it is unclear whether, as in the Walmart example, such efforts by corporate entities violate the belief structures of locavores. Therefore, to build a valid understanding and measure of locavorism, we draw on various samples (US university students, internet users, grocery store shoppers) using a combination of survey, experimental, and field methodologies. Accordingly, we make several contributions to the consumer behavior literature generally and food consumption research in particular. First, we advance understanding of what it means to be a locavore, building on extant research into agricultural economics (Brown 2003; Darby et al. 2008; Sharma et al. 2012) and food preferences (Chambers et al. 2007; Costanigro et al. 2014; Nie and Zepeda 2011). The present research critically synthesizes and builds on prior findings, adding conceptual clarity to locavorism as a construct by delimiting its scope and eliminating redundancies in its theoretical bases. Second, we distinguish locavorism from other theoretical accounts of local consumption. For example, it might be tempting to attribute locavorism to a hometown bias (Nalley, Hudson, and Parkhurst 2006), which is an instantiation of ingroup favoritism (Turner, Brown, and Tajfel 1979). However, this perspective paints an incomplete picture and fails to account for locavores who prefer to “eat local” even when traveling to foreign (i.e., outgroup) contexts (study 2a). Some research instead uses anticorporate values to explain local food trends (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007), which provides a useful foundation, but neglects other, orthogonal explanations and fails to account for locavores who still purchase from a corporate brand selling a locally sourced food product (study 2b). Thus, locavorism is a unique construct, and addressing it improves predictions of food consumption. Third, following a rigorous scale development and validation procedure, we provide a scale to reflect our unique conceptualization. Prior research has often relied on conjoint analyses or choice models to operationalize locavorism (Darby et al. 2008), which is helpful if choice is all that matters. But these methods do little to explain the psychology of locavorism as an ideological belief system and how it relates to other theoretical constructs. Ad hoc scales to assess positive attitudes toward local food (Adams and Adams 2011; Testa et al. forthcoming) cannot reflect the full theoretical richness of the construct or validate it empirically. To derive our proposed locavore scale, we follow rigorous, well-established scale construction and validation procedures considered to be best practices in both marketing and psychology. The scale in turn provides insights of benefit to both practitioners and researchers. For example, a fuller understanding of locavorism may improve marketing to locavores, because marketers can adapt their strategies and “communication style to fit the ideological demeanor of [the] audience” (Jost 2017, 514). Consumer researchers also could apply the scale to test theory and can use the conceptualization of locavorism as a meaningful consumer ideology. In the next section, we review concepts related to locavorism, articulate the gaps in existing approaches to the construct, and present our theoretically derived, tripartite (L-O-C) framework. Six studies, drawing from eight independent samples (four surveys and four experiments), test this framework. We then combine the samples across studies into a single data set (N = 1, 261) to confirm the psychometric robustness of the scale (see web appendix A). We embed these findings in a concluding discussion of implications for marketers and consumer researchers, and we also suggest how future research might build on the current research. FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS Alternative food consumption began, in a sense, with the organic foods movement in the 1960s (Reed 2010). However, the cooptation of organic foods by corporate brands in the 1980s shifted the movement toward a stronger focus on local foods, sourced directly from local farmers (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007). It gained further traction through subsidized programs and aggressive marketing efforts by local and state governments (Feldmann and Hamm 2015), prompting wider consumer adoption of and demand for local foods (Brown and Miller 2008). Reflecting this trend, the word locavore was introduced into the English language in 2005 and was shortly thereafter named Word of the Year by Oxford University Press (2007). Researchers began documenting this marketplace phenomenon in the early 1990s (McGrath, Sherry, and Heisley 1993), yet recent growth in the prevalence and popularity of local food markets has been dramatic (Feldmann and Hamm 2015). Despite this history and influence, we know little about consumers who participate in this marketplace. We propose conceptualizing locavorism as a consumer ideology (or set of normative beliefs) that comprises three core dimensions, which also foreshadow the structure of the proposed locavore scale and its contribution to the meaning that people extract from their food consumption experiences. Locavorism as a Consumer Ideology An ideology refers to a set of normative beliefs shared among a group (Durkheim 1938); for a shared belief system to be an ideology, it must take some material, social form (e.g., laws, currency systems, patterns of action). People who adopt the ideology are carriers of the social forms, in that they subscribe to the belief system, then turn those beliefs into meaningful action. Schmid’s (1981) “circulation of ideology” model starts and ends with a set of practices within society, such that ideology formation is an iterative process by which existing social practices create a primary ideology among a set of people that informs their new practices, which evolve into alternative (i.e., secondary and tertiary) forms of the ideology, and so on. With a conceptual analysis, we clearly can fit locavorism to Durkheim’s (1938) and Schmid’s (1981) criteria and thus regard it as an ideology. All locavores by definition share core beliefs (e.g., local foods offer superior taste and quality, consuming locally benefits the local economy; Brown 2003; Halweil 2002; Jekanowski, Williams, and Schiek 2000). Locavores’ beliefs about local foods can be readily translated into material social forms (e.g., farmers’ markets, community-supported agriculture [CSA] programs) and meaningful action (e.g., purchases, food choices). Moreover, the history of the locavore movement fits the circulation of ideology model: Through government–business partnerships, it began with a set of practices (e.g., farmers’ markets), which initiated the onset of locavorism as a shared set of beliefs, which in turn led to further practices (e.g., popular press, books, and documentaries) that continue to reinforce and expand the ideology. These specifications of locavorism and its development parallel other consumer value systems, such as materialism (Richins 2004). With this evidence that locavorism is an ideology, we consider it imperative to uncover the specific beliefs that constitute it. In our L-O-C framework, we propose three belief dimensions that are unique and necessary components of the locavorism ideology. The L-O-C Framework Lionization The term lionize relies on the metaphorical symbolism associated with the lion—the superior, most respected creature in the animal kingdom (Oxford English Dictionary 2017). Although often applied to people or places, it also can apply to objects. To lionize is to imbue something with the qualities of a lion (e.g., superiority, creditability). Among locavores, a core belief is that local (vs. nonlocal) foods possess superior taste and quality; as an essential part of their ideology, they lionize the foods themselves as intrinsically superior. Empirical evidence supports this association between locavorism and inferences of local food superiority. Jekanowski et al. (2000) find that, among a random sample of consumers, a belief in the superior quality of local food is the strongest predictor of their willingness to pay for it. Taste and nutrition inferences offer good predictors of local food preference (Brown 2003; La Trobe 2001; Loureiro and Hine 2002; Onozaka and McFadden 2011). Beliefs in the superior nutrition and flavor of local foods might be sensible, in that the mass production and distribution of food can result in a loss of taste and quality (Anderson 2008). Conversely, consumers might infer that national brands have more capabilities or resources (e.g., equipment, quality control), so they exhibit substantial variation in their local–quality associations and food perceptions (Weatherell, Tregear, and Allinson 2003). We contend that the former set of beliefs (i.e., local foods possess superior taste and nutritional value) represents a first dimension of locavorism. Absent this lionized view, a consumer is unlikely to be considered a locavore. Beliefs about superior taste and quality are inherent to the movement, and a review of local food research (Feldmann and Hamm 2015) cites these beliefs as the most frequently reported predictors of local food purchases. Locavores may possess other prolocal beliefs, extrinsic to the specific food itself, but a belief in local food’s intrinsic superiority is essential to this ideology. Opposition Ideological belief systems are not just prescriptive but proscriptive as well, such that they include beliefs about which social practices and institutions should be encouraged or discouraged (Jost, Nosek, and Gosling 2008). Locavorism includes both types of beliefs, and an opposition to long-distance food systems is endemic to locavores’ ideology. Costanigro et al. (2014) show that local preferences may result more powerfully from a rejection of conventional foods than a love of local foods, and Halweil (2002) frames his “Case for Local Food” primarily in terms of the detriments of nonlocal food, rather than the benefits of local food. Although the specific reasons for opposing distant foods may vary, concerns about safety and transparency are core (Halweil 2002). The origins of local foods are easier to trace, so consumers may be more likely to trust their safety (Darby et al. 2008; Yue and Tong 2009). By extension, this sentiment may translate into a distrust of nonlocal foods, an often-reported motivation to consume locally in the agricultural economics literature (Burchardi, Schröder, and Thiele 2005; Darby et al. 2008; Nganje, Hughner, and Lee 2011; Yue and Tong 2009). Although this opposition may resemble anticorporatism (Kozinets and Handelman 2004), it is a broader value category (antiglobal, antihegemonic), of which anticorporatism is a facet (Thompson and Arsel 2004). Thus, we conceptualize a generalized opposition to long-distance food systems, primarily driven by distrust, as the second dimension of locavorism. Again, opposition is a requisite component. Locavores eschew typical supermarket offerings because they are not produced locally (Northrup 2014). Halweil (2002) notes a weakening of the long-distance food system’s stronghold on food consumption, attributed to the local foods movement. Several best-selling books (e.g., Fast Food Nation [Schlosser 2012]), The Omnivore’s Dilemma [Pollan 2006]) that offer scathing criticisms of conventional long-distance food systems have galvanized the locavore movement (Porter 2008). Thus, there is something inextricably oppositional in locavorism. Communalization Local food consumption provides an appealing sense of building and supporting a self-sustaining community (Galzki et al. 2015). Consumers derive pleasure from the relational aspects of local food exchange venues, such as farmers’ markets (McGrath et al. 1993) and CSA programs (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007). Several studies identify support for local farmers as an important reason for local food consumption (Darby et al. 2008; Stephenson and Lev 2004). This notion of communal consumption (Celsi, Rose, and Leigh 1993) is similar to the idea of brand community (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001), though the marketplaces often involve specific individuals rather than abstract brand concepts. This dimension of locavorism does not necessarily depend on supporting one’s own community but rather involves contributing to a local community, in whatever location the consumer is situated. Thus, communalization, as the third dimension of locavorism, pertains to building and supporting one’s own community or local communities more generally. Communalization is integral to locavorism, because the origins of the movement and its ongoing social practices are inseparable from ideas of community and communal relations. Farmers’ markets and local co-ops are rich, community-enhancing venues frequented by locavores, such that they “could be considered the historical flagship of local food systems” (Brown and Miller 2008, 1298), with economic and social benefits for various communities. This circulatory pattern of communalization (i.e., locavores believe in the value of communal spaces for local foods, farmers’ markets become more abundant, consumers see more value in locavorism, and so on) is central to locavorism’s classification as an ideology (Schmid 1981). Locavorism as a Reinforcing Loop The three core beliefs that constitute locavorism are also mutually reinforcing. Opposition to long-distance food systems stems from a comparison of distantly and locally sourced foods, together with beliefs that the latter are higher