Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Journal of International Business Studies (2011) 42, 459–476 & 2011 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506 www.jibs.netIncorporating cultural values for understandingthe influence of perceived product creativityon intention to buy: An examination in Italyand the USGaia Rubera1, AbstractAndrea Ordanini2 and Extending our understanding of the effects of perceived product creativity, this study contributes to the literature by empirically investigating the influenceDavid A Griffith1 of cultural values on the relationship between the creativity dimensions of1 novelty and meaningfulness and intention to buy. Schwartz’s values framework Department of Marketing, The Eli Broad College is employed to theorize cultural differences. The results, based upon 206 Italianof Business, Michigan State University, East and 201 US consumers surveyed via a mall-intercept approach, indicate thatLansing, USA; 2Department of Management,Bocconi University, Milan, Italy novelty is a more important dimension of product creativity in the US (i.e., a low-resultant conservative/high-resultant self-enhancement culture) thanCorrespondence: G Rubera, Department in Italy (i.e., a high-resultant conservatism/low-resultant self-enhancementof Marketing, The Eli Broad College of culture) in influencing intention to buy and that meaningfulness is a moreBusiness, N370 North Business Complex, important dimension of creativity in Italy than in the US in influencing intentionMichigan State University, East Lansing, to buy. These results provide important standardization/adaptation implica-MI 48824 1122, USA. tions for international marketing academics and practitioners.Tel: þ 1 517 432 6369; Journal of International Business Studies (2011) 42, 459–476.Fax: þ 1 517 432 1112;E-mail: rubera@bus.msu.edu doi:10.1057/jibs.2011.3 Keywords: primary; cross-cultural research/measurement issues; marketing strategy INTRODUCTION The increasingly competitive global environment has changed the marketplace into which new products are introduced (Bruce, Daly, & Kahn, 2007; Fernhaber, Gilbert, & McDougall, 2008). Speci- fically, creativity (i.e., the extent to which a product differs from conventional practice in a way that makes sense for consumers; Im & Workman, 2004) is emerging as a central element of firm competitive strategy (Galunic & Eisenhardt, 2001). While firms are making strides to develop and introduce creative products, consumer reactions to creativity depend on the interactions among the product, the consumer and the context (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Kasof, 1995). While researchers have explored the product– customer interaction (Rubera, Ordanini, & Mazursky, 2010), the role of context has received little attention (e.g., Adarves-Yorno, Postmes, & Haslam, 2006). The lack of the incorporation of contextReceived: 15 May 2009Revised: 15 November 2010 in prior works is particularly important in an international businessAccepted: 20 December 2010 environment, as different responses from consumers across nationalOnline publication date: 10 March 2011 market contexts could have substantive implications for the
  2. 2. Understanding the influence of perceived product creativity Gaia Rubera et al460engagement of international strategy (e.g., deter- culture that values low-resultant conservative/mining the effectiveness of standardization or high-resultant self-enhancement) moderate theadaptation of marketing efforts). relative importance of novelty and meaningful- In order to address this limitation in the extant ness for intention to buy. The hypotheses areliterature, this study investigates the moderating tested in two consumer populations drawn fromrole of cultural values. Specifically, we theoretically Italy and the US. The analysis and results areand empirically examine whether cultural values presented, followed by a discussion of the resultsmoderate the relative importance that consumers and the implications for international marketingplace on creativity dimensions of novelty and theory and practice.meaningfulness in determining intention to buy,employing Schwartz’s (1992, 1994) cultural values CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUNDframework. This study therefore works to contri-bute to the literature by theoretically accounting Conceptualizing Product Creativity: Thefor the complexity of perceived product creativity Dimensionality of Creativityin the global marketplace under the systems view, Creativity has become an important construct ofand empirically testing these effects. In this way, study in many fields, ranging from art to psychology.we answer the call to investigate the role of the Much of the current work in creativity builds fromcontext advanced in the creativity literature (Niu & Amabile’s (1983) exploration of creativity withinSternberg, 2002; Oral, Kaufman, & Agars, 2007). poetry, music, and painting. Amabile (1996: 5) Further, by empirically investigating the moder- proposes that an object is creative “to the extentating effect of cultural values on the relationship that it is novel and appropriate, correct or valuablebetween the creativity dimensions of novelty and response to the task at hand”. This conceptualiza-meaningfulness, and intention to buy, this study tion of creativity has informed the majority ofworks to contribute to the ongoing debate in the the work in this area: for example, the study ofinternational marketing literature pertaining to creativity in ideas (Moreau & Dahl 2005), adver-standardization and adaptation. Specifically, inter- tisements (Smith, MacKenzie, Xiaojing, Buchholz,national marketing strategy standardization is & Darley, 2007; Yang & Smith 2009), individualappropriate when marketing stimuli generate con- outcomes (Amabile, 1983), poems and drawingssistent responses across markets, whereas response (Amabile, 1996), and marketing programs (Andrewsdifferences are suggestive of the need to adapt & Smith, 1996; Im, Hussain, & Sengupta, 2008). In(Griffith, 2010; Hultman, Robson, & Katsikeas, the extant literature, creativity has been concep-2009; Katsikeas, Samiee, & Theodosiou, 2006; tualized as consisting of a number of dimensions ¨Lages, Jap, & Griffith, 2008; Levitt, 1983; Oszomer (e.g., novelty, meaningfulness, relevance, utility).& Simonin, 2004; Ryans, Griffith, & White, 2003; For instance, Im and Workman (2004) view crea-Schilke, Reimann, & Thomas, 2009). Thus, if novelty tivity as consisting of the dimensions of noveltyand meaningfulness differentially influence inten- (i.e., the extent to which a product differs fromtions to buy across culturally different markets, conventional practice) and meaningfulness (thefirms working to engage consumers with creative extent to which a product is viewed as consistentproducts could be more effective by adapting their with the category), and Sadi and Al-Dubaisi (2008)international marketing strategy for these products investigate utility aspects of creativity, wherebased upon cultural values. The findings of this “utility implies that an idea or other contributionstudy could therefore provide guidance to market- must be directly relevant to the goals of theing managers engaged in developing and introdu- organization and it must be something from whichcing creative products across markets. the firm can reasonably expect to extract some We begin with a review of the creativity and value”. Although a number of dimensions haveproduct creativity literature, the systems view been put forth in the literature, there appears toof creativity, and the role of creativity within be a consensus surrounding the dimensions ofperceptional models of consumer behavior. Next, novelty and meaningfulness (for a review of theemploying Schwartz’s values framework, we devel- different terms used in the literature, and theirop a set of hypotheses detailing how cultural consistency, refer to Im and Workman, 2004).values (i.e., in Italy, reflective of a culture that The employment of a two-dimensional concep-values high-resultant conservatism/low-resultant tualization of creativity, consisting of novelty andself-enhancement, and in the US, reflective of a meaningfulness, is most appropriate for this study,Journal of International Business Studies
