5,.
M
f

I

V:

J

' 313‘; .7,

w

 

3
' 1:1
:5

"I ﬁt
“w; u;
H?! 3 Pi:

 

'. ’- d
Mun

l
‘
"Mpg?

 

 

 

 

1 _|
EM“
‘E‘t;v"“

(
o

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIC CH IGAN STATE

IIIIII IIIIII IIIIIIIII III "IIIIIIIIII

1293 01688 7469 .

THESIS I,
2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

A Cross-Cultural Analysis of the Relationship Between
Decision Making Styles, Consumer Demographics, and
Product Characteristics

presented by

Vanessa Prier Wickliffe

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

 

 

Ph.D. degree inHuman Environment:Design &
Management

WW

Maj profess

Date 37»; 22 Wt

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

n

 

 

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
Unlvarslty

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout fro

To AVOID FINES return on or

m your record.
before date due.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

FEB 2 22003
IMF—W”;-

p...

 

AUG 2 62003
'05 06 fog

 

OCT 0 9 2006
”0'
2011098

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1M cum-mu

A CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
DECISION MAKING STYLES, CONSUMER DEMOGRAPHICS, AND
PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS
By

Vanessa Prier Wickliffe

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Human Environment: Design and Management

1998

ABSTRACT
A CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
DECISION MAKING STYLES, CONSUMER AND
PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS
By

Vanessa Prier Wickliffe

Although expansion into foreign markets is now possible, many global marketers
are not knowledgeable of the consumer needs and preferences in these new markets.
Many of these marketers and retailers sometimes assume that consumer needs and
preferences are the same. A self-report survey questionnaire was used to examined the
relationship between consumer demographics, and product characteristics, and decision
making styles of American and Korean consumers. An examination of psychometric
pr0perties of instruments used revealed variation in the reliability when used to examine
other cultural entities. Findings indicate that there are similarities and differences in the
consumer decision making styles, and the relationship of demographic variables to
product characteristics. Length of time living in the United States was not found to be a
signiﬁcant predictor of variation in collectivism/individualism of Korean consumers.
American consumers were found to be individualists, while Korean consumers were
found to be collectivists. Future research is needed to determine what other factors are
associated with the importance of product characteristics and consumer decision making

styles.

To all my friend: who helped me through this project (Julia Miller, Venice Peek, Nancy
Davis, Lorraine Brooks, Joyce Jones, Deborah Blacknall, Tamara Roberts, and
Mary Jeffries). Thanks very much to my advisor: Dr. Dawn Pysarchik.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1
Signiﬁcance of the Study ............................................ 2
Statement of the Problem ............................................ 2
Purpose .......................................................... 3
Objectives of the Study ............................................. 5
Research Questions ................................................ 5
Organization of Chapters ............................................ 5
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................. 7
Consumer Characteristics ................................................. 7
Age and Consumer Behavior ......................................... 8
Gender and Consumer Behavior ...................................... 8
Income and Consumer Behavior ...................................... 9
Culture and Consumer Behavior ..................................... 10
Individualism & Collectivism ................................ 11
The Korean Culture ......................................... 14
Product Characteristics .................................................. 15
Country of Manufacture/Origin & Product Choice ....................... 15
Brand and Product Choice .......................................... 17
Price and Product Choice ........................................... 19
Consumer Decision Making Styles ......................................... 21
Theoretical Framework .................................................. 24
Means-End Conceptual Framework ................................... 24
Theoretical Model ................................................ 27
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY ..................................................... 32
Research Design ........................................................ 33

iv

Methodology and Sample ................................................ 32

Pretest Sample ................................................... 33
Koreans Living Temporarily in United States ........................... 33
Koreans Living in Korea ........................................... 34
American Consumers .............................................. 34
University Students ............................................... 35
Conceptual Deﬁnitions .................................................. 35
Operational Deﬁnitions .................................................. 35
Instrumentation ........................................................ 36
Culture Measurement Scale ......................................... 37
Product Attribute Measurement Scale ................................. 38
Consumer Decision Making Styles Measurement Scale ................... 38
Research Hypotheses .................................................... 39
Statistical Analysis ...................................................... 40
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS ............................................................ 42
Demographic Characteristics ........................................ 42
Instrumentation .................................................. 47
Consumer Decision Making Styles ............................. 47
Individualism/Collectivism ................................... 55
Hypothesis Testing ................................................ 56
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .............................................. 86
Sample ........................................................ 86
Instrumentation .................................................. 86
Factor Result: Consumer Decision Making Styles ................. 87
Individualism/Collectivism ................................... 92
Demographics ............................................. 94
Implications & Recommendations for Future Research .................. 100
Appendices ........................................................... 103
Appendix A: Questionnaire ........................................ 104
Appendix B: Korean Questionnaire .................................. 110
Appendix C: UCHRIS Approval .................................... 119
Bibliography ......................................................... 121

“99°39‘MPP’N?‘

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

LIST OF TABLES

Frequency Distribution of Overall Sample ............................. 43
Frequency Distribution of Demographic Factors of American Consumers . . . . 44
Frequency Distribution of Demographic Factors of KoreanConsumers ....... 45
Demographic Characteristics of Korean Students Living in US. ............ 46
Consumer Decision Making Scales ................................... 51
Reliability Coefﬁcients for the Consumer Styles by Sample Groups ......... 54
Reliability Coefﬁcients for the Individualism/Collectivism Scale by Group . . . 56
Results of ANOVA for the Individualist/Collectivist Scale by Group ........ 5 8
Chi-Square Results of Individualism/Collectivism by Group ............... 59
Correlation Matrix of INDCOL & Length of Stay in the

US. for Korean Students ........................................... 6O
Demographic Factors of American Consumers as Predictors

of Brand Importance (TV). ......................................... 62
Demographic Factors of American Consumers as Predictors

of Brand Importance (SW) .......................................... 64
Demographic factors of Korean Consumers as Predictors

of Brand Importance (TV) .......................................... 65
Demographic Factors of Korean Consumers as Predictors

of Brand Importance (SW) .......................................... 66
Demographic Factors of American Consumers

as Predictors of Price Importance (TV) ................................ 68
Demographic Factors of American Consumers as Predictors

of Price Importance (SW) .......................................... 69
Demographic Factors of Korean Consumers as Predictors

of Price Importance (TV) ........................................... 70
Demographic Factors of Korean Consumers as Predictors

of Price Importance (SW) .......................................... 71
Demographic Factors of American Consumers as Predictors

COM Importance (TV) ............................................ 72
Demographic Factors of American Consumers as Predictors
Country-of-Manufacture Importance (SW) ............................ 74
Demographic Factors of Korean Consumers as Predictors

of Country-of-Manufacture Importance (TV) ........................... 75
Demographic Factors of Korean Consumers as Predictors

of Country-of-Manufacture Importance (SW) ........................... 76
Multivariate Test of Signiﬁcance on the Product Selection

Preferences for the Overall Sample ................................... 78
Correlation Matrix of Length of Time in the

United States by Product Attribute ................................... 79

vi

25.

26.

LIST OF TABLES (cont’d)

Pearson Product Moment Correlation of Brand, Price,
& COM by Decision Making Styles of American Consumers .............. 82
Pearson Product Moment Correlation of Brand, Price,
& COM by Decision Making Styles of Korean Consumers ............... 85

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Model for the Relationship Between Consumer and Product
Characteristics, and Decision Making Styles ............................ 4

Model for the Relationship Between Consumer and Product
Characteristics, and Decision Making Styles ........................... 26

viii

INTRODUCTION

The retail industry is a viable, vital business, and it is expanding globally
(Rapoport & Martin, 1995; Takada & Jain, 1991). Conducting business across
international boundaries requires marketers and retailers to identify factors which allow
them to anticipate and adapt to ever changing marketplaces and the constant evolution of
consumer preferences and buying habits. Factors which may inﬂuence consumer buying
preferences include geographical location, demographic factors (age, family size, family
life cycle, gender, income, occupation, education, religion, race, generation, culture, and
social class), psychographic (lifestyle, personality), and behavioral factors (Kotler, 1997;
Takata & Jain, 1988).

However, retailers and marketers have found that segmenting consumers in
foreign countries cannot always be based on research conducted in the United States (Lee,
1990). Identifying such factors requires marketers to make long term commitments, and
conduct extensive research on the potential market.

Although retail expansion continues to increase globally, it is a big investment
and there is no guarantee of a return on investments. For example, in 1995, retailers
invested $5 billion to develop new stores in foreign countries (Rapoport & Martin, 1995).
With an investment of this magnitude, retailers must thoroughly understand consumer

behavior practices and trends in the countries they will enter.

Signiﬁcance of the Study

Internationalization has become an effective method of expansion and growth for
many businesses. Factors such as advanced communications, improved technology,
availability and feasibility of collaborative business ventures, and the development of
market niches in growing economies makes internationalization much more feasible
(Cavusgil, 1980). Although expansion into foreign markets may be feasible, some global
businesses are not knowledgeable of differences in consumers' needs, preferences and
behavior in the targeted countries. This lack of knowledge has created serious ﬁnancial
losses for some companies (Ohmae, 1989). A knowledge of cross-cultural consumer
behavior provides international marketers with the basis for new product development,
product positioning, market segmentation, market application, and marketing mix
decisions (Hawkins, Best & Coney, 1992).

Statement of the Problem

As the global marketplace becomes more integrated and a greater number of
foreign markets are available to domestic businesses, more effective methods are needed
to identify differences and similarities in consumer behavior in order to segment
consumers. A major problem with consumer behavior research is that there is a tendency
to apply consumer behavior theories and models developed in the United States to the
study of other cultures without ﬁrst validating theoretical constructs in other cultures
(Lee, 1990). Empirical research investigating consumer decision making styles has

focused only on whether or not consumers of varying cultures have similar or different

decision making styles. Previous studies have used samples that are not broad enough in
population sampling to allow for generalization of ﬁndings. To date, no research has
been identiﬁed that examines the relationship between consumer characteristics (culture,
age, gender, income, education), product characteristics (brand, price, and country-of-
origin), and consumer decision making styles. Also, the psychometric properties of these
instruments should be examined to determine the applicability of the instruments to other
cultures.
Purpose

Human interaction with different cultural environments inﬂuences consumption
patterns of consumers. As a result, consumers can be segmented by demographic
characteristics (culture, age, education, income, and gender) (Kotler, 1997). These
demographic characteristics of consumers inﬂuence the level of importance of product
attributes used to evaluate products and services for purchase. This study will examine
the cross-cultural relationship between consumer characteristics, product characteristics,
and decision making styles of Korean and Americans (Figure 1). It will further attempt to
determine the psychometric properties of the Consumer Styles Inventory
(Sproles & Kendall, 1986), the INDCOL (Individualism/Collectivism) instrument (Hui,

1988), and the Product Choice instrument (Pysarchik & Chung, 1996).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S

{//
6’
\

\

4
§

;

 

83m 22.: 8389 8. 5528.5 38““... :38 gm ESE; 2.. é _§z
_ a

Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the study include:

1. Determine the relationship between consumer characteristics, product
characteristics, and decision making styles.

2. Determine the applicability of the research instruments to the Korean culture.
3. Identify the consumer decision making styles of Korean and American consumers.
4. Examine cross-cultural differences relative to consumer characteristics, product

characteristics, and decision making styles.
Research Questions
The research questions include:

1. Is there a relationship between consumer characteristics, product characteristics,
and decision making styles?

2. What are considered to be the major product attributes used by Korean and
American consumers when selecting a product?

3. What are the major decision making styles of Korean and American consumers?

4. Will consumer demographic characteristics and the level of importance of product
attributes inﬂuence consumer decision making styles?

Organization of Chapters
In chapter I, the problem statement is presented and the signiﬁcance of the
research is discussed. A statement of the purpose, objectives, and research questions are
also presented. Chapter II contains a review of literature relative to each of the research
variables. Chapter III describes the research methodology, and includes discussion of the
samples, data collection, instrumentation, conceptual and operational deﬁnitions, and

proposed data analysis. In Chapter IV, the ﬁndings are discussed as they relate to the

hypotheses. In chapter V, a summary of the study and implications are presented, and

recommendations for future study are offered.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A review of the literature related to consumer characteristics, product

characteristics, and consumer decision making styles is discussed in this chapter.
Consumer Characteristics

Due to economic, social, and cultural trends, proﬁling consumers is more difﬁcult
today than in the past. In the United States today, researchers have found that the number
of female heads of households, single parent homes, nonfamily households, and elderly
head of households exceed those of the early 19705 (Zeithaml, 1987). Further, social
trends such as higher divorce rates, later marriages, and longer life spans also inﬂuence
the demographic makeup of consumer groups (Kotler, 1997). These new groups may
react differently when attempting to purchase products (Zeithaml, 1987).

Studies have examined demographic factors as predictors of product selection
(Berkovec & Rust, 1985; Gatignon & Robertson, 1985) and as a method of segmenting
consumers (Alvarez, 1996; Gremillion, 1997; Sloan, 1997; Gupta & Chintagunta, 1994;
Kotler, 1997; Meyers-Levy & Sternal, 1991; Zeithmal, 1987). Demographic factors such
as age, education, income, gender, marital status, and ethnicity may inﬂuence consumer
behavior (Hawkins, Best & Coney, 1991; Kotler, 1997; Zeithmal, 1987).
WWW

Age is considered to be a powerful determinant of consumer behavior because it

affects consumers' interests, tastes, purchasing ability, political preferences, and

investment behavior (Hawkins, Best & Coney, 1991). Today, longer life spans have
created an increase in the number of older consumers. The mature market consists of 53
million people controlling about three fourths of this country's assets and half of the
disposable income (Moschis, Mathur & Smith, 1993).

Research indicates that shopping patterns of consumers tend to change as their age
increases. Zeitharnl (1987) found that as age increases, the number of shopping trips,
amount of shopping time, and the number of supermarkets visited increases. Older
shoppers tend to have more discretionary time than younger shoppers. Therefore, they
spend more time per shopping trip and make more frequent trips (Zeithaml, 1987). Older
shoppers were also found to plan shopping trips more than younger consumers, and the
older the shopper, the more important shopping trips were to the consumer. Older
shoppers tend to use more information and economize more than younger consumers.
W

In today's marketplace, gender is used to implement segmentation strategies
(Meyers-Levy & Stemal, 1991). Gender differences are attributed to
sociological/biological tasks and traits (Darley & Smith, 1995). Gender segmentation is
successful because it is easily identiﬁable and accessible, and it is considered very
proﬁtable (Darley & Smith, 1995). Many businesses have begun to see gender marketing
as a method of market share expansion (Advertising Age, 1993; Sloan, 1997; Trapp,
1993). Products generally made for men have been re-evaluated and adjusted to attract a
female market. Past and present, men and women have and still occupy different social

roles and are exposed to different pressures. In the past, women have traditionally

assumed submissive and subordinate roles in our culture in relation to the more dominant
roles assumed by males (Meyers-Levy & Stemal, 1991). Demographically, women have
changed tremendously. Women have enjoyed advances in educational attainment, labor
force participation, career involvement, and economic independence (Crispell, 1992).
Women have also endured signiﬁcant increases in divorce and single parent families. In
dual relationships, women are more involved in major decision making such as home
buying, savings and investments, and buying a new car (Dorch, 1994).

Men, on the other hand, have also experienced changes in their lifestyles. They
have changed the way they shop, work at home, and dress. Research also indicates that
46 percent of most men buy their own personal items, and half or more of the male
population buy most or all of their own things (Crispell, 1992). Men are shopping as
frequently as women, but their habits are different. The study also indicated that men are
more likely to shop every day. Men are also considered to be buyers, and not shoppers
(Crispell, 1992). Further, men spend more time grooming than in the past, and are more
knowledge seekers than the past. Men are also gaining responsibility for shopping,
selecting, and preparing foods (Sloan, 1997). They are also helping out more with
housework and child care (Crispell, 1992). Zeithaml (1987) also found that males spend
less time planning shopping trips than females. Compared to females, males make more
shopping trips than females (Crispell, 1992; Zeithaml, 1987).
WWW

Income was found to affect the amount of time spent shopping, number of

supermarkets visited weekly, extent of planning, amount of purchase, weekly

expenditures on purchases, and the importance of shopping (Zeithmal, 1987). Shoppers
with higher income plan signiﬁcantly less than those with lower income, and spend more
time shopping than those with lower income (Zeithaml, 1987). Research indicates that
individuals with higher income may be less inclined to be economical shoppers
(Zeithaml, 1987).

Using scanning data, Gupta and Chintagunta (1994) examined demographic
variables as predictors of segmentation. The study of data on catsup purchases indicate
that income and household size signiﬁcantly affect the segment membership probabilities.
Low-income consumers tend to be price and promotion sensitive, while larger households
prefer the more prominent brands. A study by McDonald (1993) did not ﬁnd income to
be a signiﬁcant predictor of catalog loyalty.

Culture and Consumer Behavior

Culture has been deﬁned in many ways, and is used to categorize individuals.
Culture can be deﬁned as "a set of socially acquired behavior patterns transmitted
symbolically through language and other means to the members of a particular society"
(Mowen, 1988). Culture provides a framework of common traditions, values, beliefs,
practices, and behaviors that facilitate human interaction. Some important attitudes and
behaviors inﬂuenced by culture include sense of self and space, communication and
language, dress and appearance, food and feeding habits, time and time consciousness,
relationships, values and norms, beliefs and attitudes mental processing and learning, and

work habits and practices (Engel, Blackwell & Miniard, 1990). It is maintained by

10

society and is transmitted through social means. Culture is not inherited genetically, but
is learned through pattern instruction or imitation (Runyan & Steward, 1987).

Cultural inﬂuence permeates all aspects of human behavior. There is not one
aspect of life that is not touched and altered by culture (Hall, 1981). This includes
personality, personal expressions, thinking, and problem solving. All consumer behavior
is conducted within the framework of the society in which we live (Walters, 1978). From
the beginning of an individual's existence he/she experiences the beneﬁts and restrictions
of a particular culture.

Culture can also be identiﬁed as a "collective programming of minds which can
be used to distinguish one group of people from another group” (Hofstede, 1994, p.4).
Individualism is an aspect of culture that pertains to people's value of individual time,
freedom and experience. In contrast, collectivist cultures relate more with conformity and
group behavior (Roth, 1995).

Human behavior is a function of both the person and the environment, physical
and social (Hui, 1988). However, people differ in the extent of their integration with
others and the social environment, and are classiﬁed by their personal interest and shared
pursuits (Wagner, 1995). Parsons and Shils (1951) are sighted as being the ﬁrst to
introduce the distinction between individualist and collectivist orientations. Hofstede
(1980) updated the distinction of individualism and collectivism and reintroduced the
theory as a method of explaining behavioral differences among societal cultures (Wagner,

1995). Other studies examined the distinction between individualism and collectivism

11

(Hofstede, 1980, 1983, 1984; Hui & Tria-ndis, 1986; King-Farlow, 1964; Singh, Huang
and Thompson, 1962; Weber, 1947; Triandis et a1, 1986; Triandis, 1996; Wagner, 1995).
Triandis (1995) suggests that there are four major dimensions of the constructs. They
include 1) the deﬁnition of "self", 2) personal and communal goals, 3) cognition that
focus on norms, obligations, and duties, and 4) an emphasis on relationships.

Hui (1988, p. 18) deﬁnes individualism as "those who deﬁne the self
independently of groups, and exist solely as individuals". As an individualist, consumers
place their personal interests above those of the group. Persons identiﬁed as
individualistic take care of themselves and downplay the needs of the group if they
conﬂict with personal desires. Individualism is an aspect of culture that pertains to
people's tendencies to value personal and individual time, freedom, and experiences
(Hofsted, 1984). In other words, cultures high in individualism tend to seek variety and
hedonistic experiences (Roth, 1995). Waterman (1984) suggests that individualism
embodies psychological qualities such as: 1) a sense of personal identity, which is the
knowledge of who one is and one's own goals and values; 2) striving to be one's true self;
3) one's willingness to accept personal responsibility for life's happiness and sorrows; and
4) moral reasoning in that an individualist holds moral principles that are global and acts
in accordance with what is right.

Triandis (1995) deﬁnes collectivism as emphasizing (1) the views, needs, and
goals of the ingroup rather than oneself, (2) social norms and duty deﬁned by the ingroup
rather than behavior for self-pleasure, (3) beliefs shared with the ingroup rather than

beliefs that distinguish oneself from the ingroup, and (4) great readiness to cooperate with

12

ingroup members. Collectivism occurs when the demands and interests of the group are
more important than the needs of the individual (Wagner, 1995). Collectivists look out
for the well being of the group to which they belong, even if personal interest is
disregarded. Cultures that emphasize collectivism exhibit patterns of group or collective
thinking and acting (Hofstede, 1984). Collectivists' cultures correlate more with
conformity and group behavior, than individualistic cultures (Roth, 1995).

