n... .554.

5:53;
55. 5

1‘5};

55..

 

.5

5.;
#5

.v

\I.’

uh:
55.25
B

 

 

 

 

 

 

555.5555
5% . 555,
.552,

banana.-.»

9‘...

3.55..»ng

V,!! n .
uwfinfl.§%§
Rafa...
£0\ -. 4
(Jun!

.3
I».

I.
I

.3.

m K». 1. .2
Iii).l.l~i:lanflll 5
hi. :9“ I
Alt“... 1..
:3? . “$3.6 .
.. 5
. lam-5’2!!! I’M...-
....
auwufiné .5.,.i“ 5
3:5 , ".3. a .
I ariw
265.4%; 5
1": - .'
3.1%"
.559... t W»
Latch,

6.» o!
I I
5.. . I l‘.
)1” I

11.}!

5
5.3

o. :55 "H.“

, .1

fa.“ . ..

.31. .fiu

5. 5b....» 5%.“.

1:“)..WMVI

I :15
1 I... I
b. I ..
. r } I.
31".! $

“Run

{Kid
5.551.. ”I! I

 

THESIS

55155555 555155555755555555555

3 1293 01566 3788

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

INTERNATIONAL MARKETING STANDARDIZATION VERSUS ADAPTATION
FROM THE CONSUMER'S PERSPECTIVE

presented by

Jyh-shen Chiou

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Winistration

 

 
 

 

Date/$547,, ’75 /

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

—' ’15—‘5—5.“ fi——1‘——‘._——¥4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES Mum on or baton date duo.

ATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

  

 
 
   
 

 
  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

mimic"
Wynn-9.1

* usunmmmummavequdoppomnnyi

__._-

Eli/x7

 

 

INTERNATIONAL MARKETING STANDARDIZATION VERSUS ADAPTATION
FROM THE CONSUMER’S PERSPECTIVE

By

Jyh-shen Chiou

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Marketing & Logistics

1 996

(a:

ABSTRACT

INTERNATIONAL MARKETING STANDARDIZATION VERSUS ADAPTATION
FROM THE CONSUMER’S PERSPECTIVE

By

Jyh-shen Chiou

Based on an extensive literature review, this thesis first argues that "product
concep " should be the unit of analysis for decisions in international marketing
standardization/adaptation. Different product concepts can fulfil different attitude
functions, and the ftmctional theory of attitude was used to derive the hypotheses. As
experimental stimuli, product concepts were developed whose underlying functions were
social, non-social or ambivalent. The key research questions focus on untangling the
effects on attitudes and purchase intentions of : (1) functionally derived product concepts
(as described above); (2) collectivistic versus individualistic culture (Taiwan versus the
USA, respectively); (3) consumer personality as reflected in the degree of attention to
social comparison information; and (4) social versus ambivalent attitude function product
(gifi service versus computer printer).

The results showed that, for the product underlying ambivalent attitude functions,
culture and personality have a role in affecting consumers’ attitudes toward product
concepts. Consumers in a collectivistic culture and consumers who are more attentive to
social comparison information had more favorable attitudes associated with a social
oriented product concept than with a non-social oriented product concept, while consumers

in an individualistic culture and consumers who are less attentive to social comparison

information exhibited the opposite pattern in attitude order. However, for products
engaging only social oriented attitude functions, consumers had more favorable attitudes
associated with social oriented product concepts than with a non-social oriented product
concept regardless of culture and of the degree of attention to social comparison
information.

The results also show that personality can fully mediate the relationship between
culture and the persuasiveness of the product concept (i.e., attitude and purchase
intention). For product engaging social oriented attitude functions, a social oriented
product concept created a stronger relationship between attitude and purchase intention
than did a non-social oriented product concept. Finally, both the effects of the uniqueness,
believability, and comprehensibility of a product concept, as covariates and as dependent
variables in the model were also explored. This thesis demonstrated that the feasibility
of international marketing standardization is product specific and that personality can be

a base for international marketing segmentation.

Copyright by
Jyh-shen Chiou
1996

iv

To my parents, wife, brother, and sisters

 

 

 

 

 

{€3.83

 

is th:

{011111

“mm:

trel-

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

There are many people to thank for their support and help during the process of
the research. First of all, I would like to express my thank to my Dissertation Committee
for their suggestions, support and patience that they have throughout the. completion of
this research. Dr. Cornelia Droge, my committee chairperson, not only has been a mentor,
motivator, and critic of this dissertation, she has also be my major backup for the entire
research. She always provide me with the just-in-time assistance. More importantly, she
is the one who is disciplined-minded, yet very open to any kind of creativity. I feel
fortunate to have this wonderful committee chairperson.

I would also like to extend my thank to other committee members. Dr. S. Tamer
Cavusgil not only help me develop a stronger foundation of international marketing
theories, but assist me in refining this research to be more managerial related. Dr. Robert
W. Nason help me a lot both professionally and personally through out my stay at
Michigan State. He is always there when I need his help in spite of his very busy
schedule. The advise I received from Dr. Richard A. Spreng in consumer research was
invaluable to the completion of this study. He always provide me with astute and candid
comments on this research project from the beginning to the end.

This research would not have been possible without the financial support from the

Center for International Business and Education Research and the help from Viewpoint

vi

 

Sur.

Cmt

 

listei

555555.

 

lOVe !

 

Research and Consulting Co., Ltd. at Taiwan. I would particularly like to express my
gratitude to Mike Chou, Managing Director at ViewPoint, for his assistance on the field
work at Taiwan and his encouragement. Dr. Thomas Page and Dr. M. Bixby Cooper also
helped me conduct the experiment at Michigan State. Many thanks also go to my friends,
Sun-Jen Huang and Shyh—Leh Chen, for their help in conducting the pre-test and
emotional support.

Finally, I must thank my wife, Chien-yi Huang. She is always the first and best
listener for my joy, sadness, idea, and complain. I wonder if I can finish the PhD program
without her companion. Of course, I could not have been able to go so far without the

love and support from my parents, bother, and sisters.

vii

 

 

Ex.

CHAP
um:
M 5

La.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................ xi

LIST OF FIGURE ........................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1

Overview ................................................. 1

Problems ................................................. 4

The Definition of Marketing Standardization/Adaptation ............... 4

The Role of Culture ....................................... 5

The Role of Consumer Personality ............................. 6

The Role of Product Situation ................................ 7

Other Variables .......................................... 8

Objectives and Framework ..................................... 8

Expected Contributions ....................................... 10
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEWS AND RESEARCH FRAMEWORK .............. 13

Marketing Standardization and Adaptation .......................... l3

Scope of the Review ..................................... 13

Domain of International Marketing Standardization/Adaptation ......... 15

The Definition of Marketing Standardization ..................... 20

The Limitations of Current Definitions ......................... 27

The Pros and Cons of Marketing Standardization .................. 29

Contingency Variables or Barriers for Marketing Standardization ........ 30

How to Standardize Marketing Activities ....................... 32

A Proposition for the Definition of International Marketing Standardization 43
The Definition of International Marketing Standardization in this Thesis . . . 50

An Integration of Cross-Cultural Consumer Behavior .................. 52
The Functions of Attitude .................................. 52
Culture and Personality .................................... 57
The Role of Material Goods ................................. 61
An Integration .......................................... 62
The Mediation Effect of the Personality Factor .................... 70
The Relationship between Attitude and Intention ................... 72
Covariate Variables ....................................... 75

viii

70m

 

 

CHAP
DISCL

 

Lim‘
COm

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................... 77
Preliminary Study .......................................... 77
Research Stimuli ........................................ 78
Procedures ............................................. 78
The Decision of the Coding Scheme ........................... 79
Coding Scheme ......................................... 80
Key Results ............................................ 81
Confirmatory Study ......................................... 89
Experimental Stimuli ..................................... 89
Subjects .............................................. 91
Procedures ............................................. 93
Measures .............................................. 93
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS .................................................. 95
Measurement Equivalence ..................................... 95
Hypotheses Testing ........................................ 106

Culture: The Main and Interaction Effects (Hla, Hlb, H 1c, and H2) . . . 106
Personality: The Main and Interaction Effects (H3a, H3b, H3c, and H4) . 112
The Inclusion of Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility

(Covariate Analyses of Hla to H4) ........................... 113
Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility as Dependent Variables . 119
The Mediation Effect of the Personality Factor (H5) ............... 125
The Relationship between Product Concept Attitude and Purchase
Intention (H6a, H6b, H6c, H6d, and H6e) ...................... 132
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................... 137
Discussion of the Results .................................... 137

The Role of Culture in Different Product Situations (Hypothesis 1 and 2) . 138
The Role of Personality in Different Product Situations (Hypothesis 3

and 4) ............................................... 139
The Mediation Effects of Personality Factor (Hypothesis 5) .......... 141
The Effect of Other Variables (Covariate Analyses of H1 to H4) ....... 141
The Relation between Attitude and Purchase Intention (Hypothesis 6) . . . 143
Limitations .............................................. 144
Contributions ............................................ 145
International Marketing Standardization Argument ................. 145
Cross—Cultural Consumer Behavior ........................... 146
Research Methodology ................................... 147
Marketing Implications ...................................... 148
Marketing Standardization versus Marketing Adaptation ............. 148
Global Marketing Segmentation ............................. 148

The Importance of Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility . . . . 149

ix

Product Classification Is Not Given ........................... 150

Future Research ........................................... 151
APPENDIX A: PRODUCT CONCEPT ............................. 154
APPENDIX B: ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE ........................ 160
LIST OF REFERENCES ....................................... 174

Table 2-1

Table 2-2

Table 2-3

Table 2-4

Table 2-5

Table 3-1

Table 3-2

Table 3-3

Table 3-4

Table 3-5

Table 3-6

Table 4-1

Table 4-2

Table 4-3

Table 4-4

Table 4-5

LIST OF TABLES

The Domain of International Marketing Standardization .......... 18
The Definitions of Marketing Standardization ................. 22
The Contingency Variables of International Marketing Standardization 33

Key Results of the Marketing Standardization Literature ........... 35
The Definitions of Key Constructs .......................... 56
Preliminary Study: Casual Clothes and Clothes for Special Occasions . . 83

Preliminary Study: Gifts for Casual Acquaintances and Gifts for Close

Friends ............................................ 84
Preliminary Study: Computer Printer ........................ 85
Preliminary Study: Toothpaste ............................ 86
Preliminary Study: The Relationship between Product Function and

Product Type ........................................ 87
Basic Characteristics of the Sampled Subjects .................. 92

Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Establishing Measurement

Equivalence ......................................... 98
The Indicators and Their Unstandardized Loading for Major

Constructs ......................................... 102
The Reliability (Coefficient Alpha) of Major Constructs .......... 104
The Means and Variances of Major Constructs ................ 105
Culture Model: LISREL Results for the Two-Way MANOVA ..... 109

xi

Tab;

 

Tabi

 

Table 4-6 Personality Model: LISREL Results for the Two-Way MANOVA . . . 111

Table 4-7 Culture Model: LISREL Results for the Two-Way MANOVA
Analysis with Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility
as Covariates ....................................... 115

Table 4-8 Personality Model: LISREL Results for the Two-Way MANOVA
Analysis with Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility
as Covariates ....................................... 117

Table 4-9 Culture Model: LISREL Results for the Two-Way MANOVA
Using Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility
as Dependent Variables ............................... 122

Table 4-10 Personality Model: LISREL Results for the Two-Way MANOVA

Using Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility

as Dependent Variables ................................ 123
Table 4-11 The Mediation Effects of ATSCI ........................ 128

Table 4-12 The Relationship between Attitude and Purchase Intention ........ 135

xii

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 1-1 The Distribution of Personal Orientation ....................... 7
Figure 1-2 The Conceptual Framework .............................. 11
Figure 2-1 The Dimensions of Marketing Standardization .................. 28
Figure 2-2 The Effects of Common Barriers ........................... 28
Figure 2-3 Product Concept ...................................... 45
Figure 2-4 Product Concept and Brand Equity ......................... 48
Figure 2-5 The Relationships among Three Selves ....................... 64
Figure 2-6 Ambivalent Attitude Function Product: The Main and Interaction

Effects ............................................ 68
Figure 2-7 Social Oriented Product: The Main Effect ..................... 68
Figure 2-8 The Mediation Effects of Personality ........................ 71
Figure 4-1 The MANOVA Model ................................. 107
Figure 4—2 The MANCOVA Model ................................. 114
Figure 4-3 Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility as Dependent

Variables .......................................... 121
Figure 4-4 LISREL Model: The Mediation Effects of Personality ........... 126

xiii

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW

Whether a firm should adopt an adaptation or a standardization marketing strategy
in international markets is still debated in the marketing field. Supporters of a
standardization strategy believe that world markets are becoming more homogeneous.
Marketers should thus explore the advantages of economies of scale and increased
efficiency by standardizing marketing activities across national boundaries (Blinder 1961;
Fatt 1967; Levitt 1983). Followers of an adaptation strategy, however, caution that
cultural, political, and economic differences among nations may require marketing
programs and processes tailored for individual markets (Boddewyn, Soehl and Picard
1986; Douglas and Wind 1987; Hill and Still 1984; Wind 1986).

In order to resolve the argument, several researchers proposed contingency models
to identify factors that influence the degree of marketing standardization (Buzzell 1968;
Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu 1993; Jain 1989; Kreutzer 1988; Quelch and Hoff 1986; Rau
and Preble 1987; Samiee and Roth 1992). This group of researchers asserts that the
degree of marketing standardization is contingent on a variety of internal and external
factors. For example, Jain (1989) proposed that the degree of marketing program

standardization is determined by factors such as organizational factors, market position,

2

target market, environment, and the nature of product.

Although progress has been made in this research stream, there are several issues
that need to be clarified before a general framework for standardization/adaptation
decisions can be proposed. The fig; issue concerns the definition of marketing
standardization and adaptation. Standardization can be strategic or executional, or it can
involve minor or major modifications (Harris 1994; Kernan and Damzel 1993; Peebles,
Ryans, and Vernon 1977; Sorenson and Weichmann 1975; Walters 1986). Previous
literature has not agreed on definitions of the degree and formation of marketing
standardization. The debate will be futile if there is no agreement on clear definitions of
these concepts (Harris 1994; Onkvist and Shaw 1987; Walters 1986).

After the concept of standardization is defined, the ELM—d issue is whether
consumers in different cultures will accept global marketing standardization. If
standardization is defined at an executional level, then marketers need to know whether
consumers in different cultures can accept the same marketing execution. On the other
hand, if standardization is defined at a strategic level, then marketers need to understand
whether consumers in different cultures perceive the single global marketing strategy in
the same way. The M issue is: if consumers in different cultures perceive the
marketing executions or strategies differently, are the differences caused by culture,
personality, or market situation? If the differences are caused by culture, then cultural
segmentation strategies will be more effective. If the differences are caused by
personality, then cross cultural segmentation will be a better basis for international
marketing strategy. Finally, if the differences are caused by marketing situations, then

marketers can either influence the market situation themselves and standardize their

 

19'

d1"
AAA

3X3.

obs

 

3

marketing strategies, or temporally adjust their marketing strategies and scan for changes
in the marketing situation.

These issues need to be tackled before a solid and useable theory can be
constructed. In this thesis, it is proposed that international marketing standardization be
defined at the "product concept" level. A product concept is the central idea of a brand,
a general proposal for satisfying the targeted consumer needs, and a strategic guideline
for a brand’s marketing activities (Dillon, Madden, and Firtle 1994; Haley and Gatty
1971; Moore 1982; Schwartz 1987). Marketers need to know whether consumers in
different cultures will accept a standardized product concept before dealing with the
executional aspects of international marketing. The executional aspects should not
obscure the central idea of a global brand.

In order to test how culture, personality, product types, and other situational
variables affect a consumer’s attitude and purchase intention toward a product concept,
this study’s experiment was conducted in two countries (Taiwan as representative of
collectivistic cultures and the United States as representative of individualistic cultures)
and tested different product types. Product concepts served experimental stimuli. The
personalities of the consumers and other situational variables were also be measured to
determine their effects on their attitudes and purchase intentions.

In the following sections, the three problem areas of current research are discussed
in more detail. The section is followed by a brief discussion about the research purpose,

design, and contributions.

 

PR(

The

(liar
by cl
P105“
the m
mix. '
imple:
and R5
Sandi:
513115131

Stands;

PROBLEMS
The Definition of Marketing Standardization/Adaptation

The definition of marketing standardization/adaptation is not well developed
(Harris 1994; Sandler and Shani 1992; Walters 1986). Researchers can easily disagree
by eliciting different definitions of marketing standardization. For example, Jain (1989)
proposed that marketing standardization has two aspects; i.e., the marketing program and
the marketing process. The marketing program refers to various aspects of the marketing
mix, while the marketing process refers to tools that aid in program development and
implementation. Empirical work tends to use psychological latent constructs (e. g., Samiee
and Roth 1992) or single indicators (e.g., Boddewyn, Soehl, and Picard 1986; Dunn 1966;
Sandler and Shani 1992; Sorenson and Wiechmann 1975) to capture the idea of
standardization. There is no consistent definition or operationalization of marketing
standardization among conceptual or empirical studies. Based on a stringent definition,
researchers who favor adaptation can easily argue that there is no such thing as marketing
standardization. One can hardly find a product that does not have to have a local brand
name, follow local regulations, or adapt to dissimilar channel system (Blackwell, Ajarni,
and Stephen 1991; Harris 1994; Wind 1986). For example, the marketing strategy that
Coca Cola adopts can be said to be very standard around the world, yet the brand name,
Coca Cola, has to be translated into different languages. The company may be required
to attach different nutrition labels on its packages for different local markets. Can these
minor and technical changes be considered symptomatic of an adaptation strategy?

On the other hand, suppose a company uses standard marketing programs and

processes except that it positions its product for different consumer needs (e.g., image

 

proc

Can

wig

cons
adx'ei

Amer

(1983 ,_
3505155.
Wall

4 v~.
”Wm

5977.

s
it
:z

5

product vs. quality product) for different countries. Is this a case of marketing
standardization? Are the above two cases representative of similar standardization levels?
Can the criteria for deciding the level of marketing standardization may have different
weights in different situations?

The problem has to be solved from the consumer’s perspective. For example,
consumers in different cultures may have different preferences for various aspects of
advertising execution. As several researchers claimed, Japanese like soft-sell ads, while
Americans like informational ads (Johansson 1994; Mueller 1987). If these assertions are
true, then the standardization of ad executions across the two countries will not be a good
option. However, that consumers in different cultures prefer different execution
formations does not mean that their basic needs for buying the product are different
(Friedmann 1986). If their motivations for buying a certain product are the same across
cultures, then brand or product positioning can be standardized across cultures by focusing
on certain global needs. Therefore, the consumers’ perspectives can enrich the definition
of marketing standardization.

The Role of Culture

Culture is, in essence, a collective mental programming as defined by Hofstede
(1983). This mental programming is shared by the members within a nation, region, or
group, but not by members of other nation, regions, or groups. Different cultures have
different socialization processes for their generations (Triandis 1994). Different
socialization processes may cause people living in different cultural contexts to have
dramatic differences in cognition, emotion and/or social behavior (Douglas and Dubois

1977; Markus and Kitayama 1991). Culture having a role in influencing consumer

 

,‘_____——

1rhan
lohans
19941
culture
“hycc
risen
dimens
nature I
been m

The R(

definite}
1990; 1
Chmcte
Inog pr
390116 5
15 111116 V
301116 p6.

b19031 .

6
behavior has been discussed in several studies (e.g., Childers and Rao 1992; Hall 1976;

Johansson 1986, 1994; Lazer 1985; Lee and Green 1990; Yau 1988; Zandpour et al.
1994). The major task is to find a marketing relevant cultural dimension to classify
cultures into different groups. The cultural dimension chosen should be able to explain
why consumers in a certain culture systematically bias their preference either for certain
aspects of a product or for a certain marketing activity. In addition, the cultural
dimension may be related to personality and possible to other variables. What is the
nature of the relationship between culture and these variables? Until now, there have not
been many thorough empirical studies on these issues.
The Role of Consumer Personality

It may be too broad to claim that people living in one type of culture will
definitely possess dramatically different characteristics from those in other cultures (Clark
1990; Triandis 1994). A macro approach can only suggest a modal distribution of
characteristics or patterns within each culture. That is, researchers can only claim that
most people in a certain culture possess certain characteristics, while most people in
another culture possess different characteristics. This does not mean however that there

is little variance regarding specific characteristics among the people within each culture.

 

Some people in a certain culture may possess particular characteristics which are shared
by most of the people in other cultures instead of pervasively within their own culture.
For example, some people in an individualistic society may need to conform to group
pressures as much as those in a collectivistic society (Figure 1-1). Therefore, in order to
explain fully the behavior variances, researchers need to take individual characteristics

into account.

 

Individualism Collectivism

Culture Culture
Individualistic Collectivistic
Orientation Orientation

Figure 1-1 The Distribution of Personal Orientation

As Triandis (1994) explained, culture will influence the socialization process.
Socialization processes in turn affect a person’s personality. In other words, personality
is the intervening variable between culture and behaviors. If this assertion is correct, then
actually personality may better predict behavior than does culture. But then, why do
model of behavior need the cultural dimension? Does culture have a direct effect on
consumer behavior in addition to the effect through personality? This is a question that
needs to be resolved.

The Role of Product Situation

Same products may be perceived differently in different cultures. The function
that a product serves not only stems from its physical features or attributes(e.g., taste, size,
durability), but also from culturally defined functions (Douglas and Dubois 1977; Shavitt
1989). Some products serving mostly utilitarian functions in one culture may serve value
expressive functions in other cultures. For example, coffee may serve a utilitarian

function because of the awards and punishments intrinsically associated with it in Western

 

cultures (e
function 11
cultures n
kinds of
marketers
If there ar
still be \‘C
Other Ya
In:
concept pr.
11 may be
adienising
“116111611111
111959 Varia

1351317165.

OBJECT"

The
late dit‘t‘ere
Strong}. are
Mum Cl’tai
liege QUESUO

101
he C016 is

8

cultures (e.g., taste, nervousness; Shavitt 1989), while it may serve as a value-expressive
function in Eastern cultures (e.g., Westernized image). Therefore, consumers in different
cultures may use products for different reasons. Their motivations for buying certain
kinds of products may be totally different. In an international marketing setting,
marketers need to know whether the function a product serves is the same across cultures.
If there are striking differences regarding the function served, a standardization strategy
will be very difficult.
Other Variables

In order to determine whether culture or personality can affect a person’s product
concept preference, several covariates need to be controlled in the research. For example,
it may be important whether consumers really understand the product concept or
advertising we are going to deliver, whether they believe claims for the product, and
whether the product is unique enough to attract their interest. Researchers need to control
those variables in order to clarify the effects from cultural, personal, and object-related

variables.

OBJECTIVES AND FRAMEWORK

The purpose of this study is to examine whether consumers in different cultures
have different attitudes and intentions engendered by a certain product concept. How
strongly are attitudes and purchase intentions affected by culture, consumer personalities,
product characteristics, and other situational variables? The thesis first documents why
these questions are important for an international marketer and how these questions relate

to the core issues underlying the debate between marketing standardization and marketing

 

liar

9

adaptation. Most importantly, this research links the arguments into a systematic
framework.

In this study, "product concepts" are the unit of analysis for the arguments
regarding the international marketing standardization/ adaptation issues. Defining
international marketing standardization at the product concept level is fruitful and relevant
for practitioners and researchers alike. The detailed argument for this assertion will be
developed in Chapter 2.

Using product concepts as experimental stimuli, this study experimentally tested
whether product concepts emphasizing different attitude functions (concepts that focus on
social oriented functions versus concepts that focus on non-social oriented functions) are
different in persuasiveness (attitudes and purchase intentions) for consumers in
individualistic versus collectivistic cultures. The United States and Taiwan were chosen
to represent the individualistic and collectivistic culture respectively (Hofstede 1983).
Social oriented and non-social oriented functions are the two major attitude functions in
theories of attitude functions (Katz 1960; Smith et al. 1956), and this distinction underlies
the differences among the experimental stumili. Attitudes serving the social oriented
function facilitate and maintain a person’s social relationship (Smith et al. 1956), while
attitudes serving the non-social oriented function provide a person chances to express
his/her underlying values (Katz 1960). These two functions represent the two major
reasons for purchasing and consuming products. That is, some consumers care more
about the social implications of their purchasing and consumption behaviors, while other
consumers pay more attention to what they can gain from the product than what other

people think about their purchasing and consumption behaviors.

 

EXP

praet

interr

stand.
of th.
PetSpe
Will‘s
Other 5

Olindi

“1’11 117
R"Wel
Mon
‘heon'es

COHSUmt-

10

In addition, this study simultaneously modeled consumer personality, product type,
and other situational variables in the experiment. The experiment demonstrated the
individual effects of culture, personality, product type, and other situational variables on
a consumer’s preference for different product concepts, as well as the interacting effects

among those variables (Figure 1-2).

EXPECTED CONTRIBUTIONS

This study made several contributions to the marketing literature and has various
practical applications. m the study presented a systematic framework of the
international marketing standardization issue based on an extensive review of international
standardization/adaptation studies. It clarified the definition, domains, and implications
of the international marketing standardization strategy, and showed how consumer
perspectives can complement this research stream. m, this study incorporated a
number of important variables into one study. It covered culture, personality, object, and
other situational variables. The comprehensive coverage enabled exploration of the effects
of individual factors, and also of the moderating, intervening, and masking effects of the

independent variables. Third, by focusing on product concept manipulations instead of

 

on the executional aspects of marketing, the confounding effect of the executional aspects
with the core product concept were eliminated. This provides a good basis for future

research. Fourth, this study integrated the theories of attitude functions, self-concept, and

 

symbolic consumption into the cross-cultural consumer behavior. It demonstrated that
theories of attitude functions can form a fruitful research stream in cross-cultural

consumer behaviors. Finally, the study is one of the few studies that uses the consumer

ll

 

Personality

 

 

 

‘7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Culture I The Persuasiveness I Other
J of the Product I Variables
Concept
Product

TYPe

 

Figue 1-2 The Conceptual Framework

 

 

 

perspec
culture:

resent:

12

perspective and systematically explores the differences in consumer behavior in different
cultures. It also dealt with the measurement equivalence issuses in the cross-cultural

researtch setting.

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEWS AND RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

In the following pages, the concept of marketing standardization and adaptation
is first clarified. The terms, product concept, is linked to define and clarify the marketing
standardization/adaptation concept. This review and discussion will provide a strong
rational for the use of "product concept" as a core construct for the international
marketing standardization/ adaptation debate.

After the issues of the standardization/ adaptation are clarified, this chapter will
explain hOw culture, personality, product type, and other variables may affect a
consumer’s preferences toward different product concepts. The theories of attitude
functions and self-concepts will be applied to integrate the proposed relationships. The
research hypothesis for each main and interacting effect in the experimental research will

be presented at the end of each section.

MARKETING STANDARDIZATION AND ADAPTATION
Scope of the Review

If a more liberal criteria is applied, there will be a tremendous amount of studies
related to some degrees of the topics of international marketing standardization/adaptation.

In addition to numerous trade articles, one can easily contend that any study regarding the

13

 

simllar 111‘
the few
nilh 16423
empirical
{011011611-
m
intemflllm
do inlema
strategh c
included 1
appropllal'
in this tell
fig

and domaii
establish 1h
empirical \5
retiets' artl
Research. 1
Internationc
Intentatt'una
llurl'eling. J
Business Re

Business H0

14

similarities and differences between domestic and foreign markets can be the target for
the review. For the purpose of this study, the literature review is necessarily limited both
with regard to concepts addressed and to sources reviewed. The review of theoretical and
empirical contributions to the international marketing standardization is delimited as
followed.

Fifi, the review will focus on articles that directly argue the pros and cons of
international marketing standardization/adaptation. Articles dealing solely with how to
do international marketing, how environmental factors affect the international marketing
strategy, or how similar and dissimilar between domestic and foreign markets, are not
included in this review. Occasional references to these papers will be made when
appropriate, but the extensive nature of these literatures precludes comprehensive coverage
in this review.

S_e_c_on_d, the review will include articles that are intended to clarify the definition
and domain of international marketing standardization/adaptation. This inclusion can help
establish the framework of this thesis. giggly, the review will center on conceptual and
empirical works appearing in marketing and strategy related academic publications. The
review articles primarily come from Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing
Research, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of International Business Studies,
International Marketing Review, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Journal of A dvertising Research, International Journal of Advertising, Harvard
Business Review, Columbia Journal of World Business, MSU Business Topics, and

Business Horizon. Significant contributions from other sources which have been

 

me

Do:

SL111
emp
elem
exzu
513111

and;

713‘

need.

Stand

15

referenced in the works listed above will also be included.
Domain of International Marketing Standardization/Adaptation

When reviewing the literature, one can easily find that the domain of marketing
standardization are different from a study to another (Walters 1986). Different
emphasized domains may render different research results and conclusions. In fact, certain
domains of marketing are easier than others to be standardized across borders. For
example, Sorenson and Wiechmann (1975) found that an extremely high degree of
standardization appears to exist in brand name and the physical characteristics of products
and packages, while price can hardly be standardized because of currency fluctuations and
different tariff systems. Therefore, the domain of international marketing standardization
needs to be clearly defined before a productive result of the international marketing
standardization versus adaptation debate can be achieved (Harries 1994; Walters 1986).

Early studies of international marketing standardization centered on the advertising
dimension (Jain 1989; Walters 1986). Blinder (1961) is frequently cited as the pioneer
advocate for the concept of international marketing standardization. He proposed that
uniform advertising in Europe was becoming more feasible and desirable for international
firms. Similarly, Fatt (1967) emphasized that it is desirable to have uniform international
advertising campaigns based on universal appeals. Although these propositions drew
much attention in the practical and academic field, some researchers were more cautious
about the proposition. For example, Roostal (1963) and Miracle (1968) concerned about
the barriers of international advertising standardization. Fournis (1962) commented that
European consumers were not ready to give up customs, traditions, languages, and

literatures. It might take several generations to be able to observe the change.

