Cross Cultural Consumer Behavior

Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23:181–192, 2011Copyright c© 2011 Marieke de Mooij and Geert Hofstede BVISSN: 0896-1530 print / 1528-7068 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08961530.2011.578057

Cross-Cultural Consumer Behavior: A Reviewof Research Findings

Marieke de MooijGeert Hofstede

ABSTRACT. Most aspects of consumer behavior are culture-bound. This article reviews the culturalrelationships with the self, personality, and attitude, which are the basis of consumer behavior modelsand branding and advertising strategies. The Hofstede model is used to explain variance. Other consumerbehavior aspects reviewed are motivation and emotions, cognitive processes such as abstract versusconcrete thinking, categorization and information processing, as well as consumer behavior domainssuch as product ownership, decision making, and adoption and diffusion of innovations. Implicationsfor global branding and advertising are included.

KEYWORDS. Culture, dimensions, personality, self, emotion, global branding, communication

INTRODUCTION

Recent years have seen increased interest inthe influence of culture on consumer behavioras well as increased research. In this article wereview studies of the influence of culture that arerelevant to international marketing. We discussthe various areas of research following the com-ponents of human behavior as structured in ourCross-Cultural Consumer Behavior Framework(figure 1), which was inspired by a conceptualmodel by Manrai and Manrai (1996). In thisframework we structure the cultural componentsof the person in terms of consumer attributesand processes, and the cultural components ofbehavior in terms of consumer behavior do-mains. Income interferes. If there is no income,there is little or no consumption, so incomeis placed in a separate box. The attributes of

Marieke de Mooij is affiliated with Cross-Cultural Communications Consultancy, Burgh-Haamstede, theNetherlands. Geert Hofstede is affiliated with the Center for Economic Research at the University of Tilburg,Tilburg, the Netherlands.

Address correspondence to Marieke de Mooij, PhD, Cross-Cultural Communications Consultancy,Westerenban 44, NL-4328 Burgh-Haamstede, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

the person refer to what people are (the who)and the processes refer to what moves people(the how). The central question is “Who am I?”and in what terms people describe themselvesand others—their personality traits and identity.Related to the who are attitudes and lifestylebecause they are a central part of the person.How people think, perceive, and what motivatesthem—how the aspects of “me” process intobehavior—are viewed as processes.

Much research on cross-cultural consumerbehavior has used the Hofstede dimensionalmodel of national culture. Although the countryscores originally were produced in the early1970s, many replications of Hofstede’s studyon different samples have proved that the coun-try ranking in his data is still valid. In thesecond edition of his book Culture’s Conse-quences (2001), Hofstede shows more than 400

181

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Reb

ecca

Dav

is]

at 0

6:42

01

Aug

ust 2

011

182 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

FIGURE 1. Cross-Cultural Consumer Behavior Framework (Adapted from Manrai and Manrai1996)

Consumer Behavior Domains

Attributes“Who”

Processes“How”

• Social processesMotivation, EmotionGroup processes

• Mental processesCognition, learningLanguage, perceptionInformation processingCommunicationDecision making

PersonalitySelf-conceptIdentityImageAttitudeLifestyle

Product ownership and usageAdoption/diffusion of innovations

Complaining behaviorBrand loyalty

Responses to advertisingMedia usage

Income

ConsumerThe Person

ValuesCulture

significant correlations between his index scoresand data from other sources that validate them.Many data on product ownership and relatedbehavior (De Mooij 2004, 2010; Hofstede 2001)appear to correlate with Hofstede’s dimen-sions. Sometimes a configuration of two di-mensions explains differences in product usageor other consumption-related phenomena evenbetter.

HOFSTEDE’S FIVE DIMENSIONS OFNATIONAL CULTURE

Hofstede found five dimensions of nationalculture labeled Power Distance, Individualism/Collectivism, Masculinity/Femininity, Uncer-tainty Avoidance, and Long-/Short-Term Orien-tation. In the description of the dimensions weinclude items that are most relevant to consumerbehavior.

The power distance dimension can be definedas the extent to which less powerful membersof a society accept and expect that power isdistributed unequally. In large power distancecultures, everyone has his or her rightful placein a social hierarchy. The rightful place conceptis important for understanding the role of globalbrands. In large power distance cultures, one’ssocial status must be clear so that others canshow proper respect. Global brands serve thatpurpose.

The contrast individualism/collectivism canbe defined as people looking after themselvesand their immediate family only versus peoplebelonging to in-groups that look after them inexchange for loyalty. In individualistic cultures,one’s identity is in the person. People are“I”-conscious, and self-actualization is impor-tant. Individualistic cultures are universalistic,assuming their values are valid for the wholeworld. Universalism may explain why generallyindividualistic U.S. marketing managers focusmore on standardizing global marketing strategythan for example collectivistic Japanese do (Tay-lor and Okazaki 2006). Individualistic culturesare also low-context communication cultureswith explicit verbal communication. In col-lectivistic cultures, people are “we”-conscious.Their identity is based on the social system towhich they belong, and preserving harmony andavoiding loss of face are important. Collectivisticcultures are high-context communication cul-tures, with an indirect style of communication.In the sales process in individualistic cultures,parties want to get to the point fast, whereasin collectivistic cultures it is necessary to firstbuild a relationship and trust between parties.This difference is reflected in the differentroles of advertising: persuasion versus creatingtrust.

