Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102330

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Understanding local food consumption from an ideological perspective:

Locavorism, authenticity, pride, and willingness to visit☆
Sun-Hwa Kim a, *, Ran Huang b
a
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 343 Reid Hall, Montana State University Bozeman, MT, 59717-3370, USA
b
Eskenazi School of Art, Architecture + Design, Indiana University Bloomington, Kirkwood Hall 115, 130 S Woodlawn Ave, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Extant research on local food consumption is emerging yet limited. This study aims tofill a void to test locavorism
Authenticity as a second-order construct and its effects on authenticity,pride, and willingness to visit. Further, the boundary
Involvement condition of the effect oflocavorism is also explored. Results suggest that restaurant managers that endeavorto
Locally-sourced restaurant
offer locally-sourced menus need to emphasize the characteristics of locavorism(i.e., lionization, opposition, and
Pride
Locavorsim
communalization) when marketing to locavores as atarget consumer group. This study provides valuable insights
into local foodconsumption behavior within the restaurant context by examining the factors andeffects of
locavorism.

1. Introduction
Local food consumption is one of the fastest-growing food trends
(Shideler and Watson, 2019). The sales of local food in the U.S. increased
from $5 billion to $12 billion between 2008 and 2014 and is expected to
exceed $20 billion by 2020 (Hesterman and Horan, 2017). This observed
consumption trend may outperform the growth of the nations’ total food
and beverage sales (Hesterman and Horan, 2017). A report by the Na­
tional Restaurant Association (NRA) indicated that locally-soured food
as a new emerging culinary trend (Restaurant.org, 2019). Further,
nationwide retailers such as Walmart, Safeway, Kroger, and Publix have
reacted to this demand by selling a large portion of locally-sourced food
in the stores (Beck and Reich, 2018). For example, Walmart has
increasingly purchased locally-grown products in-state near its super­
centers since 2008 (Safire, 2008).
The drivers for such preference of local food among consumers are
responsible largely from (a) consumers’ increasing concerns about the
transparency of their foods; for example, the origin of food and the
conditions under which food is grown have driven the trend of local food
consumption (Birch et al., 2018) and (b) consumers’ beliefs about the
values of local food; local foods may mean health, social, economic, and
environmental benefits to consumers (Lillywhite and Simonsen, 2014;
Frash et al., 2005). Also, these motives are manifested in categorized or
patterned consumption behavior. For example, Nie and Zepeda (2011)
identified four types of lifestyle purchasing pattern for local food:
rational consumers who are price conscious, adventurous consumers who
are enthusiastic about local food consumption, careless consumers with
the least interest in food activities, and the conservative uninvolved group
who only seek convenience in food.
Recently, marketers and academics have recognized a socio-political
characteristic as one of the drivers for local food consumption. Within
the view, the popularity of local foods is a consequence of one’s
normative beliefs reflecting individual political ideologies and degree of
civic engagement (Kennedy et al., 2018). Particularly, most recent
emerging consumer ideology is called “locavorism” and consumers who
believe in locavorism and prefer to have local foods are known as
“locavore” (Riech et al., 2018; Stanton et al., 2012). Locavorism has
been conceptualized as a systemic construct with three dimensions of
belief: the lionization of local foods, opposition to food transported over
long distances, and communalization of local food economy (Reich et al.,
2018). As such, locavores, for example, support farmers’ markets and
prefer to use local and/or farm-to-table restaurants (Reich et al., 2018).
Past research regarding local food in service such as hospitality
highlighted motivations to taste local foods. For example, Kim and Eves
(2012) found that travelers experience local food to have a cultural
experience, to experience excitement, and to comfort health concern.
Specifically, extant research investigating locavorism has focused on the
dimensions of locavorism (Reich et al., 2018) and its antecedents (Zhang

