i

KASSEL UNIVERSITY

Affinity: validation of scale and experiment in socio-managerial context.

Exposé of Master thesis

By

Hadrien BURET

Department of Economy

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of

European Master Business Studies

Date: October 2014

Accepted by the Kassel University

___________, _______________________

Date, Dean of the Kassel University

ii

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to contribute to the study of affinity toward

a country and to evaluate to what extend the affinity scale can be used in the

interpersonal communication context.

Design/methodology/approach: I modify a framework based on a previous paper

using different scales to evaluate the different variables (affinity, uncertainty,

anxiety, willingness to interact). In order to confirm or infirm it, I have chosen a

quantitative method. I will proceed with a pre-test to see if the questionnaire is

working. Then I will make it available online in order to collect the data. I will

check the validity of scale and confront the result to my framework.

Findings:

Originality/value: I follow the recommendation of the literature by extending the

concept of affinity to managerial practices and particularly valid in HR

management. I contribute to the field by testing and certifying the validity of the

scale at an international level.

Keywords: Affinity, Closeness, Anxiety, Uncertainty, UAM theory

iii

Table of contents

Chapter Page

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................... vi

CHAPTER I: Introduction ................................................................... 1

CHAPTER II: Background and Literature Review .................. 3

Affinity .............................................................................................................. 3

Background theory and related concept to affinity .................. 5

Uncertainty ...................................................................................................... 9

Anxiety ........................................................................................................... 12

Table literature review of major findings ...................................... 19

Theoretical framework and variables .............................................. 24

Problem statement: ................................................................................ 24

Research question .................................................................................. 25

Hypotheses ................................................................................................. 26

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY....................................................... 33

Setting: ........................................................................................................ 33

Participants: ......................................... Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

Measurement instruments: ............... Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

Software for online survey:.............. Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

Data analysis:........................................ Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

iv

Content: .................................................... Hata! Yer işareti tanımlanmamış.

Work plan ............................................................................................... 35

Overview of chapters .......................................................................... 36

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................... 38

v

LIST OF TABLES

List of Tables Page

Table 1 Literature review ................................................................ 19

Table 2 Work plan .............................................................................. 35

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

List of Tables Page

Figure 1 Anxiety, Uncertainty, Adaptation, Gudykunst and Hammer,

1988 ....................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 2 theoretical frameworks ......................................................................... 26

1

CHAPTER I: Introduction

Since a long time researchers have recognized and established constructs

inhibiting international business. Consumer ethnocentrism, (Shimp &Sharma,

1987), where individuals tend to view their group as superior to others, they

believe that buying foreign products hurts the domestic economy and national

employment. Animosity, (Klein, Jill, Ettenson & Morris 1998), refers to

remnants of antipathy, or hostility towards a country. Jung, Ang, Leon,

Pornpitakpan, & Kau, (2002) suggest a typology of animosity categorized by two

dimensions; personal–national and stable–situational.

However the positive impact of perceived foreignness is less studied in

an international business environment. In 2008 Oberecker, Riefler, and

Diamantopoulos introduce the term of affinity and define it as:

” A feeling of liking, sympathy, and even attachment toward a specific

foreign country that has become an in-group, as a result of the consumer’s direct

personal experience and or normative exposure and that positively affects the

consumer’s decision making associated with products and services originating

from the affinity country”.

Three years later Oberecker and Diamantopoulos, (2011), conceptualized

affinity as “a two dimensional second-order construct” and gave to it two sub-

contents, sympathy and attachment that are two emotions capturing low positive

affect. From this point the concept of affinity is not anymore just a set of

dimensions but a higher-order construct where the dimensions (here sympathy

and attachment) are coming from an underlying latent variable. Doing so, the

authors distinguished affinity from other concept related, such as xenophilia,

(Perlmutter, 1954) and internationalism

(Kosterman and Feshbach, 1989)

In 2014 a measurement scale, (Nes, Yelkur & Silkoset, 2014), indicate that

affinity is based on a reflexive model which explains 89% of the variance of

2

affinity. The authors conclude that affinity is a construct as high as animosity

which literature gave more attention.

The main focus of the previous studies was to identify that affinity was a

factor of buying intention but authors have come with more suggestion for future

researches, (Oberecker et al 2011, Nes et al., 2014). For future research, (Nes et

al., 2014) indicate the potential of such a construct in the international

management context. We decided to follow his suggestion.

Gudykunst and Hammer (1988) linked uncertainty reduction

theory, with the concept of anxiety reduction, to explain intercultural adaptation

and willingness to interact in an intercultural communication context. They argue

that adaptation come through the reduction of uncertainty and the reduction of

anxiety.

Affinity can reduce both uncertainty and anxiety and therefore is

positively related to adaptation and willingness to interact.

The thesis will test this assumption and will evaluate the affinity scale for this

specific purpose.

In order to do that, a quantitative method is adopted. The questionnaire

will be distributed through Internet.

The exposé proceeds as follow. Firstly a literature reviews of the affinity,

the uncertainty and the anxiety concept. Secondly I present a framework

modified from a pre-existing framework. In a third part I present my hypotheses

and the methodology chosen.

3

CHAPTER II: Background and Literature Review

In this section, I review the consumer affinity and its related construct. Then I

point out at the gaps in the literature.

Affinity

The word affinity comes from the Latin expression “affinitas”, meaning,

related and connected; the oxford English dictionary online define it as the

“Liking for or attraction to a person or thing”.

In French “affinité” means today conformity and harmony in taste.

(Larousse, 2014), the Merriam-webster defines affinity as “a feeling of closeness

and understanding that someone has for another person because of their similar

qualities, ideas, or interests”.

Based on the definition, affinity being a feeling, is not conceptually a

cognitively based concept such as, the macro image construct which Martin &

Eroglu (1993) define as “the total of all descriptive, inferential and informational

beliefs an individual has about a country” or the more specific (micro) country

image construct that captures “the overall perception consumers form of products

from a particular country” (Roth and Romeo 1992, p. 480).

In the literature, the term “affinity” has been used in various concepts

distinct from the consumer affinity for a foreign country. Woo, Fock & Hui,

(2006), introduce affinity marketing, being the conformity of a particular group,

and setting up references for norms and standards to compare other groups.

Before that, Swift (1999) spoke about cultural affinity as being a cultural

liking creating bonds between an individual and another culture and therefore

reducing the psychic distance between his culture and the foreign one. Holden

and Burgess (1994) define psychic distance as the sum of cultural distance, plus

mistrust plus social distance and psychic closeness being its opposite. Affinity

has been used more recently; Kupka, Everett & Cathro, (2008), introduced the

term of affinity in intercultural communication and developed a scale to assess

4

expatriates’ affective fit in their host countries. They concluded that affinity was

positively related to the fit of expatriates in their host countries.

The last article about affinity was published in 2014, written by Nes, Erik Bertin,

Yelkur, Rama and Silkoset, Ragnhild. They seek to extend affinity theory in

construct domain, scale development, model testing and by discerning affinity

and animosity.