in quality and more nutritious (lionization). Lionization then lends support to the idea that long-distance food systems cannot be trusted, because they are less likely to yield high-quality foods. Both beliefs provide a rationale for supporting local food communities (communalization); the existence of local food communities in turn enables both opposition and lionization. To test this proposed L-O-C model of locavorism, we conduct eight studies, which we summarize in table 1. TABLE 1 OVERVIEW OF STUDIES Study  Principal test  Principal analysis  Key finding  1a  Item purification  PCA  Twenty-three-item pool reduced to 11 items loading on three components  1b  Structural validity  CFA  Confirmation of three-factor structure of 11-item scale  2a  Discriminant validity (hometown bias)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts likelihood of choosing a local (vs. chain) grocery retailer, even in a foreign city  2b  Discriminant validity (anticorporatism)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of honey even when sold by a corporate retailer  3  Predictive validity  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavore scale predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of granola  4  Nomological and predictive validity  Bivariate correlations and multiple regression  Locavore scale exhibits weak to moderate correlations with theoretically relevant measures and predicts local food choice better than other measures  5  Known-group validity  Independent samples t-test  Shoppers intercepted at local coop (vs. national grocery chain) score higher on locavore scale  6  Advertising response  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavores are more likely to evangelize and experience meaning in response to a local (vs. national) food ad  Study  Principal test  Principal analysis  Key finding  1a  Item purification  PCA  Twenty-three-item pool reduced to 11 items loading on three components  1b  Structural validity  CFA  Confirmation of three-factor structure of 11-item scale  2a  Discriminant validity (hometown bias)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts likelihood of choosing a local (vs. chain) grocery retailer, even in a foreign city  2b  Discriminant validity (anticorporatism)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of honey even when sold by a corporate retailer  3  Predictive validity  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavore scale predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of granola  4  Nomological and predictive validity  Bivariate correlations and multiple regression  Locavore scale exhibits weak to moderate correlations with theoretically relevant measures and predicts local food choice better than other measures  5  Known-group validity  Independent samples t-test  Shoppers intercepted at local coop (vs. national grocery chain) score higher on locavore scale  6  Advertising response  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavores are more likely to evangelize and experience meaning in response to a local (vs. national) food ad  TABLE 1 OVERVIEW OF STUDIES Study  Principal test  Principal analysis  Key finding  1a  Item purification  PCA  Twenty-three-item pool reduced to 11 items loading on three components  1b  Structural validity  CFA  Confirmation of three-factor structure of 11-item scale  2a  Discriminant validity (hometown bias)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts likelihood of choosing a local (vs. chain) grocery retailer, even in a foreign city  2b  Discriminant validity (anticorporatism)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of honey even when sold by a corporate retailer  3  Predictive validity  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavore scale predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of granola  4  Nomological and predictive validity  Bivariate correlations and multiple regression  Locavore scale exhibits weak to moderate correlations with theoretically relevant measures and predicts local food choice better than other measures  5  Known-group validity  Independent samples t-test  Shoppers intercepted at local coop (vs. national grocery chain) score higher on locavore scale  6  Advertising response  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavores are more likely to evangelize and experience meaning in response to a local (vs. national) food ad  Study  Principal test  Principal analysis  Key finding  1a  Item purification  PCA  Twenty-three-item pool reduced to 11 items loading on three components  1b  Structural validity  CFA  Confirmation of three-factor structure of 11-item scale  2a  Discriminant validity (hometown bias)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts likelihood of choosing a local (vs. chain) grocery retailer, even in a foreign city  2b  Discriminant validity (anticorporatism)  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavorism predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of honey even when sold by a corporate retailer  3  Predictive validity  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavore scale predicts purchase likelihood for local (vs. national) brand of granola  4  Nomological and predictive validity  Bivariate correlations and multiple regression  Locavore scale exhibits weak to moderate correlations with theoretically relevant measures and predicts local food choice better than other measures  5  Known-group validity  Independent samples t-test  Shoppers intercepted at local coop (vs. national grocery chain) score higher on locavore scale  6  Advertising response  Multiple regression (moderation)  Locavores are more likely to evangelize and experience meaning in response to a local (vs. national) food ad  STUDY 1: ITEM PURIFICATION, FACTOR STRUCTURE, AND RELIABILITY The initial study seeks to generate a pool of scale items, establish a purified subset of relevant items, and evaluate the reliability and factor structure of this subset. Following well-established scale development procedures (Churchill 1979; Clark and Watson 1995; Cronbach and Meehl 1955), we began with open-ended reviews of relevant literature and interviews with stakeholders (scholars, consumers, and farmers) to specify the domain of interest. Accordingly, we generated 64 items that represented not only our three core dimensions (lionization, opposition, and communalization) but also two additional dimensions that emerged from the process (moral responsibility and environment). Extant research cites the motivating influences of moral considerations (Allen 2006; Zepeda and Deal 2009) and environmental concerns (Brown, Dury, and Holdsworth 2009; Yue and Tong 2009), but it is not clear whether these dimensions are distinct from our L-O-C framework. For example, the opposition to nonlocal food systems often arises from the sense that such systems are environmentally destructive and unethical (Halweil 2002; Lang and Heasman 2015), and support for the local community might be driven by moral concerns for the welfare of community members and local food producers (Allen 2006). Such reasoning suggests that though moral responsibility and environment are likely facets, locavorism can be explained more accurately and parsimoniously by the three factors of the L-O-C model. We retain these two dimensions for empirical testing, though. Twelve scholars, familiar with scale construction practices, evaluated the face and content validity of our item pool, according to our definition of locavorism and its dimensions. We eliminated items based on their evaluations (Price et al. forthcoming; Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg 2009), which reduced the pool to 37 items. After revisiting our initial literature review and discussing with colleagues and local food producers, we refined the wording and eliminated redundancy in this set, such that we retained 23 items (web appendix B). In two waves of data collection, we then sought to purify and validate this scale. Study 1a uses principal components analysis (PCA) to assess the factor structure and eliminate poorly fitting items; it resulted in 11 items contained in a three-dimensional (lionization, opposition, and communalization) scale. As predicted, moral responsibility (e.g., “I have a moral responsibility to buy from local farmers”) and environment (e.g., “The fuel used to import foods creates serious ecological problems”) items were either subsumed into one of the three dimensions or not psychometrically robust enough to warrant retention. We readministered the 11-item scale to a subsample of study 1a participants to confirm test–retest reliability. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in study 1b confirms the factor structure. Study 1A: Item Purification and Reliability Method Two hundred five US residents were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and paid a nominal fee for their participation (N = 196 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 38.08, SDage = 11.97, range = 19–69 years; 64.8% female). After agreeing to participate, they received an introduction describing the study as a survey of Americans’ food choices. They then saw the set of 23 items generated from our initial purification process, along with two attention checks: “Please select the circle closest to ‘Strongly Agree’ for this question,” and “Please select the circle exactly in the middle of the scale for this question.” All items—including the two attention checks—appeared in counterbalanced order and were measured on seven-point Likert scales, anchored by 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) and 7 (“Strongly Agree”). Participants also completed basic demographics and were thanked for their participation. Results and Discussion The main objective of this study was to purify the pool of 23 items and explore the locavore construct’s factor structure. We used a PCA with Varimax rotation, with a commonly accepted threshold for factor retention (i.e., eigenvalues of at least 1; Kaiser 1960), with the added criterion that each factor must contain at least three items (Tabachnick and Fidell 2001). We used the following retention criteria for individual items: each item must (1) load on its primary factor at .60 or greater, (2) not cross-load on any other factor at .40 or greater, and (3) have a corrected item-to-total correlation of .40 or greater. The initial PCA results justify the retention of three factors, containing seven, four, and three items, respectively, for a total of 14 items. All three factors had eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining more than 52.59% of the variance in the items. The first factor included items that represented contributions to local community. The second factor consisted of items representing opposition to conventional and long-distance food systems. The third factor featured items representing perceptions that local foods are higher quality and taste better than nonlocal foods. The items related to environmental concern and moral responsibility loaded across these three factors and did not warrant additional independent factors. Table 2 contains the retained items and their descriptive statistics. Because communalization contained a disproportionate number of items (i.e., seven), we purified it further by eliminating its three weakest items (all primary loadings < .70, cross-loadings > .30). The resulting scale thus contained 11 items (three for lionization, four for opposition, and four for communalization; see table 2). TABLE 2 STUDY 1A: PCA RESULTS     Rotated factor loadings   M (SD)  Item  Lionization  Opposition  Communalization  4.95 (1.61)  Locally produced foods just taste better.  .68  .23  .36  4.62 (1.73)  All else equal, there is no taste difference between a locally produced food and one that was shipped from somewhere else (reverse-coded).  .72      4.68 (1.83)  Locally produced foods are more nutritious than foods that have been shipped from somewhere else.  .65  .27    3.76 (1.78)  I don’t trust foods that have been produced by large, multinational corporations.  .37  .65  .24  3.18 (1.52)  Large, global food systems are destined to fail.    .65    2.74 (1.81)  I would go out of my way to avoid buying food from a large retail grocery chain.    .70  .23  3.31 (1.79)  I feel uneasy eating something unless I know exactly where it was produced.  .29  .65    5.49 (1.42)  Buying locally produced foods supports sustainable farming practices.  .29    .71  5.76 (1.19)  Buying local foods helps build a more prosperous community.  .26    .77  5.58 (1.44)  I like to support local farmers whenever possible.    .25  .73  5.16 (1.51)  Supporting the local food economy is important to me.    .32  .73  Cronbach’s alpha (factor)  .74  .77  .83  Cronbach’s alpha (total)    .86        Rotated factor loadings   M (SD)  Item  Lionization  Opposition  Communalization  4.95 (1.61)  Locally produced foods just taste better.  .68  .23  .36  4.62 (1.73)  All else equal, there is no taste difference between a locally produced food and one that was shipped from somewhere else (reverse-coded).  .72      4.68 (1.83)  Locally produced foods are more nutritious than foods that have been shipped from somewhere else.  .65  .27    3.76 (1.78)  I don’t trust foods that have been produced by large, multinational corporations.  .37  .65  .24  3.18 (1.52)  Large, global food systems are destined to fail.    .65    2.74 (1.81)  I would go out of my way to avoid buying food from a large retail grocery chain.    .70  .23  3.31 (1.79)  I feel uneasy eating something unless I know exactly where it was produced.  .29  .65    5.49 (1.42)  Buying locally produced foods supports sustainable farming practices.  .29    .71  5.76 (1.19)  Buying local foods helps build a more prosperous community.  .26    .77  5.58 (1.44)  I like to support local farmers whenever possible.    .25  .73  5.16 (1.51)  Supporting the local food economy is important to me.    .32  .73  Cronbach’s alpha (factor)  .74  .77  .83  Cronbach’s alpha (total)    .86    NOTE.—Values drawn from full 23-item PCA. Eliminated items and factor loadings below .20 are omitted for clarity. TABLE 2 STUDY 1A: PCA RESULTS     Rotated factor loadings   M (SD)  Item  Lionization  Opposition  Communalization  4.95 (1.61)  Locally produced foods just taste better.  .68  .23  .36  4.62 (1.73)  All else equal, there is no taste difference between a locally produced food and one that was shipped from somewhere else (reverse-coded).  .72      4.68 (1.83)  Locally produced foods are more nutritious than foods that have been shipped from somewhere else.  .65  .27    3.76 (1.78)  I don’t trust foods that have been produced by large, multinational corporations.  .37  .65  .24  3.18 (1.52)  Large, global food systems are destined to fail.    .65    2.74 (1.81)  I would go out of my way to avoid buying food from a large retail grocery chain.    .70  .23  3.31 (1.79)  I feel uneasy eating something unless I know exactly where it was produced.  .29  .65    5.49 (1.42)  Buying locally produced foods supports sustainable farming practices.  .29    .71  5.76 (1.19)  Buying local foods helps build a more prosperous community.  .26    .77  5.58 (1.44)  I like to support local farmers whenever possible.    .25  .73  5.16 (1.51)  Supporting the local food economy is important to me.    .32  .73  Cronbach’s alpha (factor)  .74  .77  .83  Cronbach’s alpha (total)    .86        Rotated factor loadings   M (SD)  Item  Lionization  Opposition  Communalization  4.95 (1.61)  Locally produced foods just taste better.  .68  .23  .36  4.62 (1.73)  All else equal, there is no taste difference between a locally produced food and one that was shipped from somewhere else (reverse-coded).  .72      4.68 (1.83)  Locally produced foods are more nutritious than foods that have been shipped from somewhere else.  .65  .27    3.76 (1.78)  I don’t trust foods that have been produced by large, multinational corporations.  .37  .65  .24  3.18 (1.52)  Large, global food systems are destined to fail.    .65    2.74 (1.81)  I would go out of my way to avoid buying food from a large retail grocery chain.    .70  .23  3.31 (1.79)  I feel uneasy eating something unless I know exactly where it was produced.  .29  .65    5.49 (1.42)  Buying locally produced foods supports sustainable farming practices.  .29    .71  5.76 (1.19)  Buying local foods helps build a more prosperous community.  .26    .77  5.58 (1.44)  I like to support local farmers whenever possible.    .25  .73  5.16 (1.51)  Supporting the local food economy is important to me.    .32  .73  Cronbach’s alpha (factor)  .74  .77  .83  Cronbach’s alpha (total)    .86    NOTE.—Values drawn from full 23-item PCA. Eliminated items and factor loadings below .20 are omitted for clarity. To examine test–retest reliability, we also recruited 39 participants from the initial data collection to participate in a follow-up survey six days later. This survey contained only the 11 items retained from our initial PCA (along with another attention check). Prior to the analysis, three participants (7.7%) were excluded for failing at least one of the three attention checks from either data collection wave, resulting in a sample of 36 participants. The 11 items of the locavore scale were aggregated into a composite (α = .90) and compared with the same composite score from the initial data collection. The results suggest very high test–retest reliability for the full scale (r = .78, p < .001). Further, the composite score for each dimension demonstrates high test–retest reliability (all rs > .60, all ps < .001), supporting the reliability of the scale as a whole and each of its dimensions. The internal consistency of each dimension at time 2 also remained satisfactory (αLionization = .87; αOpposition = .82; αCommunalization = .85). Study 1B: Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Validity Method One hundred fifty-one US residents were recruited from MTurk and paid a nominal fee for their participation (N = 149 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 35.84, SDage = 11.69, range = 18–72 years; 58.4% female). The procedure was similar to that for study 1a, except the survey included only the 11 items of the locavore scale (αLocavore = .89; αLionization = .87; αOpposition = .79; αCommunalization = .87) retained from the PCA. Results and Discussion The objective of this study was to confirm the three-factor structure of the overall scale (structural validity; Mokkink et al. 2010). Using AMOS 22 (Arbuckle 2013), we fit a measurement model in which the higher-order factor locavorism predicts the three lower-order factors of lionization, opposition, and communalization. Each lower-order factor’s measured scale items were constrained to load only on that factor. A hierarchical CFA suggests good fit for this measurement model (χ2(41) = 60.521, p = .025, CFI = .977, RMSEA = .057, SRMR = .051). The regression coefficients also suggest that the lower-order factors are well explained by the higher-order factor and that the individual items are well explained by their respective lower-order factors (see figure 1). The results from studies 1a and 1b thus suggest that the locavore scale is a reliable, structurally valid measure of locavorism. FIGURE 1 View largeDownload slide STUDY 1B: CFA RESULTS NOTE.—Factor loadings are standardized estimates. Measurement errors were omitted for clarity. All coefficients are significant at p < .001. FIGURE 1 View largeDownload slide STUDY 1B: CFA RESULTS NOTE.—Factor loadings are standardized estimates. Measurement errors were omitted for clarity. All coefficients are significant at p < .001. STUDY 2: DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY FROM THEORETICALLY SIMILAR CONSTRUCTS With study 2, we seek to distinguish locavorism from two similar constructs: hometown bias and anticorporatism. Hometown bias refers to an attachment to a current city of residence, which influences preferences for people, ideas, goods, and services (Hedges and Kelly 1992; Nalley et al. 2006; Puddifoot 1995, 2003). Just as people favor ingroup products, both generally (Escalas and Bettman 2005; Ferraro, Bettman, and Chartrand 2009; White and Dahl 2007) and specifically in reference to foods (Berger and Rand 2008; McFerran et al. 2010), locavorism arguably could be a manifestation of a hometown bias in a food consumption context. In addition, as an “alternative” system of food consumption (Jones, Comfort, and Hillier 2004), the locavore movement has roots in countercultural values that typify anticorporatism (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007). Theoretically, then, anticorporate values might predict preferences for local food. Thompson and Arsel (2004) investigate anticorporatism in relation to Starbucks’s “hegemonic brandscape” to explain consumers’ motives for supporting local coffee shops, and similar anticorporate values, expressed as opposition to large-scale agricultural production, might explain consumer preferences for local produce (Thompson and Troester 2002). However, we argue that locavorism operates beyond solely hometown bias or anticorporatism. Ingroup biases are robust and pervasive, so this view would suggest that most people should be locavores. Yet locavorism is an individual ideological difference (Jost 2017) that varies widely within populations (see web appendix A). Although some locavores may hold anticorporate values, opposition to long-distance food systems, which happen to be corporate-controlled, likely offers a more direct motivation (Costanigro et al. 2014). If locavorism extends beyond anticorporatism, it should predict preferences for local foods, regardless of whether the food is sold by a corporate or noncorporate retailer. With study 2, we test these predictions. We collect the data longitudinally, such that we administer the locavore scale first (time 1), then assess the manipulation and dependent variables approximately one week later (time 2). In study 2a, participants were randomly assigned to a shopping experience scenario, in which they pictured themselves in their home city or traveling in a new US city, then indicated whether they would be more likely to shop at a neighborhood grocery store selling local foods or a national grocery chain selling national food brands. We expect a positive association between locavorism and preference for the local store selling local foods, regardless of whether the food is local to their own hometown or to a different city. Study 2b participants were randomly assigned to conditions in which they rated their purchase likelihood for either a local or national brand of honey, sold through either a corporate or local retailer. Regardless of where the food is sold, we expect locavorism to relate positively to local food preferences and negatively to national food preferences. Study 2a: Hometown Bias Method Two hundred US adults were recruited from MTurk to complete the time 1 locavorism measure (overall scale and dimension αs > .77). Approximately one week later, they were contacted to complete the remainder of the study. Of the initial sample, 124 respondents participated at time 2, for a response rate of 62.0% (N = 116 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 35.07, SDage = 10.72, range = 19–65 years; 50.0% female). They were randomly assigned to one of two location conditions. In the hometown (new city) condition, participants were asked to imagine that “you are in the city in which you currently live (a city you have never been to in the US).” In both conditions, they were to imagine that they needed basic food items for the week, and there were two options nearby that would offer all these essentials: “a general national chain grocery store that sells national brands of food items” and “a neighborhood grocery store that offers locally produced food items.” Following the scenario, the main dependent variable measure asked, “If you only had time to go to one store, which of the two grocery stores would you be more likely to buy your basic food items from?” (1 = “Definitely the general national chain grocery store”; 9 = “Definitely the neighborhood grocery store”). Participants then responded to an attention check regarding whether the scenario took place in their home city or a city they had never visited. Results and Discussion To test the distinction between locavorism and hometown bias, we analyzed a regression model with the locavore scale, the location condition variable (hometown vs. new city), and their interaction as predictors of preferences for the local grocery store. Consistent with our prediction, the results fail to yield a significant locavorism × location interaction (p = .530). Simple effects further support our predictions: locavorism positively predicts local preference in both the hometown (b = .78, SE = .32, p = .015) and new city (b = 1.06, SE = .31, p < .001) conditions. Together, these findings confirm that locavorism is separate from hometown bias. If anything, the association between locavorism and local store preference appeared stronger in the new city condition. Thus, results of study 2a suggest that locavores prefer local foods, wherever they happen to find themselves. Study 2b: Anticorporatism Method Six hundred US adults were recruited from MTurk to complete the time 1 locavorism measure (overall scale and dimension αs > .78). As in study 2a, we contacted them one week later to complete the remainder of the study. Of the initial sample, 381 respondents participated at time 2, for a response rate of 63.5% (N = 305 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 38.39, SDage = 11.82, range = 20–71 years; 56.4% female). The participants were randomly assigned to one of four possible conditions in a 2 (brand: national vs. local) × 2 (store: corporate vs. local) between-participants design and asked to imagine a short scenario that started with the brand manipulation: “Imagine that there is a local (national) brand of honey, produced in or near your city (in a city far from yours).” The next sentence provided the store manipulation: “This brand of honey is currently available at LocalMart (CorpMart), a locally owned (corporate) grocery store.” In all four conditions, the scenario concluded by stating that the honey was on sale for $5.00, marked down from an ordinary price of $6.00. Participants then indicated whether they would buy a jar of this honey (1 = “Definitely not”; 9 = “Definitely yes”), followed by two attention-check questions asking if the scenario specified (1) a local or national brand of honey and (2) a corporate or local store selling it. Results and Discussion We expect locavorism to relate positively to local food preferences and negatively to national food preferences, regardless of where they are sold. In a hierarchical regression of food purchase likelihood on locavorism, brand condition, store condition, and all their two- and three-way interactions, we find the expected locavorism × brand interaction (b = 1.56, SE = .34, p < .001). Surprisingly, we also observe a marginal three-way interaction (b = –.88, SE = .48, p = .068). Although unexpected, decomposing this three-way interaction (figure 2) supports the distinction between locavorism and anticorporatism. FIGURE 2 View largeDownload slide STUDY 2B: EFFECT OF LOCAVORISM ON PURCHASE INTENTIONS FOR A LOCAL (VS. NATIONAL) BRAND BY STORE TYPE NOTE.