☆
These authors contributed equally to this work.
* corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sunhwa.kim@montana.edu (S.-H. Kim), huangran@iu.edu (R. Huang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102330
Received 23 May 2020; Received in revised form 2 October 2020; Accepted 3 October 2020
Available online 18 October 2020
0969-6989/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.-H. Kim and R. Huang
et al., 2020). However, locavorism research in the context of restaurant
where local food has tremendous business potential has not been
available; rather, discussions of locavorism in restaurants have been
anecdotal. Also, limited research has examined the relationship between
locavorism and its effects relating to consumer psychological processes
(Lang and Lemmerer, 2019). Despite pride and consumer perception of
restaurant authenticity can be connected to locavorism in predicting
consumer behavioral responses, the literature on the relationships
among these variables is lacking.
To better understand how the locavores turn their beliefs into an act,
this research aims to develop a novel framework of local food con­
sumption which explores the dynamic relationships among local food
ideology (i.e., locavorism), perceived authenticity, pride, and behav­
ioral response. By developing a framework of local food consumption in
restaurants, the purpose of this research is threefold: (1) to identify
locavorism as a second-order construct; (2) to examine the relationships
among locavorism, pride, authenticity, and willingness to visit (Study
1); and (3) to investigate the moderating role of involvement on the
effect of locavorism (Study 2).
This research, to the best of our knowledge, is the first empirical
study to treat locavorism as a second-order construct, which is man­
ifested by three first-order factors simultaneously and holistically. This
research responds to the need to develop empirical studies that can
investigate new ways to relate to one’s locality (Reich et al., 2018) and
provides an insight in understanding consumer behavior by developing
and testing a nomological model integrating locavorism, pride,
authenticity, involvement, and consumer behavioral response towards
to local food consumption.
2. Conceptual background
2.1. Local food consumption
Given the increasing demand among consumers for local food
(Campbell and DiPietro, 2014), the rapid growth of restaurants sourcing
locally is expected to continue its proliferation (National Restaurant
Association, 2016). Despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence
supporting the belief that local food is better than non-local food in
terms of sustainability and the health of consumers, the demand for local
food has become a cultural, social, and political trend regardless
(Edwards-Jones, 2010). For example, Campbell (2013) documented an
ethnic difference, which often influences consumers’ buying power, did
not affect their perceptions of and purchasing behavior in locally pro­
duced food. The food service industry has thus responded to this local
food consumption movement over the past decade (National Restaurant
Association, 2017).
Consumer demand for locally-sourced food is on the rise as local food
becomes synonymous with “healthier, fresher, and better” (Lillywhite
and Simonsen, 2014). While the term “local food” is commonly used, its
definition remains ambiguous (Lang et al., 2014). Most definitions are
developed based on geographic restrictions, also known as food miles,
(e.g., produced within 50 or 100 miles). For example, in one study by
Frash et al. (2015), local food is defined as that which is produced within
a 100-mile radius; whereas other studies extend the radius to 400 miles
and beyond, considering any food grown or produced within the origin state as local food
(e.g., Campbell et al
, 2014). Also, local food has been defined from the
customer’s perspective (Lang and Lemmerer, 2019). That is, consumers
consider political boundaries (e.g., state or county) when defining “local
food” (Zepeda and Li, 2006). This consumer-centric definition has been
heavily discussed in the context of farmers markets within the field of
agriculture.
Prior studies relating to local food in the foodservice industry have
largely focused on three research streams: consumer perceptions of
restaurants sourcing locally (e.g., Schubert et al., 2010), defining major
consumer groups (e.g., Jang et al., 2012), and identifying attitudinal or
behavioral factors involved in consumers’ decision-making processes
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102330
when choosing local food (e.g., Campbell et al., 2014). The major
findings of the research investigating consumers’ perceptions of a
restaurant sourcing locally (RSL) is that consumers visit RSLs (Lillywhite
and Simonsen, 2014) to consume food with a higher perceived quality,
support the local community, benefit personal health, and promote
sustainability (Bianchi and Mortimer, 2015; Frash et al., 2005). These
perceived benefits become the motivational factors for patronizing an
RSL. Specifically, consumer motivations for visiting an RSL are catego­
rized into three aspects: perceived benefits, personal values, and life­
style. For example, researchers have suggested that consumers’
environmental concerns and knowledge (Nie and Zepeda, 2011), health
consciousness (Lillywhite and Simonsen, 2014), and community
attachment (Legendre et al., 2018) influence their attitudes (Campbell
et al., 2014), patronage intentions towards RSLs, and willingness to pay
more for the experience (Schubert et al., 2010). In a nomological
network, these motivations influence consumers’ behavioral intentions
through subjective norms, attitudes, perceived control (Shin et al.,
2018a), anticipated emotions (Shin et al., 2018b), and desires (Shin
et al., 2017).
Prior research on local food consumption (e.g., Nie and Zepeda,
2011) has identified consumer groups and their shared attitudes and
behaviors toward an RSL. Lillywhite and Simonsen (2014) identified a
source-conscious consumer group who consider local food in RSLs to be
important; particularly, these are individuals who emphasize
food-related ideology in their dining activity (Jang et al., 2012). This
consumer group, so-called “locavores,” distinguish themselves from
others by sharing a heterogeneity of preferences, attitudes, and behav­
iors toward local food consumption in RSLs (Contini et al., 2017). The
shared motivations for patronizing an RSL in this group are to support
their community and non-corporate (or non-industrial) growers, and to
consume healthier food (Lang et al., 2014). Consequently, this has
become a significant consumer group in the RSL segment of the
restaurant industry, and this group consistently expresses willingness to
pay a premium (Frash et al., 2015). All in all, while extant literature on
locavores has addressed the aforementioned motives of local food con­
sumption, the effect of individuals’ beliefs as fundamental drivers of this
group still remains under-explored.
2. 2. Locavorism
Food choices have served as a means of self-expression for decades
(Pollard et al., 2002). Anecdotal evidence suggests that many current
consumers have food-related ideologies such as vegetarianism and
flexitarianism. Although these terms have been coined more recently,
the term locavorism has emerged as a comprehensive perspective which
reflects “a movement in which consumers strive to eat locally sourced
foods” (Fitzgerald, 2016, p. 4). Because one’s perceptions often shape
their food habits, an individual’s psychological, cultural, and social
perceptions all shape their adoption of locavorism (Shepherd and Raats,
1996). Accordingly, locavorism has been given with unique meanings in
different cultural contexts. For example, the concept of locavorism in
Philippines merely focuses on advocating and promoting the local food
identity, whereas locavorism in the West is holistically depicted as
“democratized, socially just, and environmentally sustainable” (Mon­
tefrio et al., 2020).
Furthermore, research on locavorism has consistently indicated that
perceived benefits drive consumers to choose local food (e.g., Des­
rochers, 2016) and to visit RSLs (e.g., Lang and Lemmerer, 2019). Ac­
cording to Desrochers (2016), locavores believe that eating local food
helps local farmers, boosts the local economy, and protects the envi­
ronment. In addition, consumers idealize local food as being tastier and
healthier than food that travels long distances, and they consider that
local food is more dependable in times of political crisis, even though
these perceived benefits are not necessarily real (Scharber and Dances,
2016). Similarly, Lang and Lemmerer (2019) found that the perceived
benefits of restaurant patrons determine their attitudes toward RSLs and
S.-H. Kim and R. Huang
local food. Accordingly, in this study, locavorism refers to a shared belief
system, which may conceal the true nature of the social relations and
processes involved (Simonetti, 2012) by emphasizing individual bene­
fits and social relationships (Fitzgerald, 2016). As normative beliefs,
locavorism has been found to be a key driver of local food consumption
(Zhang et al., 2020).
Locavorism consists of three core beliefs: lionization, opposition, and
communalization (Reich et al., 2018). Lionization is associated with a
belief in the superiority of local food in terms of taste and health, is a
consistent predictor of the preference for local food (Onozaka and
McFadden, 2011). Opposition refers to opposing distant foods for safety
and transparency (Halweil, 2002), which translates into a distrust of
nonlocal foods. Communalization pertains to the belief in which con­
sumers see themselves as actively participating in the local community
by consuming local food. Prior studies introduced similar concepts; for
example, Lee et al. (2016) asserted that consumers feeling a sense of
regional community (regiocentric) likely purchase locally-produced
products. Similarly, consumers committing to their community (ethno­
centrism) tend to purchase local products (Casado-Aranda et al., 2020;
Yildiz et al., 2018). Regardless, to consumers, “local” is a means of
supporting businesses in their area and of generating community (Lang
and Lemmerer, 2019).
It is notable that the three dimensions mutually reinforce one
another (Reich et al., 2018). For example, consumers can oppose
non-local food (opposition), believing that local food is more nutritious
(lionization), or they may enact their belief in supporting the local
community (communalization) through local food consumption, which
can reinforce opposition and lionization. Therefore, these three di­
mensions should be considered as first-order reflective constructs that
jointly serve as indicators of locavorism as a second-order reflective
construct, which has not been tested empirically.
2.3. Authenticity
Authenticity is related to the genuineness or truth of something
(MacCannell, 1989) and is characterized by sincerity, originality (Fine,
2003), and being natural and honest (Boyle, 2003). Authenticity has
become a critical measure for consumer purchases (Gilmore and Pine,
2007) because not only do consumers increasingly want to purchase
authentic products and services (Kim and Jang, 2016), but they also seek
to conform to their self-image through their consumption activities;
therefore, one’s consumption behavior is more likely to reflect his/her
identity and worldview (Gilmore and Pine, 2007). As an extension of
this view, Kolar and Zabkar (2010) conceptualized authenticity as a
socially and individually constructed perception of objects and cultures.
In spite of the absence of clear distinctions between real and fake (Kim
and Jang, 2016), it is apparent that consumers’ preexisting image or
knowledge affects the feeling of authenticity in consumers who purchase
products and services (Jang et al., 2012).
In research related to service products (e.g., food), three approaches
to authenticity have been recognized (Jang et al., 2012): objective
(Appadurai, 1986), constructive (Taylor, 1991), and existential (Wang,
1999). Unlike the former, the latter two approaches largely aggregate
the idea of how one’s social identity and/or experience constructs
authenticity. As such, patrons of an RSL can perceive its authenticity
based on the image that they have created from locavorism; the stronger
the belief in locavorism a consumer holds, the higher the level of
authenticity of an RSL he/she perceives.
H1. Locavorism is positively associated with authenticity.
2.4. Pride
Pride can largely be categorized into two types: authentic and hu­
bristic pride. The former arises from a specified event focusing on
achievement, while the latter is not derived from an external source but
3
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102330
is instead related to one’s view of himself/herself (e.g., I am smart)
(Williams and DeSteno, 2008). This study centers on authentic pride
because it focuses on pride as a predictor of willingness to visit; pride is
achieved from believing in the effects of local food consumption.
Pride is often presented as a feeling of satisfaction or pleasure in
something one has achieved or is able to do (Decrop and Derbaix, 2010),
and pride is considered a self-conscious emotion (Tracy et al., 2009).
With respect to consumer behavior, pride has received less attention
(Decrop and Derbaix, 2010), while other types of self-conscious emo­
tions (e.g., happiness and anger) have been studied across multiple
disciplines (Gregory-Smith et al., 2013). Further, when pride is a focal
construct in consumption studies, it is often rather limited and located
around the selection of sustainable or ethical products. In general, pride
is activated by reflecting upon and evaluating the self (Carver et al.,
2010) and enables consumers to make socially-conscious decisions such
as donating to charity and volunteering (Boezeman and Ellemers, 2007).
Locavorism in foodservice has been largely framed as a conscientious
activity (e.g., Shin et al., 2017) rather than according to its emotional
resonance, even though relevant personal beliefs such as
pro-environmental attitudes or locavorism engender self-conscious
emotions such as pride (Onwezen et al., 2013). In the literature on
consumer behavior, consumption meeting personal standards or values
has been found to elicit positive emotional reactions such as pride
(Antonetti and Maklan, 2014). Given these notions, it seems reasonable
to speculate that locavorism elicits consumer pride for participating in a
similar form of responsible consumption (communalization) (Ulusoy,
2016). Also, a belief that one has superior food from a trusted source can
elicit pride, as consumers endeavor to have prosocial (communalization)
and achievement-oriented (lionization and/or opposition) consumption
(e.g., Tracy and Robins, 2007).
Empirical evidence has supported that personal beliefs lead to
emotional responses such as pride. For example, Onwezen et al. (2014)
found that consumers’ value of organic food is linked to pride and guilt,
which eventually leads to purchase intentions. Individual norms are
associated with emotions such as pride and regret (Rezvani et al., 2017).
Similarly, Antonetti and Maklan (2014) revealed that consumers expe­
rience pride when their consumption corresponds to personal norms.
With ethical consumption, Gregory-Smith et al. (2013) revealed that
consumers’ belief in ethical consumption enhanced their emotional re­
sponses such as pride. Locavorism is implicitly related to pride arising
from abilities, efforts, and energy (Tracy et al., 2009). For example,
individuals’ locavorism may inspire them to make the effort to search for
information such as that which is provided in restaurant menus (Hwang
and Lee, 2019; Young et al., 2010), which in turn gives rise to consumer
pride. Accordingly.
H2. Locavorism is positively associated with pride.
When authenticity has been investigated in the retail context (e.g.,
Carsana and Jolibert, 2018; Jang et al., 2012), it was consistently
associated with positive emotions such as pride (Fleeson and Wilt, 2010;
Pelet et al., 2020). In support of this notion, the extant literature has
documented the significant influence of authenticity on positive emo­
tions such as pride. For example, Jang et al. (2012) and Jang and Ha
(2015) found that authenticity is significantly linked to the positive
emotions of patrons in the restaurant context. In a recent study exam­
ining the influence of authenticity on the formation of positive emotions,
Meng and Choi (2017) confirmed that authenticity in a theme restaurant
evoked customers positive emotion. Such impact of perceived authen­
ticity on consumers’ positive emotions has also been found in the setting
of traditional restaurants (Kim et al., 2020).
In a similar vein, Kim and Jang (2016) asserted that authenticity
increased consumers’ memories of specific food items. Moreover,
Loureiro (2019) confirmed that museum visitors felt pride when the
museum is perceived as being authentic and genuine. In support of
empirical evidence, a positive connection between authenticity and
pride seems to be apparent because one’s state of authenticity‒
S.-H. Kim and R. Huang Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102330