 

adr‘ertisi'
Fraser (1
Onlt‘r‘ist

Roostal (
{1989)~ ;
adt'ertisir
11
product 5'
global co;
1‘5 1min
all becon
Ethnolog-
bl‘ Slémdx
f0{Using g
dlSClrssed
had-com
adipiallttr,
1'1934 , t a]
15958 th.
Ins
studies em

I ‘n

16

In addition to the above articles, the reviewed articles emphasizing solely on the
advertising aspect include Britt (1974), Dunn (1966), Fatt (1967), Harris (1994), Hite and
Fraser (1988), Kanso (1992), Killough (1978), Kirpalani et al. (1988), Miracle (1968),
Onkvist and Shaw (1987), Peebles (1988), Peebles et al. (1977), Ricks et al. (1974),
Roostal (1963), Ryans and Donnelly (1969), Shao et al. (1992), Whitelock and Chung
(1989), and Zandpour et al. (1994) (Table 2-1). The articles focusing solely on
advertising represent around forty percent of the reviewed articles.

The second most explored domain of international marketing standardization is
product strategy. Studies focused solely on this dimension are related very much to the
global competitive strategy literature. One of the most provocative articles was written
by Levitt (1983). In the article, he claimed that markets in different parts of the world
are becoming more and more similar because of the advance in the communication
technology and transportation systems. He stressed that the economies of scale obtained
by standardizing products are very important for a firm’s global success. Other articles
focusing exclusively on the product aspect include: Hout, Porter, and Rudden (1982) who
discussed the concept of world products; Ohmae (1989) who examined the feasibility of
lead-country models; and Hill and Still (1984) who addressed issues related to product
adaptation in low developed countries. Basically, the above articles (except Hill and Still
( 1984)) are strategically-oriented (Rau and Preble 1987) and did not comprehensively
discuss the standardization issue in detail.

Instead of focusing on only one aspect of marketing, there are increasingly more
studies emphasizing a broader domain of international marketing standardization. The

article by Buzzell (1968) and Terpstra (1967) can be identified as the pioneers in this

 

arr:

incl

Sort

reri:

Stunt

17

approach. They covered several domains of international marketing standardization
including product design, pricing, distribution, sales forces, ads and promotion, branding,
packaging, and other marketing dimensions. Later research which discussed a broader
standardization domain include Blackwell, Ajami, and Stephen (1991), Jain (1989),
Martenson (1987), Quelch and Hoff (1986), Rau and Preble (1987), Sheth (1986),
Sorenson and Weichmann (1975), Walters (1986), and Wind (1986). The rest of the
reviewed articles focused two or three dimensions of international marketing
standardization. The focus of each reviewed article is shown in Table 2-1.

In conclusion, there is no consistent domain of international marketing
standardization in the past literature. Different research may emphasize different domains
of marketing standardization. The different focuses of the past research may render
different conclusions about international marketing standardization. Therefore, it is very

important that the domain of the study must be clearly specified first.

18

Table 2—1 The Domain of International Marketing Standardization

Author(s) Advertising! Product/Brand’g Distrib. Pricing Strategy Others
Promotion package

Baalbaki & Malhotra X X X X X X

(1995)

Blackwell et al. (1991) X X X X X X

Boddewyn et al. (1986) X X X

Britt (1974) X

Buzzell (1968) X X X X X X

Cavusgil et al. (1993) X X

Dunn (1966) X

Blinder (1961) X

Fatt (1967) X

Friedmann (1986) X

Harris (1994) X

Hill & Still (1984) X

Hite & Fraser (1988) X

Hout et al. (1982) X

Iain (1989) X X X X X X

Kanso (1992) X

Kernan & Damzel (1993) X

Killough (1978) X

Kirpalani et al. (1988) X

Levitt (1983) X
Martenson (1987) X X X X X X
Miracle (1968) X

Ohmae (1989) X

1 9
Table 2—1 (cont’d)

Author(s) Advertising/ Product/ Brand’g Distrib. Pricing Strategy Others
Promotion package

Onkvisit & Shaw (1989) X

Onkvisit & Shaw (1987) x

Peebles (1988) X

Peebles ct al. (1977) X

Porter (1986) X

Quelch & Hoff (1986) X X X X X X X
Rau & Preble (1987) X X X X X X X
Ricks et al. (1974) X

Roostal (1963) X

Rosen et al. (1989) X

Ryans & Donnelly (1969) X

Samiee & Roth (1992) X X X X
Sandler & Shani (1992) X X

Shao et al. (1992) X

Sheth (1986) X X X X X X
Sorenson & Weichmann X X X X X X X
(1975)

Szymanski et al. (1993) X X
Terpstra (1967) X X X X X X

Walters (1986) X X X X X X X

Whitelock & Chung (1989) X
Wind (1986) X X X X X

Zandpour et al. (1994) X

 

The Defln
Allkl
standardize
75 percent
almost ever
researchers .
Works into if
by the stud i e
to rer‘eal hurt
Works into th
The 5‘
another issue
rather strict in.
01 intemationl
5W, 0,. ad1
causes the star.
P19190986) 0
191116 EEC a“

‘1
{19921 013958110:

1 .
0509981105555“,

 

 

[We c356 0f lmc

1987).

 

20

The Definition of Marketing Standardization

Another disturbing issue regarding the debate about international marketing
standardization versus adaptation is the definition of standardization itself. Only about
75 percent of the reviewed articles explicitly defined standardization. Among them,
almost every study uses a different definition or a different operationalization. Later
researchers also did not really incorporate the definition/operationalization of the earlier
works into their studies. Table 2-2 displays the definition or operationalization adopted
by the studies which explicitly defined standardization. The articles were listed by year
to reveal how little the later works adopted the definition/ operationalization of the earlier
works into their studies.

The stringency of the definition of international marketing standardization is
another issue needed to be tackled. In the reviewed articles, some studies employed a
rather strict interpretation, while others applied a very loose definition. A strict definition
of international marketing standardization may count the language translation as an
example of adaptation. For example, Roostal ( 1963) claimed that language translation
causes the standardization strategy to be unfeasible in Europe. Boddewyn, Soehl, and
Picard (1986) operationalized product standardization by asking whether the products sold
in the EEC are identical to the US. product. Ryans and Donnelly (1969) and Kanso
(1992) operationalized advertising standardization by asking the estimated percentage of
non-domestic ads developed using a standardized campaign. Based on the strict definition
(or operationalization) of international marketing standardization, one can hardly find a
true case of international marketing standardization (Walters 1986; Onkvisit and Shaw

1987).

 

15511 t
(Onk

Sand

21

On the other hand, some studies proposed a somewhat more flexible definition of
standardization (F att 1967; Hout, Porter, and Rudden 1982; Kanso 1992; Kirpalani,
Laroche, and Darmon 1988; Martenson 1987; Ohmae 1989; Sanler and Shani 1992). For
example, Sandler and Shani (1992) operationalized advertising standardization by asking
whether the same basic campaign with minor modification was used in all foreign
markets. Ohmae (1989) claimed that a true global strategy consists of using lead-country
models and letting local managers make adjustment for local situations. Hout, Porter and
Rudden (1982) asserted that global strategy is not using a world product, but
accommodating local differences without sacrificing production costs.

Because of these different definitions, several researchers began to propose that the
real difference between standardization and adaptation is in degree rather than in kind
(Onkvist and Shaw 1987). One can only claim the degree of standardization instead total
standardization or total adaptation. Therefore, most of the later empirical and conceptual
research considered standardization strategy as a continuum (Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu
’ 1993, Jain 1989; Rau and Preble 1987; Samiee and Roth 1992; Sorenson and Wiechmann
1975). They normally used 5- or 7-point scales to measure the degree of standardization

(Table 2-2).

22

Table 2-2 The Definitions of Marketing Standardization

Author(s)

Blinder (1961)
Roostal (1963)
Dunn (1966)

Fatt (1967)
Miracle (1968)
Buzzell (1968)

Ryans and Donnelly
(1969)

Britt (1974)
Rick, Arpan, and Fu
(1974)

Sorenson and
Wiechmann (1975)

Conceptual/Empirical

Conceptual
Conceptual

Empirical: Case studies of 30
US. international firms

Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual

Empirical

Conceptual

Conceptual

Empirical: 100 executives from
27 major MNCs (packaged
goods) in US.

Definition/
Operationalization

NA
NA

Advertising transferability (four
levels)

1) Translated and used as in
US.

2) Copy and head rewritten

3) Copy and illustrations
changed

4) All changed except theme

5) No particular similarity.

Universal appeals.
NA
NA

Estimated frequency of use of
standardized campaigns or an
individual advertising for the
non-domestic market.

One basic advertising theme vs.
several advertising themes.

NA

Compare two countries at a
time and tell how similar or
different they thought the
decisions regarding factors such
as product formulation,
packaging, and advertising on
seven-point scale ranging from
quite similar to quite different.

lablr
Authr

Peehlr
l'ernu

 

! Killoug
Hout. P
Rudden

Hill an:

BGC'dexrj
Picard 11

Porter (19

Table 2-2 (cont’d)
Author(s)

Peebles, Ryans and
Vernon (1977)

Killough (1978)

Hout, Porter and
Rudden (1982)

Hill and Still (1984)

Boddewyn, Soehl,
Picard (1986)

Friedmann (1986)
Porter (1986)

23

Conceptual/Empirical

Conceptual

Empirical: 65 executives in
MNCs and advertising agencies

Conceptual: with three cases
(Caterpillar, Ericsson, and
Honda)

Empirical: U.S. MNCs in LDC

Empirical: 60 (1973) and 71
(1983) US. companies which
do business in European
Common market.

Conceptual

Conceptual

Definition/Operationlization

Prototype standardization: The
same advertising with only
differences being appropriate
translations and possibly a few
idiomatic change.

Pattern standardization: the
campaign, including its overall
theme and its individual
components, is designed
originally for use in multiple
markets and is developed to
provide a uniformity in
direction, but not necessarily
in detail.

Buying proposal standardization
vs.

Creative presentation
standardization.

General products with local
difference accommodations.

Whether the following
characteristics had been
adapted--brand name,
packaging aesthetics, packaging
protection, measurement units,
constituents, product features,
labeling, usage instruction, and
package size.

Product: products offered in the
EEC (1) are identical to US.
products, (2) are 1-25% of
product adapted to the BBC, (3)
all product adapted to the EEC.
Advertising and branding: Very
substantial standardization/ very
substantial adaptation of
advertising/branding.

NA
NA

 

Re-
to

Table 2-2 (cont’d)
Author(s)

Quelch and Hoff
(1986)

Sheth (1986)
Walters (1986)

Wind (1986)
Martenson (1987)

Onkvist and Shaw
(1987)
Rau and Preble (1987)

Hite and Fraser (1988)

Kirplani, Laroche, and
Darmon (1988)

Jain (1989)

Ohmae (1989)

Peebles (1989)

Rosen, Boddewyn and
Louis (1989)

24

Conceptual/Empirical

Conceptual

Conceptual

Conceptual (literature review)

Conceptual
Empirical: case study of "(EA

Conceptual (review)

Conceptual

Empirical: 150 firms from
Fortune 500

Empirical: MNCs from US,
Canada, and Japan

Conceptual

Conceptual

Conceptual

Empirical: 65 firms (651

brands) including the ten most
heavily advertised U.S. brands
in different product categories

Definition/
Operationalization

No explicit definition. But
discussed full and partial
standardization and adaptation.

NA

Three levels of standardization:
Policy level, geographic area,
and marketing element.

NA
Concept standardization.

The degree of standardization.

The degree of standardization.

Use all standardized
advertising, use all localized
advertising, and a combination.

Three levels:

1) The same campaign with
minor changes

2) Allowing subsidiaries some
flexibility in adapting the
overall campaign to local
conditions.

3) Allowing subsidiaries to
develop their own campaign.

The degree of marketing
program standardization.

Adopt Lead-country models and
let local managers make
adjustment for local situations.

NA

In how many other countries is
the same product sold using the
same/ other brand names.

Bl:
Sic;

 

5'“;
.15;

119"

Karts.

$3471.:

45-5
5.99.]

Table 2-2 (cont’d)
Author(s)

Whitelock and Chang
(1989)

Blackwell, Ajami, and
Stephan (1991)

Shao, Shao, and Shao
(1992)

Samiee and Roth
(1992)

Kanso (1992)

Sandler and Shani
(1992)

25

Conceptual/Empirical

Empirical: compare the
advertising of perfume and
beauty categories in two
magazines, one in UK and the
other in France

Conceptual

Empirical: 344 affiliates of *
U.S. advertising agencies

Empirical: CEOs or presidents
in global industries

Empirical: 96 firms from
Fortune 500

Empirical: Canadian firms

Definition/
Operationalization

Compare the advertising of a
same brand in UK. and France
to see whether the pictures,
sizes, colors, layouts, captions,
text, meaning etc. are the same
or not.

NA

Respondents were asked to state
the percentages of their client’s
campaigns they were able to
standardize concerning both the
sales platform and creative
context.

Five item latent construct

1) Customer needs are
standardized worldwide

2) Product awareness and
information exists worldwide
3) Standardized product
technology exists worldwide
4) Competitors market a
standardized product worldwide
5) Standardized purchasing
practices exist worldwide

Managers were asked to
indicate the percentage of
advertising message for which
their firms used a standardized
approach. Used 50% as the
break point between
standardization and localization.

The same basic campaign (with
minor modifications) used in all
foreign markets.

labl

Authr

 

Cetus
Nazdr.‘

Shine

1199};

Harries

L’l-l‘e:

p.

3am
11993, 15

Table 2-2 (cont’d)
Author(s)

Cavusgil, Zou, and
Naidu (1993)

Szymanski et al.
(1993)

Harries (1994)

Zandpourt et al. (1994)

Baalbaki & Malhotra
(1993, 1995)

26

Conceptual/Empirical

Empirical: 202 product-market
export venture cases, across
seventy-nine firms, and over a
dozen manufacturing industries
in the United States

Empirical: Firms having 90%
or more of their service
markets located in one Western
market; either US, UK,
Canada, or Western Europe
from PIMS four-year average
data

Empirical: Major US. and
European consumer products

Empirical: Advertising from
US, Mexico, France, UK,
Spain, Germany. South Korea,
and Taiwan

Empirical: 74 U.S.-based firms
with international operation and
orientation

Definition/
Operationalization

Measured the degree of product
adaptation (upon and after
entry) and promotion adaptation
(positioning,
packaging/labeling, and
promotion approach) on 5-point
bipolar scales (l=no adaptation,
5=subtantial adaptation).

No measurement for the degree
of standardization.

The respondents were asked to
describe their practices in their
own words. These are
summarized by the
interviewers, who assessed
whether for each element the
level of standardization was
very limited, limited, etc.

Content analysis on advertising
creative strategy,
informativeness, and style.

7-point scale from completely
standardization to completely
customization.

 

The

I/'
a

27

The Limitations of Current Definitions

Although it is conceptually and operationally appealing to consider standardization
as a continuum, this kind of definition has its own limitations. As Harries (1994) stated,
standardization strategy can take many forms. A more important issue is identifying the
detailed forms of standardization. Therefore, defining standardization involves
considering two dimensions. The first dimension focuses on what aspects of marketing
are to be standardized. The second dimension focuses on how standard is each of the
aspects of the marketing program (Figure 2-1). These two dimensions of standardization
can make the debate about standardization become more complicated. Opponents of
standardization can easily build their cases by pointing to an insignificant and hardly
standardized aspect of marketing (e.g., language translation). Supporters of
standardization may argue that the challenged aspect is not important enough to matter.
Therefore, the question of what aspect of marketing is more important for a firm and how
standard of these various aspects are intertwined.

Researchers need to go back to the basic reasons for international marketing
standardization. Firms need to assess how the standardization of certain marketing aspects
affect the benefits and costs of the total marketing program. If the degree of
standardization of a certain marketing aspect under no circumstance will have any major
impact on the cost and benefit structure of a firm’s marketing program, researchers should
save their energy in arguing whether the aspects should be standardized or not. In other
words, researchers may need to find out a key aspect of marketing that will affect the pros

and cons of marketing standardization most. Managers can then use this aspect of

1TH

 

 

Figure:

raj

 

28

 

Level of Standardization

 

Adverstising
& Promotion

 

Product &
Packaging

Distribution

 

 

Pricing

 

Other
Markeitng

Programs

 

 

 

 

Figure 2-1: The Dimensions of Marketing Standardization

 

Degree of Standardization

 

r f I

 

 

 

 

 

Cost and Benefit Analysis

 

 

 

T l E

 

 

 

Common Barries/Contingency Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertising Product & Distribution Pricing Other
& Promotion Packaging Marketing
Programs

 

 

 

Figure 2-2 The Effects of Common Barries

 

mar.
torn

don:

shat
allec

The

on t1
mark
1983
11a 1

29

marketing as the center of the marketing programs. The program for other marketing
domains can also be systematically developed based on the relationship between these
domains and the centered domain of marketing.

In order to decide which aspects of marketing are important, one needs to discuss
what the pros and cons of marketing standardization are and how the marketing aspect
affect the pros and cons.

The Pros and Cons of Marketing Standardization

What are the benefits and costs of international marketing standardization? Based
on the reviewed literature, there are at least three major reasons for international
marketing standardization. The first reason is cost (Buzzell 1968; Elinder 1961; Levitt
1983). Cost saving comes mostly from economies of scale of the standardized activities.
If a firm has to develop an individual product, advertisement, package, etc. for each
individual market, the total cost of the international marketing activities will definitely be
higher than that resulting from a standardized strategy.

The second reason is the consistent image issue (Blackwell, Ajami, and Stephan
1991; Buzzell 1968; Peebles 1989; Peebles, Ryans, and Vernon 1977). Because of the
advances in transportation and communication systems around the world, the flows of
people and information across national boundaries are becoming more and more prevalent.
People in different countries have more chances to acquire information from other
countries, either voluntarily or involuntarily. An inconsistent brand image can make
consmners confused about the brand’s core benefits.

The final reason is the management efficiency issue (Buzzell 1968; Quelch and

Hoff 1986). A standardized strategy can provide headquarters with strong control over

3O

marketing activities in each country. It can also improve the execution efficiency by
asking every subdivision to follow the standardized strategy. Especially when there is an
excellent marketing idea, the firm will want to implement the idea into the world market
immediately. However, standardization also can cause the conflict between headquarter
and subsidiaries (Peebles 1989; Quelch and Hoff 1986; Wiechmann and Pringle 1979).
As Peebles (1989) stated, global standardization can be perceived by subsidiaries as denial
of opportunities to involve and take credit for any marketing success.

The first reason for standardization/adaptation decisions discussed above will affect
the cost of the global strategy, while the second will affect the revenue. The final one
may affect both the revenue and cost of a global strategy. The actual realization of the
pros and cons of standardization (versus the potential) are decided by several contingency
variables. In other words, to know whether standardization can actually accrue the
expected benefits or drawbacks, one needs to know the effects of barriers and other
contingency variables.

Contingency Variables or Barriers for Marketing Standardization

Researchers begin to believe that whether to adopt a standardization strategy is
dependent on the several contingency variables (Buzzell 1968; Cavusgil, Zou, and Naidu
1993; Harries 1994; Jain 1989; Walters 1986). Buzzell (1968) is one of the pioneer
authors who listed a comprehensive list of contingency variables (which is termed
common barriers in his article) for international marketing standardization. He classified
the common barriers of international marketing to standardization into four major
categories; i.e., market characteristics, industry conditions, market institutions, and legal

restrictions. Later researchers also identified several other contingency variables for

31

marketing standardization, but most of them are quite similar to the variables identified
by Buzzell ( 1968). Two variables, however, are unique to the variables identified by
Buzzell (1968). They are: (1) product type (Boddewyn, Soehl and Picard 1986; Dunn
1966; Ohmae 1989; Roostal 1963; Rau and Preble 1987; Samiee and Roth 1992); and (2)
organization issues (Martenson 1987; Rau and Preble 1987; Roostal 1963; Samiee and
Roth 1992). Two other important summaries of the contingency variables to date are
Onkvist and Shaw’s (1987) and Jain’s (1989) articles. Onkvist and Shaw’s (1987) article
extensively reviewed the advertising standardization issue. Jain’s (1989) article, however,
focused on the review of the marketing program standardization issues.

Table 2-3 shows the detailed contingency variables in various reviewed articles
since 1963. To organize the contingency variables systemically, the table groups the
variables into eight categories. They are: (1) product type; (2) consumer characteristics,
which includes consumer needs, usage pattern, and psychosocial characteristics; (3) firm’s
position, which includes market share, competitive position, and competitive environment;
(4) marketing environment, which includes media environment, distribution system, and
agency availability; (5) industrial environment, which includes the stage of PLC,
technology maturity, and the speed of technology change; (6) organizational issues, which
includes organization setup, organization resources, and the importance of foreign markets;
(7) culture; (8) political and economic environment, which includes legal, political,
economic, and other general environment.

Among them, political and economic environment is the most mentioned
contingency variable, followed by product type, consumer characteristics, marketing

environment, organizational issues, culture, industrial environment, and firm’s position.

32

One thing must be mentioned is that the above contingency variables are not independent
from each other. For example, culture will affect consumer characteristics, while different
product categories will have different consumer, industrial, marketing environment
characteristics.

The inclusion of contingency variables makes the debate of standardization more
complicated. As discussed, now we have three dimensions of the debate--the aspect of
marketing programs, the degree of standardization, and the barriers to standardization.
What will be the most efficient way to organize these considerations into a manageable
framework? It is a big challenge for marketing researchers as well as marketing
practitioners.

How to Standardize Marketing Activities

Based on the discussion above, the object of marketing standardization is to
achieve the highest long term profit, while the constraints are the common barriers to
standardization within each aspect of marketing programs (Figure 2-2). Different barriers
may affect different aspects of marketing programs. The degree of standardization within
each aspect and the moderating effect of the common barriers decide the total benefit and
cost of the global marketing program. There is more than one way a marketer can
approach this issue. However, as stated, one of the ways is to find out the most important
aspect of marketing standardization (i.e., the aspect can affect most benefits and
drawbacks) (Blackwell, Ajami, and Stephan 1991; Walters 1986; Wind 1986). One can
take the common barriers of the key marketing aspect into consideration and decide the

best degree of standardization for it. After the degree of standardization of the most

33

Table 2-3: The Contingency Variables of International Marketing Standardization

Author-(s) Product Consumer Firm Market lndust. Orgt’n Culture Political
type profile position environ. environ. issues & economic
Baalbaki & Malhotra X X X X X X X
(1995)
Blackwell et al. (1991) X X X X
Boddewyn et al. (1986) X
Britt (1974) X X
Buzzell (1968) X X X X X X X
Cavusgil et al. (1993) X X X X X X X
Dunn (1966) X X X X X X
Friedmann (1986) X X
Hill & Still (1984) X
Hite & Fraser (1988) X X X X
Hout et al. (1982) X X X X X
Jain ( l 989) X X X X X X
Kirpalani et al. (1988) X
Martenson (1987) X X X X
Miracle (1968) X X X X X
Ohmae (1989) X
OnKVisit & Shaw (1989) X X X X
Onkvisit & Shaw (1987) X X X X X X X X
Quelch & Hoff(l986) x x x x x
Rau & Preble (1987) x x x x x x
ROOStaI (1963) x x x x
Rosen er al. (1939) x x

Samiee &. Roth (1992) X X X X

34
Table 2-3 (cont’d)

Authofls) Product Consumer Firm Market lndust. Orgt’n Culture Political
type profile position environ. environ. issues & economic
Sandler & Shani (1992) X x
Shao et al. (1992) X X X
Sheth (1986) X x
Sorenson & Weichmann X X X X X X
(1975)
Szymanski et al. (1993) X X X X X
Terpstra ( 1967) X X X X X X X X
Zandpour et al. (1994) X X

important marketing aspect has been decided, the other aspects can be decided.
The trend of the past conceptual literature may provide supports for this assertion
(Table 2-4). In 1970’s, some researchers began to propose that basic appeal instead of
executional aspects of marketing should be standardized around the world (Killough 1978;
Peebles 1977; Ricks et al. 1974). For example, Killough (1978) distinguished between
buying proposals and creative presentations of an advertising. Buying proposals represent
the selling points, or those elements of the seller’s product or service judged by him/her
to be most persuasive and most relevant to the prospective consumers. Creative
Presentations, on the other hand, include headline ideas and all visual and verbal elements
WhiCh surround the central statement. According to Killough’s empirical survey, a buying
Proposal is not only the most important aspect for standardization, but also has a higher
clance of acceptance across borders than a creative presentation (i.e., less common
barriers). Therefore, a firm should focus on the standardization of a buying proposal in

the international markets instead of the creative presentations.

35

Table 2-4 Key Results of the Marketing Standardization Literature

Author (s)
Blinder (1961)

Roostal (1963)

Dunn (1966)

Fatt (1967)

Buzzell (1968)

Miracle (1968)

Ryans and Donnelly
(1969)

Britt (1974)

Rick, Arpan, and Fu
(1974)

Key Points

An uniform advertising in Europe is becoming feasible and
desirable for international firms

1) Because of the insufficient marketing planning, diversity of
language, and media and government regulations, there are still
great hindrances to more internationally standardized advertising in
Western Europe.

2) F irrn may need be experimental to find out whether
standardization can be payoff.

1) The campaign that have been most successful are those where
marketers have managed to work out a balance between complete
internationalization and complete localization.

2) One method of allowing for flexibility is to employ a
"prototype" campaign.

3) Well educated are less influenced by cultural variables than
mass audiences.

1) To market products around the world, we must think
universally.

2) People are basically the same. Therefore, an international
advertising campaign with a truly universal appeal can be effective
in any market.

Both the pros and cons of standardization in multinational
marketing programs should be considered. Company should base
on estimated overall revenues and costs to make decisions.

The issue is not whether advertising message and media strategy
should be uniform among markets, the real issue has to do with
uniformity of procedure and criteria.

1) Most advertisers feel that their non-domestic advertising must
be adjusted for each local situation

2) More advertising managers agree with the statement, "basic
human nature is the same everywhere," than the statement,
"standardized ads can be readily applied throughout the world."

Products or services which are culturally or psychosocially specific
to a given country or group will be the poor candidate for
standardized advertising campaign.

1) International advertising should translate the basic appeals, not
the literal meaning.

2) Basic appeals can be successfully employed everywhere in the
world.

Table 2—4 (cont’d)
Author“)

Sorenson and
W iechmann (1975)

Peebles, Ryans and
Vernon (1977)

Killough (1978)

H01“, Porter and
Rudden (1982)

Hill and Still (1984)

Friedmann (1986)

36

Key Points

1)’An extreme high degree of standardization appears to exist in
brand names, physical characteristics of products, and packaging.
2) While subsidiaries are expected to adopt the basic advertising
theme, they have a high degree of autonomy as to vary the
creative expression of the theme.

3) Pricing decisions tend to be the most dissimilar from country to
country.

4) Oftenly marketing programs cannot be standardized. What can
be standardized is the process of making marketing decisions.

5) Discretionary custom-tailoring is less common than obligatory
custom-tailoring.

6) The major benefits of standardization include better marketing
performances and lower marketing cost.

1) The major benefits of standardization include a world-wide
corporate image, cost reduction, message confusion reduction.

2) The term standardized advertising has been used too
simplistically and thus, has produced a high degree of polarity in
the positions on whether firms should standardize their advertising
or not.

3) Pattern standardization can have most of the benefit of
standardization, while permitting flexibility in response to
individual market differences.

Buying proposal and creative presentation are distinctive from
each other. Buying proposals generally have a good chances of
acceptance across broad chunks of geography, while creative
presentations do not.

To succeed, an international company may need to change from
multi-domestic competitors to a global organization.

Changes in transferred products usually fall into two groups. The
first consists of mandatory changes, which account for less than
one in four of all product changes. The second group is made up
of adaption that improve an MNC’s position in the market place,
which account for about seven out of ten product changes in the
studies.

1) Psychological meaning of products can help in determining the
suitable degree of standardization.

2) Psychological meaning is culturally bounded and representatives
of the most relevant variables.

Table 2-4 (cont’d)
Auth0r(8)

Porter (1986)

Boddewyn, Soehl,
Picard (1986)

Quelch and Hoff
(1986)

Sheth ( 1986)

Walters (1986)

Wind (1 986)

Martenson (1987)

37

Key Points

1) The largest role of marketing in international strategy is to help
other functions of business get advantages of scale and learning.
2) Opportunities for centralized marketing are rare because many
marketing activities must inherently be performed where the
buyers are located.

1) Compared to 1973, product standardization in 1983 is generally
up.

2) Advertising is more resistant to standardization.

3) Industrial goods manufactures have standardized the most.
However, they anticipate moving toward product adaptation.

1) Some functional areas (e.g., manufacturing, finance, and R&D)
have greater program standardization than other functions.
2)Products that enjoy high scale economies and are not highly
culture-bound are easier to be marketed globally than others.

3) Strategic elements like product positioning are more easily
standardized than execution-sensitive elements like sales
promotion.

1) True global mass marketing is possible only if worldwide needs
and resources are homogeneous. In other cases, it is still possible
to do business globally through product, market, or specialty
segmentation strategies.

2) If and only if, both market needs and market resources are
highly similar across nations, should we expect the emergence of
true global markets.

1) Total uniformity, is defined as detailed marketing programs and
procedures for international markets, are relatively rare.

2) The propensity of management to adopt standardization of
marketing output seems to be greatest for product policy. The
evidence of standardization on advertising and other promotional
programs is mixed.

1) Positioning is the starting point for global standardization.

2) A standardized strategy takes the initiative and entrepreneurial
spirit away from the local managers.

3)Managers have to think globally, and act locally. Overall design
follows worldwide perspectives but every details of the marketing
strategy takes into account of the idiosyncratic country
characteristics and cultural differences.

1) IKEA offers the same products worldwide.

2) IKEA have same price position worldwide.

3) IKEA use prototype communication model.

4) It is still possible to succeed with a standardized marketing
concept in a culture-bound industry.

Table 2-4 (cont’d)

Auth0r(8)

Onkvist and Shaw
( 1 987)

Rau and Preble (1987)

Hite and Fraser (1988)

Kirplani, Laroche, and
DarmOn (1988)

38

Key Points

1) In general, the arguments regarding advertising standardization
have been based on individual impressions which are subjective
and highly judgmental.

2) Standardization can be seen from two angles. The first is
feasibility, the second is desirability.

3) Three major criteria that determine the degree of desirability
are cost, communication effectiveness, and consumer homogeneity.
4) The difference between standardization and adaptation is in
degree rather than in kind.

1) We should distinguish what degree of standardization is
actively sought by a multinational firm and what degree of
standardization is attainable.

2) The lower the internal organizational costs and the more similar
the overseas market to the home market the greater the degree of
standardization.

3) Firms selling a single product in a foreign market which is at
the same stage in the life cycle as the home market would be
expected to have a higher level of standardization.

