When “Global” Becomes a Challenge: The Role of Freshness in Food Brand Preference Formation

Abstract

This research provides evidence that globally positioned food brands face an inherent trade-off: the advantages of wide global availability and global sourcing can be outweighed by unfavorable perceptions related to freshness. Through five experiments, with participants from developed and emerging markets, the authors demonstrate that global (vs. local) brand positioning cues dampen product purchase intentions; this happens because globally (vs. locally) positioned brands evoke lower freshness perceptions. This effect is particularly pronounced for minimally or moderately (vs. highly) processed product categories, for which freshness considerations are more important. In addition, the negative effects of globally positioned brands can be reduced with secondary freshness cues, such as freshness seals or guarantees, and such a strategy is particularly effective for individuals high in perceived vulnerability to disease.

Keywords

global brands freshness purchase intentions

A plethora of research provides evidence that global brands are viewed more positively than local brands (e.g., Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; for a recent review, see Davvetas, Diamantopoulos, and Liu [2020]). Consumers prefer global brands because they serve a symbolic function; express prestige, credibility, and modern self-identity; and demonstrate aspirational values and belongingness to global consumer culture (e.g., Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006; Arunachalam et al. 2020; Özsomer and Altaras 2008; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; Strizhakova and Coulter 2015; Swoboda and Hirschmann 2016). Despite this extensive research, some recent studies point to the opposite and provide empirical evidence that, under certain circumstances, consumers may shy away from globalness cues (e.g., Davvetas and Diamantopoulos 2016; Davvetas and Halkias 2019; Ng, Faraji-Rad, and Batra 2021; Özsomer 2012; Schlegelmilch 2022). One particular area where global brands are less successful in appealing to consumers is the food domain (e.g., Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999; Johansson and Ronkainen 2005; Riefler 2019; Rosenbloom and Haefner 2009). For instance, survey data from 28 nations in Western Europe show that attitudes toward global and local consumer culture are the least predictive for explaining food-related decisions (Steenkamp 2019). Furthermore, consumer ethnocentrism is negatively related to the demand for foreign-origin cars, refrigerators, and washing machines, but it does not affect demand for beverages produced in a foreign country (Balabanis and Siamagka 2017). These examples suggest the need for a deeper understanding of how consumers make global versus local food-related decisions.

Prior literature that has explicitly contrasted global with local origin positioning suggests that less favorable perceptions of global (vs. local) food brands might be attributed to lower authenticity perceptions and quality associations or lower psychological distance (De Vries and Fennis 2019; Özsomer 2012; Riefler 2019). In addition, most previous work stems from the theoretical assumptions that consumer decisions are driven by the motivation to affiliate with global consumer culture (Steenkamp and De Jong 2010; Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008), self-enhancement motives (Özsomer 2012; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003), or the need to define self-identity by purchases of global brands (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2011). These motives exemplify higher-order psychological needs of individuals: the need to establish social relations and belonging, signal status, or obtain respect from others (Maslow 1948). Although these higher-order motives are generally important for judgment and decision making, in the context of food, which pertains to basic physiological needs (Maslow 1948), more primal motives, such as safety concerns, might be more salient. As food might have a deleterious effect on one’s health and well-being and, thus, from the evolutionary perspective, influence individual chances of survival, people are motivated to reduce risks associated with food consumption (see Griskevicius and Kenrick 2013; Rippetoe and Rogers 1987; Rogers and Mewborn 1976; Stroebe 2011). Therefore, to a large degree, food-related decisions are driven by self-protection motives that represent basic physiological needs essential for survival, specifically, homeostatic needs such as food, water, or healthy functioning.

To this end, we suggest that in the context of food brands, freshness considerations are an important and previously overlooked cue. Freshness taps into basic human physiological self-protection motives and informs consumer food brand (global or local) choices. More specifically, we propose and through five experiments show that global (vs. local) brands have a lower appeal because consumers hold perceptions that global food brands are less fresh. Since freshness is one of the most important considerations in food decisions (e.g., Péneau et al. 2006; Tsiros and Heilman 2005) and is frequently difficult to verify before consumption, we demonstrate that brand origin positioning (i.e., global vs. local) serves as a nonsensory freshness cue that influences purchase intentions of a food brand. Given that the proposed effect emerges primarily because of freshness perceptions, we show that the effect holds for minimally or moderately (vs. highly) processed food categories, for which freshness is more important. Finally, our research reveals that the addition of secondary freshness cues can help minimize adverse effects that globally positioned food brands might face.¹

Altogether, this research contributes to the international marketing and food marketing literature. First, contrary to the plethora of international marketing research showing the advantage of global brands, we elucidate the context—that is, food products—in which global brand positioning can backfire. Moreover, we highlight perceived freshness as the novel mechanism that explains the advantage of local brands. Our work suggests that this mechanism stems from self-protection motives (i.e., that represent basic physiological needs essential for survival), thus adding to other well-established process explanations used in the international marketing literature, such as social identity or moral and economic consumption motivation. Finally, we add to the branding and food marketing literature by showing that food related-decisions and perceptions about food freshness—one of the most important considerations in food decision making—can be influenced by external cues, such as brand positioning. Beyond adding to the theory, this research informs managerially relevant decisions on whether and when to highlight global (vs. local) food brand origin and provides actionable recommendations for global and local brands to heighten success.

Conceptual Background and Hypothesis Development

Global Positioning and Product Preference

The key factor distinguishing local brands from global brands is perceptions of worldwide (vs. regional) presence (Davvetas and Diamantopoulos 2016). We define “origin positioning” as actual messages and cues chosen by companies to highlight the associations linking the brand to its geographical stances, such as the origin of a brand and its ingredients, its geographical presence, or geographical availability. In this respect, global origin positioning highlights the presence and sourcing of a brand in multiple countries, whereas local origin positioning underscores the presence and sourcing of a brand in a single country, the domestic country of the consumer (Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008; Nielsen 2016; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). The origin positioning reflects a marketing perspective adopted by a company, and it differs from the brand origin, which refers to “the place, region or country to which the brand is perceived to belong by its target consumers” (Thakor 1996, p. 27). It also differs from global consumer culture positioning, which defines the extent to which consumers believe global products belong to global culture (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999; Mandler 2019).

Research shows that global brands use the multiple-market origin cue as a signal to convey information and build positive associations (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999). The underlying logic is based on a principle of social proof (Cialdini 2006): if brands are consumed by consumers in many parts of the world, they will be perceived as being of higher quality and prestige (e.g., Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2004; Özsomer 2012; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). Moreover, because consumers may favor globalness as a brand cue, managers frequently try to disguise the actual country of origin (Riefler 2012). As a result, global brands are marketed using messages reinforcing the global nature of the brand. For instance, Danone promotes its Honest to Goodness creamers by mentioning its “search for delicious ingredients around the globe.” Similarly, Nestlé invites consumers to “Join the global movement” with Nescafé coffee and explicitly communicates the firm’s globalness in corporate reports (e.g., “Fresh milk is sourced directly from farmers before being processed in Nestlé factories. We work with over 200,000 dairy farmers directly in 27 countries”). References to the global nature of the product (e.g., “globally sourced ingredients”) are also added to product packaging, such as the packaging of Colgate-Palmolive's Hello toothpaste. To this end, being global seems to increase perceptions of higher quality or prestige or serves as a conventionality signal (e.g., Özsomer and Altaras 2008; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; Xie, Batra, and Peng 2015). However, in the context of food, we propose that such globalness cues face an inherent trade-off: positive aspects of global positioning can be outweighed by unfavorable perceptions related to freshness.