conforming beliefs and behavior‒ confers psychological benefits such as goal-directed capacity deriving from their specific needs, such as the
positive emotions including pride (Sedikides et al., 2017). This suggests belief in local food superiority, opposing distant food, and supporting
that “being themselves” (i.e., adhering to locavorism) may improve local community through local food consumption. Second, as a
consumers’ perceived authenticity toward an RSL, which leads to pride highly-involved consumer group, locavores who emphasize the dining
arising from the conformation of belief through selecting and visiting an experience are more likely to make the effort required to evaluate the
RSL. Therefore. genuineness of an RSL.
Involvement is also influenced by individual characteristics (Lasto­
H3. Authenticity is positively associated with pride.
vicka and Gardner, 1978). This has led us to infer that the profile of
locavores (e.g., well-educated or high-income level; Stanton et al.,
2.5. Willingness to visit
2012), as personal characteristics, implicitly influences their involve­
ment. As an extension of this concept, involvement can moderate the
Willingness to visit refers to an individual’s intention to continue
link between locavorism and pride. Also, Kim et al. (2012) found that
visiting an RSL in the future. Previous studies have demonstrated a
perceived well-being is more effective in enhancing behavioral in­
positive relationship between pride and continued action (Caciopo et al.,
tentions in high-involvement consumers.
1999). For example, positive emotions generated by the novelty of a
In sum, when customer involvement in purchasing a certain product
wine promoted the purchasing behavior of wine travelers (Pele­
is a high, their decision-making process is more meticulous and thus
grin-Borondo et al., 2020). Moreover, pride significantly explains ethical
they seek out copious information about the product (Jung and Yoon,
behavior leading to achievement (Gregory-Smith et al., 2013) and in­
2012). This argument implies that consumers who perceive the
creases one’s effectiveness in purchasing sustainable products to protect
authenticity of RSLs resulting from information searches may have more
the environment (Antonetti and Maklan, 2014). In other words, those
pride and high involvement. Therefore, the moderating effect of
who feel pride reinforce their sustainable consumption because they
involvement is proposed (see Fig. 1).
believe in their ability to effect change. For example, Han et al. (2017)
found that pride that travelers anticipated to have positively influenced H5a. Involvement moderates the link between locavorism and
their willingness to engage in pro-environmental actions during travels. authenticity.
Also, anticipated pride contributed to regulating travelers’ behavior,
H5b. Involvement moderates the link between locavorism and pride.
such as reducing waste and saving water while they stayed in a hotel
(Han et al., 2018; Han and Hyun, 2018). H5c. Involvement moderates the link between authenticity and pride.
Onwezen et al. (2013) discussed that pride reinforced the effects of
personal beliefs on consumer’s behavioral intentions in the context of 3. Study 1
purchasing sustainable and healthy products. Also, Williams and DeS­
teno (2008) examined the effects of pride, reporting that pride motivates 3.1. Participants and procedures
individuals to persist in the domains they value; feeling proud about an
accomplishment becomes an incentive to pursue further action. For A web-based survey method was utilized to examine the impact of
example, the study of Vieira (2020) evidenced that consumers’ feeling of locavorism and consumer perceptions of the authenticity of local food
pride affected their satisfaction, thereby leading them to purchase restaurant on pride, which in turn would likely lead to their willingness
organic products that they valued over premium products that have a to visit the restaurant. Data was collected using a market research
better quality. Findings from previous research infer that pride may company. A total of 197 useable data were employed in our analysis.
cause subsequent behavior from consumers, such as willingness to visit. The sample included U.S. consumers. Upon arriving at the survey, par­
Accordingly. ticipants were (1) briefly informed of the research purpose along with
the definition of relevant terms (e.g., local food, as known as locally
H4. Pride is positively associated with willingness to visit.
sourced food that is defined as food raised, produced, and consumed
within a certain miles radius (generally, less than 150 miles) of the
2.6. The moderating role of involvement
origin of the food product.), and (2) guided to complete a questionnaire
based on their experiences with and their evaluations of local food and
Despite the heightened interest in involvement, little research exists
local food restaurants and also to respond to demographic information.
documenting the extent to which involvement plays a role in the effect
The majority of participants were female (63.5%) and White/Non-
of locavorism on authenticity and pride. In the consumer behavior
Hispanic (80.7%) and 48.7% participants were Baby Boomers with a
literature, involvement is typically formed as a motivational predictor
bachelor’s degree (35.5%). Most of them were married (54.8%) and had
and/or functions as a moderator (Dholakia, 2000). Involvement is an
a full-time job (70.6%) with a household income of $50k – 100k
individual factor that measures the amount of interest in an object or
(34.5%). 51.3% of participants indicated that they visit a restaurant that
situation (Mitchell, 1979). According to Zaichkowsky (1986), high
serves locally sourced food sometimes and 25.4% visit this type of
involvement means high personal relevance; customers are likely to
restaurant about half of the time. Table 1 presents the participants’
differ in their decision-making processes depending upon their level of
characteristics.
involvement. For example, Kinard and Capella (2006) found that con­
sumer involvement moderates the effects of service rendered on
perceived benefits in that consumers perceive greater relational ad­
vantages through experience with high involvement services (e.g.,
Lionization

interacting with a hairdresser) than that with low involvement services

(e.g., consuming fast food).
Park and Mittal (1985) suggested that involvement arises from one’s H2 H4 Willingness to
Opposition Locavorism Pride
goal-directed capacity. Also, Kokkinaki (1999) contended that when
visit

H5b
customers are highly involved in their purchase decisions, they tend to H1 Local food H5c

go to greater lengths to find more information, enabling them to discern

Involveme
H5a
nt

the authenticity of the product/service of interest. The results of previ­ Communalization Authenticity
H3

ous studies have indicated that involvement in the context of RSLs

moderates the effects of locavorism on authenticity for two reasons.
First, consumers’ interest in an RSL is strongly correlated with their Fig. 1. Research framework of local food consumption.