Previous cross-cultural research compared people from predominantly
individualistic cultures such as Canada, Great Britain, Italy, and the United States, to
those of predominantly collective cultures such as Japan, Hong Kong, Korea, India,
China, and Nigeria (Hofstede, 1980; Hui & Triandis, 1986). Hui and Triandis (1986)
polled a sample of social scientists in different parts of the world about their perceptions
of individualists and collectivists. The researchers found that collectivism can be deﬁned
as a cluster of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors toward a group of people. The study
indicated that the more concern for others, the more bonds are felt and acted upon, the
more collectivist is the person.

Hsu (1981) examined Americans and Chinese along these two dimensions. The
researcher found that Americans are more inner-directed, which is much different from
the Chinese situation-centered way of life. In China, conformity "not only tends to
govern all interpersonal relations, but it enjoys social and cultural approval" (Hsu, 1981,
p.136). A previous study conducted by Singh, Huang and Thompson (1962) found that
Americans ranked highest in self-centered orientations, while Chinese and Indian students

ranked highest in society-centered orientations.

13

Wagner (1995) examined individualism and collectivism as a function of group
cooperation. Using a sample of college students, the researcher found that group size and
individuals' identiﬁability, sense of shared responsibility, and levels of individualism or
collectivism inﬂuenced peer-rated cooperation in classroom groups. Wagner (1995)
found that differences in individualism-collectivism moderated the effects of size and
identiﬁability on cooperation, but not those of shared responsibility.

The Korean Culture

The peOple of Korea have undergone signiﬁcant change brought about by a
combination of economic, cognitive, and psychological factors. Since the 19803, Korea
has been one of the world's most dynamic and fastest growing economies. Per capita
GNP has swelled from under $60 a year to over $8,000 and is expected to surpass
$10,000 in 1995 (Flake, 1995). The total GNP for Korea is US$280.8 billion with an
annual growth rate of 8.4% (Flake, 1995). About 63 percent of the population 15 years
and older was employed, and unemployment was at 2.4 percent in 1994 (Korea Business,
1995)

Consumption, investment and other components of domestic demand are all
growing strongly and show no signs of changing. This is partly due to increases in wages,
which have created: 1) more disposable income; 2) the emergence of younger consumers;
3) accelerated urbanization; and 4) quality improvements (Ekvall, 1990; Flake, 1995;
Ridding, 1990). Consumer spending rose to approximately nine percent in 1992 from 5.3
percent in 1991, and 7.2 percent in 1995 (Baum, 1993; Flake, 1995; Paisley, 1993).

Enhanced domestic spending power is the basis for the changes in the growth of the

14

economy. Korean consumers' tastes have become westernized in a few short years and
expectations of improved quality and diversity of choice and style have increased (Ekvall,
1990; Flake, 1995). It is expected that the patterns of consumption will continue to Shift
to high quality goods and amenities similar to those of advanced western countries. The
consumption of high quality, high priced goods will spread to the middle and lower class
consumers (Flake, 1995).

The Korean culture, as in most of East Asia, is inﬂuenced by the dominance of the
Confucian religion, which transcends into business, individual behavior, and family
structure (Byong-ik, 1992). Kahn (1979, p.88) states that: "the modern Confucian ethic is
designed to create and foster loyalty, dedication, responsibility, and commitment and to
intensify identiﬁcation with the organization and one's role in the organization".

Although western knowledge and technology have entered the Korean culture, Confucian
idealism still predominates in Korea today (Bond, 1989; Elashmawi, 1994; Hynson,
1991; Korea, 1995).

Product Characteristics
: -E-llii 3.. 1131 :1.

Studies reveal that country-of-origin and country-of-manufacture affects the
evaluation of products in general (Anderson & Cunningham, 1972; Bannister and
Saunders, 1978; Cattin, Jolibert & Lohnes, 1982; Han, 1989; Hong & Wyer, 1989; Hong,
1990; Johannson, 1989). This holds true for speciﬁc classes of products (Han & Terpstra,
1988; Nagashima, 1977), speciﬁc types of products (Papadopoulas, Heslop, and Beracs,

1990) and brands (Yaprak, 1978).

15

Cattin, Jolibert & Lohnes (1982) used US. and French samples to examine the
importance of speciﬁc product dimensions when selecting products made in the US,
France, England, West Germany, and Japan. Signiﬁcant differences existed between
French and US. respondents along all product dimensions (expense, reasonably priced,
reliability, luxury items, technology, mass production, world-wide distribution,
uniqueness, pride of ownership, outward appearance, clever use of color, and more for
young people). The study revealed that the "made in Germany" label was more favorable
among the respondents, and the French and English models were less favorable.

Other studies indicate that American, Canadian, Finnish, Hungarian and Greek
consumers have positive attitudes of products made in Japan (Han & Terpstra, 1988;
Papadopoulas, Heslop, and Beracs, 1990). Consumers from South Korea, India, and
Taiwan resisted foreign made products based on their inferential beliefs (Khanna, 1986).
Stereotyping occurs when consumers denote speciﬁc characteristics of a product and is
the direct result of the customers' attitudes and emotions and their knowledge of, or
beliefs, regarding the true or perceived country-of-origin and country-of-manufacture
(Samiee, 1994). Social pressures may also dictate that products from some countries
should be avoided, while others be preferred (Johansson & Nebenzahl, 1987).

Consumers tend to evaluate their home country products more favorably than
products made in other countries (Bilkey & Nes, 1982; Bannister & Saunders, 1978;
Kaynak & Cavusgil, 1983; Schooler, 1971). Selection of a product from a foreign
country may be based on economic development, cultural issues, political systems, and

the perceived similarity in the country's belief system (Schooler, 1971; Wang & Lamb;

16

1983) with the country/product of interest. Products from developing countries are rated
as being inferior to those from industrialized countries (Han & Terpstra, 1988).

Han and Terpstra (1988) examined consumer perceptions of quality for various
uni-national and bi-national products. Signiﬁcant differences were found among the
respondents relative to country image across product categories; the respondents ranked
Japanese televisions as being better quality than US, Germany, and Korea. The rank
order of the respondents' perceptions of automobile quality from other countries was
Japan, Germany, US, and Korea, respectively. Further, the rankings of the countries by
product dimensions were not consistent across product categories.
We:

The importance of brand choice (what to buy) and category purchases (when to
buy) is well documented in the literature. Brand choice has been found to be related to
price and promotion (Bucklin & Gupta, 1992; Putler, 1992), perceived risk and market
structure (Loudon & Bitta, 1984), perceived quality (Morton, 1994), and brand loyalty
and switching (Bayus, 1992; Erickson & Johansson, 1985; Tidwell, 1993).

Price and promotion have been found to inﬂuence the selection of a brand (Putler
& Gupta, 1992; Putler, 1992). Price promotions are used to stimulate consumer
purchases, and increase sales (Blattberg & Neslin, 1989). Although price promotion may
increase sales, it may also create a negative effect on sales (Folkes & Wheat, 1995).
Regular promotions may cause the consumer to believe that the product is worth only the
promotional price, and would therefore form an opinion that they should pay only the

lower promotion price at all times. Thus, the consumer may only seek to purchase it

17

when the item is on sale. This may create a lower sales record for the item at what is
considered regular price. Blattin and Neslin (1989) found that such an evaluation causes
lower repeat purchases after the price promotion of a product.

Kalwani and Yim (1992) found that the larger the price reduction of detergent, the
lower the price consumers would pay for it on the next purchase. Researchers have also
found that price cuts on a particular brand will inﬂuence consumers to switch to the lower
price brand. Gupta (1988) found that increases in sales for a particular brand of coffee
were due to price cuts and brand switching. The researcher also found that further price
reductions during a promotion created higher stock pile purchases of certain products.
Consumers tend to buy higher volumes of a products due to the promotion price.

Brand loyalty is thought to be a portion of repeat purchase behavior that is based
on terms of internally stored structures of information: brand-related beliefs, states of
effect, and behavior intentions (Jacob, 1978). Tidwell (1993) examined the relationship
between self image, brand image, and brand loyalty. Using a sample of college students,
the researcher found that people use speciﬁc brands to enhance their self image. Erickson
& Johansson (1985) sought to determine if there was a correlation between automobile
brand loyalty and brand beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. The researcher found that there
is a positive relationship between brand beliefs, attitudes, purchase intentions, and
purchase behavior.

The quality of a product has been shown to be a strong predictor of brand choice.
Morton (1994) examined 600 brands to determine the relationship between brand and

quality. The researcher found that quality was the driving force for sales increases among

18

many of the products. The researcher also found that the inﬂuence of value perceptions
are quality and price driven. Too low of a price on a product could drive the perceived
quality of a product down.

Other studies have examined the effects of brand characteristics on brand
extension (Dacin & Smith, 1994), the importance of brand extensions (Bronniarczyk,
1994), and the effects of brand extension on market share and advertising (Smith &
Parks, 1994). Researchers suggest that when consumers are evaluating other products
made by a particular company, they will rely on information already accumulated
regarding a company's brand to determine if they will use another product from the same
manufacturer (Boush & Loken, 1991; Smith & Park, 1994). Smith and Park (1994)
examined the effects of brand extensions on market share and advertising.

E . l E l :1 .

Product choice has been heavily inﬂuenced by price, which creates considerable
variation in consumer selection across product category (Engel, Blackwell Miniard, 1990,
Bronnenberg, 1996). Factors such as expected and reference price, price awareness, and
price and product quality are research streams identiﬁed in the literature (Putler, 1992).

Expected price and price reference is a strategy in which the consumer decides on
a particular product based upon their price expectations for the product (Kalwani, Yim,
Rinne, & Sugita, 1990). This decision is based on information from past prices,
contextual variables (e.g., store environment), and expectations of future prices.

Research indicates that product sales can be undermined when a product is introduced to

19

the consumer at a lower price, and then the price is made higher ( Kalwani, Yim, Rinne,
Sugita, 1990).

Other studies indicate that consumers are more likely to choose a product that is a
sure price rather than one that may be priced lower during a particular event-risk aversion
(Puto, 1987). Event risk aversion refers to the level of risk a consumer is willing to take
when price ﬂuctuations exist. Consumers are less likely to risk paying a particular price
for an item that may change, and are more likely to choose a product with which they feel
comfortable relative to price. Kalwani, Yim, Rinne, Sugita (1990) found that the past
price of a brand is not the only factor that inﬂuences customer price expectations.
Anticipated price is also inﬂuenced by other variables such as frequency of brand
promotion, economic conditions, and customer characteristics.

Studies indicate that some consumers believe that a positive relationship exists
between a product price and quality (Lichtenstein, Ridgway & Netemeyer,1993; Monroe
& Dodd, 1988; Olson, 1977, Tellis & Gaeth, 1990). Zeithaml (1988) suggests, however,
that price, as an indicator of quality, depends on 1) the availability of other cues to
quality, 2) the price variation within a class of products, 3) the product quality variation
within a category of products, 4) the level of the consumer's price awareness, and 5) the
consumer's ability to detect quality variation in a group of products.

Lichtenstein, Ridgway and Netemeyer (1993) found that consumers use price as a
prestige sensitivity cue. This suggests that the purchase of higher price brands infers
something to others about the purchaser. For example, the purchase of an expensive wine

by a consumer may indicate character traits of that consumer, a big spender or that the

20

consumer has a high income. Tellis and Gaeth (1990) suggest that consumers are more
price aware than they are quality aware, and price may be used to infer level of quality.
Previous literature indicates that consumers may use best value, price-seeking, and price
aversion as choice strategies. Tellis and Gaeth (1990) suggest, however, that consumers
may use a combination of these strategies to choose a brand. "Best value" strategy, refers
to the practice of selecting a brand with the least overall cost in terms of price and
expected quality. A "price-seeking" strategy refers to the selection of the highest priced
brand to maximize expected quality. A "price aversion" strategy is choosing the lowest
priced brand to minimize immediate costs. Rao and Monroe (1989) conducted a meta-
analysis of studies which examined the inﬂuence of price, brand name, and store name on
a consumer's evaluation of product quality. The study found that the relationship between
perceived quality, price, and brand name are positive.
Consumer Decision Making Styles

Research indicates that consumers may be classiﬁed according to their decision-
making styles (Hafstrom, Chae & Chung, 1992; Sproles & Kendall, 1986). A consumer
decision-making style is deﬁned as "a mental orientation characterizing a consumer's
approach to choices" (Sproles & Kendall, 1986, p. 268). Although many factors inﬂuence
consumer decision-making, consumers are thought to approach the market with a certain
basic decision-making style. The decision making styles have cognitive and affective
characteristics speciﬁcally related to consumer decision-making (Sproles, 1986). The

styles are based on evaluative criteria used by consumers when making a purchase.

21

Sproles and Kendall (1986) examined the literature and identiﬁed eight basic
consumer decision making styles. They include: 1) perfectionism or high-quality
consciousness; 2) brand consciousness; 3) novelty-fashion consciousness; 4) recreational,
hedonistic shopping consciousness; 5) price and "value for money" shopping
consciousness; 6) impulsiveness, careless shopping; 7) confusion from overchoice; and 8)
habitual, brand-loyal orientation toward consumption. Based on the exploratory study
Sproles and Kendall (1986) used a sample of high school students to identify salient
consumer characteristics in decision making. The results of the study conﬁrmed the
existence of the consumer decision making styles. The Perfectionism Consumer seeks
high quality, has high standards and expectations of consumer goods, and is concerned
with the function of the products. Brand Conscious consumers appear to be oriented
toward high price and well-known national brands and view price as an indicator of
quality. The Price Conscious, Value for Money Orientation consumers seek out low-
priced goods, best value, and are more likely to be comparison shoppers. The
Recreational, Hedonistic Consumer ﬁnds shopping pleasant, and shops for fun. Novelty-
Fashion conscious consumers "gain excitement and pleasure from seeking out new
things" and are conscious of the new fashions and fads. The Confused by Overchoice
consumer ﬁnds the marketplace confusing, is not brand loyal, and seeks help from friends
when shopping. Impulsive, Careless consumers are those who do not plan shopping and
are not concerned with the amount of money they spend. Habitual, Brand-Loyal
consumers are brand and store loyal. Sproles and Sproles (1990) examined the

interrelationship between learning styles as a function of decision making styles of high

22

school students. The study indicated that there maybe a direct causal link between a
consumer's learning style and their decision making style.

Hafstrom et a1. (1992) compared the decision making styles of young Korean and
US. consumers. Drawing on a college student population, the researchers found that
young Korean consruners have similarities and differences in decision making styles. The
researchers found that most Korean consumers were ranked as brand conscious,
perfectionistic, and recreational-shopping, compared to the US. consumers in
previous studies, who were ranked as perfectionistic, brand conscious, and novelty-
fashion conscious consumers (Sproles & Kendall, 1986).

Durvasula, Lysonski, and Andrews (1993) examined the generalizability of the
"Consumer Styles Inventory" to New Zealand consumers. Using a sample of
undergraduate business students at a large university, the researchers found that the factor
loadings of the 40 items were very similar, indicating that the instrument could be a
reliable measure of decision making styles in other countries.

McDonald (1993) examined the power of demographics, purchase histories, and
consumer decision making styles to predict catalog loyalty. The researcher found that
decision making style, marital status, age, and purchase frequency jointly predict
consumer loyalty behavior (repeat behavior), and that decision making style is superior to

the other variables in deﬁning the repeat-prone segment (McDonald, 1993).

23

Theoretical Framework
W

The means-end approach is based on the assumption that consumers see products
as means to an important end (Murphy, Olson, Celsi & Walker (1994). The means-end
framework suggests that 1) a consumer's values (end states of existence) play a dominant
role in guiding choice patterns, 2) people cope with the tremendous diversity of products
that are potential satisﬁers of their values by grouping them into sets or classes so as to
reduce the complexity of choice, 3) all consumer actions have consequences, and 4)
consumers learn to associate particular consequences with particular actions (Gutrnan,
1982)

Gutrnan (1982) suggests that consumers' values are developed from culture,
society, and personality. A value is an enduring belief that is a speciﬁc mode of conduct
or end state of existence that is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or
converse mode of conduct or end state of existence (Rokeach, 1973). Values, therefore,
are used by consumers to determine the importance of consequences. The interaction
between the person and the purchase situation causes the consumer to categorize products
that can best create the sought after consequences. Thus, the products are selected based
on the speciﬁc attributes they possess. These products are expected to produce the
desired consequences and avoid the undesired consequences (Gutrnan, 1982).

The means-end framework is used to suggest that, along with culture and values,
other consumer characteristics such as age, income, gender, and education can inﬂuence

the level of importance of product attributes (price, brand, country of origin). Variation

24

in the level of importance of product attributes may create differentiation in consumer
decision making styles. The variation in consumer decision making styles can be used to
identify different consumer segments.

The present study postulates that consumer characteristics (culture, age, income,
gender, education, and time in the United States) inﬂuence the level of importance of
product characteristics (price, brand, & country of origin) [See Figure 1]. The decision
making style of a consumer can be identiﬁed by the level of importance of product
attributes, and by demographic characteristics. A consumer's decision making style can

then be used by product marketers to segment consumers.

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26

 

 

 

 

saga .x
3.8 an
3.35 .x

an

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26

Theoretical Model

People in different cultures vary in the extent of their integration with others and
the social environment. Culture provides a set of common traditions, values, beliefs,
practices, and behaviors which facilitates human interaction (Engel, Blackwell &
Miniard, 1990). Moreover, cultural values have been found to be a strong force on
consumer behavior (Rokeach, 1968; Yankelovich, 1981). In this study, collectivism and
individualism are used as measures of a consumer's integration with the dominant culture.
Speciﬁc values are associated with each of these measures. Acceptance of normative
cultural values determines a consumer's integration into the dominant culture.

Values of collectivist and individualist societies differ based on the level of
importance of group afﬁliation. The values of a collectivist society include security, good
social relationships, ingroup harmony, and personalized relationships (Triandis,
McCusker & Hui, 1990; Schwartz, 1994). Other collectivists' values include family
security, social order, respect for tradition, honoring parents and elders, and politeness
(Schwartz, 1994). An example of collectivism can be noted among Korean consumers.

Consumption patterns in the Korean culture reﬂects group conformity and is
called "saving face" (Lee, 1990). In this culture, saving face is described as the extent to
which a person's behavior satisﬁes the social expectations of the group he or she interacts
with (Lee, 1990). On the other hand, individualists are those who are more concerned
with self and seek variety and hedonistic experiences. The values associated with an

individualistic culture are being curious, broad-minded, creative and having an exciting

27

and varied life, full of pleasures, independence, and self-sufﬁciency (Engel, 1988;
Schwartz, 1994).

Korean consumers create and foster loyalty, dedication, responsibility, and
commitment in their society. Comparatively, US. consumers have been found to be
more individualistic (self-centered orientation), who focus on self and not on the ingroup.
The extent to which consumers integrates with the normative culture is inﬂuenced by the
extent to which they accept the values associated with that culture. These indogenous
values are proposed to inﬂuence consumption decisions.

Therefore it is expected that:

H, Korean consumers are more likely to be collectivists, while American consumers
are more likely to be individualists.

H2 The length of time Korean consumers live in the United States will determine the
extent to which they are collectivists or individualists.

In the United States, demographic changes in the population have created more
single parent and nonfamily households, while longer life spans have created a larger
population of elderly consumers (Kotler, 1997; Zeithaml, 1985). Further, a consumer's
ability to purchase goods and services is also inﬂuenced by his or her economic
circumstances. A consumer's economic circumstances consist of their spendable income
(level, stability, and time), savings, assets, debts, borrowing power, and attitude toward
spending and saving (Kotler, 1997).

Korean consumers have also experienced signiﬁcant changes due to a
combination of economic, cognitive, and psychological factors. Presently, consumer

spending has increased, and consumption and investments are growing. Increased wages

28

have created more disposable income, younger consumers are emerging, urbanization is

accelerating, and the quality of life is improving (Ekvall, 1990). Many Korean consumers

have also experienced western culture through communication technology, magazines,
travel, and extended visits to America. Thus, both US. and Korean populations have
experienced changes in consumer demographics. These changes create new consumer
groups with varying consumer needs. The US. population has had an increase in the
older consumer group, while the Koreans are experiencing an increase in the younger
consumer groups.

Although Gutrnan (1982) addresses culture and values as indicators of product
selection, demographic factors such as age, gender, income, and education, have also
been found to inﬂuence products and services selected by consumers (Kotler, 1997).
Older consumers are found to be more value conscious, while younger consumers are
more interested in fashion. Low income consumers are more price conscious than high
income consumers. The roles of men and women relative to consumer decisions have
changed. Men are more involved in household decisions, while women are also involved
in consumer purchases and household decisions. Therefore, it is expected that:

H3 Age, income, education, and gender inﬂuence the extent to which brand, price,
and country of-manufacture are important to consumers when purchasing a
product.

Gutrnan (1982) also suggests that all consumer actions have consequences, and
these consequences are inﬂuenced by their values. These consequences can be

psychological (self-esteem), physiological (satisfying hunger, etc.), and/or sociological

29

(enhanced status, group membership) (Gutrnan, 1982). Consequences occur due to
consumption or the act of consumption. Consumers choose actions that produce desired
consequences and minimize undesired consequences. The selection of a product can be
dependent on the consequences or outcome associated with the extent to which a
consumer is concerned with their cultural afﬁliation. In this case, product attributes are
used to categorize products according to desired or undesired consequences. Korean
consumers purchase products whose price, brand, and packaging match their social
position and reputation. Variation from the socially acceptable product characteristics
would create undesired consequences acceptable to the cultural norms. Because
American consumers are more concerned about self and less concerned about cultural
norms, product attributes are more likely to be selected based on their personal needs.
Therefore, it is expected that:

H4 Product attributes important to collectivist consumers will differ from
those important to individualist consumers.