They discussed the fact that affinity was a pure affective construct and

based their article and research on the cognitive appraisal theory (CAT),

Ellsworth &Scherer, (2003).

The principal of CAT is that emotions are coming from an evaluation

(cognitive process) of the event and the situation, (Roseman & Smith, 2001;

Siemer, Gross, & Mauss, 2007). In the case of the affinity construct it has to

do with the dimension (drivers) of the construct, they suppose that for a same

event, in their case a political one, one individual can have a better appraisal than

another and therefore be more optimistic in its grading.

They found that affinity was linked with actual ownership; in their study

people having an American car had a more positive opinion toward America than

the one who didn’t possess one. That means that affinity has an impact on and by

the consumption and is influential in terms of behavior.

They clarified the two concepts of affinity and animosity by saying that

they were distinct and not bipolar. Finally, they bring up the scale to measure the

affinity, which is divided into 5 aspects: Affinity, culture and landscapes, music

and entertainment, people and politics.

5

Background theory and related concept to affinity

Social Identity theory (SIT)

The authors working on affinity, (Oberecker et al., 2008), (Oberecker et

al 2011), (Nes et al., 2014), refer to the SIT of Tajfel (1982) as the theoretical

roots of consumer affinity. This theory is important and terms will come back

along the present paper.

The theory looks at how people categorize them selves into various social

categories. It draws a line between two groups: in-groups and out-groups, where

in-groups are which the individual identifies [and belong] and out-groups are

which the individual does not have a sense of belonging and which are considered

as different to the in-groups (Tajfel, 1982).

Mael, (1988) gives to social classification two main functions. In one

hand give sense to the social environment by segmenting and ordering it. The

segmentation allows the individual to know in which category other individuals

belong. In the other hand, it gives the location of where the individual is situated

in the social environment.

This theory presents the “self” as a multiple layered identity formed of

different widening circles of groups of membership. In a given context an

individual may feel, think and act based on a different level of self. E.g., (Tajfel

& Turner, 1985), The category of young is meaningful only in relation to the

category of old. If there is no old then the distinction stops and another point of

segregation appears.

In this paragraph, we will present few facts concerning the process of

identification from the paper written by Ashforth & Mael, (1989). The

identification or the segmentation is mainly a cognitive process, the individual

must only perceive to construct the segmentation. Affect and behavior can rise in

certain situation where for example comparing the amount of effort (behavior) or

the loyalty (affect) for a group. A second important point is that identification

with a group or with a person are comparable processes. However the

6

identification with a group is search for self-definition (see above) and the

identification with a person is a search to gain the qualities of the other person,

e.g.: “to be like”. Others studies have focused on how individuals were

perceiving differently individuals and groups. Susskind, Maurer,Thakkar,

Hamilton & Sherman, (1999).

To make the link with affinity we can recall few facts. Nes et al., (2014), suppose

that people who develop affinity for a certain country “may do so because they

identify with the country’s culture”, and consider the country group as one of

their in-group, Druckman (1994). Jaffe & Nebenzahl (2006) let us understand

that consumer affinity is an attitude. Attitude theory defines attitude as “a learned

predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with

respect to a given object” (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975, p. 6).

Consumer affinity is therefore a positive attitude toward a specific foreign

country that might affect individual behaviors, such as intentions to consume

products, brands, and services from the affinity country, (Jaffe & Nebenzahl,

2006). Oberecker et al, (2008) back up this idea saying that the consumer affinity

construct captures influences that are not product related and can affect buying

decisions directly and independently of product judgments.

Such attitudes can be explained thanks to historical facts, contact (family

relations, friendship, travel). These are one’s own affinities and are based on the

individual unique experience, Verlegh (2001). In opposition there is the

normative affinity that affect a large number of people and is founded on cultural

influences and can be manifested at a national level, Razov (2004).

In the literature more attention had been given to animosity, a marketing

concept introduced by Klein et al., (1998) and defined it as “remnants of

antipathy related to previous or ongoing military, political or economic events”.

Riefler & Diamantopoulos (2007) wrote a literature review on the concept

proving the interest given to the concept. Jung et al., (2002) and Ang et al., (2004)

7

have developed taxonomy of animosities, contrasting between stable and

situational and between national and personal. In term of measurement, the

concept is also considered as a higher construct; it is represented as a latent

variable, Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2007). To finish with the SIT we can

briefly speak about ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism construct is an in-group

favoritism but the literature suggests that people might be positively disposed

toward specific out-groups, Druckman (1994). On the other hand xenocentrism,

is an out-group favoritism, it is the view that a group other than one’s own is the

center of everything and that all others (Kent & Burnight, 1951; Perlmutter,

1954). Consumer affinity does not imply that the foreign country is the center of

reference nor does it mean that the other country is preferred as the home country.

Macro image of a country

The question of the country image has been mainly studied through the Country

of origin effect phenomenon. This stream was and is still prolific. The country

image has been defined by Allred, Chakraborty, & Miller (1999) as “a generic

construct consisting of generalized images created not only by representative

products but also by the degree of economic and political maturity, historical

events and relationships, culture and traditions, and the degree of

technological virtuosity and industrialization”. This definition is descriptive

and therefore gives more importance to the cognitive process but as we saw in

the concept of affinity, the affect has an a great importance as well. This is

supported by Askegaard & Ger, (1998) who mention the affect (emotions and

feelings) as being a component of country image aside.

8

Stereotypes

In this section, the introduction of stereotypes seems necessary, to have the right

mindset during the data evaluation. It will remains an introduction and doesn’t

pretend to be an exhaustive literature review on the subject. Lippmann, (1922)

was the first author to use the term of stereotype. He defined it as the “people’s

beliefs about social groups”. Research over the time found cognitive processes

that lead people to exaggerate the real differences between the groups,

(Campbell, 1967). This creates a lack of objectivity and rationality in the

judgment. Stereotypes have been studied in different situation evaluating

different criteria such as national character.

This last notion could be broadly defined as “the wide range of characteristics,

including intelligence, appearance, food preferences, and athletic abilities « here

following the proposition of Ibrahim, Manaf, Kit, Tamam, Hilmi, & Darman,

(2010).

Concerning the accuracy of the stereotypes, which is the extend the beliefs hold

towards a group are accurate compare to the actual characteristics of the group.

In this domain Surowiecki, (2004) speaks about the “wisdom of crowds” to

represent the consensual stereotypes. He argues that stereotypes shared by a large

population shall be more accurate than the one personally hold. Stereotypes on

age have been seen as accurate, (Jussim, 2012), however, Terraciano & al.,

(2005) conclude in their study that stereotypes concerning national character

criteria are not accurate except at one exception, the Poles.