4
S.-H. Kim and R. Huang Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102330

Table 1 0.072, IFI = 0.938, TLI = 0.927 and CFI = 0.937. As shown in Table 2, all
Sample profiles. items loaded significantly on their respective dimensions with stan­
Study 1 (N = Study 2 (N = dardized loadings ranging from 0.681 to 0.925. Overall, composite
197) 297) reliability (CR) scores ranged from 0.740 to 0.921. In particular, CR
Characteristics Freq. % Freq. % values for both the first-order dimensions (CRlionization = 0.740, CRop­
Gender position = .828, and CRcommunalization = 0.891) and the second-order
Male 71 36.0 111 37.4 construct (CRlocavorism = 0.837) exceeded the recommended standards
Female 125 63.5 185 62.3 for construct reliability. The average variance extracted (AVE) for each
Other 1 0.5 1 .3
Age
construct was greater than 0.50. Hence, the convergent validity of the
Generation Z (18–22 years old) 5 2.5 12 4.0
Millennials (23–38 years old) 48 24.4 68 22.9
Table 2
Generation X (39–54 years old) 44 22.3 85 28.6
Baby boomers (55–73 years old) 96 48.7 123 41.4
Measurement model statistics (Study 1/Study 2).
Over 74 years old 4 2.0 9 3.0 Variables Std. Factor Composite AVE
Education Loadings Reliability
Less than a high school diploma – – 3 1.0
High school diploma or equivalent 65 33.0 104 35.0 Locavorism
Bachelor’s degree 70 35.5 108 36.4 Lionization .740/.774 .587/
Master’s degree 36 18.3 51 17.2 .631
Doctorate degree 7 3.6 7 2.4 Locally produced foods just taste .755/.818
Other 19 9.6 24 8.1 better.
Ethnicity Locally produced foods are more .777/.770
White 159 80.7 235 79.1 nutritious than foods that have been
Hispanic or Latino 10 5.1 17 5.7 shipped from somewhere else.
Black or African American 15 7.6 25 8.4 Opposition .828/.829 .547/
Asian/Pacific Islander 9 4.6 13 4.4 .550
Native American or American Indian 1 5 2 .7 I don’t trust foods that have been .766/.729
Other 3 1.5 5 1.7 produced by large, multinational
Household income corporations.
Below $10k 4 2.0 8 2.7 Large, global food systems are .715/.658
$10k - $50k 61 31.0 96 32.3 destined to fail.
$50k - $100k 68 34.5 116 39.1 I would go out of my way to avoid .689/.747
$100k - $150k 32 16.2 44 14.8 buying food from a large retail
Over $150k 32 16.2 33 11.1 grocery chain.
Marital status I feel uneasy eating something unless .785/.824
Single 47 23.9 75 25.3 I know exactly where it was
Married 108 54.8 162 54.5 produced.
In a domestic partnership 7 3.6 17 5.7 Communalization .891/.899 .671/
Divorced 27 13.7 34 11.4 .691
Widowed 8 4.1 9 3.0 Buying locally produced foods .759/.777
Employment status supports sustainable farming
Employed full-time (40+ hours a week) 139 70.6 213 71.7 practices.
Employed part-time (<40 h a week) 36 18.3 51 17.2 Buying local foods helps build a .826/.814
Unemployed 4 2 4 1.3 more prosperous community.
Student 1 .5 3 1.0 I like to support local farmers .885/.881
Retired 9 4.6 16 5.4 whenever possible.
Self-employed 5 2.5 6 2.0 Supporting the local food economy is .802/.849
Homemaker 3 1.5 4 1.3 important to me.
Authenticity .899/.913 .693/
.727
How would you evaluate the restaurant
3.2. Measurement
that serves locally sourced food?
The restaurant has a clear concept .681/.696
Measures of the research variables were adopted from a 7-point that it pursues.
Likert scale used in previous studies. A total of ten items were The restaurant stands out from other .857/.881
employed to capture locavorism as a second-order reflective construct restaurants.
I think the restaurant is unique. .902/.909
(1: strongly disagree; 7: strongly agree) – two items for lionization, four The restaurant clearly distinguishes .871/.908
items for opposition, and four items for communalization (Reich et al., itself from other brands.
2018). To assess the authenticity of a local food restaurant, participants Pride .921/.921 .795/
responded to four items developed by Bruhn et al. (2012) (1: strongly .796
Please indicate your feeling of the
disagree; 7: strongly agree). Pride was measured using a three-item
restaurant you visited that serves
measurement scale (1: not much; 7: very much) adapted from Anto­ locally sourced food.
netti and Maklan (2014). Finally, participants responded to four items How intensely would you feel .876/.876
developed to measure willingness to visit the restaurant (1: strongly pleased?
disagree; 7: strongly agree) (Grewal et al., 2009). How intensely would you feel good .925/.904
about yourself?
How intensely would you feel pride? .873/.896
3.3. Reliability and validity of constructs Willingness to visit .904/.911 .702/
.720
I would be willing to pay more for .797/.810
Following Das et al. (2019) and Mirbagheri and Najmi (2019), we
this restaurant.
performed Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using maximum likeli­ The likelihood that I would visit this .856/.884
hood estimation to assess the measurement scales. The specified model restaurant is very high.
was a second-order locavorism construct with three first-order di­ I would recommend this restaurant .863/.871
mensions (i.e., lionization, opposition, and communalization) with good to my friends.
I would revisit this restaurant. .834/.827
fit indices: χ2 [180] = 362.086, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.012, RMSEA =

5
S.-H. Kim and R. Huang
research constructs was confirmed (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Furthermore, for each construct, the AVE was greater than the squared
correlation coefficients between pairs of constructs, supporting
discriminant validity (see Table 3). In addition to the Fornell-Larcker
criterion, we also employed Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of
correlations to verify discriminant validity of the constructs (see
Table 4). According to Henseler et al. (2015), HTMT is a new and robust
approach to assess discriminant validity in SEM. Results indicated that
the values of the HTMT are below a suggested threshold of 0.85, which
confirmed discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015).
To verify that locavorism fits better as a second-order reflective
construct, CFA was further performed on the model considering loca­
vorism as first order with all items loaded on one construct (χ2 [183] =
655.898, p < .001, χ2/df = 3.584, RMSEA = 0.115, IFI = 0.838, TLI =
0.812, CFI = 0.837), indicating that the model fit the data poorly.
3.4. Hypotheses testing
To test the hypotheses, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was
performed. The model fit indices were: χ2 [182] = 387.847, p < .001, χ2/
df = 2.131, RMSEA = 0.076, IFI = 0.930, TLI = 0.918, CFI = 0.929,
indicating an acceptable structural model fit. The second-order factor
loadings were all significant: locavorism → lionization (1.076, p < .001);
locavorism → opposition (0.535, p < .001); and locavorism → commu­
nalization (0.715, p < .001). In addition, all the paths were supported.
Specifically, locavorism positively impacted authenticity (β = 0.443, p
< .001), supporting H1, and had a positive influence on pride (β =
0.361, p < .001), supporting H2. Also, authenticity increased pride (β =
0.528, p < .001). Thus, H3 was supported. Pride, in turn, had a positive
influence on willingness to visit (β = 0.844, p < .001), supporting H4.
3.5. Post-hoc analysis: the mediation roles of authenticity and pride
Results of the hypothesis testing reveal the possibility that authen­
ticity could mediate the link of locavorism – pride and serve as one of the
two serial mediators along with pride in the relationship between
locavorism and willingness to visit. Besides, pride could play a role as a
mediator in locavorism – willingness to visit link. To test the mediation
effects, bootstrapping was performed with 5000 samples recommended
by Preacher and Hayes (2008). Results indicate that the indirect effects
are significant: locavorism – authenticity – pride (β = 0.234, 0.187 <
95% CI < 0.429, p < .001), locavorism – authenticity – pride – will­
ingness to visit (β = 0.234, 0.164 < 95% CI < 0.400, p < .001), and
locavorism – pride – willingness to visit (β = 0.305, 0.242 < 95% CI <
0.586, p < .01). Therefore, authenticity partially mediates locavorism –
pride, whereas authenticity and pride serially mediate the link between
locavorism and willingness to visit. Lastly, pride fully mediates loca­
vorism – willingness to visit.
4. Study 2
4.1. Participants and procedures
Following the same steps as Study 1, the participants filled out the
survey questionnaires distributed by Qualtrics. Responses were
Table 3
Convergent and discriminant validity for Study 1.
1 2 3 4
1. Locavorism .648
2. Authenticity .201 .692
3. Pride .345 .432 .795
4. Willingness to visit .323 .537 .623 .702
Note: Diagonal entries are AVE for each construct. Off-diagonal entries are the
squared correlation coefficients between constructs.
6
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102330
Table 4
HTMT analysis for Study 1.
1 2 3 4
1. Locavorism –
2. Authenticity .405 –
3. Pride .550 .664 –
4. Willingness to visit .573 .757 .822 –
collected from 297 participants (62.3% female and 79.1% White/Non-
Hispanic) recruited from a consumer panel recruited by a U.S. market
research company, using an online survey method. In addition to the
examined research variables in Study 1, measurement items of
involvement in local food were added using a 7-point semantic differ­
ential scale (Kim et al., 2012). The majority of participants were Baby
Boomers (41.4%) with a bachelor’s degree (36.4%), married (54.5%),
and 71.7% of the participants worked full-time and 39.1% reported
having a household income ranging from $50k – 100k (see Table 1).
51.5% reported that they sometimes visit a restaurant that serves locally
sourced food, whereas 22.9% visit the restaurant serving local food
about half of the time.
4.2. Reliability and validity of constructs
Identical to Study 1, we performed CFA to assess the measurement
model in which locavorism served as a second-order construct. The
model yielded a good fit (χ2 [180] = 464.071, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.578,
RMSEA = 0.073, IFI = 0.940, TLI = 0.929, CFI = 0.939). All items
loaded significantly on their respective dimensions with standardized
loadings ranging from 0.658 to 0.909. CR scores ranged from 0.774 to
0.921, which confirmed construct reliability (see Table 2). Specifically,
CR values for both the first-order dimensions (CRlionization = 0.774,
CRopposition = .829, and CRcommunalization = 0.899) and the second-order
construct (CRlocavorism = 0.824) exceeded the recommended standards.
Both convergent and discriminant validity were also confirmed (see
Table 5). Additional HTMT test confirmed the discriminant validity of
the constructs, with the values less than a threshold of 0.85 (see Table 6).
Next, we compared the model fit considering local food ideology as a
first-order reflective construct and the model fit considering the
construct as second order. Compared to the first-order model (χ2 [183]
= 905.466, p < .001, χ2/df = 4.948, RMSEA = 0.115, IFI = 0.846, TLI =
0.823, CFI = 0.846), the second-order model had a better fit and indi­
cated locavorism fits better as a second order reflective measure.
Furthermore, SEM verified the results of Study 1 and our hypotheses
were supported (i.e., locavorism → authenticity: β = 0.423, p < .001;
locavorism → pride: β = 0.320, p < .001; authenticity → pride: β =
0.489, p < .001; and pride → willingness to visit and RSL: β = 0.866, p <
.001).
4.3. Measurement invariance
In order to test the moderating role of involvement, we first con­
ducted the measurement invariance test. A median split approach was
used to calculate each respondent’s total score on the local food
involvement items (Mdn = 39). A high score indicated high (vs. low)
involvement in local food consumption. The sample was then divided
Table 5
Convergent and discriminant validity for Study 2.
1 2 3 4
1. Locavorism .623
2. Authenticity .256 .727
3. Pride .484 .382 .796
4. Willingness to visit .480 .500 .504 .720
Note: Diagonal entries are AVE for each construct. Off-diagonal entries are the
squared correlation coefficients between constructs.
S.-H. Kim and R. Huang Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102330