H5 Time living in the United States will inﬂuence product attributes important

to Korean consumers.

Consumers are thought to approach the market with a certain decision making
style. A decision making style is "a mental orientation characterizing a consumer's
approach to choices" (Sproles & Kendall, 1986, p. 268). The styles are based on
evaluative criteria used by consumers when making a purchase. The variation in the level

of importance of these criteria are based on the consumer characteristics previously

30

discussed. The importance of factors such as price, brand, fashion, and quality are key
criteria used to identify consumer decision making styles. Therefore, it is expected that:

H6 The importance of brand, price, and country-of-manufacture is associated
with the decision making style of a consumer.

31

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

The ﬁrst section of this chapter describes the research design used in the study,
followed by a description of the samples and research methodology. The next sections
include the conceptual and operational deﬁnitions, instrumentation, research hypotheses,
and the appropriate statistical analyses.

Research Design

A cross-sectional survey research design was used in this study to determine
whether similarities and/or differences in consumer behavior exist between Korean and
American consumers. A self-report mail survey questionnaire was used to examine the
relationship between demographic variables, the importance of product characteristics,
and decision making styles of consumers. The questionnaire was double-blind translated
into the Korean language for distribution in Korea to ensure accurate translation and
comprehension of the questions by a person unafﬁliated with the study.

Methodology and Sample

A self-report questionnaire was used to examine consumer behavior similarities
and differences among Korean students living in the United States, Koreans living in
Korea, and American consumers. Korean students living temporarily in the United States
were attending a major midwestem university. Samples of Korean consumers living in
Korea consisted of factory workers from a major plant, and students from a Korean

university. The American consumer samples consisted of plant workers and students

32

from a large midwestem university. Each group was selected to enhance comparability of
the data. The Korean students studying in the United States were selected to examine the
extent to which exposure to a western culture would impact the level of
collectivist/individualist value tendencies.
EmcsLSample

Small samples of Korean and American consumers were used to pretest the
survey questions. Pretest respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire and then
to indicate the time needed to complete the questionnaire and any difﬁculties with the
survey. Some respondents indicated that the translation appeared too American.

Therefore, another translator was used to adjust and clarify the translation to the Korean

language.
K In I 1.11.15

Korean students, who were members of a Korean student organization at a
midwestem university, formed the Korean student sample living in the United States. All
of the students were sent a Korean version of the questionnaire with a cover letter
explaining the procedures for completing and returning it (See Appendix A). Included
with the questionnaire was a self-addressed, stamped return envelope. As an incentive,
participants could place their name in a drawing for $300.00. To maintain the anonymity
of participants, a self-addressed, stamped post card was also sent along with the
questionnaire so that the participant could return it separately from the questionnaire.

Three hundred questionnaires were sent out, and 59 were returned. Although a post card

33

was sent to all of the non-respondents, the response was still low. A total of 63 usable
questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 21 percent.

The Korean factory worker sample was selected from an auto manufacturing plant
in Seoul, Korea. A research associate distributed and collected a Korean version of the
questionnaire from the participants. Those not wishing to participate did not suffer any
reprisals. After all questionnaires were collected, the research associate mailed the
questionnaires back to the researcher in the United States. This same process was used to
collect data from a major university in Seoul, Korea. A total of one hundred
questionnaires was distributed at the plant in Korea, and to Korean students at the Korean
university. Ninety four useable questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of
94 percent.

Americanﬁnnsnmers

A third sample consists of American consumers working at a local automobile
plant in Michigan. A letter was sent to the president of the local UAW requesting the
voluntary participation of plant workers in the study. The letter explained the purpose,
procedures, and beneﬁts of the study. After receiving permission to carry out the study
from the UAW president, the researcher distributed the questionnaires to the participants
with a cover letter to explain the procedure for completing it, and indicating that their
participation is strictly voluntary and that non-participation would not result in any
reprisals. The participants were instructed to complete the questionnaire and mail it to

the researcher a postage-paid addressed envelope. If they wished to participate in the

34

drawing for $100.00, they could separately return the addressed post card to the
researcher. Of the seventy-ﬁve questionnaires that were distributed at a UAW meeting,
twenty-three were returned, yielding a response rate of 31 percent. A second
announcement was made at a subsequent meeting to remind participants to return the
questionnaires, to offer replacement questionnaires and to request participation of other
union members who were not at the previous meeting. A total of 175 questionnaires were
distributed, and forty-six usable questionnaires were returned, yielding an overall
response rate of 22.3 percent.
ll . . S l

The same process was used to distribute and re-collect questionnaires at a major
midwestem university. One hundred questionnaires were distributed, and 80 usable
questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 80 percent.

Conceptual Deﬁnition

Decision Making Style - "A mental orientation characterizing a consumer's approach to
choice" (Sproles & Kendall, 1986, p.268).

Culture - "A set of socially acquired behavior patterns transmitted symbolically through
language and other means to the members of a particular society" (Mowen, 1988).
"A framework of common traditions, values, beliefs, practices, and behaviors that
facilitates human interaction" (Kotler, 1997).

Operational Definitions
Consumer Decision Making Style - A mean score is calculated for each respondent on the
decision making style scale. To determine the dominant decision making style, the

highest mean score among the decision making styles indicates the consumer’s
decision making style.

35

Perfectionism consumers seek high quality, and have high standards and
expectations of consumer goods, and are concerned with the function of the
products.

Brand Conscious consumers are oriented toward high price and well-known
national brands and view price as an indicator of quality.

Price Conscious, Value for Money Orientation consumers seek out low-priced
goods, best value, and are more likely to be comparison shoppers.

Recreational, Hedonistic consumers ﬁnd shopping pleasant, and shops for fun.
Novelty-Fashion Conscious consumers "gain excitement and pleasure from
seeking out new things" and are conscious of the new fashions and fads (Sproles

& Kendall, 1986).

Confused by Overchoice consumers ﬁnd the marketplace confusing, are not brand
loyal, and seek help from friends when shopping.

Impulsive, Careless consumers are those who do not plan shopping and are not
concerned with the amount of money they spend.

Habitual, Brand-Loyal consumers are brand and store loyal.
Culture - The extent to which a consumer is representative of the normative culture of

their country. Korean consumers are considered to be collectivist, while
American consumers are considered to be individualist.

Time Living in United States - The extent to which the amount of time living in the
United States inﬂuences Korean consumers culture (level of collectivism).
Instrumentation

The individualist/collectivist instrument (INDCOL) (Hui, 1988), Consumer Styles
Inventory (Sproles & Kendall, 1986), and the Pysarchik (Pysarchik & Chung, 1996)
measure of product characteristics were used to measure culture (the consumer's level of
individualism and/or collectivism), decision making styles, and product characteristics,

respectively. Human behavior is a function of both personal characteristics and the

36

physical and social environments (Hui, 1988). The interaction of these factors creates
distinguishable consumer groups. Some consumers see themselves independent of a
particular consumer group and exist as individualists, while other consumers see
themselves as part of a group, and who value social interdependence (collectivist).
W

The INDCOL Scale will be used to identify culture by classifying respondents
drawn from the Korean and American populations as individualists or collectivists. The
INDCOL Scale consists of 63 items dealing with concerns for parents, kin, spouse,
neighbors, friends, and co-workers/classmates (each is considered to be a sub-scale). The
instrument covers various beliefs, attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behaviors relating
to each subscale (Hui, 1988). Using a ﬁve-point Likert scale format, respondents are
asked to indicate their level of agreement with each item listed (1=strongly disagree to
5=strongly agree). Hui's (1988) study demonstrates that the scale is a measure of the
individualism/collectivism concept. The overall reliability coefﬁcient for the scale was
.67. Alpha coefﬁcients for the subscales were parent (.66), kin (.68), neighbor (.67),
friend (.52), and co-workers (.52). A study by Gire (1993) also used the scale to
determine the inﬂuence of the individualism/collectivism value dimension on procedural
preferences for conﬂict resolution. All of the alphas were in the .60 range. In the current
study, consumers with a score below three were classiﬁed as individualist, and consumers

with a above three were classiﬁed as collectivist.

37

PmdnctAttnbnteMmuLQmemScale

The Product Attribute Scale (Pysarchik & Chung, 1996) was developed to
determine the level of importance of speciﬁc product attributes to the selection of a
product in varying product categories. This scale was developed from the results of focus
groups interviews. In the focus groups, speciﬁc attributes important to Korean consumers
in the purchase of high technological and soﬁ good products were identiﬁed. In the
present study, respondents were asked to indicate the level of importance of brand, price,
and country of origin when selecting a television and a sweater. Respondents were asked
to rate the importance of these factors using a ﬁve—point Likert scale (1=not at all
important to 5=very important, or Don't know).
; EHIII'SIII $1

The sixty-three item consumer styles inventory scale was developed by Sproles
and Kendall (1986) to identify consumer decision making styles. The instrument
reliability was established in Sproles and Kendall (1986). Eight consumer characteristics
were identiﬁed and alpha coefﬁcients were as follows: Perfectionist (.74), Brand
Conscious (.75), Novelty-Fashion Conscious (.74), Recreational Shopping Conscious
(.76), Price Value Conscious (.48), Impulsive (.48), Confused by Overchoice (.55), and
Habitual (.53). Hafstrom, Chae, and Chung (1992) also examined the scale reliability for
proﬁling Korean consumers. The alpha coefficients for the Korean consumers were
Perfectionist (.77), Brand Conscious (.84), Time-Energy Conserving (.34), Recreational
Shopping Conscious (.70), Price Value Conscious (.31), Impulsive (.54), Confused by

Overchoice (.54), and Habitual, Brand-Loyal (.34). Durvasula, Lysonski, and Andrews

38

(1993) examined the scale reliability for proﬁling consumers in the United States and

New Zealand. The alpha coefficients for the US. sample were Perfectionist (.74), Brand

Conscious (.75), Novelty-Fashion Conscious (.74), Recreational Shopping Conscious

(.76), Price Value Conscious (.48), Impulsive (.48), Confused by Overchoice (.55), and

Habitual, Brand-Loyal (.53). The alpha coefﬁcients for the New Zealand sample were

Perfectionist (.75), Brand Conscious (.59), Novelty-Fashion Conscious (.70),

Recreational Shopping Conscious (.82), Price Value Conscious (.50), Impulsive (.71),

Confused by Overchoice (.66), and Habitual, Brand-Loyal (.58). The thirty-nine items

used on the instrument were taken from Hafstrom, Chae, Chung (1992).

Research Hypotheses

Korean consumers are more likely to be collectivists, while American
consumers are more likely to be individualists.

The length of time Korean consumers live in the United States will
determine the extent to which they are collectivists or individualists.

Age, income, education, and gender inﬂuence the extent to which brand,
price, and country of manufacture are important to consumers product

selection.

Product attributes important to collectivist consumers will differ from
those important to individualist consumers.

Time living in the United States will inﬂuence product attributes important
to Korean consumers.

The importance of brand, price, and country-of-manufacture is associated
with the decision making style of a consumer.

39

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics, Pearsons Product Moments Correlations, Principal
Components factor analysis with varimax rotation, Manova, and multiple
regression were used to empirically test the data.

Research indicates that American consumers are considered to be
individualistic consumers, in that they are more concerned about self than the
group. The Korean consumers are considered to be collectivist in that they are
more concerned about group conformity. An AN OVA was used to determine the
signiﬁcant differences in the two consumer groups (American & Korean).
Secondly, a Neuman-Kuel post hoc test for signiﬁcance was used to determine
which groups were signiﬁcantly different (American, Korean, Korean American
students). Cross tabulations with chi-square signiﬁcance were used to determine
the actual number of Korean and American participants who were collectivist
and/or individualist.

Pearsons Product Moment Correlations were used to determine if there is
a relationship between time in the United States and the Korean consumers' level
of collectivism or individualism. Cross tabulations with chi-square signiﬁcance
were used to determine if the length of time living in the United States was
associated with the collectivism and individualism of the participants.

Frequency distributions were used to identify and describe the
demographic characteristics of all samples. Pearsons Product Moment

Correlations were used to determine the relationship between consumer

40

characteristics, product characteristics, and decision making styles. Principal
Components Factor Analysis with varimax rotation was used for data reduction,
and Cronbach's alpha for reliability analysis of the decision making style and
INDCOL instruments.

Hotellings-T MANOVA tests were used to determine if there were
signiﬁcant differences in the importance of brand, price, and country of
manufacture to American, Korean, and Korean students living in the United States
consumers by their level of collectivism and/or individualism.

Multiple regression was used to determine the relationship between the
importance of product attributes and selected demographic characteristics of the
consumer groups. Pearsons Product Moment Correlations and multiple regression
analyses were also used to determine the association between decision making

styles and the level of importance of product attributes.

41

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

E l'Cl ..

The study was designed to examine the cross-cultural relationships between
consumer characteristics, product characteristics, and decision making styles of
American and Korean consumers. To accomplish this, samples of Korean students and

factory workers living in Korea, American college students and factory workers in the

3

United States, and a Korean sample of college students studying in the United States
were use. Student and plant workers were chosen from both cultures to create
comparability between the groups. Both groups offer a spectrum of variation within the
demographic factors necessary for the accomplishment of the study. They also provide
a contrasting cultural background to examine their differences in product preferences
and consumer behavior.

Table 1 reports the frequency distribution of the overall sample. The total
sample consisted of 283 participants from all three sub-sample groups. The Korean
sample included factory workers (19%), and college students (14%). The American
sample also consisted of factory workers (16%) from a UAW plant in Michigan, and
college students (28%). The third sample included Korean students studying in the

United States (23 %).

42

Table 1

Frequency Distribution of Overall Sample

 

 

Variable N %
Sample
Korean Students 40 14.1
Korean Students Living in US 64 22.6
American Students 80 28.3
Factory Workers (U .S.) 45 15.9
Factory Workers (Korea) 54 12.1
283 100.0

 

Table 2 reports the demographic characteristics of the American sample of

factory workers and students. Sixty percent of the American sample were female, with

seventy-one percent being single, and over 50 percent having no or some college

education. The mean age of this sample was approximately 30 years, with a mean

income of approximately $25,427.

Table 3 reports the demographic characteristics of the Korean sample of factory

workers and students. Seventy-two percent were female, with sixty-seven percent of

the sample being married, and 69 percent having a university degree. The mean age of

this sample was approximately 31 years, with a mean income of $59,085. The income

was converted at 850 won per one US dollar, the prevailing exchange rate at the time of

data collection.

43

Table 2

Frequency Distribution of Demographic Characteristics of American Sample

 

 

Variable N %
Gender
Male 51 40.4
Female 75 59.5
126 99.9
Marital Status
Single 89 70.6
Married 31 22A
126 100.0
Education
High School Degree 14 11.2
Some College (No Degree) 50 40.0
College Degree 7 5.6
Some University 37 29.6
University Degree 14 11.2
Master’s Degree _3 _2_,_4l
125 100.00
Mean SD
Age 29.7 12.4
Income $25,427 $30,722

 

Table 4 reports the demographic characteristics of the Korean students living in
the United States. Fifty-six percent were male and married, and sixty-ﬁve percent had
a master’s degree. The average age of this sample was approximately 30 years, with a
mean family household income of approximately $45,127.00. The income was
converted at an exchange rate of 850 won = US. $1. The average number of years

living in the United States for the Korean sample was approximately ﬁve years.

44

 

Table 3

Frequency Distribution of Demographic Factors of Korean Consumers‘

 

 

Variable N %
Gender
Male 23 25.3
Female 68 El
91 100.00
Marital Status
Single 29 31.5
Married 6.3 6.8.5
92 100.00
Education
High School Degree 15 16.5
College Degree 2 2.2
University Degree 65 71.4
Master’s Degree _9 2.2
91 100.00
Mean SD
Age 31 .4 1 1 .5
Income2 (annual family income) $59,085 $32,248

 

1= Korean factory workers and students in Korea
2=Converted at a rate of 850 won = US $1.00

45

Table 4

Demographic Characteristics of Korean Students Living in U.S.

 

 

 

Variable N %
Gender
Male 35 56.5
Female 21 43.5
62 100.00
Marital Status
Single 27 43.5
Married 3.5 5.535
62 100.00
Education
High School Degree 7 11.1
College Degree 1 1.6
University Degree 14 22.2
Master’s Degree 41 65,1
63 100.00
Mean SD
Age 30.2 4.4
Income (annual family income) $45,127 $31,770
Korean Students (Time Living in US) 4.7 3.7

 

46

Instrumentation

The Consumer Styles Inventory was used to examine the decision making
characteristics of the participants. To develop a scale that could be used across the
three groups, an overall principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was
conducted using all sample participants (See Table 5 for factor loadings). The original
study conducted principal components factor analysis and yielded eight factor solutions.
Subsequent studies used an eight factor solution, so that comparisons could be made to
the original instrument (Hafstrom, Chae & Chung, 1992; Durvasula, Lyonski &
Andrew, 1993). The current study initially identiﬁed seven factors.

Prior to conducting factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha analysis was run on the
individual items. Individual item alphas were compared to the overall alpha. Items
were deleted where an improvement in the reliability was indicated. Previous studies
used .40 as a minimum loading criterion for inclusion of an item in a factor (Hafstrom,
Chae & Chung, 1992; Durvasula, Lyonski & Andrew, 1993; Sproles & Kendall,
1986). Hair et a1. (1995, p. 384—385) suggest that factor loadings of .40 are considered
important, but a factor loading of .50 or greater is considered practically signiﬁcant.
For consistency with Hair (1995), items with factor loadings less than .50 were deleted.
Therefore, factor seven “Habitual, Brand Loyal”, was deleted since two of the items in

this factor were at .40 (See Table 5).

47

 

Eigenvalues for the seven factors were all greater than one, which is a rule often used
to judge model adequacy (Durvasula, Lysonski & Andrews, 1993).

A commonly used threshold for acceptable Cronbach alpha scores, a test for
internal consistency, is .70 (Hair et al., 1995, pp. 641). Although this is not an
absolute minimum standard, values below .70 have been acceptable if the research is
exploratory in nature. Cronbach alphas ranged from .50 to .87. Thus, the factor
analysis for this study revealed six usable factors. They were named: Brand Conscious,
Perfectionistic,Confused/Impulsive, Time Energy Conscious, Price-Value Conscious,
and Brand Nonloyal (See Table 5).

Factor one, entitled the Brand Conscious construct, contained nine of the
eleven items cited in Hafstrom, Chae, and Chung’s ( 1992) factor one. Factor loadings
ranged from .519 to .800. The overall Cronbach's alpha reliability for this factor was
.865. "I have favorite brands I buy over and over", and "I enjoy shopping just for the
fun of it" did not load on this factor.

Factor two was identiﬁed as the Perfectionist scale. Five of the seven items
identiﬁed in the Hafstrom et a1. (1992) study as factor two loaded high on the present
study's factor two. The alpha reliability was .809, with factor loadings ranging from
.515 to .790. "I carefully watch how much I spend", and "I usually compare three
brands before choosing " loaded high on factor ﬁve (Price-Value Conscious). "It's fun
to buy something new and exciting " from Hafstrom et a1. (1992) did not load high on

any factor and was dropped.

48

Factor three was identiﬁed as the Confused/Impulsive scale. Items from both
the constructs previously identiﬁed as Confused by Overchoice and
Impulsive,Careless consumer styles loaded together to form a Confused/Impulsive
decision making style. This was identiﬁed as a new factor, and it was not found to be
consistent with previous ﬁndings. The reliability was .768; the range of the factor
loadings was .619 to .697. Three items from both scales loaded high, with one item
from the Price-Value Conscious consumer style loading at .619 (“sometimes it’s hard to
choose which stores to shop”) (Hafstrom, Chac & Chung; Sproles & Kendall, 1986).

Factor four contains three items from the Hafstrom et a1. (1992) Recreational-
Shopping Conscious consumer decision making style. All items focus on the time
factor, and therefore it is called Time-Energy Conscious instead of Recreational.
Items such as "Shopping the stores waste my time", "I make my shopping trips fast" ,
and I only shop stores that are close and convenient to me " loaded on this factor. The
Cronbach alpha reliability was .550; item factor loadings ranged from .629 to .794.

Factor ﬁve, Price-Value Conscious, contains only one item from the original
instrument, "I buy as much as possible at sale prices " (Sproles & Kendall, 1986).

Other items reﬂect the importance of price, and comparing brands before selecting an
item. One item, "A brand recommended in a consumer magazine is an excellent choice
for me ", loaded at .305. Deletion of this item created a reliability of .568 with a range

of factor loadings between .513 to .738, without the previously discussed item.

49

Factor six is called the Brand Nonloyal scale. This factor is not consistent with
any of the previous ﬁndings. All of the items loaded above .50. The overall
Cronbach alpha reliability was at .552.