—*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. The left (right) panel indicates intentions to purchase a local or national brand from a corporate (local) grocer. Locavorism significantly predicts purchase intentions for the local brand, regardless of store. FIGURE 2 View largeDownload slide STUDY 2B: EFFECT OF LOCAVORISM ON PURCHASE INTENTIONS FOR A LOCAL (VS. NATIONAL) BRAND BY STORE TYPE NOTE.—*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. The left (right) panel indicates intentions to purchase a local or national brand from a corporate (local) grocer. Locavorism significantly predicts purchase intentions for the local brand, regardless of store. In the corporate store condition (figure 2, left panel), the two-way locavorism × brand interaction is significant (b = 1.56, SE = .34, p < .001); locavorism is associated positively with the purchase likelihood for the local brand (b = .85, SE = .25, p < .001) and negatively with that for the national brand (b = –.70, SE = .23, p = .002). This pattern indicates that locavores purchase local foods from corporate retailers, which distinguishes locavorism from anticorporatism. In the local store condition (figure 2, right panel), the two-way locavorism × brand interaction remains significant (b = .68, SE = .34, p = .046), and locavorism is positively associated with the purchase likelihood for the local brand (b = .90, SE = .21, p < .001). However, it appears unrelated to the purchase likelihood for the national brand (p = .412). This latter effect is peculiar. Perhaps in this context, locavores are unsure about whether buying a national brand from a local retailer still implies support for a retailer that sells other local foods. Overall, though, these results indicate that locavores’ preference for local (vs. national) foods remains intact, regardless of the corporatism of the retailer. Anticorporatism may seem related to locavorism, but our results indicate that locavorism is an entirely unique construct. STUDY 3: PREDICTIVE VALIDITY (REAL FOOD CONSUMPTION) Scale validation also requires testing whether the measure predicts expected outcome variables (i.e., predictive validity; Churchill 1979). With study 3, we conduct a longitudinal experiment in a field setting, to test whether the locavore scale predicts purchase likelihood of a local (vs. national) brand of granola. Participants tasted a sample and indicated their purchase likelihood at time 1, then completed the locavore scale one week later (time 2). Method One hundred seventy-eight people were intercepted in the atrium of a building at the University of Oregon and compensated $1 for their participation. The first author set up a table in the atrium with signs advertising a “granola taste test” and asked passersby to participate. Those who consented received a tablet, loaded with an online survey, and responded to two control measures to assess their current mood (1 = “Very bad mood”; 7 = “Very good mood”) and level of hunger (1 = “Not at all hungry”; 7 = “Very hungry”). Next, participants were randomly assigned to the local or national condition and read a short description of the granola (brand concealed). In the local (national) condition, the description explained that the local (national) company producing the granola uses locally (nationally) sourced nuts and grains and sells its granola in local stores (national supermarkets). Participants then received a 1 ounce sample of granola and, after tasting it, completed the remaining survey questions. The granola was unmarked, and all participants sampled the same product. To maintain the cover story and gather an additional control variable, we included a taste index, measured in terms of texture, flavor, and freshness (α = .61; 1 = “Very poor”; 7 = “Very good”). The measure for the dependent variable asked, “In a real shopping situation, how likely would you be to buy this brand of granola?” (1 = “Very unlikely”; 7 = “Very likely”). As an attention check, participants then noted whether the granola was a local or national brand, and they provided basic demographic information, along with their email addresses. One week later, we emailed these 178 participants with a link to another online survey; 131 completed it, for a response rate of 73.6% (N = 99 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 26.29, SDage = 10.56, range = 18–67 years; 50.5% female). This follow-up survey contained two measures, in counterbalanced order: (1) the locavore scale (overall index and subscale αs > .67) with another attention check embedded among the scale items, as in study 1b, and (2) a single-item measure of locavorism: “Overall, I prefer local foods to nonlocal foods” (1 = “Strongly disagree”; 7 = “Strongly agree”). The latter item provides a basis of comparison for the predictive ability of our locavore scale. Results and Discussion Prior to our validity tests, we confirmed that the local food manipulation at time 1 did not affect the locavore scale or single-item measure at time 2; independent sample t-tests yielded no differences across conditions for these two measures (both ps > .145). To test the predictive validity of the locavore scale, we conducted a moderation analysis with the locavore scale as the focal predictor, the local manipulation as the moderator, purchase likelihood as the dependent variable, and controls for the three measured covariates (mood, hunger, and taste). If the scale truly measures trait locavorism, it should correlate positively with purchase likelihood in the local condition but not in the national condition. Accordingly, we find a significant locavorism × condition interaction effect on purchase likelihood (b = .58, SE = .27, p = .037). In simple effects analyses, locavorism is positively associated with purchase likelihood in the local condition (b = .65, SE = .20, p = .002) but not in the national condition (b = .07, SE = .18, p = .711). Treating the locavore scale as the moderator (rather than focal predictor), we also ran a floodlight analysis (Spiller et al. 2013), which reveals higher purchase likelihood in the local (vs. national) condition at high levels of locavorism (JN-pointα=.05 = 5.51) but a reversed trend at low levels of locavorism (JN-pointα=.10 = 2.73). Finally, as a basis for comparison, the single-item locavorism measure as a moderator produces a nonsignificant interaction term (p = .153). These results provide initial support for the predictive validity of the locavore scale. By definition, locavorism should predict people’s preference for local over nonlocal foods; our data affirm that the proposed locavore scale (but not a single-item measure) predicts such a preference. In an alternative sense, the same product labeled with a local versus national brand may appeal differently to locavores (vs. nonlocavores), as assessed by the locavore scale. The conservative experimental design also implies that the localness of the product connects the locavore scale to the expected outcome. It is perhaps surprising that we did not observe a negative relationship between locavorism and preferences for the national food, though, which might be due to the relatively small sample. Alternatively, locavores might be less averse to nationally sourced foods when they are presented in a local context (e.g., local university). Such a perception could help explain why, in study 2b, we observe a null simple effect of locavorism on the purchase likelihood of an unknown national brand presented in a local context. Nevertheless, the significant positive relationship between locavorism and preference for a local food supports the predictive validity of the scale. We next examine both its predictive and nomological validity, using a simulated grocery shopping experience. STUDY 4: NOMOLOGICAL AND PREDICTIVE VALIDITY (GROCERY SHOPPING) To validate the scale further, study 4 tests its fit within a nomological network of theoretically relevant variables (Peter 1981) and its predictive strength, relative to these variables, in a consequential choice task involving the selection of local versus nonlocal groceries. We recruited US residents from MTurk at two distinct times, separated by one week. Time 1: Nomological Validity Method To test our predictions pertaining to nomological validity, we recruited 302 residents of either New York City or Los Angeles (N = 277 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 33.09, SDage = 10.16, range = 18–68 years; 50.2% female) at time 1. These geographic restrictions facilitate our time 2 test of local food consumption. The participants responded to the locavore scale (overall index and subscale αs > .75) and six related measures drawn from prior literature that we expected to correlate with locavorism: consumer ethnocentrism (17 items; α = .95; Shimp and Sharma 1987); environmental concern (three items; α = .83; Matthes and Wonneberger 2014); community values (nine items; α = .89; Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002); loyalty to local retailers (10 items; α = .77; Hozier and Stem 1985); materialism (for which we expected a negative association; three items; α = .78; Richins 2004); and a condensed, six-item version of Crowne and Marlowe’s (1960) Social Desirability Scale, developed by Ballard, Crino, and Rubenfeld (1988). The items all appeared in counterbalanced order. The six measures were selected based on their theoretical relevance to locavorism as suggested by extant research across several related literatures. For instance, research in agricultural economics suggests that local food preferences may in part be driven by concern for the environment (Brown et al. 2009; Yue and Tong 2009) and community values (Allen 2006), while research in food science suggests local food consumers tend to be ethnocentric (Chambers et al. 2007) and antimaterialistic (Mirosa and Lawson 2012). Results and Discussion The test for the nomological validity of the locavore scale used simple bivariate correlations with the other established scales (see table 3). As expected, locavorism correlated positively with ethnocentrism (r = .33), environmental concern (r = .30), community values (r = .41), and local retailer loyalty (r = .53). Correlation coefficients in this range (.30–.60) are moderate (Gerstman 2016; Ratner 2017), so though it relates to these conceptually similar constructs, the locavore scale assesses something unique. For materialism, locavorism is negatively (albeit weakly) related, as expected (r = –.12, p = .040). Social desirability is weakly but significantly related to locavorism (r = .15, p = .011), as well as to the other measures in this study (ps < .001) except for environmental concern (see table 3). Local food preferences are socially desirable (Costanigro et al. 2011), so this relationship with locavorism is unsurprising. However, the relatively weak relationship suggests that socially desirable response biases are not a concern for this study. TABLE 3 STUDY 4: CORRELATIONS OF LOCAVORISM WITH RELATED MEASURES   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1. Locavorism  1.00              2. Ethnocentrism  .33**  1.00            3. Environmental concern  .30**  –.02  1.00          4. Community values  .41**  .21**  .40**  1.00        5. Local retailer loyalty  .53**  .31**  .31**  .42**  1.00      6. Materialism  –.12*  .04  –.13*  –.09  –.05  1.00    7. Social desirability  .15*  .23**  .09  .23**  .21**  –.22**  1.00    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1. Locavorism  1.00              2. Ethnocentrism  .33**  1.00            3. Environmental concern  .30**  –.02  1.00          4. Community values  .41**  .21**  .40**  1.00        5. Local retailer loyalty  .53**  .31**  .31**  .42**  1.00      6. Materialism  –.12*  .04  –.13*  –.09  –.05  1.00    7. Social desirability  .15*  .23**  .09  .23**  .21**  –.22**  1.00  NOTE.—*p < .05; **p < .01; all other coefficients not significant (p > .10). TABLE 3 STUDY 4: CORRELATIONS OF LOCAVORISM WITH RELATED MEASURES   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1. Locavorism  1.00              2. Ethnocentrism  .33**  1.00            3. Environmental concern  .30**  –.02  1.00          4. Community values  .41**  .21**  .40**  1.00        5. Local retailer loyalty  .53**  .31**  .31**  .42**  1.00      6. Materialism  –.12*  .04  –.13*  –.09  –.05  1.00    7. Social desirability  .15*  .23**  .09  .23**  .21**  –.22**  1.00    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1. Locavorism  1.00              2. Ethnocentrism  .33**  1.00            3. Environmental concern  .30**  –.02  1.00          4. Community values  .41**  .21**  .40**  1.00        5. Local retailer loyalty  .53**  .31**  .31**  .42**  1.00      6. Materialism  –.12*  .04  –.13*  –.09  –.05  1.00    7. Social desirability  .15*  .23**  .09  .23**  .21**  –.22**  1.00  NOTE.