4) For multi-product firms, those organized on product division
lines internationally would achieve a lower level of standardization
than firms which have an international division at headquarters.

5) The more similar the foreign and home markets and the greater
the degree of headquarter/subsidiary communications the more
standardized will be the marketing techniques.

1) Over half of the firms used combination strategy. Only 8% of
them use all standardized advertising.

2)Most of the respondents agreed that it is important to change the
language to blend with the individual culture.

3) Firms which utilized a totally standardized advertising are more
likely to be involved in capital goods industries and are more
likely to select a single U.S. advertising agency.

1) Canadian firms have the highest incidence of transferring their
campaign to their export countries (mostly US).

2) US. firms have the highest incidence of local adaptation.

3) Japanese firms plan the basic strategy at headquarter and allow
considerable flexibility for adapting their campaigns to local
situations.

4) F inns indicate that the major benefits of standardization are
cost reduction (46%) and consistent corporate image (15%).

Table 2-4 (cont’d)

Author(s)
Jain (1989)

Ohmae (1989)

Peebles (1989)

Rosen, Boddewyn and
Louis (1989)

Whitelock and Chang
(1989)

Blackwell, Ajami, and
Stephan (1991)

Shao, Shao, and Shao
(1 992)

39

Standardization is more practical when

1) Market are economically alike,

2) Worldwide customer as the base,

3) High cultural compatibility,

4) High similarity of customer behavior and lifestyle,

5) Greater degree of similarity in a firrn’s competitive position in
different markets,

6) High technology products,

7) Higher physical, political and legal environment,

8) Mangers share a common world view and centralization of
authority.

1) For high frequency and low cost products, companies has to
establish the infrastructure to be successful.

2) For low frequency and high cost product, the ready flow of
information around the world stimulates concentrated demand for
a product in the top-bracket segment.

1) Brand image is company’s most important asset. lf brand logo
has a difi‘erent image in different markets, marketers will have
problems in planing product improvement, or creating new
products under the brand.

2) Consumers of any nationality cannot know the technical details
of most products. Rather, consumers choose products on their
perceptions of a brand gained through experiences and
recommendations by the brand’s advertising.

3) An overseas subsidiary can perceive the global campaign as
denying its opportunity to take credit for any sales success.

1) A high degree of brand standardization exists.
2) Standardized brands do not tend to be newer than non-
standardized brands.

The finding shows that complete standardization of copy and
layout is possible in only very few cases. In most cases,
modifications are observed.

1) The challenge is to build the core of the marketing strategy on
the universals.

2) A realistic approach to the issue of standardization is that some
elements must be localized and some can be standardized.

3) If the brand is truly a global brand, inconsistency of brand
image may create problems and confusions in the minds of
consumers.

1) Environments were too different to capitalize on the advertising
standardization.

2) Less than 10 percent of the respondents standardized both the
sales platform and the creative context.

Table 2-4 (cont’d)
Author(s)

Samiee and Roth
(1992)

Kanso (1992)

Sandler and Shani
(1992)

Cavusgil, Zou, and
Naidu (1993)

Szymanski et al.
(1993)

Harries (1994)

Zandpourt et al. (1994)

40

Key Points

1) Market coverage and capacity utilization are important
considerations for firms’ emphasizing global standardization.

2) Emphasis on specialty products and the development of high
priced products for market niches are also important reasons for
standardization.

3) There is no differences in performance between firms stressing
global standardization and others.

Most of the respondent (75%) followed a localized approach.

1) Branding and advertising are two independent decisions.

2) It is more difficult to standardize advertising than brand names
when advertising relates to local cultures and local policies.

3) Standardized strategies are used more for durable than non-
durable.

The empirical results support the contingency perspective. The
degree of the various aspects of product and promotion adaptation
are significantly influenced by company, product/industry, and
export market characteristics. However, the profile of the
correlates varies across the various aspects of product and
promotion adaptation.

A multinational business that employed a similar pattern of
resource allocation among marketing mix variables when serving
the US, UK, Canadian, and Western European markets would
find that, on average, the standardized approach evokes similar
performance responses in those markets.

1) Standardization is a flexible and adaptive policy that can take
many forms. To use the term "modified" to describe the practices
of all those companies who neither totally adapt, nor totally
standardized is of limited descriptive value.

2) About 76 percent companies which are not practicing
standardization reported that they only standardized strategies, not
executions.

1) The study demonstrated that cultural traits such as
individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance,
and perception of time independently affect the creative approach,
substance, and styles of television advertising.

2) Advertising environment characteristics such as types of
products and services, advertising expenditures per capita, presence
of US. advertisers, government control of advertising, availability
of commercial breaks during programs, shortage of advertising
personnel, and presences of US. advertising agencies were also
shown to independently impact the nature of television advertising
message.

41

Table 2-4 (cont’d)
Author(s) Key Points

Baalbaki and Malhotra 1) Competitive environment was consistently regarded as the most
(1995) important variables affecting the extent of standardization of
international marketing strategy.
2) A fully standardized marketing strategy may not be appropriate
based on the research results.

In a similar vein, Peebles, Ryans and Vernon (1977) differentiated between
prototype and pattern standardization. The prototype standardization results when the real
adaptation lies in changes to copy to avoid any problems in translation. The m
standardization results when a same basic creative theme is used in international markets
but other executional elements are adapted to the local situation when necessary. They
believed that pattern standardization is not only a more feasible way to achieve the most
effective standardization strategy, but also can achieve most of the benefits of
standardization. Similar view points were also addressed by Sorenson and Weichmann
(1975), Boddewyn et al. (1986), and Kernon and Damzel (1993).

These studies believe that basic advertising themes or objectives are easy and
practical to form the base for international advertising standardization. That is, by
standardizing the basic theme or objective, a firm can maximize the difference between
benefits and costs. Standardizing all elements of advertising may generate more costs
than benefits. Several articles regarding product strategy also addressed similar points.
For example, Ohmae (1989) stressed that the global firm can use a lead-country model
to achieve a global competitive advantage, while allowing local managers make minor
adjustments for local customers. The key focus should be on the lead-country model for

it is most related to the final costs and benefits. Local adjustments are used to serve

42

customers better. Hout, Porter, and Rudden (1982) used case studies to emphasize a
similar point. They stated that "In none of the cases did success result from a ’world
product,’ ...... Caterpillar’s design similarities and central component facilities allowed each
market to contribute to its already favorable cost structure. Ericsson’s shared modules led
to falling costs each time a system was sold in a new country. Honda drew on scale
economies from the centralized production of units sold in each market" (p. 104).

Finally, more recent marketing researchers also pr0posed the similar view point.
Wind (1986) and Blackwell et al. (1991) both advocated that a firm should think globally
and act locally. The overall design follows worldwide perspectives, but the detailed
execution should take local situations into consideration.

The above articles all believe that the key to solving the argument regarding
marketing standardization is to distinguish the key aspect of marketing from the minor and
executional aspects. ' Implicitly, this approach assumes that different aspect’s
standardization has different weights in generating benefits and costs. Marketing
managers should focus on standardizing either advertising strategy, buying proposal, or
lead product model, while still allowing local subsidiaries to make executional changes
for different local situations. Counting what percent of the executions are standardized,
like most of the reviewed articles did, is not so relevant to the key purpose of marketing
standardization. Strategy and execution have different importance in this respect.

For example, different countries have different media environments. The purpose
of the media plan is to reach the right person at the right time. It is the responsibility of
local managers to find out the best schedule for the media plan. Standardization of the

media plan around the world may cause more cost than benefit. Another example is the

43

distribution. Countries can have dramatically different distribution systems. If a firm
insists on distribution standardization, it may not only cost more, but also generate no
standardization benefits. If a firm standardizes its marketing programs at the strategic
level, local marketing execution can follow the strategy while making executional
adjustments if necessary. As Colgate-Palmolive’s senior associate director, Maureen R.
Marston (1992) claimed, global marketing may mean consistent positioning, but not
necessarily the same brand name, the same package, or the same advertisement. Local
constraints need to be considered for a local marketing execution.
A Proposition for the Definition of International Marketing Standardization

The above arguments provide a base for the proposition of the present study. The
key to solving the confusion over the definition of marketing standardization is to find
and define the key component of marketing activities. However, the definitions in the
above studies can still be improved in two ways. First, the aspect of standardization can
be extended into a broader perspective. Although the clarifications and classifications by
Killough (1978), Peebles, Ryans, and Vernon (1977), Ohmae (1989), and Hout, Porter,
and Rudden (1982), Blackwell et al. (1991), Wind (1986), etc. are helpful, they all are
limited to certain aspects of marketing. A more general framework which incorporates
different aspects of marketing needs to be proposed. One needs to find a generic term
which is accepted by both practitioners and academic researchers for this integration.
Second, after the degree of standardization of the key marketing component is decided,
what is the practical guideline for the level of standardization for other marketing
elements? This issue is not really touched by the past studies. A systematic approach is

urgently needed.

44

In this study, it is proposed that the term, "product concept" can be used as the
basic unit for international marketing standardization. There are at least four major
reasons for this proposition. m, the term "product concept" is not only well received
among marketing practitioners, but also is one of the most important aspect of a brand or
product (Dillon, Madden, and Firtle 1994; Haley and Gatty 1971; Moore 1982; Schwartz
1987). As defined by Dillon, Madden and F irtle (1994), "a concept is an idea on its way
to becoming a marketing strategy. A marketing strategy attempts to convince a target
segment of consumers that a particular brand possesses those end benefits that they desire
and presents evidence to support the claim" (p.558). A consumer buys a product for its
end benefits (F riedmann 1986). A product concept can not only show the product’s end
benefits, but also point to the direction the product will take for the corporate team (Haley
and Gatty 1971; Schwartz 1987). The product concept will be the base for guiding
marketing programs and processes such as advertising, channel distribution, product
formation, and pricing (Schwartz 1987) (Figure 2-3). Most importantly, a product concept
is not an advertising strategy. A product concept is designed to communicate information
realistically, while an advertisement is designed to attract attention and be memorable in
addition to communicating information (Dillon, Madden, and Firtle 1994; Schwartz 1987).

One of the most important aspects of a product concept is the consumer element
(Schwartz 1987). Consumers demonstrate objections or approvals for a product concept
in a concept test. Concept tests have become one of the most important marketing
activities in major firms (whether a durable or non durable goods company) in introducing

new product or brand (Acito and Hustad 1981; Dillon et al. 1994; Kotler 1988; Marston

 

Advertising
& Promotion

 

45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product Concept
Product & istribution Pricing
Packaging

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figuire 2-3 Product Concept

 

 

Other
Marketing

Programs

 

 

46
1992; Moore 1982; Schwartz 1987). Levitt (1981) even claimed that marketers sell

product concepts instead of products. Therefore, using the product concept to distinguish
marketing strategies from marketing execution not only possesses the consumer element,
but also has practical usefulness.

Second the term "product concept" also has a strong linkage to the concept of

 

brand equity (Figure 2-4). Recently, much attention has been given to this particular
concept in the marketing field (Aaker 1991; Aaker and Biel 1992; Keller 1993). Keller’s
(1993) definition of brand equity is especially related to the linkage that this thesis is
proposing. In Keller’s (1993) article, customer-based brand equity is defined as "the
differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the
brand" (p.8). Customer-based brand equity occurs when a consumer is familiar with the
brand and holds some favorable, strong, and unique brand associations in memory.
Generally speaking, the term "product concept" is a static expression, while the term
"brand equity" is a cumulative and dynamic phrase. The product concept is what
marketers want consumers to know about the brand, while brand equity represents how
much consumers already know about the brand. If an international marketer uses different
product concepts for a brand in different countries, the brand knowledge built in the
consumer’s mind will be totally different among people in different countries even if the
same brand name is used (Blackwell, Ajami, and Stephen 1991).

Another important concept related to brand equity is the congruence of brand
associations (Keller 1993). The congruence among brand associations can affect how
easily an existing brand association can be recalled and how easily additional brand

associations can be linked to the brain node in the memory. A strong congruence among

47

a brand’s associations can create a cohesive brand image. If the image of a brand is
diffuse, consumers may confuse the meaning a brand wants to deliver, and/or the
associations of the focal brand may easily be changed by competitive actions (Keller
1993). A consistent product concept can help establish this congruence effect. A product
concept is the base for a brand’s marketing strategy. After the product concept for a
brand is decided, all elements of the marketing program can base on the product concept
to create consistent and cohesive brand associations.

M, the product concept can be used as the base for tackling issues regarding
barriers of standardization. The barriers for marketing standardization can be mandatory
or voluntary (Hill and Still 1984; Onkvist and Shaw 1987 ; Rau and Preble 1987; Sorenson
and Wiechmann 1975). For voluntary marketing decisions, it is the firm’s discretion to
make its own decision on whether it wants to have a consistent global brand. A firm has
to estimate the benefit and cost of these voluntary marketing decisions based on the
common barriers. One of the most important barriers for marketing standardization are
consumers’ different needs. Product concepts can be directly tested in consumer research
to see whether the concept is acceptable to the consumers in different regions or cultures.
On the other hand, for mandatory marketing decision, a firm has to adjust its marketing
plan as long as it want to enter the market. The discretionary issue involves the guideline
for all other adjustments in the marketing program. As stated, in order to create cohesive
brand associations for a brand, the product concept can and should be the base for the
guideline. As long as a firm has a clear product concept for the brand, it won’t be

difficult to develop a specific marketing execution that can adapt to the local situation

48

LProduct Concept 1

 

 

 

 

Advertising Product & Distribution Pricing Other
& Promotion Packaging Marketing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Awareness Image
\ A //
Brand Knowledge
4
Brand Equity

 

 

 

Figure 24 Product Concept and Brand Equaity

49

without hurting the brand equity. For example, suppose a firm wants to introduce a
shampoo and conditioner to the world market. Suppose the key concept of the product
is to make hair easy to manage. Because consumers’ hair textures are very different in
different countries or regions, people in different countries/regions have different
conditioning needs. For example, the hair textures of Japanese are harder than those of
consumers in other southern Asian countries. If the firm wants to deliver the same
product concept to all the countries in Asia, it cannot use the same formula to sell the
same concept. If it uses the formula sold in Japan in other South Asian countries, the
conditioning effect of the shampoo will be too much for the people in those countries.
The concept of "easy managemen " cannot be delivered under the same product formula
in every country. In this case, the product concept is the guideline for the local product
execution. A product concept also can be the guideline for all other marketing programs
like package decisions. If a firm cannot find the same package material in a specific
country, it can use the local material to produce the package while maintaining the same
product concept. In both cases, the product concept is the base for all marketing
activities. The purpose of all marketing activities is to deliver the product concept to the
consumers at a reasonable cost. When consumers acquire the meaning of the brand
concept, it becomes the equity of the brand.

finally, as stated, one major drawback of marketing standardization is the lack of
involvement of overseas subsidiaries in international marketing (Gates and Egelhoff 1986;
Hulbert, Brandt, and Richers 1980; Peebles 1989; Wiechmann and Pringle 1979; Wills
and Ryans 1977). Managers in overseas subsidiaries may perceive that the standardized

campaign is the denial of their opportunity to take part in the decision process.

50

Standardization at the product concept level can give local managers the responsibility of
developing the most suitable executional plan to achieve the best marketing results. In
addition, the local manger can also have input in developing the product concept during
the new product concept generation stage (Peebles 1989; Peebles, Ryans and Vernon
1977)

Therefore, conceptually using the product concept as the core for marketing
standardization can not only have the highest impact on a firm’s cost and revenue
structure, but can also link other aspects of marketing into it systematically.

The Definition of International Marketing Standardization in this Thesis

Based on the above discussion, the focus of current study will be on the product
concept level. The experimental design will use product concept as the experimental
stimulus. Therefore, in this study, a marketing standardization strategy is one that uses
same product concept in every international market. On the other hand, an adaptation
strategy is defined as the adaptation of the product concept to fit into different local
markets. The empirical work conducted in this level can have two major benefits in
additional to the conceptual benefits discussed above. Egg, as stated in Chapter one,
there are countless executional adjustments a firm may need to make in global markets.
Instead of focusing on the executional level, researchers should focus on the strategic level
standardization first. If we can demonstrate that people in different cultures prefer
different product concepts (i.e., they may have different needs), then there is little
argument about whether we need to standardize the executional aspect. Because the
executional aspects of marketing have to follow strategy, different strategies should

generate specific executions in different markets. If we focus on the executional aspects

51

of marketing, we may lose sight of the strategic issues.

Second focusing on the product concept level can reduce the confounding effects

 

between the executional level and the conceptual level in experimental studies. As stated,
a concept is designed to communicate information realistically, while an advertising is
designed to attract attention and be memorable in addition to communicating information
(Schwartz 1987). Research using advertising as the stimulus may easily create
confounding results between the effect of the ad content and the executional manipulation.
That is, a consumer may like an advertising because of the ad content or because of the
executional part of the ad. Using the product concept as the experimental stimulus instead
of advertising can ensure that the concept is liked because of the content instead of the
execution.

Therefore, the product concept will be used as the basic unit for the experimental
stimulus. The next task is to see whether there are persistent cultural and other variables
that may cause consumers to have different needs for a certain product. The functional
approach to attitudes is proposed .to integrate the culture, personality, object, and other
variables. Therefore, in the following section, the key concepts of the attitude functions

and other related theories will be discussed.

AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF CROSS-CULTURAL CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

In this section, an integrated model of attitude functions, self-concept, and
consumption symbolism for explaining cross-cultural consumer behavior will be presented.
To fulfill this task, theories of attitude functions, culture and personality, self-concept ,

and consumption symbolism will be discussed respectively. Specific hypotheses will be

52

addressed at the end of each section.
The Functions of Attitude

Theories of attitude functions maintain that in order to persuade a person, one
needs to know why that person holds a certain attitude; i.e., what is the motivational bases
for the attitude? The functional approach asserts that people maintain their attitudes for
specific reasons. A certain individual’s needs are being met by their attitude. The same
attitude may not serve the same function for different people (Katz 1960; Smith et al.
1956). For example, people may be against a social project because of ego-defense, value
expressive, or knowledge purposes. In order to persuade people to accept the social
project, one must first know what psychological function(s) that attitude serves. It has
been more than thirty years since the theory was first proposed. Although the theory
sounds intriguing, the theory remains empirically impoverished (Eagly and Chaiken 1993;
Kiesler, Collins, and Miller 1969). This is because this school of thought did not frame
hypotheses in testable terms and did not propose a comprehensive methodology for
identifying the functions of attitude (Shavitt 1989). Different researchers proposed
different classifications of attitude functions. In order to generate consistent empirical
results, one needs to define clearly the proposed functions first.

Among different definitions, the two most referenced functional taxonomies were
developed by Smith et al. (1956) and Katz (1960). Smith et al. (1956) derived a three-
function taxonomy inductively, through clinical interviews that explored the personality
styles and attitudes toward Russia of 10 adult males. On the other hand, Katz (1960)
proposed a four-function taxonomy by drawing from the insights about a person’s

motivational processes. These two taxonomies share several points. Katz’s (1960)

53

taxonomy is elaborated here for it is more detailed. The taxonomy of Smith et al. (1956)
will be compared to Katz’s (1960) definition. In addition, several recent development of
functional theories also will be discussed here.

Katz (1960) proposed that any given attitude held by any given individual serves
one or more attitude functions. Specifically, he suggested four different attitude functions;
i.e., a utilitarian function, a knowledge function, an ego-defensive function, and a value-
expressive function. The utilitarian function, also termed as instrumental or adjustive
function, describes the behaviorist principle that people are motivated to avoid punishment
and gain reward from their environment. The knowledge function presumes a person’s
basic need to attain a meaningful, stable, and organized view of his/her environment. m
ego-defense function enables people to cope with emotional conflict and defend their self-
prejudices. Finally, the value-expressive function provides a person chances to express
his/her inner most values.

The classification of attitude functions by Smith et al. (1956) share several
similarities with Katz’s definitions. The extemalization function proposed by Smith et al.
(1956) is similar to ego-defensive function proposed by Katz. The object-appraisal
function (Smith et al. 1956) is frequently considered as a combination of Katz’s
knowledge and utilitarian function (Herek 1986; Eagly and Chaiken 1993). Attitudes
serving this function not only provide guidelines for sizing up objects and events in terms
of a person’s major interest and concerns, but also spare the person from a painful process
of figuring out how to relate objects and events in their environment. Finally, Katz’s
value expressive function emphasizes only the need for self-expression and self-

actualization. It does not consider the attitude which can express one’s values to

54
important reference groups. The social directed function defined by Smith et al. (1956)

addresses this limitation. Attitudes serving this function facilitate, maintain, and at times,
disrupt a person’s social relationship.

It has long been assumed that any given attitude may serve multiple functions for
an individual in this school of thought (Eagly and Chaiken 1993). Contemporary
researchers even argue that regardless of what other functions attitudes serve, almost every
attitude serves the knowledge and utilitarian functions (or object appraisal function) (Eagly
and Chaiken 1993; Greenwald 1989; Shavitt 1990). That is, almost every attitude
facilitates a person’s transactions with environmental stimuli and are instrumental to that
person. There is high overlap between these two functions with other functions. Therefore,
researchers focused more on the value expressive function, the social adjustment function,
and the ego-defense function because they are conceptual more distinct and empirically
more executable.

This study will focus on the first two functions (i.e., value expressive and social
adjustment functions) because of two reasons. First, these two functions are more related
to consumption issues. The past studies regarding consumer behavior are more related
to these two functions (DeBono 1987; DeBono and Packer 1991; Han and Shavitt 1994;
Shavitt 1990). Second, these two functions are also more associated with the variables
(i.e., culture, personality, and product type) this study intends to explore.

However, there is a confusion in the definition of the value expressive function in
the past research. As stated, the value expressive function was first proposed by Katz
(1960). Katz defined this attitude function as the means for expressing personal values and

other core aspects of the self concept. He did not explicitly consider how this attitude

55

function can mediate a person’s relations with others (Eagly and Chaiken 1993). This
ambiguous definition leads to different explanations by different researchers. For
example, Snyder and DeBono (1985) considered the value expressive function as a
product attribute and function oriented attitude function. However, later researchers
defined the value expressive function as more of a social oriented function. For example,
Shavitt (1992) and Johar and Sirgy (1991) both defined an ad with an image appeal as
a value expressive ad and an ad with a quality appeal as a utilitarian ad.

To clarify the confusion of the definition, it is proposed that an object attribute and
quality oriented attitude function be termed non-social oriented function, while social
oriented attitude function be termed social oriented function.

Table 2-5 provides a summary definitions of the key variables in this study. The
first row of definition are the two attitude functions. These definitions are followed by
the definitions of product concepts, cultures, personalities, and product types. The non-
social oriented product concept is used to express non-social oriented attitude functions,
while the social oriented product concept is utilized to communicate the social oriented
attitude functions. As will be defined in the next section, people in an individualistic
culture focus mostly on their personal gain and are less susceptible to social influences.
On the other hand, people in a collectivistic culture emphasize group conformity and
social relationship enhancement. Similarly, an individual with high ATSCI acore cares
more about others’ opinions and how to fit into a group than a low ATSCI individual.

If a product is used mainly for social oriented purposes, it is termed social oriented
product. On the other hand, if a product is utilized mostly for non-social oriented

objectives, it is termed non-social oriented product. Finally, when the attitude function a

56

Table 2-5 The Definitions of Key Constructs

 

Attitude Function
Definition

Non-Social Oriented Attitude Function

Social Oriented Attitude Function

 

Attitude functions which emphasize
and express personal underlying values
and dispositions.

Attitude functions which focus on
facilitating and maintaining a person’s
social relationship.

 

Product concept

Non-Social Oriented Product Concept

Social Oriented Product Concept

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the product is for behavior is

benefits conspicuous to

intrinsically others and the

associated with consumption

the product behavior delivers

attributes. symbolic
meaning to

 

others.

 

Definition
Product concepts which focus on Product concepts which emphasize the
attributes and non-social benefits that social relationship enhancement and
express a person’s values and maintenance.
dispositions.
Individualism Collectivism
Culture *Individuals decide and act on the ’Consider the implication of their
Definition basis of whether an action leads to decisions and/or actions toward
personal gains. others.
‘Less susceptible to social ‘More susceptible to social influences.
influences. ‘Depend on a limited groups,
‘Depend on many groups and is less therefore, they are more conforming to a
conforming to a specific group’s specific group’s opinion.
opinion. ‘Very concerned about the approval
I'Being accepted by a certain group is from their collective.
not a major purpose of life.
Low Attention to Social Comparison High Attention to Social Comparison
Information Information
Personality *Care less about others’ opinions ‘Actively pay attention to others’
Definition about them. opinions about them.
‘lt’s not important to fit into a ‘lt’s important to fit into a group.
group. *Be harmonious with the group and
‘Do not follow the crowd. follow the crowd.
Non-Social Social Oriented Ambivalent Attitude Function Product
Oriented Product Product
Product Type ‘The major ‘The purchasing ‘The attitude function a product engages
Definition purpose of using and consumption is perceived differently by different people

in different cultures or different
individuals with different personalities.

 

 

57

product engages is perceived differently by different people in different cultures or
different people with different personalities, it is termed ambivalent attitude function
product. The definition of an ambivalent attitude function product will discussed more in
the next section.

In the next section, the article will discuss how culture and personality can

influence a product concept’s persuasiveness and their relationship with self-concept.

Culture and Personality
Culture

As stated by Clark (1990), the job of developing a marketing-relevant national
character (which is defined as the pattern of enduring personality characteristics found
among population of nations) is a very complex one, and so is developing a marketing-
relevant cultural dimension. Because of theoretical and methodological difficulties, there
is no completely satisfactory solution. One dimension, however, the individualism-
collectivi§_m continuum. has recently received very much attention in both the cross-
cultural psychology and the marketing fields (Bagozzi 1994; Han and Shavitt 1994;
Hofstede 1983; Hui 1988; Hui & Triandis 1986; Markus and Kitayama 1991; Park 1994;
Triandis 1994). Researchers in cross—cultural. consumer behavior are also becoming
gradually interested in this dimension and are empirically testing the dimension in the
consumer behavior situation (Han and Shavitt 1994; Park 1994; Bagozzi 1994).

The individualistic and collectivistic culture context is traditionally considered as
a continuum (Hofstede 1980; Hui 1988; Hui and Triandis 1986). A collectivistic society

is said to have a close-knit social structure, where people neatly distinguish between

58

members of the in-group and members of the out-group. Everybody in the group is
expected to look after group interests and hold group beliefs and opinions. Several
countries in the Eastern societies represent this kind of culture. For example, Yoshino
(1972) states that "in traditional Japan one belonged to a number of different collectivities,
such as one’s family, neighborhood groups, occupational groups, the village" (p.69). In
an individualistic society, however, the social fabric is much looser. People are basically
supposed to care for themselves and their immediate family. Individuals are allowed a
large degree of freedom in making their own decisions. People are motivated by self-
interest. In Hofstede’s study, he found that the United States, Great Britain, Canada, and
other Western countries rank high on the individualistic dimension, while Hong Kong,
South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and other Asia countries rank high on the collectivistic
dimension.

In an empirical study, Han and Shavitt (1994) found that in the US. (an
individualistic society), advertisements emphasizing individualistic benefits were more
persuasive, and ads emphasizing family or in-group benefits were less persuasive than
they were in Korea (a collectivistic society). Several advertising content analyses also
indirectly support this view point (Belk and Pollay 1985; Johansson 1994; Mueller 1987;
Zandpour, Chang, and Catalano 1992; Zandpour et al 1994). The major finding of these
studies is that the advertising in individualistic cultures uses a more informational

approach, while the advertising in collectivistic cultures adopts a more image-based

approach.

59

The Relationship between Cultural Dimension , Self, and Personality

Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) article further integrates cultures, self-concepts, and
motivational bases. Similar to Greenwald’s (1982) conception about self-concept, they
believed that an individual is an active, constructive information processor (Markus 1977;
Markus and Katayama 1991; Markus and Wurf 1987). When people attempt to organize,
summarize, or explain their behavior in a particular domain, the process will result in the
formation of a cognitive structure about the self. Some inner-private aspects of the self
may be quite universal, while other aspects of the self may be very specific to particular
cultures (Markus and Katayama 1991). People from different cultures may have
dramatically different construals of the self, of others, and of the interdependence of the
two. The authors then distinguished two major types of selves; i.e., the independent self
(which represents people in Western cultures) and the interdependent self (which
represents people in Eastern cultures).

People with different types of the self may have different types of experience,
cognition, emotion, and motivation. The basic definitions of the two construals are very
similar to the definitions of individualism and collectivism. For example, people

classified as independent believe that they are separated from the social context. They
Want to be unique and can express self. They use others for social comparison and
1' eflected appraisal. On the other hand, people classified as interdependent think that they
are connected to the social context. They want to belong to a group and promote others’
goals. They consider that relationships with others in specific contexts define the self.

These definitions can not only enrich and supplement the individual psychological

base for the individualism--collectivism dimension, but also provide a linkage between the

60

culture dimension and personality. That is, we can not only study culture to infer
individual behaviors, but can also study individuals to see the effect of cultural influences.

In fact, another fruitful research stream in the attitude function school is dealing

with the relationship between personality and attitude functions. Personality factors instead
of the culture environment can be the central reason for affecting a person’s attitude
firnctions for a certain object. Several studies in the attitude function school demonstrated
that personality variation can create significant different requirements of attitude functions
even within a same cultural environment (Bearden and Rose 1990; DeBono 1987; DeBono
and Packer 1991; Snyder and DeBono 1985). For example, Snyder and DeBono (1985)
used personality assessment to operationalize attitude functions. They argued that high
self-monitoring individuals, who strive to fit into various social situations, should tend to
form attitudes that serve the social adjustment function. In contrast, low self-monitoring
individuals, who strive to remain true to their inner values and attributes, will tend to
form attitudes that serve the value expressive function. To investigate these hypotheses,
they create ads that, in pictures and words, represented image oriented and quality
oriented messages to consumers. The results showed that high self-monitoring consumers
thought the image oriented ad was better, more appealing, and more effective. By
Contrast, low self-monitoring consumers prefers the quality oriented ads. Similarly, in a
Persuasion study regarding deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, DeBono (1987)
demonstrated that high self-monitoring subjects expressed attitudes that were more
OPlDosed to deinstitutionalization when they heard the social adjustment messages opposing
deinstitutionalization than when they heard the attribute evaluative messages. On the

other hand, low self-monitoring subjects displayed higher negative attitudes toward

61

deinstitutionalization after hearing the attribute evaluative message.