Factor seven is called the Habitual, Brand Loyal scale. Two items from the
original instrument loaded at slightly above .40 (Sproles & Kendall, 1986); "Once I
ﬁnd a product or brand I like, I stick with it", and "I have favorite brands I buy over
and over". "I go to the same stores each time I shop" had a factor loading of .641.
Because the two items had low factor loadings (approximately .40), they were deleted
leaving only one item. Therefore, this factor was eliminated.

Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was also conducted
using each of the sub—sample groups. A comparison of the sub—sample groups to the
overall factor analysis reveals similarities in the item loadings. Table 6 shows internal
consistency (Cronbach alphas) estimates of scale reliability across each sample group.
When coefﬁcient alphas were computed for the sample groups, some factors had
reliabilities below .40. Factor four (Time-Energy Conscious) had Cronbach alphas of
less than .40 for Korean consumers and Korean students living in the U.S. Factor six

(Brand Nonloyal) also had a low alpha for the Korean consumer group (.26).

50

Table 5

Consumer Decision Making Scales (Factor Loadings & Cronbach Alpha Scores)

 

Factor # 1 Brand

Factor Loading
0 I usually buy well-known, national, or designer brands. .674
. Nice department and specialty stores offer me the best products. .670
- Expensive brands are usually the best. .800
o I usually buy the very newest styles. .687
o The more expensive brands are usually my choices. .741
o The higher the price of a product, the better its quality. .689
o I keep my wardrobe up-to-date with the changing fashions. .587
o The well-known national brands are usually very good. .519
- Highly advertised brands are usually very good. .672
Alpha .865

Factor # 2 Perfectionist

- I make a special effort to choose the very best quality products. .730
0 My standards and expectations for products I buy are very high. .790
0 When it comes to purchasing products, I tryto get the very

best or perfect choice. .719
0 I look carefully to ﬁnd the very best value for the money. .707
o I take the time to shop carefully for best buys. .515
Alpha .809

51

Table 5 (continued)

 

 

Factor # 3 Confused/Impulsive

Factor Loading
0 There are so many brands to choose from that often I feel confused. .636
. All the information I get on different products confuses me. .672
o I should plan my shopping more carefully than I do. .632
- Often I make careless purchases I later wish I had not. .697
o I am impulsive when purchasing. .633
0 Sometimes it’s hard to choose which stores to shop. .619
Alpha .768
Factor # 4 Time Energy
0 Shopping the stores wastes my time. .629
o I make my shopping trips fast. .794
o I only shop stores that are close and convenient to me. .745
Alpha .550
Factor # 5 Price-Value
- I carefully watch how much I spend. .513
o I usually compare at least three brands before choosing. .738
o I consider price ﬁrst. .515
o I buy as much as possible at sale prices. .541
Alpha .568

52

Table 5 (continued)

 

Factor # 6 Brand Nonloyal

Factor Loadings
- The lower price products are usually my choice .510
o All brands are the same in overall quality. .548
o I change brands I buy regularly. .599
Alpha .552

Factor # 7 Habitual, Brand Loyal (eliminated from further analysis)

0 I go to the same stores each time I shop. .641
0 Once I ﬁnd a product or brand I like, I stick with it. .421
o I have favorite brands I buy over and over. .413
Alpha .499

Items measured as 1=strongly disagree to 5 =strongly agree.

53

939m was awesome— 32 «o 8:83 USO—on“
. m: a wines.

 

 

a. H. a... on a: same 33 Sam 45%:
a. 8. mm. mm. 6 e986 3282 ES
we. on. mm. R. a as“: 33435
mm. mm. :. no a. sea: Bremen;
on. 2.. S. R. a 838 0329333380
5. 2.. as. 3. a sea: massacres
5. mm. mm. a. 2 Sausage
3:595 503M 508M amazon? =SO>O 05m 889800
33332333

 

9.80 038% 3 35m 585800 05 Sm 8585000 bang—om

c 033.

54

11.1]. [Ell ..
Table 7 reports the reliability results for the sixty items used to examine the
level of collectivism and/or individualism of the participants (See Appendix A). In the
original studies which used the individualism/collectivism (INDCOL) scale, item
reliability analysis was conducted using the subscales. The subscales examined the
level of concern for speciﬁc factors relative to parents, kin, spouse, neighbors, friend,
and co-worker/classmates. The participants were asked to indicate the level of
agreement with each item (1=strongly disagree to 5 =strongly agree). A mean score
within each subscale indicated a participant’s level of collectivism or individualism
relative to the particular group. However, for the present study, the researcher used
the overall mean score of the participants to determine their general level of «4....
collectivism/ individualism. Therefore, factor analysis was not conducted. Overall
scale reliability was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. The overall reliability for the
INDCOL scale was .526, with the individual sample group scale reliabilities ranging

between .505 to .612.

55

Table 7

Reliability Coefﬁcients for the Individualism/Collectivism Scale By Group

 

 

 

Variable Cronbach's Alpha Coefﬁcient
Overall .53

American Group .51

Korean Group .55

Korean Students in U.S. .61

H l . I .

Hl Korean consumers are more likely to be collectivists, while American

consumers are more likely to be individualists.

Hypothesis one tests the degree to which Koreans are collectivists and
Americans are individualists, an underlying factor that could impact on decision
making. The American sample consisted of factory workers and students, as did the
Korean sample. The second Korean sample consisted of Korean students living in the
United states as students. The INDCOL scale is measured using a ﬁve point Likert-
type scale (1=strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). A score of less than 3
suggests that a respondent could be categorized as an individualist, a score of more than
3 suggests that a respondent could be classiﬁed as a collectivist, and a score of 3
indicates neutrality on the INDCOL scale. An overall mean score was calculated for
each participant using all 60 of the INDCOL items. Respondents with a mean score of

three were deleted from the analysis.

56

Table 8 reports the results of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) used to
determine whether differences exist between the three sub-sample groups. Prior to
conducting AN OVA, test assumptions for the data were examined: test of normality of
the data, and homoscedasticity. The test of normality examines the distribution of the
sample. The histograms indicate normal kurtosis and skewness, which refers to the
peakness or distribution of the sample around the mean. An examination of histograms
and the descriptive statistics indicated that the data fulﬁll the criterion for normality.
Homoscedasticity refers to the assumption that dependent variables exhibit equal levels
of variance across the range of predictor variables (Hair et al., 1995). When more than
one variable is involved, the Box’s M test is applicable (Hair et a1, 1995, p. 258). This
test is very sensitive, especially to the presence of a nonnormal variable(s). The results
of this test indicates that no substantial amount of variance exists between the groups
examined with regard to the variables used (p < .05).

The AN OVA results suggest that there was a signiﬁcant difference, therefore,
Neuman-Keul post hoc tests were used to determine which pairs of the three group
means differed (p < .05). Signiﬁcant differences were found between the Korean
consumers and the American consumers (p < .05), which indicated that Koreans
tended to be more collectivistic and Americans more individualistic. Korean consumers
were found to have a mean score of 3.0, while the American consumers and Korean
students living in the United States had mean scores of 2.93 and 2.97, respectively (less

than 3 =individualism, more than 3 = collectivism). The null hypothesis is rejected.

57

Table 8

Results of AN OVA for the Individualist/Collectivist Scale By Group

 

 

Group n Mean SD F-Ratip
American 122 2.931 .214 393*
Korean 92 3.021 .222

Korean (studying in the U.S.) 60 2.97 .214

 

lNeuman—Keul, signiﬁcant @ p < .05
Box M=6.86, p > .05)

1=strongly disagree, 5 =strongly agree
* p < .05

Table 9 reports the results of a cross tabulation with chi-square analysis of

individualism/collectivism of Korean and American participants. Korean and American

participants with a mean score of three, which is considered neutral were deleted from

this analysis. The results suggest that there were proportionately more Koreans in the

sample that were collectivists than Americans (p < .05). The results also suggest that

approximately 47 percent of the Korean participants were individualists, while more

than 61 percent of the American participants were individualists. More than half of the

Korean participants were identiﬁed as collectivists, while approximately 39 percent of

the American participants were collectivists.

58

.3333 $5 a com: 895 8382 59.3— Ba 50%

 

 

 

 

3!. TB 24am“
3.3 a: an, a 3m 3 .58. :53
on. a on a. 2m 8 9.38:8
S,“ A: we. a. he E 333E?“
a 528 ago a cause :58 a :58 :58
.8... Eu 520x §e§< 233,

 

 

 

 

 

956 .3 aﬁueaooaaaéses no 33 83.36

a 0:3.

59

H2 The length of time Korean consumers live in the United States will determine
the extent to which they are collectivists or individualists.

Hypothesis two examines the degree to which living in the United States
inﬂuences the level of individualism/collectivism of Korean students. Korean students
studying in the United States (n=64) were asked to respond to the sixty items listed in
the questionnaire adopted from the IN DCOL scale (1=strongly disagree, 5 =strongly
agree). Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used to determine the relationship
between a Korean’s length of time in the United States and his/her level of collectivism
and/or individualism. Table 10 reports the results of the correlation. The analysis
suggests that there is no relationship between length of time in the United States and the
level of collectivism/individualism (p > .05). Therefore, we fail to reject the null
hypothesis.

Table 10

Correlation Matrix of INDCOL & Length of Stay in the U.S. for Korean Students

 

 

 

Variable Individualism/Collectivism

11
Time in the U.S.l .0074 53
(p > .05)

1Length of time living in the United States by Korean Students

60

Factors Inﬂuencing Product Selection

Brand
Regression Equation for Brand Importance (TV)
Y, = 13,, + B,X, + 32X, + B3X3 + 84X, + BSX5 + 13,,X6 + 6
Y, = Level of importance of brand when purchasing a television
X, = Gender of consumer
X2 = Age of consumer
X3 = Income of consumer
X4 = Education of consumer
e = error
H3 Group Hypothesis

Age, income, education, and gender inﬂuence the extent to which brand,

price, and country-of-manufacture are important to consumers when purchasing
products.

AmericanLensumerstnQnanmLBrand

H3, Age, income, education, and gender inﬂuence the extent to which brand is
important to American consumers when purchasing a television.

Hypothesis 3a examines the inﬂuence of Americans’ age, income, education,
and gender on the importance of brand when selecting a television. The American
factory worker and student sample were combined. Respondents were asked to
indicate the level of importance of brand when purchasing a television ( 1=not at all
important to 5 = very important).

Table 11 reports the results of the stepwise multiple regression of the level of
importance of brand (dependent variable) with the independent variables of education,
income, age, and gender (1 =male, 0=female) using the American consumer sample.

The multiple regression analysis indicates that age, gender, income, and education

61

explain approximately 9 percent of the variance in the level of importance of brand
when purchasing a television (model p < .05). Individually, however, none of the
variables was found to be a statistically signiﬁcant predictor of the importance of brand

(model p < .05). In this case, we reject the null hypothesis.

Table 11

Demographic Factors of American Consumers as Predictors of Brand Importance (TV)

 

 

 

 

 

Variable 13 SE B Standardized B T- F-
Value Ratio

Education .096 .092 .099 1 .04 2 .64*

Income .062 .1 19 .084 .52

Age -.028 .016 -.262 -1.67

Male -.301 .265 -.113 -1.13

8,, 3.79 .500

Multiple Regression Analysis

n= 122

R2 = .087

*p < .05

Regression Equation for Brand Importance (Sweater)

, = 13,, + B,X, + 82X, + 133x3 + 84X, + e

, = Level of importance of brand when purchasing a sweater
, = Gender of consumer

2 = Age of consumer

3 = Income of consumer

4 = Education of consumer

e = error

><><><><~<~<

62

H3_b Age, income, education, and gender inﬂuence the extent to which brand is
important to American consumers when purchasing a sweater.

Table 12 reports the results of the stepwise multiple regression of the level of
importance of brand (dependent variable) with education, income, gender (1=male,
0=female), and age as independent variables for the American sample (American
factory workers and students). As in HM, consumers were asked to indicate the
importance of brand (1 =not at all important to 5 = very important) when purchasing a
sweater.

The results indicate that gender, age, income, and education explain about 15
percent of the variance in the importance of brand to American consumers when
purchasing a sweater (p < .01). Variation in age, income, education, and gender of
American consumers inﬂuences the level of importance of brand when purchasing a
sweater. Individually, only age of American consumers was found to be a signiﬁcant
predictor of the level of importance of brand when purchasing a sweater (p <. 001);
suggesting that as the age of American consumers increases, the importance of brand

declines when purchasing a sweater. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.

63

Table 12

Demographic Factors of American Consumers as Predictors of Brand Importance (SW)

 

 

 

Variable 13 SE B Standardized B T- P-
value Ratio
Education .031 .088 .032 .35 4.73**
Income .135 .114 .185 1.18
Age -.053 .061 -.512 -3.36***
Male . 126 .254 .048 .50
a, 3.94 .526
Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis
R2 = .147
**p < .01
***p < .001
KoreanConsumersLIanrtancLQLBrand

H3,c Age, income, education, and gender inﬂuence the extent to which brand is
important to Korean consumers when purchasing a television.

Table 13 reports the results of the multiple regression analysis of brand
importance when buying a television (dependent variable) with the independent
variables of education, income, age, and gender (dummy variable- l=males,
0=females) for the Korean sample (factory workers and college students in Korea). As
in previous cases, consumers were asked to indicate the level of importance of brand
(1 =not at all important to 5 = very important) when purchasing a television.

The multiple regression results indicate that education, income, age, and gender
explain about 13 percent of the variance in the level of importance of brand to Korean
consumers when purchasing a television (model p < .05). Age and gender of the

Korean consumers were found to be signiﬁcant predictors of the level of importance of

64

brand when purchasing a television (p < .01). Korean females found brand to be
more important than males when purchasing a television. Also, as the age of a Korean
consumer increases, the level of importance of the brand of a television increases.
Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.

Table 13

Demographic Factors of Korean Consumers as Predictors of Brand Importance (TV)

 

 

 

Variable B SE B Standardized B T-value F ~ratio
Education .028 .059 .050 .48 2.93*
Income -.044 .061 -.076 -.72
Age .020 .008 .248 237’”
Gender -.566 .229 -.264 -2.46**
8,, 3.23 .530
Multiple Regression Analysis
R2 = .128
* p < .05
** p < .01

H3, Age, income, education, and gender inﬂuence the extent to which brand is
important to Korean consumers when purchasing a sweater.

Table 14 reports the results of the multiple regression analysis of the level of
brand importance (dependent variable) when buying a sweater with the independent
variables of education, income, age, and gender (1 =male, 2=female) using the Korean
consumer sample (Korean factory workers and students). The consumers were asked to
indicate the level of importance of brand (1 =not important at all to 5 =very important)
when purchasing a sweater. The multiple regression analysis indicates that education,
income, age, and gender explain only 8 percent of the variance in the level of brand

importance to Korean consumers when purchasing a sweater (model p > .05).

65

Overall, these factors were not signiﬁcant predictors of the brand importance when

purchasing a sweater (p > .05). Therefore, we do not reject the null hypothesis.

Table 14

Demographic Factors of Korean Consumers as Predictors of Brand Importance (SW)

 

 

 

Variable B SE B Standardized B T-value F-ratio
Education .099 .061 -. 178 1 .62 1 .74
Income -.099 .063 -. 170 -1.59

Age .007 .009 -.080 .74

Gender -.370 .238 -.171 —1.56

8,, 3.1 1 .549

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis

R2 = .080

66

Price
Regression Equation for Price Importance

Y2 = BO + B,X, + B,X2 + B3X3 + B,X4 + B,X, + B,X,, + 6
Y2 = Level of importance of price

X, = Gender of consumer

X2 = Age of consumer

X3 = Income of consumer

X4 = Education of consumer

 

e = error
E . C , I E E .
H3, Age, income, education, and gender inﬂuence the extent to which price is

important to American consumers when purchasing a television.

Table 15 reports the multiple regression analysis of price (dependent variable)
with gender (1 =male, 0=female), age, income, and education as independent variables
for the American sample when purchasing a television. The participants were asked to
indicate the level of importance of price (1 =not at all important to 5 =very important)
when purchasing a television. Gender, age, income, and education were not
signiﬁcant predictors of the level of importance of price for American consumers when
purchasing a television (model p > .05). Therefore, we fail to reject the null

hypothesis.

67

Table 15

Demographic Factors of American Consumers as Predictors of Price Importance (TV)

 

 

 

 

Variable B SE B Standardized B T-value F-ratio
Education -.039 .059 -.063 -.652 2.38
Income .012 .078 .024 . 148

Age -.019 .010 -.287 -1.81

Gender -.109 .172 -.064 -.61

8,, 5.28 .356

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis

R2 = .080

H3, Age, income, education, and gender inﬂuence the extent to which price is
important to American consumers when purchasing a sweater.

Table 16 reports the multiple regression analysis of price (dependent variable),
and gender (1 =male, 0=female), age, income, and education as independent variables
for the American sample (factory workers and students) when purchasing a sweater.
The participants were asked to indicate the level of importance of price (1 =not at all
important to 5 =very important) when purchasing a sweater. Gender, age, education,
and income were found to explain about 9 percent of the variance in the importance of
the price when purchasing a sweater (p < .05). In this case, females placed
signiﬁcantly more importance on the price of a sweater than did males (p <. 01).

Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis.

68

Table 16

Demographic Factors of American Consumers as Predictors of Price Importance (SW)

 

 

 

Variable B SE B Standardized B T-value F-ratio
Education -.052 .058 -.086 -.90 2.82*
Income .014 .075 .029 .18
Age -.008 .010 —.113 -.72
Gender -.462 .167 —.278 -2.77**
B, .502 .345
Stepwise Multiple Regression
R2 = .093
* p< .05
** p < .01
Kmeanscnsumerszjmpnnancmfhice
H31, Age, income, education, and gender inﬂuence the extent to which price is

important to Korean consumers when purchasing a television.

Table 17 reports the results of the multiple regression analysis of price
(dependent variable) when Koreans (factory workers and students) purchase a
television with the independent variables of education, income, age, and gender. The
participants were asked to indicate the level of importance of price (1 =not at all
important to 5 =very important) when purchasing a television. The multiple regression
results indicate that education, income, age, and gender (1 =male, 0=female) explain
about 8 percent of the variance in the importance of price to Korean consumers when
purchasing a television. The overall model was not signiﬁcant, therefore, we fail to

reject the null hypothesis.

69

Table 17

Demographic Factors of Korean Consumers as Predictors of Price Importance (TV)

 

 

 

Variable B SE B Standardized B T-value F-ratio
Education .038 .053 .079 .72 1 .74
Income .013 .054 .025 .27

Age .019 .008 .271 252*

Gender .009 .205 .005 .04

8,, 3.35 .472

Multiple Regression Analysis

R2 = .080

*p < .05

H,_,, Age, income, education, and gender inﬂuence the extent to which price is
important to Korean consumers when purchasing a sweater.

Table 18 reports the results of the multiple regression analysis of price
(dependent variable) with the independent variables of education, income, age, and
gender using the Korean consumer sample (factory workers & students). The
participants were asked to indicate the level of importance of price (1 =not at all
important to 5 =very important) when purchasing a sweater. Overall, these factors
were not found to be signiﬁcant predictors of price importance when purchasing a

sweater (p > .05). Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

70

 

 

Table 18

Demographic Factors of Korean Consumers as Predictors of Price Importance (SW)

 

 

 

Variable B SE B Standardized B T-value F-ratio
Education .009 .055 .020 . 175 .716
Income -.006 .057 —.011 -.10

Age .013 .008 .180 1.63

Gender .057 .213 .030 .265

B0 3.79 .493

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis

R2 = .035

Country-of-Manufacture

Regression Equation for the Importance of Country-of-Manufacture (COM)

Y3 = B0 + B,X, + B,X, + B,X3 + B,X, + e

Y3 = Level of importance of country-of-manufacture
X, = Gender of consumer

X2 = Age of consumer

X3 = Income of consumer

X, = Education of consumer

e = error

AmencanCmnumerstmnancenmﬂM

H3, Age, income, education, and gender inﬂuence the extent to which country-of-
manufacture is important to American consumers when purchasing a television.

Table 19 reports the results of the multiple regression of country-of-manufacture

(COM) as the dependent variable, and education, age, gender (1 =male, 0=female),

71

and income as the independent variables. The respondents were asked to indicate the
importance of the country-of-manufacture when purchasing a television (1 =not at all
very important to 5 =very important).

The results indicate that education, income, gender, and age explain about 18
percent of the variance in the importance of the COM to American consumers when
purchasing a television (model p < .001). The age of the American consumer was
found to be a signiﬁcant predictor of the importance of COM when purchasing a
television (p < .05). As the age of an American consumer progresses, the importance
of the country-of-manufacture of a television increases. Therefore, we reject the null

hypothesis .

Table 19

Demographic Factors of American Consumers as Predictors of COM1 Importance (TV)

 

 

Variable B SE B Standardized B T-Value F-ratio
Education -.121 .097 -.114 -1.25 .05***
Income .091 .126 .111 .725

Age .033 .017 .292 195*

Gender -.010 .279 -.003 -.04

13,, 2.56 .577

 

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis
1Country-of-manufacture
R2 = .182
*p < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001

72

H3 Age, income, education, and gender inﬂuence the extent to which country-of-

manufacture is important to American consumers when purchasing a sweater.