Brand Origin Positioning and Freshness Perceptions

Freshness is defined as “the quality of being in a new, natural condition and not old or preserved” (Cambridge Dictionary 2022). Freshness describes a level of closeness of consumers to the original product (Péneau et al. 2009) and is one of the most important drivers in making food-related choices, together with taste, brand name, diet type, price, and habits (Gvili et al. 2015; Lappalainen, Kearney, and Gibney 1998; Péneau et al. 2006; Ragaert et al. 2004; Tsiros and Heilman 2005; Wandel and Bugge 1997). Consumers judge product freshness based on such sensory cues as visual appearance, taste, color, or scent (Fortin, Goodwin, and Thomsen 2009; Glitsch 2000; Péneau et al. 2007). Moreover, research suggests that judgments of freshness also depend on nonsensory attributes, such as time since the arrival of the food at the store (Cardello and Schutz 2003; Fillion and Kilcast 2000), minimal preservation or processing (Péneau et al. 2009), and distance from the original manufacturing place (Yang et al. 2021). We propose that brand origin cue is another nonsensory signal that consumers consider when judging product freshness.

Previous work has suggested that consumers hold perceptions that food traveling shorter distances before reaching consumers is of better quality, and that industrially produced food contains more preservatives (Yarar and Orth 2018). In a similar vein, we argue that origin positioning influences the perception of brand freshness. Global brands originate from and thus are associated with different countries (e.g., Davvetas and Diamantopoulos 2016; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). Prior research has shown that the lack of origin specificity can influence the way brands are perceived. More specifically, consumers adopt more abstract, higher-level construal processing when considering global versus local brands (De Vries and Fennis 2019). Notably, the construal level can influence perceived psychological distance, including perceptions about spatial and temporal proximity (Trope and Liberman 2010). Therefore, global (vs. local) brands are perceived to originate from more remote locations (see Strizhakova and Coulter 2019), thus potentially necessitating longer distances and longer times for product delivery. Additionally, longer distances and production-to-delivery time frames might influence perceptions about the presence of additives in a food product (Autio et al. 2013). Given the preceding theoretical evidence and the results of the pilot study that we conducted to test these assumptions (i.e., brand origin proximity, production-to-delivery time frame, and presence of additives; see the “Pilot Studies” section), we expect that global (vs. local) origin positioning will decrease the perception of freshness.

H₁: Global (vs. local) brand positioning decreases perceptions of product freshness.

Downstream Effects of Freshness on Purchase Intentions

Freshness is one of the most important attributes that consumers consider when making food-related decisions (e.g., Gvili et al. 2015; Lappalainen, Kearney, and Gibney 1998; Péneau et al. 2006; Tsiros and Heilman 2005). If global (vs. local) brand positioning decreases the perception of freshness, these perceptions should in turn have downstream consequences on consumer behavior, such as purchase intentions. Freshness is often difficult to verify before consumption. This is especially important for fresh packaged food items, as they lack the prominent sensory attributes (e.g., color, smell) that serve as primary freshness cues (Fortin, Goodwin, and Thomsen 2009; Péneau et al. 2007). We suggest that brand origin positioning (i.e., local vs. global) serves as a nonsensory cue that influences freshness perceptions.

Lack of freshness has direct and potentially negative consequences for health (see Tsiros and Heilman 2005). Thus, consumers have a higher interest in and higher intentions to purchase fresh food products, such as produce grown locally (e.g., Naspetti and Bodini 2008; Nie and Zepeda 2011). Therefore, we expect that brand positioning will influence consumers’ intention to purchase a food product, because of varied freshness perceptions. Stated formally:

H₂: Global (vs. local) brand positioning decreases consumers’ intention to purchase a food brand because of lower freshness perceptions.

Boundary Conditions: Product Category, Secondary Freshness Cues, and Interindividual Differences

While freshness is one of the most important considerations for food decisions, other product attributes like taste or preservation time frame also inform consumer decisions (Lobb and Mazzocchi 2007; Machiels and Karnal 2016). Thus, freshness is not equally important in all food categories. For unprocessed or minimally/moderately processed foods, such as fruit juice, fresh cheese, or bread, freshness is highly important, as their shelf life is typically short and they pose a higher health risk that increases with time (e.g., Lobb and Mazzocchi 2007; Monteiro et al. 2018; Péneau et al. 2009). Highly processed foods, such as soda, potato chips, or shelf-stable sweets, are typically produced using a series of manufacturing processes and are dense in energy and additives (e.g., Mouta et al. 2016). They are also produced to be hyperpalatable and convenient and to have a long shelf life (Monteiro et al. 2018). Thus, for such products, freshness might be of secondary importance. Therefore, we expect that global brand positioning would hurt such products less than it would hurt minimally or moderately processed foods, for which freshness considerations are more salient and important. Stated formally:

H₃: Product type moderates the effects of global (vs. local) brand positioning on purchase intentions of a food brand. More specially, purchase intentions of a globally (vs. locally) positioned brand are lower only for minimally or moderately processed product categories, but not for highly processed products.

Beyond sensory attributes (e.g., color, smell), nonsensory attributes are considered when consumers judge food freshness. We suggest that brand origin positioning is a nonsensory cue that consumers evaluate. However, freshness can be conveyed via other signals too. One strategy used by retailers and manufacturers, such as Walmart or Whole Foods, is to add secondary freshness cues (e.g., freshness seals or guarantees). The addition of a secondary freshness cue should increase default freshness perceptions and thus help counteract the negative associations linked to global food brands, such as longer delivery distances and time frames, as well as perceptions related to the presence of additives (see the “Pilot Studies” section). Therefore, we suggest that adding secondary freshness cues will alleviate the negative effect of brand positioning on the purchase intentions of the globally positioned product. Since locally (vs. globally) positioned brands enjoy higher freshness perceptions on the baseline, we do not expect local brands to benefit from the additional freshness cues. Stated formally:

H₄: Additional freshness cues moderate the effects of global (vs. local) positioning on food brand purchase intentions. More specially, additional freshness cues increase the purchase intentions of a globally positioned brand but not a locally positioned brand.

H₄ states that additional freshness cues will increase intentions to purchase a globally positioned brand but not a locally positioned brand. However, this effect will likely not be equally pronounced for everyone. Building on the knowledge that food always carries a potential danger of contamination by pathogens (Johnson et al. 2011) and freshness is one of the main indicators of pathogens’ presence, we expect that this effect will depend on interindividual differences. In particular, the effect of freshness cues on purchase intentions will be more pronounced for people who are more sensitive to the possibility of pathogens’ presence, namely consumers scoring high (vs. low) on perceived vulnerability to disease (Curtis, Aunger, and Rabie 2004; Schaller 2016; Tybur et al. 2013). Prior work shows that disease avoidance sensitivity can be triggered by direct disease cues, such as seeing people cough, but it can also be inferred by indirect (and sometimes imperfect) cues, such as freshness (see Huang, Ackerman, and Sedlovskaya 2017). Since lack of food freshness is associated with foodborne illnesses and food poisoning, we expect that adding a secondary freshness cue (i.e., the effect predicted in H₄) will be a particularly effective strategy in reducing the adverse effects of (global) brand positioning for consumers scoring high (vs. low) on perceived vulnerability to disease.

H₅: The effect of additional freshness cues on global food brand purchase intentions is more pronounced for people who score higher (vs. lower) on perceived vulnerability to disease.

Overview of Empirical Studies

We conducted two pilot studies and five experiments to test our propositions across different food categories (yogurt, cream cheese, smoothie, cola beverage; see Web Appendix A for the product pretest) and participant samples (the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico). Using samples from developed and emerging markets, Studies 1 and 2 provide initial evidence that global (vs. local) brand positioning decreases intentions to purchase a food brand, because of lower freshness perceptions (H₁, H₂). Beyond corroborating the previously reported effect, in Study 3 we introduce a control condition and test whether globally positioned brands have lower freshness perceptions than both brands with local positioning and brands with control positioning. Study 4 demonstrates the boundaries of the effect. More specifically, in this study, we test H₃ and show that this effect is attenuated for highly processed food categories. Finally, Study 5 demonstrates another theoretically and practically relevant boundary condition by directly manipulating the mediator (i.e., freshness) and showing its causal influence (H₄). We also test the robustness and nature of the effect by addressing interindividual consumer differences related to our hypothesized process, namely perceived vulnerability to disease (H₅).