DeBono and Packer (1991) also found that high self-monitoring subjects rated the
quality of a product higher than low self-monitoring subjects after seeing image-oriented
ads, and low self-monitoring subject rated the quality of a product higher than high self-
monitoring subjects after seeing quality-oriented ads. Using a different methodological
approach, DeBono and Edmonds (1989) showed that the basic theory of personality
influences still holds. They induced high and low self-monitoring subjects to write
counterattitudinal essays. One group of subjects was led to believe that their positions
was opposed to the majority, while the other group of subjects was led to believe that
their position was contrary to their personal values. The result showed that high self-
monitoring subjects modified their attitudes in the direction of their essays more in the
social adjustive situation than in the value expressive situation. On the other hand, low
self-monitoring subjects modified their attitudes in the direction of their essays more in
the value expressive situation than in the social adjustive situation. Finally, using the
Attention-To—Social-Comparison-Information (ATSCI) scale (a revised scale from self-

monitoring), Bearden and Rose (1990) found that persons scoring high in ATSCI were
more aware of the reactions of others to their behaviors and are more concerned about the
nature of those reactions than persons low in ATSCI.
The Role of Material Goods
To argue that culture or personality will affect an individual’s product concept
preference, one needs to address the role of goods in serving the attitude function for an
individual. In other words, a product must be able to be served as a vehicle for the

attitude function fulfillment to motivate a person to possess it. A summary work by

62
Grubb and Grathwohl (1967) provides the basic relationship between product and self.

Applying self-concept theory, they asserted that goods can serve as social symbols and
internal communication devices and devices for furtherance and enhancement of an
individual’s self-concept. Belk and Pollay (1985), Belk, Bahn, and Mayer (1982) and
Hirshman and Holbrook (1981) among others also stressed that consumption represents
certain symbolic meaning.
The symbolic self-completion theory provided by Wicklund and Gollwitzer (1982)
is especially related to the argument of this thesis. They contended that a person is
committed to self-defining goals instead of non-self defining goals. The self—defining goal
can be assessed through multiple possible indices or symbols, whereas the non-self-
defining goal can be reduced to a single indicator of its attainment. Progress toward a
self-defining goal is normally not deliberate or measured, and most importantly an
individual will adopt more accessible and quicker modes of self—symbolizing.
Consumption is one of these easy accessing routes. For example, a sudden rich person
may first try to drive luxury cars or dress like a upper class person instead of engaging
other more time consuming activities to symbolize his/her newly acquired status. The
acquisition of material goods is the quicker and easier way to fulfill his/her self-defining
eXternal or internal goal.
All Integration
Similar to Higgins’s (1983) classification of three selves, it is believed that there
are at least three dimensions of self concept; (1) actual self: a person’s representation of
the attributes that someone (self or other) believes the person actually possesses, (2) flea;

Se\lft a person’s representation of the attributes that s/he would like to possesses, (3) ought

63

_s_e_lf: a person’s representation of the attributes that others believe the person should
possess. There is always discrepancies among three self concepts. The discrepancy
between any two of these self concepts can create a state of discomfort. Therefore, a
person will be motivate to reduce the discrepancy. Figure 3-1 provides the basic
relationship among three self conceptions.

Using Markus and Katayama’s (1991) definition of interdependent and independent
self, one can argue that people with interdependent self will focus more on reducing the
discrepancy between ought self and actual self (gap A), while people with independent
self will focus more on reducing the discrepancy between ideal self and actual self (gap
B). Also based on the definitions of attitude fimctions, one can claim that a product
concept that focuses on the social oriented function will be more effective in reducing gap
A than gap B. On the other hand, a product concept that emphasizes the non-social
oriented function will be more preferable to narrow gap B than gap A.

However, this assertion is product situation specific. When products are mainly
used to serve non-social purposes, a person with interdependent self does not need to
consider any social meaning when evaluate or purchasing this kind of product. There is

no need to reduce the gap between ought self and actual self. Han and Shavitt’s (1994)
Stlldy provided some support for this argument. In their study, they found that both US.
and Korean subjects favored individualistic appeals for personal product (which is defined
as one for which the purchase decision and product usage are usually done by an

individual). Culture or personality apparently has no effect on this kind of product.

64

A General Model

\
Ought Self Ideal Self
ap A Gap :

B. For Social Oriented Products

 

 

    

\
Ought Self Ideal Self

     
 
    
  
 

ap A Gap B"

C. For Non-Social Oriented Products

\
Ought Self Ideal Self

.‘Gap A Gap =

 

Figure 2-5 The Relationships Among Three Selves

65

On the other hand, when a products is used mainly for social oriented purposes,
a person with independent self may still need to consider the social meaning of using the
product/service. For example, when people give gifts, the major function of the behavior
is related to social relationships. A person with independent self will still need to weigh
the social meaning behind the behavior. Therefore, the gap between actual and ought self
becomes more salient under this situation. Past research regarding conspicuousness of a
product consumption may provide some supports for this assertion. Boume (1956),
Bumkrant and Cousineau (1975), Childers and Rao (1992), and Lessig and Park (1982)
all suggested that a product’s conspicuousness is one of the most important factors relating
the degree of reference groups’ influences. People will care more about social implication
of the product consumption behaviors when the consumption behavior is conspicuous.
One thing must be emphasized here is that conspicuousness is only one of the dimensions
of the social oriented product. The definition of social oriented product covers more than
the conspicuousness of a product consumption. People must also consider the product can
serve their social oriented attitude functions to be called social oriented products.
Conspicuousness of the product consumption alone may not be able to serve social
oriented attitude functions. In summary, for products that engage entirely on one purpose
(either social or non-social), consumers will tend to focus on how well the product fulfills
the purpose (Shavitt 1992; Shavitt and Lowrey 1992) regardless their personalities or
cultures.

When the attitude function a product engages is perceived differently by different
people, the personality and culture factors on the persuasiveness of social or non-social

oriented product concepts is more likely to be manifested. For example, a computer

66

printer can be considered as a purely non-social oriented product by persons with
independent self, while it may be regarded as a highly social oriented product by persons
with interdependent self. Persons with independent self focus on the printer’s attributes
and psychical functions. They use it to reduce the gap between actual and ideal self.
Interdependent self persons, on the other hand, emphasize whether the printing quality can
please or impress others. They use it to reduce the gap between actual self and ought self.
For simplicity, this product is termed ambivalent attitude function product in the following
sections of this thesis.

To test the above theory empirically, one need to find subjects who can represent
interdependence selves as well as subjects who can represent independent selves. As
discussed in above sections, subjects from a collectivistic culture or who score high in the
ATSCI score can portray interdependent self, while subjects from a individualistic culture
or who score low in the ATSCI score can illustrate independent selves. One of them
depicts the culture factor and the other describes the personality factor.

Therefore, it is hypothesized that (Figure 2-6 & Figure 2-7) :

Culture Effect:
Hla: For products engaging ambivalent attitude functions, persuasive product
concepts that emphasize social oriented attitude functions will be more effective

in persuading consumers in collectivistic versus individualistic cultures

67

Hlb: For products engaging ambivalent attitude functions, persuasive
product concepts that emphasize non-social oriented attitude functions will
be more effective in persuading consumers in individualistic versus

collectivistic cultures

ch: For products engaging ambivalent attitude functions, social oriented
product concepts and non-social oriented product concepts will be more
effective in persuading consumers in collectivistic and individualistic
cultures respectively than in persuading consumers in individualistic and

collectivistic cultures respectively (Interaction Effect)

H2: For products that primarily engage only social oriented attitude
functions, persuasive product concepts that emphasize social oriented
attitude functions will be more effective than persuasive product concepts
that emphasize non-social orientation either in collectivistic or

individualistic cultures

68

    

 

    

 

   

 

 

 

 

Attitude/ Individualism Attitude/ Low ATSC

Intention Culture Intention
Collectivism High ATSC
Culture
Non-Social Social Non-Social Social
Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented
Concept Concept Concept Concept

Table 2-6 The Interaction Effects for Product Engaging Ambivalent Attitude
Functions

    

 

 

 

 

Attitude/ Attitude/
Intention Intention
Individualistic Low & High
& Collectivism ATSC Culture
Culture
Non-Social Social Non-Social Social
Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented
Concept Concept Concept Concept

Table 2-7 The Main Effects for Products Engaging Social Oriented Attitude
- Functions

69

Personality Eflect
H3a: For products engaging ambivalent attitude functions, persuasive
product concepts that emphasize social oriented attitude functions will be
more effective in persuading consumers who are more attentive to social

comparison information

H3b: For products engaging ambivalent attitude functions, persuasive
product concepts that emphasize non-social oriented attitude functions will
be more effective in persuading consumers who are less attentive to social

comparison information

H30: For products engaging ambivalent attitude functions, social oriented
product concepts and non-social oriented product concepts will be more
effective in persuading consumers who are more attentive to social
comparison information and who are less attentive to social comparison
information respectively than in persuading consumers who are less
attentive to social comparison information and who are more attentive to

social comparison information respectively (Interaction Effect)

70

H4: For products that primarily engage only social oriented attitude
function, persuasive product concepts that emphasize social oriented
attitude functions will be more effective than persuasive product concepts
that emphasize non-social oriented product concept in persuading
consumers who are either more or less attentive to social comparison

information.

The Mediation Effect of the Personality Factor

The main effects of culture and personality on the persuasiveness of a product
concept have been hypothesized. The relationship between culture and personality
deserves further exploration however. As stated at the beginning of this thesis, personality
may mediate the effect of culture on the persuasiveness of a product concept. Culture will
influence the socialization process. The socialization process affects a person’s
personality. Personalities will in turn influence a person’s cognition, emotion, and social
behavior (Douglas and Dubois 1977; Markus and Kitayama 1991; Triandis 1994). The
question is: how much of the effect of culture on the persuasiveness of a product concept
occurs via personality? As Markus and Kitayama (1991) stated, researchers still don’t
know how deeply culture affects people’s behavior. Is the culture norm completely
internalized into a person’s mind? Or is culture norm partially internalized?

The argument of the distinction of cultural and personality influences actually can
be very philosophical (Shweder and Sullivan 1993). Early research in psychology strived
to find universal psychic structures. On the other hand, early research in anthropology

focused mostly on the collective differences between cultures. Gradually researchers came

71

 

Country

 

Figure 2-8 The Mediation Effects of Personality

72

to believe that there is a relationship between culture and personality issues. The
relationship between culture and personality may be far more complicated than a pure
mediating or moderating effect of the two variables. For marketers the most important
thing is to estimate the relative influences by both factors on consumer behavior. If we
adopt Greenwald (1982) and Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) explanation, culture may
affect mostly the relationship between of the self and its collective. People still have the
private aspects of the self in addition to the facet of the collective self. These aspects
may not be influenced by culture. Therefore, one may predict that the effect of culture
on the persuasiveness of a product concept will be only partially mediated by the
personality of the subjects. Figure 2-8 can be used to explain this relationship. Culture
may influence consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward a product concept directly and
through personality.
H5: The effect of culture on the persuasiveness of a product concept

will be partially mediated by personality factors.

The Relationship between Attitude and Intention

Until now, the above hypotheses focused on persuasiveness of the product concept,
which will be tested by using attitudes and intentions as the dependent variables.
However, the relationship between attitudes and intentions is another important issue that
needs to be explored (Chaiken and Stangor 1987). According to the Elaboration
Likelihood Model (ELM; Petty and Cacioppo 1986), if a person processes the incoming
information via the central route, the attitude-conation relationship will be stronger than

When s/he processes the information via the peripheral route.

73

Two major categories of variables were identified by Petty and Cacioppo (1986)
which may influence the route a person may adopt in processing incoming information:
motivation and ability to process. People must have motivation and ability to process the
incoming information through the central route; otherwise they will process the
information via the peripheral route.

The question is: when will people have more motivation and/ or ability to process
the incoming information? The functional approach of attitude can be used to explain the
motivational base issues. If the statement of a product concept fit in an individual’s
attitude fimctional needs, the individual should have higher motivation to process the
incoming information. On the other hand, if the statement of a product concept doesn’t
correspond to an individual’s pursuing attitude functions, then the individual will have less
motivation to process the information (DeBono 1987).

It can also be asserted that people will have higher ability to process a product
concept that depicts the attitude function they are pursuing than a product concept that
does not. If a person cares about a specific attitude function, s/he will pay more attention
to the information relating to that function. Gradually, they should have accumulated
more knowledge about how to process that kind of information. For example, Triandis
(1994) stated, people in collectivistic culture have better abilities in linking objects to a
context, while people in individualistic culture have higher abilities in processing
information logically.

Therefore, a person in a collectivistic culture will more likely to process a social

oriented product concept through central routes than peripheral routes, while a person in

an individualistic culture will more likely to process a non-social oriented product concept

74

through central routes than peripheral routes. Similarly, a high ATSCI person will more
likely to process a social oriented product concept through central routes than peripheral
routes, while a low ATSCI person will more likely to process a non-social oriented
product concept through central routes than peripheral routes.

The above assertion, however, also will be moderated by product type. When the
function of a product is ambivalent, the above assertion is more likely to occur. However,
when a product is used solely for social oriented purposes, a social oriented product
concept will more likely to be processed through central routes than peripheral routes by
all persons in different cultures and persons with different personality since social oriented
function is the major motivated fimction for this kind of product. Thus, the sixth group
of hypotheses are:

H6a: For products engaging ambivalent attitude functions, attitude toward the

product concept is a more significant predictor of purchase intention when a social

oriented product concept is presented than is a non-social oriented product concept

in a collectivistic culture

H6b: For products engaging ambivalent attitude functions, attitude toward the
product concept is a more significant predictor of purchase intention when a non-
social oriented product concept is presented than is a social oriented product

concept in an individualistic culture

75

H6c: For products engaging ambivalent attitude functions, attitude toward the
product concept is a more significant predictor of purchase intention when a social

oriented product concept is presented than is a non-social oriented product concept

for a high ATSCI consumer

H6d: For products engaging ambivalent attitude functions, attitude toward the
product concept is a more significant predictor of purchase intention when a non-
social oriented product concept is presented than is a social oriented product

concept for a low ATSCI consumer

H6c: For social oriented products, the attitude toward the product concept is a
more significant predictor of behavior intention when the product concept is social

oriented than the product concept is non-social oriented.

Covariate Variables
In addition to the above factors, there are several others that may influence a
consumer’s preference for a product. Consumers may be interested in a new product/brand
concept because of the uniqueness of the product. the believability of the information ,
or the comprehensibility of the description (Schwartz 1987; Twedt 1969). These variables
may affect the acceptance of a product concept.
Especially when conducting cross-cultural research, the market situation (e. g.,
competition and market development) in different national markets may be dramatically

different from one other (Buzzell 1968; Jain 1989). As discussed in the previous section,

76

these market situational factors may affect the pool of marketing strategies a firm can
adopt. From consumers’ perspectives, these situational factors may affect their
perceptions of a new product. For example, consumers in a collectivistic culture may
prefer a social oriented product concept to a non-social oriented concept. However,
several brands in the market may have already positioned themselves as fulfilling social
oriented needs. A me-too product concept may not have the same favorable evaluation
as existing brands. Similarly, if a product concept is too good to be believed or too
difficult to understand, consumers may lower their evaluation. Therefore, the uniqueness,

believability, comprehensibility of the tested product concepts need to be controlled.

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research was divided into two stages; i.e., preliminary studies and
confirmatory studies. Both the preliminary and confirmatory studies were conducted in
the US. and in Taiwan. The United States was chosen to represent the individualistic
culture, while Taiwan was selected to illustrate the collectivistic culture. According to
Hofstede (1983), the US. ranks almost as the highest individualistic country. On the
other hand, Taiwan has a very high score in the collectivism direction. All the
questionnaires were written in English and tested in the United States first, then translated
into Chinese for the field work in Taiwan. The translation procedures followed back

translation process as suggested by Brislin (1980).

PRELIMINARY STUDY

The preliminary study served three purposes. First, it was used to explore whether
consumers in different cultures have different activated goals and pursuing attributes when
purchasing products. Second, the most important means and ends for each product or
service in the preliminary study can be the basis for creating social oriented and non-
social oriented product concepts. Finally, the preliminary study permits pretesting

translation adequacy, and thus the conceptual equivalence of the personality constructs

77

78

between two cultures can be verified. If there is inequivalence in the conceptual
constructs between the two cultures, the scales have to be revised to ensure concept
equivalence before the confirmatory studies can take place.
Research Stimuli

Six types of product or situation-- buying a gift for a close friend, buying a gift
for a social acquaintance, toothpaste, computer printer, clothes for casual occasions, and
clothes for special occasions-- were chosen to be the objects of the experiment. Gift-
giving and clothes were used to represent social oriented product situations, while the
computer printer and toothpaste were used to represent possible candidates for ambivalent
attitude function products.
Procedures

127 student subjects from the US. and 120 student subjects from Taiwan were
randomly given two out of the six product situations. The studies were conducted during
their regular class sections. Subjects completed a questionnaire that required them to
identify the four most important attributes they look for in purchasing or selecting the
products. They then ranked the four attributes from the most important to the least
important. A paper and pencil laddering task was undertaken to elicit subjects’ means-end
structures after the first two questions. Subjects were asked to describe, in writing, why
each of their four most important product attributes are important to them.

The laddering process is similar to Walker and Olson’s (1991) procedure. The
pursued attributes are the means and the reasons are the goals (Gutrnan 1982). This
approach is also consistent with Breckler and Greenwald’s (1986) ego-task analysis. The

Purpose of an ego task is to achieve favorable self-evaluations. In purchasing decisions,

79

the goal is to choose the best product or service to establish self-worth by achieving either
a significant audience’s or self’s favorable evaluation. Like means—end analysis, there are
two components of an ego task. The first one is the cognitive representation of what is
to be accomplished (i.e., the goals). The second one is the strategy for achieving the
goals (i.e., the means). Both the goal and strategy are determined jointly by incentives
in the situation and by personal goal preferences. Therefore, the preliminary study can
not only solicit the means (strategies), but also the goals for each purchasing situation.
At the end of the questionnaire, the subjects are asked to fill out Lennox and Wolfe’s
(1984) Attention-To-Social-Comparison-Information scale.

The answers of the subjects were analyzed by content analysis. The content were
classified into two major categories: either social oriented or non-social oriented. The
similarities and differences between the two cultures were compared.

The Decision of the Coding Scheme

After reviewing the verbatim, it was found that the social oriented classification
can further be divided into two sub-categories; i.e., social adjustment and social
expressive. The social expressive category is associated with attitudes motivated by a
need to affirm one’s sense of self by expressing important values and aligning oneself
with important reference groups; on the other hand, the social adjustment category is
dealing with the rewards and punishments from conforming to group relationships and
social contexts. Both have social implications, however: the social expressive category
focuses more on expressing self to others, while the social adjustment category emphasizes
group and social conformity.

This distinction may have theoretical importance. It can be argued that there is

80

difference between them. In a social situation, people in collective societies concern their
relationship to the context first and then think about how to behave to fit into the context
and be accepted by one’s own social environment (Markus and Kitayama 1991; Triandis
1994). Therefore, they may prefer social adjustment related product concept. People in
individualistic society, on the other hand, will consider themselves first and then think
about how to express the social identity that is consistent with their self-concept and
value. Therefore, they will prefer social expressive product concept to other product
concepts.

This further division for social oriented category, however, is considered
exploratory. No formal hypotheses will be provided for the different effects of these two
social oriented product concepts.

Coding Scheme

The respondents’ verbatim were coded according to the coding scheme as shown
on Table 3-1 to Table 3-4. Three major categories in the scheme are social adjustment,
social expression, and non-social oriented. A social oriented category is also calculated
by combining the social adjustment function and the social expressive function without
duplication. These key categories are defined in the following.

Social Oriented

When the verbatim mentioned any social meaning, social relation, social attention,

social implication, and other social related issues, it was coded into social directed

category.

81

Social Adjustment

When the social issues mentioned involved the following concerns:

1) Fit into a certain context.

2) Maintain/improve relationship with others/ groups

3) Other-directed thinking

4) Recognized by important others
Social Expression

When the social issues mentioned involved the following concerns:

1) Express self meaning

2) Be unique, better, superior to others

3) Get attention/remembrance

4) Improve self-confidence in a social context
Non-Social Oriented

When the verbatim only focused on the attributes and functions of the attitude
object’s pros and cons without mentioning any social related issues, it was coded into this
category.
Key Results
Culture main effects

For the case regarding casual clothes (Table 3-1), Taiwan respondents mentioned
more social oriented statements than the US. counterparts. Among the mentioned social
oriented statements, Taiwanese subjects cared more about whether the clothes fit their
images, while US. subjects concerned more about whether the clothes follow fashion. For

the cases regarding clothes for special occasions, Taiwanese subject reported more social

82

adjustment statements, while US. respondents described more social expressive
statements. Taiwanese subject cared more about whether the clothes fit in the occasion
and whether others think good on them, while US respondents were concerned more about
whether they look good on the dress and whether the dresses fit their figures.

For both cases regarding gift giving (Table 3-2), Taiwanese subjects reported more
social adjustment statements, while US. subjects mentioned more social expressive
statements. Specifically, Taiwan respondents mentioned more about whether the gift is
appropriate, whether the receivers like it and use it, and other relationship related issues
than the US counterparts. On the other hand, US respondents were concerned more about
whether the gift accurately represents their meaning or value than the Taiwan
counterparts.

For the computer printer and toothpaste case (Table 3-3 and Table 3-4), there is
no overall difference in the social and non-social oriented statements between the US. and
Taiwanese subjects. However, there are differences in some sub—categorical items. For
example, the US. subjects were concerned more about whether the printer can print
professional looking output, Taiwanese subjects cared more about the speed and feature
of the printer.

Product type main effect

 

Significantly more respondents reported more social oriented issues and less non-
social oriented concerns for more social oriented products (clothes and gifts) than non-
social oriented products (computer printer and toothpaste) (Table 3-5). The results are
similar in both countries. Almost all respondents in both countries mentioned social

oriented statements in the both gift-giving cases (97.5% in the gift for casual friends case

83

Table 3-1 Preliminary Study: Casual Clothes and Clothes for Special Occasions

Casual Clothes

US Taiwan

[49] [40]

% %

a b

Social Oriented 87.8b* 72.5
Social Adjustment 46.9 52.5
Fit my image 2.0 20.0a
Follow fashion 40.8d 30.0
Fit occasion 6.1 5.0
Fit my fi’iend 0.0 2.5
Other think good on me 2.0 2.5
Be conservative 0.0 2.5
Follow other's recomm. 0.0 2.5
Social Expression 51.0 42.5
Reflect myself 16.3 20.0
Look good on me 28.6 25.0
No follow the fashion 4.1 0.0
Attention drawing 2.0 0.0
High prestige 2.0 0.0
Confident 0.0 0.0
Non-Social Oriented 100.0 100.0

Quality 32.7bd 15.0
Material comfort 14.3 32.5ac
Feature/color/style 26.5 42.5cd
Cost/price issues 79.6 92.5cd
Fit comfort 73.5b 37.5
Design 2.0 0.0
Brand related 26.5bd 5.0
Convenience 6.1 5.0
Versatile 4.1 35.0acd
Others 2.0 7.5

Special Clothes
US Taiwan
[42] [40]
% %
c d
95.2b 97.5b
59.5 85.0 abc
9.5 17.5a
31.0 17.5
28.6ab 67.5abc
2.4 5.0
7.1 22.5abc
2.4 2.5
0.0 2.5
66.7bd 42.5
9.5 30.0c
54.8ab 15.0
0.0 2.5
4.8 5.0
2.4 0.0
7.1 0.0
97.6 90.0
26.2d 5.0
7.1 25.0c
23.8 22.5
69.0 72.5
54.8d 27.5
0.0 0.0
14.3 2.5
2.4 0.0
14.3 12.5
9.5 5.0

*: All tests are conducted at two-tailed 5% significant level. The character(s) attached
to the numerical value represent significant test(s). For example, if the characters
are be in column a. It means that the value in column a is significantly greater than
the value in column b and column c.

84

Table 3-2 Preliminary Study: Gifts for Casual Acquaintances and Gifts for Close

Friends

Gift for Casual Acq. Gift for Close Friends

US Taiwan US Taiwan

[40] [40] [42] [39]

% % % %

a b c d

Social Oriented 95.0 97.5 97.6 97.4
Social Adjustment 80.0 97.5ac 85.7 97 .4ac
They like it 12.5 37.5a 45.2a 48.7a
They will use it 62.5c 65.0c 38.1 64.1c
Fit their style 10.0 22.5a 16.7 33.3a
Not insult 22.5 25.0 16.7 15.4
Appropriateness 10.0 22.5c 7.1 22.5c
Equal value 45cd 32.5d 19.0 10.3
Relationship related 2.5 30.0acd 2.4 7.7
Connect ourselves 2.5 2.5 2.4 5.1
Social Expression 52.5bd 15.0 47.6b 28.2
Something of myself 40.0bd 5.0 35.7bd 10.3
Remember me 15.0 5.0 11.9 12.8
Show my thoughtfulness 12.5 2.5 14.3b 7.7
Non-Social Oriented 65.0 70.0 78.6 76.9

Convenof purchasing 27.5b 10.0 2.4 2.6
Quality 15.0 5.0 26.2bd 5.1
Unique 0.0 0.0 4.8 2.6
Cost/price issues 45.0 62.5 54.8 64.1a
Brand/store related 22.5bd 2.5 26.2bd 2.6
Appearance/style 2.5 2.5 7.1 17.9ab
I like it 15.0 5.0 9.5 7.7
others 2.5 10.0 2.4 10.3

All tests are conducted at two-tailed 5% significant level.

85
Table 3-3 Preliminary Study: Computer Printer

Computer Printer
US A Taiwan
[40] [40]
% %
a b
Social Oriented 32.5 25.0
Social Adjustment 10.0 17.5
Don't disturb others 2.5 12.5

Give other good image of 0.0 5.0
Brands that recognized by 7.5 0.0

Social Expression 25.0 10.0
Look professional 25.0b 2.5
Look prestige 2.5 5.0
Look better than others 0.0 2.5

Non-Social Oriented 100.0 100.0
Quality 62.5 65.0
Cost/price issues 42.5 30.0
Brand related 47.5 30.0
Speed 72.5 97.5a
Noise 7 .5 2.5
Size 10.0 2.5
User friendly 48.8 32.5
Service 17 .5 22.5
Features 35.0 55.0a
Latest model 5.0 5.0
Compatible with soft/hard 17.5b 2.5
Appearance 5.0 10.0
Others 2.5 5.0

All tests are conducted at two-tailed 5% significant level.

86

Table 34 Preliminary Study: Toothpaste

Toothpaste
US Taiwan
[41] [40]
% %
a b
Social Oriented 19.5 7.5
Social Adjustment 17.1 5.0
Make my mouth kissable 2.4 0.0
Cover my breath 12.2b 0.0
What other use 2.4 2.5
Social requirement 0.0 2.5
Social Expression 2.4 2.5
Look good on me 2.4 0.0
More confident 2.4 2.5
Non-Social Oriented 100.0 100.0
Convenience of purchasing 2.4 5.0
Quality 7.3 20.0
Cost/price related 63.4 50.0
Brand related 51.2 77.5a
Cleaning ability/whitening 24.4 25 .0
Tartar control/prevent 36.6b 2.5
Cavity fighting/health of 48.8 32.5
Taste 73.2b 47 .5
Texture 22.0b 0.0
Package 29.3 25.0
Safety concerns 0.0 27.5a
Recom.from ADA, etc. 2.4 5.0
Ads 0.0 17.5a
Effectiveness 0.0 25.0a
Others 4.9 10.0

All tests are conducted at two-tailed 5% significant level.

87

Table 3-5 Preliminary Study: The Relationship between Product Function and

Product Type

Gifts for CF

[40]
%
a

US Data:

Social Oriented
Social Adjust
Social Express.

Non-Social O’td 78.6

97.6ef

Taiwan Data

Social Oriented
Social Adjust.
Social Express.

Non-Social O’td 76.9

Total Data

Social Oriented
Social Adjust.
Social Express.

Non-Social O’td 77.8

85.7cdef
47.6ef

97 .4def
97.4def
28.2ef

97.5def
91 .3cdef
38.2ef

Gifts for Ac Sp'l Clothes

[42] [42]

% %

b c

95.0ef 95.2ef
80.0cdef 59.5ef
52.5ef 66.7ef

65.0 97.6ab

97.5def 97.5def
97.5def 85.0def
15.0f 42.5bef

70.0 90.0b

96.3def 96.3def
88.8cdef 71.9def
33.8f 54.9bef

67.5 93.9ab

Casual Cloth Printer

[49] [41]
% %
d e
87.8ef 32.5
46.9ef 10.0
51.0ef 25.0
lOOab lOOab
72.5ef 25.0f
52.5ef 17 .5
42.5bef 10.0
lOOabc lOOabc
80.9ef 28.8
49.4ef 13.8
47.2ef 17.5f
lOOab lOOab

Toothpaste
[40]

%

f

19.5
17.1
2.4
lOOab

7.5
5.0
2.5
lOOabc

13.5
11.1
2.5
lOOab

88
and 96.3% in the gift for close friends case). This confirmed that gift-giving behaviors

are very social oriented in both countries. Similar results occurred in the clothes for
special occasion and clothes for casual occasions. Only a handful (14%) of respondents
reported social oriented statements in the toothpaste case. Finally, about 30 percent of the
respondents mentioned social oriented statements in the computer printer case. Some of
the subjects considered that a computer printer has some social implications, while others
didn’t. This verified that the computer printer can be a candidate for the ambivalent

attitude function product as discussed in the last section.

The marketing activities mav influence consumers’s reasons of purchasing certain products

 

Contrary to hypothesis, US respondents mentioned more social adjustment
concerns than their Taiwanese counterparts (significant in one-tailed 5%) in the toothpaste
case (Table 3-4). There is are some possible reasons for this result. Unlike the toothpaste
industry in US, no brand in Taiwan positions itself on social oriented function. Similarly,
there is no tartar control toothpaste in the Taiwanese market. Therefore, almost no
subject mentioned tartar control in their responses. They, instead, mentioned more general
terms; e.g., effectiveness and cleaning ability. Finally, Taiwanese subjects cared more
about the safety issues. This might be caused by the effective PR campaign conducted
by a toothpaste company in Taiwan about ten years ago. At that time, one local toothpaste
company claimed that the ingredient (i.e., fluoride) of the leading brand may cause cancer.
The message was very successfully delivered by mass media at that time. This incident
has such a strong effect on Taiwanese consumers’ mind for so long. This demonstrates

how marketing system can affect consumers’ consumption behaviors.

