Local–Global Identity Scale

Abstract

The Local–Global Identity Scale (LGIS) is an influential psychometric instrument developed in consumer psychology and cross-cultural psychometrics to quantify the relative salience and strength of an individual’s dual cultural self-concepts: local identity and global identity. Originally introduced to consumer research literature by Yinlong Zhang and Adwait Khare (2009), the scale operationalizes the psychological tensions and synergies that emerge in an increasingly globalized marketplace. While globalization exposes individuals worldwide to universal values, international brands, and cosmopolitan cultural scripts, it simultaneously precipitates a psychological counter-reaction that reinforces attachment to local traditions, indigenous customs, and proximal community networks.

Structurally, the scale consists of two distinct, theoretically orthogonal subscales: the Global Identity Subscale (measuring an individual’s sense of belonging to the broader international community and perception of being a global citizen) and the Local Identity Subscale (measuring psychological rootedness, respect for regional traditions, and identification with proximal cultural collectives). Each dimension is typically evaluated using a 7-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Extensive psychometric evaluations across varied cultural contexts—including North America, East Asia, and Western Europe—demonstrate that the LGIS possesses robust construct validity, high internal consistency reliability (with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely exceeding .80 for both subscales), and exceptional predictive validity regarding consumer choices, brand evaluations, ethnocentrism, and intercultural behavior.

Keywords

Local–Global Identity Scale, Global Identity, Local Identity, Social Identity Theory, Consumer Behavior, Brand Origin, Glocalization, Cross-Cultural Psychology, Cultural Salience, Identity Priming, Psychometrics

Authors

The Local–Global Identity Scale was formulated and validated by scholars specializing in consumer psychology, brand architecture, and cross-cultural marketing dynamics:

• Yinlong Zhang, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia (formerly at the Alvarez College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio). Dr. Zhang’s research centers on cross-cultural consumer psychology, brand perception, and globalization dynamics.
• Adwait Khare, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, College of Business, University of Texas at Arlington. Dr. Khare focuses on consumer decision-making, identity-based motivation, and cognitive responses to marketing communications.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Local–Global Identity Scale is to measure the chronic accessibility and situational salience of two foundational identity systems that modern individuals navigate: their identity as members of a localized, proximate community versus their identity as participants in an interconnected global community. Rather than treating an individual’s cultural identity as an undifferentiated, static demographic indicator based on nationality, the LGIS approaches identity as a multifaceted, dynamic cognitive construct.

From a theoretical perspective, contemporary sociocultural environments expose individuals to multinational mass media, digital communication platforms, and international commerce, facilitating the acquisition of a global identity—a cognitive structure characterized by cosmopolitan awareness, modernism, and a psychological affiliation with people around the world. Concurrently, human psychological needs for belongingness, historical continuity, and cultural distinctiveness sustain a local identity—a cognitive structure characterized by pride in regional traditions, loyalty to indigenous social norms, and deep connection to one’s proximate heritage.

In academic research, the LGIS serves multiple purposes:

• Consumer Judgment and Decision Making: Investigating how accessible identities guide consumer evaluations of foreign versus domestic products, multinational versus local brands, and standardized versus localized advertising appeals.
• Identity Priming Experiments: Providing a baseline assessment of chronic identity orientations and serving as a manipulation check when researchers situationally prime global versus local mindsets using visual, semantic, or experiential stimuli.
• Sociocultural and Political Research: Assessing the psychological correlates of globalization, economic nationalism, protectionism, and cosmopolitanism across distinct demographic strata.
• Cross-Cultural Comparative Studies: Disentangling individual-level psychological variance from country-level cultural indices (e.g., Hofstede’s cultural dimensions), enabling researchers to understand within-culture heterogeneity in multinational settings.

Psychological Construct

The psychological architecture of the Local–Global Identity Scale is grounded in modern social identity theory and cognitive accessibility models. The scale explicitly conceptualizes local and global identities not as opposite ends of a single continuum, but as two distinct, coexisting cognitive structures. An individual may possess high levels of both identities (bicultural integration), low levels of both (marginalization), or an asymmetric preference for one over the other.