Pilot Studies

We conducted two pilot studies to provide initial tests for our assumptions. First, we tested the underpinnings of our proposition: perceptions that global (vs. local) food brands are less fresh because they come from more remote locations, necessitate longer production-to-delivery windows, and contain more preservatives. In line with our assumption, the product (i.e., cream cheese) featured in the ad, when positioned globally (vs. locally; see Web Appendix B for manipulation details), was perceived to come from further away (M_global = 1,938.57 miles vs. M_local = 805.68 miles; t(201) = 7.12, p < .001), have longer delivery windows (M_global = 9.27 days vs. M_local = 6.06; t(201) = 3.73, p < .001), and contain more preservatives (M_global = 5.46 vs. M_local = 3.34 [on a 9-point scale]; t(201) = 7.93, p < .001).

Next, we aimed to provide initial evidence for our main hypothesis and explored whether different brand origin positioning influences intentions to purchase food brands. In support of our hypothesis, brand positioning (see Web Appendix B for manipulation details) influenced intentions to purchase a product (i.e., fruit smoothie) featured in the ad (F(3, 271) = 5.20, p = .002). Participants (N = 275) had lower intentions to purchase a globally positioned smoothie than a locally positioned smoothie (M_global = 3.12 vs. M_local = 4.29 [on a 7-point scale]; t(132) = 3.88, p < .001) or a smoothie with foreign positioning (M_foreign = 3.83; t(142) = 2.39, p = .009) or control positioning (M_control = 3.66; t(133) = 1.84, p = .034). The results of both pilot studies provide support for our theorizing and show initial evidence for global food brand consideration disadvantage. Please see Web Appendices B and C for pilot study stimuli, all measures, and details of the analysis.

Study 1

Study 1 tests H₁ and H₂ and aims to show that globally positioned food brands have consideration disadvantage because they are perceived to be less fresh. Additionally, we address several competing process explanations.

Method and measures

One hundred fifty undergraduate students from a large university in the United States (M_age = 20.95 years; 39% female, 61% male) participated in a single-factor two-level design experiment (local vs. global positioning). Participants were randomly presented with an ad for yogurt (i.e., minimally processed food category; see Web Appendix A for the pretest). It was framed as an American yogurt brand, made from ingredients sourced in the United States, or as a new global brand with ingredients sourced globally. After investigating the ad, participants indicated perceived freshness of the product (based on Gvili et al. 2015; “How fresh do you think this yogurt is?”; 1 = “not at all fresh,” and 9 = “very fresh”), indicated purchase intentions (based on Putrevu and Lord 1994; α = .92; example item: “It is very likely that I will buy this yogurt”; 1 = “totally disagree,” and 7 = “totally agree”), and reported on two global positioning manipulation check items (“this yogurt is produced in different countries”; “this is a global brand”; 1 = “totally disagree,” and 7 = “totally agree”; α = .90). Additionally, we assessed several competing explanations. First, we assessed the perceived lack of brand knowledge (“I lack knowledge about this brand”; 1 = “totally disagree,” and 7 = “totally agree”), to address the possibility that global brands are less appealing because consumers might have less information about global brands than about local brands. Finally, to investigate whether brand positioning could influence sustainability perceptions (e.g., Dimofte, Johansson, and Bagozzi 2010), participants indicated how “green” they perceived the brand as being (1 = “not at all,” and 7 = “very much”).²

Results

The manipulation of brand positioning was successful. The perception of global brand positioning was higher in the global condition (M_global = 5.41, SD = 1.69) than in the local condition (M_local = 2.65, SD = 1.57; t(148) = 10.39, p < .001). First, we tested H₁ and investigated whether origin positioning influences freshness perceptions. As hypothesized, global brands were perceived to be less fresh (M_global = 5.68, SD = 1.92 vs. M_local = 6.42, SD = 1.47; t(148) = 2.63, p = .005, d = .43). Next, we ran a mediation test (PROCESS Model 4) to examine our proposed process. As predicted, the test revealed that global positioning decreased intentions to buy the product because of reduced freshness perceptions (effect = −.24, SE = .11; 95% CI: [−.4677, −.0543]). (See Table 1 for the main effects across all studies and Web Appendix D for mediation analysis details across Studies 1–3.)

Table 1.

Main Effects Across Studies.

Study 1
	Global Positioning	Local Positioning
Freshness	5.68 (1.92)**	6.42 (1.47)**
Purchase intentions	2.97 (1.35)*	3.54 (1.37)*
Study 2
	Global Positioning	Local Positioning
Freshness	6.10 (1.80)***	6.87 (1.36)***
Purchase intentions	4.29 (1.47)^†	4.66 (1.31)^†
Study 3
	Global Positioning	Local Positioning	Control Positioning
Freshness	5.40 (1.63)*** (*)	6.43 (1.64)***	5.97 (1.56) (*)
Purchase intentions	2.94 (1.23)**	3.48 (1.36)**	3.01 (1.27)
Study 4
	Minimally Processed		Highly Processed
	Global Positioning	Local Positioning	Global Positioning	Local Positioning
Purchase intentions	3.19 (1.68)***	4.22 (1.52)***	2.82 (1.51)	3.16 (1.78)
Study 5
	Additional Freshness Cue Absent		Additional Freshness Cue Present
	Global Positioning	Local Positioning	Global Positioning	Local Positioning
Purchase intentions	3.55 (1.58)***	4.57 (1.46)***	4.11 (1.77)*	4.54 (1.51)*

^†

p < .06, *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Notes: Means per condition (standard deviation). Comparisons underlying differences are per product category in Experiment 4 and per freshness cue condition in Experiment 5. In Experiment 3, the differences reflect contrasts between global and local, with contrasts between global and control conditions in the parentheses.

Discussion

Study 1 supports H₁ and H₂ and shows that the effect of brand positioning on purchase intentions shown in the pilot study emerges because globally positioned food brands have lower freshness perceptions. Additionally, we address competing explanations of the perceived lack of brand knowledge and sustainability and show that our predicted effect operates independently (see Web Appendix E for analysis).

Study 2

Consumer response to brand origin positioning might depend on the development level of the market (Batra et al. 2000; Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008). Literature suggests that in the context of durable goods and household supplies consumers in developing markets perceive brands with nonlocal (vs. local) origin positioning favorably because of higher functional quality and status associations (Batra et al. 2000). Given that our predicted effect is driven by product-centered perceptions (global food brands = less fresh) that are motivated by self-protection, rather than self-enhancement (e.g., consuming global brands as a status signal), we predict that, within the context of food, our effect generalizes to developing markets. Thus, in Study 2, we test H₁ and H₂, using a participant sample from an emerging market, Mexico (International Trade Administration 2022). Finally, we tested our hypothesis using a different food product: cream cheese, perceived to be a moderately processed category (see Web Appendix A for the pretest). Thus, this study explores whether our proposed effect generalizes to moderately (vs. only minimally) processed food categories, such as cream cheese.

Method and measures

We recruited 200 participants from Mexico on the Prolific panel (M_age = 28.03 years; 50.50% female, 49% male, .50% other gender) to participate in a single-factor two-level design experiment (local vs. global positioning). We used professional translation services to translate the questionnaire and instructions to Spanish. Participants were presented with an ad for a cream cheese and randomly assigned to the local or global positioning condition (as in Study 1; see Web Appendix B for stimuli). After inspecting the ad, participants indicated perceived product freshness, indicated their purchase intentions (α = .91), and reported on two global positioning manipulation check items (α = .82), as in Study 1.

Results

The advertised cream cheese was perceived to be positioned globally to a higher degree in the global condition (M_global = 5.44, SD = 1.54) than in the local condition (M_local = 2.41, SD = 1.47; t(198) = 14.25, p < .001). Thus, the manipulation was successful.