The masculinity/femininity dimension canbe defined as follows: The dominant valuesin a masculine society are achievement and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Reb

ecca

Dav

is]

at 0

6:42

01

Aug

ust 2

011

Marieke de Mooij and Geert Hofstede 183

success; the dominant values in a femininesociety are caring for others and quality oflife. In masculine societies, performance andachievement are highly valued; and achieve-ment must be demonstrated, so status brandsor products such as jewelry are important toshow one’s success (De Mooij 2004, 247). Inmasculine cultures male and female roles aredifferentiated, whereas in feminine cultures rolesoverlap. In masculine cultures, household workis less shared between husband and wife than infeminine cultures. Men also do more householdshopping in the feminine cultures. Data fromEurostat (2002) show that low masculinityexplains 52% of variance1 of the proportionof men “who spend any time on shoppingactivities.”

Uncertainty avoidance can be defined asthe extent to which people feel threatened byuncertainty and ambiguity and try to avoidthese situations. In cultures of strong uncertaintyavoidance, there is a need for rules and formalityto structure life. This translates into the searchfor truth and a belief in experts. People are lessopen to change and innovation than people oflow uncertainty avoidance cultures. Membersof high uncertainty avoidance cultures expressin their behavior a need for purity related toseveral product categories. Members of lowuncertainty avoidance cultures have a moreactive attitude to life and play more activesports.

Long- versus Short-Term Orientation is theextent to which a society exhibits a pragmaticfuture-oriented perspective rather than a con-ventional historic or short-term point of view.Values included in long-term orientation areperseverance, ordering relationships by statusand observing this order, thrift, and having asense of shame. The opposite is short-termorientation, which includes personal steadinessand stability, respect for tradition, and thepursuit of happiness rather than pursuit ofpeace of mind. Long-term orientation (LTO)implies investment in the future. An exampleis the relationship between LTO and broad-band penetration (De Mooij 2010). Broadbandasks for large investments by business orgovernments.

CONSUMER ATTRIBUTES: THE SELFCONCEPT, PERSONALITY, IDENTITY

AND IMAGE

Brands are augmented products. Values orpersonal traits are added through communica-tion strategy. This is a practice developed inthe Western world. Differences in values andpersonal traits are found both at the company’sside and the consumers’ side. If they do soat all, consumers tend to attribute differentpersonalities to one and the same brand. A hostof knowledge from cross-cultural psychologyis now available that helps understand thedifferences between the concepts of self andpersonality across countries that lie at the basisof many consumer behavior differences.

The Concept of Self

The concepts of self and personality asdeveloped in the individualistic Western worldinclude the person as an autonomous entitywith a distinctive set of attributes, qualities, orprocesses. The configuration of these internalattributes or processes causes behavior. People’sattributes and processes should be expressedconsistently in behavior across situations. Be-havior that changes with the situation is viewedas hypocritical or pathological.

In the collectivistic model the self cannotbe separated from others and the surroundingsocial context, so the self is an interdependententity who is part of an encompassing socialrelationship. Individual behavior is situational;it varies from one situation to another and fromone time to another (Markus and Kitayama1991). For members of collectivistic culturesself-esteem is not linked to the individual but torelationships with others. The very first wordsof little children in China are people-related,whereas children in the United States starttalking about objects (Tardiff et al. 2008). InJapan, feeling good is more associated withinterpersonal situations such as feeling friendly,whereas in the United States feeling good ismore frequently associated with interpersonaldistance, such as feeling superior or proud. Inthe United Kingdom feelings of happiness are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Reb

ecca

Dav

is]

at 0

6:42

01

Aug

ust 2

011


positively related to a sense of independence,whereas in Greece good feelings are negativelyrelated to a sense of independence (Nezlek,Kafetsios, and Smith 2008).

Next to individualism, masculinity explainsvariation of the self-concept. Whereas in fem-inine cultures modesty and relations are im-portant personal characteristics, in masculinecultures self-enhancement leads to self-esteem.A relationship orientation, including family val-ues, not only is specific to collectivistic culturesbut also is found in individualistic cultures thatare also feminine (Watkins et al. 1998). TheEuropean Social Survey (Jowell and the CentralCo-ordinating Team 2003) asks respondentsacross Western and Eastern European countriesto mark the importance of getting respect fromothers. Collectivism explains 47% of variance,and high masculinity explains an additional 13%of variance.

Youths worldwide are not the same either. Inindividualistic cultures, a youth has to developan identity that enables him or her to functionindependently in a variety of social groups apartfrom the family. Failing to do so can cause anidentity crisis. In collectivistic cultures, youthdevelopment is based on encouragement of de-pendency needs in complex familial hierarchicalrelationships, and the group ideal is being likeothers, not being different (Triandis 1995).

Personality

Personality generally is defined as uniqueand cross-situationally consistent and is usuallydescribed in terms of traits such as autonomy orsociability. Western individualists view traits asfixed; they are part of the person. In collectivisticcultures, people’s ideal characteristics vary bysocial role, and behavior is influenced by con-textual factors (Church et al. 2006). Easternersbelieve in the continuous shaping of personalitytraits by situational influences (Norenzayan,Choi, and Nisbett 2002). When individualistsdescribe themselves or others, they use elementsof the personal self in objective, abstract terms,out of context (I am kind, she is nice). Peoplefrom collectivistic cultures tend to use mostlyelements of the collective self or describe actionsof people in context (My family thinks I am kind,

She brings cake to my family) (Kashima et al.2005). The Western habit of describing oneselfand others in terms of abstract characteristicshas led to the development of characterizationsystems of personal traits. The most used setof personality traits is the Five-Factor Model(McCrae 2002). Although these five factors arefound in many different cultures, they vary inweight across cultures, and these variations re-late to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Hofstedeand McCrae 2004). Although research using thesame set of questions has resulted in similarfive-factor structures across cultures, this doesn’timply that these are the only existing conceptionsof personhood. It merely shows that a set ofEnglish-language questions, when translated,results in similar five-dimensional structures(Schmitt et al. 2007). Personality research inEast Asia suggests that the “Big Five” in Asiashould be extended with a Big Sixth: dependenceon others (Hofstede 2007). Even if a similarfactor structure is found, the facets that composethe factors may contain culture-specific elements(Cheung et al. 2008).