1. Global Identity

The Global Identity construct reflects the degree to which an individual feels psychologically connected to the world at large, adopts universalist values, and perceives commonalities among people across national and ethnic boundaries. It captures a cognitive orientation aligned with cosmopolitanism and global citizenship. Individuals with a chronically accessible global identity exhibit:

• A conceptualization of the self that transcends geographic, linguistic, and political borders.
• Psychological openness to cultural diversity, foreign customs, and global cultural products.
• A tendency to evaluate multinational corporations and global brands favorably, interpreting global availability as a signal of quality, modernity, prestige, and shared human progress.
• An inclination to adopt universal ethical standards and global environmental and social perspectives.

2. Local Identity

The Local Identity construct captures an individual’s psychological attachment to their proximate community, indigenous cultural customs, and ancestral traditions. Rather than merely reflecting narrow provincialism or hostility toward outsiders, local identity represents positive self-definition rooted in community cohesion, cultural preservation, and historical continuity. Individuals with a chronically accessible local identity exhibit:

• A deep psychological embeddedness within their immediate geographic, linguistic, or national community.
• A strong sense of responsibility toward preserving indigenous customs, values, and community heritage.
• A marked preference for local products, domestic businesses, and regionally authentic artifacts, viewing local consumption as an act of economic and cultural preservation.
• A tendency to prioritize regional social norms and communal solidarity over abstract global ideals.

Theoretical Framework

The LGIS draws from several foundational theoretical paradigms in social psychology and consumer research:

Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorization

Developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner, Social Identity Theory posits that an individual’s self-concept is composed of personal identity (individual idiosyncrasies) and social identity (categorizations based on group memberships). Turner’s Self-Categorization Theory establishes that individuals shift between different levels of self-abstraction. At a subordinate level, an individual self-categorizes based on proximate, local affiliations. At a superordinate level, an individual categorizes based on shared humanity and worldwide membership. The LGIS captures individual differences in the chronic accessibility of these distinct self-categorization levels.

Bicultural Identity and Globalization Psychology

Psychologist Jeffrey Jensen Arnett (2002) proposed that the psychological consequence of globalization is the development of a bicultural identity: people retain a local identity rooted in their indigenous culture while simultaneously developing a global identity that connects them to worldwide practices and norms. Zhang and Khare (2009) translated Arnett’s developmental and cultural observations into an empirical measurement framework, operationalizing how these dual identities influence cognitive evaluation and behavioral choices.

Knowledge Accessibility and Priming Theory

According to E. Tory Higgins’s Accessibility Model of social cognition, mental representations vary in their chronic readiness to be used (chronic accessibility) and can also be temporarily activated by contextual cues (temporary accessibility). Zhang and Khare demonstrated that while consumers exhibit baseline differences on the LGIS, situational cues (such as advertising imagery or framing tasks) can temporarily heighten the salience of either local or global identity, directly shifting subsequent product valuations toward locally or globally positioned brands.

Validity

The Local–Global Identity Scale has been subjected to rigorous validation protocols across laboratory experiments, field studies, and cross-cultural surveys.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity has been verified through high inter-item correlations within subscales and strong convergent associations with theoretically related constructs. The Global Identity subscale correlates positively with established measures of cosmopolitanism, openness to experience, consumer world-mindedness, and global social responsibility. Conversely, the Local Identity subscale correlates positively with cultural heritage preservation, consumer ethnocentrism, and patriotism. Critically, local identity exhibits a clear psychological separation from xenophobia; high local identity reflects in-group attachment rather than out-group hostility.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity between the two dimensions has been established across diverse populations. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) analyses consistently reveal that the AVE of both Global Identity and Local Identity exceeds the squared correlation ($r^2$) between them. While in some populations local and global identities exhibit a modest negative correlation, in many globalized metropolitan populations the two factors demonstrate orthogonality ($r$ values ranging between -.15 and .10, often statistically non-significant), confirming that possessing a strong global identity does not require divesting from one’s local identity.

Predictive and Experimental Validity

The scale exhibits strong predictive validity in consumer decision tasks. In Zhang and Khare’s foundational 2009 studies, participants scoring higher on the Local Identity dimension evaluated local products significantly more favorably than global products, whereas participants scoring higher on the Global Identity dimension showed a pronounced preference for global products. Subsequent studies (e.g., Tu, Khare, & Zhang, 2012; Westjohn et al., 2012) further demonstrated that the scale predicts consumer responses to corporate social responsibility initiatives, price premiums for foreign luxury items, and consumer reactions to corporate glocalization strategies.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Local–Global Identity Scale has been repeatedly confirmed across diverse cultural and national samples, including consumers in the United States, China, India, South Korea, and various European nations.