First, we tested H₁ and investigated whether origin positioning affects freshness perceptions. Corroborating the findings of Study 1, the globally positioned product was perceived to be less fresh (M_global = 6.10, SD = 1.80 vs. M_local = 6.87, SD = 1.36; t(198) = 3.41, p < .001, d = .48). The mediation test (PROCESS Model 4) again revealed that the intentions to buy a globally (vs. locally) positioned product were lower, because of diminished freshness perceptions (effect = −.46, SE = .14; 95% CI: [−.6943, −.2301]).

Discussion

Using a participant sample originating from an emerging market, Study 2 corroborates the findings of the previous study conducted in the developed market and again supports H₁ and H₂. This suggests that our proposed effect holds across emerging and developed markets. Moreover, this study also shows that the effect generalizes to the moderately processed food categories.

Study 3

Study 3 aims to replicate the mediation reported in the previous studies with an important addition. We introduce a control condition and test whether globally positioned brands have lower freshness perceptions than both brands with local positioning and brands with control positioning.

Method and measures

Two hundred thirty-seven undergraduate students from a large university in the United States (M_age = 21.27 years; 53.59% female, 45.99% male, .42% other gender) took part in a single-factor three-level (control vs. global vs. local positioning) between-subjects experiment. To account for familiarity with the target product, we excluded from the analysis participants who indicated that they do not consume cream cheese (N = 53; see Web Appendix E for analyses including the full sample). Upon starting the study, participants saw an advertisement featuring a globally or locally positioned cream cheese brand (as in Study 2) or a cream cheese ad that did not have specific origin positioning cues (control). Subsequently, participants indicated perceived product freshness, indicated their purchase intentions (α = .91), and reported on global brand positioning manipulation check items (α = .88; all measured as in Study 1). Additionally, to ensure that the control positioning was not confounded with the local positioning, we assessed local positioning perceptions (“this cream cheese is produced in the USA”; “this is a local brand”; 1 = “totally disagree,” and 7 = “totally agree”; α = .90).

Results

Manipulation of brand positioning was successful (F(2, 181) = 66.58, p < .001). The perceptions about global positioning were higher in the global condition (M_global = 4.98, SD = 1.71) than in the local (M_local = 2.23, SD = 1.13; t(121) = 10.48, p < .001) and control (M_control = 3.80, SD = 1.01; t(122) = 4.70, p < .001) conditions. Additionally, our manipulation influenced local positioning perceptions (F(2, 181) = 52.180, p < .001). As intended, the local conditions (M_local = 5.80, SD = 1.38) enjoyed higher local positioning perceptions than the global (M_global = 3.19, SD = 1.67; t(121) = 9.42, p < .001) and control (M_control = 4.14, SD = 1.19; t(122) = 3.63, p < .001) conditions. A univariate test revealed that brand positioning influenced perceived cream cheese freshness (F(2,181) = 6.39, p = .002). The globally positioned brand led to lower product freshness perceptions (M_global = 5.40, SD = 1.63) than the locally positioned brand (M_local = 6.43, SD = 1.64; t(121) = 3.51, p < .001, d = .63) or the control brand (M_control = 5.97, SD = 1.56; t(122) = 1.99, p = .049, d = .36). Freshness perceptions were the same regardless of whether the brand featured in the ad had local positioning or did not have origin positioning cues (p = .11).

Next, we investigated whether perceived product freshness mediates the effect of brand positioning on purchase intentions of the advertised cream cheese (PROCESS Model 4). Replicating previous experiments, the test revealed that intentions to purchase a product with a global brand (coded 1) were lower than intentions to purchase a local brand (coded 0) because global positioning dampened freshness (effect = −.41, SE = .12; 95% CI: [−.6637, −.1779]). Critically, the same mediation pattern was observed when contrasting global (coded 1) and control (coded 0) positioning (effect = −.21, SE = .14; 95% CI: [−.4247, −.0050]). The mediation did not hold for control and local positioning contrasts (CIs included 0).

Discussion

In support of H₁ and H₂, Study 3 again corroborates the role of freshness perceptions in driving intentions to purchase global and local food brands. Importantly, given the absence of a significant mediation effect for the local and control positioning comparison, this study elucidates the direction of the effect. More specifically, the previously observed effect of origin positioning on purchase intentions emerges because global brands dampen food freshness perceptions (and not because local brands enjoy higher freshness perceptions).

Study 4

Study 4 aimed to demonstrate another theoretically and practically relevant boundary condition for our proposed effect. More specifically, in this study, we test H₃ and show that the proposed effect is attenuated for highly processed food categories.

Method and measures

Four hundred one British participants (M_age = 40.29 years; 69.33% female, 29.93% male, .75% other gender; Prolific) completed the study, which had a 2 (positioning: global vs. local) × 2 (product category: minimally vs. highly processed) between-subjects design. To manipulate product categories with varied degrees of processing, we selected a cola beverage and a fruit smoothie. This category allocation is in line with the NOVA food classification that distinguishes between high and low processing of food product categories (Monteiro et al. 2018). Additionally, a pretest reported in Web Appendix A confirmed that a cola beverage is perceived to be more processed and have lower freshness importance than a fruit smoothie. We manipulated brand positioning as in previous experiments. Upon starting the study, participants were randomly presented with one of four ads and asked to indicate their intentions to purchase the featured product (α = .96; as in Study 1) and report on two brand positioning manipulation check items (r = .79, p < .001; as in Study 1).

Results

Manipulation of brand positioning was successful (F(1, 397) = 876.98, p < .001). The globally positioned brand had higher global positioning perceptions (M = 5.73, SD = 1.37) than the local brand (M = 2.07, SD = 1.09). No main effect of product category or interaction effect was observed (ps > .69). A 2 × 2 analysis of variance showed the main effects of brand positioning (M_global = 3.00, SD = 1.61 vs. M_local = 3.69, SD = 1.74; F(1, 397) = 17.87, p < .001, d = .41) and product category (M_cola = 2.99, SD = 1.66 vs. M_smoothie = 3.71, SD = 1.68; F(1, 397) = 19.55, p < .001, d = .43) as well as an interaction effect (F(1, 397) = 4.52, p = .034) on purchase intentions. As predicted, global positioning diminished intentions to buy a smoothie (M_global = 3.19, SD = 1.68 vs. M_local = 4.22, SD = 1.52; F(1, 397) = 20.13, p < .001, d = .64) but not a cola beverage (M_global = 2.82, SD = 1.51 vs. M_local = 3.16, SD = 1.78; F(1, 397) = 2.21, p = .138, d = .20), for which freshness was not as important.

Discussion

This study once again corroborates the role of freshness in our proposed effect. In support of H₃, it shows that global brand positioning hurts minimally processed products (e.g., smoothie) more than highly processed products (e.g., cola beverage).

Study 5

The goal of Study 5 was threefold. First, we aimed to corroborate the role of freshness perception by showing its causal influence (H₄). We do so by directly manipulating the mediator (i.e., freshness) and thus establishing a managerially relevant boundary condition that elucidates a strategy for global brands to heighten success. Moreover, we also investigate the role of perceived vulnerability to disease (H₅) and consumer ethnocentrism, a well-established consumer trait in international marketing research.³

Method and measures

Five hundred fifty-one U.S. participants (M_age = 38.91 years; 58.44% female, 40.11% male, 1.45% other gender; Prolific panel) completed the study, which employed a 2 (global vs. local positioning) × 2 (freshness cue present vs. absent) × (perceived vulnerability to disease: measured) design. To manipulate brand positioning, we used the same product (i.e., cream cheese) and stimuli as in Studies 2 and 3. We manipulated freshness by highlighting (vs. not highlighting) that this brand has the highest standards for freshness and adding a “freshness guaranteed” seal on the ad copy. We pretested study stimuli using the main study design (see Web Appendix A).