In short terms, stereotypes affects our behavior our rationality and therefore our

answers. Even if the present study doesn’t aims at looking at the stereotypes

toward one nation, it was important to introduce this notion in the present study,

as the participants will have to answer questions according to a specific country.

9

I suppose that the affinity for a specific country can be a moderator/driver

to adaptation and willingness to interact and that it can reduce the anxiety and the

perceived uncertainty during interpersonal encounter. In the next part of the

exposé, I will present two notions, uncertainty and anxiety. These two

dimensions will be then used in or framework, it is therefore important to discuss

them prior the explanation of the studies. Moreover that have been thoroughly

discussed in the literature.

Uncertainty

Uncertainty is presented as a “cognitive phenomenon that comes when

there is a lack of predictability”, (Gudykunst, 2005). In intercultural encounters,

uncertainty in this kind of encounters encompasses two phenomena, (Berger &

Calabrese, 1975): first, the ability to accurately predict how strangers will behave

during an encounter and secondly, the ability to explain strangers’ behavior.

In intercultural meetings, individuals have different reaction facing

uncertainty; they can see it as interesting and challenging (positive evaluation).

They can be curious to have contact with members from different cultures. Other

or the same individuals in other contexts might perceive uncertainty in

intercultural interactions as threatening, and might therefore avoid intercultural

contact. (Samochowiec and Florack, 2010). Gudykunst, (2005), expresses

uncertainty as being the inability to predict attitudes, feelings, beliefs, values held

by strangers.

10

Uncertainty reduction theory

Berger & Calabrese, (1975), developed uncertainty reduction theory to

relate how interactions start between two strangers from the same in-group,

(culture). At first the individual is force to make prediction on how the other one

will behave and to adapt its own behavior according to the prediction he chose to

be the more likely realized. The individual is in a proactive mindset. The

individuals attempt to reduce uncertainty about others when they provide

rewards, act in a deviant manner, or will be encountered in the future. Second

there is the retroactive process, it happens during the encounter or after and is

recognized often when one wonders: “ I wonder what he/she meant by this ?”

The individual is then looking for explanation and clues. Lalljee and Cook (1973)

support that uncertainty is reducing according to the time, the more people tend

to exchange and the longer is the conversation, the least the uncertainty become.

The authors suggest that uncertainty is related to the intensity of verbal

communication.

Berger & Calabrese, (1975), add that the place of encounter can play a role in

moderating the uncertainty, the authors take the example of an encounter taking

place in a street (impersonal) and a political rally (give guidance to political

opinion). In the second case the persons will assume that they have some

common trait and maybe can launch discussion on the candidate.

Then successive studies (Gudykunst, 1983; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1985)

suggest that the theory could be extended to initial encounters between strangers

that is to say an encounter in-group/ out-group (in this cases, Japan and the United

States).

For scholars such as (Hogg, 2000) uncertainty reduction is a “basic

motivation (motivational theory) that urges individuals to compare and affiliate

with others in other, to simplify their view and understanding”. This is in

alignment with the Social identity theory.

11

Communication theory presents communication as a tool to reduce

uncertainty, at the same time, a certain amount of certainty is needed otherwise

the communication can be ineffective and aversive and push individual try to stop

contact by boredom, (Berger, 1987).

Of course, people don’t react the same way facing uncertainty and don’t

have the same tolerance. Van der Zee et al. (2004) proposed that personality

attribute like cultural empathy and open-mindedness determine people’ appraisal

of uncertainty in intercultural situations as threatening or challenging and

therefore can determine their responses. The authors used in their paper the

MQP’s (Multicultural Personality Questionnaire) dimensions. The questionnaire

is divided into five dimensions. First, the cultural empathy refers to the ability to

empathize with members from another culture. Second, the Open-mindedness

refers to adaptation to the rules and values of a new culture. Fourth, the social

initiative refers to the ability to act proactively in social encounters. Fifth, the

emotional stability refers to ability to remain calm in stressfull situation. We will

see later the uncertainty and anxiety management theory. Finally, flexibility is

refers to the ability to see unknown situation as attractive opportunities.

This questionnaire is of useful to evaluate the behavior of this person

facing uncertainty and anxiety. However in our study, based on an online-

questionnaire, the time of completion would be too-long and the risk of

unfinished survey might be to important.

On a physiologic and physical point of view, individuals respond to uncertainty

in different manners according to how positively they perceive the situation. This

physiologic point of view will be considered more thoroughly with in the anxiety

part. (Blascovich et Tomaka, 1996).

12

Anxiety

The literature covering anxiety is wide, covering thematic from the

neuroscience to the sociologic point of view this topic as been screened under a

lot of different aspects.

Anxiety is defined by the encyclopedia Britannica as: “An abnormal and

overwhelming sense of apprehension and fear often marked by physiological

signs (as sweating, tension, and increased pulse), by doubt concerning the reality

and nature of the threat, and by self-doubt about one's capacity to cope with it “

Anxiety has physical and physiological symptoms (called somatic) due to

autonomic arousal (accelerating breath, sweating) and psychological symptoms

including apprehension and restlessness.

Mathews (1990) argues that anxiety is a cognitive process, which has for effect

to maintain a high level of vigilance. The authors link the term of anxiety to the

one of worrying. He is arguing that no clear definition can distinguish between

worrying and anxiety.

According to the American psychiatic association, (1987), an individual

suffering from anxiety demonstrates “unrealistic or excessive worry”.

The difference amongst individual can be explained through three different

possibilities. Firstly, their sensitivity to interpret and recognized the existence of

future threats. Secondly anxious individual deviate into emotionally charged

interpretation, it can be considered as a bias where the individual favours the

catastrophic interpretation. Finally Eysenck (1985) says that individual who

worries more are developing long-term memory “worry related” network that are

activated once potential threats are detected.

Anxiety has been expressed through the terror management theory,

where threats increase the awareness of one’s finiteness or mortality. The

theory assumes that we have instinct that pushes us to survive. However the

combination of this instinct and the consciousness of threats create anxiety.

(Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynsky, 1997)

13

Samochowiec and Florack, (2010) define two types of anxiety, the first

one being the integral anxiety in intercultural encounters which is the anxiety

associated with the interaction with a member from a different cultural group (in-

group meet out-group).

In contrast, incidental anxiety is anxiety that arises for reasons not related

to the intercultural encounters, but is carried over into the intercultural setting.

This means that it impacts the overall anxiety of the individual during the

meeting. (Samochowiec and Florack, 2010).

The authors concluded that both uncertainty lead to avoidance in every

case but only when a certain amount of anxiety is reached (incidental anxiety).

Their study highlighted the fact that anxiety was moderating the effect of

uncertainty on avoidance of intercultural encounters.

In our study we won’t take into account the incidental anxiety due to the context

of the questionnaire.