  3. 3. Understanding the influence of perceived product creativity Gaia Rubera et al 461as the marketing literature has defined product 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Kasof, 1995). Thecreativity as “meaningful novelty” (Sethi, Smith, & context implies that creativity can be evaluatedPark, 2001: 74). The literature argues that a new only with reference to current values and normsproduct is defined as creative to the extent to which (Amabile, 1996). A direct consequence of thisit “is different from competing alternatives in a way systems view is that when the context changes,that is valued by customers” (Sethi et al., 2001: 74). the way consumers respond to creativity changesInherent in this definition are the dimensions of as well. We employ this approach to analyze hownovelty (i.e., the extent to which an object differs the macro-contextual variable of national culturalfrom conventional practice) and meaningfulness values moderates the effect of the two creativity(i.e., the extent to which an object is viewed as dimensions on intention to buy, as culture has beenappropriate to the category) (Andrews & Smith, found to have a substantive influence on consumer1996; Im & Workman, 2004). This two-dimensional response elements such as purchase intention (e.g.,conceptualization of product creativity is further Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2008; Limon, Kahle,appropriate for this study, as it has been found to & Orth, 2009; Verlegh, 2007). For example, Verleghbe consistent from both the managerial and con- (2007) demonstrates that consumer perceptionsumer perspectives (Im & Workman, 2004; Sethi differences of domestic and foreign productset al., 2001). For example, Im and Workman (2004) significantly influence purchase intentions. Simi-found that this two-dimensional conceptualization larly, Limon et al. (2009) found that package designof perceived product creativity – and the associated influences consumer perceptions of a brand, whichmeasurement instrument – was equally perceived by affect purchase intentions. However, and more ofmanagers and consumers. note to this research, Limon et al. (2009) found that the influence of consumer perceptions on purchaseSystems View of Product Creativity intentions varied according to national culture,Consumer perception is a foundational element as brand values have a stronger effect on purchaseof general theories of consumer behavior (e.g., intentions when they are congruent with personalBettman, 1970; Farley & Ring, 1970; Howard & values. These findings have implications for thisSheth, 1969; Pappu, Quester, & Cooksey, 2007). study, as we contend that culture will moderate theFor example, in the Howard–Sheth model of buyer relative importance of the dimensions of creativitybehavior, purchase intention is shaped by many on intention to buy.factors; leading among these are consumer percep-tions. Consumer perceptions are argued to directly National Culture: Schwartz’s Valuesinfluence purchase intentions as well as indirectly National culture is a complex, multi-dimensionalinfluence purchase intentions through a broad structure that separates nations inclusive of dif-range of constructs, such as attitudes, motivations, ferences in institutions, values, and norms. Aand brand comprehension (Farley & Ring, 1970). number of cultural frameworks have been pro-While there are a number of factors determining posed in the literature (e.g., Hofstede, 2001;purchase intentions that are examined within Schwartz, 1992; Triandis, 1995). The work ofgeneral consumer behavior models, this study Schwartz (1992, 1994) is most applicable to thisfocuses on creativity, and on how perceptions of study, as the values approach underlying Schwartz’sthe dimensions of creativity can influence inten- framework relates directly to the consumer judg-tion to buy (a central dependent variable in most ment approach for the appraisal of products (e.g.,consumer behavior models: e.g., Farley & Ring, Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002; Wang, Dou, &1970; Howard & Sheth, 1969; Sheppard, Hartwick, Zhou, 2008). Specifically, whereas Hofstede’s frame-& Warshaw, 1988). However, a full appreciation of work was originally developed within the employ-how consumers evaluate creativity requires an ment domain, Schwartz’s (1994) values frameworkanalysis of the social system in which consumers works to understand the values of individualsand products are embedded (Adarves-Yorno et al., within a culture that are non-context restricted.2006). The lack of a context bound on Schwartz’s frame- The systems view of creativity suggests that work has led to its effective application in thecreativity is not an objective property of the consumer setting (e.g., Burroughs & Rindfleisch,product, but rather is determined by the interaction 2002; Grazin & Painter, 2001; Wang et al., 2008).of three elements: the product, the perceiver Given the relationship of individual values to(e.g., the consumer), and the context (Amabile, consumption behavior, and the lack of a context Journal of International Business Studies
  4. 4. Understanding the influence of perceived product creativity Gaia Rubera et al462bound on Schwartz’s framework, it was employed HYPOTHESESfor this study. The model presented (see Figure 1) examines the Schwartz (1994), through theoretical and empiri- effect of a two-dimensional conceptualization ofcal means, defined a two-dimensional bipolar creativity on intention to buy as moderated byvalues framework. The first dimension, referred to national culture.as resultant conservatism, is anchored by conserva-tism and openness to change, and embodies the The Role of Culture in the Relationship betweenunderlying values of conservatism, affective auton- Novelty and Intention to Buyomy and intellectual autonomy. Those higher on We contend that cultural type moderates the impor-resultant conservatism maintain values emphasiz- tance of the novelty dimension of creativity, anding maintenance of the status quo, propriety, and that purchase intentions will be more influencedavoidance of actions that might disrupt the greater by novelty in some cultures than in others.society. Alternatively, those lower on resultant Specifically, we argue that low-resultant conserva-conservatism place greater value on autonomy, tive cultures value greater openness to change.both intellectual and affective (Schwartz, 1994), Underlying openness to change is the broader goalwhich emphasizes the values of hedonism and of independence in thought and action, expressedstimulation. The second dimension, referred to in exploration (Dollinger, Burke, & Gump, 2007).as resultant self-enhancement, is anchored by self- Individuals in such a culture look for variety, relytranscendence and self-enhancement, and embodies on their own individuality and judgment, and arethe underlying values of egalitarian commitment, comfortable with diversity. Dollinger et al. (2007)harmony, mastery, and hierarchy. Those higher found that individuals with low-resultant conser-on resultant self-enhancement more strongly vatism values favor novelty, and have an intrinsicembody values of mastery and hierarchy, empha- motivation to look for novelty. Furthermore, culturessizing independence, ambition, successfulness, that are high on resultant self-enhancement posi-daring, and authority, among others. Alternatively, tively value mastery and hierarchy. Mastery empha-those lower on resultant self-enhancement more sizes getting ahead through active self-assertion instrongly embody the values of egalitarian commit- an attempt to change the world. Hierarchy impliesment and harmony, which emphasize the volun- that an individual values social status and prestige.tary commitment to promoting the welfare of Prestige and social status can be obtained throughothers, taking actions to build social harmony, the novel products, as it is through possessionsand a balance with nature (for a more detailed that consumers can demonstrate their superiorexposition of the structure of Schwartz’ value status to others, and attain admiration. We contendframework see the Appendix). that individuals in low-resultant conservative/ Schwartz (1994) contends that the robustness high-resultant self-enhancement cultures place greaterof the individual values framework, demon- importance on novelty than consumers in a high-strated through cross-cultural validations, allows resultant conservatism/low-resultant self-enhance-for national comparisons, that is, that each nation ment culture.can be viewed relative to another nation along Intention to buy is directly related to consumerthe specified values. Here, we employ a cultural perceptions (Bettman, 1970; Farley & Ring, 1970),typing approach, consistent with prior cross- and to the value that a consumer places on ancultural international business research categorizing aspect of a product (Bettman 1970; Farley & Ring,nations within cultural frameworks (e.g., Griffith, 1970; Howard & Sheth, 1969). When a consumerHu, & Ryans, 2000). Specifically, we examine high- more favorably values a specific product aspect, theresultant conservatism/low-resultant self-enhancement consumer is more disposed to a product with thatand low-resultant conservative/high-resultant self- aspect, therefore heightening purchase intentionsenhancement: whereas high-resultant conservatism/ (Pappu et al., 2007). For example, low-resultantlow-resultant self-enhancement cultures look to conservatism/high-resultant self-enhancement cul-maintain consistency in their lives and in the tures not only value change, but also work toworld around them, valuing traditions, self- demonstrate superior status, which can be obtaineddiscipline and social order, low-resultant conservative/ through possessions. Those within low-resultanthigh-resultant self-enhancement cultures value conservatism/high-resultant self-enhancement cul-independence, creativity, and the enjoyment of tures will therefore place greater emphasis onvariety in life. novelty than those in high-resultant conservatism/Journal of International Business Studies
