This paper examines when consumers prefer vertical farming over conventional farming, focusing on the alignment among growing condition, health orientation and price context and clarifies the mechanism translating this alignment into consumer attitude.
Three between-subjects scenario-based experiments were conducted with US MTurk consumers. Studies 1a (N = 359) and 1b (N = 356) used a 2 (growing condition) × 2 (health orientation) design; Study 2 (N = 575) added price context (standard vs premium). Data were analyzed using ANCOVA and moderated mediation.
Consumer attitude depends on whether the growing condition fits the focal health goal. When hygiene is salient, vertical farming is evaluated more favorably, mediated by perceived appropriateness; the nutrient-oriented advantage of conventional farming is less uniform across crops. The interaction emerges under standard pricing but attenuates under premium pricing, where price becomes a dominant evaluative signal.
The studies rely on US online samples and stated-attitude measures. Future research should test cultural generalizability, alternative health-related lay theories and continuous price manipulations.
Marketers should align vertical farming communication with the focal health criterion rather than universal acceptance messages. Hygiene-related cues enhance evaluations under standard pricing, whereas premium pricing weakens fit-based positioning leverage.
By identifying when vertical farming is preferred rather than whether it is broadly accepted, this paper reframes consumer evaluation of agricultural innovations as criterion-contingent. It extends congruency-based accounts to food production, identifies perceived appropriateness as the operative mechanism and specifies price context as a boundary condition.