Another interesting point of view of anxiety is the social anxiety (Hong

& Woody, 2007). It covers the feeling of uneasiness that arise when an individual

interact with others and anticipate the negative output of the situation, for

example being judged badly. The authors highlight that social anxiety occurs

when the situation is meaningful, where a gain of social success or failure can be

detected. In this context, culture contribute to the intensity of social anxiety by

framing the sense of social self and by setting the expectations of appropriate and

successful social behavior. In their paper, Hong & Woody, (2007) give the

example of western social norms and Asian social norms. In one hand the first

pushes to self-promotion and refuse submissiveness. Giving these norms, a

person not able to follow these norms will seem more passive and weak through

her/his behavior and become anxious. In the other hand, the Asian social norms

promote less dominant behavior. The same person’ behavior would in this

14

situation seems particularly fine. Social anxiety is therefore subject to the

environment and the culture frame.

Gudykunst and Hammer (1988) linked uncertainty reduction theory, with

the concept of anxiety reduction, to explain intercultural adaptation in an

intercultural communication context. They argue that sojourners are not

cognitively sure of how to behave and they experience the feeling of a lack of

security during encounters in foreign cultures. The two authors conclude that the

two variables are independent.

Gudykunst and Hammer (1988) have chosen eight variables that affect

both the reduction of uncertainty and anxiety: knowledge of host culture, shared

networks, intergroup attitudes, favorable contact, stereotypes, cultural identity,

cultural similarity, and second-language competence.

The present study tend to imitate the study of Gudykunst and Hammer (1988),

however want to know if the affinity scale can replace the variables cited above

and explain as well the tendency to experience anxiety and uncertainty.

In intercultural encounters, one of the outcomes of uncertainty (seen as

negative) is intergroup anxiety, (Gudykunst, 2005). Uneasiness and

awkwardness are consequences in the presence of out-group members. Anxiety

can be integrally related to intercultural interactions, (Florack, Bless, et

Piontkowski, 2003). In both research the authors highlighted the fact that the

mixing of culture and the awareness of it was both moderating the anxiety.

15

Intercultural Adaptation, IA

Cross-cultural adaptation has been studied thoroughly in under different

perspective. Black, (1988) proposed three directions of studies: the general

adjustment, the interaction adjustment and the work adjustment. Most of the

studies were done through the case of expatriates. In the 70s multinationals had

problems with the expatriates, lack of acculturation were causing early returns of

managers sent abroad, (Zeira, 1975). Therefore, literature in general was not

driven by the search for theory but by answering managerial issues.

IA is defined as “a complex process in which a person becomes capable of

functioning effectively in a culture other than the one he or she was originally

socialized in”, (Haslberger, 2005).

Different models gave concern to adaptation. The first one is the one the

present study is based on, it is the anxiety and uncertainty management model,

developed by Gudykunst and Hammer, (1988). The model presents the general

adjustment and is presented in the next section. The second model focus on

behavior and cognition aspect of adaptation and was developed by Grove and

Torbiörn(1985). The model is more dedicated to work adjustment and

effectiveness. they searched for what was happening when a person relocates to

an unfamiliar environment. In a known environment a person act in socially

appropriate manner and effectively (the outcomes of his/her interaction give the

output expected). In the contrary in an environment unknown, the person will act

in an unsociably appropriate manner and not effectively. The authors point out 3

mains factors for success: applicability of behavior, clarity of the mental frame

of reference and level of mere adequacy. To clarify the concept, a person should

have a clear understanding of the new culture to change the frame of reference;

otherwise the behavior is perceived as unsocial and is ineffective. This

ineffectiveness is expressed in the level of mere adequacy. The conclusion of the

model is that it takes time to change the frame of reference and therefore training

for expatriate should be started ahead the departure. The final model focuses on

16

interaction adjustment and more on the communication issue. The psychological

phases through which an individual goes when interacting with a new culture till

the individual become a bi-cultural-individual. This area focuses on adaptation

over the long run. Kim and Ruben (1988) and Freeman (1986) can be cited for

their work on this area. The formers present adaptation as a process where the

individual experiences stress which diminishes over the time when its

communication skills get better. This communication issue has been taken into

account with the communication adaptation theory. The theory highlights the fact

that individuals “attune” their communication over repetitive interaction with

members from an out-group. This has been particularly demonstrated between

two individual adjusting their communication style during encounters, this in

order to reach clarity and understanding. In this domain adaptation as been

defined as “the process through which persons in cross-cultural interactions

change their communicative behavior to facilitate understanding “, (Cai &

Rodriguez, 1996). Other issues concerning communication and adaptation are the

relationship between native and non-native speakers.

To complete with a more general view on adaptation and culture, Mendenhall &

Oddou (1985) present four dimensions which moderate the acculturation (which

can be seen as adaptation) process of an individual. First the “self-oriented”

dimension composed of the attribute and traits of a person that strengthen his

mental and his confidence. Second the “Others-oriented” dimension, reflecting

the attributes that allow the individual to interact with the out-group. In this group

we find as a variable willingness to interact. Third, the “perceptual” dimension,

it is the ability to empathize with the out-group and to understand why they

behave in certain ways. It is important in order to change oneself behavior. The

fourth and final dimension is the “cultural-toughness”. The authors based on

previous work make the hypothesis that there may be some countries or culture,

which are more difficult to adapt to. To conclude their paper, they say that an

17

evaluation of the four dimensions can be a way to select more accurately the

candidate for departure.

Other studies question this last statement, Stephan, (1985) sees a link between

social contact and adaptation, Stephan & Stephan (1985) see a link between

perceived similarities and adaptation and finally Spaulding & Flack (1976) find

cultural knowledge directly related to adaptation.

Uncertainty & Anxiety management theory, UAM

In this section, the model of Gudykunst and hammer (1988) will be explained.

Further theory on adaptation will be also given to give a wider view before

going through the present study.

Figure 1 Anxiety, Uncertainty, Adaptation, Gudykunst and Hammer, 1988

Gudykunst, (1988, 1995, 2005) has developed an anxiety/ uncertainty

management theory. The theory explains that in order to adapt effectively and in

a satisfying manner the individual has to manage is anxiety and therefore his

18

management of uncertainty. Uncertainty and anxiety are two determinants of

intercultural communication. High level of both variables lead to avoidance of

communication, if contact can’t be stopped, it leads to aversive and ineffective

communication caused by nervousness and tension. The author explains as well

that a threshold of uncertainty is necessary to make the conversation worth going

on. Duronto et al. (2005, showed that uncertainty and anxiety contribute to the

prediction of avoidance behavior (willingness to finish the conversation as soon

as possible).

Gudykunst and Hammer (1988) also assume that uncertainty and anxiety

reduction exert independent influences on adaptation (plus in our case

willingness to meet the person). This suggestion has been confirmed by a

quantitative research made by Gao and Gudykunst, (1990). In this quantitative

research the authors confirm that both uncertainty and anxiety (in this case they

became moderating variables) are affected by other variables (independent),

which were divided in 3 groups: social contact, perceived similarity and cultural

knowledge. The authors take a position by saying that these three variables are

not directly related to adaptation.