Table 6 analysis to compare the indirect effect of a designated path across two
HTMT analysis for Study 2. groups: high and low local food involvement. Results show that the in­
1 2 3 4 direct effect of locavorism – authenticity – pride is stronger for high
involvement than low involvement (βlow-high = − .182, − 0.374 < 95% CI
1. Locavorism –
2. Authenticity .423 – < − 0.005, p < .05). The indirect effect of locavorism – pride – will­
3. Pride .669 .626 – ingness to visit has no difference between low and high group, whereas
4. Willingness to visit .619 .726 .814 – the indirect effect of locavorism – authenticity – pride – willingness to
visit has significant group difference (βlow-high = − .264, − 0.471 < 95%
CI < − 0.074, p < .01).
into two groups: the high level of involvement group and the low level of
involvement group. The measurement invariance tests included exam­
5. Discussion
ining (1) the invariance of the factor patterns, (2) the equality of factor
loadings, and (3) the equality of factor covariances/variances (Byrne,
Locavorism is an embedded ideology in consumers who believe local
2010; Suh and Yi, 2006). First, using CFA, a baseline model was built
foods provide superior taste (lionization), oppose distant food systems
indicating the invariance of the factor patterns across the two groups: χ2
(opposition), seek to support the local economy (communalization)
(360) = 724.636, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.013, RMSEA = 0.059, IFI = 0.908,
(Reich et al., 2018). Despite the significant effect of locavorism on
TLI = 0.891, CFI = 0.907. Then, a fully restricted model was examined
purchasing behavior in restaurants, little research has been conducted in
with all factor loadings, variances, and covariances constrained across
this area. Presumably, this study is the first to connect the concept of
the two groups: χ2 (411) = 857.679, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.087, RMSEA =
locavorism to consumers’ emotion, perception, and behavioral response
0.061, IFI = 0.886, TLI = 0.883, CFI = 0.886. Comparing these two
in the restaurant context.
models using the chi-squared test, χ2diff. (51) = 133.043, p < .001,
Study 1 empirically examined the framework of local food con­
indicated that the groups were different at the model level. To obtain a
sumption, which portrayed the dynamic relationships among locavor­
measurement model with equal factor loadings for the two groups, the
ism, authenticity, pride, and willingness to visit an RSL. With the three
invariance constraints were released step-by-step, following the guide­
first-order dimensions, locavorism is positively linked to authenticity
lines provided by Byrne (2010). The procedure resulted in a partial
and to pride. That is, locavores hold three beliefs—local food superior­
invariance model in which the variance included three indicators of
ity, opposition of distant food, and supporting the local community—
opposition, and the variance of one indicator among the three respective
and are more likely to perceive a locally-sourced restaurant to be
variables including communalization, authenticity, and willingness to
genuine. This finding is consistent with prior studies contending that
visit were allowed to be free. In addition, the covariances between
one’s existing identity markers (e.g., ethnicity) influence the feeling of
willingness to visit and authenticity, and between locavorism and
authenticity (Jang et al., 2012). As a set of normative beliefs shared
authenticity, were allowed to be free. The chi-squared difference test
among a group, locavorism could contribute to consumers’ perceived
between the nonconstrained model and the partial invariance model
authenticity of an RSL.
was insignificant, χ2diff. (43) = 54.8, p = .107, and thus the model was
The results show that locavorism enhances a sense of pride, which
suitable for multigroup analysis.
aligns with previous research asserting that an individual’s ideology
leads to a positive emotional reaction derived from their consumption
4.4. Multigroup analysis patterns (Antonetti and Maklan, 2014; Onwezen et al., 2014). For
instance, this study’s result supports Zhang et al. (2020)’s finding that
To test H5 (i.e., the moderating effect of involvement), multigroup argued one’s values and tendencies connected to locavorism through
analyses were employed. With the partial invariance model as the expecting to have psychological rewards such as pride as well as the
baseline model, chi-squared tests of differences between the high claim made by Barrena and Sánchez (2009) arguing that emotional re­
involvement group and the low involvement group were performed. A sponses of consumers toward a product play a major role in their pur­
series of comparisons between the baseline model and a restricted model chasing behavior. The positive effect of authenticity on pride is possible
were performed in which the hypothesized path of the coefficient was because consumers often construct a sense of authenticity through their
constrained to be equal for these two groups (df = 1). Results showed behavior, which induces positive feelings such as pride (Beverland and
that only one path (locavorism → authenticity) was moderated, χ2diff. = Farrelly, 2010); perceived authenticity triggers consumers’ feelings of
4.7, p = .03, supporting H5a, whereas H5b and H5c were rejected. That pride when they visit an RSL. The positive effect of pride on consumers’
is, the relationship between locavorism and authenticity was signifi­ willingness to visit corroborates previous research (e.g., Boezeman and
cantly stronger in the high involvement group than in the low involve­ Ellemers, 2007). This study verified that locavorism serves as a
ment group. Results of the multigroup analysis are provided in Table 7. second-order construct, which is composed of lionization, opposition,
and communalization; these are seemingly distinct but related to loca­
4.5. Post-hoc analysis: the moderated mediation vorism. The three dimensions verified by this study are consistent with
previous studies. For example, De Azevedo (2015) reported that the
We conducted bootstrapping test with 5000 samples in multigroup ability to trace products (i.e., opposition), support for local farmers (i.e.,
communalization), and belief in having better flavor and taste drove (i.
Table 7 e., lionization) consumers’ consumption for local foods. However,
Multigroup analysis results in Study 2. although locavorism is on the rise everywhere, factors of locavorism
Low involvement High involvement Δχ2 (df may be different by regions or countries. For example, locavorism is
= 1) emphasized for consumers’ health benefits rather than a civic virtue in
Coefficient t- Coefficient t-
value value the Philippine (Montefrio et al., 2020).
These three dimensions of locavorism reflect one’s ideology, sug­
H5a locavorism → .257 2.648 .556 5.700 4.679*
authenticity
gesting that locavorism can encompass more than one’s morals or
H5b locavorism → .475 5.584 .301 3.083 2.93 values. Given the logical assumption that locavorism is similar to a
pride personal belief, this result corresponded to prior research which argued
H5c authenticity → .405 5.068 .533 5.513 .737 that consumers perceive a product’s authenticity based on their personal
pride
beliefs (e.g., Lang and Lemmerer, 2019). Previous studies support that
Note: *p < .05. pride occurs when one feels a sense of accomplishment (e.g., McFerran