Internal Consistency

In the seminal validation studies conducted by Zhang and Khare (2009), both subscales exhibited high internal consistency:

• Global Identity Subscale: Cronbach’s $\alpha$ coefficients typically range between .83 and .91 across independent samples.
• Local Identity Subscale: Cronbach’s $\alpha$ coefficients typically range between .81 and .88 across independent samples.

Subsequent cross-national investigations have reported composite reliability (CR) indices exceeding .85 and McDonald’s $\omega$ values above .80, indicating that the scale maintains high measurement precision across varied demographic cohorts.

Temporal Stability

Test-retest assessments administered across intervals ranging from two to six weeks demonstrate adequate stability coefficients ($r_{tt} > .75$), confirming that although identities can be situationally primed, chronic baseline scores on the LGIS remain stable cognitive orientations in the absence of salient experimental interventions.

Factor Analysis

The underlying dimensionality of the Local–Global Identity Scale has been evaluated using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal axis factoring and principal component analysis with oblique (promax/oblimin) and orthogonal (varimax) rotations consistently yield a clear two-factor structure. Eigenvalue evaluation (Kaiser-Guttman criterion with eigenvalues > 1.0) and scree plot inspection corroborate two distinct latent dimensions corresponding exactly to Global Identity and Local Identity. All target items consistently exhibit primary factor loadings exceeding .65 on their designated construct, with cross-loadings universally falling below .25.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analyses across international samples demonstrate superior fit for the two-factor independent or correlated model compared to alternative unidimensional (single bipolar factor) models. Typical fit indices reported in literature include:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .95 to .98
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .94 to .97
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .042 to .061 (with 90% confidence intervals staying below .08)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .035 to .052
• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2/df$): Generally below 2.5

Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) tests have established configural, metric, and scalar invariance across multiple national samples, allowing researchers to validly compare latent mean scores between cultural groups.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Local–Global Identity Scale is structured as an efficient, self-administered questionnaire suitable for paper-and-pencil surveys, laboratory computers, and online research platforms.

• Assessment Type: Self-report psychometric scale / attitudinal survey.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically ages 16 and above) living in modern consumer societies.
• Item Count: 8 items (4 items for Global Identity, 4 items for Local Identity) in its standard primary form, with 6-item and extended 10-item variants appearing in related literature.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Structure:
  • Global Identity Score: Mean or sum of items assessing identification with the global community. Higher values indicate higher global identity salience.
  • Local Identity Score: Mean or sum of items assessing identification with the local community. Higher values indicate higher local identity salience.
  • Relative Identity Index (Optional): Researchers frequently calculate a relative index by subtracting the Local Identity score from the Global Identity score ($Global – Local$) or by entering both subscale scores as independent predictors in regression models to examine interaction effects.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Local–Global Identity Scale was published in 2009 by Yinlong Zhang and Adwait Khare in the Journal of Consumer Research (Oxford University Press / University of Chicago Press). The academic study is copyrighted by the Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.

For non-commercial academic research, educational use, and scientific experimentation, the scale items may generally be used and adapted under standard scholarly fair use principles, provided that appropriate formal attribution is given to the original authors and publication. Commercial applications, including proprietary market research platforms, diagnostic software, or corporate segmentation tools, may require formal licensing or permission requests through the copyright clearance mechanisms associated with Oxford University Press or the original authors.

References

• Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(10), 774–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.10.774
• Der-Karabetian, A. (1992). World-mindedness and the nuclear threat: A multi-nation study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7(2), 293–308.
• Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). Guilford Press.
• Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. A., & Price, L. L. (2008). The meanings of branded products: A cross-national exploration among young adults in emerging and developed markets. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 22–59. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.16.4.22
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
• Tu, L., Khare, A., & Zhang, Y. (2012). A short 8-item scale for measuring consumers’ local-global identity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.07.003
• Westjohn, S. A., Singh, N., & Magnusson, P. (2012). Responsiveness to global and local consumer culture positioning: A tale of two nations. Journal of International Marketing, 20(2), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1509/jim.10.0138
• Zhang, Y., & Khare, A. (2009). The impact of accessible identities on the evaluation of global versus local products. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 524–537. https://doi.org/10.1086/598794

Items of the Scale