The objective of the present study is to compare the result by replacing

these three variables with the affinity for a country and to see if there is a better

correlation.

19

Table literature review of major findings

Tableau 1 Literature review

Reference of the article Content

Nes, E. B., Yelkur, R., & Silkoset, R.

(2014). Consumer affinity for foreign

countries: Construct development, buying

behavior consequences and animosity

contrasts. International Business Review,

23(4), pp. 774-784.

Affinity: Scale development +

Appraisal cognitive theory +

intention to buy

Affinity as an attitude

Affinity is not the opposite of

animosity

E.M. Oberecker, A. Diamantopoulos

Consumers’ emotional bonds with foreign

countries: Does consumer affinity impact

buying intentions?

Journal of International Marketing, 19 (3)

(2011), pp. 45–72

These figures represent the higher-order

construct of affinity. The authors have

chosen two dimensions, which have a

positive affect but are soft feeling and

described as low effect. In the same paper

the authors finished by arguing that affinity

is the latent variable from which both

attachment and sympathy are

manifestations.

20

E.M. Oberecker, P. Riefler, A.

Diamantopoulos

The consumer affinity construct:

conceptualization, qualitative investigation,

and research agenda

Journal of International Marketing, 16 (3)

(2008), pp. 23–56

Affinity on product judgement

Exploratory search on affinity

Russell, James A. (1980), “A Circumplex

Model of Affect,” Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 39 (6), pp. 1161–

78.

[RW1]

Pappu, Ravi, Pascale G. Quester, and Ray

W. Cooksey (2007), “Country image and

consumer-based brand equity:

Relationships and implications for

international marketing,” Journal of

International Business Studies, 38 (5), pp.

726–45.

Micro and macro image of a

country:

Cognitive appraisal

Verlegh, Peeter W.J. (2001), “Country-of-

Origin effects on consumer product

evaluations,” doctoral dissertation,

Wageningen University.

COO + Micro and Macro

image

21

Jaffe, Elliot D. and Israel D. Nebenzahl

(2006), “It’s all in the eyes of the

Consumer,” in national image &

competitive advantage: The theory and

practice of place branding. Copenhagen:

Narayana Press, pp. 79–109.

Segmentation of customer

according to attitude toward:

Import in general

(ethnocentrism Vc

exocentrism)

Specific country (Animosity Vs

affinity)

Tajfel, Henri (1982), “Social psychology of

intergroup relations,” Annual reviews in

psychology, 33 (January), pp. 1–39.

In group / Out group

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., et Smollan, D.

(1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale

and the structure of interpersonal closeness.

Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology.

Closeness

Samochowiec, J., et Florack, A. (2010).

Intercultural contact under uncertainty: The

impact of predictability and anxiety on the

willingness to interact with a member from

an unknown cultural group. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(5), pp.

507-515.

Experiment on

Anxiety/ uncertainty leading to

willingness to meet

Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). An

anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM)

theory of effective communication: Making

the mesh of the net finer. In W. B. Gudykunst

Intercultural communication

AUM theory

Anxiety: Incidental/ Integral

Uncertainty mangement

22

(Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural

communication, pp. 419–457

Berger, C. R. (1987). Communication under

uncertainty. In M. E. Roloff, & G. R. Muller

(Eds.), Interpersonal process, Newbury

Park, CA: Sage Publications pp. 39–62.

Communication theory

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975).

Some explorations in initial interaction and

beyond: Toward a developmental theory of

interpersonal communication. Human

Communication Research, 1, pp. 99–112.

Uncertainty reduction theory

Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty

reduction through self-categorization: A

motivational theory of social identity

processes. European Review of Social

Psychology, 11, pp. 223–255.

Motivational theory Social

identity process

Gao, G., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1990).

Uncertainty, anxiety, and adaption.

International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 14, pp. 301–317.

23

24

Theoretical framework and variables

Problem statement:

As I presented it on the introduction and the literature review, the affinity

concept has been only used for covering consumer’s behaviors issues. The last

authors, (Nes et al, 2014), who wrote on the subjects propose to extend it to

different field of research; one of them was international management.

The UAM theory explains how people from different groups or cultures interact

and communicate. Here is the opportunity for the affinity model to be used in

another context.

The theoretical framework has been adapted from the one developed by Gao &

Gudykunst, 1990. In their study they present the problem in this aspect: in one

side they had three dimension, social contact, perceived similarity and cultural

knowledge. This three dimension come from a previous axioms created by the

authors. In their study they compared different model with different connection

between the dimensions and confirm the one presented bellow. They tried to link

anxiety and uncertainty but not significant relationship was seen between the

variables.

25

Figure 2 Gao & Gudykunst, Model for Anxiety, uncertainty and adaptation

Research question

In the present study, the affinity scale is taking the role of these three

dimensions. The purpose of the study is to examine if the affinity of a country

can reduce the uncertainty and the anxiety during international interpersonal

encounters with people from this country and the possible adaption of this

individual. We added the dimension “willingness to interact” to the one of

adaptation which come from the study of Samochowiec & Florack, (2010).

26

Figure 2 theoretical frameworks

Hypotheses

A basic proposition of major motivational theories is that individuals try

to avoid uncertainty. Hogg, (2000) says that uncertainty reduction is a basic

human motivation that drives people to compare and affiliate with others. In this

case the affinity of a country should make the individual feel closer to their

affiliated country.

H1: Affinity reduces perceived uncertainty

In intercultural encounters, one of the outcomes of uncertainty is

intergroup anxiety. It comes with negative feeling such as shame, awkwardness,

(Gudykunst, 2005). I make the supposition that affinity is negatively related to

27

anxiety. And more an individual will feel affinity for a country less he will have

anxiety to speak with a person from this country.

Here would be the major outcome of the study. If the hypothesis would

be accepted it would support the recommendation of Nes et al, (2014). As

affinity was already used in consumer behavior theory it would have a meaning

in interpersonal encounter theory (UAM theory), (Gao & Gudykunst, 1990). It

would contribute to the research of both fields. Former studies evaluated

The affinity scale could be therefore be used to evaluate the fitness of person with

a particular country and one possible managerial application would be for the

screening expatriates.

On the contrary, the rejection of the hypothesis would mean either that

the entire scale is not suitable for the study, either that only a part of the scale can

be significantly used.

To explore both hypotheses, the hypothesis is subdivided. Each subpart of the

affinity scale will give place to a new hypothesis.