Several studies have found brand personalityfactors that are culture specific (Aaker, Benet-Martınez, and Garolera 2001). Specific factorsare, for the United States “Ruggedness,” forJapan and Spain “Peacefulness,” and a specificSpanish dimension, labeled “Passion.” A studyof Korean brand personalities of well-knownglobal brands like Nike, Sony, Levi’s, Adidas,Volkswagen, and BMW found two specificKorean brand personalities, labeled “PassiveLikeableness” and “Ascendancy” (Sung andTinkham 2005).

Consumers across cultures attribute differentbrand personalities to one and the same globalbrand. The Red Bull brand has been marketedwith a consistent brand identity, but consumersattribute different personalities to the brand(Foscht et al. 2008). A commercial cross-culturalbrand value study (Crocus 2004,2 in De Mooij2010) that compared personalities attributedto highly valued global brands across culturesshowed that a brand characteristic like “friendly”is most attributed to strong global brands in highuncertainty avoidance and low power distancecultures. “Prestigious” is a characteristic at-tributed to global brands in high power distance

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Reb

ecca

Dav

is]

at 0

6:42

01

Aug

ust 2

011


cultures, and “trustworthy” is most attributedto strong brands in high uncertainty avoidancecultures. In cultures of the configuration lowpower distance and low uncertainty avoidancepeople attributed “innovative” and “different”to these brands. So consumers project theirown personality preferences onto global brands.These findings have consequences for globalbrand positioning. Global companies of Westernorigin want to be consistent in their messagesworldwide. They carefully formulate brand-positioning statements, including brand person-alities, as a guideline for global communications,but consumers attribute personalities to brandsthat fit their own cultural values, not the valuesof the producer of the brand.

Identity and Image

We define identity as the idea one hasabout oneself, one’s characteristic properties,one’s own body, and the values one considersimportant. Image is how others see and judgea person. As identity and image are part ofthe self, in individualistic cultures identity andimage are and should be the reflection of aunique self. The importance of a unique identityfor individualists emerges from a Eurobarometer(2000) survey asking respondents to what degreepeople believe in a shared cultural identity.The percentages of respondents who agreedcorrelated negatively with individualism. Inmost Western—individualistic—cultures, peo-ple tend to assess the identity of self and othersbased on personality traits, on other individualcharacteristics such as age and occupation,and on material symbols (Belk 1984). Acrosscultures components of materialism, such asnongenerosity and preservation (Ger and Belk1996) correlate with individualism (De Mooij2004, 118–119). In collectivistic cultures, peoplewill assess themselves in terms of their ability tomaintain harmonious relationships with others.One’s identity is the group: the family, neighbor-hood, school, or the company where one works(De Mooij 2010).

Words for the concepts identity and personal-ity in terms of a person separate from the contextdo not even exist in the Chinese and Japaneselanguages. There is a Japanese translation of

the English word identity—”to be aware ofone-self as oneself”—but its significance liesin the suggestion that this awareness of self isbased on connections with others. The katakana(the Japanese language system that uses foreignwords) word for identity is used. But using theword does not necessarily imply conceptualequivalence.

In Western psychology the body is viewed aspart of the identity. Body esteem is related toself-esteem, and people attribute more desirablecharacteristics to physically attractive persons.The vast majority of research on what constitutesphysical attractiveness has been conducted inWestern societies, but mostly in the UnitedStates, where physical attractiveness of womenis judged according to strict criteria. The generalidea is that a desirable appearance leads togreater self-esteem. In Japan, where peopleattribute success more to external than to internalsources, there is less emphasis on the body asa source of esteem (Kowner 2002). Confucianphilosophy suggests that in the developmentof self-esteem and happiness, external physicalappearance is less important than success insocial role performance (Prendergast, Leung,and West 2002). From a Western worldview,Unilever developed a worldwide “Campaign forReal Beauty” for its personal care brand Dove,showing ordinary women and saying that realbeauty can be found only on the inside; thatevery woman deserves to feel beautiful. Unileverpublished a study of women’s self-descriptionsand statements about physical attractiveness indifferent countries (Etcoff et al. 2006). Across10 countries (U.S., Canada, UK, Italy, France,Netherlands, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, andJapan) the percentages of women who findthemselves attractive correlate with individual-ism, low power distance, and low uncertaintyavoidance. The latter explains 78% of variance.This is the configuration of the Western worldwhere people are more preoccupied with theself. The opinion that the media better depictwomen of different shapes correlates with in-dividualism, explaining 53% of variance. Thisreflects individualistic values of uniqueness andvariety. In collectivistic cultures people preferto conform to others. This demonstrates thatopinions of female beauty and the importance

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Reb

ecca

Dav

is]

at 0

6:42

01

Aug

ust 2

011


of female attractiveness vary across cultures andin particular between East and West.