—*p < .05; **p < .01; all other coefficients not significant (p > .10). Time 2: Predictive Validity Method To test for predictive validity, we use the relationships between the time 1 measures and the choice of local food brands, assessed at time 2. We contacted the 302 participants from time 1 via email and invited them to participate in a follow-up survey one week later. The 144 participants who completed the time 2 study provide a response rate of 47.7% (N = 126 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 33.94, SDage = 10.39, range = 18–66 years; 40.6% female). Participants first confirmed their residence (all correctly selected either New York or Los Angeles) and were informed that they would be participating in a grocery shopping simulation, in which several participants would receive, if selected via lottery, the groceries they chose through a delivery service. Thus, the choice task was consequential to participants. The choice task involved eight common food product categories: coffee, jam, hot sauce, milk, honey, chocolate, crackers, and lettuce. These selections reflect the availability of local brands for both NYC and LA, as well as closely comparable national brands. For the choice task, participants considered a series of eight dichotomous choices—one for each food category—in counterbalanced order (see web appendix C). In each food category, they had to choose between a national brand (coded 0) and a local brand (coded 1), which we then summed together to form a local choice index, with possible scores ranging from 0 to 8. To maximize ecological validity, participants living in NYC (LA) saw NYC (LA) brands as the local option; the national brand was the same, regardless of their city. To mitigate concerns that objective quality might influence consumers’ choices, we conducted a pretest (N = 150), in which participants were randomly assigned to rate their quality perceptions of the NYC, LA, or national brands on a scale from 1 (“Low quality”) to 7 (“High quality”). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that baseline quality perceptions did not differ across the three groups of brands (p = .417). Following the grocery choice task, we conducted a localness check to validate the local choice index: “During the simulation, I chose…” (1 = “Primarily national brands”; 11 = “Primarily local brands”). In support of its validity, this check correlated strongly with the local choice index scores (r = .70). Finally, as a potential covariate, participants completed an ad hoc measure of the frequency with which they purchased each of the eight food product categories in general (α = .73; 1 = “Never”; 5 = “Always”). Results and Discussion To test the relative predictive validity of the locavore scale, we regressed the local choice index on the seven composite scores from the scales assessed at time 1 and the covariate assessed at time 2 (i.e., food frequency measure; table 4). We report the standardized coefficients (β) to permit a direct comparison of the predictors in the model. The results support the predictive validity of the locavore scale, as well as its superior explanatory ability relative to other, similar measures. Locavorism is a strong predictor of local food choice (β = .44, p < .001), even when we control for other measures. Although three of these other scales were significant or marginally significant predictors of local choice, all were weaker than locavorism (βs < .19). Thus, the locavore scale exhibits satisfactory nomological validity and predicts consequential choices for local brands, beyond the effects of similar constructs. TABLE 4 STUDY 4: REGRESSING LOCAL FOOD CHOICES (TIME 2) ON PREDICTORS (TIME 1) Predictor  Unstandardized b  Std. error  Standardized β  p-value  Locavorism  .88  .21  .44  <.001  Ethnocentrism  –.30  .15  –.19  .044  Environmental concern  .30  .17  .16  .077  Community values  .09  .15  .06  .543  Local retailer loyalty  –.14  .22  –.07  .513  Materialism  .03  .11  .02  .789  Social desirability  –.19  .10  –.17  .058  Category purchase frequency  –.20  .27  –.07  .446  Predictor  Unstandardized b  Std. error  Standardized β  p-value  Locavorism  .88  .21  .44  <.001  Ethnocentrism  –.30  .15  –.19  .044  Environmental concern  .30  .17  .16  .077  Community values  .09  .15  .06  .543  Local retailer loyalty  –.14  .22  –.07  .513  Materialism  .03  .11  .02  .789  Social desirability  –.19  .10  –.17  .058  Category purchase frequency  –.20  .27  –.07  .446  TABLE 4 STUDY 4: REGRESSING LOCAL FOOD CHOICES (TIME 2) ON PREDICTORS (TIME 1) Predictor  Unstandardized b  Std. error  Standardized β  p-value  Locavorism  .88  .21  .44  <.001  Ethnocentrism  –.30  .15  –.19  .044  Environmental concern  .30  .17  .16  .077  Community values  .09  .15  .06  .543  Local retailer loyalty  –.14  .22  –.07  .513  Materialism  .03  .11  .02  .789  Social desirability  –.19  .10  –.17  .058  Category purchase frequency  –.20  .27  –.07  .446  Predictor  Unstandardized b  Std. error  Standardized β  p-value  Locavorism  .88  .21  .44  <.001  Ethnocentrism  –.30  .15  –.19  .044  Environmental concern  .30  .17  .16  .077  Community values  .09  .15  .06  .543  Local retailer loyalty  –.14  .22  –.07  .513  Materialism  .03  .11  .02  .789  Social desirability  –.19  .10  –.17  .058  Category purchase frequency  –.20  .27  –.07  .446  STUDY 5: KNOWN-GROUP VALIDITY If locavorism represents a consumer ideology, as theorized, we should expect locavores to express their belief system through their choice of grocery store (Belk, Bahn, and Mayer 1982). To test this prediction, we collected two independent samples of shoppers, each at a different grocery store: one branch of a large, national chain, and one locally owned co-op known for selling primarily local food products. We expect locavorism to be more strongly manifest among shoppers at the latter store. With this test of known-group validity, we examine whether scores on the measure are relatively higher or lower among groups for whom the trait is expected to exist strongly or weakly (Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003). Known-group validity tests are common means to validate measures in consumer research (e.g., Bearden, Hardesty, and Rose 2001; Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998; Webb and Peck 2015). Method Four undergraduate research assistants (RAs), blind to the hypotheses and research questions, assisted with the data collection. Two RAs visited the national grocery store, and the other two went to the small, locally owned co-op. The data collections occurred simultaneously, to minimize the risk of surveying duplicate participants. The RAs were instructed to stand near the entrance of the store and ask shoppers if they would like to participate in a 2 minute survey about food preferences in exchange for $2, with a goal of recruiting 30 participants from each store (60 total). Shoppers who consented completed the locavore scale (with attention check) and basic demographic items (age, gender, political orientation, and income) on a tablet, then were immediately paid $2 cash. The RAs succeeded in recruiting 60 participants, but three participants (5.0%) did not answer the attention-check question accurately, leaving a final overall sample of 57 participants (Mage = 32.68, SDage = 16.61, range = 18–73 years; 47.4% female). Income (p = .624) and political orientation (p = .170), two potential confounds related to the distinct target segments of each store, did not differ significantly between the groups of shoppers. Results and Discussion In examining whether two groups of shoppers exhibit corresponding differences on the locavore scale, we find with our independent samples t-test that, as predicted, locavorism (overall index and subscale αs > .65) is significantly greater among shoppers at the local co-op (M = 5.94, SD = .76) than among those at the national chain (M = 5.19, SD = .95; t(55) = 3.290, p = .002). In an ANOVA, we control for the four demographic variables as covariates; the difference in the locavorism scores between groups is still significant (p = .021). These tests provide further support for the validity of the locavore scale, showing the expected differences between known groups of relatively stronger (i.e., local co-op shoppers) or weaker (i.e., national chain shoppers) locavores on the measure. STUDY 6: ADVERTISING RESPONSE The data thus far indicate that the locavore scale can predict outcomes related to food purchases and choice. In this final study, we seek to understand how locavorism may influence consumers’ interpretations of and responses to food advertising, beyond purchases. We showed participants one of two actual commercials: one promoting farmers’ markets and another promoting a national supermarket chain. Along with their purchase likelihood, participants reported their word-of-mouth (WOM) intentions, evangelism intentions, and feelings of meaningfulness. We expect locavorism to positively predict both typical consumer outcomes (WOM and purchase intentions) and the more deeply ideological outcomes (evangelism and meaningfulness) in response to the farmers’ market ad but not the national supermarket ad. Method One hundred fifty-one US residents were recruited from MTurk (N = 139 after attention-check exclusions; Mage = 37.24, SDage = 12.22, range = 18–71 years; 51.8% female). With random assignment, half the sample completed the locavore scale (overall scale and dimension αs > .81) first, whereas the other half completed the scale at the end of the study. This step helps minimize the likelihood of either the scale biasing the effects of the manipulation or vice versa. The order factor had no effect on the locavore scores (p = .477) and weak but significant effects on the other outcome variables (ps < .071). We performed all analyses with and without the order factor as a covariate but observed no changes in the significance or direction of the results. Thus, we collapse this factor and disregard it in our further analyses. Participants were randomly assigned to view an actual commercial for either a farmers’ market organization (representing local foods) or a Kroger supermarket promotion (representing nonlocal foods). Both ads were approximately 30 seconds in length and featured food items as the core content (see web appendix D for screenshots and links). Next, all participants responded to four measures, each assessed with a single item and presented in counterbalanced order. Purchase likelihood was measured as in study 2. WOM and evangelism both began with the same question stem (“As a result of viewing this ad, I am more likely to…”) followed by “recommend [farmers’ markets/Kroger] to others” and “try to convince friends to buy food from [farmers’ markets/Kroger]” for WOM and evangelism, respectively (1 = “Strongly disagree”; 7 = “Strongly agree”). The meaningfulness item read as follows: “How meaningful was this advertisement to you?” 1 = “Not very meaningful”; 7 = “Very meaningful.” The attention check asked which ad they viewed (farmers’ market or Kroger), followed by basic demographic items. Results and Discussion We predict that locavorism influences the way consumers interpret and react to different types of advertising. To test this prediction, we analyzed a series of locavorism × condition interactions for the four outcomes. Replicating our prior predictive validity studies, we observe a significant interaction on purchase likelihood (b = .87, SE = .21, p < .001), such that locavorism correlates positively with purchase likelihood in the local ad condition (b = 1.01, SE = .15, p < .001) but not the national ad condition (b = .14, SE = .15, p = .326). We also observe significant interactions for both WOM (b = .66, SE = .22, p = .003) and evangelism (b = .68, SE = .21, p = .002); locavorism is positively associated with these outcomes in the local ad condition (ps < .001) but not the national ad condition (ps > .064). The interaction on meaningfulness was similar (b = .74, SE = .26, p = .005), showing the same pattern of simple effects. Floodlight analyses on the two ideological measures (evangelism and meaningfulness) revealed that consumers who score high on the locavore scale (JN-pointα=.05 = 4.38) are more likely to evangelize on behalf of the local (vs. national) ad, whereas those with low scores (JN-pointα=.10 = 2.46) are marginally more likely to evangelize in response to the national (vs. local) ad. We observe a similar pattern for meaningfulness on the high end of the locavore scale (JN-pointα=.05 = 4.35) and a (nonsignificant) reverse trend for the low end. Thus, not only are locavores more likely to purchase and recommend local (vs. nonlocal) foods, but local (vs. national) food advertising also differentially affects their sense of meaningfulness and evangelism. GENERAL DISCUSSION The locavore movement is thriving, but not all consumers are locavores. Rather, locavorism is an ideology that varies across populations. Despite its importance for both consumer research and marketing practice, relatively little is known about its domain, nor has there been a validated instrument to measure locavorism. Drawing from extant research on food preferences, agricultural economics, and consumer psychology, we propose and confirm an L-O-C framework that conceptualizes locavorism. As theorized and tested, a locavore is a consumer who believes local foods offer superior taste and nutrition (lionization), opposes long-distance food systems (opposition), and seeks to support local communities (communalization). We confirm this factor structure (studies 1a and 1b), as well as the scale’s test–retest reliability (study 1a). In addition, we find evidence that locavorism is distinct from ostensibly related constructs. Study 4 provides correlational evidence of its distinction, and with two experiments, we distinguish locavorism from hometown bias (study 2a) and anticorporatism (study 2b). The locavore scale predicts preferences for local foods, regardless of whether consumers consider purchases in a foreign city or their home city (study 2a) or from a corporate or local retailer (study 2b). Our store-intercept survey also indicates that those from the local (vs. national) store scored significantly higher on the locavore scale, even after we account for demographics (known-group validity; study 5). Furthermore, our locavore scale exhibits high predictive validity. It uniquely predicts purchase likelihood for products sold by a local (vs. national) brand after people actually taste the food product (study 3) and in a consequential grocery choice situation (study 4). Finally, study 6 demonstrates the utility of the locavore scale, beyond its ability to predict purchase likelihood and WOM, by revealing that locavorism is associated with evangelism and feelings of meaningfulness in response to a local (vs. national) food ad. The results of these six studies (with eight samples drawn from three populations) thus converge to define the locavorism construct and provide a rigorously validated measurement scale. In support of the psychometric robustness of the scale, we conducted a meta-analysis of our own studies (see web appendix A). In this combined data set (N = 1, 261), the locavore scale is normally distributed (not skewed or kurtotic), the internal consistency of the dimensions and the full scale remain high (αs > .79), and the three-dimension L-O-C factor structure stays intact. The locavore scale correlates weakly but significantly with gender, age, and political orientation, in theoretically expected directions (rs < .16, ps < .002). Specifically, women, older people, and liberals score slightly higher on the locavore scale, consistent with prior findings in food preference research. The significant correlations support the scale’s concurrent validity; the weak coefficients suggest that demographics alone are insufficient to assess locavorism. As a final step, we also critically evaluated our implicit classification of the locavore scale as a reflective (vs. formative) measure. Jarvis, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff (2003) classify a reflective construct as one in which (1) direction of causality is from construct to items, (2) indicators share a common theme, and (3) indicators covary with each other. Conceptually and empirically, the locavore scale meets these criteria. Regarding causality, it is not clear how agreeing with our scale’s items could cause one to be a locavore, as a formative construct would necessitate. Conversely, it is reasonable to conclude that being a locavore may cause one to agree with the scale’s items. Similarly, as per the second criterion, the items within each dimension clearly share a common theme (e.g., items on communalization reflect the theme of supporting local communities through food consumption), and the three dimensions in turn are unified around a singular, locavore ideology. Lastly, whether we consider indicators as dimensions or as individual items, the locavore scale meets the third criterion. The three dimensions are mutually reinforcing, so a high (low) score on one dimension should predict a high (low) score on the other two, and all three dimensions are necessary to constitute locavorism. Accordingly, we find in the combined metadata set (N = 1, 261) moderate and significant correlations among the three dimensions and between all individual items (see table 5). Overall, consistent with our conceptualization and studies, it seems most accurate to classify the locavore scale as a reflective measure. Although it is conceptually useful and empirically valid to consider dimensions of locavorism in isolation, researchers also may be justified in treating it as a single composite construct. TABLE 5 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DIMENSIONS (TOP PANEL) AND INDIVIDUAL ITEMS (BOTTOM PANEL) OF THE LOCAVORE SCALE ACROSS ALL STUDIES Dimensions  1  2  3  Lionization (1)  1.00      Opposition (2)  .53  1.00    Communalization (3)  .56  .47  1.00  Dimensions  1  2  3  Lionization (1)  1.00      Opposition (2)  .53  1.00    Communalization (3)  .56  .47  1.00  Items  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Lion1 (1)  1.00                      Lion2R (2)  .60  1.00                    Lion3 (3)  .61  .48  1.00                  Opp1 (4)  .46  .36  .45  1.00                Opp2 (5)  .28  .18  .33  .48  1.00              Opp3 (6)  .40  .26  .36  .56  .39  1.00            Opp4 (7)  .42  .26  .42  .57  .37  .54  1.00          Comm1 (8)  .45  .28  .41  .29  .21  .25  .27  1.00        Comm2 (9)  .43  .31  .39  .29  .18  .25  .25  .63  1.00      Comm3 (10)  .50  .33  .38  .39  .23  .38  .38  .54  .56  1.00    Comm4 (11)  .52  .35  .40  .41  .27  .44  .38  .53  .58  .74  1.00  Items  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Lion1 (1)  1.00                      Lion2R (2)  .60  1.00                    Lion3 (3)  .61  .48  1.00                  Opp1 (4)  .46  .36  .45  1.00                Opp2 (5)  .28  .18  .33  .48  1.00              Opp3 (6)  .40  .26  .36  .56  .39  1.00            Opp4 (7)  .42  .26  .42  .57  .37  .54  1.00          Comm1 (8)  .45  .28  .41  .29  .21  .25  .27  1.00        Comm2 (9)  .43  .31  .39  .29  .18  .25  .25  .63  1.00      Comm3 (10)  .50  .33  .38  .39  .23  .38  .38  .54  .56  1.00    Comm4 (11)  .52  .35  .40  .41  .27  .44  .38  .53  .58  .74  1.00  NOTE.—All correlations significant at p < .001. TABLE 5 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DIMENSIONS (TOP PANEL) AND INDIVIDUAL ITEMS (BOTTOM PANEL) OF THE LOCAVORE SCALE ACROSS ALL STUDIES Dimensions  1  2  3  Lionization (1)  1.00      Opposition (2)  .53  1.00    Communalization (3)  .56  .47  1.00  Dimensions  1  2  3  Lionization (1)  1.00      Opposition (2)  .53  1.00    Communalization (3)  .56  .47  1.00  Items  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Lion1 (1)  1.00                      Lion2R (2)  .60  1.00                    Lion3 (3)  .61  .48  1.00                  Opp1 (4)  .46  .36  .45  1.00                Opp2 (5)  .28  .18  .33  .48  1.00              Opp3 (6)  .40  .26  .36  .56  .39  1.00            Opp4 (7)  .42  .26  .42  .57  .37  .54  1.00          Comm1 (8)  .45  .28  .41  .29  .21  .25  .27  1.00        Comm2 (9)  .43  .31  .39  .29  .18  .25  .25  .63  1.00      Comm3 (10)  .50  .33  .38  .39  .23  .38  .38  .54  .56  1.00    Comm4 (11)  .52  .35  .40  .41  .27  .44  .38  .53  .58  .74  1.00  Items  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Lion1 (1)  1.00                      Lion2R (2)  .60  1.00                    Lion3 (3)  .61  .48  1.00                  Opp1 (4)  .46  .36  .45  1.00                Opp2 (5)  .28  .18  .33  .48  1.00              Opp3 (6)  .40  .26  .36  .56  .39  1.00            Opp4 (7)  .42  .26  .42  .57  .37  .54  1.00          Comm1 (8)  .45  .28  .41  .29  .21  .25  .27  1.00        Comm2 (9)  .43  .31  .39  .29  .18  .25  .25  .63  1.00      Comm3 (10)  .50  .33  .38  .39  .23  .38  .38  .54  .56  1.00    Comm4 (11)  .52  .35  .40  .41  .27  .44  .38  .53  .58  .74  1.00  NOTE.—All correlations significant at p < .001. Importance of Locavorism In addition to mapping an emergent construct and securing it in the consumer behavior literature (Fischer and Otnes 2006; Janiszewski, Labroo, and Rucker 2016), this research offers critical insights into the importance of locavorism as a consumer ideology. It gives consumers a structured, values-rooted approach to food, and the process of consuming local foods provides locavores with purpose. They derive a sense of morality from their consumption of local foods (Allen 2006; Galzki et al. 2015; Zepeda and Deal 2009), and, as we show in study 6, locavores even regard advertisements for local foods as meaningful. The co-consumption of local foods also creates social bonds among strangers and builds community (Woolley and Fishbach 2017). As a food-embedded ideology, locavorism is more than a mere consumer preference or trend, as is evident in the evangelism with which locavores express the gravitas of their actions and seek to compel others to follow suit (study 6). Evangelizing is widespread; at the time of this research, more than 400 books on Amazon.com cover locavorism, and popular press articles offer reasons for “joining the locavore movement,” as well as steps for doing so (Anderson 2016; Maiser 2007). Locavores do not simply recommend local food consumption, as a mere preference would suggest; they actively attempt to indoctrinate others, consistent with an ideology. This enduring ideology spans both micro and macro levels. It is difficult to change the extent of locavorism within an individual consumer; as Jost et al. (2008) note, ideological belief systems are characterized by stability and consistency. As is inherent to ideological evolution (Schmid 1981), ideologies also undergo “sedimentation” processes, by which associated beliefs and experiences get mentally accumulated, stored, solidified, and synthesized. A person’s ideology thus tends to strengthen over time, and anecdotal evidence suggests that locavorism is no exception. People who consume long-distance foods may one day “see the light” (due to evangelism) and become locavores, but locavores rarely switch back to consuming nonlocally. On a macro level, the locavore movement has proven persistent, as detailed by market evidence earlier in this article. Data from our studies support the prevalence of locavorism: over 50% of participants in each study scored above the midpoint (4) on the locavore scale (figure 3), suggesting that a majority of respondents across samples could be considered locavores. FIGURE 3 View largeDownload slide PERCENT OF PARTICIPANTS IN EACH STUDY SCORING ABOVE MIDPOINT (4) ON THE LOCAVORE SCALE NOTE.—Mean scores across studies approximated the scale midpoint (rangeM = 4.20–4.57) except for study 5 (M = 5.58). This is because study 5 used purposive sampling to identify consumers expected to score high on the scale. FIGURE 3 View largeDownload slide PERCENT OF PARTICIPANTS IN EACH STUDY SCORING ABOVE MIDPOINT (4) ON THE LOCAVORE SCALE NOTE.—Mean scores across studies approximated the scale midpoint (rangeM = 4.20–4.57) except for study 5 (M = 5.58). This is because study 5 used purposive sampling to identify consumers expected to score high on the scale. Theoretical Implications Prior work on local food consumption had yet to provide a theory-driven framework to map the psychological structure of locavorism, so we propose a tripartite L-O-C framework to understand locavores’ disposition toward local food, then validate this framework empirically. We thus extend theories pertaining to consumer ideology (Jost 2017; Jost et al. 2008). In particular, prior research conceptualizes ideology as a precursor to food preference (Varman and Belk 2009); we suggest that the preference for local food itself may be an ideology. In addition to clarifying what locavorism is, we examine what it is not. Existing perspectives might characterize local food consumption as a manifestation of anticorporatism (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007) or hometown bias (Nalley et al. 2006). These two constructs bear some conceptual similarity to the opposition and communalization dimensions, respectively, but we show that neither perspective is sufficient on its own. This insight adds conceptual clarity to food consumption as well as to the scope and boundaries of anticorporatism and ingroup favoritism (hometown bias). Consumer researchers often operationalize local food preference as an indicator of environmental concern (Giesler and Veresiu 2014; Gilg et al. 2005). Our research extends this view by showing that environmental concern correlates with locavorism but does not explain it. Moreover, agricultural economists and other food researchers often equate locavores with basic demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, political orientation). Analysis of our metadata instead suggests a distinction between locavorism and these constructs, according to the weak but significant correlations (see web appendix A). Implications for Food Marketing The locavore scale may assist marketing practitioners in their segmentation and targeting efforts. This relatively short, reliable, and valid locavore measure can help them accurately identify locavores. In addition, the scale dimensions should inspire renewed understanding of locavores among firms that seek to appeal to a market that is expected to double in coming years (Tarkan 2015). The tripartite structure of our locavorism scale also may guide local food marketers’ promotional appeals. Rather than emphasizing environmental benefits or morality, our research suggests that appeals should focus on the core elements of locavorism. For example, because community support is an essential dimension, advertising a local food’s connection to the local economy and support for local farmers may be particularly effective. Limitations and Future Directions We undertook extensive effort to maximize the rigor of our research, but several limitations are worth noting and should encourage further research on these topics. First, we offer a robust exploration of concurrent and consequent variables of locavorism but do not address its antecedents. What social, developmental, or systemic factors motivate consumers to believe that local foods are of superior quality, to oppose long-distance food systems (not just corporate brands), and to prize the welfare of the local food community? Future research could explore these questions, using the locavore scale as an outcome (rather than predictor) variable. Second, the practical utility of the scale is largely tied to understanding geographic variation in locavorism, yet our studies do not shed light on this point. Continued research might tackle this challenge using a systematic, larger-scale sampling frame to identify locavores geographically. In turn, such research