'I

Table 20 reports the results of the multiple regression of country-of manufacture
(COM) as the dependent variable, and education, income, age, and gender as the
independent variables. The respondents were asked to indicate the importance of the
COM when purchasing a sweater (1 =not at all important to 5 =very important). The
results of the multiple regression indicate that education, income, gender, and age
explain about 35 percent of the variance in the importance of COM to American
consumers when purchasing a sweater (model p < .001). Income of the American
consumer was found to be a signiﬁcant predictor of the importance of COM when
purchasing a sweater (p < .01). As the income of an American consumer increases,
the importance of the COM increases when purchasing a sweater. Therefore, we reject

the null hypothesis.

73

 

Table 20

Demographic Factors of American Consumers as Predictors of COM (SW)

 

 

 

Variable B SE B Standardized B T-Value F-ratio
Education -.153 .091 -.135 -1.67 14.37***
Income .341 .119 .396 2.89**
Age .018 .016 .148 1.10
Gender . 182 .264 .059 .690
B, 2.16 .545
Stepwise Multiple Regression
R2 = .345
*p < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001

H,_,, Age, income, education, and gender inﬂuence the extent to which country-of-
manufacture is important to Korean consumers when purchasing a television.
Table 21 reports the results of the multiple regression analysis of country-of-
manufacture (COM) as the dependent variable, and education, age, income, and gender
(1 =male, 0=female) as the independent variables. The respondents were asked to
indicate the importance of COM when purchasing a television (1 =not at all important
to 5 =very important). The multiple regression analysis indicated that overall,
education, age, income, and gender of Korean consumers were not signiﬁcant
predictors of the importance of COM when purchasing a television (model p > .05).

We therefore, fail to reject the null hypothesis.

74

Table 21

Demographic Factors of Korean Consumers as Predictors of COM Importance (TV)

 

 

 

Variable B SE B Standardized B T-Value F-ratio
Education .065 .064 .112 1.02 2.01
Income -.018 .066 -.O28 -.265

Age .016 .009 .185 1.73

Gender -.564 .249 -.246 -2.26*

8,, 2.74 .633

Stepwise Multiple Regression

R2 = .091

p < .05

H3, Age, income, education, and gender inﬂuence the extent to which country-of-
manufacture is important to Korean consumers when purchasing a sweater.

Table 22 reports the results of the multiple regression of country-of-manufacture
(COM) as the dependent variable, and education, age, income, and gender (1: male,
0 =female) as the independent variables for Korean consumers. The respondents were
asked to indicate the importance of COM when purchasing a sweater (l =not at all
important to 5 =very important). The multiple regression analysis of education, age,
income, and gender for Korean consumers indicated that none of the variables was a
signiﬁcant predictor of the importance of COM when purchasing a sweater (p > .05).

Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

75

 

Table 22

Demographic Factors of Korean Consumers as Predictors of COM Importance (SW)

 

 

 

Variable B SE B Standardized B T-Value F-ratio
Education .007 .070 .01 1 .095 .816
Income .011 .073 .017 .156

Age .017 .010 .175 1.60

Gender -.253 .274 -.104 -.92

8,, 2.74 .633

Stepwise Multiple Regression

R2 = .039

Individualism/Collectivism: The Importance Of Product Attributes

H, Product attributes important to collectivist consumers will differ from those
important to individualist consumers.

Hypothesis four suggests that differences may exist in the type of product
attributes important to collectivists and individualists. Respondents were asked to
indicate the level of importance of price, brand, and country-of-manufacture when
purchasing a television. The respondents were classiﬁed as individualists/collectivists
based on their mean score. This score was calculated based on their responses to the
sixty items from the INDCOL scale (less than 3 = individualist and more than 3 =
collectivist). Participants with a mean score of 3.0, were not used in this analysis.

Table 23 reports the results of the Manova and Hotellings T analysis of the level
of importance of price, brand, and country-of-manufacture by
individualism/collectivism status of the overall sample (All American and Korean).

The results indicates that there is not a signiﬁcant difference in the overall importance

76

 

of brand, price, and country-of-manufacture between respondents classiﬁed as
collectivist and those classiﬁed as individualist (p > .05). Therefore, we fail to reject

the null hypothesis.

77

§E>In8§o§=a§§ulm

 

 

 

 

Ame. V a a
an." and on— auras—~00
an“. and ("A 36 #3 «5333
. 583m .«o 200
3 A a . m as ﬂaw-00:00
0N6. «Nu . ON. a no. m v3 8332
, 330.5% .«0 38m
an». mm.’ 03 33583—00
cow. ma. X..— 35. 36 #3 Sand—533
§83m mo BE .
a . a em. m cum mantra—00:00
N3. 09.. ON; :6 93 83>?
>.—. Mo 200
Nu; n66 02 3&602—00
0N5. 5nd. 3.“ Fwd v3 smug—Bu
>H. no 35.5
mg. #99 $2 auras—~00
om; awoo. nag. mg. 3.6 v3 , §>§
a mo outn—
oBETnm 0257m 03279 Gm . use: a 30:80.35 Gavan—om «250.5

 

 

29.5 :85 3. ea 38052,. .3803 682m 2.. 8 08859.... B us... again:

mu 03am. _

78

 

.. I I . . ’ . I I . g .
\ 1...... s. 1.!.'.'. .‘u.‘ H U .1... .A.. 6.0.

Importance

H5 Time living in the United States will inﬂuence the product attributes important
to Korean consumers.

Hypothesis ﬁve suggests that a variation in the importance of product attributes
to Korean consumers may be due to the length of time they have lived in the United
States. Table 24 reports the ﬁndings of the Pearson Product Moment Correlation. It
suggests that there is not a relationship between the length of stay in the United States
of a Korean consumer and the level of importance of brand, price, and country-of-
manufacture when purchasing a television or sweater (p > .05). Therefore, we fail to
reject the null hypothesis.

Table 24

Correlation Matrix of Length of Time in the United States by Product Attributes

 

 

 

Importance Length of Stay in U.S. (Korean Sample only)
Brand of TV .052

Price of TV .121

COM of TV -.O88

Brand of Sweater .196

Price of Sweater -.O7O

COM of Sweater .030

n.s.

79

\‘QOIVOOO u .u‘ .H..U1.s.' 5%.“ km. 510/ mun ‘

H6 Group Hypothesis

The importance of brand, price, and country-of—manufacture is associated with
the decision making style of a consumer.

Americanﬂonsumers
H6, The importance of brand, price, and country-of-manufacture is associated with
the decision making style of American consumers.

Hypothesis six suggests that an American (factory workers & students)
consumer’s decision making style (Brand Conscious, Perfectionist, Time-Energy,
Confused/Impulsive, Price-Value, and Brand Nonloyal) (1 =strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree) is related to the perceived importance of brand, price, and country-of-
manufacture (COM) when buying products (1: not at all important to 5 = very
important). Table 25 reports the results of the Pearson Product Moment correlation.
The results indicate that the brand of the TV and sweater was positively associated with
the Brand Conscious (p < .001),and Confused/Impulsive American consumer (p <
.01), and negatively associated with Time Energy (p < .05) American consumers
when purchasing a television. These ﬁndings suggest that the more likely an American
consumer is to be classiﬁed as a Brand Conscious or Confused/Impulsive American
consmner, the more likely that brand is considered to be an important product attribute
when purchasing a sweater or television. Conversely, the more likely an American is
to be classiﬁed as a Time-Energy consumer, the less likely that brand is important
when purchasing a television.

80

 

 

 

 

Price was positively associated with the Brand Conscious American consumer
when purchasing a television (p < .05). This indicates that the more likely an
American is to be classiﬁed as a Brand Conscious consumer, the more important price
is when purchasing a television. Price was negatively associated with the Brand
Conscious American consumer when purchasing a sweater (p < .05). This suggests
that the more likely an American is to be a Brand Conscious consumer, the less likely
price is considered to be when purchasing a sweater. Price was also positively
associated with Price-Value Conscious (p < .001), and Brand Nonloyal consumers
when purchasing a sweater (p < .01). This suggests that the more likely a consumer
is to be classiﬁed as Price-Value Conscious or Brand NonLoyal, the more likely price
is considered to be important when purchasing a sweater.

Country-of-manufacture was positively associated with Time Conscious
(p < .05), and negatively associated with Confused/Impulsive consumers when
purchasing a sweater (p < .05). The more likely that an American is to be classiﬁed
as a Time Conscious consumer, the more likely COM is an important product attribute
when purchasing a sweater. Alternatively, the more likely an American is to be
classiﬁed as a Confused/Impulsive consumer, the less likely COM is an important

product attribute when purchasing a sweater.

81

 

 

So. V n.95....

8. Va ..

3. v P

z. . :q- 8? L2. . n3; ”8.- £33. a :8

39. «3. 23.. n2» «8. «8.. 83.52. .3 28

:3. 3.3". as. e3. :3. .52.. .3833 85

as; a... so. . a? 3.- .E. 8333 a 82

m: 3. :5. “3. §. .238. .233 3 Ben

E... «3. in. .52.. m2. 4&8. £333.... 25

22.—oz 35 3?. aasso .2: n... can: 85:25

 

5538 egg .3 33m 5...: Egan B 28 a. .82 .35 .3 8338 ago: 632.. asks“

mm 3.3.

82

 

 

Koreansnnmmers
H6b The importance of brand, price, and country-of-manufacture is associated with
the decision making style of Korean consumers.

Hypothesis 6b examines the relationship between brand, price, and country-of-
manufacture (COM) and the decision making styles (Brand Conscious, Perfectionist,
Time Energy, Confused/Impulsive, Price-Value, and Brand Nonloyal) of Korean
consumers (Korean factory workers & students) (1 =strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree). Table 26 reports the Pearson Product Moment correlations. The results
indicate that brand importance is positively associated with Brand Conscious (p < .05),
Perfectionist (p < .01), and Price-Value (p < .01) decision making styles of Korean
consumers when purchasing a television. This suggests that the more likely a Korean
consumer is to be classiﬁed as a Brand Conscious, Perfectionist or Price-Value
consumer, the more important brand is when purchasing a television. Further, brand is
positively associated with Brand Conscious and Perfectionist (p < .001), and
negatively associated with Brand Nonloyal consumers when purchasing a sweater (p <
.05). Thus, Korean consumers classiﬁed as Brand Conscious and Perfectionist are
more likely to consider brand as an important product attribute when purchasing a
sweater. Further, the more likely that a Korean is Brand NonLoyal, the less likely
brand would be an important product attribute when purchasing a sweater.

Price was found to be positively associated with Perfectionist (p < .05), and
Price-Value Conscious (p < .001) decision making styles when Korean consumers
purchase a television. This suggests that the more likely a Korean is to be classiﬁed as

83

a Perfectionist or Price-Value Conscious consumer, the more important price is
considered when purchasing a television. Price was also positively associated with
Perfectionist (p < .01), and Price-Value Conscious (p < .05), and negatively
associated with Time-Energy (p < .05) consumers when purchasing a sweater. This
indicates that the more likely a Korean is to be classiﬁed as a Perfectionist or Price-
Value consumer, the more important is price when purchasing a sweater. However, the
more likely a Korean is to be a Time-Energy consumer, the less important is price
considered when purchasing a sweater.

Country—of-manufacture (COM) was found to be positively associated with
Perfectionist and Price Conscious consumers (p < .05) when purchasing a television,
and Perfectionist (p < .05) and Brand Nonloyal when purchasing a sweater (p < .05).
This suggests that Koreans, who are more likely to be Perfectionist or Price-Value
Conscious consumers, are more likely to consider COM important when purchasing a
television. Further, the more likely that a Korean is classiﬁed to be a Perfectionist or

Brand Nonloyal consumer, the more important COM is when purchasing a sweater.

84

 

 

 

So. v 9......

HO. .W. PI.

mO. V a ...
.25. m3. wmor m2. 30m. $0. “macaw .8 200
Go: .53. 80.- 3o. .32. 8o. >9 Co 200
N2 .- *SN. coor *ommr Inwm. mmo. 532% .8 3E
39. 13mm. 08. over L2. 02 .- 86320.". .8 Rim
*womr N2 . mﬁo. moor 13.5mm. ***vmm. “Sanka .«0 98am
v2 .- tLg. vmo. mvor inmN. .53. >._. mo 28m

3382

985 SE o>E=a8HBomaaoU 33:925.“. tom 33m oEmES

 

$085800 :8qu «o 835 man—32 5380 an 200 a. .35 .285 HO nous—2.80 Eon—32 830.5 598$

cm 2an

85

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Sampl:

To examine the cross-cultural relationship between product characteristics,
consumer characteristics, and decision making styles, this study used a combination of
American and Korean university students and factory workers. Students and plant
workers were chosen from both cultures to create comparability between the groups.
Both groups provide a spectrum of variation within the demographics, as well as
contrasting cultural backgrounds to examine their differences in product preferences and
consumer behavior.
instrumentation

Most consumer behavior principles and theories have been developed in the
United States and, therefore, describe and predict the consumer behavior of Americans
(Green & White, 1983). Problems in applying these principles and theories to consumers
in other countries have arisen; speciﬁcally, the functional equivalence of the constructs
being studied, and the measurement equivalence of the instruments, among others.

Functional equivalence refers to whether similar phenomena are being studied in
each country. In the present study, the relationship between demographic characteristics,
the level of importance of product attributes, and the identiﬁcation of a consumer’s

decision making style are compared between Korean and American consumers.

86

 

Functional equivalence in this study examines whether the product characteristics --
brand, price, and country of manufacture of a particular product--are used similarly as
evaluative criteria when selecting a product in each country.

Measurement equivalence refers to whether an instrument is a reliable and valid
measure of constructs in a cross-cultural study. Instrument equivalence in this case
examines whether the pre-established scales are reliable and valid when attempting to
identify the decision making styles and the level of collectivism/individualism of Korean
consumers as they have been used with American consumers. The instruments used in
this study were the Consumer Styles Inventory which measures consumer decision
making styles, the INDCOL, which measures a consumer’s level of individualism/
collectivism, and the product characteristics instrument which measures the level of
importance of product characteristics in consumer decision making.

The Consumer Styles Inventory was used to identify the decision making styles of
the participants. The number and conﬁguration of decision making styles identiﬁed in
this study are somewhat consistent with those identiﬁed in previous studies. Previous
studies identiﬁed eight decision making styles, while this study only identiﬁed six. The
current ﬁndings only incorporate the use of 30 of the original 40 items used in previous
studies.

Previous research used the Consumer Styles Inventory to identify the decision
making styles of consumers (Hafstrom, Chae, & Chung, 1992; Durvasula, Lyonski, &
Andrew, 1993; Sproles & Sproles, 1990; Sproles & Kendall, 1986). The original

87

instrument developed by Sproles and Kendall (1986) identiﬁed eight decision making
styles of consumers. They include Perfectionist; Brand Conscious; Novelty-Fashion;
Recreational; Impulsive; Confused by Overchoice; Price Conscious; and Habitual, Brand
Loyal. Based on Sproles (1986), Hafstrom, Chae, Chung (1992) identiﬁed Brand
Conscious; Perfectionist; Recreational-Shopping; Confused by Overchoice; Time-
Energy; Impulsive, Careless; Habitual, Brand Loyal; and Price-Value Conscious
consumer groups. Comparing the results of the present study with those of the previous
studies indicates that there was some variation in the items loading on each factor and the
number of factors. These variations may be due to the differences in the samples studied,
and/or the functional and measurement equivalence of the constructs. That is, the items
in each construct may not equally reﬂect or adequately assess the phenomena in both
countries. This indicates that perhaps there are cross-cultural differences in decision
making that preclude a direct comparison using the same items.

The present study conducted principal components factor analysis with varimax
rotation to isolate the consumer decision making factors. The initial factor analysis using
the entire sample identiﬁed seven reliable factors. Cronbach’s alpha, a test for internal
consistency, was conducted using each of the sub-samples (American, Korean, and
Korean students living in the United States) with the new identiﬁed factors. The
reliabilities were acceptable for all of the consumer decision making styles except the
Brand Nonloyal using the Korean sample. The ﬁnal number of items used in the

instrument was 30.

88

The ﬁrst factor, Brand Conscious, is consistent with Hafstrom, Chae, and
Chung’s (1992) Brand Conscious, Price Equals Quality factor, and somewhat consistent
with Sproles and Kendall’s (1986) factor, which is identiﬁed as Brand Conscious, Price
Equals Quality. The Cronbach alphas across all three samples ranged between .85 to .88.
This suggests that American, Korean, and Korean students studying in the United States
identiﬁed as this type of consumer are likely to buy well known brands that are currently
in fashion, and they are willing to purchase them at department and/or specialty stores. It
ﬁirther suggests that the construct has functional and measurement equivalence across the
three groups. This indicates that this decision making style exists within each group, and
could possibly be measured using the same items.

The second factor is identiﬁed as Perfectionist Consumers. Four of the items
from the original instrument (Sproles & Kendal, 1986), and ﬁve from Hafstrom, Chae,
and Chung (1992) loaded on this factor. The Cronbach alphas ranged from .72 to .81
across the sample groups. These alphas suggest that the constructs are similar across the
three groups; that is, the decision making styles exist within each culture. The factor
loadings and Cronbach alphas further indicate that American, Korean, and Korean
students studying in the United States identiﬁed as Perfectionists choose products of high
quality, have high standards and expectations of products that they buy, and they shop for
the best value. High expectations in the quality of goods, and diversity in choice when
selecting goods can be attributed to the Korean consumer’s experiencing increased

disposable income, and exposure to western culture (Ekvall, 1990; Flake, 1995).

89

The underlying items in Confused/Impulsive are not consistent with any
previous study. In previous studies (Sproles & Kendall, 1986; Durvursala, Lysonski &
Andrews, 1993; Hafstrom, Chae & chung, 1993), the researchers established Confused
by Overchoice and Impulsive, Careless consumers as two individual consumer decision
making styles. Items from both consumer styles loaded together to form a
Confused/Impulsive decision making style in the present study. Consumers who are
considered to be Confused/Impulsive tend to be confused by too many brands, too much
information, and may ﬁnd it hard to choose where to shop. They may then be inclined to
purchase products carelessly and impulsively, and generally do not concern themselves
with price. These consumers are overwhelmed by choice and information, and therefore
do not buy thoughtfully. They may later perceive themselves to have been careless and
impulsive. The Cronbach alphas range from .66 to .77. These are considered to be
acceptable alphas (Hair et al., 1995), and therefore indicate that the new construct offers
measurement equivalence, and the consumer behavior may be functionally equivalent
across all sample groups used.

The next factor is identiﬁed as Time-Energy Conscious because the items
loading in this factor were all related to time. Hafstrom, Chae, and Chung (1992) refers
to Time-Energy consumers as those who shop the same stores all the time, make
shopping trips fast, and shop stores that are close and convenient. In this case, Time-
Energy consumers are identiﬁed as those that are conscious of the amount time spent in a
store, make shopping trips fast, and shop stores that are close and convenient. The scale
reliability (Cronbach Alphas) indicate that this construct is a reliable measure for

90

American consumers, but it is less reliable for Koreans and Korean students studying in
the United States. This suggests that perhaps the items do not reﬂect measurement
equivalence, and the consumer behavior may not be functionally equivalent across the
three groups. More speciﬁcally, the items identiﬁed may not measure the factor of saving
time within the Korean culture, or saving time may not be an issue when shopping.

Novelty-Fashion Conscious was identiﬁed in previous studies as a consumer
decision making style (Sproles & Kendall, 1986; Durvursala, Lysonski & Andrews,
1993). This decision making style was not conﬁrmed as a factor in this study when each
of the samples were analyzed and compared.

Factor ﬁve is identiﬁed as Price-Value Conscious and is reﬂective of the
importance of price. Americans, Koreans, and Korean students studying in the United
States classiﬁed as Price Conscious carefully watch what they spend, compare brands,
consider price ﬁrst, and buy as much as possible on sale. Very few items from the
original and/or other studies loaded on this construct. All reliability coefﬁcients for each
sample group ranged between .49 and .57. This suggests that the items within the
construct may be measurement equivalent, and the consumer behavior may be
functionally equivalent across the samples.

Factor six, Brand Nonloyal, is not reﬂective of any of the previous studies. The
items in this factor suggest that consumers classiﬁed as such believe that all brands are
equal in quality, they change brands regularly, and lower price products are their
preference. This suggests that these consumers are undifferentiated by brand, and thus
shop based on the price of a product (e.g., whichever item is on sale). The Cronbach

91

alphas for the American and Korean students living in the United States were .52 and .51,
respectively. The alpha for the Korean sample was .26. This suggests that the items
loading on this factor are not reliable measures of Korean consumers. This type of
behavior, therefore, may not be valid in Korea and/or the items used do not effectively
measure the construct.