The consequences for the brand identity con-cept are that in individualistic cultures, brandshave to be unique and distinct with consistentcharacteristics, whereas in collectivistic culturesthe brand should be viewed as being part of alarger whole, a product of a trusted company.Whereas American companies have developedproduct brands with unique characteristics,Japanese companies have generally emphasizedthe corporate brand. In essence, this means in-spiring trust among consumers in a company andso persuading them to buy its products. Japaneseand Korean companies, in their television adver-tisements, display corporate identity logos morefrequently than U.S. and German companies do(Souiden, Kassim, and Hong 2006).

Attitude

Western consumer behaviorists tend to viewan attitude as a lasting, general evaluation of peo-ple (including oneself), objects, advertisements,or issues. In the Western definitions, attitudeshelp to organize and structure one’s environmentand to provide consistency in one’s frame of ref-erence. Individualists want consistency amongtheir attitudes, feelings, and behaviors. As aresult, under certain conditions, the behavior ofconsumers can be predicted from their attitudestoward products, services, and brands, and apurchase prediction is derived from a positiveattitude. In collectivistic cultures, however, thereis not a consistent relationship between attitudeand future behavior. It may even be a reverserelationship: Behavior (product usage) comesfirst and defines attitude (Chang and Chieng2006). This implies that measurement of attitudetoward the advertisement (Aad) for measuringadvertising effectiveness will not work the sameway in collectivistic cultures as it does inindividualistic cultures.

SOCIAL PROCESSES: MOTIVATIONAND EMOTION

Assumed universal emotions and consumermotives are fundamental to standardization deci-

sions, but both motives and emotions are culturebound. Understanding the variations of whatmotivates people is important for positioningbrands in different markets. Many motives arecategory bound, such as purity as a motive forfood and drink and status motives for luxurybrands, but the strength of such motives willvary across cultures (De Mooij 2004, 2010).Theories like those by Maslow or Freud reflectthe culture of origin of the designers of thesetheories (Hofstede 2001). More research shouldbe done to find different category motives andthe relationship with culture.

Emotion psychologists have argued that emo-tions are universal. An argument in favor ofuniversal basic emotions is that most languagespossess limited sets of central emotion-labelingwords, such as anger, fear, sadness, and joy.However, display and recognition of facial ex-pressions and intensity and meaning of emotionsvary and are culturally defined. Emotions are, forexample, more subdued in high power distance,and collectivistic cultures (Kagitcibasi 1997).East Asian collectivists try to display onlypositive emotions and tend to control negativeemotions. Probably this is the reason why, inemotion-recognition studies, Chinese people areless able to identify expressions of fear anddisgust (Wang et al. 2006). A comparison ofemotion expression across 32 countries showeda significant correlation with individualism foroverall emotion expressivity and in particularexpressing happiness and surprise (Matsumoto,Yoo, and Fontaine 2008). People also weigh fa-cial cues differently. When interpreting emotionsof others, the Japanese focus more on the eyes,whereas Americans focus on the mouth. Thisdifference may explain why emoticons differbetween Japan and the United States (Yuki,Maddux, and Masuda 2007). Researchers usingemoticons—assumed to be more neutral thanfaces of real people—should be aware of thesedifferences.

MENTAL PROCESSES

How people see, what they see and donot see, how they think, how language struc-tures their thinking, how they learn, and how

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Reb

ecca

Dav

is]

at 0

6:42

01

Aug

ust 2

011


people communicate are mental or cognitiveprocesses. Several of these processes are im-portant for advertising research. We discusscross-cultural studies of four cognitive pro-cesses: abstract versus concrete thinking, cate-gorization, information processing, and decisionmaking.

Abstract versus Concrete Thinking

Whereas in individualistic cultures brands aremade by adding values or abstract personalitytraits to products, members of collectivisticcultures are more interested in concrete productfeatures than in abstract brands because they areless used to conceptual thinking. For membersof collectivistic cultures, the brand concept istoo abstract to be discussed the way members ofindividualistic cultures do. The Reader’s DigestTrusted Brands survey of 2002 asked peoplein 18 different countries in Europe about theprobability of buying unknown brands. Theresponses “extremely/quite likely to considerbuying a brand which I’ve heard of but haven’ttried before” correlated significantly with in-dividualism (r = .82∗∗∗). Instead of addingabstract personal characteristics to the product,in collectivistic cultures the brand is linked toconcrete persons, in Japan called talents (Praet2008).

The unfamiliarity with abstract brand associ-ations leads to different results when measuringbrand equity of global brands across cultures. Animportant element of brand equity is consumerequity, which is measured in part by brand asso-ciations. Many of these associations are abstract.In this respect, Western measurement systemsare not adequate to measure global brand equity.Hsieh (2004) demonstrated that the brand valuecalculated based on brand associations for 19car brands in 16 countries varied significantly. InEurope, the average brand value of the 19 brandswas higher than in Asian countries. These dif-ferences appear to correlate with individualism(r = .68∗∗∗). Other studies confirm that differentcultural conditions lead consumers to differentbrand evaluations (Kocak, Abimbola, and Ozer2007).

Categorization

How people categorize other people andobjects varies with individualism/collectivism.Collectivists tend to pay attention to relation-ships between objects, whereas individualistscategorize objects according to rules and prop-erties (Choi, Nisbett, and Smith 1997). Chinesechildren will group items together that sharea relationship, whereas Canadian children willgroup items together that share a category(Unsworth, Sears, and Pexman 2005). Suchfindings explain variation of acceptance of brandextensions. American consumers view a brandextension of a different product category asnot fitting with the parent brand. However,collectivists view the parent brand in termsof the overall reputation of or trust in thecompany. So they perceive a higher degreeof brand extension fit also for extensions inproduct categories far from those associatedwith the parent brand than individualists would(Monga and Roedder John 2007). Differences incategorization also influence retail design, e.g.,how the merchandise is displayed (De Mooij2010).