H1-A : Affinity reduces Perceived Uncertainty

H1-B : Landscape reduces Perceived Uncertainty

H1-C : Entertainment doesn't reduces Perceived Uncertainty

H1-D : People reduces Perceived Uncertainty

H1-E : Politics reduces Perceived Uncertainty

H1: Affinity reduces anxiety

Samochowiec & Florack, (2010) claim that a lot of people travel to

foreign countries and explore different cultures driven by curiosity and the hope

of finding something unexpected. I suppose that affinity is positively related to

28

willingness to interact with this person. Following the reasoning of the authors,

meeting foreign people can be pleasurable. In the conceptual framework we make

the assumption that the fact to have affinity for a country will reinforce this

pleasure and will decrease anxiety. This hypothesis goes along with the

honeymoon effect of (Oberg & Kalervo, 2009) where the authors identify

different phases through which an individual goes during a culture shock. First

the honeymoon phase, the differences between cultures are perceived positively

and in a “romantic way”. Second, the frustration phase, this phase goes through

the time, when excitement disappears and anxiety may arrive. The two last phases

are the adjustment phase and the mastery phase, it is when the individual is

accustomed to the culture and its norms and values and where anxiety and

uncertainty decrease, the mastery phase is when someone is embracing the new

culture.

If this hypothesis is confirm it could implies that affinity for a country is making

the “honeymoon” phase longer that expected or may delete the frustration phase

from the process.

On the contrary, the rejection of the hypothesis would mean either that the entire

scale is not suitable for the study, either that only a part of the scale can be

significantly used.

To explore both hypotheses, the hypothesis is subdivided. Each subpart of the

affinity scale will give place to a new hypothesis.

H2-A: Affinity reduces Anxiety

H2-B: Landscape reduces Anxiety

H2-C: Entertainment doesn't reduces Anxiety

H2-D: People reduces Anxiety

H2-E: Politics reduces Anxiety

29

H3: Affinity increase adaptation

Adaptation, in our study, refers to intercultural adjustment defined as “the degree

of psychological comfort with various aspects of the host country”, (Black &

Gregerson, 1991). Others, (Ward & Kennedy, 1994), found in adjustment two

variables, psychological (affect) and sociocultural (behavior) dimensions. The

former refers to the satisfaction and the latter to the fitness of the individual in

the environment. Ward,(1996), explains that stress coping strategy can moderate

the psychological adjustment while social skills can influence the sociocultural

one.

Gao & Gudynkunst, (1990), in their model find direct relationship between

perceived similarities and adaptation. We make the assumption that if an

individual has affinity for a certain country, then his or her adjustment will be

lighter and his or her adaptation will be made easier.

If confirmed, it would mean that the affinity scale is useful to evaluate potential

fit for individual-culture. It would also give an alternative to the three dimensions

chosen by Gao & Gudynkunst, (1990) in their model.

On the contrary, the rejection of the hypothesis would mean either that the entire

scale is not suitable for the study, either that only a part of the scale can be

significantly used.

To explore both hypotheses, the hypothesis is subdivided. Each subpart of the

affinity scale will give place to a new hypothesis.

H3-A: Affinity increases adaptation

H3-B: Landscape increases adaptation

H3-C: Entertainment doesn't increase adaptation

H3-D: People increases adaptation

30

H3-E: Politics increases adaptation

H4: Affinity increase willingness to interact

The importance of evaluating these hypotheses is manifolds; it will widen

the use of the affinity concept and its scale.

First, the evaluation of these hypotheses will allow us to know if people

tend to feel more confortable with people coming from countries they have

affinity with. Interpersonal attraction is defined as “an individual’s tendency or

predisposition to evaluate another person or symbol of that person in a positive

way” (Walster and Walster, 1976) The present study tends at evaluate if affinity

for a particular country can affect the interpersonal attraction defined by Walster

and Walster, (1976). If the hypothesis is confirm it would mean that affinity for

a country can be transfer to a foreign individual coming from this country. It

would corroborate with the positive or negative discrimination.

Second, coming back to Taifel (1982) and his social theory, Mummendey

& Otten, (2001) worked on social discrimination. They defined it as “displaying

favoritism toward one’s ingroup over an outgroup in a manner that is perceived

to be illegitimate by the outgroup in question.” In this context, the confirmation

of this hypothesis could moderate the social discrimination or at least put

distinction or hierarchy between outgroups.

In 1985, Landis, Brislin & Huglus, highlight that any positive contact

with person from an outgroup (described as “non threatening and pleasant”) will

cause a reduction of prejudice. This is supported by another author, (Stephan,

1985).

On the contrary, the rejection of the hypothesis would mean either that the entire

scale is not suitable for the study, either that only a part of the scale can be

significantly used.

31

To explore both hypotheses, the hypothesis is subdivided. Each subpart of the

affinity scale will give place to a new hypothesis.

H4-A: Affinity increases Willingness to interact

H4-B: Landscape increases Willingness to interact

H4-C: Entertainment doesn't increase Willingness to interact

H4-D: People increases Willingness to interact

H4-E: Politics increases Willingness to interact

H5: Anxiety and uncertainty reduce adaptation

These hypotheses have been answered positively by Gao

&Gudykunst,(1990). The authors fund an inverse proportionality between in one

hand uncertainty and anxiety and in the other hand adaptation. Less an individual

was capable of managing his anxiety/uncertainty, more difficult would be the

situation to adapt. The authors explain that anxiety (affect) play a significant role

at the beginning of the contact and would be related to the “initial adaptation”. In

the longer term, the authors defend the idea that uncertainty is impacting the most

adaptation. It is a moderating variable influence by different variables in their

studies such as social contact, perceived similarity and cultural knowledge.

The difficulties to evaluate this even greater as Gudykunst (1988) propose that

instead of being a linear process, the decrease of anxiety and uncertainty might

be a “curvilinear, dialectical process”.

If the hypothesis is confirmed it would support Gao &Gudykunst (1990) results.

In the contrary, it could question the method chosen.

32

H5-A: Anxiety reduces adaptation

H5-B: Perceived uncertainty reduces adaptation

H6: Anxiety and uncertainty reduce willingness to

interact

These hypotheses have answered positively by Samochowiec & Florack, (2010).

In their study they evaluated the impact of the lack of predictability (being the

uncertainty) and the anxiety (divided as explained previously in incidental

anxiety and integral anxiety) on the willingness to interact. They used a in their

study an experiment. They highlighted the fact that uncertainty was moderated

by the incidental anxiety concerning the willingness to interact. However they

didn’t come to the same conclusion with the integral anxiety, which is the one,

tested in the present study. The choice has been made to unlike uncertainty and

anxiety and to create to causal relationship, H6-A and H6-B.

If the hypothesis is confirmed it would support Samochowiec & Florack, (2010)

results. In the contrary, it could question the method chosen.

H6-A: Perceived uncertainty reduces Willingness to interact

H6-B: Anxiety reduces Willingness to interact

33

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

Method:

Identifying the means I have, expertise, time and money. I decided to go for an

exploratory study. The rational of the study is to explore if the affinity scale can

be used to predict positive encounter and adaptation of individuals as explained

in the theoretical framework.

In order to confirm or infirm the hypotheses in the theoretical framework, the

choice of a quantitative method has been made. The method chosen is in line with

former studies (Gao & Gudykunst, 1990) and is necessary for the evaluation of

the theoretical framework.