could link the locavore scale to other macro-indicators of local food preferences, to provide a broader picture of what predicts locavorism. Third, although we provide a critical analysis of the psychology of the locavore, this research does not explicitly examine consumer interpretations of what “local” means. Future research on locavorism would benefit from exploring several questions in this domain. For instance, locavores typically define local foods in terms of geographic proximity (Testa et al. forthcoming), but is localness also shaped by elements of psychological distance or group identity? This might help explain a peculiar finding from study 4: although ethnocentrism was positively correlated with locavorism, the former was associated with a preference for national (vs. local) foods. Ethnocentrism may tap into tendencies toward nationalism and national food brands. Relatedly, future research might examine the malleability of localness interpretations. Some locations are associated with certain specialty foods (e.g., Boston seafood, Cincinnati chili, and San Francisco sourdough bread) irrespective of the geographic origins of the ingredients. Are specialty foods seen as local, all else held equal? Fourth, past work has found that consumer value systems have implications in a wide range of domains. For example, Rindfleisch, Burroughs, and Denton (1997) examine the role of materialism in subjective well-being, and Rindfleisch, Burroughs, and Wong (2009) demonstrate how materialistic (vs. nonmaterialistic) consumers respond to existential threats differently, with implications for consumer–brand relationships. As a novel consumer ideology, locavorism might play a role in these and other theoretical domains. For instance, in pursuit of enhanced belonging and thus subjective well-being, might locavores engage in a process of “ideological migration” (Motyl et al. 2014) toward more locavore-friendly cities? In a more cognitive domain, might locavorism moderate the tendency to overestimate the meaningfulness of human-made borders, specifically in a food context? Future research might examine a food-related “border bias” (Mishra and Mishra 2010) and how locavores might prefer food from within their own state even when a more proximal food is available from another state. Finally, we find consistent effects of locavorism on the pursuit of local foods across our studies—but inconsistent effects related to avoiding national brands. In some cases, locavorism is negatively associated with the purchase likelihood for a national brand, but in others, we find a null relationship. This outcome might be due in part to the context: when a national brand is presented in a local context (e.g., local retailer or other local setting), locavores’ opposition toward it may be mitigated. This possibility should be tested more directly in further research. CONCLUSION Locavorism is an emergent ideology, with growing relevance to marketers and consumer researchers. Although local preferences might seem simplistic, unidimensional, or explained by existing theoretical perspectives, the present research demonstrates the richness of this construct, as well as its utility. With its tripartite conceptualization and valid measurement tools, we hope this research inspires further investigations into the nature of locavorism that trace its trajectory in the ever-changing consumer marketplace. DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION Data for all studies were collected using Qualtrics survey software. The first author recruited participants (through both Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and on campus at the University of Oregon) for all studies except study 5 (participants for study 5 were recruited via research assistants). The first and second authors jointly analyzed these data. Data collection for each study occurred in the following temporal sequence: (1) studies 1a and 1b, summer 2016; (2) study 5, winter 2017; (3) study 4, summer 2017; (4) study 3, fall 2017; (5) studies 2a and 2b, fall 2017; and (6) study 6, winter 2018. The authors acknowledge the helpful comments of the editor, associate editor, and reviewers. The authors thank Troy Campbell and Linda Price for their helpful comments on earlier versions of the article. The authors also thank Gabrielle Cohen, Andrew Edelblum, and Kivalina Grove for their assistance with data collection. Supplementary materials are included in the web appendix accompanying the online version of this article. References Adams Damian C., Adams Alison E. ( 2011), “De-Placing Local at the Farmers’ Market: Consumer Conceptions of Local Foods,” Journal of Rural Social Sciences , 26 ( 2), 74– 100. Allen Patricia ( 2006), Together at the Table: Sustainability and Sustenance in the American Agrofood System , State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Anderson Molly D. ( 2008), “Rights-Based Food Systems and the Goals of Food Systems Reform,” Agriculture and Human Values , 25 ( 4), 593– 608. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Anderson Veronica ( 2016), “5 Reasons to Join the Locavore Movement,” Huffington Post , https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-veronica-anderson/Locavore_b_7483218.html. Arbuckle James L. ( 2013), Amos, Version 22.0 (computer program), Chicago: SPSS. Ballard Rebecca, Crino Michael D., Rubenfeld Stephen ( 1988), “Social Desirability Response Bias and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale,” Psychological Reports , 63 ( 1), 227– 37. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Bearden William O., Hardesty David M., Rose Randall L. ( 2001), “Consumer Self-Confidence: Refinements in Conceptualization and Measurement,” Journal of Consumer Research , 28 ( 1), 121– 34. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Belk Russell W., Bahn Kenneth D., Mayer Robert N. ( 1982), “Developmental Recognition of Consumption Symbolism,” Journal of Consumer Research , 9 ( 1), 4– 17. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Berger Jonah, Rand Lindsay ( 2008), “Shifting Signals to Help Health: Using Identity Signaling to Reduce Risky Health Behaviors,” Journal of Consumer Research , 35 ( 3), 509– 18. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Brown Cheryl ( 2003), “Consumers’ Preferences for Locally Produced Food: A Study in Southeast Missouri,” American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , 18 ( 4), 213– 24. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Brown Cheryl, Miller Stacy ( 2008), “The Impacts of Local Markets: A Review of Research on Farmers Markets and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA),” American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 90 ( 5), 1298– 302. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Brown Elizabeth, Dury Sandrine, Holdsworth Michelle ( 2009), “Motivations of Consumers That Use Local, Organic Fruit and Vegetable Box Schemes in Central England and Southern France,” Appetite , 53 ( 2), 183– 8. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Burchardi Henrike, Schröder Carsten, Thiele Holger D. ( 2005), “Willingness-to-Pay for Food of the Own Region: Empirical Estimates from Hypothetical and Incentive Compatible Settings,” paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Providence, RI. Burroughs James E., Rindfleisch Aric ( 2002), “Materialism and Well-Being: A Conflicting Values Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research , 29 ( 3), 348– 70. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Celsi Richard L., Rose Randall L., Leigh Thomas W. ( 1993), “An Exploration of High‐Risk Leisure Consumption through Skydiving,” Journal of Consumer Research , 20 ( 1), 1– 23. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Chambers Stephanie, Lobb Alexandra, Butler Laurie, Harvey Kate, Bruce Traill W. ( 2007), “Local, National and Imported Foods: A Qualitative Study,” Appetite , 49 ( 1), 208– 13. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Churchill Gilbert A.Jr. ( 1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research , 16 ( 1), 64– 73. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Clark Lee Anna, Watson David ( 1995), “Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale Development,” Psychological Assessment , 7 ( 3), 309– 19. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Cleveland David A., Carruth Allison, Mazaroli Daniella Niki ( 2015), “Operationalizing Local Food: Goals, Actions, and Indicators for Alternative Food Systems,” Agriculture and Human Values , 32 ( 2), 281– 97. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Conkin Paul ( 2008), A Revolution Down on the Farm: The Transformation of American Agriculture since 1929 , Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Costanigro Marco, Kroll Stephan, Thilmany Dawn, Bunning Marisa ( 2014), “Is It Love for Local/Organic or Hate for Conventional? Asymmetric Effects of Information and Taste on Label Preferences in an Experimental Auction,” Food Quality and Preference , 31, 94– 105. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Costanigro Marco, McFadden Dawn T., Kroll Stephan, Nurse Gretchen ( 2011), “An In‐Store Valuation of Local and Organic Apples: The Role of Social Desirability,” Agribusiness , 27 ( 4), 465– 77. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Cronbach Lee J., Meehl Paul E. ( 1955), “Construct Validity in Psychological Tests,” Psychological Bulletin , 52 ( 4), 281– 302. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Crowne Douglas P., Marlowe David ( 1960), “A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology,” Journal of Consulting Psychology , 24 ( 4), 349– 54. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Darby Kim, Batte Marvin T., Ernst Stan, Roe Brian ( 2008), “Decomposing Local: A Conjoint Analysis of Locally Produced Foods,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 90 ( 2), 476– 86. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Durkheim Emile ( 1938), The Rules of Sociological Method , New York: Free Press. Escalas Jennifer Edson, Bettman James R. ( 2005), “Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning,” Journal of Consumer Research , 32 ( 3), 378– 89. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Feldmann Corinna, Hamm Ulrich ( 2015), “Consumers’ Perceptions and Preferences for Local Food: A Review,” Food Quality and Preference , 40, 152– 64. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ferraro Rosellina, Bettman James R., Chartrand Tanya L. ( 2009), “The Power of Strangers: The Effect of Incidental Consumer Brand Encounters on Brand Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research , 35 ( 5), 729– 41. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Fischer Eileen, Otnes Cele ( 2006), “Breaking New Grounds: Developing Grounded Theories in Marketing and Consumer Behavior,” in Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Marketing , ed. Belk Russell, Northampton, MA: Elgar, 19– 30. Galzki Jake C., Mulla David J., Peters Christian J. ( 2015), “Mapping the Potential of Local Food Capacity in Southeastern Minnesota,” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , 30 ( 4), 364– 72. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gerstman Burt ( 2016), “Correlation,” StatPrimer, http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/gerstman/StatPrimer/correlation.pdf. Giesler Markus, Veresiu Ela ( 2014), “Creating the Responsible Consumer: Moralistic Governance Regimes and Consumer Subjectivity,” Journal of Consumer Research , 41 ( 3), 840– 57. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gilg Andrew, Barr Stewart, Ford Nicholas ( 2005), “Green Consumption or Sustainable Lifestyles? Identifying the Sustainable Consumer,” Futures , 37 ( 6), 481– 504. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   GreenBiz ( 2009), “Safeway Expands Its Local Food Focus,” https://www.greenbiz.com/news/2009/06/19/safeway-expands-its-local-food-focus. Halweil Brian ( 2002), “Home Grown: The Case for Local Food in a Global Market,” Worldwatch Paper No. 163, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC 20036. Hedges Alan, Kelly John ( 1992), Identification with Local Areas: Summary Report on a Qualitative Study , London: Department of Environment. Hozier George C., Stem Donald E. ( 1985), “General Retail Patronage Loyalty as a Determinant of Consumer Outshopping Behavior,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 13 ( 1–2), 32– 46. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Janiszewski Chris, Labroo Aparna A., Rucker Derek D. ( 2016), “A Tutorial in Consumer Research: Knowledge Creation and Knowledge Appreciation in Deductive-Conceptual Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research , 43 ( 2), 200– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Jarvis Cheryl Burke, MacKenzie Scott B., Podsakoff Philip M. ( 2003), “A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research , 30 ( 2), 199– 218. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Jekanowski Mark D., Williams Daniel R., Schiek William A. ( 2000), “Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Locally Produced Agricultural Products: An Analysis of an Indiana Survey,” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , 29 ( 1), 43– 53. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Jones Peter, Comfort Daphne, Hillier David ( 2004), “A Case Study of Local Food and Its Routes to Market in the UK,” British Food Journal , 106 ( 4), 328– 35. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Jost John T. ( 2017), “The Marketplace of Ideology: ‘Elective Affinities’ in Political Psychology and Their Implications for Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology , 27 ( 4), 502– 20. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Jost John T., Nosek Brian A., Gosling Samuel D. ( 2008), “Ideology: Its Resurgence in Social, Personality, and Political Psychology,” Perspectives on Psychological Science , 3 ( 2), 126– 36. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kaiser Henry F. ( 1960), “The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis,” Educational and Psychological Measurement , 20 ( 1), 141– 51. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kozinets Robert V., Handelman Jay M. ( 2004), “Adversaries of Consumption: Consumer Movements, Activism, and Ideology,” Journal of Consumer Research , 31 ( 3), 691– 704. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Lang Tim, Heasman Michael ( 2015), Food Wars: The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets , New York: Routledge. La Trobe Helen ( 2001), “Farmers’ Markets: Consuming Local Rural Produce,” International Journal of Consumer Studies , 25 ( 3), 181– 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Loureiro Maria L., Hine Susan ( 2002), “Discovering Niche Markets: A Comparison of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local (Colorado Grown), Organic, and GMO-Free Products,” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , 34 ( 3), 477– 87. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Maiser Jennifer ( 2007), “10 Steps to Becoming a Locavore,” PBS, http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/344/Locavore.html. Matthes Jörg, Wonneberger Anke ( 2014), “The Skeptical Green Consumer Revisited: Testing the Relationship between Green Consumerism and Skepticism toward Advertising,” Journal of Advertising , 43 ( 2), 115– 27. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   McFerran Brent, Dahl Darren W., Fitzsimons Gavan J., Morales Andrea C. ( 2010), “I’ll Have What She’s Having: Effects of Social Influence and Body Type on the Food Choices of Others,” Journal of Consumer Research , 36 ( 6), 915– 29. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   McGrath Mary Ann, Sherry John F.Jr., Heisley Deborah D. ( 1993), “An Ethnographic Study of an Urban Periodic Marketplace: Lessons from the Midville Farmers’ Market,” Journal of Retailing , 69 ( 3), 280– 319. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Mintz Sidney W., Du Bois Christine M. ( 2002), “The Anthropology of Food and Eating,” Annual Review of Anthropology , 31 ( 1), 99– 119. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Mirosa Miranda, Lawson Rob ( 2012), “Revealing the Lifestyles of Local Food Consumers,” British Food Journal , 114 ( 6), 816– 25. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Mishra Arul, Mishra Himanshu ( 2010), “Border Bias: The Belief That State Borders Can Protect against Disasters,” Psychological Science , 21 ( 11), 1582– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Mokkink Lidwine B., Terwee Caroline B., Patrick Donald L., Alonso Jordi, Stratford Paul W., Knol Dirk L., Bouter Lex M., de Vet Henrica CW ( 2010), “The COSMIN Study Reached International Consensus on Taxonomy, Terminology, and Definitions of Measurement Properties for Health-Related Patient-Reported Outcomes,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 63 ( 7), 737– 45. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Motyl Matt, Iyer Ravi, Oishi Shigehiro, Trawalter Sophie, Nosek Brian A. ( 2014), “How Ideological Migration Geographically Segregates Groups,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 51, 1– 14. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Muniz Albert M., O’Guinn Thomas C. ( 2001), “Brand Community,” Journal of Consumer Research , 27 ( 4), 412– 32. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Nalley Lawton Lanier, Hudson Darren, Parkhurst Greg ( 2006), “Consistency of Consumer Valuation under Different Information Sets: An Experimental Auction with Sweet Potatoes,” Journal of Food Distribution Research , 37 ( 3), 56– 67. Netemeyer Richard G., Bearden William O., Sharma Subhash ( 2003), Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications , Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Nganje William E., Hughner Renée Shaw, Lee Nicholas E. ( 2011), “State-Branded Programs and Consumer Preference for Locally Grown Produce,” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , 40 ( 1), 20– 32. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Nie Cong, Zepeda Lydia ( 2011), “Lifestyle Segmentation of US Food Shoppers to Examine Organic and Local Food Consumption,” Appetite , 57 ( 1), 28– 37. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Northrup Laura ( 2014), “At Kroger, ‘Local’ Produces Comes from Within 400 Miles,” Consumerist, https://consumerist.com/2014/04/29/at-kroger-local-produce-comes-from-within-400-miles/. Obermiller Carl, Spangenberg Eric R. ( 1998), “Development of a Scale to Measure Consumer Skepticism toward Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Psychology , 7 ( 2), 159– 86. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Olson Jenny G., McFerran Brent, Morales Andrea C., Dahl Darren W. ( 2016), “Wealth and Welfare: Divergent Moral Reactions to Ethical Consumer Choices,” Journal of Consumer Research , 42 ( 6), 879– 96. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Onozaka Yuko, McFadden Dawn Thilmany ( 2011), “Does Local Labeling Complement or Compete with Other Sustainable Labels? A Conjoint Analysis of Direct and Joint Values for Fresh Produce Claim,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 93 ( 3), 693– 706. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Oxford English Dictionary ( 2017), “Lionize,” http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/108816?redirectedFrom=lionization&. Oxford University Press ( 2007), “Oxford Word of the Year 2007: Locavore,” OUPBlog, https://blog.oup.com/2007/11/Locavore/. Park Crystal L. ( 2010), “Making Sense of the Meaning Literature: An Integrative Review of Meaning Making and Its Effects on Adjustment to Stressful Life Events,” Psychological Bulletin , 136 ( 2), 257– 301. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Peter J. Paul ( 1981), “Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing Practices,” Journal of Marketing Research , 18 ( 2), 133– 45. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Pollan Michael ( 2006), The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals , New York: Penguin. Porter Doug ( 2008), “Understanding Local Food,” Daily Kos, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/19/675076/-. Price Linda L., Coulter Robin A., Strizhakova Yuliya, Schultz Ainslie ( forthcoming), “The Fresh Start Mindset: Transforming Consumers’ Lives,” Journal of Consumer Research . Puddifoot John E. ( 1995), “Dimensions of Community Identity,” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology , 5 ( 5), 357– 70. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Puddifoot John E. ( 2003), “Exploring ‘Personal’ and ‘Shared’ Sense of Community Identity in Durham City, England,” Journal of Community Psychology , 31 ( 1), 87– 106. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ratner Bruce ( 2017), “The Correlation Coefficient: Definition,” DM Stat-1, http://www.dmstat1.com/res/TheCorrelationCoefficientDefined.html. Reed Matthew ( 2010), Rebels for the Soil: The Rise of the Global Organic Food and Farming Movement , London: Earthscan. Reiley Laura ( 2016), “How to Tell If Your ‘Local’ Food Is Actually Local,” Tampa Bay Times , http://www.tampabay.com/projects/2016/food/farm-to-fable/consumers/. Richins Marsha L. ( 2004), “The Material Values Scale: Measurement Properties and Development of a Short Form,” Journal of Consumer Research , 31 ( 1), 209– 19. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Rindfleisch Aric, Burroughs James E., Denton Frank ( 1997), “Family Structure, Materialism, and Compulsive Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research , 23 ( 4), 312– 25. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Rindfleisch Aric, Burroughs James E., Wong Nancy ( 2009), “The Safety of Objects: Materialism, Existential Insecurity, and Brand Connection,” Journal of Consumer Research , 36 ( 1), 1– 16. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sadler Richard C., Arku Godwin, Gilliland Jason A. ( 2015), “Local Food Networks as Catalysts for Food Policy Change to Improve Health and Build the Economy,” Local Environment , 20 ( 9), 1103– 21. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Schlosser Eric ( 2012), Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal , Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Schmid Herman ( 1981), “On the Origin of Ideology,” Acta Sociologica , 24 ( 1–2), 57– 73. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sharma Amit, Strohbehn Catherine, Radhakrishna Rama B., Ortiz Allan ( 2012), “Economic Viability of Selling Locally Grown Produce to Local Restaurants,” Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development , 3 ( 1), 181– 98. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Shimp Terence A., Sharma Subhash ( 1987), “Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE,” Journal of Marketing Research , 24 ( 3), 280– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Spiller Stephen A., Fitzsimons Gavan J., Lynch John G.Jr., McClelland Gary H. ( 2013), “Spotlights, Floodlights, and the Magic Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated Regression,” Journal of Marketing Research , 50 ( 2), 277– 88. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sprott David, Czellar Sandor, Spangenberg Eric ( 2009), “The Importance of a General Measure of Brand Engagement on Market Behavior: Development and Validation of a Scale,” Journal of Marketing Research , 46 ( 1), 92– 104. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Stephenson Garry, Lev Larry ( 2004), “Common Support for Local Agriculture in Two Contrasting Oregon Communities,” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , 19 ( 4), 210– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Tabachnick Barbara G., Fidell Linda S. ( 2001), Using Multivariate Statistics , 4th edition, New York: Harper & Row. Tarkan Laurie ( 2015), “The Big Business behind the Local Food,” Fortune , http://fortune.com/2015/08/21/local-food-movement-business/. Testa Francesco, Russo Michael V., Bettina Cornwell T., McDonald Aaron, Reich Brandon ( forthcoming), “Social Sustainability as Buying Local: Soft Policy, Meso Level Actors, and Social Influences on Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing . Thompson Craig J., Arsel Zeynep ( 2004), “The Starbucks Brandscape and Consumers’ (Anticorporate) Experiences of Glocalization,” Journal of Consumer Research , 31 ( 3), 631– 42. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Thompson Craig J., Coskuner-Balli Gokcen ( 2007), “Countervailing Market Responses to Corporate Co-Optation and the Ideological Recruitment of Consumption Communities,” Journal of Consumer Research , 34 ( 2), 135– 52. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Thompson Craig J., Troester Maura ( 2002), “Consumer Value Systems in the Age of Postmodern Fragmentation: The Case of the Natural Health Microculture,” Journal of Consumer Research , 28 ( 4), 550– 71. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Turner John C., Brown Rupert J., Tajfel Henri ( 1979), “Social Comparison and Group Interest in Ingroup Favouritism,” European Journal of Social Psychology , 9 ( 2), 187– 204. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Varman Rohit, Belk Russell W. ( 2009), “Nationalism and Ideology in an Anticonsumption Movement,” Journal of Consumer Research , 36 ( 4), 686– 700. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Walmart ( 2017), “Fresh Food,” https://www.walmart.com/cp/fresh-food/1071964. Wang Xin, Bendle Neil T., Mai Feng, Cotte June ( 2015), “The Journal of Consumer Research at 40: A Historical Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research , 42 ( 1), 5– 18. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Weatherell Charlotte, Tregear Angela, Allinson Johanne ( 2003), “In Search of the Concerned Consumer: UK Public Perceptions of Food, Farming and Buying Local,” Journal of Rural Studies , 19 ( 2), 233– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Webb Andrea, Peck Joann ( 2015), “Individual Differences in Interpersonal Touch: On the Development, Validation, and Use of the ‘Comfort with Interpersonal Touch’ (CIT) Scale,” Journal of Consumer Psychology , 25 ( 1), 60– 77. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   White Katherine, Dahl Darren W. ( 2007), “Are All Out-Groups Created Equal? Consumer Identity and Dissociative Influence,” Journal of Consumer Research , 34 ( 4), 525– 36. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Woolley Kaitlin, Fishbach Ayelet ( 2017), “A Recipe for Friendship: Similar Food Consumption Promotes Trust and Cooperation,” Journal of Consumer Psychology , 27 ( 1), 1– 10. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Yue Chengyan, Tong Cindy ( 2009), “Organic or Local? Investigating Consumer Preference for Fresh Produce Using a Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives,” HortScience , 44 ( 2), 366– 71. Zepeda Lydia, Deal David ( 2009), “Organic and Local Food Consumer Behaviour: Alphabet Theory,” International Journal of Consumer Studies , 33 ( 6), 697– 705. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

Journal of Consumer ResearchOxford University Press

Published: Apr 4, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off