Information Processing

How people acquire, organize, and utilizeinformation is related to how they have learnedto process information. People of collectivistichigh-context cultures, used to symbols, signs,and indirect communication, will process in-formation in a different way than people ofindividualistic, low-context cultures, who aremore verbally oriented and used to explana-tions, persuasive copy, and rhetoric. Membersof individualistic, low power distance and lowuncertainty avoidance cultures are verbal ori-ented; they read more books and newspapers.In 2007, strong uncertainty avoidance explained63% of variance of Europeans of 24 differentcountries who said they had never read abook in the past 12 months. Weak uncertaintyavoidance explained 63% of variance of thosesaying they had read five books in the last12 months (Eurobarometer 2007). During thepast half century circulation and readership ofnewspapers have been negatively correlated with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Reb

ecca

Dav

is]

at 0

6:42

01

Aug

ust 2

011


power distance and uncertainty avoidance (DeMooij 2010). Whereas in individualistic culturesof low power distance, people will activelyacquire information via the media and friendsto prepare for purchases, in collectivistic and/orhigh power distance cultures, people will acquireinformation more via implicit, interpersonalcommunication and base their buying decisionson feelings and trust in the company. Frequentsocial interaction causes an automatic flow ofcommunication between people, who as a resultacquire knowledge unconsciously (De Mooij2010). Information is like air: It is there; youdon’t search for it. A consumer survey byEurobarometer (2002) asked people to whatdegree they viewed themselves as well-informedconsumers. The answers “well-informed” corre-late with low power distance, low uncertaintyavoidance, and individualism, which explains53% of variance (De Mooij 2010). Cho andothers (1999) state that in China consumers relyon word of mouth communication because ofthe high contact rate among group members.Also the effect of online research on the brandchosen correlates with low power distance andlow uncertainty avoidance (Mediascope Europe2008). Answers to questions about how wellpeople think they are informed about all sorts ofissues follow this pattern. For example, the per-centages of respondents who feel well informedabout environmental issues across 23 countriesin Europe correlate with low power distance,individualism, and low uncertainty avoidance(Eurobarometer 2008). The percentages agree-ment with the statement “I feel well informedabout what is going on in politics and currentaffairs” are correlated with low power distance(r = –.57∗∗∗) and low uncertainty avoidance (r =–.51∗∗∗) (Eurobarometer 2005). So it basically isthe cultural configuration of individualism, lowpower distance and low uncertainty avoidance,which is the North-West of Europe and theAnglo-Saxon world where people consciouslysearch for information.

Models of how advertising works are basedon the assumption that information gathering isan important aspect that often comes first. TheFCB planning model suggests four sequencesin the process by which advertising influencesconsumers: (1) learn-feel-do, (2) feel-learn-do,

(3) do-learn-feel, and (4) do-feel-learn. Thefirst two sequences are related to high involve-ment; the third and fourth sequences are lowinvolvement. In none of these sequences “feel”comes first. Miracle (1987) argued that for theJapanese consumer, another sequence is valid:“feel-do-learn.” Japanese advertising is basedon building a relationship between the companyand the consumer. The purpose of Japaneseadvertising is to please the consumer and to buildamae (“dependency”), and this is done by theindirect approach. As a result, “feel” is the initialresponse of the Japanese consumer, after whichaction is taken: a visit to the shop to purchasethe product. Only after this comes knowledge.

Consumer Decision Making

The underlying thought of most Westernconsumer decision-making models is that allconsumers engage in shopping with certainfundamental decision-making modes or styles,including rational shopping and consciousnessregarding brand, price, and quality. The searchfor a universal instrument that can describeconsumers’ decision-making styles across cul-tures seems to be problematic. An approach thatfocuses on consumers’ orientations in makingdecisions is the consumer characteristics ap-proach by Sproles and Kendall (1986), whodeveloped an instrument to measure consumerdecision-making styles analogous to the person-ality traits concept, called the Consumer StyleInventory (CSI). This approach has been appliedto different cultures with varying results. Forexample, among Koreans (Hafstrom, Jung, andYoung 1992), the brand-conscious, perfectioniststyle was found most, and price-consciousnessand value for money were not found in Greeceand India (Lysonski, Durvasula, and Zotos1996).

CONSUMER BEHAVIOR DOMAINS

Several consumer behavior domains can bedistinguished. We cover some of the research forthe following domains: product ownership andusage, adoption and diffusion of innovations,and complaining behavior.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Reb

ecca

Dav

is]

at 0

6:42

01

Aug

ust 2

011


Product Ownership and Usage

Differences in consumption across countriesare quite stable. When measured across a mixof wealthy and poor countries often GNI/capitais an explaining variable, but when countriesconverge with respect to GNI/capita, consump-tion differences often can only be explained bycultural variables. Examples of culture-relateddifferences are for mineral water consumption,PC ownership, Internet access, ownership ofluxury goods, cars, and financial products.