89
CONFIRMATORY STUDY

Experimental Stimuli
Product type

Based on the preliminary study, the gift store and the computer printer were
chosen as the product stimuli. The former one represents a purely social oriented product,
while the latter one illustrates a ambivalent attitude function product.
Product concept

Three concepts for a gift store and three concepts for a computer printer were
developed. Based on the preliminary results, one of the concepts focuses on social
adjustment statements, one emphasizes social expressive statements, and yet another
features non-social oriented statements (see attached product concepts in the Appendix A).
The concepts not only give the reader the benefit, but also the reason why. The three
product concepts for each product were kept consistent (especially for reason why) except
for the ultimate attitude functions. That is, the physical functions for the product were
kept as equal as possible among product concepts, but the ultimate purpose of the product
varied depending on the attitude functions the product concept is trying to deliver.

This can make sure that the differences in the experiment results is from attitude
function differences instead of physical attribute differences. For example, all three
product concepts in the computer printer case used "Neo-Laser" technology as the core
reason for fulfilling the three distinct attitude functions. Similarly, all three product
concepts in the gift store case used advance computer system as the basic rationality for

achieving the three different attitude functions.

90
Product Concept Pre-test

Three draft product concepts for a gift store and three draft product concepts for
a computer printer were pre-tested to see whether the product concepts were distinct from
one another and whether they delivered the intended key message. Thirty MBA students
at Michigan State University were recruited and randomly given two product concepts for
evaluations. One of them was a printer product concept and the other was a gift store
product concept. After reading each product concept, the subjects were asked to choose
the best description for the product concept in a multiple choice question. Finally, an open
ended question was asked to solicit their thoughts about each product concept. The result
showed that about 68% of the product concepts are correctly classified, and therefore, a
further revision on the product concepts was conducted.

Based on the results and several one-on-one interviews, the product concepts were
revised to make them more distinct. A second wave pre-test was conducted for these
revised product concepts. Thirty two graduate students taking marketing management
course at the same school were recruited. The same procedure was applied. The result
showed that about 82% of product concepts were now correctly classified. To make the
product concepts even more distinct, the two most mis-classification product concepts (one
was a printer product concept and the other was a gift product concept) were revised and
tested again on undergraduate students at the same school. About 92% of these two
concepts were now correctly classified.

The final product concepts were translated into Chinese and back translated into
English to check the translation accuracy. Different translators were used in these two

stages. If a major inconsistency occurred in the translation, a discussion between two

91

translators was conducted to reconcile the difference. The final Chinese version was pre-
test on 25 Taiwanese students at the same US. University. The same procedure as for
the US. subjects was applied. About 82% of product concepts were correctly classified.
The most misclassified product concepts were revised and qualitative interviews were
conducted to make sure the product concepts were distinct and understood.
Subjects

310 student subjects from Michigan State University and 301 student subjects from
universities around northern Taiwan were recruited for the study generating 295 and 297
usable samples from each country respectively. To insure sampled subjects are
comparative between the two countries, two criteria were set in advance. The subject must -
be a junior or senior college student and major in business (or other social science related
major). Since the average size of Taiwanese universities is around eight thousand students
and the student body within a single university is not as diverse as its US. counterpart,
seven colleges (three of them are public universities and others are private universities)
in the northern part of Taiwan were included in the sampling frame. Student subjects were
used for two reasons. First, student subjects are suitable for the two products. It is
especially true for the computer printer case. It is believed that the usage and ownership
of a computer printer will be more similar among college student groups than other
generations between the United States and Taiwan. The older generations in Taiwan use
less computers than their US. counterparts. Second, using student subjects can confirm
the result of the preliminary study since the preliminary study used student subjects. The
attributes emphasized by college students may be different from those emphasized by

other generations within each country.

 

Table 3-6 l

I\E\

Age .
Male (%)

Ethnic grc
Caucas
Africar

Asian 1
Others

 

 

 

Major (%)
Busines

Other 5
'\

Frequency
(Months‘tir
\

Percentage
Computer r

 

The t
Chc'iracteristics
differences in
fields in 11011]
Variances than
in Taiwan. Th
Countries. Tail

FM): 3me '

92
Table 3-6 Basic Characteristics of the Sampled Subjects

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basic Information Taiwan U.S.
Mean/% SD. Mean SD.

Age 21.39 1.60 21.91 2.88
Male (%) 49% 0.50 56% 0.50
Ethnic group (%)

Caucasian American 83%

African American 6%

Asian American 4%

Others 7%
Major (%)

Business Related 76% 76%

Other Social Sciences 24% 24%
Frequency of Purchasing gifts 2.79 2.34 3.37 3.51
(Months/time)
Percentage of Owning a 55% 0.50 49% 0.50
Computer printer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The basic information of the subject is presented in Table 3-6. The basic
characteristics of the samples from two countries are very similar, with only slight
differences in some of the aspects. Most of the subjects (76%) major in business related
fields in both countries. The subjects in the U.S. is slightly older and have higher age
variances than Taiwanese counterparts. Slightly more males were sampled in U.S. than
in Taiwan. The percentage of owning a computer printer is very similar between two
countries. Taiwanese subjects have somewhat higher frequencies in purchasing gifts.

Finally, about 83% of the subjects in the United States are Caucasian American.

 

Procedures
The r
broader rang:
breaks betwc
subject read :
one computer
wererandoml
inl'onned that
After
W some at
knowledge,
‘lufistionnaire
Measures
Attitr
mflttling 0V
The four sca
Sud: and T2
meaSured b}
callable in

93

Procedures

The research were conducted in the students’ regular class sections. To reach a
broader range of respondents, some of the sections in Taiwan were conducted during the
breaks between sections and in dormitories. The participation was voluntary. Each
subject read and responded to two product concepts, one gift store product concept and
one computer printer product concept. The order of product concepts and product types
were randomly assigned. To increase subjects’ involvement in the study, all subjects were
informed that the product or service would be available in the area in the near firture.

After the subjects reviewed each concept, they were asked their overall reactions
and some attitudinal questions to the product concept. Some personal experience,
knowledge, and personality trait were also assessed (see Appendix B: attached
questionnaire).
Measures
Attitude Lad intention

Attitudes toward the concept were measured by 7-point semantic differential scales
reflecting overall favorable/unfavorable, bad/good, foolish/wise, and harmful/beneficial.
The four scales were drawn from Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann’s (1983) and Osgood,
Suci, and Tannenbaum’s (1957) attitude measurement scales. Purchase intentions were
measured by asking whether the subject will actually purchase the product when it is
available in the market on three 7-point semantic differential scales, unlikely/likely,

uncertain/certain, and impossible/possible (Ajzen and F ishbein 1980).

94
Personality

The Attention-To-Social-Comparison-Information (ATSCI) scale developed by
Lennox and Wolfe (1984) were administrated to each subject. The Attention-To-Social-
Comparison-Information scale is a result of critique and revision of Snyder’s self-
monitoring scale. It was demonstrated to be internally consistent, valid, and capable of
mediating the relative effects of interpersonal consideration (Bearden and Rose 1990).
Other variables

Most of the articles regarding product concept tests used one item scale to
measure the uniqueness, believability, and comprehensibility of a product concept. For
the reliability’s concern.(Churchill 1979), each of these three constructs were measured
by three different items by combining different scales from different research as discussed
below. The uniqueness of the product concept was measured by asking subjects to rate
on seven-point scales reflecting whether they feel the concept is unique, difference
(Schwartz 1987), and exclusive (Twedt 1969). The believability of the product concept
was measured by asking subject to rate on seven-point scales indicating whether they feel
that the concept is believable, true, or bogus/sincere (Dillon, Madden, and F irtle 1994;
Page and Rosenbaum 1992; Twedt 1969). The comprehensibility of the product concept
was measured by asking subject to rate on seven-point scales representing whether they
feel that the concept is comprehensible, understandable, and confusing (Moore 1982;

Schwartz 1987).

 

Measurer
It
compariso
Without 11‘.
under cons
1993). Wu
Analysis (I
Kanfer 195
Ofmeasure.
that not on
between S:
emphasize
ShavelSon,
normally 8a
groom,

T065

Chapter 4

RESULTS

Measurement Equivalence

It is important to establish measurement equivalence before any cross cultural
comparison can be conducted (Irvine and Carroll 1980; Singh 1995; Triandis 1994).
Without measurement equivalence, researchers do not know whether the numerical values
under consideration are on the same measurement scale or not (Reise, Widaman, and Pugh
1993). With the advance of Structural Equation Model, two-group Confirmatory Factory
Analysis (CF A) is normally utilized to establish measurement equivalence (Drasgow and
Kanfer 1985; Reise, Widaman, and Pugh 1993; Singh 1995) . However, the definition
of measurement equivalence is still debatable. Some suggest that one needs to demonstrate
that not only factor loadings, but also error variances are identical for each scale item
between samples to achieve measurement equivalence (e.g., Singh 1995). Others
emphasize that one should focus only on the factor loading equivalence (Byme,
Shavelson, and Muthen 1989; MacCallum and Tucker 1991). Measurement error is
normally sample group specific. It is not expected to be equal among different sample
groups.

The second approach was adopted for this study. Measuring instruments are often

group specific in the way they operate, especially for cross-cultural research. Therefore,

95

96

in this thesis, the error matrix of the measurements was allowed to be different between
two countries when establishing measurement equivalence.

The first step in two-group CF A analysis for establishing measurement equivalence
is to compute the baseline model in which the factor loading are allowed to be freely
estimated except for specifying the same factor pattern in both groups. The baseline model
must be satisfactory before any further test can be conducted (Reise, Widaman, and Pugh
1993). There are several ways to assess the adequacy of a model fit. In that the most
traditional method is the chi-square test. In the multi-groups CF A context, a single chi-
square value assessing aggregate fit for the multiple groups is calculated. The likelihood
ratio chi-square statistics, however, is very sensitive to trivial discrepancies between the
true and the sample models if the sample size is large (Bentler and Bonett 1980).
Therefore, some other indices of fit are normally advised to complement the chi-square
test. In this study, GFI, AGFI, and RMR proposed by Joreskog and Sorbom (1989) will
be used to assess the model fit. A GFI and a AGFI higherthan 0.9 are deemed acceptable
fit, while the lower the RMR the better. Finally, it is also important to mention that no
CFA model should be accepted or rejected on statistics grounds alone (Reise, Widaman,
and Pugh 1993). Researchers should base on theory and judgment to find out the adequate
fit model.

When the overall fit of the baseline model cannot be establish, the insignificant
loading and/or highest correlated error item is withdrawn from the scale. The process is
continued until the baseline model reaches a reasonable fit. After a reasonable baseline
model is established, the factor loadings are fixed to be equal across countries. The

difference of chi-square (her degree of freedom) between the nested models is used to test

 

moan
chi-square
is removed
0.10) is act
teas are as
square dill’c
models.

In to
attitude, pu;
Computer pr
Attention-Tr
described ab
Two tests u
equil‘alence
ameasureme
em matrix
mOdel and a

The]

(:GFI=0.936 .

33035 No C(

mined nes

97

whether the measurement model is invariant between countries. When the difference of
chi-square is significant, the most item with the greatest discrepancy between countries
is removed from the scale. The process continues until an insignificant chi-square (p<
0.10) is achieved. When comparing nested models, the sequential chi-square difference
tests are asymptotically independent (Steiger, Shapiro, and Brown 1985). Therefore, chi-
square difference test is the adequate statistics for assessing the model fit in nested
models.

In total, three two-group CFA’s were run. The first two two-group CFA include
attitude, purchase intention, uniqueness, believability, and comprehensibility in the
computer printer case and the gift store case respectively. The third CFA deals with the
Attention-To-Social-To-Comparison-Information scale (ATSCI). Based on the procedure
described above, the final two-group CFA is established when an acceptable fit is found.
Two tests were conducted for each two-group CFA. The first test is a measurement
equivalence test. It calculated the chi-square difference between the baseline model and
a measurement equivalent model (/\'x = A2,). The second test focuses on measurement and
error matrix equivalence. It calculated the chi-square difference between the baseline
model and a measurement and error matrix equivalence model (A'x = A2,, and (9'5 = (925).

The result of two-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CF A) are presented in
Table 4-1. For the printer case, although the chi-square for the original model is
significant (p<0.000; chi-square=384.27, d.f.=l88), GFI and AGFI are acceptable
(GFI=0.926 and AGFI=0.892). Therefore, the factor loadings were fixed to be equal
across two countries. The chi-square difference test was used to assess the model of the

restricted nested model. Since, the chi-square difference between two models is significant

 

Table 4'1 C

 

Mod?

1‘ primer: A"
and Compreh

A, Original an
B. F inaiized ar
C, Measureme'

it“, = A3.)

D. Measuremen
(finalized mc

Test of :
Measurement E.
Measurement ar
\
ll. Gift: Artitud
and Compreh'

A. Original and
B. finalized anr

C Meetsuremen
(4 I, = A“)

D'Mmuremem
lfinallZEd mm

Terr of:

M39.511:

Eme
Megs nt Eq

mement an

98

Table 4-1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Establishing Measurement
Equivalence

 

Model Goodness -of-fit

1. Printer: Attitude, Purchase Intent, Uniqueness, Believability,

and Comprehensibility

A. Original and full model, all parameters free x2 (188) = 384.27 p 5 0.000
GFI=0.926 AGFI=0.892 RMSR=0.073

B. Finalized and full model, all parameters free x2 (68) = 125.61 p 5 0.000

GFI=0.965 AGFI=O.932 RMSR=0.057

C. Measurement equivalent model (finalized model)

(A', = A2,) {(74) = 133.51 p 5 0.000
D. Measurement and error matrix equivalent

(finalized model) (A‘, = A2, and o', = 92,) x2 (85) = 200.38 p 5 0.000
Test of :
Measurement Equivalent (CB) 12 (6) = 7.90 p 5 0.190
Measurement and error matrix equivalent (D-B) x2 (4) = 74.77 p E 0.001

 

II. Gift: Attitude, Purchase Intent, Uniqueness, Believability,

and Comprehensibility

A. Original and full model, all parameters free x2 (188) = 365.98 p a- 0.000
GFI=0.933 AGFI=O.905 RMSR=0.081

B. Finalized and full model, all parameters free x2 (68) = 106.51 p 2- 0.002

GF1=0.970 AGFI=0.941 RMSR=0.05]
C. Measurement equivalent model (finalized model)

(A', = A’,) X: (74) = 107.91 p a 0.006

D. Measurement and error matrix equivalent x2 (85) = 206.30 p 2 0.000
(finalized model) (A', = A2,, and o', = o3)
Test of :

Measurement Equivalent (C-B) x2(6) = 1.40 p 50.960
Measurement and error matrix equivalent(D-B) x2 (4) = 99.79 p 5 0.001

 

Table 4-1 1

#

111. Attentior

A. Original :

B. Finalized

C , .‘vleasuren
(A‘. = A‘.

D. Measurerr
(finalized 1

Test of :

bleasuremeni
Measurement

\

99

Table 4-1 (cont’d)

 

III. Attention to Social Comparison Information

A. Original and full model, all parameters free

B. Finalized and full model, all parameters free

C. Measurement equivalent model (finalized model)
(A‘. = AZ.)

D. Measurement and error matrix equivalent
(finalized model) (A', = A2,, and o', = 02,)
Test of :

Measurement Equivalent (C-B)
Measurement and error matrix equivalent (D-B)

x2 (130) = 618.50 p a 0.000
GFI=0.853 AGFI=O.795 RMSR=0.164

x2 (40) = 157.60 p a 0.000
GFI=0.939 AGFI=0.895 RMSR=0.134

x2 (47) = 169.29 p 5 0.000
x2 (55) = 318.47 p 2 0.000
112(7) = 11.69 p 20.150

x2(15)= 160.87 p 5 0.001

 

 

(p<0.000; c

variables oi

purchase int

remainder 1‘

difference vs

the variable:

process cont
difierence fc
Chi-square=7
1n the final 11
loadings for
Slmficantly
and foolish
POSSiblefimp
dilierenfem
umqumess (
teliet'ability
c()mfl’ir'gf’cto
The s

and redunc
Store model ,
Doomed it

'famrable.’un

100
(p<0.000; chi-square=47.3, d.f.= 11), the restricted model was not fit. Therefore, the

variables with most unequal loading and correlated error (the unlikely-likely scale in the
purchase intention construct) was dropped from further analysis. The loadings of the
remainder items, again, was fixed to be equal across countries and the chi-square
difference was calculated to test whether measurement equivalence was achieved. If not,
the variables with most unequal loading and correlated errors was dropped again. The
process continued until a fit model was found. As shown in Table 4-1, the chi-square
difference for measurement equivalent test in the final model is not significant (p<0. 190;
chi-square=7.90, d.f.=6). Therefore, the measurement equivalent model were established.
In the final model, eleven out of sixteen items were retained. The retained items and their
loadings for the final model is shown in Table 4-2. All of the non-fixed items are
significantly different from zero. There are three items (favorable/unfavorable, bad/good,
and foolish/wise) for the attitude construct, two items (uncertain/certain and
possible/impossible) for the purchase intention construct, two items (not at all
different/extremely different and not at all exclusive/extremely exclusive) for the
uniqueness construct, two items (not believable/believable and bogus/sincere) for the
believability construct, and two items (not comprehensible/ comprehensible and not
confusing/confusing) for the comprehensibility construct.

The similar procedure were implemented in the gift store and ATSCI model. To
avoid redundancy in descriptions, only the final model are described here. For the gift
store model , eleven items were retained in the final model. All the factor loadings for the
non-fixed items are significantly different from zero. There are three items

(favorable/unfavorable, bad/good, and foolish/wise) for the attitude construct, two items

101

(uncertain/certain and possible/impossible) for the purchase intention construct, two items
(not at all unique/extremely unique and not at all different/extremely different) for the
uniqueness construct, two items (not believable/believable and bogus/sincere) for the
believability construct, and two items (not confusing/confusing and not understandable/
understandable) for the comprehensibility construct.

For the ATSCI model, eight out of thirteen items were retained in the final model.
All the retained and unfixed items are significant different from zero. The retained items
possess the major essences of the ATSCI scale. That is, (1) care about others’ opinions
on the individual’s outfits and behaviors, (2) concern about how to fit into a group.

Table 4-3 shows the reliability of each final construct. Most of the scales are very
reliable (>0.85) except purchase intent (0.67 to 0.87). To disattentuate the unreliable
elements in each construct, the reliability values will be specified in the structure equation
model for the hypothesis testing. Table 4-4 presents the basic statistics for each key
construct. For the printer model, the overall attitudes and the believability of the product
concepts are very similar across countries. However, Taiwan subjects had lower purchase
intentions and considered the product concepts less comprehensible, but they regarded
the product concepts more unique than did the U.S. counterparts.

For gift store, Taiwan subjects had more favorable attitudes and purchase
intentions toward the product concepts than the U.S. subjects. The U.S. subjects, however,
thought that the product concepts were more comprehensible than Taiwanese subjects.

Taiwanese subjects have significantly higher ATSCI scores than the U.S. counterparts.

102

Table 4-2 The Indicators and Their Unstandardized Loadings for Major Constructs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRINTER GIFI‘ STORE

Attitude Attitude

Indicator Loading/ Indicator Inading/

t-value

t-value

Unfavorable/Favorable l .00(fixed) Unfavorable/Favorable 1 .00(fixed)

Bad/Good 0.91(37.02) Bad/Good

Foolish/Wise 0.90(30.08) Foolish/Wise

 

Purchase Intention

Purchase Intention

 

 

0.91(39.56)
0.94(32.78)
1.00(fixed)

 

 

 

 

Uncertain/Certain 1 .00(fixed) Uncertain/Certain
Impossible/Possible l .45( l 0.29) Impossible/Possible
Uniqueness Uniqueness

 

Not at all different!
Extremely different

1 .00(fixed)

Not at all unique/
Extremely unique

 

 

 

 

1.24(16. l6)
1.00(fixed)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not confusing

 

 

 

Understandable

 

Not at all exclusive/ 1.07(23.53) Not at all different! 1.02(22.6l)
Extremely exclusive Extremely different

Believability Believability

Not Believable/ 1.00(fixed) Not believable/ 1.00(fixed)
Believable Believable

Bogus/Sincere 0.95(25.03) Bogus/Sincere 0.89(24.8l)
Comprehensibility Comprehensibility

Not Comprehensible/ 1.00(fixed) Confusing] 1.00(fixed)
Comprehensible Not confusing

Confusing/ 0.96(23.82) Not understandable/ 1.01(30.21)

 

 

 

Table 4-2 1

The Retai

Informatil

 

 

l actively a

 

At parties j

103’ to pay
order to av

1 find that
them as pal
L‘

 

 

ltend to p;

\
The slighte
Whom 1 am
approach
\

lt’s impon;
\

11 1 am the
Situation, [

 

103

Table 4-2 (cont’d)

Loading/t-

value

 

 

‘ I actively avoid wearing clothes that are not in style 1.00 (fixed)

 

At parties I usually try to behave in a manner that makes me fit in l.19(10.25)

 

. I try to pay attention to the reactions of others to my behavior in l.36(10.95)
order to avoid being out of place

 

I find that I tend to pick up slang expressions from others and use 0.62(6.30)
them as part of my vocabulary

 

 

 

 

I tend to pay attention to what others are wearing 1.07(9.55)
The slightest look of disapproval in the eyes of a person with 1.13(10.21)
whom I am interacting is enough to make me change my

fl approach
It’s important for me to fit into the group I’m with 1.35(10.79)

 

If I am the least bit uncertain as to how to act in a social 1.24( 10.26)

situation, I look to the behavior of others for cues

 

 

 

Table 4-3 Tb

Printer

 

Construct
Attitude

Purchase 1'

fin

 

Uniquenes

l

Believabili

I

Compreher

I

Gift Store
\
Construct
\
Attitude
Purchase 11
\
Uniqueness
\
Believabilit
\
PSSCbologica
“sures

ATSCI
\

 

104
Table 4-3 The Reliability (Coefficient Alpha) of Major Constructs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Printer
Construct Total Taiwan U.S.
Attitude 0.92 0.90 0.94
P Purchase Intent 0.73 0.80 0.68
Uniqueness 0.91 0.94 0.88
Believability 0.92 0.92 0.91 Jl
Comprehensibility 0.93 0.94 0.91 11
Gift Store
Construct Total Taiwan U.S.
Attitude 0.93 0.92 0.94
Purchase Intent 0.77 0.87 0.67
Uniqueness 0.91 0.92 0.90
Believability ' 0.90 0.90 0.90
Comprehensibility 0.95 0.95 0.95
Psychological
Measures
I! ATSCI I 0.85 0.83 0.81 _i

 

 

 

 

105

Table 4-4 The Means and Variances of Major Constructs

 

bl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Printer ]|
Total Taiwan U.S. 1|
Construct Mean Var. Mean Var. Mean Var ll
Attitude 4.85 1.77 4.84 1.37 4.86 2.18
Purchase Intent 3.87 2.15 3.71 2.11 4.04 2.14
Uniqueness 4.19 2.14 4.44 2.31 3.94 1.86
Believability 4.17 2.00 4.12 1.58 4.23 2.41
Comprehensibility 4.47 2.63 4.21 2.60 4.74 2.53
Gift Store
Total Taiwan U.S.
Construct Mean Var. Mean Var. Mean Var.
Attitude 4.80 2.14 5.08 1.66 4.51 2.47
Purchase Intent 4.77 2.15 5.03 2.10 4.51 2.07
Uniqueness 5.30 1.83 5.34 1.81 5.25 1.85
Believability 4.45 2.13 4.44 1.66 4.47 2.61
Comprehensibility 4.94 2.53 4.82 2.44 5.05 2.60
Psychological
Measures
ATSCI 4.80 1.16 5.31 0.75 4.27 1.03

 

 

l 06
HYPOTHESES TESTING

Culture: The Main and Interaction Effects (Hla, Hlb, ch, and H2)

Structural equation models instead of the traditional MANOVA procedures were
implemented to test the main and interaction effects in this thesis for two reasons. First,
one of the major assumptions of MANOVA, equal covariance matrix of dependent
variables between cultures, is usually violated in cross-cultural research. Structural
equation models can circumvent this limitation (Bagozzi and Yi 1989). Second, the
reliability of the scale can be specified for dis-attenuating the actual relationship between
treatments and effects.

The score of a construct was calculated by averaging its items. The reliability was
calculated for each construct. In each of the LISREL calculations, the reliability for each
construct was specified (errors= (1-or) x variances of the construct) in the model. Figure
4-1 is a multiple-group representation of the two-way MANOVA design using the
structural equation model. Group 1 represents Taiwanese subjects, whereas group 2
denotes the U.S. subjects. Two dependent variables, attitude and purchase intention, were
included in the model. Since there were three product concepts for each country, two
dummy variables were used to fully account for the variance in the experiment. In the
preliminary analysis, it was found that the two social oriented product concepts were
evaluated very similarly in most of the cases by the subjects. The major difference
occurred when comparing both social oriented product concepts with the non-social
oriented product concept. Therefore, the non-social product concept was used as a base

category in the dummy variable coding scheme.

107

Group 1: Taiwan or the High ATSCI Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

W 21
Group 2: The Unites States or the Low ATSCI Group
0 2 7211 A d 2
. oumm ttitu
e1 , e m a
11212 W221

Y 22
o. dummy 2 g 2 @4 cf,

Intent
1. 822

 

 

Figure 4-1 The MAN OVA Model

108

Specifically, for the non-social oriented product concept, both dummy variables
one and two were coded zero. For the social adjustment product concept, dummy variable
one was coded one and dummy variable two was coded zero. For the social expressive
product concept, dummy variable one was coded zero and dummy variable two was
coded one. Therefore, in both groups, )7H and 72, represents respectively the structural
coefficient difference of attitude and purchase intention between the social adjustment
product concept and the non-social oriented product concept. Whereas, 7,2 and 722
represents respectively the structural coefficient difference of attitude and purchase
intention between the social expressive product concept and the non-social oriented
product concept.

Similar to the procedure proposed by Bagozzi and Yi (1989), the hypothesis of no
interaction effect between culture and product concept was tested by comparing the full
model (as shown in Figure 4-1) and the restricted model with the following constraints:
7111 = 7211 ; 7'12 = 7212 ; Y'ZI = 722, ; 7'22 = 7222 (1 and 2 superscripts indicate Taiwan
sample group and the United States sample group respectively). The difference in chi-
square tests between the two models will be distributed chi-square with corresponding
degrees of freedom equal to the difference in degrees of freedom for the models. To test
the main effects, the model with no interaction (y‘“ = Y2” ; 7'12 = 7212 ; 7'2, = 722, ; 7’22
= 7222) and the model with no main effects and no interaction ()(‘11 = 7211 = 7'” = 72,2 =
7'2, = 722, = 7'22 = 7222 = 0) were compared. The difference in chi-square for the two
models , again, provides the test statistics.

Referring to Table 45, one can see that there is an interaction effect between

culture and product concept (p < 0.019) for the printer case, while there is a main effect

109

Table 4-5 Culture Model: LISREL Results for the Two-Way MANOVA

 

Model Goodness -of-fit

 

1. Printer without covariate

 

 

 

 

A Full, all parameters free 31’ (0) = 0.00 p s 1.00
B N? interzaction effects 2 2
(711:? 11;7112=7212; 7121:721; 7122:7222) X (4)=11-74 PEG-019
C Np mairzr effetits of 2concepts anczl no interaction effects 2
(r n=7 n=i n=r n=721 =izi=ia=r 2 =0) 71 (8)=13.92 950-084
Test of :
Interaction (B-A) 12(4) = 11.74 p a 0.019
Main effects of concepts (C-B) x2 (4) = 2.18 p 5 0.700
Key Parameter estimates
Parameter Taiwan U.S.
7:“ 0.26(l .55)‘ -0.65(-3.1 1)
7.12 0.24( 1.48) -0.25(-1.18)
7.2, 0.06(0.30) -0.23(-1.09)
y 22 -0.09(-0.44) -0.18(-0.83)
11. Gift without covariate
A Full, all parameters free 212 (0) = 0.00 p s 1.00
B Ncli interzaction effeczts 1 2 1 2
(711:7113712=7123721:721;722:7222) X(4)=3-19 1350-525
C Np main effects of 2concepts and no interaction effects 2
(711=Yzll=7112=712=Yzl=721=722=7222 =0) 71 (8)=14.79 1350-053
Test of :
interaction (B-A) 12(4)= 3.19 p a 0.526
Main effects of concepts (C-B) 12(4) = 11.60 p 2 0.022
Key Parameter estimates
Parameter Taiwan U.S.
y‘“ 0.30(1.64)‘ 0.13(0.S6)
of” 0.46(2.57) -0.04(-0.17)
7'2, 0.41(2.01) 0290.42)
y‘n 0.62(3.10) 0.27(1.32)

 

' t—values are in parentheses.

110

for product concept in the gift store case (p < 0.022). For the printer case, Taiwanese
subjects have significantly higher attitude scores toward both social oriented product
concepts than toward the non-social oriented product concept (t=1.55, p < 0.06 for the
social adjustment product concepts; t=1.48, p < 0.08 for the social expressive product
concept). On the other hand, U.S. subjects have significantly lower attitude scores toward
the social adjustment product concept than the non-social product concept (t=-3.11, p <
0.001). However, there is no significant effect of product concept toward purchase
intention for either cultures. Therefore, Hla, Hlb, and ch were partially supported.
For the gift store case, Taiwanese subjects have significantly higher attitude scores
toward both social oriented product concepts than toward the non-social oriented product
concept (t=1.64, p < 0.05 for the social adjustment product concepts; t=2.57, p < 0.005
for the social expressive product concept) and higher purchase intention scores for both
social oriented product concepts than for the non-social oriented product concept (t=2.01,
p < 0.02 for the social adjustment product concepts; t=3.10, p < 0.001 for the social
expressive product concept). Likewise, U.S. subjects also have significantly higher
purchase intention scores for both social oriented product concepts than for the non-social
oriented product concepts (t=1.42, p < 0.08 for social adjustment product concepts;
t=1.32, p < 0.09 for social expressive product concept). However, there is no significant
effect on attitude scores for U.S. subjects in the gift store case. Therefore, H2 were

partially supported by the data.