  5. 5. Understanding the influence of perceived product creativity Gaia Rubera et al 463 Low-resultant conservatism/ High-resultant self-enhancement N1 λ11 H1: + N2 λ21 λ31 Novelty N3 γ11 IB1 λ41 λ13 N4 Intention to buy λ23 IB2 M1 λ21 γ12 λ33 M2 IB3 λ22 λ23 Meaningfulness M3 Age Gender H2: + λ44 M4 High-resultant conservatism/ Low-resultant self-enhancementFigure 1 Hypothesized model.low-resultant self-enhancement cultures. This will high-resultant conservatism culture place greaterresult in novelty more strongly influencing inten- importance on the meaningfulness of a producttion to buy in low-resultant conservatism/ than consumers in low-resultant conservatismhigh-resultant self-enhancement cultures than in cultures. In a similar way, consumers from a low-high-resultant conservatism/low-resultant self- resultant self-enhancement culture value helpful-enhancement cultures. More formally: ness, social justice and unity with nature (Schwartz, 1999). Schwartz (1994) contends that low-resultant Hypothesis 1: Novelty will more strongly influ- self-enhancement values are compatible with high- ence intention to buy in low-resultant conserva- resultant conservatism values, as they share an tive/high-resultant self-enhancement cultures than emphasis on avoiding change and respect for the in high-resultant conservatism/low-resultant self- existing order. We contend that consumers in a enhancement cultures. low-resultant self-enhancement culture place greater importance on the meaningfulness of a productThe Role of Culture in the Relationship between when they evaluate its creativity than consumers inMeaningfulness and Intentions to Buy a high-resultant self-enhancement culture.We contend that cultural type moderates the impor- Consistent with the argumentation in Hypo-tance of the meaningfulness dimension of creativity, thesis 1, intention to buy is related to the valueand that purchase intentions will be more influenced that a consumer places on an aspect of a productby meaningfulness in some cultures than in others. (Bettman, 1970; Farley & Ring, 1970; Howard &Specifically, we argue that cultures that are high- Sheth, 1969). When an aspect of a product is moreresultant conservative emphasize maintenance of valued by a consumer, the consumer is more likelythe status quo, avoid actions that might disturb to be positively disposed to the product, thusthe traditional order, and value congruence with heightening purchase intentions (Pappu et al.,traditions and the existing order (Schwartz, 1994). 2007). For example, high-resultant conservatism/Given that meaningfulness is concerned with low-resultant self-enhancement cultures not onlyadherence to category standards, consumers in a value consistency, but also work to maintain unity Journal of International Business Studies
  6. 6. Understanding the influence of perceived product creativity Gaia Rubera et al464with nature and tradition, elements aligned with To provide a robust test of our hypotheses,meaningfulness. Those within high-resultant con- we examined two products (i.e., utilitarian andservatism/low-resultant self-enhancement cultures hedonic) within a single product category (aswill therefore place greater emphasis on the mean- researchers have found differences in consumeringfulness aspect of product creativity than those responses to utilitarian and hedonic products).in low-resultant conservatism/high-resultant self- Drawing from the extant literature (e.g., Ratchford,enhancement cultures. This will result in mean- 1987), we selected milk as the utilitarian product,ingfulness more strongly influencing intention to and juice (i.e., strawberry) as the hedonic product.buy in high-resultant conservatism/low-resultant Pre-testing in Milan (n ¼ 47) and Los Angelesself-enhancement cultures than in low-resultant (n ¼ 14) indicated that consumers perceived milkconservatism/high-resultant self-enhancement cul- as more utilitarian than strawberry juice in bothtures. More formally: Italy (w2(92) ¼ 7.01, p o 0.05) and the US (w2(27) ¼ 5.12, po0.05), with no significant differ- Hypothesis 2: Meaningfulness will more strongly ence between the two countries in the extent to influence intention to buy in high-resultant con- which the product was perceived as utilitarian servatism/low-resultant self-enhancement cultures (w2(60) ¼ 0.471, p40.05). Strawberry juice was than in low-resultant conservative/high-resultant considered more hedonic than milk in both Italy self-enhancement cultures. (w2(92) ¼ 37.43, po0.05) and the US (w2(27) ¼ 33.68, po0.05), with no significant difference between METHODOLOGY the two countries in the extent to which the product was perceived as hedonic (w2(60) ¼ 0.485,Sample and Study Context p40.05).The hypotheses were examined using datasets Data collection occurred between Septemberfrom two countries varying in relation to the values 2009 and November 2009. Data were collectedof high-resultant conservatism/low-resultant self- from 206 Italian consumers and 201 US consu-enhancement and low-resultant conservative/high- mers. Subjects were intercepted at the exit of aresultant self-enhancement. As this study employs shopping mall and asked to participate in aSchwartz’s bipolar value framework as a central market research study of a brand new packagingfoundation for understanding cross-cultural differ- that would soon be introduced in the localences, we began by using the work of Schwartz market. Subjects who evaluated milk received(1994) to identified markets that have been both the following description:theoretically and empirically demonstrated to Recent research has demonstrated that products such asrepresent high-resultant conservatism/low-resultant milk can lose up to 40% of their nutritional value whenself-enhancement and low-resultant conservative/ contained within transparent packages. As such, PET hashigh-resultant self-enhancement. Next, given the developed a new three-layer package for milk that protectsimportance of comparability in cross-national re- the product from light radiation and oxygen, allowing the product to retain its full nutritional value. Specifically, thesearch (Douglas & Craig, 2006; Reynolds, Simintiras, three-layer patented organic package system completely& Diamantopoulos, 2003), care was taken in the protects the product from light and oxygen, maximizingselection of countries identified by Schwartz (1994) nutritional retention and extending the product’s shelfas representative of each cultural type to maximize life. Further, to aid consumers in gauging the quantity ofcomparability of country along economic and social product remaining in the new non-transparent container, the packaging consists of a volume-sensitive coating whichaspects such as economic development, type of changes the container color from white (when full) to blueeconomy, consumer populations, and urban areas. (when half-full) to yellow (when 1/4 full).From this assessment, the US (as a representativeof a low-resultant conservative/high-resultant self- Subjects who evaluated strawberry juice receivedenhancement culture) and Italy (as a representative the same description, with “strawberry juice”of a high-resultant conservatism/low-resultant substituted for the word “milk”.self-enhancement culture) were selected. Further, Sample characteristics were comparable acrossto maximize comparability of samples, cities within datasets. The average age of participants waseach country were examined based upon city 38.3 years in Italy and 40.3 years in the US. Ofeconomic and population statistics. After this assess- the participants in Italy, 49.3% were female.ment, it was determined that Milan (Italy) and Los Of the participants in the US, 51.7% were female.Angeles (US) were roughly comparable cities. The percentage of participants with a bachelorJournal of International Business Studies