Participants in the main study were randomly presented with one of four ads. After inspecting the ad, participants reported their intentions to purchase the featured cream cheese brand (as in Study 1; α = .96) and indicated their perceived vulnerability to disease (Duncan, Schaller, and Park 2009; α = .83) as well as consumer ethnocentrism (Gineikiene, Schlegelmilch, and Auruskeviciene 2017; α = .91).⁴

Results

First, we tested an interaction effect between brand positioning type and freshness cues. A 2 × 2 analysis of variance revealed a main effect of brand positioning (M_global = 3.83, SD = 1.70 vs. M_local = 4.55, SD = 1.48; F(1, 547) = 28.72, p < .001, d = .45), a marginally significant main effect of freshness cues (M_{fresh_cue} = 4.32, SD = 1.66 vs. M_control = 4.08, SD = 1.60; F(1, 547) = 3.70, p = .055, d = .15) and an interaction effect (F(1, 547) = 4.68, p = .031) on purchase intentions. As hypothesized, the presence of freshness cues increased purchase intentions of globally positioned brands (M_{fresh_cue} = 4.11, SD = 1.77 vs. M_control = 3.55, SD = 1.58; F(1, 547) = 8.24, p = .004, d = .33), but not locally positioned brands (M_{fresh_cue} = 4.54, SD = 1.51 vs. M_control = 4.57, SD = 1.46; p = .863, d = .02). Contrasting the effects per freshness condition shows that when freshness cues were absent, intentions to purchase the local brand were higher than intentions to purchase the global brand (F(1, 547) = 28.34, p < .001, d = .67). While still significant, the difference between intentions to purchase global and local brands was smaller in the presence (vs. absence) of additional freshness cues (F(1, 547) = 5.10, p = .024, d = .26). Next, we explored the role of perceived vulnerability to disease by running a moderated moderation test (PROCESS Model 3) with brand positioning as the independent variable (local = 0, global = 1), freshness cues (cue absent = 0, cue present = 1) as the first moderator, and perceived vulnerability to diseases (measured) as the second moderator. As predicted, we observed a three-way interaction (b = .61, SE = .28, t(543) = 2.18, p = .030). A spotlight analysis (Spiller et al. 2013) showed that our predicted interaction between brand positioning and freshness cues was especially pronounced for individuals high (i.e., one standard deviation above the mean; b = 1.16, F(543) = 9.09, p = .003) but not low (i.e., one standard deviation below the mean, p = .951) in perceived vulnerability to disease. When freshness cues were absent, highly vulnerable individuals preferred a locally branded product (b = −1.12, 95% CI: [−1.67, −.58]), but they were indifferent between brands when freshness cues were present (CIs included 0).

Discussion

By manipulating the mediator, Study 5 provides causal evidence and shows that managers of global food brands can increase success by incorporating freshness cues when promoting food products. Thus, these results support H₄. Notably, in line with H₅, this strategy is particularly effective in appealing to consumers who score high in perceived vulnerability to disease, as they are susceptible to pathogen cues. Although freshness cues enhance purchase consideration of globally positioned brands, local brands seem to enjoy a higher consideration premium, regardless of freshness strategy.

Discussion and Implications

Theoretical Implications

This research demonstrates that in the context of food products, globally (vs. locally) positioned brands have a consideration disadvantage because of lower freshness perceptions. We demonstrate this effect in five studies, using different products (yogurt, cream cheese, smoothie, cola beverage) and participant samples (from developed and emerging markets). Importantly, our findings show that global brands can mitigate this inherent disadvantage by adopting other strategies that help enhance freshness perceptions. However, this effect holds only for the minimally or moderately, but not highly, processed food categories.

First, this research contributes to the prior work in international marketing by highlighting the specific context, that is, food-related decision making, in which global brands might be less successful than local brands. Specifically, we introduce and test a novel underlying mechanism, perceived freshness, relevant to food products, which explains why global food brands might be less successful than their local counterparts. Thus, we add novel and deeper insights to the previously suggested explanations for why global brands could be outperformed by local counterparts, such as psychological distance, reduced impulsivity (De Vries and Fennis 2019), and diminished willingness to pay because of inferior authenticity (Riefler 2019). In addition, by comparing global and local brand positioning to the control positioning, we show that the effect of origin positioning on purchase intentions emerges because global brands dampen perceptions of food freshness (and not because local brands enjoy higher freshness perceptions). Subsequently, we explore and rule out several competing explanations, such as perceived lack of brand knowledge and sustainability perceptions, which, while being influenced by brand origin positioning, did not alter our proposed effect. Thus, this research also adds to the emerging research suggesting that local food brands are more successful than global (Davvetas and Halkias 2019; Özsomer 2012; Riefler 2012, 2019; Schlegelmilch 2022; Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos 2013) and foreign (Gineikiene, Schlegelmilch, and Ruzeviciute 2016) food products and brands.

Second, we add to the international marketing theory by suggesting and empirically supporting the premise that freshness considerations of global (vs. local) brands stem from self-protection motives (i.e., that represent basic physiological needs essential for survival). Specifically, we demonstrate that the freshness effect holds across emerging (Mexico) and developed (United States, United Kingdom) markets, suggesting that consumption motives other than self-enhancement, associated with the prestige of global brands, are likely at play. Next, we explore whether the effect of freshness on purchase intentions of global food brands is indeed driven by product-centered perceptions (global food brands = less fresh) that are motivated by self-protection. More specifically, we show that the effect of additional freshness cues on intentions to buy depends on the interindividual consumer differences related to our hypothesized process, and is more pronounced for people who score high (vs. low) on perceived vulnerability to disease (Curtis, Aunger, and Rabie 2004; Schaller 2016; Tybur et al. 2013). Notably, effects of brand positioning and consumer ethnocentrism on purchase intentions did not emerge. This suggests that, within the context of food, additional freshness cues appeal to consumers when driven by self-protection (disease avoidance) motives. In summary, we extend the international marketing theory by pointing to the novel self-protection motive, thereby adding to other well-established theories and consumer behavior explanations, such as moral and economic motives (Shimp and Sharma 1987), consumer culture (Holt 2002), social identity (Tajfel and Turner 1986), or need for self-enhancement (e.g., Sedikides and Gregg 2008; Taylor and Brown 1988).

Finally, we contribute to the branding and food marketing literature. Prior research in this domain has suggested that consumer food choices are primarily driven by freshness perceptions, product quality, price, brand reputation, or guarantees (Péneau et al. 2006; Steenkamp 1997; Tsiros and Heilman 2005). Yet, this research did not touch on applied contexts, such as brand origin positioning, and provided deeper explanations for why varying freshness associations in such a context might occur. By systematically probing our proposed process, that is, perceived freshness, we provide insights into why globally (vs. locally) positioned food brands have lower freshness associations as well as highlight boundary conditions that could enhance global food brands’ success (i.e., adding freshness seals or branding only highly processed product categories as global).

Managerial Implications

Our findings have important implications for global and local food marketing managers. Although a plethora of previous research has suggested an advantage of global marketing strategies and pointed to potential benefits, such as higher perceived quality, prestige, and purchase likelihood (e.g., Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003), we provide arguments and elucidate conditions for food brands, for which such global positioning may backfire. Importantly, we provide managerially actionable boundary conditions to suggest strategies for global brands to overcome unfavorable perceptions. We show that the negative effect of origin positioning on purchase intentions can be attenuated for highly processed food categories: global brand positioning hurts highly processed products less than minimally processed products. Thus, global food marketing managers should consider the product type when choosing positioning strategies. For minimally or moderately processed food (e.g., fruit juice, fresh cheese, bread), global origin-related messages should not be emphasized. However, a global positioning communication strategy is suitable for highly processed food (e.g., soda, potato chips, or shelf-stable sweets), as they are less affected by unfavorable perceptions related to freshness.