111

Table 4-6 Personality Model: LISREL Results for the Two-Way MANOVA

 

Model

Goodness ~of-fit

 

I. Printer without covariate

A Full, all parameters free

B No interaction effects
(7‘11: Yzll $7112 = 7212; 7121: 7221; 7122 = 7222)

C No main effects of conce ts and no interaction effects
(7111= Y2” = 7112 = Y212 = Y 21 = 7221: 7'22 = 7222 = 0)

Test of :
Interaction (B-A)
Main effects of concepts (C-B)

Key Parameter estimates

 

Parameter High ATSC
7:1, 0.33(1.83)‘
v.12 0.33(1.84)
y_,, 0.42(2.00)
Y 22 -0.05(-0.26)

)8 (0) = 0.00 p s 1.00
38(4) = 18.61 p £0001
)8 (8) = 20.96 p a 0.007
)8(4) = 18.61 p a 0.001
)8(4) = 2.35 p a 0.650
Low ATSC.
-0.63(—3 .25)
-0.28(-1.44)

-0.50(-2.43)
-o.20(-0.97)

 

II. Gift without covariate

A Full, all parameters free
B Ne!) interaction effeclts I 2 I 2
(711:7211;712=712; 721:721; 722:722)
C No mairzr effetits of 2conce ts and no interaction effects
1
(711:711:712=er=721=721=722=722=m

 

Test of :
Interaction (B-A)
Main effects of concepts (C-B)
Key Parameter estimates
Parameter High ATSC
y'n 0.30(1.53)‘
7:” 0.44(2.28)
7.2, 0.46(2.24)
y 22 0.66(3.14)

)8 (0) = 0.00 p a 1.00
38(4) = 2.71 p —_~. 0.608

)8(8) = 13.34 p 5 0.101

)8(4) = 2.71 pso.608
38(4) = 10.63 p50.035

Low ATSC.

 

0.10(0.46)
0.02(0.08)
0.22(1.07)
0.27(137)

 

't-values are in parentheses.

112
Personality: The Main and Interaction Effects (H3a, H3b, H3c, and H4)

To test the effect of personality, subjects from both countries were collapsed and
divided into high and low ATSCI groups using subjects’ ATSCI median scores as the
dividing point. The same procedure as described in the last section was applied in testing
the main and interaction effects. Based on Table 4-6, one can see that there is an
interaction effect between ATSCI and product concept (p < 0.001) for the printer case,
while there is a main effect of product concepts in the gift store case (p < 0.030). For.
the printer, high ATSCI subjects have significantly higher attitude scores toward both
social oriented product concepts than toward the non-social oriented product concept
(t=1.83, p < 0.03 for the social adjustment product concepts; t=1.84, p < 0.03 for the
social expressive product concept). In addition, high ATSCI subjects have higher
purchase intention scores toward the social adjustment product concept (t=2.00, p< 0.02).
On the other hand, low ATSCI subjects have significantly lower attitude scores toward
both social oriented product concepts than toward the non-social product concept (t=-3 .25,
p < 0.001 for the social adjustment product concept; t=-1.44, p< 0.07 for the social
expressive product concept).

For gift store case, high ATSCI subjects have significantly higher attitude scores
toward both social oriented product concepts than toward the non-social oriented product
concept (t=1.53, p < 0.06 for the social adjustment product concepts; t=2.28, p < 0.01
for the social expressive product concept) and higher purchase intention scores toward
both social oriented product concepts than toward the non-social oriented product concept
(t=2.24, p < 0.01 for the social adjustment product concepts; t=3.14, p < 0.001 for the

social expressive product concept). Likewise, low ATSCI subjects have significantly

113

higher purchase intention scores toward the social expressive product concept than toward
the non-social oriented product concept (t=1.37, p < 0.09). However, there is no
significant effect on attitude scores for both social oriented product concept and no
significant effect on purchase intention scores for the social adjustment product concept
in the low ATSCI subject group. Therefore, H3 and H4 were partially supported by the
data.

The Inclusion of Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility (Covariate
Analyses of Hla to H4)

As stated in the hypotheses section, the persuasiveness of a product concept may
be significantly affected by the product concept’s uniqueness, believability, and
comprehensibility. In order to statistically control these factors, these factors are included
into the model. Figure 4-2 describes the framework for statistically controlling those
factors. The procedure for testing the main and interaction effects is similar to that in the
previous section. The major difference is the inclusion of the three factors. In the model,
the meaning of y” , 7,2 , 72, , 722 are the same as the former two sections. 731 , y“
, and y5, represent respectively the effect of uniqueness, believability, and
comprehensibility on product concept attitudes, whereas y32 , 742 , and 752 represent
respectively the effect of uniqueness, believability, and comprehensibility on product
concept purchase intentions.

The result are shown in Table 4-7 (cultural effect model) and Table 4-8
(personality effect model). For the culture effect model, all the interaction (product
concept x culture) and main effects (product concept) in the previous sections disappeared

for either the printer (p<0.296 and p<0.280) or the gift store cases (p<0.290 and 0.310).

114

 

711
°- 51 W G
. 8

721

W21
712

 

Y31

4|

0.31.. I Purchase a:

52
751

g, : Uniqueness 5,4: Believability g5: Comprehensiblity

 

‘ For simplicity:

(1) Only one group of the model is shown

(2) the links between as are not shown in the diagram. The (D matrix was freed in the
model estimation.

Figure 4-2 The MAN COVA Model

115

Table 4-7 Culture Model: LISREL Results for the Two-Way MANCOVA with
Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility as Covariates

 

 

 

 

Model Goodness -of-fit
1. Printer
A Full, all parameters free )8 (0) = 0.00 p s 1.00
B No interaction effects
1 _ 2 . l __ 2 l __ 2 2 l __ 2 2 __ ~
(Y11‘Y115Y12’Y212,Y21‘Y215Y22‘Y22) X(4)"4-91 P=0-296
C N10 main effects of concepts and no interaction effects 2
(Y 11 =2Y11 Y 12" Y 12 Y21= Y2=21 Y22= Y222=0) X (8)=10-33 PEG-243
Test of :
Interaction (B-A) )8 (4) = 4.91 p g 0.296
Main effects of concepts (GB) )8 (4) = 5.42 p .=_ 0.280
Key Parameter estimates
Parameter Taiwan U.S.
7‘2, -0.06(-0.43)' -0.32(-1.92)
7‘22 0.02(0.19) 0.11(0.63)
7‘22 0.38(8.95) 0.34(5.75)
y‘ 0.14(2.45) 0.37(6.69)
y°22 0.16(3.77) 0.18(3.42)
y’2, -0.22(-1.17) 0.00(0.01)
y’: -0.28(-1.52) 0.07(0.37)
7°22 0.16(2.51) 0.28(4.05)
y‘22 0.17(1.94) 0.24(3.70)
y‘: 0.26(4.26) 0.12(1.92)

 

116

Table 4-7 (cont’d)

 

II. Gift
A Full, all parameters free

B No interaction effeczts 2 1 2
1 1
(Y 11=Y11;Y12=Y12§ Y21=Y21; Y22=Y22)

C No mairzt effects of concepts and no interaction effects
I
(Y 11=Y11=Y12=Y12=Y21=Y21=Y22=Y22=0)

Test of :

Interaction (B-A)

Main effects of concepts(C-B)
Key Parameter estimates

Parameter

 

Y:11
Y. 12
Y. 13
Y. 14
Y. 15
You
Y.22
Y.23
Y.24
Y 25

Taiwan

-0.02(-0.15)

0.04(0.30)
0.37(6.27)
0.23(3.66)
0.20(4.34)
0.14(0.81)
0.27(1.53)
0.27(351)
0.26(3.13)
0.18(3.00)

)8 (0) = 0.00 p s 1.00
38(4) = 4.98 p a 0.290

x2(8)= 9.51 p50.301

)8(4)= 4.98 p50.290

78(4) = 4.53 p :- 0.310

U.S.

-0.40(-2.25)
-0.42(-2.32)
0.17(2.58)
0.53(9.33)
0.23(4.44)
-0.15(-0.83)
-0.08(-0.4l)
0.19(2.73)
0.32(5.39)
0.20(3.64)

 

‘ t-values are in parentheses

117

Table 4-8 Personiality Model: LISREL Results for the Two-Way MAN COVA with
Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility as Covariates

 

 

Model Goodness -of-fit
1. Printer
A Full, all parameters free )8 (0) = 0.00 p 5 1.00
B Np interzaction effeczts 2 1 2 2
l
(Y11=Y11;Y12=Y12;Y121=Y21iY22=Y22) X(4)=6-20 PEG-185
C N10 mai121 effects of concepts antzl no interaction effects 2
(Y11=Y11=Y12=Y212=Y21=Y21=Y22=Y22=0) 1(8)=12-03 PEG-150
Test of :
Interaction (B-A) )8 (4) = 6.20 p g 0.185
Main effects of concepts (C-B) )8 (4) = 5.83 p 5 0.220

Key Parameter estimates

 

Parameter High ATSC Low ATSC
7°11 -0.10(-0.74)' -0.29(-1.85)
7°12 0.09(0.65) -0.01(-0.03)
7'13 0.37(8.1 1) 0.30(5.74)
7°14 0.21(3.68) 0.33(5.85)
7°15 0.17(4.01) 0.19(3.69)
7'21 0.15(0.72) -0.21(-1.15)
1'22 -0.24(-1.21) 0.04(020)
73:. 0100.44) 0.27(4.41)
7:24 0100.1 1) 0.28(4.30)

0.26(4.25) 0. l6(2.69)

.<
bl

 

1 18
Table 4-8 (cont’d)

 

11. Gift
A Full, all parameters free

B Np interzaction effeczts 2 1 2
1
(Y11=Y11;Y12=Y12; Y21=Y21; Y22=Y22)

C No main effects of foncepts and no interaction effects
l 2 l l 2 l 2
(Y11=Y11=Y12=Y12=Y 21 =Y 21 =Y22=Y 22 =0)

Test of :
Interaction (B-A)
Main effects of concepts (C-B)

Key Parameter estimates

 

Parameter High ATSC
7°” -0.07(-0.42)
y°22 -0.04(-0.27)
y], 0.35(5.42)
7‘2, 0.27(4.15)
78,2 0.19(3.58)
7‘2, 0.16(0.86)
7'22 0.31(1.57)
7‘22 0.20(2.60)
77:2. 0.23(297)

1 25 0.20(3.20)

78(0) = 0.00

78(4) = 2.88

78(8) = 8.29

78(4) = 2.88

78(4) = 5.41

p51.00

p 5 0.579

p 5 0.405

p .2. 0.579

p a 0.300

Low ATSC

-O.27(-1.68)
-0.32(-2.04)
0.10(1.62)
0.54(9.67)
0.22(4.51)
-0.15(-0.85)
-0.08(-0.4S)
0.22(3.19)
0.35(557)
0.16(2.86)

 

‘ t-values are in parentheses

119
(Table 4-7). For the personality effect model, the interaction (product concept x ATSCI)

and main effects (product concept) were also not significant for either the printer (p<0.185
and p<0.220) or the gift store cases (p<0.579 and 0.250) (Table 4-8). Individual t-values
show that all three factors (uniqueness, believability, and comprehensibility) have
significantly positive effects on attitude and purchase intention except believability on
purchase intention for the printer case in the high ATSCI group (p<0. 14).

Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility As Dependent Variables

To test whether a social oriented product concept is perceived to be more unique,
believable, and comprehensible for subjects in a collectivistic culture and subjects who
have high ATSCI scores than for subjects in an individualistic culture and subject who
have low ATSCI scores (or vice versa), the uniqueness, believability, and
comprehensibility of the product concept were modeled as dependent variables in the
structure equation model.

The structure equation model is shown in Figure 4-3. It is a similar model as
Figure 4-1 (except there are three dependent variables instead of two in the model). In
the diagram, 7” , 72. , and Y31 represent respectively the structural coefficient difference
of uniqueness, believability, and comprehensibility between the social adjustment product
concept and the non-social oriented product concept. 7,, , 722 , and 73, represent
respectively the structural coefficient difference of uniqueness, believability, and
comprehensibility between the social expressive product concept and the non-social
oriented product concept.

The results (Table 4-9 and Table 4-10) showed that there is an interaction effect

between culture and product concept (p < 0.006) and interaction effect between product

120

concept and two ATSCI groups (p < 0.003) for the printer case, while there is a main
effect for product concept in both the culture and personality models (p < 0.000 in both
models) for the gift store case. For the printer case, individual t-tests showed that in most
of the situations, subjects in a collectivistic culture and who have high ATSCI scores
considered both social oriented concepts more unique, believable, and comprehensible,
while subjects in an individualistic culture and who have low ATSCI scores regarded the
non-social oriented product concept more unique, believable, and comprehensible. On the
other hand, for the gift store case, subjects in either culture or personality groups
considered both social oriented product concepts more unique, believable, and
comprehensible than the non-social oriented product concept in most of the situations.
More specifically, for the printer case in the culture effect model, Taiwanese
subjects considered both social oriented product concepts more unique (t=2.09, p < 0.02
for the social adjustment product concepts; t=1.50, p < 0.07 for the social expressive
product concept), more believable (t=2.01, p < 0.02 for the social adjustment product
concepts; t=1.84, p < 0.03 for the social expressive product concept), and more
comprehensible (t=2.62, p < 0.005 for the social adjustment product concepts; t=1.50, p
< 0.07 for the social expressive product concept) than the non-social oriented product
concept. On the other hand, U.S. subjects perceived both social oriented product concepts
less unique (t=-1.33, p < 0.09 for the social adjustment product concepts; t=-1.69, p <
0.05 for the social expressive product concept) and less believable (t=-2.03, p < 0.02 for
the social adjustment product concepts; t=-2.46, p < 0.007 for the social expressive
product concept) than the non-social oriented product concept. Finally, the U.S. subjects

also considered the social adjustment product concept less comprehensible (F-1.87, p <

121

Group 1: Taiwan or the High ATSCI Group

A#

 

C12 W121

A

 

 

A

Group 2: The Unites States or the Low ATSCI Group

yz m l. 82, 2
0. oummy a 0177

o- 3 1’32

 

A L
{1

 

 

 

 

-<
N
5
A
E
N
(0
~N
x

Figure 4-3 Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility as Dependent
Variables

122

Table 4-9 Culture Model: LISREL Results for the Two-Way MANOVA Using
Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility as Dependent Variables

 

 

_ Model Goodness -of-fit
1. Printer without covariate
A Full, all parameters free 78 (0) = 0.00 p z 1.00

B No interaction effects
(Y:11 =Y:11 ;Y1'12 = Y2212; Y‘21 = Y221 ; le2 = Y222 ;
Y31=Y31§ Y32=Y32)
C No main effects of concepts and no interaction effects
(7'11l = 721 = 7‘: =er = 12. = 7221= 7'22 = 7222
=Y 31 =Y 31 i Y 32=Y 32:0)

78(6) = 18.25 p a 0.006

78(12) =19.06 p 5 0.087

 

 

 

 

Test of :
Interaction (B-A) 78 (6) = 18.25 p 5 0.006
Main effects of concepts (08) 78 (6) = 0.81 p 5 0.990
Key Parameter estimates
Parameter Taiwan U.S.
y'n 0.45(2.09) -0.26(-l.33)
7‘72 0.32(1.50) -0.33(-l.69)
7'2, 0.36(2.01) -0.45(-2.03)
7’22 0.33(1.84) -O.55(-2.46)
7’3. 0.60(2.62) -0.43(-l.87)
7‘22 0.34(150) -0.l9(-0.85)
II. Gift without covariate
A Full, all parameters free 12(0)= 0.00 p s 1.00
B No interaction effects
(Y'111= Y211 ; Y!12 = Y2172; Y121= Y221 ; lez = Y222 2
;Y21=Y21§Y22=Y22 x(6)= 10.24 p50.115
C No main effects of cone ts and no interaction effects
(Ylln = Y:11 = Yll12 = Y:12 = Y 21 = Y221 = Y122 = Y222 =1 2
721=er;722=722 0) x(12)=64.43 p50.000
Test of :
Interaction (BA) 78 (6) = 10.24 p a 0.115
Main effects of concepts (C-B) 78 (6) = 54.19 p 5 0.000
Key Parameter estimates
Parameter Taiwan U.S.
7‘2, 0.41(2.16) 0.87(4.81)
7'72 0.61(3.23) 1.18(6.52)
7‘2, 0.13(0.70) 0.32(1.38)
7'22 0.35(191) 0.21(0.90)
7'2, 0.67(3.08) 0.91(4.07)
7'22 0.58(2.65) 0.33(1.45)

 

123

Table 4-10 Personality Model: LISREL Results for the Two-Way MANOVA Using
Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility as Dependent Variables

 

 

Model Goodness -of-fit
I. Printer without covariate
A Full, all parameters free . 78 (0) = 0.00 p s 1.00

B No interaction effects
(Y:11 = Y:11 §Yl‘12 = Y:12; Y121 = Y221 i le2 = Y222 ; 2
Y31=Y31;Y32=Y32) X(6)=19-77 PEG-003
C No main effects of concepts and no interaction effects
. (Ylu = Y21 = Y11 = Y21 = Y121= Y221= Y122 = Y222

any“; “2:732:07 78(12)=20.79 p50.054

 

Test of :
Interaction (B-A) 78 (6) = 19.77 p 5 0.003
Main effects of concepts (C-B) 78 (6) = 1.02 p a 0.990
Key Parameter estimates
Parameter High ATSCI Low ATSCI
7'“ 0.54(2.51) -0.28(-1.41)
7'22 0.24(1.14) .0.22(-1.09)
7'2, 0.54(2.79) -0.53(—2.60)
7'22 0.31(1.62) -0.47(-2.28)
7'32 0.68(2.73) -0.42(-1.96)
7'22 0.51(2.07) .0.30(-1.40)

 

II. Gift without covariate
A Full, all parameters free
B No interaction effects

78 (0) = 0.00 p 5 1.00

(Yln = Y2“ iY112 = Y2122; le1 = Y221 ; Y122 = Y222
;Y21=Y21; Y22=Y22
C No main efl‘ects of concepts and no interaction effects
(Ylin = an = Ylliz = Y:12 = lei = Y221 = lez = Y222 =§
Y21=Y221; Y22=Y22 0)

78(6)= 4.39 p_=.0.625

78 (12) = 63.22 p 5 0.000

 

 

Test of :
Interaction (B-A) 78 (6) = 4.39 p a 0.625
Main effects of concepts (C-B) 78 (6) = 58.83 p a 0.000
Key Parameter estimates
Parameter High ATSCI Low ATSCI
7'7. 0.43(2.41) 0.80(4.35)
7'12 0.93(5.16) 0.85(4.71)
7'2. 0.20(1.01) 0.23(1.06)
7'22 0.25(1.26) 0.30(1.42)
7'31 0.83(3.70) 0.75(3.44)
7°32 0.49(2.16) 0.42(1.96)

 

124

0.03) than the non-social oriented product concept.

For the gift store case in the culture effect model, Taiwanese subjects considered
both social oriented product concepts more unique (t=2.16, p < 0.02 for the social
adjustment product concepts; t=3.23, p < 0.001 for the social expressive product concept),
more comprehensible (F308, p < 0.001 for the social adjustment product concepts;
t=2.65, p < 0.004 for the social expressive product concept) than the non-social oriented
product concept. Taiwanese subjects also considered the social expressive product concept
more believable (t=1 .91 , p < 0.03) than the non-social oriented product concept. Likewise,
the U.S. subjects perceived both social oriented product concepts more unique (t=4.81,
p < 0.000 for the social adjustment product concepts; t=6.52, p < 0.000 for the social
expressive product concept) and more comprehensible (t=4.07, p < 0.000 for the social
adjustment product concepts; t=1.45, p < 0.07 for the social expressive product concept)
than the non-social oriented product concept. Finally, the U.S. subjects also considered
the social adjustment product concept more believable (t=1.38, p < 0.08) than the non-
social oriented product concept.

For printer case in the personality effect model, high ATSCI subjects regarded
both social oriented product concepts more believable (t=2.79, p < 0.003 for the social
adjustment product concepts; t=1.62, p < 0.05 for the social expressive product concept),
more comprehensible (t=2.73, p < 0.003 for the social adjustment product concepts;
t=2.07, p < 0.02 for the social expressive product concept) than the non-social oriented
product concept. High ATSCI also considered the value adjustment product concept more
unique (t=2.51, p < 0.006) than the non-social oriented product concept. On the other

hand, low ATSCI subjects perceived both social oriented product concepts less believable

125
(t=-2.60, p < 0.005 for the social adjustment product concepts; t=-2.28, p < 0.02 for the

social expressive product concept) and less comprehensible (t=-1.96, p < 0.025 for the
social adjustment product concepts; t=-1.40, p < 0.08 for the social expressive product
concept) than the non-social oriented product concept. Finally, low ATSCI subjects also
considered the social adjustment product concept less unique (t=-1.41, p < 0.08) than the
non-social oriented product concept.

For the gift store case in the personality effect model, high ATSCI subjects
considered both social oriented product concepts more unique (tr—2.41, p < 0.008 for the
social adjustment product concepts; t=5.16, p < 0.000 for the social expressive product
concept), more comprehensible (t=3.70, p < 0.001 for the social adjustment product
concepts; t=2.16, p < 0.015 for the social expressive product concept) than the non-social
oriented product concept. Likewise, low ATSCI subjects perceived both social oriented
product concepts more unique (t=4.35, p < 0.000 for the social adjustment product
concepts; t=4.71, p < 0.000 for the social expressive product concept) and more
comprehensible (t=3.44, p < 0.001 for the social adjustment product concepts; t=l.96, p
< 0.025 for the social expressive product concept) than the non-social oriented product
concept. Finally, low ATSCI subjects also considered the social expressive product
concept more believable (t=1.42, p < 0.08) than the non-social oriented product concept.
The Mediation Effect of the Personality Factor (HS)

Figure 4-4 depicts the basic structural model for testing the mediation effect of the
personality factor (ATSCI) on the relationship between culture (i.e., country) and the
persuasiveness of a product concept. Three steps were implemented to test these

hypotheses. In the first step (model A), only culture and persuasiveness (attitude and

126

 

W23

 

 

 

um 72, A chase Intent

Figure 4-4 LISREL Model: The Mediation Effects of Personality

127

purchase intention) were included in the model. With all parameters set free, the model
was estimated to test whether there are any significant relationships between culture and
attitude as well as between culture and purchase intention. If both paths are significant,
both paths are kept for the next analysis. If either path is not significant, the insignificant
path is dropped from further analyses. If both paths are not significant, the analysis is
stopped because there is no significant relationship between culture and the persuasiveness
of the product concept, let alone the mediation effect of personality.

In the second step (model B), a full model with all three factors included (as
shown in Figure 4-3) was estimated in order to test for the partial mediation effect. In
the final step (Model C), the paths between culture and the persuasiveness of product
concepts are fixed to be zero to test for complete versus partial mediation of the
personality effect. The difference in chi-square tests between model B in the second step
and model C in the third step is distributed chi-square with corresponding degrees of
freedom equal to the difference in degrees of freedom for the models. If the chi-square
is not significantly increased (p >0.10), the personality factor fully mediates the effect
between culture and the persuasiveness of the product concept.

There are in total six tests (two product types x three product concepts). The key
results are shown in Table 4-11. In step one (model A), all but the path between culture
and purchase intent for the social adjustment product concept and the path between culture
and attitude for the social expressive product concept in the printer case were significant.
For these two groups, the insignificant paths were dropped in further analyses.

The final results show that in five out of the six tests, ATSCI fully mediated the

relationships between culture and the persuasiveness of the product concepts. For the

128

Table 4-11 The Mediation Efl'ect of ATSCI

 

1. Printer Concept 1 (Social Adjustment Concept)

A. Basic model, all parameters the 12(0) = 0. p 5 1.000
777 = -0.44(-2.04)'
Y3, = 0.16(0.76)

 

— Printer Concept 1 (Social Adjustment Concept) with Attitude as Dependent Var.

A. Basic model, all parameters free 78 (0) = 0. p 5 1.000
Y2} = '0.41(’2.04)

13. Full model, all parameters free 78 (0) = 0. p 5 1.000
7,, = -0.94(-6.93)
72, = 0.08(0.35)
B2, = 0.52(4.22)

C. Reduced model
(Y21 =0) 78(1)=0.12 p50.724

-0.93(-6.92)
0.50(4.72)

Y11
1321

Test of :
Mediation effect of the ATSCI (c - B) 78(1) = 0.12 p a 0.724

 

129

Table 4-11 (cont’d)

 

11. Printer Concept 2 (Social Expressive Concept)

A. Basic model, all parameters flee x2 (0) = 0. p .-.- 1.000
72, = 0.01(0.03)
73, = 0.37(1 .80)

 

- Printer Concept 2 (Social Expressive Concept) with Purchase Intent as Dependent Var.

A. Basic model, all parameters flee x2 (0) = 0. p 5 1.000
731 = O.37(1.80)
B. Full model, all parameters flee x2 (0) = 0. p a 1.000
1,, = -1.21(-8.78)
Y31 = 0.49(1.89)
B3, = 0.10(0.77)
C. Reduced model 2
(Y21 = 0; Y31= 0) X. (1) = 3-56 P 5 0-059
y” = ‘1.21(’8.79)
03, = -0.05(-0.51)
Test of :

Mediation effect of the ATSCI(C - B) 78(1) = 3.56 p 5 0.059

 

Table 4-11 (cont’d)

130

 

III. Printer Concept 3 (Non-Social Oriented Concept)

 

A. Basic model, all parameters flee 72 (0) = 0. p 2 1.000

72, = 0.50(2.72)
73, = 0.45(2.13)

B. Full model, all parameters flee 78 (0) = 0. p 5 1.000
7,, ~0.97(-7.35)
72, = 0.40( 1.81)
73, = 0.38(1.48)
B2, = -0.10(-0.76)
B3, = ~0.07(-0.47)

C. Reduced model

(721 =0; n, =0) x2(2)=3-54 1350-170

7,, -1.0l(-7.75)
[32, = - 0.24(-2.18)
B3, = -0.20(-l.61)

Test of :

Mediation efl'ect of the ATSCI(C - B) 72 (2) = 3.54 p a 0.170

IV. Gift Concept 1 (Social Adjustment Concept)

A. Basic model, all parameters flee 72 (0) = 0. p 5 1.000
72, = -0.52(-2.49)
73, = -0.48(-2.34)

B. Full model, all parameters flee 72 (0) = 0. p 5 1.000
7,, = -l .06(-8.23)
Y2] = '0. 14(‘0.54)
Y31 = -0.39(-l.54)
B2, 0.36(2.45)
(33, 0.08(0.55)

C. Reduced model 2

(Yzl = 0; Y31: 0) X (2) = 2-55 P 5 0-280

7,, -1.09(-8.35)
[32, 0.41(3.87)
Bar = 0.22(1.84)

Test of :

Mediation effect of the ATSCI(C - B) 78(2) = 2.55 p 5 0.280

 

131

Table 4-11 (cont’d)

 

V. Gift Concept 2 (Social Expressive Concept)

 

A. Basic model, all parameters flee 72 (0) = 0. p 5 1.000
72, = -0.85(-3.84)
73, = -0.7l(-3.44)
B. Full model, all parameters flee )(2 (0) = 0. p 5 1.000
7,, = -0.95(-6.89)
72, = -0.36(-1.43)
73, = -0.30(-l.28)
[32, = 0.52(3.75)
B3, = 0.43(3.32)
C. Reduced model
(721 = 0; Y31"= 0) 78(2) =2.21 p 5 0.331
Y” = '0.98("7.12)
[32, = 0.63(5.24)
[3,, = 0.52(4.66)
Test of :
Mediation effect of the ATSCI(C - B) 78(2) =2.21 p a 0.331
VI. Gift Concept 3 (Non-Social Oriented Concept)
A. Basic model, all parameters flee 72 (0) = 0. p 5 1.000
72, = -0.35(-1.82)
73, = -0.36(—l.76)
B. Full model, all parameters flee 78 (0) = o. p 5 1.000
Yll = '1-110
721 = '0.0.03()
73, = -0.00()
B2, = 0.290
B3} = 0.330
C. Reduced model 2
(Yzl = 0; Y31 = 0) X (2) =0-02 P 5 0985
Y“ = ‘1.11('8.01)
[52, = 0.30(3.19)
B3, = 0.33(3.l 1)
Test of :
Mediation effect of the ATSCI(C - B) 78(2) =0.02 p 5 0.985

 

' t-values are in parentheses

132

social adjustment printer product concept, ATSCI fully mediated the culture effect on the
attitude toward the product concept (p<0.724). For the social expressive printer product
concept, ATSCI only partially mediated the culture effect on the attitude toward the
product concept (p<0.059). For the non-social oriented printer product concept, ATSCI
fully mediated the culture effect on attitudes and purchase intentions toward the product
concept (p<0.170).

For the social adjustment gift store product concept, ATSCI fully mediated the
culture effect on attitudes and purchase intentions toward the product concept (p<0.280).
For the social expressive gift store product concept, ATSCI fiilly mediated the culture
effect on attitudes and purchase intentions toward the product concept (p<0.331). Finally,
for the non-social oriented gift store product concept, ATSCI also fiilly mediated the
culture effect on attitudes and purchase intentions toward the product concept (p<0.985).
Therefore, the only partial mediation effect occurred in the social expressive printer
concept. H5 was partially supported by the data.

The Relationship between Product Concept Attitude and Purchase Intention (H6a,
H6b, H6c, H6d, and H6e)

This group of hypotheses were tested by calculating the 7 coefficient from attitude
to purchase intention using structural equation models for each specified sample group.
This hypothesis was tested by comparing the 7 coefficient for the three product concepts
for total samples, two cultural groups, and two personality groups. The results are shown
in Table 4-12. Again, chi-square difference tests were used as the base for testing the
hypotheses. The chi-square difference between baseline model (d.f=0, chi-square=0) and

nested model A (7, = 72 = 73 ) was used to test the overall equivalence of the three 7

 

133

coefficients. In that, 7, represents the structural coefficient between attitude and purchase
intention for the social adjustment concept, 72 represents the structural coefficient between
attitude and purchase intention for the social expressive concept, and 73 represents the
structural coefficient between attitude and purchase intention for the non-social oriented
concept. If the chi-square difference test was significant, then the nested model B (7, =
73 ) and nested model C (72 = 73 ) were calculated to test the pair differences between
two social oriented product concepts and the non-social oriented product concept.
Referring to Table 4-12, for the printer case, there was no overall difference among the
three product concepts (p<0.345) in the total samples. The overall test results were also
insignificant when dividing the sample into two cultures (p<0.187 for the Taiwanese
group; p<0.912 for the U.S. group) and two personality groups (p<0.378 for the high
ATSCI group; p< 0.793 for the low ATSCI group).