  7. 7. Understanding the influence of perceived product creativity Gaia Rubera et al 465degree was 22.6% in the Italian sample and 25.3% Schwartz’s (1999) value scale. Exploratory factorin the US sample. analysis was conducted to examine whether each value loaded on the proper theoretical dimensionValidation of Schwartz’s Values in Italy and the US (see Table 1). The factor analysis retained sevenSchwartz’s values were collected at the individual factors, which explain 73% of the total variance.level from consumers in both Italy and the US using After creating an averaged scale for each of theTable 1 Factor analysis with Schwartz’s 45 values Egalitarian Mastery Hierarchy Affective Conservatism Intellectual Harmony commitment autonomy autonomyPeace 0.907 0.040 0.017 À0.048 À0.017 0.140 0.042Freedom 0.877 0.110 0.004 À0.047 À0.023 0.124 0.055Justice 0.868 À0.011 0.039 À0.094 À0.062 0.084 0.055Portion 0.850 0.094 À0.013 À0.031 À0.061 0.099 0.089Helpful 0.849 0.059 0.029 À0.002 0.151 À0.085 0.161Responsible 0.835 0.070 À0.031 À0.051 0.154 0.013 0.072Equality 0.824 0.029 0.029 À0.029 À0.094 0.062 0.150Honest 0.812 0.044 À0.024 À0.042 0.170 À0.068 0.132Loyal 0.807 0.073 0.094 À0.053 0.135 0.178 0.042Choosing own goals 0.025 0.882 0.101 0.011 0.133 0.121 0.019Independent 0.066 0.860 0.125 0.078 0.080 0.151 À0.089Successful 0.052 0.854 0.164 0.005 0.033 0.059 0.008Ambitious 0.016 0.846 0.136 0.051 0.251 0.013 À0.064Capable 0.133 0.842 0.088 À0.035 0.113 0.094 0.090Daring À0.008 0.801 0.178 0.051 0.112 0.153 À0.087Authority 0.020 0.156 0.915 0.097 0.071 0.021 0.027Social power À0.028 0.076 0.888 0.027 0.074 0.056 0.004Humble 0.016 0.226 0.812 0.066 0.235 0.064 0.103Wealth 0.052 0.197 0.805 0.053 0.039 0.086 À0.037Influential 0.052 0.133 0.791 0.092 0.186 0.016 0.051Pleasure À0.069 0.024 0.085 0.954 0.025 À0.007 À0.088Varied life À0.069 0.053 0.076 0.949 0.077 À0.002 À0.050Exciting life À0.068 0.055 0.084 0.947 0.050 À0.004 À0.094Enjoying life 0.064 0.052 0.053 0.920 0.025 0.013 À0.090Self discipline À0.108 À0.066 0.150 0.092 0.748 0.063 0.029Parents 0.090 0.206 À0.109 À0.096 0.653 0.014 0.115Devout À0.228 0.085 0.082 0.140 0.589 À0.263 À0.106Politeness 0.133 0.068 0.002 À0.074 0.584 À0.012 0.131Forgiving 0.025 0.181 0.050 0.200 0.538 À0.115 0.078Clean 0.238 0.212 0.051 À0.188 0.513 À0.120 0.168Public image 0.127 0.070 0.200 À0.081 0.498 0.156 0.037Obedient 0.066 0.115 0.077 0.072 0.497 0.207 À0.229Moderate 0.129 À0.104 0.257 0.039 0.475 0.122 0.043Wisdom 0.205 0.150 0.060 0.104 0.442 0.160 0.166Social order 0.222 À0.012 0.111 0.006 0.429 0.168 0.198National security 0.210 0.113 0.169 0.052 0.414 À0.002 À0.063Reciprocation 0.105 0.143 0.196 À0.134 0.385 0.278 À0.187Family security 0.199 0.066 À0.045 À0.109 0.352 0.171 À0.189Tradition À0.061 0.012 0.190 0.160 0.331 0.015 0.107Minded 0.131 0.181 0.092 0.012 0.104 0.824 0.268Creativity 0.168 0.241 0.080 0.052 À0.013 0.818 0.139Curious 0.091 0.167 0.041 0.001 0.000 0.806 0.184Unity with nature 0.168 0.021 0.131 À0.164 0.083 0.185 0.833Beauty 0.295 0.028 0.096 À0.042 0.064 0.228 0.776Environment 0.210 À0.023 À0.030 À0.173 0.123 0.227 0.731 Journal of International Business Studies
  8. 8. Understanding the influence of perceived product creativity Gaia Rubera et al466Table 2 Factor analysis with Schwartz’s seven dimensions Configural invariance per se does not show thatValue Factor 1 (resultant Factor 2 (resultant consumers in the US and Italy respond to the conservatism) self-enhancement) item in the same way, so that the ratings can be meaningfully compared across countries (SteenkampConservatism À0.647 0.105 & Baumgartner, 1998). In order to understandAffective autonomy 0.911 À0.025 whether consumers in the two countries respondIntellectual autonomy 0.817 0.145 in the same way to the scale items, we tested forMastery 0.159 À0.615Hierarchy À0.001 À0.740 metric invariance for the seven value dimensionsHarmony 0.076 0.711 in the datasets. Metric invariance is establishedEgalitarian commitment 0.066 0.760 by setting constraints on factor loadings for each of the items, and comparing obtained model fit with the base model (Eisingerich & Rubera, 2010; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998; Strizhakova,seven values, following Schwartz’s analysis Coulter, & Price, 2008). We controlled for measure-approach, a second factor analysis was conducted, ment invariance between the two countries bywhich revealed two factors that explained 67% of comparing two models: (1) a configural invariancethe total variance. These two factors were retained. model without equality constraints; and (2) aAs shown in Table 2, affective autonomy, intellec- metric invariance model in which we constrainedtual autonomy and conservatism load on one the matrix of factor loadings to be invariantfactor, reflective of Schwartz’s dimension of resul- between the two countries. No significant increasetant conservatism. Conservatism represents one between the configural invariance model and theextreme and affective and intellectual autonomy metric invariance model invariance was foundrepresents the other extreme, with conservatism (Dw2 (38) ¼ 42.37, p40.05). Hence we concludednegatively correlated with the two other values. that there is no difference in the measurementMastery, hierarchy, egalitarian commitment, and structure of Schwartz’s values in our data, inharmony load on the second factor, reflective of support of metric invariance. Thus we can concludeSchwartz’s dimension of resultant self-enhancement. that the factor loadings are invariant betweenMastery and hierarchy represent one extreme and countries. The absolute fit indexes for the metricare negatively correlated with egalitarian commit- invariance model showed adequate fit (CFI ¼ 0.967;ment and harmony, which represent the other GFI ¼ 0.956; NNFI ¼ 0.963; RMSEA ¼ 0.042). A thirdextreme. level of invariance is necessary to allow mean Cross-cultural research relies upon the possibi- comparison of the underlying constructs acrosslity of generalizing different measures across countries: scalar invariance, which establishesmultiple countries. In order to achieve this goal, that cross-country differences in the means ofa multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was the observed items are a result of differences inconducted to assess measurement invariance the means of their corresponding constructs.(Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). In particular, We compare two models: (1) a metric invarianceconfigural and metric invariance were examined. model in which the intercepts are free to beConfigural invariance is achieved if the pattern of estimated; and (2) a scalar invariance model infactor loadings is similar in Italian and US datasets; which the intercepts of the loadings are equalthe factor loadings are significantly different from across countries. No significant increase betweenzero in both countries; the constructs exhibit the metric invariance model and the scalar invar-discriminant validity; and the measurement iance model invariance was found (Dw2 (7) ¼ 6.51,model in the two countries demonstrates adequate p40.1), in support of scalar invariance.fit. We found that the factor loadings are signifi- Further, the results are consistent theoreticallycant in both countries. Further, the measurement and empirically with Schwartz (1994) in relationmodel showed adequate fit in Italy (confirmatory to the positioning of Italy and the US along thefit index (CFI)¼0.957; goodness of fit index dimensions of resultant conservatism and resultant(GFI)¼0.934; non-normed fit index (NNFI)¼0.945; self-enhancement. Specifically, in the resultantroot mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ¼ conservative dimension the Italian sample scored0.056) as well in the US (CFI ¼ 0.963; GFI ¼ 0.947; 4.21 and the US sample scored À3.23; in theNNFI ¼ 0.951; RMSEA ¼ 0.047), thus supporting resultant self-enhancement dimension the Italianconfigural invariance. sample scored À3.73 and the US sample scoredJournal of International Business Studies