This research also demonstrates that the negative effects for globally positioned brands can be reduced with secondary freshness cues, such as freshness seals or guarantees on product packaging. This is a strategy already used by some retailers and manufacturers (e.g., Walmart, Whole Foods) and may also be considered by global companies. Global food marketing managers may concentrate their marketing efforts on tailoring communication messages to reflect specific aspects related to freshness. Our pilot study (see Web Appendix C) shows that products positioned globally (vs. locally) are perceived to be manufactured further away, to have a longer production-to-delivery time frame, and to contain more preservatives. For local food marketing managers, these perceptions represent a strategic opportunity for a competitive positioning of their own brands. Given that shorter transportation distances and lower product processing levels increase the appeal of brands, emphasizing these aspects could provide a competitive edge against global competitors. Next, our results show that while freshness cues enhance purchase consideration of globally positioned brands, local brands seem to enjoy a higher consideration premium, regardless of freshness strategy. Thus, additional freshness cues (e.g., freshness seals or guarantees) added to local brands have only limited advantage. Therefore, local brand managers could focus their communication efforts on reinforcing quality and price associations, or brand reputation (see Steenkamp 1997).

The insights of our pilot studies also hold implications for global food brand managers. Although we have not tested these strategies in this research, our theoretical account suggests that global food brands could benefit by highlighting shorter delivery distances and time frames or the number of additives. Next, freshness may be conveyed by other strategies, such as product placement. For instance, storing global food products in supermarket refrigerators instead of on regular shelves indicates shorter product shelf life and could potentially serve as a cue alluding to freshness.

Finally, global and local managers should keep in mind that freshness labels are easy to copy by others, and consumers might habituate to such labels. Therefore, managers might consider linking unique brand features with freshness dimensions; for instance, Dutch cold-pressed juice brand SUN365 positions itself with the slogan “We deliver the SUN 365 days per year in cold-pressed, non-pasteurized juices and smoothies.” Thus, the company highlights freshness by associating it with a unique brand name and highlighting the sun–freshness association. Altogether, our research offers managers a number of solutions to alleviate the negative effects for globally positioned food brands.

Limitations and Direction for Future Research

Several directions for future research can be considered. First, we base our theorizing on an inherent key feature of global brands that distinguishes them from local brands: perceptions of worldwide (vs. regional) positioning (e.g., Davvetas and Diamantopoulos 2016). We have regarded the origin positioning as actual messages and cues chosen by companies to highlight the associations linking the brand to its geographical stance, such as the origin of a brand and its ingredients, its geographical presence, or its geographical availability. Future work should explore whether the negative perceptions related to globalness hold in situations in which consumers have inaccurate brand origin associations (Magnusson, Zdravkovic, and Westjohn 2022). Next, while the effects of freshness perceptions on brand preference were robust and reliable, other additional mechanisms related to multiple origin perceptions may also be at play. For instance, future studies should test how origin messages may interact with social influence and persuasion techniques frequently used by marketers (see Cialdini 2006). Indeed, it is reasonable to expect that social proof messages such as “Bought by consumers worldwide” or “No. 1 choice worldwide” could alleviate the negative effects for globally positioned brands.

Second, this research has focused on addressing two interindividual consumer differences: perceived vulnerability to disease and consumer ethnocentrism. However, in the context of global versus local food brand choices, more individual differences might play a role. For instance, such individual differences as health consciousness (Gould 1988), the need for closure (Webster and Kruglanski 1994), thinking styles (Allman, Hewett, and Kaur 2019), or analytical versus intuitive information processing styles (Bargh, Chen, and Burrows 1996; Dane and Pratt 2007) may be good candidates for consideration in exploring whether our documented effects are present for different groups of consumers. Thus, future research could explore whether our proposed effect holds across different consumer segments.

Another area that warrants future research attention is brand positioning effects across food categories that elicit origin-specific associations. Study 2 corroborated the effect of positioning on freshness perceptions using a participant sample from an emerging market, namely Mexico. However, overall perceived product freshness was high in both brand positioning conditions (i.e., mean values above 6). We speculate that this pattern might be specific to the product stimulus (i.e., cream cheese) and the sample of this study. The generic name for cream cheese in Mexico is “queso filadelfia” (Meehan 2005), which alludes to the Philadelphia brand of cream cheese produced by a global corporation, Kraft Heinz. Thus, global brand associations accompanying a generic product name might heighten the baseline freshness perception and product appeal, making the overall effect of brand positioning weaker. More research is needed to validate such a possibility.

Finally, our research focused on studying four different food categories (smoothie, cream cheese, yogurt, and cola). Future research should explore whether and how the effect of freshness may or may not generalize to other product categories (e.g., Davvetas and Diamantopoulos 2016). Therefore, it would be interesting to explore whether our effects extend to other nonfood product categories in which freshness might also be important (e.g., organic vs. mainstream beauty products). In summary, future research should explore the generalizability of our findings while taking into account the influence of alternative mediating mechanisms, social influence messages, novel moderators, and different product groups.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-jig-10.1177_1069031X231179149 - Supplemental material for When “Global” Becomes a Challenge: The Role of Freshness in Food Brand Preference Formation

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-jig-10.1177_1069031X231179149 for When “Global” Becomes a Challenge: The Role of Freshness in Food Brand Preference Formation by Justina Baršytė, Ruta Ruzeviciute, Paulius Neciunskas and Bodo B. Schlegelmilch in Journal of International Marketing

Footnotes

Associate Editor

Yuliya Strizhakova

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Lithuanian Research Council (grant number LMT-K-712-01-0136).

ORCID iDs

Justina Baršytė

Bodo B. Schlegelmilch

Notes

References

Alden

Dana L.

Steenkamp

Jan-Benedict E.M.

Batra

Rajeev

(1999), “Brand Positioning Through Advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The Role of Global Consumer Culture,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (1), 75–87.

Alden

Dana L.

Steenkamp

Jan-Benedict E.M.

Batra

Rajeev

(2006), “Consumer Attitudes Toward Marketplace Globalization: Structure, Antecedents and Consequences,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23 (3), 227–39.

Allman

Helena F.

Hewett

Kelly

Kaur

Mandeep

(2019), “Understanding Cultural Differences in Consumers’ Reactions to Foreign-Market Brand Extensions: The Role of Thinking Styles,” Journal of International Marketing, 27 (2), 1–21.

Arunachalam

Bahadir

S. Cem

Bharadwaj

Sundar G.

Guesalaga

Rodrigo

(2020), “New Product Introductions for Low-Income Consumers in Emerging Markets,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48, 914–40.

Autio

Minna

Collins

Rebecca

Wahlen

Stefan

Anttila

Marika

(2013), “Consuming Nostalgia? The Appreciation of Authenticity in Local Food Production,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37 (5), 564–68.

Balabanis

George

Siamagka

Nikoletta-Theofania

(2017), “The Behavioural Effects of Consumer Ethnocentrism: The Moderating Role of Product Category, Brand and Country of Origin,” International Marketing Review, 34 (2), 166–82.

Bargh

John A.

Chen

Mark

Burrows

Lara

(1996), “Automaticity of Social Behavior: Direct Effects of Trait Construct and Stereotype Activation on Action,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2), 230–44.

Batra

Rajeev

Ramaswamy

Venkatram

Alden

Dana L.

Steenkamp

Jan-Benedict E.M.

Ramachander

Shivaramaiah

(2000), “Effects of Brand Local and Nonlocal Origin on Consumer Attitudes in Developing Countries,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (2), 83–95.

Cambridge Dictionary (2022), “Freshness,” (accessed May 20, 2022), https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/freshness.

10.

Cardello

Armand V.

Schutz

Howard G.

(2003), “The Concept of Food Freshness: Uncovering Its Meaning and Importance to Consumers,” Freshness and Shelf Life of Foods, Cadwallader

Keith R.

Weenen

Hugo

, eds. American Chemical Society, 22–41.

11.

Cialdini

Robert B.

(2006), Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Quill, William Morrow.

12.