Habitual Brand Loyal was not conﬁrmed as a factor in the present study. Three
items loaded on this factor, with two having loadings of only slightly greater than .40.
Previous studies dropped items with similar low loadings (Hafstrom, Chae & Chung,
1992; Sproles & Kendall, 1986). In doing so, this left only one item in the factor.
Therefore, the factor was deleted from ﬁthher analysis.

Previous studies conducted factor analysis to identify the top decision making
styles of the samples used in their studies. The top three decision making styles of the
American, Korean, and Korean American consumers are Brand Conscious, Perfectionist,
and Confused/Impulsive. This is somewhat similar to previous research ﬁndings
(Sproles, 1985; Sproles & Kendall; 1986; Hafstrom, Chae & Chung, 1992). Sproles
(1985) and Sproles & Kendall (1986) identiﬁed American consumers as being
Perfectionist, Brand Conscious, and Value Conscious, while Hafstrom, Chae and Chung
(1992) found Korean consumers to be Brand Conscious, Perfectionist, and Recreational-
shopping Conscious consumers.

11.1]. £11..

The INDCOL scale was used to identify the level of individualism/collectivism of

the American, Korean, and Korean American consmners. Previous studies identiﬁed and

92

used the 63-item scale to measure the level of individualism/collectivism of participants
relative to concerns for parents, kin, spouse, neighbors, ﬁiends, and co-workers and
classmates. Participants rated the level of agreement with each item (l=not at all
important to 5=very important). The overall scale reliability of the present study was
.60, as compared to .67 in previous studies (Hui, 1988; Gire, 1993). For the present
study, the overall scale reliability was tested for the entire sample (American, Korean,
and Korean students studying in the United States). The overall scale reliability using
Cronbach alpha was .526. Scale reliabilities for the sample groups ranged from .505 to
.612. These alphas are similar to the overall scale reliability, but they are lower than
those reported in previous studies. This suggests that measurement and functional
equivalence may be less in this study than in previous studies.

Previous studies suggest that American consumers are more likely to be
individualistic while Korean consumers are more likely to be collectivists. Consumers
identiﬁed as individualists place their personal interests above those of the group. As an
aspect of culture, persons of individualistic nature tend to value personal and individual
time, freedom, and experiences (Hofstede, 1984). Those of a collectivist nature tend to
emphasize the views, needs, and goals of the in-group rather than oneself (Triandis,
1995). Collectivists tend to look out for the well being of the group to which they
belong, even if it means that personal interests are disregarded. Items in the scale reﬂect
the consumers’ concern for issues related to parents, spouse, kin, neighbors, and co-
workers/friends. The results of this study suggest that the majority of Koreans are
collectivists. It further implies that most Americans are individualists.

93

The literature indicates that Korean consumers experience western culture through
technology, travel, and education. Religious beliefs, founded in Confucianism, are said
to permeate Korean business and individual behavior, as well as the family structure
(Byong-ik, 1992). These beliefs foster loyalty, dedication, responsibility, and
commitment. This study found that length of time in the United States was not associated
with a Korean consumer’s level of collectivism/individualism. This study examined the
effect of time in the United States (perceived western inﬂuence) on the importance of
product attributes. No signiﬁcant relationship was found between the Korean
consumers’ length of time in the United States and the importance of product attributes.
This suggests that although these Koreans are living in the United States, they are still
strongly tied to societal beliefs from their home country, and are not heavily inﬂuenced
by western knowledge and technology.

Demographics

Changes in the demographic make-up of American and international consumer
groups have created new groups unfamiliar to retailers and marketers. Previous studies
have examined demographic factors as predictors of product selection and as a method of
segmenting consumers. Demographic factors such as age, education, gender, and income
have been found to inﬂuence consumer behavior. This study examined the inﬂuence of
these factors on the importance of brand, price, and country-of-manufacture to American
and Korean consumers.

The importance of sweater brand in the selection of a product was found to be

negatively related to the age of American consumers. Younger consumers, as compared

94

 

to older consumers, are more concerned about the brand when buying a sweater.
Although statistically signiﬁcant, this factor explained little of the variance in the
importance of brand when American consumers purchase sweaters. Although none of the
demographic factors were signiﬁcant individually for American consumers when buying
a television, age and gender were related to the importance of television brand for Korean
consumers. TV brand was more important to older female Korean consumers. Although
signiﬁcant, the amount of variance was small. This suggests that factors other than
consumer demographic characteristics may inﬂuence the importance of brand.

Further analysis indicated that Americans and Koreans don’t appear to be
concerned with price when selecting a television, but American female consumers
consider price to be important when purchasing a sweater. This is in contrast to
previous research which indicates that price is a very important factor when selecting any
product (Engel, Blackwell & Blackwell, 1990; Bronnenberg, 1996). Moreover, quality
and price have also been found to be signiﬁcantly linked, in that the higher the price of
the product, the better the quality (Lichtenstein, Ridgway, Netememeyer, 1993).

The demographic factors were also examined as predictors of the importance of
country-of-manufacture when purchasing a product. Previous research indicates that
product selection may also be based on country-of-manufacture and/or country-of origin
Hong & Wyer, 1989; Hong, 1990). A consumer’s judgment about a product may be
based on their attitudes and emotions, as well as their knowledge of or beliefs about the

true or perceived country-of-origin or country-of -manufacture ( Khanna, 1986; Samiee,

95

 

1994). Further, social pressures may dictate that products from certain countries should
be avoided (Johannson & Nebenzahl, 1987).

The results of the present study suggest that American consumers are concerned
about the country-of-manufacture when purchasing a television or sweater. Speciﬁcally,
older American consumers perceive country-of-manufacture to be more important than
younger consumers when purchasing a television. American consumers with higher
income also perceive country-of-manufacture to be more important than lower income
consumers when buying a sweater. However, this was not true for Korean consumers.
This is not consistent with previous research, which indicates that Korean consumers are
very concerned about country-of-manufacture (Khanna, 1986).

Consumers may select a particular product because of the potential consequences
or outcomes associated with it. Consumers classiﬁed as collectivists are more concerned
with acceptance within their culture, while individualists are more concern with personal
needs (Hui, 1988; Hofstede, 1984). As previously stated, the literature suggests that
Korean consumers are collectivists, and American consumers are individualists
(Hafstrom, Chae & Chung, 1992). The ﬁndings of this study are supportive of the
previous research individualists (Hafstrom, Chae & Chung, 1992). Because Korean
consumers are more collectivistic, some Korean consumers purchase products whose
price, brand, and packaging match their social position and reputation. The results of this
study suggest that product attributes important to collectivists are not signiﬁcantly

different from those attributes important to individualists.

96

Previous literature has identiﬁed decision making styles of consumers (Hafstrom
et a1, 1992; Durvasula et al., 1993; Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Decision making styles are
considered to be a mental orientation that characterize a consumer’s approach to product
choice (Sproles & Kendall, 1986), which is thought to be based on the importance of
product characteristics. These characteristics are thought to be positively associated with
a consumer’s actual decision making style. When examining the association between
product attributes and consumer decision making styles among American and Korean
consumers, some similarities and some differences occurred.

The importance of brand (what to buy) has been linked to the actual selection of a
product (Dacin & Smith, 1994; Bousch & Loken, 1991; Smith & Park, 1994). The
literature suggests that consumers purchase a product based on previous experiences with
a particular brand. Consumers rely on the information gathered from previous purchases
to determine if they will buy a particular brand again or switch to another product
(Bousch & Loken, 1991; Smith & Park, 1994). It is therefore expected that brand would
be important to those classiﬁed as Brand Conscious consumers, because they are very
concerned about which brand they buy.

Results from the present study indicate that brand was found to be positively
associated with both the American and Korean Brand Conscious consumer groups for the
purchase of a television or a sweater. No other similarities were found between the two
groups as to the importance of brand when purchasing a television or sweater. However,
Brand was also found to be negatively related to Time Energy American consumers when
purchasing a television, and positively related to Conﬁised Impulsive American

97

 

consumers when purchasing a television or a sweater. Brand was found to be important
to those Korean consumers classiﬁed as Perfectionists when purchasing either a
television or a sweater.

Previous research also indicated that there is an association between brand and
quality (Morton, 1994). Perfectionist consumers are concerned about high quality, and
usually have high standards and expectations of consumer goods (Sproles & Kendall,
1986). In this study, a comparison of Korean and American consumer groups classiﬁed
as Perfectionists was conducted. The ﬁndings suggest that Korean consumers classiﬁed
as Perfectionists are concerned with the brand of a product (television or sweater). In
contrast, American consumers classiﬁed as Perfectionists are not concerned with brand
when selecting a television or sweater. Korean consumers classiﬁed as Price Conscious
were found to be positively associated with a television brand, and those classiﬁed as
Brand Nonloyal were found to be negatively associated with the brand of a sweater.

Product choice has been heavily inﬂuenced by price (Engel, Blackwell &
Minniard, 1990). Expected price and price reference is a strategy used by consumers
when selecting a product. This decision is based on information from past prices, and
expectations of future price (Kalwani, Yim, Rinne & Sugita, 1990). Price has also been
found to be used as an indicator of quality (Zeithaml, 1988; Lichtenstein, Ridgway &
Netemeyer, 1993). The higher the price, the better the quality of the product. Other
research suggests that consumers use price as a prestige sensitivity cue (Lichtenstein,

Ridgway & Netemeyer, 1993).

98

The importance of price varied between American and Korean consumers when
they were classiﬁed within a particular decision making style. Brand Conscious
consumers are concerned about the brand of a product when making a purchase. They are
also oriented toward higher prices and view price as an indicator of quality (Sproles &
Kendall, 1990). In this study, American and Korean consumers classiﬁed as Brand
Conscious were found to be positively associated with brand importance when
purchasing a sweater or television. The Price-Value consumer seeks out lower priced
goods, best values, and is more likely to comparison shop, while the Time-Energy
consumer wants to make shopping trip quick and easy (Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Brand
was found to be important to those American consumers classiﬁed as Time-Energy and
Price-Value when purchasing a television. However, this was not true for Korean
consumers. The Confused/Impulsive consumer tends to be perplexed by too many
brands, too much information, and may ﬁnd it hard to locate places to shop. The
American consumers classiﬁed as Confused/Impulsive found brand to be an important
factor when purchasing a sweater and or a television. This was not true of the Korean
consumers classiﬁed as Confused/Impulsive. Both American and Korean consumers
classiﬁed as Brand Conscious and Price-Value were found to consider price important
when purchasing a television or a sweater. However, Korean consumers classiﬁed as
Brand Conscious were negatively associated with the price of a television. Further, those
Koreans classiﬁed as Time-Energy were negatively associated with the importance of the

price of a sweater.

99

No similarities were found between Korean and American consumers relative to
the relationship between the level of importance of country-of-manufacture (COM) and
decision making styles of consumers. A positive association was found between Korean
consumers classiﬁed as Perfectionist and Price-Value, and the level of importance of
COM when purchasing a television or a sweater. Only those classiﬁed as Perfectionist

and Brand Nonloyal found COM to be important when purchasing a sweater.

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Due to economic, social, and cultural trends, proﬁling consumers is more difﬁcult
than in the past. This study examined the cross-cultural relationship between consumer
demographics, product characteristics, and consumer decision making styles. The
instruments used and the results of the study offer new insights to the literature.

One of the main problems with cross-cultural research is the applicability of
theories and models developed in the United States to other cultures without ﬁrst
validating theoretical constructs in other cultures (Lee, 1990). Before marketers and
retailers venture abroad for expansion, they must become familiar with the consumer
behavior in the prospective countries. In this study, the Consumer Styles Inventory,
and the INDCOL scales were used to examine the consumer behavior of the two
cultures. The results indicated that the scales need further examination to determine their
reliability and validity in both cultures. It is therefore recommended that future research
focus on the underlying constructs to determine if they are functionally and measurement
equivalent outside the United States. This research should also focus on determining if

100

 

there are other underlying dimensions of the constructs within the Korean culture that are
not noted in the present constructs.

Research methodology should also be tested. Samples from demographic groups
that are similar and different from those used in the present study should be investigated
to determine the degree to which the decision making styles identiﬁed in this study are
functionally and measurement equivalent. Qualitative research methods should be used
to obtain more speciﬁc indications of what is important to international consumers when
approaching the market and making consumer decisions. Methods used should include
focus groups and indepth interviews. These types of data collection methods allow the
researcher to probe and gain cross-culturally sensitive insights into relevant constructs.

Previous studies found that demographic factors such as age, gender, income, and
education were found to be signiﬁcant predictors of product selection, and to be a
method of segmenting consumers (Berkovec & Rust, 1985; Gatignon & Robertson,
1985). The present study found that demographic characteristics of American and
Korean consumers varied as predictors of the importance of product attributes. Perhaps
an examination of consumer lifestyles (psychographics) along with the identiﬁed
demographics should be examined. Further, the level of familiarity with a product and
brand may also inﬂuence the association between product and consumer demographic
characteristics. These issues should be examined across other product categories and
samples.

The association between DMS and the importance of product attributes was also
examined. Similarities and differences were found between both consumer groups. The

101

 

 

ﬁndings suggest that the importance of product attributes can be used as indicators of a
consumers’ decision making style. Although true, more research is needed to determine
if this is generalizable across product categories. The research should focus on variation
in product categories to determine if these ﬁndings are conclusive.

Global markets offer the greatest opportunities for American consumer product
marketers. However, in order to enter and be successful in these markets, businesses

need the requisite information regarding consumer groups in these countries. The data in

 

this study offers antecedent information to assist global marketers interested in Korean

markets.

102

APPENDICES

103

 

HUMAN ECOLOGY

album
mum.-

warm
”Minimum
Grimm
tom-m

B") ”-7712
PM (517) @458

APPENDIX A

July 2. 1997

Dear Participant:

Formanyyeamreeearchershaveobservedsndattempmdtoexplainhuman
choicebchavior. Inthissmdy,lwillattempttotmderstandhowconsumers&om
various countries make product selections by examining the relationship between
consumer and product characteristics. and decision making styles.

Weareaskingyoutoparticipateinthesmdybysimplycompletingthe
questionnairenndreturningittothereeearcher. ervichointsareimportsnttom
and they will help us to make cross-cumin! comparisons. We are only interested in
yomopiniongandtherearenorightorwronganswers. Allofyourmerswilibe
tawdwithsﬁctconﬁdenccmdrcsponsesudﬂbcnportedmgednrsothatyouwiu
notbeidentiﬁedinanyway. Theanswersyougivetothequestionswillm
Wroyouinanyway. ‘I‘heresrenoidentifyingnumbersormsrksonthe
questionnaire that would connect you to your questionnaire. This questionnaire willtake
approximatelytwcmytothinymimrtutocomplete. Yourpanicipationinthisstudy
is voluntaryandyou maychoosetodiscontinuepanicipationinmecompletionofthe
questionnaireatanytime.

Thankyouverymuchforyomsupponinomraearchprojectmdyoucanbe
assmedthatsuchsupportwillbebeneﬁcialtosllinvolved. Youmnyrequestacopy
oftheresultsatnnytime.

Sincerely,

Vanessa Prier Wickliffe

104

§cctign l. The nest two sections examines your general beliefs. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with

of the following statements by circling the appropriate number.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
l. I would help. within my mean. if a relative told me that he/she
is In financial difﬁculty. I 2 3 4 5
2. lflmetapersonwhoselastnamewasthesameasmine.
lwouldstanwondeﬁngwhctherwewcmatleast
remotely, related by blood. ' l 2 3 4 5
3. Whether one spenrh an income extravagantly or stingily is of
no concern to one's relatives (cousins. uncles). | 2 3 4 5
4. lwouldnotletmycousinusemyearfiflhaveone). | 2 J 4 5
5. When deciding what kind of work to do.l would deﬁnitely pay
attentiontotbeviewsofrclativesofmygcneration. l 2 3 4 5
6. Whendecidingwhatkind ofeducationtohavelwould pay
absolurer no attention to my uncle‘s advice. l 2 3 4 S
7. Each familyhasitsownproblcms uniquetoitself. ltdoesnot
help to tell relatives about one's problems. i 2 J 4 5
8. I can count on my relatives for help if I ﬁnd myself in any
kind of trouble. I 2 3 4 5
9. I would rather struggle through a personal problem.” myself
than to discuss it with my friends. I 2 3 4 5
ID. If possible. I would like co-owning a car with close friends,
so that it wouldn't be necessary for them to spend much
money to buy their own cars. l 2 3 4 5
ll. 1 like to live close to my good ﬁends. l 2 3 4 5
'12. Mygoodfriendsandlagreeonthcbcstplaccstoshop. l 2 J 4 5
l3. 1 would pay absolutely no attention to my close ﬁends‘ views '
when deciding what kind of work to do. I 2 3 4 5
l4. Togoonatripwithﬁiendsmakesonclessﬁeeandmobile. .
' Asaresulhthereislessfun. 'l 2 3 4 5
IS. ltisapersonalmatterWhetherlworshipmoneyornot.
Thereforeit isnotnecessaryformy fn'endstogive
any comsel. l 2 3 4 5
Id. The motto ”sharing in both blessing and calamity' is still
applicable even if one‘s friend is clumsy. dtunb. and cause;
a lot of trouble. I 2 3 4 5

11. It is inappropriate for a supervisor to ask subordinates
about their personal life (such as where one plan: to
go for the next vacation). I 2 3 4 5

l8. When I am among my colleagueslclassmatch do my own thing
without minding about them.

105

A ‘

I9.

21.

22.

24.

26.

21.

28.

29.

30.

3.1.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

Onenecdstoreturnafavorifacolleaguclendsahelpinghand.
lhavcneverloanedmy earnera/coattoanycolleaguelclassmates.

Weoughttodevelopthecharacterofindependenceamong
snidents.sothatdieydonotrelyuponothersutdents'
helpintheirschoolwork.

Agroupofpeoplcatthcirworkplaeawasdiacussingwhere
toeuApopuluchoieswasarutauramwhichhadreeently
opendﬂowcver.sotneoncinthepouphaddiseovereddtat
thefooddterewastmpalatable.Yettbegroupdisregarded
dtisperson'sobjection.andinsistedonu'yingitout.‘fhere
wereonlytwoalternatimforthepersonwhoobjectedmither
togoornottogowiththeotheralnthksimation.”
goiigwidtthsodlersisabetterchoicc.
Therciseverythingtogainaodnodt’utgtoloseforclassmates
togroupthemselvesforstudyanddiscussion.
Classmate'sassistaneeisindispensabletogettingagoodgrade
atschool.

lwouldhelpifacolleagueatworktoldmethathelsheneeded
money to pay utility bills.

lnmostcases.tocooperatewithaomeonewhoseabiliryislower
thanone'sownisnotasdesirableasdoingthethingalone.

Doyouagrecwiththeproverb'l'oomanyeooksspoilthebroth'?

lfahusbandissportsfamawifesbouldalsoeultivatean
lnterestinsports. lfdtehusbandisastoekbroker.tbewife
shouldabobeawareofthecurtentmarketsintation.

Amarriagebeeomesamodelforuswhenthebusbandloveswhat
thewifehmmdhateswhatthewifchates.

Marriedpeopleshouldhawsomctimetobealoneﬁmeaeh
othereverydaymndisttu'bodbytheirspotne.

lfoneisinterestedinajobabotnwhichthespouseisnot
veryalhtnlastieonesbouldapplyforitanyway.

Even ifaspwuwaeofadiffuuumﬂgiomdterewould

.notbeanyimerpersonalconﬂietbetweenus.

ltisbetterforahusbandandwifctohavetheirownbank
accountsr'adtcrthantohaveajointaccotmt.

Thedecisionofwhereoncistoworttshouldbejolntlymade
withm'sspomifeneismarried

ltisdesirablethatahusbandandawifehavetheirownm
offriends.insteadofbavingonlyaeommonsetoffriends.

My musical interests are extremely different from my parents.

1

106

Strongly
Disagree

Neutral

Strongly
Agree

37.

38.

39.
40.

41.

42.

43.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

51.

53.

55.

56.
57.

58.

lo these days parents are too stringent with their kids, mg
the development of initiative.

When making important decisions. I seldom consider die positive
and negative effects my decisions have on my father.

Teenagers should listen to meir parents' advice on dating.
lliketolivcclosetomygoodh'iends.

Evenifamechﬂdwonthenobelprizetheparentsshould
notfeelbonoredinanyway.

ltisreasonableforaehildtocontinuchis father‘sbusincss.
lwouldnotsharemyideasandnewlyacquiredknowledgewidr
myparcnts.

lpractice the religiat of my parents.

lwouldnotletmyneedymotherusethemoneydratlhavesaved
bylivingalcssluxuriouslife.

lwould not letmy puentsusemycar(iflhadone).whether
theyarcgooddriversornot.

Children should not feel honored even if the father were hiﬂrly
praisedandgivenanawardbyagovemmentoflicial forbis
contribution and service to the community.

Successand failure in my academicwork and careerue closely
tiedtothenurtureprovidedbymyparents.

Young people should take into consideration their parents' advice -
when making educatioerareerplans.