  9. 9. Understanding the influence of perceived product creativity Gaia Rubera et al 4673.56. These results demonstrate that the Italian Table 3 Correlation matrices for utilitarian and hedonic productsrespondents, on average, are representative of a Intention Meaning- Novelty Age Educationhigh-resultant conservatism/low-resultant self- to buy fulnessenhancement culture, and that the US respondents, Utilitarian producton average, are representative of a low-resultant Intention to buy 1conservative/high-resultant self-enhancement culture. Meaningfulness 0.52** 1 Novelty 0.25** 0.06 1Measures Age 0.04 0.01 À0.01 1Measures for this study were derived from the Education À0.08 0.03 À0.04 0.17* 1literature. The Italian questionnaire was subject to Gender 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.08 À0.02the translation and back-translation process. The Hedonic productsurvey was tested via in-depth interviews with six Intention to buy 1Italian consumers to determine face validity, clarity, Meaningfulness 0.56** 1 Novelty 0.36** 0.09 1and relevance of the measures in the Italian Age À0.14 0.10 À0.05 1context. Scale items are shown in the Appendix. Education À0.12 0.01 À0.08 0.16* 1 Gender 0.03 0.05 0.05 À0.01 0.01Creativity (novelty and meaningfulness). Although *po0.05; **po0.01.some studies have combined the dimensions ofnovelty and meaningfulness – thereby using acombined average score (Andrews & Smith, 1996; gender (0 ¼ male; 1 ¼ female) and age. We reportSethi et al., 2001) – recent evidence indicates that the correlation matrix for our measures in Table 3.a component-wise approach, wherein novelty andmeaningfulness are treated as two independent Common Method Variancedimensions, is more appropriate (Im & Workman, Two different techniques were employed to exam-2004; Rubera et al., 2010; Sethi & Sethi, 2009). ine the potential for common method varianceGiven that novelty and meaningfulness have (Chang, van Witteloostuijn, & Eden, 2010). First,different antecedents and consequences, “novelty we used the Harman’s one-factor test. We ran anand meaningfulness should be examined separately exploratory factor analysis of all observed measuresrather than combined into a single creativity con- with varimax rotation (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).struct” (Im & Workman, 2004; Sethi & Sethi, 2009). In both the Italian and US groups we found threeA component-wise approach is therefore adopted clearly interpretable factors – one for novelty, onein this work. The novelty scale was derived from Im for meaningfulness, and one for intention to buy –and Workman (2004). The novelty scale consisted with no significant cross-loadings between theof four items that assessed the degree of change measures. For the hedonic product, in the Italianintroduced by the new product (aItaly ¼ 0.94; sample the first factor accounted for 33.5% of theaUS¼0.91). The meaningfulness scale was derived variance, the second for 29.3%, and the third forfrom Im and Workman (2004). The scale consisted 21.2%. In the US sample the first factor accountedof four items that assessed the extent to which for 35.7% of the variance, the second for 30.2%,the product was appropriate and relevant for a and the third for 18.4%. For the utilitarian product,customer’s needs (aItaly ¼ 0.94; aUS ¼ 0.84). in the Italian sample the first factor accounted for 34.2% of the variance, the second for 28.9%, andIntention to buy. Intention to buy was measured the third for 19.7%. In the US sample the first factorwith a three-item scale based on Batra and Ray accounted for 39.9% of the variance, the second(1986). These items captured the likelihood of for 27.9%, and the third for 20.8%. These findingsincluding the product among purchase options, suggest that common method variance is not aand the likelihood of buying the product serious threat in this study.(aItaly ¼ 0.84; aUS ¼ 0.83). Second, in light of possible limitations of Harman’s one-factor test, the partial correlation procedure ofControl variables. To minimize spuriousness of including a marker variable within the model wasresults we included two control variables that employed. Testing common method variance byhave been found to be important in consumer identifying a marker variable necessitates incorpor-behavior research (e.g., Farley & Ring, 1970; ating a variable that is not theoretically related toHoward & Sheth, 1969). Specifically, we included at least one other variable in the study (Griffith & Journal of International Business Studies
  10. 10. Understanding the influence of perceived product creativity Gaia Rubera et al468Lusch, 2007; Lindell & Whitney, 2001). In this (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998: 80). The abso-study education was used as the marker variable. lute fit indexes indicate that the proposed measure-The marker variable was not statistically related to ment model fits the data reasonably well in Italyany of the variables in the model in the Italian or (CFI ¼ 0.978; GFI ¼ 0.985; NNFI ¼ 0.986; RMSEA ¼US datasets for either the hedonic or the utilitarian 0.054) and in the US (CFI ¼ 0.963; GFI ¼ 0.975;product. The results of the marker variable testing NNFI ¼ 0.977; RMSEA ¼ 0.057) for the utilitarianprovide further evidence that common method product. Similarly, the fit indexes are satisfactoryvariance is not a serious problem in this study. in Italy (CFI ¼ 0.984; GFI ¼ 0.986; NNFI ¼ 0.986; RMSEA ¼ 0.039) and US (CFI ¼ 0.974; GFI ¼ 0.982; MODEL ESTIMATION AND RESULT NNFI ¼ 0.985; RMSEA¼0.045) for the hedonic pro- duct. Hence support for configural invariance wasMeasurement Model established (refer to factor loadings reported inThe measurement model represented in Figure 1 Table 5).was tested with AMOS 18. Each factor loading is Metric invariance was tested by constraining thestatistically significant, and standardized values factor loadings in the two groups to be equal,are above a recommended cut-off point of 0.7 and comparing this model with one in which the(Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), thus demonstrating con- factor loadings were free to be estimated acrossvergent validity. The average variance extracted groups. For the utilitarian product no significant(AVE) for each construct is above 0.5 (Fornell & differences were found between the two modelsLarcker, 1981), and the composite reliability of (Dw2(8) ¼ 11.96, p40.1), thus suggesting that thereeach construct is greater than the suggested cut- was no difference in the measurement structureoff value of 0.7 (Bollen, 1989). Discriminant between the two groups. Similarly, support forvalidity was tested between first-order constructs metric invariance was found for the hedonicby comparing the square root of AVE with the product (Dw2(8) ¼ 8.08, p40.1). Fit indexes werecorrelations between the first-order construct. good for both the utilitarian product (CFI ¼ 0.983;Results are reported in Table 4, and show support GFI ¼ 0.987; NNFI ¼ 0.990; RMSEA ¼ 0.045) andfor the existence of discriminant validity (Fornell the hedonic product (CFI ¼ 0.989; GFI ¼ 0.988;& Larcker, 1981). NNFI ¼ 0.989; RMSEA ¼ 0.034). Factor variance invariance was controlled for byMeasurement Invariance constraining the variance of each construct to beA multi-group comparison was used to assess equal in the two groups, and compared this modelconfigural, metric, and factor invariance of the with one in which the variances were left free to beconstructs of novelty and meaningfulness in Italy estimated. In the utilitarian product, no significantand the US (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). differences were found between the two modelsConfigural invariance requires that all factor load- (Dw2(3)¼3.42, p40.1). Similarly, no differencesings be significantly different from zero in both were found for the hedonic product (Dw2(3)¼0.27,countries, and the correlations between the factors p40.1). Hence support for factor variance invar-are significantly below unity in both countries iance for the constructs was established.Table 4 Discriminant validity Italy USA 1 2 3 1 2 3Utilitarian product (milk). Latent variable correlations (off-diagonal) and squared root of AVEs (on-diagonal)1. Intention to buy 0.94 1. Intention to buy 0.962. Meaningfulness 0.56 0.92 2. Meaningfulness 0.14 0.863. Novelty 0.27 0.16 0.95 3. Novelty 0.21 0.4 0.96Hedonic product (strawberry juice). Latent variable correlations (off-diagonal) and squared root of AVEs (on-diagonal)1. Intention to buy 0.89 1. Intention to buy 0.842. Meaningfulness 0.45 0.86 2. Meaningfulness 0.32 0.853. Novelty 0.39 0.21 0.89 3. Novelty 0.50 0.03 0.87Journal of International Business Studies