Because of the nature of the research and in order to gather a maximum of

responses, I decided to opt for a haphazard sampling method. This method does

not follow any systematic way for selecting participants. This method won’t

allow me to have statistical found conclusion but we allow me to draw tendencies

based on the observation given. If the results are conclusive then future research

should focus on having a representative sample.

An online survey has been created. The online spreading has been used for

different reasons, first, to decrease the social desirability bias among the

participant, second to touch as much as possible participants, and third to save

time and resources. Participants will be contacted through social-networks and

mails. The use of social media make inevitable the fact that people from different

countries will answer to this questionnaire. As they speak different languages and

have different norms, values and concept they are expected to answer in potential

different manners to a single question. The survey will not be translated in all the

language spoken by the respondent. Therefore problem of understanding,

translation may arise and should be taken into account during the analysis

34

process. In their paper, Wagner, Wetzels & Winklhofer, (2005) argue that it is

difficult to reach equivalence in cross-cultural research. In their paper they

evaluated two samples, from UK and Russian organization. They focus their

paper on formative measurement models.

This survey will aim at answering the hypothesis developed previously through

gathering the respond and then treat them.

The composition of the survey is clear and a scenario has been created to increase

help will be given at each stage of the questionnaire. The 5 majors items, affinity,

anxiety, perceived uncertainty and adaptation/willingness to interact are

composed of a scale implied multiple items. Each of the scale will be then crossed

with another one to affirm or disaffirm the conceptual framework. The items from

the different scales are Likert-scale questions.

The questionnaire will consist into 6 parts chronologically presented as follow:

1st part: Context

2nd part: Affinity scale

3rd part: Uncertainty scale

4th part: Anxiety

5th part: Willingness to interact

6th part: Adaptation

7th part: Demographic data

35

Work plan

Tableau 2 Work plan

PERIOD OF TIME

Phase Objective

01.09.14 – 31.10.14 Research phase

Elaboration and adjustment

of the expose

01.11.13 – 09.12.14

Theory phase

Literature review and

development of the

theoretical section of the

master thesis

01.11.13-09- 31.12.14 Methodology phase Development of the survey

10.12.14 — 28/29/30. 01.15

Intermediate

presentation

Elaboration of the

presentation and the

intermediate report

01.01.15 – 31.01.15 Analysis phase

Spread of the questionnaire

01.02.15 – 28.02.15

Evaluation phase

Evaluation of the results

01.03.15 – deadline Finalization phase

Finalization of the master

thesis: review, adjustment,

preparation of the final

presentation

36

Overview of chapters

Abstract

List of content

List of tables

List of abbreviations

1. Introduction

1.1 Research problem

1.2 Topic importance

1.3 Contributions

1.4 Thesis structure

2. Research question and hypotheses

2.1 Problem statement

2.2 Research question

2.3 Hypotheses

3. Literature review and theoretical background

3.1 Affinity

3.1.1 Definition

3.1.2 Theory/ Scale development

3.2 Anxiety and uncertainty

3.2.1 Definition

3.2.2 Uncertainty reduction theory

3.2.3 UAM theory

4. Research methodology

4.1 Method: Questionnaire

4.1.1 Setup

4.1.2 Execution

4.1.3 Results

4.2 Summary of results

37

4.3 Concerns for validity

5. Conclusion

5.1 Implications for management

5.2 Limitations of the study

5.3 Suggestions for further researchers

6. Bibliography

7. Appendix

38

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allred, G. Chakraborty, S.J. Miller, (1999), Measuring images of developing

countries: a scale development study, J Euro-mark, 8 (3), pp. 29–49

Ashforth & Mael, (1989). Social identity theory and the organization, Academy

of management review, Vol 14, No, 1, pp 20-39

Askegaard S. & Ger G., (1998) Product-country images: towards a

contextualized approach, B. Englis, A. Olofsson (Eds.), European advances

in consumer research , pp. 50–58

Berger, (1987). Communication under uncertainty. In M. E. Roloff, & G. R.

Muller (Eds.), Interpersonal process, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,

pp. 39–62.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction

and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal

communication. Human Communication Research, 1, pp. 99–112.

Black, J.S. (1988), Work role transitions: a study of American expatriate

managers in Japan, Journal of International Business Studies, pp. 277-94.

Black, J. S., & Gregerson, H. B. (1991). The other half of the picture:

Antecedents of spouse cross-cultural adjustment. Journal of International

Business Studies, 22,461-477.

Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1996). The biopsychosocial model of arousal

regulation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social

psychology, New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–51.

Brahim, F., Manaf, N. A., Kit, T. L., Tamam, E., Hilmi, K., & Darman, Z. (2010).

Revisiting Malay stereotypes: A case study among Malaysian and

Indonesian Chinese students. SEGi Review, 3(2), 153–163.

Cai & Rodriguez, (1996), Adjusting to cultural differences: The intercultural

adaptation model, Intercultural Communication Studies VI:2.

39

Campbell, D. T. (1967). Stereotypes and the perception of group differences.

American Psychologist, 22, 817–829.

Druckman, Daniel (1994), Nationalism, patriotism, and group loyalty: A social

psychological perspective, Mershon International Studies Review, 38 (1),

pp. 43–68

Duronto, P. M., Nishida, T., &Nakayama, S. (2005). Uncertainty, anxiety, and

avoidance in communication with strangers. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 29, pp. 549–560.

Ellsworth & Scherer, (2003). Appraisal processes in motion. In R. J. Davidson,

K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences

,New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 572–595.

Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Anxiety and the worry process. Bulletin of Psychonomic

Society, 22, 545-548.

Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Attitude, intention and behavior: An

introduction to theory and tesearch. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Florack, A., Bless, H.,& Piontkowski, U. (2003).When do people accept cultural

diversity, affect as determinant, International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 27, pp. 627–640.

Freedman, A. (1986) A strategy for managing "cultural" transitions: Re-entry

from training. In C. Austin (Ed.), Cross-cultural reentry: A book of

readings, (pp. 19-27)..

Gao, G., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1990). Uncertainty, anxiety, and adaption.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, pp. 301–317.

Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1997). Terror management

theory of self-esteem and cultural worldviews: Empirical assessments and

conceptual refinements. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29,

61–139.

40

Grove, C.L. and Torbio rn, I. (1985), A new conceptualization of intercultural

adjustment and the goals of training, International journal of interculturalr

relations, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 205-33.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1983). A cross-cultural test of uncertainty reduction theory:

Comparisons of acquaintances, friends, and dating relationships in Japan,

Korea, and the United States. Human Communication Research, 11, pp.

407–455.

Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of

effective communication: Making the mesh of the net finer. In W. B.

Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication, pp. 419–

457

Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1984). Anxiety, uncertainty, and perceived

effectiveness of communication across relationships and cultures. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, pp. 55–71.