Thcbiggerafamily.dremorefamilypr'oblemsrtrereare.
lhaveneversoldmyparentsthentnnbcrofsonslwanttohave.

lbavcneverchattedwithmyneighborsaboutthepolitical
hrnneofthisstate.

lamotteninﬂuencedbydremoodsofmyneighbors.
lamnotinterestedinlmowlngwhatmyncigbborsarereallyllke.

Oneneednotworryaboutwhattheneiwborsssyaboutwhomone
should many.

l enjoy meeting urd talking with neighbors everyday.
lntbepasgmyneighborshsveneverborrowcdanythingﬁom

me or my family.

Oneneedstobecautiousintalkingwith neighboraotherwiseothers
mightthinkyouarenosy.

107

Strongly
Disagree

Neutral

Strongly
Agree

Strongly Strongly

Disagree Neutral Agree

59. I don't really know how to befiiend my neighbors. I 2 3 4 5
60. lfeelrareasywhenmyneighborsdonotgreetmewhenwecomeaeross

each other. I 2 3 4 5
Please circle the number that most aecuntely reflects your situation.
61. There are approximately (all/21314) of my ﬁends who

knowhowmuehmyfsmilyasawholeeamseachmonth.
62. On the average. my hiends' ideal number of children

differsbom myown ideal by [Oil/21314 ormorel

I don‘t know my hiends' ideal).
63. Thenumberofsonsmyparentswouldlikemetohavediti‘ers

by [Oil/21314 or more/l don't know] horn the number I personally

would like to have.
Section ll. In this section we are examining your shopping behavior. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with
each of the following statements by circling the appropriate number “-5).

Seongly

Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
64. lnsuallybuywell-lmown. nadonakordesiprerbrands. l 2 3 4 3

6S. Nicedeparunentandspecialtystoresotfermethebest
products. . l

66. Expensivcbrandsareusuallythebest.
67. lusuallybuytheveryneweststyle.
68. Themore expensivebrandsareusually my choices.

..
wrong...
he.
&
u

69. [have favorite brandslbuyoverandover.
7o. 'l'hehigherthepriceofaproduct.thebetteritsquality. l

7|. lkeepmywarmobeup-to-datewithdrechangingfashions. l 2 3 4 5
72. Thewell-knownnationalbrandsareusuallyverygood. r ‘2 3 4 s
73. nrwwmamwtywm r a s 4 s

r 2 3 4 s

74. lenjoydroppingjustforthetimofit.
7S. lmakespecialeﬂ'orttochoosetheverybestqualityproduets. l

76. llookcarefullytotindtheverybestvalueforthemoney.

77. Mystndudsandeapecradonsforproduculbtryme

veryhigh. l 2 3 4 S
78. Whenhcomestopurehningproducmlnytogetthevery

bestorperfeetchoice. l 2 3 4 S

108

83.

85.

87.

91.

93.

95.

97.

98.

lcarcfirlly watch how much I spend.

It's fun to buy something new and exciting.
Stoppingthestoreswastesmytime.
immishowhswiwhst
lonlyshopstoresdtatarecloseandconvcnicnttome.
Iusuallycomnreatleastdrrecbrandsbcforeehoosing.
ltaksdretimetoshopcarchrllyforbestbuys.

lertioyshoppingjustforthehmofit.

Mmsomanybrandstoehooscﬁomthatoftenl
feeleonhrsed.

All the information I geton differentproductsconfuses me.
leannotchooacproduccbymyself.

leonsiderpricelirst.
Allbrandsarethesamcinoverallquality.

Amandrecommendedinaeonsumcrmagazineisan
excellent choice for me.

lgotothesamestoreseachtimelshop.
lusttallycornpareadvertlsetnenumbuyfashionablcproducts.
lshould planmyshoppingmoreearehrllythanldo.
Oftenlmakecarelesspurchaseallaterwishlhadnot.
lamimpulsivewhenpurehasing.
Oneelfmdaproductorbnndllikelstickwithit.
lehangcbrandslbuyregularly.
Sanctimesitshardtochooscwhiehstorestoshop.
lbuyasmuchaspossibleatsalcpricu.
Thelowerpricsproductsarermrallymychoiee.

109

Strongly
Disagree
1
1

Neutral
3

3
3

Strongly
Agree
5

S

 

it l. in this section. we are asking which features you would geggrallv lgtt for in a prodggt, regardless of the

brand.

Not at all Very Don't
Important Neutral Important Know

I. When purchasing any TV. how important

are each of the following features:

- a high-clear picture I 2 3 4 5 ( )

. Iii-n stereo sound system I 2 3 4 5 ( )

n remote control I 2 3 4 S ( )

n prestigious brand name I 2 3 4 s ( y

n price I 2 3 4 5 ( )

. tummy ' l 2 .3 4 5 t)

, easily accessible authoer dealer 1 2 3 4 5 ( )

n prod!“ WW I 2 3 4 S ( )

otheeountryinwhichitwasmanufacnrred. I 2 3 4 S ()
Not at all Very Don't
important Neutral Important Know

2. When purchasing any sweater. how important

are each of the following features:

n fashionable l 2 3 4 5 ()

n easy care I 2 3 4 5 ( )

. comfort of l , 2 3 4 5 ( l

u prestigious brand name I 2 3 4 5 ( l

. Price I 2 3 4 s n

r product quality I 2 3 4 s ( )

I 2 3 4 S ( )

e the counuy in which it was manufactured.
MEI—1Y4 Demographic Questions. Please fill in the blanks or check the appropriate response for each question.
Your age as of your last birthday—years

Your present marital status: Single—Married
Gender of person completing the questionnaire: Male Female

Please check the categories that accurately identifies you.

 

Ethnicity:
_African American

_White

_Asian

_Hispanic

_Other

Income:

_less titan $5.000 _350.000-$74.999
_S$.000-S9.999 _575.000-S99.999
_Sl0.000-$24.999 _Sl00.000-Sl49.999
_825.000-S49.999 _Sl50.000 or more
Education (level of degree)

_some high school _university degree (4 years)
_high school degree _master‘s degree
_some college/no degree _professional degree
_college degree (2 year) _doctorate degree

_some university

Your career (job title):

110

 

APPENDIX B

Korean Questionnaire

evizr crater:

46-5-1} J*lﬁl erase 2.11141 ’r‘ﬂ'lﬁ-i- ﬁ'is'ﬁ’l «We! haunted
Ci. °l £444 1“13?: CH}? £7111 £51145” °l¥ﬂi ‘98!- 3152-3-31} 3:.
9111-9} 12% 8": Jill! Bl‘li’d'h‘éisl ill-8‘ 83189.3” °10I5121l Ill-l
ti. *lﬂﬁ'ﬁ- “12+!” °l £8418 ftll‘i id-lﬂd’l iii-$4171 ”Rh-15}.

“lat-9'1 %Eﬁ- Iiilt'IJI 83.811 Jai‘ie- *1! Ci! §nl§ ﬂail?"-
588- i‘ atrium. EE- 8991'8-58- %ﬂli =l¥°lllul ﬁlEi-E-Sl ‘38-} ll
{will %ﬂi'ﬁ- 811419.: 1.2? 311145}. deli-5‘“ 1'8“! ‘39 3H!- 01
“d ‘9‘3215; “121844 63511-1 94‘8- atrium. ‘d-E-‘lt‘li- GIHE-ii i821-
} 93E ﬂail—i £4171 ﬁﬁqq %t’ﬂl 0| i419”? IMP-'39 33°l°l 911'
«E74 ﬂﬂﬂ “I ’97“ 3'38; 4‘- Riel-in}.

mm are no dates: seer #41521“! 2am rarer-urn as
er 4:11 are rte! sal‘e- "Hit-i=1. or am: us new?! unreal as

tiﬂ‘ll.
“121%”.

"1184} 318213.!

111

 

 

211.1 or one a are .
“35* ”$3? £13 333-3324334333? 4“ “** "1 *‘l-

'47! $11!.

Willis #8- tlil°l 4351- diliNECi.

2. 991' 9141' ‘8'!- ‘84191 41:88- El
3 °1'! 4111’" 11¢!le 31% WH-

I

the nata- dilate

 

seer are comma. so)
we 4 Alert}! it are 4M
(2191' am new

am new.

4.

l

4 4.413491 sear are-t

D

2

.él’lE-ili £31418 1

£4?! 41132 431 8318474 1

:47} \l 2i
4‘- :14.

01‘!!!-
8’89

LR:
'8-

E

'a

en: atrial it areal

dill-ll} 8784 49131
114F611 8* 31°14.

9.

'8’ #4 a?!“
3&8 ﬂirt}.

2

l l

I} 118 85.1.:
'8 458 £31

in“!
14:
ll. ‘4! 491 3% 41?"!!! 71418- 71211 871-! 849‘}.

2

1

{Mel '84.! 41% 81-7881 3N4 41’! £11 1

til-1E3”

ﬂit}.
13. 41-71% 4P1 “H7”: 318- i

ZHl-éilci’.

name: an» nun.

78118-5414. 2H2:

a we
at are.

I

16. J9417i #3131831 41484 III 8“: ae 49113111

sum-rs in are rm ore e aren’t...)

112

'20
'24

r7. vie tt {much-i Hui-1t the II. an 7! :33 l
47} it» u the £4. a. am

1a #1342: t! t! 2H eaten nee Comet.

l9. Lie t! as it mam an an oil: tint-t return 1
uric at cl :14.

2a earne- sees an an new urn-t not are
hit“)! arena: is «or 1: e4.

2' a: new :.::.: .. H1“%°£'.“* .:
gag :1 e t! 4 01:1 3141*] at» am:

nem Ame-e e» “131141;:- 3:4 3};
a are”? no. egﬁgige a e 7 49.. gr
«rare 75 a 7 at e 51qu Lie seem.

22. 8943991 388*!» 391% ¥°1 I E '87} ‘ §°1 81°11
23. 53831 sse 91244 88- 8318 it! 8¢§°1Q 1

24. M14: '1’? {‘17} {171. 45.33% 4258 E°l 13.4141
#ﬁiﬂci.

25. d‘V-l-Sl 78+°I 21°idl. Q15} it'i°1 ‘8'! 49381 8% 1
3198- Sie“: 3H!- «E-J'N'h‘eai‘t! £314.

26. ‘83:? ‘14-?” 3.9.6 I871 {1223. 83141:?! 11’" {i4 1
1

1

1

1

27.884 9.3884?! 4215. 4:154 {‘88- 711l°l 311
27%!” Sifﬂtm! #215 88444 811* 71%|"? 6‘}.

28 'd’!°1 42M 8°13}! 3H 1i°l 8°13”! 6 t 1
*1 8°13}! 3M °Hialtl 18°14. 0' t} 318-

IEQ "a 'I‘ll Nil-$3 ‘I‘QIJ‘I 3%: #71?!
29.4108 NH 711°} '1‘} a]

11°19 A1:801 9°13}? 3111°1 '89-’97} 8°18}? °l E 1
m3 498- :1- 18 1P1°I°.Hl=1 a a}

31. ‘8 III-W471 L131 =1!- iii 7131913115 :V-EI‘PH ill! 1
3!!- 81¢}.

l

32.38.; °N7l 8’88 0'! 7W1! Bill-1 '11 it! 31°1 1

33. 888' ”‘10”, 141171 3111'!- °1-‘= §°l ’91} 111! 9*! 1

14°F '1

113

‘PQ

’2!
8‘8

 

Q!
'34

an. we» 0M7} 21:» is» H»: am: 2; n 1
, is a: an! «m. I” H

35 4!! HR! 7|”.- LM #181}; mm.
5.3.: Maia- Imam kH- mtaiolow zm’iol whim!

l

37. M!) 11% an 'I we zaol alganqum {:14 1

a Hat «won m: 1:. 49th
3a argue own“ 4:! #29: us mm :4.
3a Mel 21:3 was 417} qua: :e «rum.

«1 mm 912 an: 9:13PM.
41. a»: *3th 4: :4: mm am 422} «man:

42. 4“: #1539) {H} 683?"! 4‘14.

43. uh! 4’83!!- ‘l °i°lhl7l '17} 'I‘ll'ﬂ‘ll 24.1 £2
#1! 9%- al "M 6* *

44. uh!- ¥£H°I iii‘l' 1' IE \I 3}} 4.284 £2!-
true 8!- 89M:

45. 42‘6” 4114 *IH- 3°! ”Q 84‘ 01
ink—IS 1MP! ﬂﬂ'éal-l' aea at} * £13.].

43 4:! it!!! alien’s! 4&3 #9.!!! WM.
47. I3 Me 20:44 811M it! I! 2 1
WM 94, 9 II 1F q {1!

‘8. 7l§°l 0‘3?!- I-J'lﬂ 34.
49.3: ‘17} °H~i 1°“? $31 £8.44} ¥£°IJI “H“

5:: 4:: 42}!!! How an org-4 °I7III auto: a4.
51. m.- elnsa Eﬂﬂ-l 7}? swan.

52. '4 °|£-£- LPIJI #7144!!! 1"“! 17!! dim}.

114

be

'30
#4

03mm

0'

#2
1."!

53. ‘4! \I °l-l-°l ¥9ii ’4‘}!!! lilac}.
54 'li-IWI 47} °l'!! '44-“ 1'“ {Nil 17"}? a”
4.”! ‘I‘ {181‘}.

55. '4! ﬂ}!!! 'I‘il 1’4 ‘lﬂﬂé a“! Edd.
56. ‘44 ‘l M3349! 41-419! £7}! innate» 8M:

57. t}! 49“! 47} 1&7! ’48P: 44°F”! 44*4
81* “*4 'lﬂi'ﬂt £4“? 6'4.

58. L}! 01-1-4 8;?! 44h! V'ﬂl' REE}.
59. 4! 01-1-3 4°"! '3‘? ii- ll 3I°l 21*}! 1"}!
“ﬂ *!#4.

42% ea inn-lame.

60. Q 34*”! M¢1I°l ‘3'}? Hill 0h! 877} I"?
(0/1/2/3/4) ’82 114.

'mugggsﬁgggﬁz? .33: a?“
1 / / '2 «W7-a2u M112» 2”

a #3:??? 37 '2“; ’3 5} 3%" 1%? 7'2? 1333.”
9.1.2 33%E§%%3}§?;§1ﬂ ﬁgauqq. n damn-m Ms! M. e
3: ’0 z:
8.43:..‘Iggoil dig-$1 ‘ 12am 2! R ‘IZP'UI-ﬂ l 2 3 5
a n «M» {IMMH an ‘8‘“ we 9 214.1 2 a 5
65 no: am a» «an 11m. 1 2 ' a 5
as a 442m tie! "a! a2 a4. 1 2 3 5
57. 41812.3 RM :2! II col we a}; an en. I 2 3 s
an 4: an mun: annoy 2m. 1 2 3 s
l 2 3 5

69. III! 7H1 45"! ﬂ 0% III ‘JIWIQ.

115

"w

 

’3!
E4

7a I4! II £181 4H“! "PI 14‘? 14:142.! {VHF}.
71. idles ’3 1H!!! ﬁﬁiml «was U4.

72. 3°! hula %niﬂ duals; *4.

73. LR: 12*!“ am- i‘ﬂi—L: {1.14.

74. I4“: 1 94'.- ini 3.17! ﬁll I"!!! 3:!”- EC}.
75. LR: 5 {Mali ERR: ﬂail ‘in- £9.31 $3!”th
7a 47} 4?.- ‘J’JEI'II 4394!: 'H- i4.

nag-14?: #7} 5|?! 4% an it INS! 2H

78. h}! 47} °l.‘.-. Ql’ éﬂlﬂi‘ll'l 9’? {£75 £4.
79. $312.17} 4%3 I-"l 112‘: at} 4% §°l iﬂC}.

an 44-.- Ilalalu an 1.17! {H new 37M #59!
%iii Hindi-4.

81. win came ae 4222-14.

32. n+4: an can an.

83 44-.- aa mm mm «Hi-Me: an em.

34 the MM 2w“ m 42H»: aa 94.

as L».- Mae 212 9712.2; 4224.

as um we «Hue tam t 4. III-u waned.
87. ggﬁﬁaﬁﬁ“ In“ cw u» 4!

an 4e mm M! ’IIHM.

ea 2% 21m: N as: am.

an gm 4‘!!! zen-M Mm 2m.- “ in: 221°!

91. we. an it 4 ms was 224.
92 4: an mum.- an AM on 11%} Ilml an!

1
l

116

N20»

NNNNN

“Nu“

“wuwu

U

““03““

.mmmmmmmmgg

U!

“““ummm

monotony.

n m
u 33

936}: 1|? 8h! 3114 i tiI 4"! EM ﬁlilllli 421°} 1

94.5}: 7}? £114 at $1133. ‘4‘?" #333101 1 47} l 2 3 4 5

5. uh! W12 ‘1’ 'I7I- 21¢}.

ea own: 214 4M» 2M :22. a» :2 a
3'3»: am. 4 Q *

97. '4? ’97!!!” ‘3’!!- 'Hiﬂ’c}.
Q. 7 ﬂ ‘4'! 2‘83- d‘ﬂﬁ #221! 3’! 7
‘27? 21:}, i- HIZI I ﬂali

l 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 5

93 uh! mm Q 4N 7H“! II $1164.
mare mas! «Mimi «as; LN 41mm.
101. ‘42 em a?“ 1m 414.

N2. ‘4’: 5253.13! €¥E°LE=¥°I £1210] fa. {.an 1
511-3 34*2“:7'33:3%"9'q"q?"" 4114 324M am on! §Jlii 3942.:

“may.

2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
2 3 4

1. 1‘. V. #214 4% AHHWI 1PM {haw-41}? .
and

“if“. "' 32:4
- 41-52 I 2 3 4 - 5 ¢ )
- 3'0. Ans. l 2 3 4 5 c )
- ll 1 e l 2 3 4 5 ( )
- #14"!- l 2 3 4 5 ( )
- 7} q l 2 3 4 S ( )
- 14312 1 2 3 4 5 ( )
- e221 2 ‘P m.- daw 1 3 3 4 5 ( l
- #38! I l 2 3 4 5 ( )
- 1H»! 1m!!! um I 2 . 3 4 5 ¢ )
2. as!!! $1M EH» QHl-t’l WIN 2.3.940}?
. “if". " {3'4 ”‘2
- *Qﬂs l 2 3 4 5 ( )
- 4!!- en I 2 3 4 5 ( )
— a 1} 9 1 2 3 4 5 ( )
- MP2! 1 2 3 4 5 ( )
- 7}; l 2 3 4 5 K )
- ‘2!!! I l 2 3 4 5 t )
l 2 3 4 5 ( )

- 41°! 111°!!! ‘44

117

9.11.4 3’95“. #3. {Fl-'1'” ‘27“4 1? ii'lq 4‘29 EH- #38243.

{FERN-l ‘23-'43"! ”1'3” ﬂﬁ'qm7( H11 4 to}\.]_9_
2}” 4352?... @925} 9.25? t '
dﬂﬂ2t I

231% 1|! 4°13 “5’83 L—J

%dsaeaasz‘q :(nle «m3
24121254}? 2"": (”i

7M1 I‘d %4‘4’33‘ ’93“?! Qﬂul‘ﬁ- {Ml ﬁ‘lﬂlla.
8'42!!! “I?!

0S!
r:
19.

4 )
t ’ 8"!”‘8 °l*‘ 9!! 513948 "I?!

4 y 9!!! 53°39 0”} 28°33 9|?!

I r 2212!?! 0H} 31' 5439!! “I?!

4 ) 31* 52399 0|“) 55948 DI?!

4 ) 514 9% °MI 6‘8 Sﬁ‘ﬂﬂ "I‘L’

| ) 61' SQ‘L‘E 0H} Bﬂ'ﬁﬂ “I'd

t ) 823 224.: °H§

2425

I )2 %Il ( H3] 3‘

( )2 f t ) 5M}

‘ ' {LE-CI ‘21! ( J {LE-33 74334945}. 1'14...)
4 ) {HZ-ﬂ! it ( ) 2H}

t 2 UN} ~35!

8121M!!!“ :

 

4118

i.

 

517521.
PM SHIN-"7|

Daub“
Inn-nu”
mak—

not-m
muni-

 

APPENDIX C

UCRIHS APPROVAL

MICHIGAN STATE
u N l v E R 5': T v

Hay 13. 1997

: Dawn Marduk
'1'0 203 m Icology mldlng

III: I m $7.3M!“ or m mucosa!) 5mm

‘1' : -.