  11. 11. Understanding the influence of perceived product creativity Gaia Rubera et al 469Table 5 Measurement model: Configural invariancea Utilitarian product Hedonic product Italy USA Italy USA Loadings CR AVE Loadings CR AVE Loadings CR AVE Loadings CR AVEIB1’Intention to buy 0.89 0.93 0.77 0.78 0.92 0.79 0.89 0.92 0.80 0.79 0.88 0.71IB2’Intention to buy 0.99 0.94 0.99 0.94IB3’Intention to buy 0.96 0.88 0.96 0.93M1’Meaningfulness 0.79 0.85 0.79 0.92 0.80 0.75 0.79 0.82 0.75 0.72 0.81 0.73M2’Meaningfulness 0.87 0.88 0.87 0.81M3’Meaningfulness 0.94 0.82 0.94 0.91M4’Meaningfulness 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.96N1’Novelty 0.93 0.90 0.70 0.82 0.92 0.75 0.93 0.92 0.80 0.94 0.93 0.76N2’Novelty 0.87 0.90 0.87 0.87N3’Novelty 0.86 0.91 0.86 0.93N4’Novelty 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.96aAll the factor loadings are significant at the 0.001 level.Table 6 Structural path coefficients in the two groups Italy USA Critical ratio for difference Paths s.e. t-values Paths s.e. t-values Italy–USUtilitarian product (milk) Age-Intention to buy 0.08 0.01 0.16 0.03 0.10 0.31 À0.47 Gender-Intention to buy 0.01 0.11 0.85 0.05 0.10 0.52 0.34 Novelty-Intention to buy 0.31*** 0.01 5.18 0.76*** 0.02 10.78 7.54*** H1 Meaningfulness-Intention to buy 0.75*** 0.15 9.93 0.25*** 0.25 3.45 À2.12 H2 R2 0.52 0.56Hedonic product (strawberry juice) Age-Intention to buy 0.02 0.13 0.77 À0.03 0.02 0.68 À0.50 Gender-Intention to buy 0.01 0.14 0.85 À0.09 0.19 0.13 À1.30 Novelty-Intention to buy 0.36*** 0.01 6.43 0.77*** 0.01 11.67 4.83*** H1 Meaningfulness-Intention to buy 0.73*** 0.19 9.79 0.20** 0.19 3.10 À4.96*** H2 R2 0.56 0.53**po0.01; ***po0.001.Hypotheses Testing culture (i.e., the US) than in a high-resultantThe hypotheses were first tested with the utilitarian conservatism/low-resultant self-enhancement cul-product and then with the hedonic product. The ture (i.e., Italy). The results indicate that noveltyhedonic product therefore serves as a robustness had a significant effect on intention to buy in the UStest, with the utilitarian product serving as a ( b ¼ 0.76, po0.001) and in Italy ( b ¼ 0.31, po0.001).baseline model. The critical ratio for difference (CRD) was used to test whether this difference was significant, as hypothe-Utilitarian product. Hypotheses 1 and 2 maintain sized. The CRD tests the null hypothesis that thethat novelty and meaningfulness will have a dif- relationship between two pairs of structural weightsferential impact on intention to buy in different is the same in the two groups. At the a ¼ 0.05 level,cultures. Table 6 reports the path coefficients the correlation between the two variables in the USbetween the Italy and US samples. and Italian samples is considered different if the CRD Hypothesis 1 argued that novelty would more is higher than 1.96. Supportive of Hypothesis 1, thestrongly influence intention to buy in a low-resultant effect of novelty was larger in the US than in Italyconservative/high-resultant self-enhancement (CRD ¼ 7.54, po0.001). Journal of International Business Studies
  12. 12. Understanding the influence of perceived product creativity Gaia Rubera et al470 Hypothesis 2 argued that meaningfulness low-resultant conservative/high-resultant self-would more strongly influence intention to buy enhancement cultures respond more stronglyin a high-resultant conservatism/low-resultant self- to novelty than consumers in high-resultantenhancement culture (i.e., Italy) than in a low- conservatism/low-resultant self-enhancementresultant conservative/high-resultant self-enhancement cultures.culture (i.e., US). The results indicate that mean- Theoretically, these findings extend existingingfulness had a significant effect on creativity in research on consumer response using Schwartz’sthe US ( b ¼ 0.25, po0.001) and in Italy ( b ¼ 0.75, value approach (e.g., Burroughs & Rindfleisch,p o 0.001). In support of Hypothesis 2, the effect of 2002; Wang et al., 2008) by providing specificitymeaningfulness on intention to buy was larger in into how cultural values moderate the relationshipItaly than in the US (CRD ¼ À2.12, po0.05). between the dimensions of perceived product creativity and intention to buy. The incorporationHedonic product. The results with regard to the of cultural values, in the context of perceivedhedonic product are consistent with the results product creativity, extends the systems view litera-of the utilitarian product. First, supportive of ture (e.g., Adarves-Yorno et al., 2006; Amabile,Hypothesis 1, the results indicate that novelty had 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Kasof, 1995) bya significant effect on intention to buy in the providing theoretical and empirical evidence forUS ( b ¼ 0.77, po0.001) and in Italy ( b ¼ 0.36, macro-level context understanding. Furthermore,po0.001), with novelty’s effect being larger in the by demonstrating how cultural values attenuateUS than in Italy (CRD ¼ 4.83, po0.001). Second, in extant relationships derived from well-acceptedsupport of Hypothesis 2, meaningfulness had models of consumer behavior, this study also aidsa significant effect on intention to buy in the in providing insights into the cross-cultural contextUS ( b ¼ 0.20, po0.01) and in Italy ( b ¼ 0.73, of consumption behavior.po0.001), with meaningfulness’s effect being These findings also contribute to the literaturelarger in Italy than in the US (CRD ¼ 4.96, concerning international marketing standardiza-po0.001). Given this testing, it can be argued tion/adaptation (e.g., Griffith, Chandra, & Ryans,that the findings are not sensitive to the nature of 2003; Katsikeas et al., 2006; Lages et al., 2008;the product (i.e., hedonic or utilitarian). ¨ Oszomer & Simonin, 2004). Discussion concerning the standardization or adaptation of international DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS marketing strategy continues to be one of the mostThe main goal of this study was to contribute to challenging topics for international marketingthe literature by empirically investigating the researchers (Ryans et al., 2003). Scholars contendmoderating role of cultural values on the relation- that international marketing strategy standardiza-ship between the creativity dimensions of novelty tion is appropriate when marketing stimuli gener-and meaningfulness, and intention to buy. We ate consistent responses across markets, whereasbelieve that the findings of this study provide response differences are suggestive of the needclarity on this issue, offering substantive implica- to adapt (Griffith, 2010; Katsikeas et al., 2006;tions for international marketing academics and ¨ Oszomer & Simonin, 2004). For example, extend-practitioners. ing the work of Limon et al. (2009), who found Specifically, whereas much of the literature has that the influence of consumer perceptions ondemonstrated the value of creativity (e.g., Carson, purchase intentions varied according to national2007; Sethi et al., 2001; Stevens, Burley, & Divine, culture, the results of this study demonstrate that2003), this study advances the literature by detail- cultural values influence the impact of consumering how consumer perceptions of the dimensions perceptions of novelty and meaningfulness onof creativity drive consumer intention to buy intention to buy. Through the inclusion ofwhen accounting for value differences across Schwartz’s (1994) values inventory we were ablecountries, employed through Schwartz’s (1994) to provide new theoretical insights into the debatecultural values inventory. The results demonstrate on standardization/adaptation of internationalthat consumers in high-resultant conservatism/ marketing strategy, specifying how cultural valueslow-resultant self-enhancement cultures respond moderate the impact of novelty and meaningful-more strongly to meaningfulness than consumers ness on intention to buy.in low-resultant conservative/high-resultant self- The identification of specific cultural value influ-enhancement cultures, and that consumers in ences also has direct implications for practitionersJournal of International Business Studies