From the early 1970s onward there has beena constant correlation between mineral waterconsumption and high uncertainty avoidance(De Mooij 2000, 2003, 2004; De Mooij andHofstede 2002). In Europe, with increasedwealth and improved quality of the tap water,the correlation has become more significant overtime. The relationship reflects a passive attitudeto health by focusing on purity in food anddrink, less physical exercise, higher expenditureson medical care, higher numbers of physiciansand pharmacies per 10,000 people, and moredoses of antibiotics consumed. Low uncertaintyavoidance cultures have a more active attitude tohealth by focusing on fitness and sports. Whenasked about their health they consider theirhealth to be very good, there are more membersof sports organizations, people spend more onsports services and play more sports as leisureactivity (De Mooij 2004, 117). Worldwide, PCownership is a matter of wealth, but acrosswealthy countries it is related to low uncertaintyavoidance (World Bank 2008). From the start,access to the Internet has been related to lowuncertainty avoidance, and there is little change.Data of 2007 (Eurobarometer) still show thisrelationship. However, several data show thatheavy usage of the Internet and usage for leisurepurposes are explained by low masculinity (DeMooij 2010). Ownership of luxury goods likeexpensive watches and jewelry is related tomasculinity, and this relationship is stable overtime. In 2007 (Synovate 2008) the percentageof business people who reported the main watchthey owned cost more than €750 correlated withmasculinity, and so did the percentage of thosewho bought jewelry over €1.500 in the past year.Similar correlations were found 10 years earlier

(De Mooij 2010). Car ownership is related towealth, but across wealthy countries the numberof passenger cars per 1000 people (WorldBank 2006) is related to individualism. For 48countries worldwide GNI/capita explains 72%of variance, but for 25 countries with GNI/capitaover U.S. $20,000, individualism explains 37%of variance. Also financial products vary byculture. More life insurance policies, for exam-ple, are sold in individualistic cultures than incollectivistic cultures. In the former, should onedie early, one cannot count on family to supportone’s dependents (Chui and Kwok 2008). Thereis no relationship with uncertainty avoidance,which confirms that uncertainty avoidance is notthe same as risk avoidance.

Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations

Uncertainty avoidance explains differences inthe adoption of innovations (Tellis, Stremerschand Yin 2003; Yeniurt and Townsend 2003).Rogers (1983) identified five categories of con-sumers according to the degree of acceptanceof new products. The combined percentages ofInnovators and Early Adopters represented 16%of the American population. Steenkamp (2002)found data for Europe that showed that this groupin the United Kingdom represented 23.8%, inFrance 15.1%, in Germany 16.8%, in Spain8.9%, and in Italy 13.4%. These percentagescorrelate negatively with uncertainty avoidanceand positively with individualism.

Complaining Behavior

Because of harmony needs, collectivistic con-sumers are relatively loyal and are less likely tovoice complaints when they experience postpur-chase problems, but they do engage in negativeword of mouth to in-group members. There isevidence that compared with Australians, theChinese are less likely to lodge a formal com-plaint for a faulty product (Lowe, Chun-Tung,and Corkindale 1998). When collectivists doexit, it is particularly difficult for the offendingsupplier to regain them as customers (Watkinsand Liu 1996).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Reb

ecca

Dav

is]

at 0

6:42

01

Aug

ust 2

011


CONCLUSION

An increasing body of knowledge is avail-able that helps explain differences in consumerbehavior across culture. This article revieweda number of studies of basic cross-culturaldifferences. When designing global marketing,branding, and advertising strategies companiesignore these at their peril. Cultural models havebeen developed that explain differences andhelp develop strategies that target consumersacross cultures more effectively. This articledemonstrated how the Hofstede model can beused for this purpose.

NOTES

1. Regression analysis is stepwise. The coefficient ofdetermination or R2 is the indicator of the percentage ofvariance explained. For correlation analysis, the Pearsonproduct-moment correlation coefficient is used. Correlationanalysis is one-tailed. Significance levels are indicated by∗p <.05; ∗∗p <.01; and ∗∗∗p <.005.

2. Crocus (Cross-Cultural Solutions) 2004 refers to anunpublished cross-cultural study that measured brand value(called “brand pull”) and provided a cultural explanationof strong or weak brand value in different countries. It wasconducted by the research agency chain Euronet, in co-operation with the advertising agency chain Interpartners.

REFERENCES

Aaker, J. L., V. Benet-Martınez, and J. Garolera. 2001.Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: A studyof Japanese and Spanish brand personality con-structs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology81:492–508. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.492.

Belk, R. W. 1984. Cultural and historical differences inconcepts of self and their effects on attitudes towardhaving and giving. In Advances in consumer research,ed. T. C. Kinnear, 753–760. Provo, UT: Association forConsumer Research.

Chang, P. L., and M. H. Chieng. 2006. Buildingconsumer-brand relationship: A cross-cultural expe-riental view. Psychology and Marketing 23 (11):927–959. doi:10.1002/mar.20140.

Cheung, F. M., S. F. Cheung, J. Zhang, K. Leung, F.Leong, and K. H. Yeh. 2008. Relevance for open-ness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 39 (1): 81–108.doi:10.1177/0022022107311968.

Cho, B., U. Kwon, J. W. Gentry, S. Jun, and F. Kropp.1999. Cultural values reflected in theme and execution:A comparative study of U.S. and Korean televisioncommercials. Journal of Advertising 28 (4): 60–73.

Choi, I., R. E. Nisbett, and E. E. Smith. 1997. Culture,category salience, and inductive reasoning. Cognition65:15–32. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00034-6.

Chui, A. C. W., and C. C. Y. Kwok. 2008. Na-tional culture and life insurance consumption. Jour-nal of International Business Studies 39:88–101.doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400316.

Church, A. T., M. S. Katigbat, A. M. Del Prado, F. A. Ortiz,K. A. Mastor, Y. Harumi, J. Tanaka-Matsumi et al. 2006.Implicit theories and self-perceptions of traitednessacross cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology37 (6): 694–716. doi:10.1177/0022022106292078.