1 Dana!“ mm m. mm mm

amsxoa m: I A

cannon: 1-7

APPROVAL our: 05 10],?
mm ra1t Omittooonluaarchlnvolvingmmocta'm
m1” :2 th1zfprojcct 1acooplata. I an ploaaod to oa mthat tho ,
rlghta and vol of tho ln-an ouhjocta appaarto adaquatoly

tocted and-a toohta1n 1n£ornad consent aramtat
a1 l1atod

rotora. tho-.0018! approvad th1a projoct and any

m 062188 approval 1- val1d for ono calondaryoar 1.11., 1
‘ tho royal data ohoon ahava. Invaat1gatora y.‘rplang to :2 th

OPP
continua a to co W ar aunt tho roan ranaoa
torn Ianclo'o’odjvdth t orlginﬁ rovar‘lottorgor vhana 1

pro act 1a ronawad) to aook t cart111cat1on. . Thora.1ra ’
In. of four ouch oxpod1t rml o Lbla. lnvaot1gato:

wiah1 to continua a projoct hayondtha t1oa hood to Mt
again or cleata royaow.

mums Mmtrodooanchangaaintgocoduraalnl h...
' auhjacta, or to 1n¥t1at1on of changa. 13°23'91- dona at

tho tina o ranaual. ploaaa uaa tho aonranawal fora.
roviao an approvod protocol at an mt mt1na dnr1ng tho yaar
aand yourvr ttan roquaat to tho MCha toquaat 1ngI-rov1aad
approval and rotarancin? tho projact'o m I rand t1tlo.1ncludo
igloo: roqnaat a doa ptlon of tho and any rav1aod
nun-onto. con-ant tor-a or advartiaonanta thatara araappllcahlo.
Wdﬁ‘y ogotho toll t1 ariaochntmwt1 ooottomtha
nor vaa a to also no . ~
(unaxpact ado? doaft octa ooopfainto. ago.) 12:34:14.2... 353.”.
auhjacta or I2) changaa intha anvl tenant or new

1ntoroat1on 1nd1cat aatar r1:k“ to mtha hm auh than
oxiatod whan tho prout’gcgi Ina prav1onaly m1ovod 43%

vaacanhaotanyfuturahal laaaadonothoa1tatto
at (511)355-2150 or no: (5113432 £171. ' ”a“ “‘

81ncaraly.

  

 

c: Vanaaaa P. l1ckl1t£o

119

BIBLIOGRAPHY

120

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alvarez, P. (April/May, 1996). A house divided: Communicating to a fractured society,
W 10(5)

Anderson, W. T., Cunningham, W. H. (February, 1972). Gauging foreign product
promotion loumolnﬂAdxeﬂisinLRemomb, 29— 34

Andreasen A R (1965) mmmmmmmnnmmmmmm

W, ed., Preston Lee. Berkley: University of California,
Institute of Business and Economic research.

Bannister, J. P., Saunders, J. A. (1978). UK consumers' attitude towards imports: The

measurement of national stereotype image. WM, 12,
562-570.

Barnard, N. R., Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (November, 1990). Robust measures of consumer
brand beliefs loumoloﬂMotkeungRemomb, 477-484

Baum, J. (February, 18, 19993). Economic monitor: Taiwan still hardy, EaLEasjem
mm, 156(7), 62.

Bayus, B. L. (January, 1991). The consumer durable replacement buyer. Joumalpf
Marketing. 55, 42-51-

Bayus, B. L. (1992). Brand loyalty and marketing strategy: An application to home
appliances. W, 11 (Winter), 21-38.

Berkovec, J ., Rust, J. (1985). A nested logit model of automobile holdings for one
vehicle households. WW, 4, 275-285.

Bettman, J ., Park, C. W. (1980a). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of
the choice process on consumer decision processes: A protocol Analysis. Journal

WW, 7,,234-248.

Bilkey, W. Nes, E. (1982). Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations. loumalﬁ
Internationolﬁusinesiﬁmdies (Spring/Summer)

Bloch, P.H., Sherrell, D. L., Ridgeway, N. M. (1986). Consumer research: An extended
framework. W, 13. 119-126.

121

 

Bond, M. H. (1989). The cash value of Confucian values. WW,
8 (3), 195-199.

Boush, D., Loken, B. (1991). A process tracing study of brand extension evaluation,
mumolnﬂMaMgﬁemomb 28 16- 28

Bronnenberg, W. (1996). Limited choice sets, local price response. and implied measures

of pnce competition. MW, 33, 163-188.

Bronniarczyk, S. M., Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of the brand 1n brand 1n brand
extension loumolnfMorketingRemmb, 31, 214-228

Bucklin, R. E. Gupta, S. (May, 1992). Brand choice, purchase incidence, and

segmentation: An integrated modeling approach. W,
201 -2 1 5.

Bucklin, R. E., Gupta, S., Sangman, H. (February, 1995). A brand's eye view of response

segmentation in consumer brand choice behavior, MW,
66.

Byonk-ik, K. (1990). Confucianism in Asia's modern transformation. Korealgumal, 46.

Cassill, N. L., Drake, M. F. (1987). Apparel selection criteria related to female consumers'
lifestyle QIotbingondﬂxtiloRemombMol 6(1) 295- 303

Cattin, P., Jolibert, A., Lohnes, C. (1982). A cross-cultural study of "made 1n' concepts.
WWW (Winter)

Cavusgil, S. T. (1980). On the internationalization process of ﬁrms. W,
8, 273-81.

Chiang, J. (Fall, 1991). A simultaneous approach to the whether, what, and how much to
buy questions. MW, 10, 297- 315.

Cordell, V. V. (1992). Effects of consumer preferences for foreign sourced products.
lmornoloﬂmemﬂmnolﬂmossimdms 23(2) 251-269

Crispell, D. (January, 1992). The Brave new world of men. W, 38-
43.

Dacin, P. A., Smith, D. C. (1994). The effect of brand portfolio characteristics on

consumer evaluations of brand extensions. MW, 31,
229-242.

122

 

Darden, W. R., Dorsch, M. J. (1990). An action strategy to examining shopping
behavior loumalnfﬂusinessﬂesem 21 289- 308

Darley, W. K., Smith, RE. (1995). Gender differences in information processing
strategies: An empirical test of the selectivity model in advertising response.

Lomalandxeﬂising 24(1). 41-56.

Dickson, P. R., Sawyer, A. G. (July, 1990). The price knowledge and search of
supermarket shoppers, MW, 54, 42-53.

Dorch, S. (May, 1994). What's good for the goose may gag the gander. American
Demographies, 16(5), 15-16.

Durkeim, E. (1933). W. New York: Free Press.

Durvasula, S., Lysonski, S., Andrews, J. C. (1993). Cross-cultural generalizability of a

scale for proﬁling consumers' decision-making styles. WW
Affairs, 27(1). 55-65.

Duwors, R. E., Haines, G. H. (November, 1990). Event analysis measures of brand
loyalty JoumalnfMarkeﬁngRemh, 27. 485- 93.

Ekvall, D. (August, 1990). Quality beyond the 90's: The paciﬁc rim. Quality, 29(8), 16-
18.

Elashrnawi, F. (1994). Improving your business in Korea. W, 62 (2),
38-41.

Engel, J. F ., Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W. (1990). mm. Dryden Press:
Illinois.

Erickson, G. M., Johansson, J. K. (1985). The role of price in multi-attribute product
evaluations. WWW. 12, 195-199.

Flake, L. G. (1995). South Korea: Businesss Associations and the Economic "Miracle".

Folkes,V., Wheat, RD. (1995). Consumers’ price perception of promoted products.
.lsmmalnﬂRetailing 71(3), 317-328.

Gatignon, H., Robertson, T. S. (March, 1985). A propositional inventory for new
diffusion research. WWI], 11, 849-867.

123

Genzberger, C. A., Horowitz, D. E., Libbey, J. W., Shippey, K. C., Wedemeyer, C. B.
(199). 1013-1‘ "I1‘ 01:05.1 0.1.1.0 93. 1‘. .1
Korea. World Trade Press: San Rafael, CA.

Gires, J. T. (February, 1993). Dealing with disputes: The inﬂuence of 1nd1V1dual1sm-
collectivism. WM, 133(1), 81 -.95

Graham, R. J. (1981). The role of perception of time in consumer research. LoomaLof
WW. 7(4). 335-342-

Grether, D., Wide, L. L. (1981). Consumer choice and information: New experimental
evidence. Information Economics and Policy, 1(2), 115-144.

Gremillion, J. (January, 1997). They wear it well. Medjaweek, 44-45.

Grover, R., Srinivasan (February, 1992). Evaluating the multiple effects of retail
promotions on brand loyal and brand switching segments. JoornaLoﬂMarketmg
Rem. 29. 76-89.

Gupta, S. (1988). Impact of sales promotions on when, what, and how much to buy.

LoumalnfMarkeungﬂeseamh 25 342- 355.

Gupta, S. Chintagunta, P. K. (February, 1994). On using demographic variables to

determine membership 1n logit mixture models. LoumaloﬂMarkenngReseareh,
31, 128- 136.

Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization

processes. lournaLoLMarkeﬁng, 46, 60-72.

Hafstrom, J. L., Chae, J. S., Chung, Y. S. (1992). Consumer decision-making styles:
Comparison between United States and Korean young consumers. IheloomaLof
W. 26 (1). 146-158.

Hall, E. T., (1981). WINE. Anchor Books, Doubleday: New York.

Han, C. M., Terpstra, V. (1988). Country-of-Origin effects for uni-national and bi-
national products ImmaloﬂntemationaLﬂusinesLSmdies

Han, C. M. (1989). Country image: Halo or summary construct. _JoomaloﬁMmkeﬁng
Rem 222-229.

Hansen, F. (1969). Consumer choice behavior: An experimental approach. loomaLgLf
W 6 436-443

124

Hansen, F. (1976). Psychological theories of consumer choice. Loumalofﬁoomer
Researoh, 3,117-142.

Hawkins, D. 1., Best, R. J. & Coney, K. A. (1991, ﬁﬁh edition). Qormrmeeﬂehaxior;
ImpheahmrsfoLMarketingﬂrategy Irwin Homewood IL

Henry, W. (1976). Cultural values do correlate with consumer behavior. loamalof
Madgeﬂnsﬁeseamh, 8, 121-127

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture‘s consequences; International differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1983). Theory of culture among nations. Intemationalﬁmdjesof
Managementﬂrganmon. 13(1-2). 46-74.

Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Aeademxof
Mmagementllexiew. 9(3). 389-998.

Hofstede, G. (1994). Management scientists are human. ManagemenLSeienoes, 40,(l), 4-
13.

Hong, S., Wyer, R. (September, 1989). Effects of country-of-origin and product-attribute
information on product evaluation: An information processing perspective.

loumalnfﬁonmﬁeseamh. 175-187.

Hong, S. (December, 1990). Determinants of product evaluation: Effects of the time
interval between knowledge of a product's country of origin and information about

its speciﬁc attributes. Jgrmalofﬂonsomeeﬂeseareh, 277-288.

Houston, M. J ., Rothchild, M. L. (197 8). Conceptual and methodological perspectives on
involvement, in "Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions". Ed.
Sobhash C. Jain, 184-187. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Hoyer, W. D. (December, 1984). An examination of consumer decisionmaking for a

common repeat purchase product. Joumalofﬂoosumerﬁeeeareh, 11, 822-829.

Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of Individualism-Collectivism. loomalofkeeearehin
Bersonalim. 22. 17-36-

Hui, C. H., Triandis, H. C., (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural
research. MW, 17(2). 225-248.

125

 

Hui, C. H., Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: A review

and comparison of strategies. loomalofﬁrossjloLtoraLBmhology, 16, 131-152.

Hui, C. H., Villareal, M. J. (1989). Individualism-Collectivism and psychological needs.
MW, 20, 310-323.

Hsu, F. L. K. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passage to difference (3rd ed.). Honolulu,
HI: University of Hawaii.

Jacob, J. (1978). Brand loyalty measurement and management. New York: Ronald Press.

Johnson, E. J ., Meyer, R. J. (1984). Compensatory choice models of noncompensatory

processes: The effect of varying context. Loomalofﬂonsomerkeeeareh, 11, 528-
541.

Kahn,H. (1979). World Economic Development: 1979 and beyond. Boulder: West-View
Press.

Kalwani, M. U, Yim, C. K, Rinne, H. J., Sugita, Y. (1990). A price expectations model
of consumer brand choice. lmmalofMarkeﬁngReseareh, 27, 251-262.

Kaynak, E., Cavusgil, T. (1983). Consumer attitudes towards products of foreign origin:

Do they vary across product class? IntemationaLJoomalofAdmising, 2, 147-
157.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand

equity- lournaLQLMarketing. 57. 1-22.

Khanna, S. (1986). Asian companies and the country stereotyping paradox, An empirical
study Qohunbialomnalntﬂorldﬂusmess, 21. 29- 38

King-Farlow, J. (1964). The concept of "mine". Inquiry, 7, 268-276.

Kluckhohn, F., Strodbeck, F. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, 11.:
Row Peterson.

Kotler P (1997 9th edition) MarketingManagementzAnalysisﬁlanning.
WWW. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

Lattin, J. M., Bucklin, R. E. (August, 1989). Reference effects of price and promotion on
brand choice behavior. MalofMarKermgreseareh, 31, 364- 374.

126

 

Lee, C. (1990). Modifying an American consumer behavior model for consumers in
confucian culture: The case of ﬁshbein behavioral intention model.1oornal_of

IntenratienalﬁonsrnneLMarketing, 3(1), 27-49.

Lee, C. H. (1990). Culture and institutions in the economic development of Korea.
KoreanStndies. 14. 38-49.

Leclerc, F, Schmitt, B. H., Dube, L. (1994). Foreign branding and its effect on product
perceptions and attitudes. lmrmalefMarkeﬁngReseareh, 31, 263- 271.

Lee, C., Green, R. (Second quarter, 1991). Cross-cultural examination of the Fishbein

behavioral intentions model. WWW. 22(2),
289-305.

Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). loomajoﬁMarkeﬁng
Reeeareh, 30, 234-245.

Lynch, J. G., Srull, T. K., (1982). Memory and attentional factors in consumer choice:
Concepts and research methods. Journalofﬂoneomeeﬁeseargh, 9,18-37.

Meyers-Levy, J. Stemal, B. (January, 1991). Gender differences 1n the use of message
cues and judgements. loomaloﬂMarkeﬁngReseareh, 28, 84-96.

McDonald, W. (1993). The role of demographics, purchase histories, and shopper
decision-making styles 1n predicting consumer catalog loyalty. JournaLoﬁﬂjreot

Marketing 7(3) 55- 65
McDonald, W. (1994). Developing international direct marketing strategies with a

consumer decisionmaking content analysis. W, 8(4), 18-
27.

Miller, Roger (1981). Eeonomiojeeueeforﬁonsomers. New York: West Publishing
Company, Third Edition.

Mitchell, A. (1983). W. New York: Warner.

Monroe, K. B, Dodds, W. B. (1988). A research program for establishing the validity of

the price-quality relationship MW 16
151-168.

Morton, J. (January, 1994). Predicting brand preference. MarketingManagernent, 32-46.

127

Moschis, G.P., Mathur, A., Smith, RB. (1993). Older consumers‘ orientations toward
age-based marketing stimuli. loornalomonsomeeﬁeeeareh, 21(3), 195-205.

Mowen, J .C. (Winter, 1988). Beyond consumer decision making, LoumaloﬂConaumer
Marketing. 5(1). 15-25-

Nagashima, A. (January, 1970). A comparison of Japanese and U.S. attitudes toward
foreign products. LoomaLoﬁMarjgeﬂng, 68-74.

Ng,S.H..(1982) .111 1. ‘ '11‘ 1111‘ ' “V1” 1 111 11 '10,,-
Qumrralﬂsyehology, R. Rath, ed. Lasse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Olson, J. C. (1977). Price as an informational cue: Effects in production evaluation, in

ConsumeLanilndnstriaLannmﬁehaxior. Arch G. Woodside. Jagdish N. Sheth.
and Peter Bennet, eds. New York: North Holland Publishing Company, 267-286.

Paisley, E. (1993). South Korea: White collar democracy. W,
157, 58-59.

Parsons, T., Shil, E. A. (1951). IowariaﬁenerallheoryoﬂAeﬁon. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Punj, G. N., Stewart, D. W. (1983). An interaction framework of consumer
decisionmaking. lonmalnfﬁensumeLReseareh. 10. 181-196.

Putler, D. (1992). Incorporating reference price effects into a theory of consumer choice.

Marketmgﬁeienee, 11(3) 287- 309

Puto, GP. (1987). The framing of buying decisions. lournalofﬂonsumerﬁeseareh, 14
(December), 301-315.

Pysarchik, D. (1994). South Korea: An examination of consumer decisionmaking styles.
ITAA Conference, Pasadena, California.

Rao, A. R. & Monroe, K. B. The effects of price, brand name, and store name on buyers'

perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. MaloﬂMarkefmg
Researeh, 351 -.357

Richins, M. L., Bloch, P. H. (1986). After the new wears off: The temporal context of
product involvement. Loomalofﬁooeumeeﬂeseareh, 13, 280-285.

Rokeach, M. (1973). Iheﬂamreofﬂomanlaloes. New York: Basic Books.

128

Roth, M. S. (1995). The effects of culture and socioeconomic on the performance of

global brand image strategies. JoumalofMarketingReseareh, 32 (May, 1995),
163-175.

Runyun. K. E.. Steward. D. W. (1987). WWW
Marketing. Merrill Publishing: Columbus.

Sarniee, S. (1994). Customer evaluation of products 1n a global market. Malof
lnternatinnaLaniness. 579- 604

Schiffman, L. G., Kanuk, L. L. (1994, ﬁfth edition). Consomerﬂehaxior. Prentice Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Schooler, R. D. (Spring, 1971). Bias phenomena to the marketing of foreign goods 1n the
United States loumaLoflntematianaansinesssmdies. 71 -.80

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism and collectivism: New cultural dimensions
of values InU. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagiticibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (eds).

WWW. (pp 85 122)
Newbury Park, Calif: Sage.

Sloan, P. (January, 1997). Haggar targets women, dumps television, men's titles,

AdieQiSLDgAge 50. 3-

Smith, D. C., Park, W. (1991). The effects of brand extensions on market share and
advertising efﬁciency. .LoomaloﬂMarketingReeearoh, 29, 296-313.

Sproles, G. B. (1979). W Minnesota: Burgess
Publishing Company.

Sproles, G. B., Kendall, E. L. (1986). A methodology for proﬁling consumers' decision-
making Styles. Iheioumﬂeffronsumemtfairs 20(2). 267-279.

Sproles, G. B., Kendall, E. L. (1990). Consumer Decision-making styles as a function of
individual learning styles. IheJoomaloLCooeomerAﬂairs, 24(1), 134-147.

Singh, P. N., Huang, S. C. ”Thompson G. G. (1962). A comparative study of selected
attitudes, values, and personality characteristics of American, Chinese, and Indian

students. loumaLefioeiallsxeholegy 57 123 132

Takada, A., Jain. D. (april, 1991). Cross-national analysis of diffusion of consumer
durable goods in paciﬁc rim countries. LomalofMarketing, 55, 48-54.

129

 

 

Tellis, G. (1987). Consumer purchasing strategies and the information in retail pricing.

LournaLQfRemling, 63, 279-97.

Tellis, G. J., Gaeth, G. J. (April, 1990). Best value, price-seeking, and price aversion:
The impact of information and learning on consumer choices. JoaroaLof

Marketing. 54, 34-45.

Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. loomaloﬁEeonorme
Behayiorﬂrganization, 1(March), 39- 60.

Trapp, J. (October 4, 1993). Men now fair game for in-your-face ads. WW, 5-
12.

Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. Ameriean
Psychologist. 51(4). 407-415-

Triandis, HQ (1996). ludrxrﬂahemandﬁoﬂeeumem. Westview Press: Boulder,

Colorado.

Triandis, H.C., Bontempo, R., Villereal, M.J., Asai, M. (1986). Individualism and
collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self ingroup relationships. Loumalof

WWW. 21. 302-318-

Triandis, H. C. (1988). Collectivism v. individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic
concept in cross-cultural social psychology. In G. K. Verma & C. Bagley (Eds)

Qmssﬁnlhnalﬁnrdiesnfﬁersonalmmmdemdﬂgnitinn (pp 60- 95) New
York: St. Martin's Press.

Tidwell, P. M., Morgan, D. D., Kenny, C. (1993). Brand Character as a function of brand
loyalty. Qunentlisxcheiogy. 11. 346-351.

Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in

groups. AcademufManagementioumal. 38(1. 152-172.

Wagner, J. A., Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: Concept and measure.
r r . . . _

Walters, C. G. (1978). ConsomeLBehayjonjheonLandﬁraeﬁee. Richard Irwin: Illinois.

Wang, C., Lamb, C. W. (Winter, 1983). The impact of selected environmental forces upon

consumers' willingness to buy foreign product. ,LoomaloftheraoemLof
Marketingieienee. 11. 71- 84

Waterman, A. S. (1984). MW- New York: Vintage Books.
1 3 O

Weber. M. (1947). IhelheemﬂSoeialandEsnnamieQrganizatian New York: Free

Press.

Wells, W. D. (1975). Psychographic: A critical review. loomaLoLMarketiogReeieE,
12, 176-208.

Westbrook, R. A., Black, W. C. (1985). A motivation-based shopper typology. _LoorriaLof
Retailing, 61, 78-103.

Yaprak,..A(1978) 1111- 11' 111 U,--.‘ ,1 1,-1;_|.__ '- -
EagonalﬂonsomeeﬂehamoLMooei. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39,
3793- 3794.

Zeithaml, V. A. (July, 1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-
end model and synthesis of evidence. loomalofMarketing, 52, 2-22.

131

H5

 

 

“11111111111111111“