For the gift store case, there was an overall significant difference among the three
product concepts (p<0.015) in the total sample. The results from paired tests showed that
attitude toward product concepts are more significant predictors of purchase intentions
when the product concept is social oriented than is non-social oriented (p<0.045 for the
social adjustment product concept; p<0.005 for the social expressive product concept).
When the data were divided into two culture groups and two personality groups, the
overall test showed that there were overall differences among three structural coefficients
in the U.S. group (p<0.071) and the low ATSCI group (p<0.031). For the U.S. group, the
paired tests showed that attitudes toward product concepts are more significant predictors
of purchase intentions when the product concept is social expressive than is non-social

oriented (p<0.026). For the low ATSCI group, the paired tests showed that attitudes

134

toward product concepts are more significant predictors of purchase intentions when the
product concept is social oriented than is non—social oriented (p<0.042 for the social
adjustment product concept; p<0.01 l for the social expressive product concept). There was
no significant difference in the overall test in the Taiwanese group and the high ATSCI

group. Therefore, only hypothesis H6e were supported.

135

Table 4-12 The Relationship between Attitude and Purchase Intention

  

: Printer Concept

 

Low

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l ATSCI ATSCI

" Y Y Y Y Y

H Social Adjustment 0.38 0.35 0.43 0.22 0.46

“ Social Expressive 0.34 0.19 0.47 0.29 0.41

n Non-Social Oriented 0.46 0.39 0.49 0.40 0.49

I Model A: d.f.=2 d.f.=2 d.f.=2 d.f.=2 d.f.=2
7, = 72 = 73 72:2.13 72:3.35 72 =0.18 xz=l.95 72:0.46

p<0.345 p<0. 187 p<0.912 p<0.378 p<0.793

Model B:

ll Y1 = Y3
Model C:
Y2 = Y3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4-12 (cont’d)

 

136

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gift Store Concept Total Taiwan U.S
Y Y Y
Social Adjustment 0.68 0.54 0.81 0.53 0.77
Social Expressive 0.76 0.54 0.88 0.57 0.82
Non-Social Oriented 0.51 0.40 0.61 0.47 0.52
Model A: d.f.=2 d.f.=2 d.f.=2 d.f.=2 d.f.=2
7, = 72 = 73 72:8.47 72:1.73 xz=5.30 72:0.68 72:6.96
p<0.015 p<0.421 p<0.071 p<0.711 p<0.031
Model B: d.f.=] d.f.=] d.f.=1
7, = 73 72:4.02 72:2.51 xz=4.14
p<0.045 p<0. 1 13 p<0.042
d.f.=] d.f.=1 d.f.=1
72:8.04 xz=4.92 xz=6.40
p<0.005 p<0.026 p<0.01 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter five

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In this chapter, the discussion of the experimental results will be presented first.
Next, the limitations, contributions, and managerial implications will be addressed.
Finally, suggestions for future research will be proposed.
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
The five major themes of this thesis address the following questions:
1) Is there any role of culture regarding consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions
toward different product concepts? Is the role of culture moderated by different product
situations (Hypothesis 1 and 2)?
2) Is there any role of personality regarding consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions
toward different product concepts? Is the role of personality moderated by different
product situations (Hypothesis 3 and 4)?
3) Can the effect of culture on consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions be mediated
by personality (Hypothesis 5)?
4) If there is a role of culture and/or personality, can this role be managed by marketers
(covariate analyses of hypothesis 1 to 4)?
5) Will the strength of the relationship between attitude and purchase intention be the

same regardless of culture, personality, and product concept (Hypothesis 6)?

137

138
Each of the themes is addressed below.

The Role of Culture in Different Product Situations (Hypothesis 1 and 2)

For ambivalent attitude function products (i.e., printers in this thesis), culture does
have a role in affecting consumers’ attitudes toward different product concepts.
Consumers in a collectivistic culture have more favorable attitudes toward social oriented
product concepts than toward the non-social oriented product concepts, while consumers
in an individualistic culture have more favorable attitudes toward the non-social oriented
product concept than toward social oriented product concepts.

This demonstrates that the attitude function a product serves is perceived
differently by consumers in different cultures when that attitude function is ambivalent.
Consumers in a collectivistic culture focus more on the social implication than on the non-
social attributes of the product Therefore, for these consumers, a product concept
depicting social oriented statements is more effective than a product concept depicting
non-social oriented statements in narrowing the gap between "actual self" and "ought self“
and generating favorable attitudes. On the other hand, because consumers in an
individualistic culture focus more on the non-social attributes than on the social
implication of the product, a product concept depicting non-social oriented statements is
more effective at reducing the gap between "actual self' and "ideal self“ and generating
favorable attitudes.

In the case of products engaging M social oriented attitude functions (i.e., gift-
giving in this thesis), the culture effect is diminished, however. Consumers in either
culture have more favorable attitudes and purchase intentions toward the social oriented

product concepts than toward the non-social oriented product concept. That is, for a

139

social oriented product, consumers from both cultures consider the social meaning behind
the behavior because the major function the product serve is social oriented. A product
concept depicting social oriented statements has higher persuasive power than a product
emphasizing non-social oriented statements. Results in the preliminary studies also support
this finding. In the preliminary studies, almost all subjects (96% for the U.S. subject and
97% for the Taiwanese subjects) mentioned social oriented reasons for purchasing gifts.

These findings suggest that the feasibility of global marketing standardization is
product situation specific. For products engaging a single non-ambivalent attitude function
(social or non-social), global marketing standardization is feasible. Consumers in both
cultures tend to focus on that clearly identified attitude function. However, for ambivalent
attitude function products, global marketing standardization is more difficult because
consumers will focus on the different attitude functions, depending on their culture.
The Role of Personality in Different Product Situations (Hypothesis 3 and 4)

The results of using the high and low ATSCI classification are very similar to
those using the culture categorization. In fact, the overall effect is stronger when dividing
the sample by the ATSCI score than by culture. Specifically, for ambivalent attitude
function products (i.e., printers in this thesis), consumers who care more about social
comparison information have higher attitude scores associated with the social oriented
product concepts than with the non-social oriented product concept. In contrast, consumers
who care less about social comparison information have higher attitude scores associated
with the non-social oriented product concept than with the social oriented product
concepts.

In addition, consumers who care more about social comparison information have

140

higher purchase intention scores associated with the social adjustment product concept
than with the non-social oriented product concept, while consumers who care less about
social comparison information have lower purchase intention scores associated with the
social adjustment product concept than with the non-social oriented product concept.

This again demonstrates that the attitude function a product serves is perceived
differently by consumers with different personalities in the case of the ambivalent attitude
function product. Consumers who care more about social comparison information focus
more on the social implication than on the non-social attributes of the product. Therefore,
for these consumers, a product concept depicting social oriented statements is more
effective than a product concept depicting non-social oriented statements at narrowing the
gap between "actual self“ and "ought self“ and generating favorable attitudes. On the
other hand, consumers who care less about social comparison information focus more on
the non-social attributes than on the social implication of the product, and thus a product
concept depicting non-social oriented statements is more effective at reducing the gap
between "actual self“ and "ideal self“ and generating favorable attitudes.

For product engaging only social oriented attitude functions (i.e., gift-giving in this
thesis), consumers who care more about social comparison information have higher
attitude and purchase intention scores toward the social oriented product concepts than
toward the non-social oriented product concept. Consumers who care less about social
comparison information also have higher purchase intention scores associated with the
social expressive product concept than with the non-social oriented product concept. This
shows that for a social oriented product, all consumers regardless of personality need to

consider the social meaning behind the behavior. A product concept depicting social

141

oriented statements, therefore, has higher persuasive power than a product purely
emphasizing non-social oriented statements.

These results suggest a promising basis for global marketing segmentation: i.e.,
personality factors. Marketers can not only segment the market by culture or country, but
also segment the market by personality. In other words, they can market a product using
a consistent product concept to a particular personality segment across cultures. This
assertion will be confirmed in next section’s discussion of the mediation effect of
personality on the relationship between culture and product concept persuasiveness.
The Mediation Effect of Personality Factor (Hypothesis 5)

The empirical data strongly support the assertion that personality can fully mediate
the relationship between culture and attitude as well as between culture and purchase
intention. In five out of six models, the personality scale chosen (i.e., ATSCI) fully
mediated the effect of culture on attitude and purchase intention. This, again, supports the
contention that personality instead of culture can be a major foundation for global
marketing segmentation. The persuasiveness of a certain product concept is affected more
directly by consumers’ own personalities than by culture. The effect of the culture on
product concept persuasiveness is indirect through personality.

The Effect of Other Variables (Covariates Analyses of Hypothesis 1 to 4)

When the uniqueness, believability, and comprehensibility of the product concept
were specified in the model as covariates, the main effect of product concept, the
interaction between product concept and culture, and the interaction between product
concept and personality all disappeared. The uniqueness, believability, and

comprehensibility of the product concept were better predictors of the consumers’ attitudes

142

and purchase intentions than culture, personality, and product concept. The results may
demonstrate that marketers should focus their efforts on developing unique, believable,
and comprehensible product concepts instead of dealing with personality or culture factor
in the global market, because such a product concept is more effective in generating
favorable attitudes and purchase intentions for all consumers.

The question then becomes: what constitutes a unique, believable, and
comprehensible product concept? One may argue that a social oriented product concept
is perceived to be more unique, believable, and comprehensible by consumers in a
collectivistic culture and by consumers who care more about social comparison
information than by consumers in an individualistic culture and consumers who care less
about social comparison information. In contrast, a non-social oriented product concept
is perceived to be more unique, believable, and comprehensible by consumers in an
individualistic culture and by consumers who care less about social comparison
information than by consumers in a collectivistic culture and by consumers who care more
about social comparison information. This assertion was confirmed by testing models
where the uniqueness, believability, and comprehensibility of the product concept were
specified as dependent variables.

The results demonstrate that the differences in attitude and purchase intention
generated by different product concepts are still affected by culture and personality, but
that these effects work through uniqueness, believability, and comprehensibility instead
of directly. In other words, consumers in a collectivistic culture and consumers who care
more about social comparison information regarded a social oriented product concept as

more persuasive than the non-social oriented product concept because they considered the

 

143

former one more unique, believable, and comprehensible, while consumers in an
individualistic culture and consumers who care less about social comparison information
regarded a social oriented product concept as less persuasive than the non-social oriented
product concept because they considered the latter one more unique, believable, and
comprehensible than the former.

In conclusion, personality and culture factors are still very important in affecting
consumers’ attitude and purchase intention toward a product concept, although these
factors’ influence may be Meg through uniqueness, believability and comprehensibility.
The Relation between Attitude and Purchase Intention (Hypothesis 6)

Final important finding concerns the differences in strength of the relationship
between attitude and purchase intention, depending on product concept. For products
engaging solely the social oriented attitude function, a social oriented product concept can
create a stronger relationship between attitude and purchase intention than does a non-
social oriented product concept. This finding suggests that when the product concept
"matches" the product type, a consumer will have higher motivation and ability to process
the product concept via the central route, and therefore, the relational strength between
attitude and purchase intention is stronger.

Combining this result with what was learned about the first two themes (hypothesis
1 to 4), it implies that, for a social oriented product, a social oriented product concept can
not only generate more favorable attitude and/or purchase intention than a non-social
oriented product concept, but it can also create a stronger relationship between attitude
and purchase intention. This gives an additional reason that marketers should always

create a social oriented product concept for product engaging social oriented attitude

144

functions, regardless of culture or personality factors.

The results are different however, in the case of the ambivalent attitude function
product. For an ambivalent attitude function product (i.e., printer in this study), there is
no difference in the relational strength between attitude and purchase intention among
different product concepts. This suggests that different consumers may focus on different
attitude fimctions for this kind of product in order to form attitudes and purchase
intentions. These attitudes and purchase intentions are based on the whether the product
concept delivers the attitude function they are looking for. The difference in attitude
function focus only affects attitude and/or purchase intention, and n_o_t the relational
strength between attitude and purchase intention. Does the ambivalent attitude function
of the product itself attenuate a consumer’s motivation and ability? This needs to be

explored in the future studies.

LIMITATIONS

The first limitation in interpreting the findings is the representativeness of the
sampled countries on the individualism and collectivism dimension. Although the U.S. and
Taiwan differ greatly in terms of individualism and collectivism, they do not necessarily
represent all aspect of this construct. Also, collectivism and individualism may not be an
unidirnensional factor (Triandis 1994). Therefore, the present findings should be consider
preliminary. Further studies in other countries and different areas within a country should
be conducted to test the generalizability of the results.

Second, the use of student subjects also limits the generalizability of the finding.

It may be that people in different generations possess dramatically different

 

145

individualism/collectivism tendencies for example. Younger generations are normally
considered to be more individualistic than older generations (Triandis 1994). The results
may show more pronounced differences between cultures if older subjects are used.
However, it should be noted that both the printer and gift-giving are relevant consumption
domains for the student subjects in this study. This study is the first step for the whole
stream of research.
There are some limitations in the process of two-group confirmatory factor analysis
for establishing measurement equivalence. The unfit or unequal items were deleted based
on post-hoe analysis. Further cross-validation studies on the measurement model may be

needed to validate the measurement representation.

CONTRIBUTIONS
International Marketing Standardization Argument
In the context of the international marketing standardization argument, there are
at least four major contributions. FiLst, this study shows that there are culture and
personality effects when the product engages ambivalent attitude functions. The culture
and personality effects diminish when the product engages a single attitude function. This
kind of product classification is first proposed in this study.

Second using product concepts as the experimental stimuli also provide a good

 

basis for future research. As stated in Chapter two, focusing on the product concept level
can reduce the confounding effects between the executional level and the conceptual level
in experimental studies. Researchers can first find out the fundamental differences among

cultures before any other further studies are conducted using stimuli that differ at the

 

 

146

executional level. The focus on the product concept level, however, doesn’t debase the
importance of studies about executional aspects. It will be discussed below (in the future
research section) how to conduct future research on these executional aspects, based on
the research result of this study.

m the study provides promising results regarding international marketing
segmentation. The ATSCI personality scale appears to be as effective as culture in
segmenting consumer groups, and it also can fully mediate the culture effect in most
cases. This demonstrates that cross-culture marketing segmentation should be a feasible

strategy. That is, marketers can standardize their product for a particular segment that

exists across cultures.

 

My, the study presents a systematic framework for international marketing
standardization strategy based on an extensive review of international standardization/
adaptation studies. It clarifies the definition, domains, and implications of the
standardization strategy, as well as showing how consumer perspectives can complement
the research stream. The study is also one of the few studies that uses the consumer’s

perspective and systematically explores the differences in consumer behavior in different

cultures.
Cross-Cultural Consumer Behavior

As far as theory in cross-cultural consumer behavior is concerned, this study
attempts to integrate the attitude function perspective. In particular, it incorporates
interaction effects between product concept and culture as well as between product
concept and personality. This confirms Shavitt’s (1989, 1992) points about the interaction

between product characteristics and other variables. The research demonstrates that

 

147

theories of attitude functions can form a fluitful research stream in cross-cultural
consumer behaviors. More importantly, in this thesis, explanatory power was enriched by
successfully integrating conceptualizations of self-concept and consumption symbolism.
The three self-concepts presentation, for example, can form an important framework for
future cross-cultural consumer research.

Based on theories of attitude functions, this thesis demonstrated that there are
fundamental consumer differences between cultures in evaluating social or non-social
product concepts for products engaging ambivalent attitude functions. This difference may
be reduced by marketing manipulation (uniqueness, believability, comprehensibility of the
product concept). However, a product concept couched within existing attitude functions
will more easily generate the uniqueness, believability, and comprehensibility of the
product concept.

Research Methodology

In term of research methodology, there are at least two major contributions. m,
this study applied a multi-method approach to investigate culture differences. This
approach allowed the researcher to look at the research domain from different angles and
provided richer results from the data. Preliminary studies also provided a strong
foundation for the confirmatory study. M, this study also provided a procedure for
establishing measurement equivalent model across cultures. Although this process is very
important for cross-cultural comparison, it was not implemented widely in the cross-

cultural research (Hui and Triandis 1985; Singh 1995; Triandis 1994).

148
MARKETING IMPLICATIONS

Marketing Standardization versus Marketing Adaptation

Marketers should understand that there are some fundamental differences in the
effectiveness of social versus non-social oriented product concepts in generating
consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions across cultures (or in different segments in
a culture) when the product is engaging ambivalent attitude functions. For this kind of
product, the social oriented product concepts are more persuasive than the non-social
oriented product concepts for (1) consumers in a collectivistic society and (2) consumers
who care more about social comparison information. On the other hand, non-social
oriented product concepts are more persuasive than. social oriented product concepts for
(1) consumers in an individualistic culture and (2) consumers who care less about social
comparison information. Unless it is very costly, an adaption strategy at the product
concept level in different cultures or segments should be adopted for this kind of product.
For products engaging a single attitude function, however, a standardization
strategy at the product concept level is highly recommended. It was demonstrated that
a social oriented product concept not only can create more favorable attitudes and
purchase intentions, but also can generate a stronger linkage between attitude and purchase
intention than does a non—social oriented product concept for a social oriented product.

Global Marketing Segmentation
Cross-cultural market segmentation is a viable strategy. Marketers can sell certain
products to the "same" segment across cultures using a same product concept. This study
shows that while culture does have an impact on a product concept’s persuasiveness, this

influence is indirect through personality. Therefore, using personality as the segmentation

149

basis is more direct and effective in serving as a segmentation basis.

Furthermore, using personality as the basis for segmentation can also help
marketers in estimating the potential of a market segment in a certain culture or country.
Culture is a macro variable. It is very difficult to quantify the differences between two
cultures. Personality, however, can be measured by marketers and directly compared.
In this study for example, the results imply that on average Taiwanese are more attentive
to social comparison information than their U.S. counterparts. Distribution estimates in
each country can be compared. It can show what percent of the subjects in Taiwan
actually have higher Attention-To-Social-Comparison-Information scores than the U.S.
average, or vice versa. This kind of information can help marketers estimate the segment’s
potential before entering a certain culture.

The Importance of Uniqueness, Believability, and Comprehensibility

Consistent with traditional knowledge about communication, uniqueness,
believability, and comprehensibility of product concepts are very important in generating
consumers’ favorable attitudes and purchase intentions. The study found that the results
are similar when using uniqueness, believability, and comprehensibility rather than attitude
and purchase intention as dependent variables in the MANOVA model. For ambivalent
attitude functions product, consumers in a collectivistic culture and consumers who care
more about social comparison information not only considered a social oriented product
concept more persuasive, but also more unique, believable and comprehensible than a
non-social oriented product concept. On the other hand, consumers in an individualistic
culture and consumers care less about social comparison information regarded a non-social

oriented product concept not only more persuasive, but also more unique, believable, and

 

150

comprehensible than a social oriented product concept.

It is not impossible to create a non-social oriented product concept that is unique,
believable, and comprehensible for consumers in a collectivistic culture and consumers
who care more about social comparison information. Nor is it impossible to create a
social oriented product concept that is unique, believable, and comprehensible for
consumers in an individualistic culture and consumers who care less about social
comparison information. It is simply less likely to happen when product, product concept,
culture, and personality are mismatched than when they are matched. Thus, when
creating product concepts, marketers may consider the findings in this study as the first
step to generating unique, believable, and comprehensible product concepts targeted for
certain people in a certain culture.

Product Classification Is Not Given

This study showed that a product can be classified as social oriented, non-social
oriented, and ambivalent attitude function. Different product types may affect the
feasibility of a marketing standardization strategy. However, marketer should not classify
a product into one of the above categories based solely on their own cultural experiences.
The same product may be classified into different categories in different cultures or
countries. As shown in the study, a computer printer can be deemed as a non-social
oriented object in the individualistic society, while considered as a social oriented product
in the collectivistic society. Furthermore, whether a product is a social oriented, a non-
social oriented, or an ambivalent attitude function product can sometimes be influenced
by marketers. As shown in the preliminary study, toothpaste may be considered more

social oriented in the United State than in Taiwan. This demonstrates that the

151

classification of the product is not given. Marketers can explore the possibility of

repositioning a product to a different focus.

FUTURE RESEARCH

There are several future research projects that can be conducted within this
research stream. _F_irg, the same studies can be conducted in other countries. As stated,
the United States and Taiwan are only samples of individualistic and collectivisitic
cultures. More studies should be conducted in other countries. In addition, the sample
should incorporate older generations and to examine cohort effects. Sec—0nd, more
product types should be chosen to be tested by the same framework. The findings may
show that the effects of a product concept on attitudes and purchase intentions are
different between convenience, specialty and shopping products. This thesis suggests a
difference based on the specialty versus shopping classification. For the gift store, the
product concept not only affects attitude but also purchase intention. On the other hand,
for the printer case, the product concept only affects consumers’ attitudes. The results are
reasonable because the financial cost and specific knowledge requirements for buying a
computer printer are much higher than in the gift store case. For this kind of product, a
product concept probably affects only consumers’ attitudes since it only depicts the basic
idea of the product. Consumers may need to have more information about the product
to form purchase intention. If this claim can be verified by future study, then there is a
lower risk for marketers in standardizing a specialty product internationally, regardless
whether the product engages single or ambivalent attitude functions. Future research is

needed to verify this assertion. Finally, a product engaging only non-social related attitude

152

function should also be included in the future study. It was not included in this research.

mg, it was found that uniqueness, believability, and comprehensibility of product
concepts are very important for generating consumers’ favorable attitudes and purchase
intentions. Product concept variations, culture, and personality became insignificant in
predicting subjects’ attitudes and purchase intentions when these three variables were
included in the model. However, the study also found that the results are very similar
when using uniqueness, believability, and comprehensibility instead of attitude and
purchase intention as dependent variables. That is, for the printer, consumers in a
collectivistic culture and consumers who care more about social comparison information
considered social oriented product concepts not only more persuasive, but also more
unique, believable and comprehensible than the non-social oriented product concept. On
the other hand, consumer in an individualistic culture and consumers who care less about
social comparison information regarded the non-social oriented product concept not only
more persuasive, but also more unique, believable, and comprehensible than social
oriented product concepts.

Since the study was conducted at the product concept level, one may ask (1)
whether uniqueness, believability, and comprehensibility can be created at the executional
level (e.g., using famous models, experts, or fancy packages) and, (2) whether the
uniqueness, believability, and comprehensibility created in the marketing executional level
have the same impact on attitude and purchase intention as those created at the product
concept level.

Suppose the answers for both questions are yes; then marketers actually don’t need

to care about the product concept level standardization. The most important thing for

153

them is to make sure that the marketing activities are unique, believable, and
comprehensible in each country at the execution level. On the other hand, if the answers
for both questions are no, then marketers should focus on product concept level
standardization. Research of this kind involves the interface between the strategic and the
executional level. The result should have important implications for international
marketing practice.

F_ingl_ly, the preliminary study showed that it is reasonable to divide the social
oriented concept into social adjustment and social expressive classification. However, the
results did not generate significant results for that classification in the confirmatory study.
This may have been caused by the similarity of the two concepts. For example, the social
adjustment product concept for the gift store emphasized the importance of choosing a
right gift to represent the relationship. The social expressive product concept stressed the
importance of finding a gift that can represent the subject’s feeling. Some consumers may
consider that expressing feeling and relationship maintenance are similar. People express
feelings to enhance, maintain, or reduce the relationship. Feeling expression and
relationship representation may be two sides of a coin.

To generate stronger and different effects for the two social oriented product
concepts, future research may apply comparative product concepts. For example, the
social expressive product concept can emphasize the importance of expressing individual
feelings without considering others’ feelings, while the social adjustment product concept
can underscore the importance of fitting others’ real needs without considering self

expressiveness.

APPENDICES

 

 

APPENDIX A

PRODUCT CONCEPT

APPENDIX A

PRODUCT CONCEPT

I. GIFT STORE: Social Adjustment Product Concept

A leading gift store is interested in establishing a store in this area. They want to know
consumers’ reactions to their service. Please review the following product description very
carefirlly. The store should be available locally very soon.

No Embarrassment About Giving An Inappropriate Gift
Anymore

It is always embarrassing when your gift is inappropriate for the
occasion and the relationship you have with the recipient.

With the support of an advanced computer data base, just provide
our computers with the occasion and your relationship with the
receiver. You will receive a list of gifts that are most appropriate
for the occasion and that accurately represent your relationship with
the receiver. Without hassle, you can buy the appropriate gift right
here in our store.

Now you can always have the most appropriate gift without
hassle.

154

155

11. GIFT STORE: Social Expressive Product Concept

A leading gift store is interested in establishing a store in this area. They want to know
consumers’ reactions to their service. Please review the following product description very
carefully. The store should be available locally very soon.

A Gift That Can Really Show Your Personality and Your
Feelings

You always want to find a gift that can represent your personality
and how you feel.

With the support of an advanced computer data base, just provide
our computers with what you want the receiver to know. You will
receive a list of gifts that can most accurately represent your
personality and your feelings. Without hassle, you can buy the gift
right here in our store.

Now you can always have a gift that really shows your
personality and feelings without hassle.

156

III. GIFT STORE: Non-Social Oriented Product Concept

A leading gift store is interested in establishing a store in this area. They want to know
consumers’ reactions to their service. Please review the following product description very
carefully. The store should be available locally very soon.

It’s Never Been Easier To Find A Quality Gift
We stock high quality products only.

With the most extensive international sourcing, our store only
stocks the most updated and quality gifts that you will never find
in any other store. You can use our store on-line computer system
to browse through the quality gift items we carry.

In our store, you can easily find the perfect gift, one with the
highest quality.

Now you can easily find a quality gift without hassle.

157

IV. PRINTER: Social Adjustment Product Concept

A leading computer printer firm is interested in knowing consumers’ reactions to their
new product. Please review the following product description very carefully. The product
should be available locally very soon.

Your Friends and Family Will Be Proud of Your Choice

You always want your friends and family to feel proud of your
work.

An internationally renown manufacturer has developed a new
computer printing technology called "Neo-Laser Technology." The
results are actually comparable to those of a normal laser printer
but at a more reasonable price. Your friends and family will
definitely be proud of your choice.

Now you can have a printer that your friends and family can
be proud of.. and at a reasonable price.

158

V. PRINTER: Social Expressive Product Concept

A leading computer printer firm is interested in knowing consumers’ reactions to their
new product. Please review the following product description very carefully. The product
should be available locally very soon.

A Professional Print Job Can Make You Feel Good
You always feel good when your documents look professional.

An internationally renown manufacturer has developed a new
computer printing technology called "Neo-Laser Technology." You
will always feel good with this new technology because your
documents always look more professional. The results of this
printer are actually comparable to those of a normal laser printer
but at a more reasonable price.

You will feel good all the time because your printer can always
print profgssional-looking documents.. and at a more
reasonable price.

159

VI. PRINTER: Non-Social Oriented Product Concept

A leading computer printer firm is interested in knowing consumers’ reaction to their new
product. Please review the following product description very carefully. The product
should be available locally very soon.

Finally There Is A Computer Printer With Quality That Other
Economical Printers Do Not Possess

The quality of this new printer is assured through the newest
computer printing technology.

An internationally renown manufacturer has developed a new
computer printing technology called "Neo-Laser Technology." The
quality of the new printing technology is better than other
economical computer printers. The results are actually comparable
to those of a normal laser printer but at a more reasonable price.

Now you can easily own a printer with qulity that othe_r
ggonomical [Enters do not possess. and yet at a reasonable
price.

APPENDIX B

ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX B

ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE

Instruction Sheet

Michigan State University
Department of Marketing & Logistics

1. The purpose of this research is to see how consumers react to different new product
descriptions. Your answer can help academic and marketing researchers know more about
consumers’ needs. Your participation will require about 30 minutes. You will be asked to
evaluate descriptions of a new printer and a gift store and then complete some questionnaire
about your impressions and opinions about the two descriptions.

2. You are flee not to participate at all and you are flee to withdraw participation at any time '
without prejudice.

3. Your responses will keep strictly confidential and that the results of this study will be
reported as aggregate data. No individual participant will be identified. You will not need

to write your name on any of the materials you receive here today.

4. You will receive additional information about this study after your participation is
completed.

5. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this
questionnaire.

6. If you have any further question regarding this study, please contact Jyh-shen Chiou
(353-6381) or Dr. Cornelia Droge, Professor of Marketing (353-6381).

160

161

. 1. What is your overall reaction to this_gifl_smm when you read through the description? There is no
right or wrong reaction. Just write anything that came to your mind when reading the product
description.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

162

Below are a number of questions that ask for your opinion about Wm. For each question, there are
several scales to measure your opinions about the question. Please answer mm]: by circling the number
which most accurately describes your opinion. For example, if the description on the right hand side most
describes your opinion on the question, circle 7 on the scale. If the description on the left hand side most
describes your opinion on the question, circle 1 on the scale. If you has neutral opinion on the question, circle
4 on the scale.

2. Please describe your overall attitude toward this gift store on the m the following scales:

Unfavorable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable
Bad I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good
Foolish l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wise
Harmful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Beneficial

3. My purchasing gifts from this gift store in the future would be: (Please answer each of the
following scales)

Unfavorable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable
Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good
Foolish l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wise
Harmful l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Beneficial

4. Most people who are important to me would probably consider my purchasing gifts flom this gift store to
be: (please answer each of the following scales)

Foolish l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wise
Useless l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Useful
Worthless l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Valuable
5. Most people who are important to me would probably think 1 buy gifts from this gift store.
Definitely should not I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely should
6. How much control do you have over whether you do or do not buy gifts from this store?

Very Little Control 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Complete Control

7. For me to buy gifts flom this store is .

 

Difficult l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Easy
8. lf 1 want to 1 could easily buy gifts flom this store.

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
9. It is mostly up to me whether or not 1 will buy gifts from this store.

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree

163

10. Please circle the number on each of the following scales that best describes whether you would
actually purchase gifts from this gift store when it is available in the local market.

Unlikely l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Likely
Uncertain l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Certain
Impossible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Possible

1 1. Overall, how would you rate this gift store on each of the following attributes.