7
S.-H. Kim and R. Huang
et al., 2014). This makes it reasonable to assume that pride is a response
to patronizing an RSL because it signifies achievement.
Study 2 verified the results of the first study and investigated the
moderating role of local food involvement in the relationships between
locavorism and authenticity, locavorism and pride, and authenticity and
pride. Interestingly, local food involvement only moderated the effect of
locavorism on authenticity rather than the effects of locavorism and of
authenticity on pride. We argue that this result is not necessarily a
consequence of the poor moderating power of involvement on those
relationships but may result from a strong influence on pride in relation
to locavorism and authenticity. Namely, locavorism and authenticity
positively impacts pride regardless of the level of local food involve­
ment. To speculate, as a positive emotion, pride can be shaped by con­
sumers’ individual beliefs, instead of merely emanating from
consumers’ efforts at self-control such as involvement (Wilcox et al.,
2011) in the context of local food consumption. The results suggest that
for individuals who are highly involved with local food, the positive
effect of consumption-related ideology on their perceptions of authen­
ticity of an RSL is stronger than those who are less involved with local
food. Although involvement did not moderate the effects of locavorism
(H5b) and of authenticity (H5c) on pride, we argue that this result could
be possible if pride was embedded within the involvement construct.
Pride is derived from an achievement (McFerran et al., 2014) which
often requires full involvement in something (e.g., an act or event). The
positive effect of locavorism on authenticity was stronger in the high
involvement group than in the low involvement group, which may root
in that authenticity is a personally constructed concept (Grazian, 2003;
Leigh et al., 2006) and experienced by a self-determined individual
(Deci and Ryan, 1991) through formed beliefs.
6. Conclusion
6.1. Theoretical implications
While there is a growing interest in viewing the local food phe­
nomenon from a lifestyle perspective or a social and political movement
(Bacig and Young, 2019), research on locavorism in the restaurant
context has received limited attention. By filling a void in the service
literature, the current study highlights the importance of taking loca­
vores into account in the setting of restaurants that source and serve
local food. Notably, our study provides a more comprehensive view of
the dynamics behind the decision-making process involved in local food
consumption, which represents the transition from a shared set of beliefs
to consumptive action.
Following a tripartite L-O-C framework developed by Reich et al.
(2018) to understand locavorism, we extend the knowledge of local food
ideology and provide a deeper understanding of locavores’ disposition
toward local food in the context of an RSL. In particular, prior research
outlined the three dimensions (i.e., lionization, opposition, and com­
munalization) of local food ideology as (Reich et al., 2018). This
research extends the view and clarifies the conceptualization and
operationalization of locavorism. To the best of our knowledge, this
research is the first empirical attempt that investigates locavorism as a
second-order reflective construct comprising three first-order reflective
dimensions. In addition, the majority of hospitality research approach to
the local food phenomenon from the willingness to pay a premium (e.g.,
Adams and Salois, 2010; Feldmann and Hamm, 2015) in the tourism
context (Kim et al., 2009). This study reveals the complexity of the
process involved in local food consumption which contains ideological,
perceptual, emotional, and behavioral factors in restaurants.
6.2. Managerial implications
This study suggests that restaurant managers should strategize their
marketing and promotions accordingly and seek to gain a deeper un­
derstanding of locavores who actively engage in local food consumption.
8
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102330
Restaurants may wish to highlight the unique aspects of locavorism to
provide appropriate and effective marketing messages, which will
improve their competitiveness in the market. For example, managers of
RSLs can survey the extent of locavorism in a target consumer group so
as to gain a better understanding of their target market’s needs and
desires in terms of their ideological perspective. If a restaurant offers
locally-sourced foods, the restaurant may emphasize boosting the local
economy rather than environmental benefits, or disapproval in a big
restaurant company, thereby delivering corresponding marketing mes­
sages that resonate with their target customers. They can thus segment
their market and their marketing strategy accordingly.
Also, it is possible that marketing communications inducing
authenticity and pride would be successful in targeting locavores
because they have strong feelings of pride and high levels of authenticity
toward RSLs. Therefore, an RSL could seek to encourage local food
consumption by highlighting “being proud of consuming locally sourced
food” in their advertising, which would enhance consumers’ willingness
to visit the restaurant. Current marketing campaigns for local foods or
RSLs can portray group pride deriving from the success of collective
entities (e.g., Ohio Proud or Kentucky Proud) (Decrop and Derbaix,
2010).
Given the importance of authenticity in local food consumption,
advertising how the restaurant is unique from others and/or where the
foods being served come from may be particularly effective in enhancing
consumers’ perceived authenticity of an RSL. Promotional appeals that
focus on consumers’ local food involvement could encourage locavores’
perceived authenticity of RSLs. Simultaneously, restaurant owners and
managers can create messages that enhance consumers’ knowledge of
local food (e.g., facts indicating how local food is important for the
community) that could increase customers’ involvement in local food
consumption.
6.3. Future research and limitations
Despite the significant results of this study, there are some limita­
tions that provide opportunities for future research. This study reveals
the dynamics among locavorism, authenticity, and pride from the
perspective of self, which calls for further investigation into other un­
known factors that capture local food consumption. For instance, social
norms from the viewpoint of other people may play a role in predicting
consumers’ behavioral intentions towards an RSL (Wenzig and Gruch­
mann, 2018). Moreover, a willingness to visit has been examined as a
behavioral response in this study. It is worthwhile to explore the vari­
ables that examine actual behaviors, such as the amount individuals pay,
to better capture local food consumption. It will be interesting to see
whether locavores have different perceptions of locally-sourced foods
offered by a locally-owned restaurant and by a large corporate (or chain)
restaurant.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
References
Adams, D.C., Salois, M.J., 2010. Local versus organic: a turn in consumer preferences and
willingness-to-pay. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 1–11.
Antonetti, P., Maklan, S., 2014. Feelings that make a difference: how guilt and
prideconvince consumers of the effectiveness of sustainable consumption choices.
J. Bus. Ethics 124, 117–134.
Appadurai, A., 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bacig, M., Young, C.A., 2019. The halo effect created for restaurants that source food
locally. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 22 (3), 209–238.
Barrena, R., Sánchez, M., 2009. Using emotional benefits as a differentiation strategy in
saturated markets. Psychol. Market. 26 (1), 1002–1030.
Beck, J.T., Reich, B., 2018. Meet the Foodies Who Are Changing the Way Americans Eat.
https://theconversation.com/meet-the-foodies-who-are-changing-the-way-american
s-eat-95621.
S.-H. Kim and R. Huang
Beverland, M.B., Farrelly, F.J., 2010. The quest for authenticity in consumption:
consumers’ purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes.
J. Consum. Res. 36, 838–856.
Bianchi, C., Mortimer, G., 2015. Drivers of local food consumption: a comparative study.
Br. Food J. 117 (9), 2282–2299.
Birch, D., Memery, J., Kanakaratne, M.D.S., 2018. The mindful consumer:
balancingegoistic and altruistic motivations to purchase local food. Journal of
Retailing andConsumer Services 40, 221–228.
Boezeman, E.J., Ellemers, N., 2007. Volunteering for charity: pride, respect, and the