  13. 13. Understanding the influence of perceived product creativity Gaia Rubera et al 471engaged in determining marketing strategy indicate that meaningfulness is a significantstandardization/adaptation, as it provides guidance determinant of intention to buy).as to how performance can be enhanced by In addition, we suggest that this research mayadapting a product’s marketing efforts related to have implications for studying creative idea emer-both product development and promotion. Speci- gence, both within firms and under the systemsfically, when firms engage in creative product view in the consumer marketplace. Specifically,development, they must consider not only issues scholars studying how creative ideas emerge withinof novelty and meaningfulness, but also how these organizations have proposed a sequential modeltwo dimensions of perceived product creativity will in which variation is followed by selective retentioninfluence consumption behavior based upon the (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005; Simonton,target markets of the firm. This would suggest that 1999). Initially, the recombination of existing knowl-when firms engage in creative product develop- edge generates new variations and novelty. Then,ment for the global market, both novelty and in the selection process, only those ideas that aremeaningfulness need to be incorporated in the meaningful are retained. This model is similar toproduct. However, when developing a creative March’s (1991) exploration–exploitation paradigm,product for a specific market (e.g., the US), under- where exploration requires search, discovery, experi-standing of its cultural values in developing the mentation, risk taking and development of newmost suitable product becomes important, given competencies, and exploitation requires refinement,the cultural disposition of the market as related to implementation, efficiency, production, and selec-novelty and meaningfulness dimensions of product tion. Here we suggest that exploration can be viewedcreativity. For promotional purposes, the results in relation to novelty, whereas exploitation can besuggest that when promoting a new, creative viewed in relation to meaningfulness. Drawing fromproduct, marketers should emphasize the novelty Levinthal and March (1993) and Hughes, Martin,aspect of the product in countries such as the US, Morgan and Robson (2010), who argue that aAustralia, and Japan, and the meaningfulness balance between exploration and exploitation isaspect of the product in countries such as Italy, critical for a firm’s survival and prosperity, we suggestSpain, and France (see Schwartz, 1994, for the mean that creativity’s effectiveness (both within organiza-importance of culture-level values by country). tional processes and in the consumer marketplace)It is argued that these results can help to provide might require a specified balance of novelty andpractical guidance for product development meaningfulness, and that this balance may differ in(cf. Bruce et al., 2007) and promotion aspects of its ability to stimulate demand based upon theproducts introduced into the global marketplace. cultural values of the market into which it is Further, the findings of this study could be argued introduced.to provide implications for innovation scholars(as creativity in new products relates to the issue of CONCLUSIONadoption). For example, Rogers (2003) delineated While this study provides an increased understand-five characteristics of new products that influence ing of creativity in the global marketplace, it isconsumers’ willingness to adopt: not without its limitations. First, the study was narrowly focused in terms of constructs and(1) relative advantage; product breadth. As noted in the text, the influ-(2) compatibility; ences on consumer judgment are wide ranging(3) complexity; (Bettman, 1970; Farley & Ring, 1970; Howard &(4) trialability; and Sheth, 1969) and only creativity was examined in(5) observability. this study. For example, Rogers (2003) developed aRecent work on the importance of creativity of framework to understand how consumers acceptproducts (e.g., Im & Workman, 2004; Sethi et al., an innovation. The inclusion of other antecedents2001), coupled with the findings of this study (as within a larger model (e.g., Rogers, 2003) wouldrelated to stimulation of intention to buy), suggests allow for a more complete understanding of thethat creativity might be a beneficial addition to relative importance of creativity in consumer judg-this broad nomological net, in that novelty is ments. Further, although both hedonic and utili-only partially represented by compatibility, and tarian products were examined, thus providing anmeaningfulness is not represented (a significant examination of the robustness of the model, it islimitation, given the findings of this study, which important to note that only one form of execution Journal of International Business Studies
  14. 14. Understanding the influence of perceived product creativity Gaia Rubera et al472(i.e., a technological innovation) within one pro- 1999; Mun ´ ´ ˜oz-Doyague, Gonzalez-Alvarez, & Nieto,duct category (i.e., beverage) was examined. Value 2008), further research is needed to test thecould be derived by examining whether the find- robustness of cross-national invariance of thisings of this study hold when examining other conceptualization. A better understanding of theinnovation forms (e.g., design innovation) and cross-national invariance of the conceptualizationother product categories. We believe that research of creativity, and other constructs, could enableexamining the systems view of creativity within greater understanding of both the construct, and itsa larger model, inclusive of a broader range of antecedents and consequences.innovations and product categories, could help Fourth, although this study examined the fullacademics and practitioners gain greater insights breadth of Schwartz’s (1994) values framework,into consumer judgments of the relative impor- only two countries were used to represent the twotance of the dimensions of creativity across cultu- cultural types. Given the nature of the globalrally diverse markets. marketplace, and the complexity and importance Second, the study was limited in that it focused of values on consumer judgments, greater insightson products in the mature stage of the product could be gained by expanding this work to examinelife cycle (relative to the product category life a greater number of countries, therefore providingcycle). Consumers therefore had a well-established greater cultural representativeness. By examiningset of expectations and perceived meanings. a greater number of countries researchers wouldResearch exploring creativity in consumer judg- also be able to gain greater variation in Schwartz’sments with new product categories could provide (1994) underlying values, and therefore be able tonew insights not only into the dimensions of gain more finely grained insights into the influencecreativity, but also, and more importantly, into of cultural values on the relationship betweenthe evolution of consumer judgment of what is the dimensions of perceive product creativity andnovel or meaningful. For instance, how does a intention to buy for effective international market-consumer determine whether something is novel ing strategy development.with respect to a product category when the In conclusion, until international marketingproduct category is new? How is a consumer to academics and practitioners understand the influ-determine whether the new product is meaningful ence of cultural values on the relationship betweenin comparison with the product category when the dimensions of perceived product creativity andthey have yet to understand the meaning of intention to buy within the global marketplace,products in said category? This is particularly we will be limited in our ability to help advancerelevant to radical innovations, which Griffin, international marketing knowledge and practice.Price, Maloney, Vojak, and Sim (2009) find to be The study presented here provides a good startingincreasingly complex, as well as in relation to point. Specifically, the results suggest that thespillover effects, under a sequential product intro- employment of Schwartz’s values framework pro-duction approach across culturally divergent mar- vides a fruitful foundation for the examination ofkets (Tellis, Stremerch, & Yin, 2003). consumer perceptions of the dimensions of per- Third, although there is a general consensus on ceived product creativity on intention to buy, andthe two-dimensional approach to creativity, as thus provides insight into the appropriateness ofsome have found the two dimensions to be robust standardizing or adapting international marketingacross different countries (e.g., Ekvall & Ryhammar, strategy. REFERENCESAdarves-Yorno, I., Postmes, T., & Haslam, S. A. 2006. Social programs for mature products. Journal of Marketing Research, identity and the recognition of creativity in groups. British 33(2): 174–187. Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3): 479–497. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. 1988. On the evaluation of structuralAmabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity. equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, New York: Springer-Verlag. 16(1): 74–94.Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. 2008. Brand origin Press. identification by consumers: A classification perspective.Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. Journal of International Marketing, 16(1): 39–71. 2005. Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. 1986. Affective responses mediating accep- Quarterly, 50(3): 367–403. tance of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2): 234–249.Andrews, J., & Smith, D. C. 1996. In search of the marketing Bettman, J. R. 1970. Information processing models of consumer imagination: Factors affecting the creativity of marketing behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 7(3): 370–376.Journal of International Business Studies