De Mooij, M. 2000. Viewpoint. The future is pre-dictable for international marketers. Converging in-comes lead to diverging consumer behaviour. In-ternational Marketing Review 17 (2): 103–113.doi:10.1108/02651330010322598.

De Mooij, M. 2003. Convergence and divergence inconsumer behavior: Implications for global advertis-ing. International Journal of Advertising 22:183–202.doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00067-7.

De Mooij, M. 2004. Consumer behavior and culture:Consequences for global marketing and advertising.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

De Mooij, M. 2010. Global marketing and advertising:Understanding cultural paradoxes. 3rd ed. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

De Mooij, M., and G. Hofstede. 2002. Convergence anddivergence in consumer behavior: Implications forinternational retailing. Journal of Retailing 78:61–69.doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00067-7.

Etcoff, N., S. Orbach, J. Scott, and H. D’Agostino.2006. Beyond stereotypes: Rebuilding the foundationof beauty beliefs. Findings of the 2005 Dove GlobalStudy.

Eurobarometer. 2000. How Europeans see themselves.Brussels, Belgium: European Commission Directorate.

Eurobarometer. 2002. Consumer survey. Flash Eurobarom-eter 117. Brussels, Belgium: European CommissionDirectorate.

Eurobarometer. 2005. Social values, science, and tech-nology. Eurobarometer EBS 225. Brussels, Belgium:European Commission Directorate.

Eurobarometer. 2007. European cultural values. Euro-barometer EBS 278. Brussels, Belgium: EuropeanCommission Directorate.

Eurobarometer. 2008. Attitudes of European citizens to-ward the environment. Special Eurobarometer 295.Brussels, Belgium: European Commission Directorate.

Eurostat. 2002. How Europeans spend their time. Brussels:European Commission.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Reb

ecca

Dav

is]

at 0

6:42

01

Aug

ust 2

011


Foscht, T., C. Maloles III, B. Swoboda, D. Morschett,and I. Sinha. 2008. The impact of culture on brandperception: A six-nation study. Journal of Product andBrand Management 17 (3): 131–142.

Ger, G, and R. W. Belk. 1996. Cross-cultural differ-ences in materialism. Journal of Economic Psychology17:55–77. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(95)00035-6.

Hafstrom, J. L., S. C. Jung, and S. C. Young. 1992. Con-sumer decision-making styles: Comparison betweenUnited States and Korean young consumers. Journalof Consumer Affairs 26:146–158.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences. 2nd ed. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. 2007. A European in Asia. Asian Journalof Social Psychology 10:16–21. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2006.00206.x.

Hofstede, G., and R. R. McCrae. 2004. Personalityand culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensionsof culture. Cross-Cultural Research 38 (1): 52–88.doi:10.1177/1069397103259443.

Hsieh, M. H. 2004. Measuring global brand equityusing cross-national survey data. Journal of Inter-national Marketing 12 (2): 28–57. doi:10.1509/jimk.12.2.28.32897.

Jowell, R., and the Central Co-ordinating Team. 2003.European Social Survey 2002/2003: Technical Report.London: Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, CityUniversity.

Kagitcibasi, C. 1997. Individualism and collectivism. InHandbook of cross-cultural psychology, vol. 3, ed. J. W.Berry, M. H. Segall, and C. Kagitcibasi, 23. Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Kashima, Y., E. S. Kashima, U. Kim, and M. Gelfand.2005. Describing the social world: How is a person,a group, and a relationship described in the East andthe West? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology42:388–396. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.05.004.

Kocak, A., T. Abimbola, and A. Ozer. 2007. Consumerbrand equity in a cross-cultural replication: An evalu-ation of a scale. Journal of Marketing Management 23(1–2): 157–173. doi:10.1362/026725707×178611.

Kowner, R. 2002. Japanese body image: Structureand esteem scores in a cross-cultural perspective.International Journal of Psychology 37:149–159.doi:10.1080/00207590143000298.

Lowe, A., A. Chun-Tung, and D. R. Corkindale. 1998.Differences in “cultural values” and their effects onresponses to marketing stimuli: A cross-cultural studybetween Australians and Chinese from the People’sRepublic of China. European Journal of Marketing32:843–867. doi:10.1108/03090569810232291.

Lysonski, S., S. Durvasula, and Y. Zotos. 1996. Con-sumer decision-making styles: A multi-country inves-tigation. European Journal of Marketing 30:10–21.doi:10.1108/03090569610153273.

Manrai, L. A., and A. K. Manrai. 1996. Current issuesin cross-cultural and cross-national consumer research.

In Global perspectives in cross-cultural and cross-national consumer research, ed. L. A. Manrai andA. K. Manrai, 13. New York: International BusinessPress/Haworth Press.

Markus, H. R., and S. Kitayama. 1991. Culture andthe self: Implications for cognition, emotion andmotivation. Psychological Review 98 (6): 224–253.doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224.

Matsumoto, D., S. H. Yoo, and J. Fontaine. 2008. Mappingexpressive differences around the world: The relation-ship between emotional display rules and individualismversus collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-ogy 39 (1): 55–74. doi:10.1177/0022022107311854.

McCrae, R. R. 2002. NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Fur-ther intercultural comparisons. In The five-factor modelof personality across cultures, ed. A. J. Marsella andR. R. McCrae, 105–125. Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Kluwer.

Mediascope Europe. 2008. Online shoppers. London:European Interactive Advertising Association.