Not at all Unique 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Unique
Not at all Different l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Different
Not at all Exclusive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Exclusive

12.. Overall, how would you rate the believability of the gift store description on each of the

following scales.
Not Believable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Believable
Not True 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 True
Bogus l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sincere

13. Overall how would you rate the comprehensibility of the gift store description on each of the
following scales.

Not Comprehensible l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comprehensible
Confusing l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Confusing
Not Understandable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Understandable

14. When you saw the description of the gift store, you felt the information in it .

Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant
Irrelevant l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Relevant
Means a lot to me I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Means nothing to me
Unexciting l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Exciting
Dull l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Neat
Matters to me I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doesn't matter
Fun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not fun
‘ Appealing l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unappealing
Boring l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting
Of no concern to me I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Of concern to me

I

164

1. What is your overall reaction to this Wm when you read through the description?
There is no right or wrong reaction. Just write anything that came to your mind when reading the
product description.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

165

Below are a number of questions that ask for your opinion about the W. For each question,
there are several scales to measure your opinions about the question. Please answer me by circling the
number which most accurately describes your opinion. For example, if the description on the right hand side
most describes your opinion on the question, circle 7 on the scale. If the description on the left hand side most
describes your opinion on the question, circle I on the scale. If you has neutral opinion on the question, circle
4 on the scale.

2. Please describe your overall attitude toward this computer printer on each of the following scales:

Unfavorable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable
Bad I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good
Foolish l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wise
Harmful l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Beneficial

3. My purchasing this computer printer in the future would be: (please answer each of the following scales).

Unfavorable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable
Bad I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good
Foolish I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wise
Harmful l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Beneficial

4. Most people who are important to me would probably consider my purchasing this
computer printer to be: (please answer each of the following scales)

Foolish 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wise
Useless l 2 3 6 7 Useful
Worthless l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Valuable

A
Lit

5. Most people who are important to me would probably think I buy this
computer printer.

Definitely should not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely should
6. How much control do you have over whether you do or do not buy this computer printer?
Very Little Control 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Complete Control

7. For me to buy this computer printer is

 

Difficult 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Easy
8. If I want to I could easily buy this computer printer.

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
9. It is mostly up to me whether or not I will buy this computer printer.

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree

166

10. Please circle the number on each of the following scales that best describes whether you would actually
purchase this computer printer when it is available in the local market.

Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Likely
Uncertain l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Certain
Impossible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Possible

1 1. Overall, how would you rate this computer printer on each of the following attributes.

Not at all Unique 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Unique
Not at all Different l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Different
Not at all Exclusive I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Exclusive

12.. Overall, how would you rate the believability of this computer printer description on each of the
following scales.

Not Believable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Believable
Not True 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 True
Bogus l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sincere

13. Overall how would you rate the comprehensibility of this computer printer description on each of the
following scales.

Not Comprehensible I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comprehensible
Confusing l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Confusing
Not Understandable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Understandable

14. When you saw the description of the computer printer, you felt the information in it .

Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unimportant
Irrelevant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Relevant
Means a lot to me I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Means nothing to me
Unexciting I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Exciting
Dull l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Neat
Matters to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doesn't matter
Fun I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not fun
Appealing I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unappealing
Boring l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting
Of no concern to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Of concem to me

167

Next we would like to know how much experience you have had with computer printers.
1.. Do you own a computer printer? Yes No
2. What type of computer printer do you most often use ?
Laser Ink-jet Dot matrix others

3. How often do you use a computer printer?

a. Almost every day

b. Once every two to three days

c. Once every week

(I. Once every month
e. Seldomly use

4. What do you normally print? (you may choose more than one choice for this question)
a. Term papers or other class related reports
b. Personal/unofficial papers
c. Business related document
d. Others (please indicate )
5. Have you ever purchased a computer printer, either for yourself or for others?
Yes No
6. Compared to average persons, rate your knowledge of how much you know about a computer printer.

I know very little I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I know a great deal

7. Compared to average persons, rate your knowledge of how much you know about different brands of
computer printers.

I know very little I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I know a great deal

8. Compared to average persons, rate your knowledge of how much you know how to buy a
computer printer.

I know very little I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I know a great deal
9. Please indicate how much information you have searched about computer printers.

Very little I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much

 

168

Please answer the following questions. If the statement is true, please circle “True.” If the statement is wrong,
please circle “False.” If you don’t know, please circle “Don’t Know”

Don’t
True False Know

T F D I. General speaking , ink-jet cartridges for ink-jet printers are expensive,
making operating costs more expensive than a laser or a dot-matrix
printer.

T F D 2. Ink-jet printers use xerographic technology.

T F D 3. An Ink-jet printer normally requires less electronic energy than a laser

or a dot-matrix printers.

T F D 4. The term “dbi” is used to measure printing quality.
T F D 5. The image of an ink-jet printer is electronically created on a light-
sensitive drum. A powdered toner sticks to the area where light touches -

the drum and then transfers to a sheet of paper.

T F D 6. A daisy wheel printer is one kind of dot-matrix printer.

T F D 7. Normally ”ppm” is used to measure the printing speed of a dot-matrix
printer.

T F D 8. Other thing being equal, the larger the memory of a printer, the better

the “spooling” function for the computer system.

169
Next we would like to know how much experience you have had with stores where you can buy gifts.

I. Who do you most often give gifts to ?
a. My boy or girl friend
b. Close fliends but not boy/girl friend
c. Other friends
(I. Family members/ Relatives
c. Business associates
1'. Others (please indicate )

2. How often do you pumhm a gift for a friend, relative or any other person flom a store?
a. About every month
b. About once every 2-3 months
c. About once every half year
d. About once a year
e. Seldomly buy gifts

3. Compared to average persons, rate your knowledge of how much you know about stores where you can
buy gifts.

I know very little I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I know a great deal

7. Compared to average persons, rate your knowledge of how much you know about different stores where
you can buy gifts.

I know very little I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I know a great deal

8. Compared to average persons, rate your knowledge of how much you know about how to buy a gift flom a
store.

I know very little 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I know a great deal
9. Please indicate how much information you have searched about stores where you can buy gifts.

Very little I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much

 

170

The statements below concern your personal reactions to a number of different situations. No two statements
are exactly alike, so consider each statement carefully before answering. If a statement is true or mostly true as
applied to you, check "T" under the true column. If a statement is false or mostly false as applied to you, check
"F" under the false column.

TRUE FALSE
T F l. I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people
T F 2. At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that

others will like
T F 3. I can only argue for ideas which I already believe

T F 4. I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I have
almost no information

 

T F 5. I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain others

T F 6. I would probably make a good actor

T F 7. In a group of people I am rarely the center of attention

T F 8. In different situations and with different people, I often act like very

different persons

T F 9. I am not particularly good at making other people like me
T F 10. I‘m not always the person I appear to be
T F l l. I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to

please someone or win their favor

T F 12. l have considered being an entertainer

T F 13. I have never been good at games like charades or improvisational
acting

T F 14. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and
different situations

T F 15. At a party I let others keep the jokes and stories going

T F 16. I feel a bit awkward in public and do not show up quite as well as I
should

T F 17. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight face (if for
a right end)

T F 18. I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them

171

II. The statements below concern your personal reactions to a number of different situations. No two
statements are exactly alike, so consider each statement carefully before answering. For each question, please
circle or check your agreement or disagreement Wlfl'l the statement on the scale. For example, if you strongly
agree, circle 7 on the scale; if you strongly disagree, circle I on the scale; if you are unsure or think that the

question does not apply to you, circle 4 on the scale.

Strongly
Disagree
1. It is my feeling that if everyone else in a group is behaving in a l 2
certain manner, this must be the proper way to behave.
2. l actively avoid wearing clothes that are not in style. I 2
3. At parties I usually try to behave in a manner that makes me fit in. 1 2
4. When I am uncertain how to act in a social situation, I look to the l 2
behavior of others for cues.
5. I uy to pay attention to the reactions of others to my behavior in 1 2
order to avoid being out of place.
6. I find that I tend to pick up slang expressions from others and 1 2
use them as part of my vocabulary.
7. I tend to pay attention to what others are wearing. l 2
8. The slightest look of disapproval in the eyes of a person with whom I 2
I am interacting is enough to make me change my approach.
9. It’s important for me to fit into the group I’m with. l 2
10. My behavior often depends on how I feel others wish me to l 2
behave.
l 1. If I am the least bit uncertain as to how to act in a social 1 2
situation, I look to the behavior of others for cues.
12. I usually keep up with clothing style changes by watching I 2
what others wear.
13. When in a social situation, I tend not to follow the crowd, but 1 2

instead behave in a manner that suits my particular mood
at the time.

Strongly
Agree

4567

172

Ill. The statements below concern your personal opinions to a number of different situations. No two
statements are exactly alike, so consider each statement carefully before answering

Strongly Strongly
disagree Agree

1. My happiness depends very much on the happiness of those around me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

2. It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I like sharing little things with my neighbors I 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. The well-being of my co-workers is important to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. If a relative were in financial difficulty, I would help within my means I 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. If a co-worker gets a prize 1 would feel proud I 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. To me, pleasure is spending time with others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. I feel good when l cooperate with others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. I usually sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Children should be taught to place duty before pleasure I 2 3 4 5 6 7
I 1. It is important to me that I respect decisions made by my groups 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Family members should stick together, no matter what sacrifices I 2 3 4 5 6 7
are required
13. Parents and children must stay together, as much as possible I 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. It is my duty to take care of my family, even when l have to sacrifice l 2 3 4 5 6 7
what I want

15. I respect the majority's wishes in groups of which I am a member I 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. It is important to consult close fliends and get their ideas before making 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
adecision

l7. Winning is everything I 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. It annoys me when other people perform better than 1 do I 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. It is important to me that I do my job better than others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20. I enjoy workinginsituations involving competition I 2 3 4 5 6 7

173

21. Competition is the law of nature

22. When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused
23. Without competition it is not possible to have a good society

24. Some people emphasize winning; 1 am not one of them

25. I often do ”my own thing" '

26. Being a unique individual is important to me

27. I’d rather depend on myself than on others

28. I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others

29. My personal identity independent flom others is very important to me
30. My personal identity is very important to me

31. I am a unique person, separate flom others

32. I enjoy being unique and different flom others

Your age:
Major:

Gender: Female Male

Which of the following are you?

Caucasian American

Aflican American

Hispanic American

Asian American

Native American

International Student (Name of your country
Other (please specify J

Strongly
disagree

1

2

Strongly

agree

4 S 6 7

4 5 6 7
4 5 6 7
4 5 6 7

4 5 6 7
4 5 6 7
4 5 6 7
4 5 6 7
4 5 6 7
4 5 6 7
4 5 6 7
4 5 6 7

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, New York: The Free Press.

------ and Alexander Biel, eds. (1992), Building Strong Brands, Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Acito, F. and TR Hustad (1981), "Industrial Product Concept Testing," Industrial
Marketing Management, 10, 157-164.

Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersy: Prentice-Hall.

Baalbaki, Imad B. and Naresh K. Malhotra (1995), "Standardization versus Customization
in International Marketing: An Investigation Using Bridging Conjoint Analysis,"
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(3), 182-194.

Bagozzi, Richard P. (1994), "ACR Fellow Speech," Advances in Consumer Research, 21,
8-11.

Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1989), "On the Use of Structural Equation Models
in Experimental Designs," Journal of Marketing Research, 26(August), 271-84.

Bearden, William 0., William O., and Randall L. Rose (1990), "Attention to Social
Comparison Information: An Individual Difference Factor Affecting Consumer
Conformity," Journal of Consumer Research, 16(March), 461-471.

Belk, Russell W. and Richard W. Pollay (1985), "Materialism and Status Appeals in
Japanese and U.S. Print Advertising," International Marketing Review, 2(4), 38-47.

------- , Kenneth Bahn and Robert Mayer (1982), "Developmental Recognition of
Consumption Symbolism," Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 4-17.

Bentler, P. M. and DO. Bonett (1980), "Significance Tests and Goodness-of-Fit in the
Analysis of Covariances Structures," Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-600.

Blackwell, Roger, R. Ajami, and K. Stephen (1991), "Winning the Global Advertising
Race: Planning Globally, Act Locally," Journal of International Consumer

174

 

I 75
Marketing, 3(2), 97-120.

Boddewyn, Joan, J. R. Soehl, and J. Picard (1986), "Standardization of International
Marketing: Is Ted Levitt in Fact Right?" Business Horizons, 29(November-
December), 69-75.

Bourne, ES. (1956), " Group Influences in Marketing and Public Relations," in Rensis

Likert and SP. Hayes, Jr, eds, Some Applications and Behavioral Research, New
York: UNESCO.

Breckler, Steven J. and Anthony G. Greenwald (1986), "Motivational Facets of the Self,"
in Richard M. Sorrentino and E. Tory Higgins, eds, Handbook of Motivation and
Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, New York: The Guilford Press.

Brislin, R. (1980), "Translation and Content Analysis of Oral and Written Materials," in
H.C. Triandis and J .W. Berry, eds, Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychologyg (V 01.
2), Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 389-444.

Britt, SH. (1974), "Standardizing Marketing for the International Market," Columbia
Journal of World Business, 9(Winter), 39-45.

Bumkrant, Robert E., and Alain Cousineau (1975), "Informational and Normative Social
Influence in Buyer Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 2(December), 206-
215.

Buzzell, Robert D. (1968), "Can You Standardize International Marketing?," Harvard
Business Review, 46(November-December), 103-113.

Byme, Barbara M., Richard J. Shavelson, and Bengt Muthen (1989), Testing for the
Equivalence of Factor Covariance and Mean Structures: The Issues of Partial
Measurement Invariance, Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456-466.

Cavusgil, S. Tamer, Shaoming Zou, and G. M. Naidu, (1993), "Product and Promotion
Adaption in Export Ventures: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of International
Business Studies, 24(3), 479-506.

Chaiken, Shelly and Charles Stangor (1987), "Attitudes and Attitude Change," Annual
Review of psychology, 38, 575-630.

Childers, Terry L., and Akshay R. Rao (1992), "The Influence of Familial and Peer-based
Reference Groups on Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research,
19(September), 198-211.

Clark, Terry (1990), "International Marketing and National Character: A Review and
Proposal for an Integrative Theory," Journal of Marketing, 54(October), 66-80.

 

176

Churchill, Gilbert A. Jr. (1979), "A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of
Marketing Constructs," Journal of Marketing Research, l6(February), 64-73.

DeBono, Kenneth G. (1987), "Investigating the Social-Adjustive and Value-Expressive
Functions of Attitudes: Implications for Persuasion Processes," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52(2), 279-287.

-------- and A. E. Edmonds (1989), "Cognitive Dissonance and Self-Monitoring: A Matter
of Context?," Motivation and Emotion, 13, 259-270.

-------- and Michelle Packer (1991), "The Effects of Advertising Appeal on Perceptions
of Product Quality," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(2), 194-200.

Dillon, William, Thomas J. Madden, and Neil H. F irtle (1994), Marketing Research in a
Marketing Environment, 3 edition. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.

Douglas, Susan and Bernard Dubois (1977), "Looking at the Cultural Environment for

International Marketing Opportunities," Columbia Journal of World Business,
(Winter).

------- and Yoram Wind (1987), "The Myth of Globalization," Columbia Journal of World
Business, (Winter), 19-29.

Drasgow, Fritz and Ruth Kanfer (1985), "Equivalence of Psychological Measurement in
Heterogeneous Populations," Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(4), 662-680.

Dunn, Watson S. (1966), "The Case Study Approach in Cross-Cultural Research," Journal
of Marketing Research, 3(February), 26-31.

Eagly, Alice H. and Shelly Chaiken (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Blinder, Erik (1961), "How International Can Advertising Be," The International
Advertiser, (December), 12-16.

Fatt, Authur C. (1967), "The Danger of Local International Advertising," Journal of
Marketing, 31(1), 60-62.

Fournis, Y (1962), "The Market of Europe or the European Market?" Business Horizons,
(Winter), 77-83.

Friedmann, Roberto (1986), "Psychological Meaning of Product: A Simplification of the
Standardization vs. Adaptation Debate," Columbia Journal of World Business,
21(Summer), 97-104.

 

177

Gates, Stephen R. and William G. Egelhoff (1986), "Centralization in the Headquarters--
Subsidiary Relationships, " Journal of International Business Studies, 4(Summer),
71-92.

Greenwald, Anthony G. (1982), "Ego-task Analysis," in A.H. Hastorf and AM. Isen, eds,
Cognitive Social Psychology, New York: Elsevier/North Holland, 109-147.

Greenwald, Anthony G. (1989), "Why Attitudes are Important: Defining Attitude and
Attitude Theory 20 Years Later," in Anthony R. Pratkanis, Steven J. Breckler, and
Anthony G. Greenwald, eds, Attitude Structure and Function, Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrance Erlbaum Associates. 429-440.

Grubb, Edward L. and Harrison L. Grathwohl (1967), "Consumer Self-Concept,
Symbolism, and Market Behavior: A Theoretical Approach," Journal Of Marketing,
31 (October), 22-27.

Gutrnan, Jonathan (1982), "A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer
Categorization Processes," Journal of Marketing, 46 (Spring), 46-72.

Haley, Russell 1. and Ronald Gatty (1971), "The Trouble with Concept Testing," Journal
of Marketing Research, 8 (May), 230-232.

Han, Shang-Pil and Sharon Shavitt (1994), "Persuasion and Cultural: Advertising Appeals
in Individualistic and Collectivistic Societies," Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 30, 326-350.

Harris, Greg (1994), "International Advertising Standardization: What Do the
Multinationals Actually Standardize?" Journal of International Marketing, 2(4),
13-30.

Herek, G. M. (1986), "The Instrumentality of Attitudes: Toward a Neofunctional Theory,"
Journal of Social Issues, 42(2), 99-114.

Higgins, E. T. (1983), A Theory of Discrepant Self-Concepts, Unpublished manuscript,
New York University.

Hill, J. S. and R. R. Still (1984), "Adapting Product to LDC Taste," Harvard Business
Review, 62 (March-April), 92-101.

Hite, Robert E. and C. Fraser (1988), "International Advertising Strategies of
Multinational Corporations," Journal of Advertising Research, 28
(August/ September), 9-1 7.

Hirschman, Elizabeth and Morris B. Holbrook, eds. (1981), Symbolic Consumer Behavior,
Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.

 

 

 

178

Hofstede, Greet (1983), "The Culture Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories,"
Journal of International Business Studies, 14(fall), 75-89.

Hout, Thomas, Michael Porter, and Eilleen Rudden (1982), How Global Company Win
Out," Harvard Business Review, 60 (September-October), 98-105.

Hui, C. H. (1988), "Measurement of Individualism-Collectivism," Journal of Research in
Personality, 22, 17-36.

Hui, C. H. and Triandis, H. C. (1986), "Individualism-Collectivism: A Study of Cross-
Cultural Researchers," Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17(2), 225-248.

Hulbert, James M., William K. Brandt, and Raimar Richers (1980), "Marketing Planning
in the Multinational Subsidiary: Practices and Problems," Journal of Marketing,
44 (Summer), 7-15.

Irvine, Sid H. and William K. Carroll (1980), "Testing and Assessment across Cultures:
Issues in Methodology and Theory," in H.C. Triandis and J.W. Berry, eds,
Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, (Vol. 2), Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 181-
244.

Jain, Subhash, (1989), "Standardization of International Marketing Strategy: Some
Research Hypotheses," Journal of Marketing, 53 (January), 70-79.

Johansson, Johny K. (1986), "Japanese Consumers: What Foreign Marketers Should
Know," International Marketing Review, 3(Summer), 37-43.

Johansson, Johny K. (1994), "The Sense of ’Nonsense’: Japanese TV Advertising,"
Journal of Advertising, 23(1), 17-26.

Johar, J. S. and M. Joseph Sirgy (1991), "Value-Expressive Versus Utilitarian Advertising
Appeals: When and Why to Use Which Appeal," Journal of Advertising, 20
(September), 23-23.

Joreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sorbom (1989), LISREL 7: A Guide to the Program and
Applications, Chicago: SPSS Inc.

Kanso, Ali (1992), "International Advertising Strategies: Global Commitment to Local
Vision," Journal of Advertising Research, (January/February), 10-14.

Katz, Danial (1960), "The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes," Public Opinion
Quarterly, 24, 163-204.

Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based
Brand Equity," Journal of Marketing, 57(January), 1-22.

 

179

Kernan, Jerome B. and T. J. Damzel (1993), "International Advertising: To Globalize,
Visualize," Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 5(4), 51-71.

Kiesler, C. A., B. E. Collins, and N. Miller (1969), Attitude Change: A Critical Analysis
of Theoretical Approaches, New York: Wiley.

Killough, James (1978), "Improving Payoffs from Transnational Advertising," Harvard
Business Review, 56(July/August), 102-110.

Kirpalani, V. H., M. Laroche, and R. Y. Darmon (1988)," Role of Headquarters Control
by Multinationals in International Advertising Decision," International Journal of
Advertising, 7, 323-333.

Kotler, Philip (1988), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and
Control, 6th edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 

Kreutzer, Ralf Thomas (1988), "Marketing-Mix Standardization: An Integrated Approach
in Global Marketing," European Journal of Marketing, 22(10), 19-30.

Lazer, William (1985), "Different Perceptions of Japanese Marketing," International
Marketing Review, 2(Autumn), 31-38.

Lee, Chol and Robert T. Green (1990), "Cross-cultural Examination of the Fishbein
Behavioral Intentions Model," Journal of International Business Studies, 22(2),
289-305.

Lennox, Richard D. and Raymond N. Wolfe (1984), "Revision of the Self-Monitoring
Scale," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1349-1364.

Lessig, V. Parker, and C Whan Park (1982), "Motivational Reference Group Influences:
Relationship to Product Complexity, Conspicuousness and Brand Distinction,"

European Research,
9 1 - 1 0 1 .

Levitt, Theodore (1981), "Marketing Intangible Products and Product Intangibles,"
Harvard Business Review, (May/June), 95.

------- (1983), The Globalization of Markets, Harvard Business Review, 61 (May-June),
92-102.

MacCallum R. C. and L. R. Tucker (1991), "Representing Sources of Error in the
Common-Factor Model: Implications for Theory and Practice," Psychological

Bulletin, 109, 501-511.

Markus, Hazel Rose (1977), "Self-Schemas and Processing Information about the Self,"

 

180
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.

------ and Shinobu Kitayama (1991), "Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition,
Emotion, and Motivation, Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.

------ and E. Wurf (1987), "The Dynamic Self-Concept: A Social Psychological
Perspective," Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.

Marston, Maureen R. (1992), "Transferring Equity Across Borders," Journal of
Advertising Research, 32(3), RC-3 - RC-S.

Martenson Rita (1987), "Is Standardization of Marketing Feasible in Culture-Bound
Industries? A European Case Study," International Marketing Review, 4(Autumn),
7-17.

Miracle, Gordon (1968), "International Advertising--Principles and Strategies," MSU
Business Topics, (Autumn), 29-36.

Moore, William L. (1982), "Concept Test," Journal of Business Research, 10, 279-294.

Mueller, Barbara (1987), "Reflections of Culture: An Analysis of Japanese and American
Advertising Appeals," Journal of Advertising Research, 27 (June-July), 51-59.

Ohmae, Kenichi (1989), "Managing in a Borderless World," Harvard Business Review,
(May-June), 152-161.

Onkvisit, Sak and John J. Shaw (1987), "Standardized International Advertising: A
Review and Critical Evaluation of the Theoretical and Empirical Evidence,"
Columbia Journal of World Business, (Fall), 43-55.

------- and ------- (1989), "The International Dimension of Branding: Strategic
Considerations and Decisions," International Marketing Review, 6(3), 22-34.

Osgood, Charles E., George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum (1957), The Measurement
of Meaning, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Page, Albert L. and Harold Rosenbaum (1992), "Developing and Effective Concept
Testing Program for Consumer Durables," Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 9, 267-277.

Park, Seong-Yeon (1994), Cross-Cultural Gift Giving Behavior: Collectivistic V.
Individualistic Cultures, Unpublished Dissertation, Northwestern University.

Peebles, Dean M. (1989), "Do Not Write Off Global Adverting: A Commentary,"
International Marketing Review, 6(1), 73-78.

 

 

181

Peebles, Dean, J. K. Ryans, and I. R. Vernon (1977), " A New Perspective on Advertising
Standardization," European Journal of Advertising, 11(8), 567-576.

Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central
and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, New York: Springer/Verlag.

Petty, Richard B, John T. Cacioppo, and David Schumann (1983), "Central and
Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of
Involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135-145.

Porter, Michael E. (1986), "The Strategic Role of International Marketing," Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 3(Spring), 17-21.

Quelch, John A. and E. J. Hoff (1986), "Customerize Global Marketing," Harvard
Business Review, 64(May-June), 59-68.

Rau, Pradeep A. and J. F. Preble (1987), "Standardization of Marketing Strategy by the
Multinationals," International Marketing Review," 4(Autumn), 18-28.

Reise, Steven P., Keith F. Widaman, and Robin H. Pugh (1993), "Confirmatory Factor
Analysis and Item Response Theory: Two Approaches for Exploring Measurement
Invariance," Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 552-566.

Ricks, David A., J. S. Arpan, and M. Y. Fu (1974), "Pitfalls in Advertising Overseas,"
Journal of Advertising Research, 14(6), 47-51.

Roostal, I. (1963), "Standardization of Advertising for Western Europe," Journal of
Marketing, 27(October), 15-20.

Rosen, Barry Nathan, Jean J. Boddewyn, and Ernst A. Louis (1989), "US Brands Abroad:
An Empirical Study of Global Branding," International Marketing Review, 6(1),
5-17.

Ryans, John K. and J. H. Donnelly (1969), "Standardized Global Advertising, a Call as
Yet Unanswered," Journal of Marketing, 33(April), 56-60.

Samiee, Saeed and Kendall Roth (1992), "The Influence of Global Marketing
Standardization on Performance," Journal of Marketing, 56 (April), 1-17.

Sandler, Dennis M. and David Shani (1992), "Brand Globally but Advertise Locally?: An
Empirical Investigation," International Marketing Review, 9(4), 18-31.

Schwartz, David (1987), Concept Testing, New York: AMACOM.

Shao, Alan T., L.P. Shao, and DH. Shao (1992), "Are Global Markets with Standardized

 

 

 

182

Advertising Campaigns F easible?," Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
4 (3), 5-16.

Shavitt, Sharon (1989), "Operationalize Functional Theories of Attitudes," in A. R.
Pratkanis, S. J. Brecklerm & A. G. Greenwald, eds., Attitude Structure and
Function, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 311-337.

------- (1990), "The Role of Attitude Objects in Attitude Functions," Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 124-148.

------- (1992), "Evidence for Predicting the Effectiveness of Value-Expressive Versus
Utilitarian Appeals: A Reply to Johar and Sirgy," Journal of Advertising, 21(2),
47-51.

------ , Lowrey, T. M., and S. Han (1992), "Attitude Functions in Advertising: The
Interactive Role of Products and Self-Monitoring," Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 1(4), 337-364.

Sheth, Jagdish (1986), "Global Markets or Global Competition," Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 3(Spring), 9-11.

Shweder, Richard A. and Maria A. Sullivan (1993), "Cultural Psychology: Who Needs
it?," Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 497-523.

Singh, Jagdip (1995), "Measurement Issues in Cross-Cultural Research," Journal of
International Business Studies, 3, 586-619 -

Smith, M. Brewster, Jerome S. Brunner, and Robert W. White (1956), Opinion and
Personality, New York: Wiley.

Snyder, Mark (1974), "Self-Monitoring of Expressive Behavior," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.

------- and K.G. DeBono (1985), "Appeals to Images and Claims about Quality:
Understanding the Psychology of Advertising," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 586-597.

Sorenson, Ralph Z. and U.E. Weichmann (1975), "How Multinationals View Marketing
Standardization," Harvard Business Review, 53 (May/June), 38-54.

Steiger, James H., Alexander Shapiro, and Michael W. Browne (1985), "On the
Multivariate Asymptotic Distribution of Sequential Chi-square Statistics,"
Psychometrika, 50, 253-264.

Szymanski, David M., Sundar G. Bharadwaj, and Rajan Varadarajan (1993),

 

 

183

"Standardization versus Adaptation of International Marketing Strategy: An
Empirical Investigation," Journal of Marketing, 57(October), 1-17.

Terpstra, Vern (1967), American Marketing in the Common Market, New York: Praeger.
Triandis, Harry C. (1994), Culture and Social Behavior, New York: McGraw—Hill.

------- , R. Bontempo, M. J. Villareal, M. Asai, and N. Lucca (1988), "Individualism and
Collectivism: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Self-Ingroup Relationships, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.

Twedt, Dik Warren (1969), "How to Plan New Products, Improve Old Ones, and Create
Better Advertising," Journal of Marketing, 33(January), 53-57.

Walker, Beth A and J. Olson (1991), "Means-End Chains: Connecting Products With
Self," Journal of Business Research, 22, 111-118.

Walters, Peter GP. (1986), "International Marketing Policy: A Discussion of the
Standardization Construct and its Relevance for Corporate Policy," Journal of
International Business Studies, 4(Spring), 78-85.

Weichmann, U. E. and Pringle, L. W. (1979), "Problems that Plague Multinational
Marketers," Harvard Business Review, (July/August), 118-124.

Whitelock, Jeryl and Djamila Chung (1989), "Cross-Cultural Advertising: An Empirical
Study," International Journal of Advertising, 8, 291-310.

Wicklund, Robert A. and Peter M. Gollwitzer (1982), Symbolic Self-Completion, Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wills, J .R. and J .K. Ryans (1977), "An analysis of HeadQuarters Executive Involvement
in International Advertising," European Journal of Marketing, 11(8), 577-584.

Wind, Yoram (1986), "The Myth of Globalization," Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3
(Spring), 23-26.

Yau, Oliver H. M. (1988), "Chinese Cultural Values: Their Dimensions and Marketing
Implications," European Journal of Marketing, 22(5), 44-57.

Yoshino, M. Y. (1971), The Japanese Marketing System: Adaptations and Innovations,
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Zandpour, Fred, Cypress Chang, and Joelle Catalano (1992), "Stories, Symbols, and
Straight Talk: A Comparative Analysis of French, Taiwanese, and U.U TV

Commercials," Journal of Advertising Research, 32 (January-February), 25-38.

184

Zandpour, Fred, and et al. (1994), "Global Reach and Local Touch: Achieving Cultural

Fitness in TV Advertising," Journal of Advertising Research, 34 (September-
October), 35-63.

 

 

"Illlllllllllll'lllllf