commitment of volunteers. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 (3), 771–785.
Boyle, D., 2003. Authenticity: Brands, Fake, Spin and the Lust for Real Life. Harper
Collins, London.
Bruhn, M., Schoenmüller, V., Schäfer, D., Heinrich, D., 2012. Brand authenticity: towards
a deeper understanding of its conceptualization and measurement. Adv. Consum.
Res. 40, 567–576.
Byrne, B.M., 2010. Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS: Basic Concepts,
Applications, and Programming. In: Multivariate Application Series, second ed.
Routledge, New York, NY.
Cacioppo, J.T., Gardner, W.L., Berntson, G.G., 1999. The affect system has parallel and
integrative processing components: form follows function. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76
(5), 839–855.
campaigns: Construct conceptualization and scale development. Psychol. Market.. 36,
376-394.
Campbell, J.M., 2013. Muy local: differentiating Hispanic and Caucasian shoppers of
locallyproduced food in US grocery. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 20, 325–333.
Campbell, J.M., DiPietro, R.B., 2014. Sign of the times: testing consumer response to
local food signage within a casual dining restaurant. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 21
(6), 889–896.
Carsana, L., Jolibert, A., 2018. Influence of iconic, indexical cues, and brand schematicity
on perceived authenticity dimensions of private-label brands. J. Retailing Consum.
Serv. 40, 213–220.
Carver, C.S., Sinclair, S., Johnson, S.L., 2010. Authentic and hubristic pride: differential
relations to aspects of goal regulation, affect, and self-control. J. Res. Pers. 44 (6),
698–703.
Casado-Aranda, L.-A., Sánchez-Fernández, J., Ibáñez-Zapata, J.-Á., Liébana-Cabanillas, F.
J., 2020. How consumer ethnocentrism modulates neural processing of domestic and
foreign products: a neuroimaging study. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 53.
Contini, C., Romano, C., Boncinelli, F., Scozzafava, G., Casini, L., 2017. Does local matter
in restaurant choice? Results of a discrete choice experiment targeting German and
Italian consumers. Agricultural and Food Economics 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s40100-017-0092-y.
Das, G., Agarwal, J., Malhotra, N.K., Varshneya, G., 2019. Does brand experience
translate into brand commitment? A mediated moderation model of brand passion
and perceived brand ethicality. J. Bus. Res. 95, 479–490.
De Azevedo, E., 2015. Food activism: the locavorism perspective. Ambiente Sociedade 18
(3), 81–96. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/317/31742566006.pdf.
Deci, E., Ryan, R., 1991. A motivational approach to self: integration in personality. In:
Dienstbier, R. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol. 38. University of
Nebraska Press, pp. 237–288.
Decrop, A., Derbaix, C., 2010. Pride in contemporary sport consumption: a marketing
perspective. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 38, 586–603.
Desrochers, P., 2016. How Canadians Communicate VI: Food Promotion, Consumption,
and Controversy. Lies, Damned Lies, and Locavorism, Bring Some Truth in
Advertising to the Canadian Local Food Debate. In: Elliott (Ed.). AU Press.
Dholakia, U.M., 2000. A motivational process model of product involvement and
consumerrisk perception. Eur. J. Market. 35 (11/12), 1340–1360.
Edwards-Jones, G., 2010. Does eating local food reduce the environmental impact of
foodproduction and enhance consumer health? Proc. Nutr. Soc. 69, 582–591.
Feldmann, C., Hamm, U., 2015. Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: a
review. Food Qual. Prefer. 40, 152–164.
Fine, G.A., 2003. Crafting authenticity: the validation of identity in self-taught art.
Theory andSociety. 32 153–180.
Fitzgerald, K.J., 2016. Thinking globally, acting locally: locavorism and humanist
sociology. Humanity Soc. 40 (1), 3–21.
Fleeson, W., Wilt, J., 2010. The relevance of big five trait content in behavior to
subjective authenticity: do high levels of within person behavioral variability
undermine or enable authenticity achievement. J. Pers. 78 (4), 1353–1382.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 8 (1), 39–50.
Frash Jr., R.E., DiPietro, R., Smith, W., 2015. Pay more for McLocal? Examining
motivators for willingness to pay for local food in a chain restaurant setting.
J. Hospit. Market. Manag. 24 (4), 152–164.
Gilmore, J.H., Pine, B.J., 2007. Authenticity: what Consumers Really Want. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Grazian, D., 2003. Blue Chicago: the Search for Authenticity in Urban Blues Clubs.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Gregory-Smith, D., Smith, A., Winklhofer, H., 2013. Emotions and dissonance in ‘ethical’
consumption choices. J. Market. Manag. 29, 1201–1223.
Grewal, D., Baker, J., Levy, M., Voss, G.B., 2009. The effects of wait expectations and
store atmosphere evaluations on patronage intentions in service-intensive retail
stores. J. Retailing 79 (4), 259–268.
Halweil, B., 2002. Home Grown: the Case for Local Food in a Global Market. Worldwatch
Paper, vol. 163. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, 20036.
Han, H., Hyun, S.S., 2018. What influences water conservation and towel reuse practices
of hotel guests. Tourism Manag. 64, 87–97.
9
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102330
Han, H., Hwang, J., Lee, S., 2017. Cognitive, affective, normative, and moral triggers of
sustainable intentions among convention-goers. J. Environ. Psychol. 51, 1–13.
Han, H., Yu, J., Kim, W., 2018. Youth travelers and waste reduction behaviors while
traveling to tourist destinations. J. Trav. Tourism Market. 35 (9), 1119–1131.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43,
115–135.
Hesterman, O.B., Horan, D., 2017. The Demand for ‘local’ Food Is Growing – Here’s Why
Investors Should Pay Attention. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-demand-for-
local-food-is-growing-2017-4.
Hwang, K., Lee, B., 2019. Pride, mindfulness, public self-awareness, affective
satisfaction, and customer citizenship behavior among green restaurant customers.
Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 83, 169–179.
Jang, S., Ha, J., 2015. The influence of cultural experience: emotions in relation to
authenticity at ethnic restaurants. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 15 (3), 287–306.
Jang, S., Ha, J., Park, K., 2012. Effects of ethnic authenticity: examining Korean
restaurant customers in the US. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 31 (3), 990–1003.
Jung, H.S., Yoon, H.H., 2012. Why do satisfied customers switch? Focus on the
restaurant patron variety-seeking orientation and purchase decision involvement.
Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 31 (3), 875–884.
Kennedy, E.H., Parkins, J.R., Johnston, J., 2018. Food activists, consumer strategies, and
the democratic imagination: insights from eat-local movements. J. Consum. Cult. 18
(1), 149–168.
Kim, Y.G., Eves, A., 2012. Construction and validation of a scale to measure tourist
motivation to consume local food. Tourism Manag. 33, 1458–1467.
Kim, J.-H., Jang, S., 2016. Determinants of authentic experiences. Int. J. Contemp.
Hospit. Manag. 28 (10), 2247–2266.
Kim, Y.G., Eves, A., Scarles, C., 2009. Building a model of local food consumption on
trips and holidays: a grounded theory approach. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 28 (3),
423–431.
Kim, I., Jeon, S.M., Hyun, S.S., 2012. Chain restaurant patrons’ well-being perception
and dining intentions: the moderating role of involvement. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit.
Manag. 24 (3), 402–429.
Kim, J.-H., Song, H., Youn, H., 2020. The chain of effects from authenticity cues to
purchase intention: the role of emotions and restaurant image. Int. J. Hospit. Manag.
85, 102354.
Kinard, B.R., Capella, M.L., 2006. Relationship marketing: the influence of consumer
involvement on perceived service benefits. J. Serv. Market. 20 (6), 359–368.
Kokkinaki, F., 1999. Predicting product purchase and usage: the role of perceived
control, past behavior and product involvement. Adv. Consum. Res. 26 (1), 576–583.
Kolar, T., Zabkar, V., 2010. A consumer-based model of authenticity: an oxymoron or the
foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tourism Manag. 31 (5), 652–664.
Lang, M., Lemmerer, A., 2019. How and why restaurant patrons value locally sourced
foods and ingredients. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 77, 76–88.
Lang, M., Stanton, J., Qu, Y., 2014. Consumers’ evolving definition and expectations for
local foods. Br. Food J. 116 (11), 1808–1820.