Miracle, G. E. 1987. Feel-do-learn: An alternative sequenceunderlying Japanese consumer response to televisioncommercials. In The Proceedings of the 1987 Confer-ence of the American Academy of Advertising, USA, ed.F. Feasley, R73–R78.

Monga, A. B., and D. Roedder John. 2007. Cultural differ-ences in brand extension evaluation: The influence ofanalytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of ConsumerResearch 33:529–536. doi:10.1086/510227.

Nezlek, J. B., K. Kafetsios, and V. Smith. 2008.Emotions in everyday social encounters. Journalof Cross-Cultural Psychology 39 (4): 366–372.doi:10.1177/0022022108318114.

Norenzayan, A., I. Choi, and R. E. Nisbett. 2002. Cul-tural similarities and differences in social inference:Evidence from behavioral predictions and lay theoriesof behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin28:109–120. doi:10.1177/0146167202281010.

Praet, C. L. C. 2008. The influence of national culture onthe use of celebrity endorsement in television adver-tising: A multi-country study. Proceedings of the 7thInternational Conference on Research in Advertising(ICORIA), Antwerp, Belgium, s.1., CD-ROM.

Prendergast, G., K. Y. Leung, and D. C. West. 2002. Roleportrayal in advertising and editorial content, and eatingdisorders: An Asian perspective. International Journalof Advertising 21:237–258.

Rogers, E. M. 1983. Diffusion of innovations. 3rd ed. NewYork: The Free Press.

Schmitt, D. P., J. Allik, R. R. McCrae, and V. Benet-Martınez. 2007. The geographic distribution of big fivepersonality traits. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology38 (2): 173–212. doi:10.1177/0022022106297299.

Souiden, N., N. M. Kassim, and H. J. Hong. 2006. Theeffect of corporate branding dimensions on consumers’product evaluation, a cross-cultural analysis. EuropeanJournal of Marketing 40 (7/8): 825–845.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Reb

ecca

Dav

is]

at 0

6:42

01

Aug

ust 2

011


Sproles, G. B., and E. L. Kendall. 1986. A methodologyfor profiling consumer decision making styles. Journalof Consumer Affairs 20:267–279.

Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. 2002. Global consumers. Paperpresented November 17 at Tilburg University, based onConsumer and market drivers of the trial probability ofnew consumer packaged goods. Working paper, TilburgUniversity.

Sung, Y., and S. F. Tinkham. 2005. Brand personalitystructures in the United States and Korea: Com-mon and culture-specific factors. Journal of Con-sumer Psychology 15 (4): 334–350. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1504 8.

Synovate. 2008. European media and marketing survey.2008. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Author.

Tardiff, T., P. Fletcher, W. Liang, Z. Zhang, N. Kaciroti, andV. A. Marchman. 2008. Baby’s first ten words. Devel-opment Psychology 44 (4): 929–938. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.4.929.

Taylor, C. R., and S. Okazaki. 2006. Who standard-izes advertising more frequently, and why do theydo so? A comparison of U.S. and Japanese sub-sidiaries’ advertising practices in the European Union.Journal of International Marketing 14 (1): 98–120.doi:10.1509/jimk.14.1.98.

Tellis, G. J., S. Stremersch, and E. Yin. 2003. The interna-tional take-off of new products: The role of economics,culture, and country innovativeness. Marketing Science22 (2): 188–208. doi:10.1287/mksc.22.2.188.16041.

Triandis, H. C. 1995. Individualism and collectivism.Boulder, CO: Westview.

Unsworth, S. J., C. R. Sears, and P. M. Pexman. 2005.Cultural influences on categorization processes. Jour-nal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36 (6): 662–688.doi:10.1177/0022022105280509.

Wang, K., R. Hoosain, T. M. C. Lee, Y. Meng, J.Fu, and R. Yang. 2006. Perception of six basicemotional facial expressions by the Chinese. Jour-

nal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 37 (6): 623–629.doi:10.1177/0022022106290481.

Watkins, D., A. Akande, J. Fleming, M. Ismail, K. Lefner,M. Regmi, S. Watson et al. 1998. Cultural dimensions,gender, and the nature of self-concept: A fourteen-country study. International Journal of Psychology33:17–31. doi:10.1080/002075998400583.

Watkins, H. S., and R. Liu. 1996. Collectivism, in-dividualism, and in-group membership: Implicationsfor consumer complaining behaviors in multiculturalcontexts. In Global perspectives in cross-cultural andcross-national consumer research, ed. L. A. Manrai andA. K. Manrai, 69–96. New York/London: InternationalBusiness Press/Haworth Press.

World Bank. 2006. World development indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators.

World Bank. 2008. Table 5.11: The information age.In 2008 World development indicators, 308–311.Washington, DC: Author. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/T5 112008.pdf.

Yeniurt, S., and J. D. Townsend. 2003. Does cultureexplain acceptance of new products in a country?International Marketing Review 20 (4): 377–396.doi:10.1108/02651330310485153.

Yuki, M., W. W. Maddux, and T. Masuda. 2007. Are thewindows to the soul the same in the East and West?Cultural differences in using the eyes and mouth ascues to recognize emotions in Japan and the UnitedStates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology43:303–311. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.004.

RECEIVED: April 12, 2009REVISED: October 10, 2009

ACCEPTED: November 26, 2010

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Reb

ecca

Dav

is]

at 0

6:42

01

Aug

ust 2

011

Cross Cultural Consumer Behavior

Documents

Transcript of Cross Cultural Consumer Behavior