Curtis

Val

Aunger

Robert

Rabie

Tamer

(2004), “Evidence That Disgust Evolved to Protect from Risk of Disease,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, S131–33.

13.

Dane

Erik

Pratt

Michael G.

(2007), “Exploring Intuition and Its Role in Managerial Decision Making,” Academy of Management Review, 32 (1), 33–54.

14.

Davvetas

Vasileios

Diamantopoulos

Adamantios

(2016), “How Product Category Shapes Preferences Toward Global and Local Brands: A Schema Theory Perspective,” Journal of International Marketing, 24 (4), 61–81.

15.

Davvetas

Vasileios

Diamantopoulos

Adamantios

Liu

Lucy

(2020), “Lit Up or Dimmed Down? Why, When, and How Regret Anticipation Affects Consumers’ Use of the Global Brand Halo,” Journal of International Marketing, 28 (3), 40–63.

16.

Davvetas

Vasileios

Halkias

Georgios

(2019), “Global and Local Brand Stereotypes: Formation, Content Transfer, and Impact,” International Marketing Review, 36 (5), 675–701.

17.

De Vries

Eline L.E.

Fennis

Bob M.

(2019), “Go Local or Go Global: How Local Brands Promote Buying Impulsivity,” International Marketing Review, 37 (1), 1–28.

18.

Dimofte

Claudiu V.

Johansson

Johny K.

Bagozzi

Richard P.

(2010), “Global Brands in the United States: How Consumer Ethnicity Mediates the Global Brand Effect,” Journal of International Marketing, 18 (3), 81–106.

19.

Dimofte

Claudiu V.

Johansson

Johny K.

Ronkainen

Ilkka A.

(2008), “Cognitive and Affective Reactions of US Consumers to Global Brands,” Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4), 113–35.

20.

Duncan

Lesley A.

Schaller

Mark

Park

Justin H.

(2009), “Perceived Vulnerability to Disease: Development and Validation of a 15-Item Self-Report Instrument,” Personality and Individual Differences, 47 (6), 541–46.

21.

Fillion

Laurence

Kilcast

David

(2000), “Concept and Measurement of Freshness of Fruits and Vegetables,” Research Report No. 770, Leatherhead Food.

22.

Fortin

Corey

Goodwin

Harold L.

Jr. Thomsen

Michael R.

(2009), “Consumer Attitudes Toward Freshness Indicators on Perishable Food Products,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, 40 (3), 1–15.

23.

Gineikiene

Justina

Schlegelmilch

Bodo B.

Auruskeviciene

Vilte

(2017), “‘Ours’ or ‘Theirs’? Psychological Ownership and Domestic Products Preferences,” Journal of Business Research, 72, 93–103.

24.

Gineikiene

Justina

Schlegelmilch

Bodo B.

Ruzeviciute

Ruta

(2016), “Our Apples Are Healthier Than Your Apples: Deciphering the Healthiness Bias for Domestic and Foreign Products,” Journal of International Marketing, 24 (2), 80–99.

25.

Glitsch

Kristina

(2000), “Consumer Perceptions of Fresh Meat Quality: Cross-National Comparison,” British Food Journal, 102 (3), 177–94.

26.

Gould

Stephen J.

(1988), “Consumer Attitudes Toward Health and Health Care: A Differential Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, 22 (1), 96–118.

27.

Griskevicius

Vladas

Kenrick

Douglas T.

(2013), “Fundamental Motives: How Evolutionary Needs Influence Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (3), 372–86.

28.

Gvili

Yaniv

Tal

Aner

Amar

Moty

Hallak

Yael

Wansink

Brian

Giblin

Michael

Bommelaer

Colombe

(2015), “Fresh from the Tree: Implied Motion Improves Food Evaluation,” Food Quality and Preference, 46, 160–65.

29.

Holt

Douglas B.

(2002), “Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (1), 70–90.

30.

Holt

Douglas B.

Quelch

John A.

Taylor

Earl L.

(2004), “How Global Brands Compete,” Harvard Business Review, 82 (9), 68–75.

31.

Huang

Julie Y.

Ackerman

Joshua M.

Sedlovskaya

Alexandra

(2017), “(De)Contaminating Product Preferences: A Multi-Method Investigation into Pathogen Threat’s Influence on Used Product Preferences,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 143–52.

32.

International Trade Administration (2022), “Mexico – Country Commercial Guide,” (September 23), https://www.trade.gov/knowledge-product/exporting-mexico-market-overview.

33.

Johansson

Johny K.

Ronkainen

Ilkka A.

(2005), “The Esteem of Global Brands,” Journal of Brand Management, 12 (5), 339–54.

34.

Johnson

Kathryn A.

White

Andrew E.

Boyd

Brenna M.

Cohen

Adam B.

(2011), “Matzah, Meat, Milk, and Mana: Psychological Influences on Religio-Cultural Food Practices,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42 (8), 1421–36.

35.

Lappalainen

Raimo

Kearney

John

Gibney

Michael

(1998). “A Pan EU Survey of Consumer Attitudes to Food, Nutrition and Health: An Overview,” Food Quality and Preference, 9 (6), 467–78.

36.

Lobb

Alexandra E.

Mazzocchi

Mario

(2007), “Domestically Produced Food: Consumer Perceptions of Origin, Safety and the Issue of Trust,” Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C: Food Economics, 4 (1), 3–12.

37.

Machiels

Casparus J.A.

Karnal

Nadine

(2016), “See How Tasty It Is? Effects of Symbolic Cues on Product Evaluation and Taste,” Food Quality and Preference, 52, 195–202.

38.

Magnusson

Peter

Zdravkovic

Srdan

Westjohn

Stanford A.

(2022), “A Longitudinal Analysis of Country Image and Brand Origin Effects,” International Marketing Review, 39 (4), 912–30.

39.

Mandler

Timo

(2019), “Beyond Reach: An Extended Model of Global Brand Effects,” International Marketing Review, 36 (5), 647–74.

40.

Maslow

Abraham H.

(1948), “‘Higher’ and ‘Lower’ Needs,” Journal of Psychology, 25 (2), 433–36.

41.

Meehan

Peter

(2005), “Filadelfia Story,” The New York Times (November 6), https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/style/tmagazine/filadelfia-story.html.

42.

Monteiro

Carlos Augusto

Cannon

Geoffrey

Moubarac

Jean-Claude

Levy

Renata Bertazzi

Louzada

Maria Laura C.

Jaime

Patrícia Constante

(2018), “The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA Food Classification and the Trouble with Ultra-Processing,” Public Health Nutrition, 21 (1), 5–17.

43.

Mouta

Juliana S.

de Sá

Nathaly C.

Menezes

Ellen

Melo

Lauro

(2016), “Effect of Institutional Sensory Test Location and Consumer Attitudes on Acceptance of Foods and Beverages Having Different Levels of Processing,” Food Quality and Preference, 48, 262–67.

44.

Naspetti

Simona

Bodini

Antonella

(2008), “Consumer Perception of Local and Organic Products: Substitution or Complementary Goods?” International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 3 (2), 111–22.

45.

Sharon

Faraji-Rad

Ali

Batra

Rajeev

(2021), “Uncertainty Evokes Consumers’ Preference for Brands Incongruent with Their Global–Local Citizenship Identity,” Journal of Marketing Research, 58 (2), 400–15.

46.

Nie

Cong

Zepeda

Lydia

(2011), “Lifestyle Segmentation of US Food Shoppers to Examine Organic and Local Food Consumption,” Appetite, 57 (1), 28–37.

47.

Nielsen (2016), “Made In … Which Country? Perceptions About Brand Origin Shape Purchase Intentions Around the World,” (April), https://www.mldk.org/pageimages/files/Nielsen%20Global%20Brand-Origin%20Report%20-%20April%202016.pdf.

48.

Özsomer

Ayşegül

(2012), “The Interplay Between Global and Local Brands: A Closer Look at Perceived Brand Globalness and Local Iconness,” Journal of International Marketing, 20 (2), 72–95.