Lastovicka, J., Gardner, D.M., 1978. Low involvement versus high involvement cognitive
structures. NA-Advances in Consumer Research. In: Hunt, Kent (Ed.), NA - Advances
in Consumer Research, vol. 05. Association for Consumer Research, Ann Abor, MI,
pp. 87–92.
Lee, W.J., Cheah, I., Phau, I., Teah, M., Elenein, B.A., 2016. Conceptalising consumer
regiocentrism: examining consumers’ willingness to buy products from their own
region. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 32, 78–85.
Legendre, T.S., Warnick, R., Baker, M., 2018. The support of local underdogs: system
justification theory perspectives. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 59 (3), 201–214.
Leigh, T.W., Peters, C., Shelton, J., 2006. The consumer quest for authenticity: the
multiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of consumption. J. Acad. Market.
Sci. 34 (4), 481–493.
Lillywhite, J.M., Simonsen, J.E., 2014. Consumer preferences for locally produced food
ingredient sourcing in restaurants. J. Food Prod. Market. 3, 308–324.
Loureiro, S., 2019. Exploring the role of atmospheric cues and authentic pride on
perceived authenticity assessment of museum visitors. Int. J. Tourism Res. 21,
413–426.
MacCannell, D., 1989. The Tourist. A New Theory of the Leisure Class. Schocken Books,
New York.
McFerran, B., Auino, K., Tracy, J.L., 2014. Evidence for two facets of pride in
consumption: findings from luxury brands. J. Consum. Psychol. 24 (4), 455–471.
Meng, B., Choi, K., 2017. An investigation on customer revisit intention to theme
restaurants. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 30 (3), 1646–1662.
Mirbagheri, S., Najmi, M., 2019. Consumers’ Engagement with Social Media Activation.
Mitchell, A.A., 1979. Involvement: a Potentially Important Mediator of Consumer
Behavior. In: Wilkie, W.L. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 6. Association
for Consumer Research, Provo, UT.
Montefrio, M.J.F., De Chavez, J.C., Contreras, A.P., Erasga, D.S., 2020. Hybridities and
awkward constructions in Philippine locavorism: reframing global-local dynamics
through assemblage thinking. Food Cult. Soc. 23 (2), 117–136.
National Restaurant Association, 2017. Local and Sustainable Foods Draw Customers.
www://restaurant.org/articles/news/bathc1_201901/local-and-sustainable-draw
-customers-survey.
Nie, C., Zepeda, L., 2011. Lifestyle segmentation of US food shoppers to examine organic
and local food consumption. Appetite 57 (1), 28–37.
Onozaka, Y., McFadden, D.T., 2011. Does local labeling complement or compete with
other sustainable labels? A conjoint analysis of direct and joint values for fresh
produce claim. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93 (3), 693–706.
S.-H. Kim and R. Huang
Onwezen, M.C., Antonides, G., Bartels, J., 2013. The norm activation model: an
exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental
behavior. J. Econ. Psychol. 39, 141–153.
Onwezen, M.C., Bartels, J., Antonides, G., 2014. The self-regulatory function of
anticipated pride and guilt in a sustainable and healthy consumption context. Eur. J.
Soc. Psychol. 44, 53–68.
Park, C.W., Mittal, B., 1985. A theory of involvement in consumer behavior: problems
and issues. In: Sheth, Jagdish (Ed.), Research in Consumer Behavior. JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 201–231.
Pelegrin-Borondo, J., Olarte-Pascual, C., Oruezabala, G., 2020. Wine tourism and
purchase intention: a measure of emotions according to the PANAS scale. J. Wine
Res. 31 (2), 101–123.
Pelet, J., Durrieu, F., Lick, E., 2020. Label design of wines sold online: effects of
perceived authenticity on purchase intentions. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 55.
Pollard, J., Kirk, S.F.L., Cade, J.E., 2002. Factors affecting food choice in relation to fruit
and vegetable intake: a review. Nutr. Res. Rev. 15, 373–387.
Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2008. Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in
communication research. In: Hayes, A.F., Slater, M.D., Snyder, L.B. (Eds.), The Sage
Sourcebook of Advanced Data Analysis Methods for Communication Research. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Reich, B.J., Beck, J.T., Price, J., 2018. Food as ideology: measurement and validation of
locavorism. J. Consum. Res. 45, 849–868.
Restaurant.org, 2019. Culinary forecast. https://restaurant.org/downloads/pdfs/resear
ch/whatshot/whatshotfinal2019.
Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., Bengtsson, M., 2017. Cause I’ll feel good! an investigation into
the effects of anticipated emotions and personal moral norms on consumer pro-
environmental behavior. J. Promot. Manag. 23 (1), 163–183.
Safire, W., 2008. Locavorism. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12
wwln-safire-t.html.
Scharber, H., Dances, A., 2016. Do locavores have a dilemma? Economic discourse and
the local food critique. Agric. Hum. Val. 33 (1), 121–133.
Schubert, F., Kandampully, J., Solnet, D., Kralj, A., 2010. Exploring consumer
perceptions of green restaurants in the US. Tourism Hospit. Res. 10 (4), 286–300.
Sedikides, C., Slabu, L., Lenton, A., Thomaes, S., 2017. State authenticity. Curr. Dir.
Psychol. Sci. 26 (6), 521–525.
Shepherd, R., Raats, M.M., 1996. Attitudes and beliefs in food habits. In: Meiselman, H.
L., MacFie, H.J.H. (Eds.), Food Choice, Acceptance and Consumption. Springer,
Boston, MA.
Shideler, D., Watson, P., 2019. Making change through local food production: calculating
the economic impact of your local food project. Journal of Agriculture, Food
Systems, and Community Development 8, 1–13.
10
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102330
Shin, Y.H., Moon, H., Jung, S.E., Severt, K., 2017. The effect of environmental values and
attitudes on consumer willingness to pay more for organic menus: a value-attitude-
behavior approach. J. Hospit. Tourism Manag. 33, 113–121.
Shin, Y.H., Im, J., Jung, S.E., Severt, K., 2018a. The theory of planned behavior and the
norm activation model approach to consumer behavior regarding organic menus.
Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 69, 21–29.
Shin, Y.H., Im, J., Jung, S.E., Severt, K., 2018b. Locally sourced restaurant: consumer
willingness to pay. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 21 (1), 68–82.
Simonetti, L., 2012. The ideology of slow food. J. Eur. Stud. 42 (2), 168–189.
Stanton, J.L., Wiley, J.B., Wirth, F.F., 2012. Who are the locavores? J. Consum. Market.
29 (4), 248–261.
Suh, J.-C., Yi, Y., 2006. When brand attitudes affect the customer satisfaction-loyalty
relation: the moderating role of product involvement. J. Consum. Psychol. 16 (2),
145–155.
Taylor, C., 1991. The Ethics of Authenticity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Tracy, J.L., Robins, R.W., 2007. The psychological structure of pride: a tale of two facets.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92 (3), 506–525.
Tracy, J.L., Cheng, J.T., Robins, R.W., Trzesniewski, K.H., 2009. Authentic and hubristic
pride: the affective core of self-esteem and narcissism. Journal of Self Identity 8
(2–3), 196–213.
Ulusoy, E., 2016. Experiential responsible consumption. J. Bus. Res. 69, 284–297.
Vieira, C.W., 2020. Organic vs Premium Products: when Pride Is More Important than
Product Quality [master’s thesis]. https://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/98832/1/TG
I0316.pdf.
Wang, N., 1999. Rethinking authenticity in the tourist experience. Ann. Tourism Res. 26,
349–370.
Wenzig, J., Gruchmann, T., 2018. Consumer preferences for local food: testing an
extended norm taxonomy. Sustainability 10 (5), 1313.
Wilcox, K., Kramer, T., Sen, S., 2011. Indulgence or self-control: a dual process model of
the effect of incidental pride on indulgent choice. J. Consum. Res. 38, 151–163.
Williams, L.A., DeSteno, D., 2008. Pride and perseverance: the motivational role of pride.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94 (6), 1007–1017.
Yildiz, H., Heitz-Spahn, S., Belaud, L., 2018. Do ethnocentric consumers really buy local
products? J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 43, 139–148.
Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonalds, S., Oates, C.J., 2010. Sustainable consumption: green
consumer behavior when purchasing products. Sustain. Dev. 18 (1), 20–31.
Zaichkowsky, J.L., 1986. Conceptualizing involvement. J. Advert. 15 (2), 4–34.
Zepdea, L., Li, J., 2006. Who buys local food? J. Food Distrib. Res. 37 (3), 5–11.
Zhang, T., Grunert, K.G., Zhou, Y., 2020. A values-beliefs-attitude model of local food
consumption: an empirical study in China and Denmark. Food Qual. Prefer. 83,
1–11.