Haslberger, A., (2005), Facets and dimensions of cross-cultural adaptation:

refining the tools, Vol. 34 No. 1, 2005 pp. 85-109, DOI

10.1108/00483480510571897 .

Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-

categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European

Review of Social Psychology, 11, pp. 223–255.

Holden, N.J. and Burgess, M. (1994), Japanese-led companies: Understanding

how to make them your customers, McGraw-Hill Book Company, London.

Hong, J.J. and Woody, S. R. (2007), Cultural mediators of self-reported social

anxiety, Behviour research and therapy, Volume 45, Issue 8, pp 1779-1789

41

Jaffe, Elliot D. and Israel D. Nebenzahl (2006), It’s all in the eyes of the

consumer, in national image & competitive advantage: The theory and

practice of place branding. Copenhagen: Narayana Press, pp. 79–109.

Jung, K., Ang, S. H., Leong, S. M., Tan, S. J., Pornpitakpan, C., & Kau, A. K.

(2002). A typolology of animosity and its cross-national validation. Journal

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(6), pp. 529–539

Jussim, L. J. (2012). Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy

dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Kent, D. P., and Burnight, R. G. (1951). Group centrism in complex societies.

American Journal of Sociology, 57(3), pp. 256–259

Kim, (1988), Communication and Cross-cultural Adaptation, Multilingual

Matters, Clevedon and Philadelphia, PA.

Kim, Ruben, (1988) Intercultural transformation: A systems theory. In Y.Y. Kim

& W.B. Gudykunst (Eds.) Theories in intercultural communication,

(pp.299-321).

Klein, Jill G., Richard Ettenson, and Marlene D. Morris (1998), The Animosity

model of foreign product purchase: An empirical test in the people’s

Republic of China, Journal of Marketing, 62 (January), pp. 89–100.

Kosterman, R. and Feshbach, S. (1989), “Toward a measure of patriotic and

nationalistic attitudes,” Political Psychology, 10 (2), 257–74.

Kupka, B., Everett, A. M., & Cathro, V. (2008). Home alone and often

unprepared– intercultural communication rating for expatriated partner in

German MDCs. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

19(10), pp. 1765–1791

Lallje, M., & Cook, M. Uncertainty in first encounters. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 1973, 26, 137-141.

42

Landis, Brislin, & Hulgus, (1985). Attributional training versus contact in

acculturative learning: A laboratory study. Journal of Applied Social

psychology

Lippmann, W. (1991). Public opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction

Publishers (Original work published 1922).

Mael, F. (1988) Organizational identification: Construct redefinition and a field

application with organizational alumni. Wayne state university, Detroit.

Martin, Ingrid M. and Sevgin Eroglu (1993), Measuring a multi-Dimensional

Construct: Country Image, Journal of Business Research, 28 (3), pp. 191–

210.

Mathews, M. (1990). Why worry? The cognitive function of anxiety. Invited

essay.

Mendenhall & Oddou (1985), The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A

review, The academy of management review, Vol 10, No 1, 39-47

Nes, E. B., Yelkur, R., & Silkoset, R. (2014). Consumer affinity for foreign

countries: Construct development, buying behavior consequences and

animosity contrasts. International Business Review, 23(4), 774-784. Elsevier

Ltd.

Oberecker, E. M., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2011). Consumersʼ emotional bonds

with foreign countries: Does consumer affinity affect behavioral intentions?

Journal of International Marketing.

Oberecker, E. M., Riefler, P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2008). The consumer

Aafinity construct: Conceptualization, qualitative investigation, and

research agenda. Journal of International Marketing.

Oberg, Dr. Kalervo, 2009, Culture shock and the problem of adjustment to the

new cultural environments. World wide classroom consortium for

international education & multicultural studies.

43

Perlmutter, Howard V. (1954), “Some characteristics of the xenophilic

personality,” Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 38 (2),

291–300

Razov, Sergei (2004), “To preserve heritage of mutual trust,” Diplomacy &

International Relations, 50 (4), pp. 131–34

Roseman, I. J., & Smith, C. A. (2001). Overview, assumptions, varieties,

controversies. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal

processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research London: Oxford University

Press, pp. 3–19.

Roth, Martin S. and Jean B. Romeo (1992), Matching product category and

country image perceptions: A framework for managing country-of-origin

effects, Journal of Inter- national Business Studies, 23 (3), pp. 477–97.

Samochowiec, J., & Florack, A. (2010). Intercultural contact under uncertainty:

The impact of predictability and anxiety on the willingness to interact with

a member from an unknown cultural group. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 34(5), pp. 507-515.

Siemer, M., Gross, J. J., & Mauss, I. (2007). Same situation–different emotions:

How appraisals shape our emotions. Emotions, 7(3), pp. 592–600

Spauling, S., & Flack, M. J. (1976). The world’s students in the United States.

New York: Praeger.

Stephan, W. G. (1985). Intergroup relations. In G. Lindzey Br E. Aronson (Eds.),

The handbook of social psychology (Vol. II, 3rd ed.).

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social

Issues, 41(3), 157-176.

Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than

the few and how collective wisdom shapes businesses, economies, societies,

and nations. New York: Doubleday.

Susskind, J., Maurer, K., Thakkar, V., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, J. W. (1999).

Perceiving individuals and groups: expectancies, dispositional inferences,

44

and causal attributions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76(2),

181-191.

Swift, J. S. (1999). Cultural closeness as a facet of cultural affinity: A

contribution to the theory of psychic distance. International Marketing

Review, 16(3), pp. 182–201.

Tajfel, (1982), Social psychology of intergroup relations, Annual reviews in

psychology, 33 (January), pp. 1–39.

Tajfel, & Turner, (1985), The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.

Psychology of intergroup relations, pp 7-24

Terracciano, A., Abdel-Khalak, A. M., Adam, N., Adamovova, L., Ahn, C.-k.,

Ahn, H.-n., et al. (2005). National character does not reflect mean

personality trait levels in 49 cultures. Science, 310, 96–100.

Van der Zee, K., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & De Grijs, E. (2004). Personality,

threat and cognitive and emotional reactions to stressful intercultural

situations. Journal of Personality, 72, pp. 1069–1096.

Verlegh, Peeter W.J. (2001), Country-of-origin effects on consumer product

evaluations, doctoral dissertation, Wageningen University.

Ward, 1996 , Acculturation, D. Landis, R. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of

intercultural training (2nd ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA , pp. 124–147

Ward, Kennedy, (1994), Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment and

sociocultural competence during cross-cultural transitions, International

journal of intercultural relations, pp. 329–343

Woo, K., Fock, H. K. Y., & Hui, M. K. M. (2006). An analysis of endorsement

effects in affinity marketing. Journal of Advertising, 35(3), pp. 103–113

Zeira, (1975) Overlooked personnel problems of multinational corporations,

Columbia journal of world business. 10(2), 96-103.

45