49.

Özsomer

Ayşegül

Altaras

Selin

(2008), “Global Brand Purchase Likelihood: A Critical Synthesis and an Integrated Conceptual Framework,” Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4), 1–28.

50.

Péneau

Sandrine

Brockhoff

Per Bruun

Hoehn

Ernst

Escher

Nuessli

Jeannette

(2007), “Relating Consumer Evaluation of Apple Freshness to Sensory and Physico-Chemical Measurements,” Journal of Sensory Studies, 22 (3), 313–35.

51.

Péneau

Sandrine

Hoehn

Ernst

Roth

H.-R.

Escher

Nuessli

Jeannette

(2006), “Importance and Consumer Perception of Freshness of Apples,” Food Quality and Preference, 17 (1–2), 9–19.

52.

Péneau

Sandrine

Linke

Angelika

Escher

Felix

Nuessli

Jeannette

(2009), “Freshness of Fruits and Vegetables: Consumer Language and Perception,” British Food Journal, 111 (3), 243–56.

53.

Putrevu

Sanjay

Lord

Kenneth R.

(1994), “Comparative and Noncomparative Advertising: Attitudinal Effects Under Cognitive and Affective Involvement Conditions,” Journal of Advertising, 23 (2), 77–91.

54.

Ragaert

Peter

Verbeke

Wim

Devlieghere

Frank

Debevere

Johan

(2004), “Consumer Perception and Choice of Minimally Processed Vegetables and Packaged Fruits,” Food Quality and Preference, 15 (3), 259–70.

55.

Riefler

Petra

(2012), “Why Consumers Do (Not) Like Global Brands: The Role of Globalization Attitude, GCO and Global Brand Origin,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (1), 25–34.

56.

Riefler

Petra

(2019), “Consumer Responses to MNE Socially Responsible Behavior,” in Socially Responsible International Business: Critical Issues and the Way Forward, Leonidou

Leonidas

Katsikeas

Constantine

Samiee

Saeed

Leonidou

Constantinos

, eds. Edward Elgar Publishing, 184–208.

57.

Rippetoe

Patricia A.

Rogers

Ronald W.

(1987), “Effects of Components of Protection-Motivation Theory on Adaptive and Maladaptive Coping with a Health Threat,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (3), 596–604.

58.

Rogers

Ronald W.

Mewborn

C. Ronald

(1976), “Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: Effects of a Threat’s Noxiousness, Probability of Occurrence, and the Efficacy of Coping Responses,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 (1), 54–61.

59.

Rosenbloom

Alfred

Haefner

James E.

(2009), “Country-of-Origin Effects and Global Brand Trust: A First Look,” Journal of Global Marketing, 22 (4), 267–78.

60.

Schaller

Mark

(2016), “The Behavioral Immune System,” The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. 1, Buss

David M.

, ed. John Wiley & Sons, 206–24.

61.

Schlegelmilch

Bodo B.

(2022), Global Marketing Strategy: An Executive Digest. Springer.

62.

Sedikides

Constantine

Gregg

Aiden P.

(2008), “Self-Enhancement: Food for Thought,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3 (2), 102–16.

63.

Shimp

Terence A.

Sharma

Subhash

(1987), “Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (3), 280–89.

64.

Sichtmann

Christina

Diamantopoulos

Adamantios

(2013), “The Impact of Perceived Brand Globalness, Brand Origin Image, and Brand Origin–Extension Fit on Brand Extension Success,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (5), 567–85.

65.

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.

66.

Steenkamp

Jan-Benedict

(1997), “Dynamics in Consumer Behavior with Respect to Agricultural and Food Products,” Agricultural Marketing and Consumer Behavior in a Changing World, Wierenga

Berend

Tilburg

Aad

Grunert

Klaus

Steenkamp

Jan-Benedict E.M.

Wedel

Michel

, eds. Springer, 143–88.

67.

Steenkamp

Jan-Benedict

(2019), “Global Versus Local Consumer Culture: Theory, Measurement, and Future Research Directions,” Journal of International Marketing, 27 (1), 1–19.

68.

Steenkamp

Jan-Benedict

Batra

Rajeev

Alden

Dana L.

(2003), “How Perceived Brand Globalness Creates Brand Value,” Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (1), 53–65.

69.

Steenkamp

Jan-Benedict

De Jong

Martijn G.

(2010), “A Global Investigation into the Constellation of Consumer Attitudes Toward Global and Local Products.” Journal of Marketing, 74 (6), 18–40.

70.

Strizhakova

Yuliya

Coulter

Robin A.

(2015), “Drivers of Local Relative to Global Brand Purchases: A Contingency Approach,” Journal of International Marketing, 23 (1), 1–22.

71.

Strizhakova

Yuliya

Coulter

Robin A.

(2019), “Consumer Cultural Identity: Local and Global Cultural Identities and Measurement Implications,” International Marketing Review, 36 (5), 610–27.

72.

Strizhakova

Yuliya

Coulter

Robin A.

Price

Linda L.

(2008), “Branded Products as a Passport to Global Citizenship: Perspectives from Developed and Developing Countries,” Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4), 57–85.

73.

Strizhakova

Yuliya

Coulter

Robin A.

Price

Linda L.

(2011), “Branding in a Global Marketplace: The Mediating Effects of Quality and Self-Identity Brand Signals,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28 (4), 342–51.

74.

Stroebe

Wolfgang

(2011), Social Psychology and Health. McGraw-Hill.

75.

Swoboda

Bernhard

Hirschmann

Johannes

(2016), “Does Being Perceived as Global Pay Off? An Analysis of Leading Foreign and Domestic Multinational Corporations in India, Japan, and the United States,” Journal of International Marketing, 24 (3), 1–30.

76.

Tajfel

Henri

Turner

John C.

(1986), “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior,” Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Austin

William G.

Worchel

Stephen

, eds. Nelson-Hall Publishers, 7–24.

77.

Taylor

Shelley E.

Brown

Jonathon D.

(1988), “Illusion and Well-Being: A Social Psychological Perspective on Mental Health,” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (2), 193–210.

78.

Thakor

Mrugank V.

(1996), “Brand Origin: Conceptualization and Review,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13 (3), 27–42.

79.

Trope

Yaacov

Liberman

Nira

(2010), “Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance,” Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440–63.

80.

Tsiros

Michael

Heilman

Carrie M.

(2005), “The Effect of Expiration Dates and Perceived Risk on Purchasing Behavior in Grocery Store Perishable Categories,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (2), 114–29.

81.

Tybur

Joshua M.

Lieberman

Debra

Kurzban

Robert

DeScioli

Peter

(2013), “Disgust: Evolved Function and Structure,” Psychological Review, 120 (1), 65–84.

82.

Wandel

Margareta

Bugge

Annechen

(1997), “Environmental Concern in Consumer Evaluation of Food Quality,” Food Quality and Preference, 8 (1), 19–26.

83.

Webster

Donna M.

Kruglanski

Arie W.

(1994), “Individual Differences in Need for Cognitive Closure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (6), 1049–62.

84.

Xie

Batra

Rajeev

Peng

Siqing

(2015), “An Extended Model of Preference Formation Between Global and Local Brands: The Roles of Identity Expressiveness, Trust, and Affect,” Journal of International Marketing, 23 (1), 50–71.

85.

Yang

Shang-Ho

Pebriyani Panjaitan

Bella

Ujiie

Kiyokazu

Wann

Jong-Wen

Chen

Dennis

(2021), “Comparison of Food Values for Consumers’ Preferences on Imported Fruits and Vegetables Within Japan, Taiwan, and Indonesia,” Food Quality and Preference, 87, 104042.

86.

Yarar

Nadine

Orth

Ulrich R.

(2018), “Consumer Lay Theories on Healthy Nutrition: AQ Methodology Application in Germany,” Appetite, 120, 145–57.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.59 MB