  15. 15. Understanding the influence of perceived product creativity Gaia Rubera et al 473Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New Im, S., & Workman Jr, J. P. 2004. Market orientation, creativity, York: Wiley. and new product performance in high-technology firms.Bruce, M., Daly, L., & Kahn, K. B. 2007. Delineating design Journal of Marketing, 68(2): 114–132. factors that influence the global product launch process. Im, S., Hussain, M., & Sengupta, S. 2008. Testing interaction Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(5): 456–470. effects of the dimensions of market orientation on marketingBurroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. 2002. Materialism and well- program creativity. Journal of Business Research, 61(8): being: A conflicting values perspective. Journal of Consumer 859–867. Research, 29(3): 348–370. Kasof, J. 1995. Explaining creativity: The attributional perspec-Carson, S. J. 2007. When to give up control of outsourced new tive. Creativity Research Journal, 8(4): 311–366. product development. Journal of Marketing, 71(1): 49–66. Katsikeas, C. S., Samiee, S., & Theodosiou, M. 2006. Strategy fitChang, S., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. 2010. From the and performance consequences of international marketing editors: Common method variance in international business standardization. Strategic Management Journal, 27(9): 867–890. research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 178–184. Lages, L. F., Jap, S., & Griffith, D. A. 2008. The role of pastCsikszentmihalyi, M. 1988. Society, culture, and person: A performance in export ventures: A short-term reactive systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2): creativity: 325–339. New York: Cambridge University Press. 304–325.Dollinger, S. J., Burke, P. A., & Gump, N. W. 2007. Creativity Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. and values. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2–3): 91–103. Strategic Management Journal, 14(Special Issue): 95–112.Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. 2006. On improving the Levitt, T. 1983. The globalization of markets. Harvard Business conceptual foundations of international marketing research. Review, 61(3): 92–102. Journal of International Marketing, 14(1): 1–22. Limon, Y., Kahle, L. R., & Orth, U. R. 2009. Package design as aEisingerich, A., & Rubera, G. 2010. Drivers of brand commit- communications vehicle in cross-cultural values shopping. ment: A cross-national investigation. Journal of International Journal of International Marketing, 17(1): 30–75. Marketing, 18(2): 64–79. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. 2001. Accounting for commonEkvall, G., & Ryhammar, L. 1999. The creative climate: Its method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of determinants and effects at a Swedish university. Creativity Applied Psychology, 86(1): 114–121. Research Journal, 12(4): 303–310. March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizationalFarley, J. U., & Ring, L. W. 1970. An empirical test of the learning. Organizational Science, 2(1): 71–87. Howard–Sheth model of buyer behavior. Journal of Marketing Moreau, C. P., & Dahl, D. W. 2005. Designing the solution: Research, 7(4): 427–438. The impact of constraints on consumers’ creativity. Journal ofFernhaber, S. A., Gilbert, B. A., & McDougall, P. P. 2008. Consumer Research, 32(1): 13–22. International entrepreneurship and geographic location: An ˜ ´ ´ Munoz-Doyague, M. F., Gonzalez-Alvarez, N., & Nieto, M. 2008. empirical examination of new venture internationalization. An examination of individual factors and employees’ creativity: Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2): 267–290. The case of Spain. Creativity Research Journal, 20(1): 21–33.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. 1981. Evaluating structural equation Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. 2002. Contemporary studies on the models with unobservable variables and measurement error. concept of creativity: The east and the west. Journal of Creative Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2): 39–50. Behavior, 36(4): 269–288.Galunic, C. D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2001. Architectural Oral, G., Kaufman, J. C., & Agars, M. D. 2007. Examining innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Manage- creativity in Turkey: Do Western findings apply? High Ability ment Journal, 44(6): 1229–1249. Studies, 18(2): 235–246.Grazin, K. L., & Painter, J. J. 2001. Motivational influences ¨ Oszomer, A., & Simonin, B. L. 2004. Marketing program on “buy domestic” purchasing: Marketing management standardization: A cross-country exploration. International implications from a study of two nations. Journal of Inter- Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(4): 397–419. national Marketing, 9(2): 73–96. Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. 2007. CountryGriffin, A., Price, R. L., Maloney, M. M., Vojak, B. A., & Sim, E. W. image and consumer-based brand equity: Relationships 2009. Voices from the field: How exceptional electronic and implications for international marketing. Journal of industrial innovators innovate. Journal of Product Innovation International Business Studies, 38(5): 726–745. Management, 26(2): 222–240. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports inGriffith, D. A. 2010. Understanding multi-level institutional con- organization research: Problems and prospects. Journal of vergence effects on international market segments and global Management, 12(4): 531–544. marketing strategy. Journal of World Business, 45(1): 59–67. Ratchford, B. T. 1987. New insights about the FCB grid. JournalGriffith, D. A., & Lusch, R. F. 2007. Getting marketers to invest in of Advertising Research, 27(4): 24–38. firm-specific capital. Journal of Marketing, 71(1): 129–145. Reynolds, N. L., Simintiras, A. C., & Diamantopoulos, A. 2003.Griffith, D. A., Hu, M. Y., & Ryans Jr, J. K. 2000. Process Theoretical justification of sampling choices in international standardization across intra- and inter-cultural relationships. marketing research: Key issues and guidelines for researchers. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2): 303–324. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1): 80–89.Griffith, D. A., Chandra, A., & Ryans, J. K. 2003. Examining the Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. intricacies of promotion standardization: Factors influencing Rubera, G., Ordanini, A., & Mazursky, D. 2010. Toward a advertising message and packaging. Journal of International contingency view of new product creativity: Assessing the Marketing, 11(3): 30–47. interactive effects of consumers’ characteristics. MarketingHofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Letters, 21(2): 191–206. Oaks, CA: Sage. Ryans Jr, J. K., Griffith, D. A., & White, D. S. 2003. Standardiza-Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. 1969. The theory of buyer behavior. tion/adaptation of international marketing strategy: Necessary New York: John Wiley & Sons. conditions for the advancement of knowledge. InternationalHughes, M., Martin, S. L., Morgan, R. E., & Robson, M. J. 2010. Marketing Review, 20(6): 588–603. Realizing product–market advantage in high-technology inter- Sadi, M. A., & Al-Dubaisi, A. H. 2008. Barriers to organizational national new ventures: The mediating role of ambidextrous creativity: The marketing executives’ perspective in Saudi innovation. Journal of International Marketing, 18(4): 1–21. Arabia. Journal of Management Development, 27(6): 574–599.Hultman, M., Robson, M. J., & Katsikeas, C. S. 2009. Export Schilke, O., Reimann, M., & Thomas, J. S. 2009. When does product strategy fit and performance: An empirical investiga- international marketing standardization matter to firm perfor- tion. Journal of International Marketing, 17(4): 1–23. mance? Journal of International Marketing, 17(4): 24–46. Journal of International Business Studies